Volume 627 Week 95 - Tuesday 2 August 2005(continued on Wednesday 3 August 2005) 
Volume 627 Week 95 - Tuesday 2 August 2005(continued on Wednesday 3 August 2005) 
[Volume:627;Page:22247] 
Tuesday 2 August 2005 
( 
continued on Wednesday 3 August 2005 
) 
Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I take part in the debate in the dying days of the Labour Government and again in urgency on the third reading of the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill. 
I want to talk about the events of yesterday when Labour embarked on yet another diversion campaign because of the Prime Minister being in trouble. Let us look at yesterday’s Christchurch  
Press 
 headline which states: “PM’s car ‘hit 172kmh’”. It is no wonder that Phil Goff came into the House yesterday afternoon in question time with a complete fabrication of the truth and launched his leadership bid because he and Mr Mallard are locking horns over who will lead the Labour Party in Opposition after the next election. 
We are debating the Budget—the “chewing gum Budget” as it has become known. Dr Cullen went to the people of New Zealand and said that despite having a $7 billion surplus things were a bit tight and that if they waited patiently the Government would deliver to them 67c per week in 3 years’ time. That is what Dr Cullen did. 
Hon Member 
: Absolutely outrageous! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It will be 67c per week in 3 years’ time. Then the polls started to turn and the fiscal restraint Dr Cullen claims he is well known for was completely abandoned. The first person to come to the floor with a leadership bid was Mr Mallard with a billion-dollar student loan bribe. That particular policy cannot be explained any other way. Mr Mallard himself is on record as saying that no substantial alteration could be made to the student loan policy unless New Zealand struck oil and was guaranteed economic stability for the next 50 years. He said that earlier this year. But when the polls are down when Helen Clark is on the ropes and when Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard are locked in a leadership tussle Mr Mallard is the first off the block with a billion-dollar bribe. We can forget about fiscal fortitude; an election is about to occur and that was the first election bribe. 
This morning’s  
Dominion Post 
—that well-known daily Labour Party newsletter—tells us that the first billion dollars has been spent and that Labour is sitting on another billion dollars that it plans to release to New Zealand over the election campaign. I say to Mr Swain the only Labour Minister in the House this morning that the New Zealand public will not be fooled by those bribes. A Government presenting a Budget and saying that there is no money for tax cuts then starting on an expensive spending spree simply because the polls are against it will not fool New Zealanders. 
In this election we need to focus on the real issues. The real issues are on the way that Labour has created two standards of citizenship in this country—one for Maori and one for non-Maori. That is completely unacceptable to me it is completely unacceptable to the National Party and it is completely unacceptable to most New Zealanders. 
We also have the debacle within the education sector overseen first of all by Mr Maharey and more recently by Mr Mallard. The sum of $239 million was given to a wananga when Mr Mallard himself said he always doubted the value of that spending. Those sorts of scandals will not occur when the National Government takes over after 17 September. That is the sort of thing we will tidy up immediately. New Zealanders deserve a quality education and that is not being delivered by this Government. 
Then of course we have the issue of social welfare dependency. Although unemployment has come down we note that surprisingly the numbers of people on the sickness and invalids benefits have effectively doubled over the time Labour has been in office. Is that not an admission that the country has got sicker under a Labour Government? Why are more people on a sickness benefit now than when Mr Swain came into power? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: It’s because they get older. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Swain says they get older. I ask Mr Swain whether we are now putting superannuitants on that benefit. That is what he is doing and the excuse is that they go on the sickness benefit simply because they are getting older. That excuse will not wash with New Zealanders on 17 September either. 
Over the weekend two very sad incidents of teenagers being killed in horrific car accidents occurred. I note the comments made by members of the Labour caucus acknowledging a problem with young motorists and the way they drive. There is a problem with young motorists not being mature enough to handle vehicles and there is certainly a problem with young motorists using cars at speeds at which they cannot control them. But what sort of example does the Prime Minister set to young New Zealanders when she herself travels along State Highway 1 from Waimate to Christchurch at speeds of up to 172 kilometres an hour? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s over 100 miles an hour. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is over 100 miles an hour as my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp says. What sort of example does that set from the Prime Minister of this country? The excuse she gives is that she was rushing to make a rugby match in Wellington. I say to the Prime Minister that I also travelled to Wellington on that particular day to watch that same rugby match. I left on a flight from Christchurch 1 hour later than the Prime Minister’s flight and I arrived in Wellington with at least 1 hour to spare before I had to get to the stadium to watch the rugby match. There is absolutely no excuse for the Prime Minister’s travelling at that sort of speed up the main road south to Christchurch. She had plenty of time to make that rugby match. We see now six people before the courts charged with being responsible for the speed at which that motorcade travelled. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Hung out to dry. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Six people! The Prime Minister will not accept any responsibility. She hangs those six people out to dry. I predict that if they are convicted some of those six people will lose their jobs. But could the Prime Minister care less about those six people in the dock in Timaru today? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: She’s like a Roman emperor. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I would say that most Roman emperors took more responsibility than Helen Clark ever has. This is the most disgraceful wiping of her hands we have seen. We know that she is prepared to forge paintings. That issue will not be lost on New Zealanders. Now we have this case of her speeding at 172 kilometres an hour to Christchurch to catch a flight to Wellington when she had hours to spare. 
Paul Adams 
: It’ll be an election issue. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I assure Mr Adams that it will be an election issue. Jo Goodhew is out there door-knocking at the moment in the Aoraki electorate. Mr Sutton does not stand a chance of being returned as the member for Aoraki because the South Canterbury people are the ones who had to jump out of the way. Their lives were at risk as the motorcade cruised up the main road south at a speed of 170 kilometres an hour. 
Because the Prime Minister is in trouble Mr Goff and Mr Mallard raised the most frivolous headlines yesterday quite inaccurately. It is all a diversion tactic because the Prime Minister is in trouble. So I say to the voters of New Zealand that they should not be fooled by the Labour Party. They should stick to the issues at this election—the Treaty of Waitangi and the grievances it has created in New Zealand and the economy and taxation. I ask the public of New Zealand to recall the 41 new taxes that have been imposed by the Labour Government. That is how it has achieved the massive Budget surplus of $7 billion. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I detect a little bit of envy over there. I start to see the emergence of the green-eyed monster. Do members know why that is? It is because National members can see this election slipping away on them. Oh yes they can. The so-called great tax policy—which was going to be announced “soon” then was going to be announced when the election was called and will now be announced a bit later on—is in tatters. Their student policy has been shown up to be absolutely pitiful and now they can see the election slipping away on them. 
This has been a great Government. The way we have managed the economy and led New Zealand has been fabulous. The most important thing we have done for New Zealand has been to grow the economy. That has been the most important thing because as a result of that we now have some of the highest growth rates among the OECD we have more people working we have created over 260000 new jobs there are 100000 fewer working-age beneficiaries than there were in 1999 and we have been able to rebuild the services that were in rack and ruin and decay around New Zealand following 9 long years of that National Government. People will not forget that. 
What about the good things we have been able to do? What about family support and Working for Families? Over 300000 people will be $66 a week on average better off. What about paid parental leave which gives people the opportunity to be paid for 13 weeks when they have a baby? Boy that has taken away a lot of concern and pressure from a lot of ordinary families. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Do you think that was a good idea? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It was a very good idea and I thank the Government for it. What about early childhood education? What about the quality we have been able to raise as a result of the policies in early childhood education? What about schools? There are more teachers over and above roll growth there is more money over and above inflation and there are more resources. Schools are on high-speed Internet on broadband and teachers and principals are getting laptops. 
What about the tertiary loan policy of no interest on student loans? What a ripper that has been! It went round the universities by text message like prairie fire. What about health? We have now been able to make health more affordable to ordinary New Zealanders particularly the young and the elderly. What about apprenticeships? National destroyed the apprenticeship system. We brought it back. One of the first things National did was to rip out the apprenticeship system and we have brought it back. There are around 9000 apprenticeships and we are of course looking to almost double that in the next 3 years. What about transport? It was absolutely in the doldrums under National. Look at the money that has gone back into transport. In my own region Wellington $885 million is going into transport including public transport and roading—all the things that were lying fallow under the National Government. 
What about pensions and pensioners? One of the things I am most proud of is that we restored the rate which National cut when it was in Government back to 65 percent of the average weekly wage. Asset testing is starting to come off next year and what about the rates rebate scheme which nothing has been done about since the 1970s? So this has been a fantastic Government. 
What about the National Party? It is doing a couple of things that everyone is scratching their heads over. First of all it is saying it will cut taxes. That is very very popular. But then it will spend more. It will cut taxes and spend more. People who watch  
Rove Live  
will know that that is a “What the …?”. Cutting taxes and spending more—“What the …?”—how does that work everybody wonders. If Governments could have done that everyone would have been doing it for years. We cannot cut taxes and spend more. It just does not add up. It is a classic  
Rove Live 
 “What the …?”. National is telling people that every New Zealander will get $40 or $50 from a tax cut. But National is also promising to spend billions more. National members say that defence spending will be up 20 percent—“What the … ?”. Then there are prisons. They will build six to 10 more at an average of probably around $1 billion to $2 billion. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Where are they going to build them? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well they are going to have to build them in a number of places. They are going to have to build one in Tauranga. I wonder whether the people of Tauranga know that the National Party is putting a prison near them— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: With no resource consent! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes—so they will not even be able to object. What about up by the Albany coast? I wonder whether Murray McCully has told people that as part of the development up there as well as a prison in Auckland the people will be getting another prison and they will not have a chance to object? And what about Nelson? I bet that Nick Smith has not told the people of Nelson that they are most likely to get a jail down there and not be able to object. I bet he has not told the people of Nelson that there is likely to be another prison there because they will have to build six or 10 and they are going to have to go somewhere. Every time a prison is going to be built National Party members turn up en bloc and tell people how to stop them from being built. They say: “Use Maori cultural values; that’s how you do it.” So they lecture people on how to stop the prisons being built and they have the audacity and cheek to come in here and say that they will build six to 10 more and not tell people where they are going. It is a disgrace. And in roads of course there are billions and billions of dollars. 
Then National members say: “Don’t worry we’re going to borrow.” We are back to the old ”borrow and hope”—and what will happen when the economy goes soft as it is likely to do? If they borrow we know what happens. Interest rates go up. There is no question about that. That affects people’s mortgages. If interest rates go up 1 percent on a $100000 mortgage that is $19 a week. If one has a mortgage of $150000 that is $29 a week. They are eroding the very tax cut that that party says it will give to people. It does not add up. It is a  
Rove Live 
 “What the …?”. It is just ridiculous and that is why people are not going to buy it. 
This election will be about credibility leadership and trust—Helen Clark versus Don Brash. Well there is absolutely no match. Obviously all the good money is on Helen Clark and rightly so. What a bumbling amateur Don Brash is. He says: “Our nuclear policy is crystal clear.” Well of course to everybody it is because they want to get rid of it. But they have not been able to bring themselves to actually say it. If they came out and said: “We in the National Party say that the nuclear policy should be gone and we’re going to get rid of it.” people would say: “At least they’re honest about what they are saying.” But oh no. There was the old “gone by lunchtime” quote. Now Don Brash is saying that he does not recall it. He does not recall saying “gone by lunchtime”. He has just forgotten—political amnesia! 
Then he said: “No no we’re going to have a referendum to give people the chance to decide.” Then suddenly “referendum” went to “manifesto commitment”. They are weasel words and we know what that is all about and they have suffered in the polls as a result. And the classic the summary the most magnificent piece of wording that I have ever seen virtually in the  
National Business Review 
 
is this. Asked whether he thought National suffered for his initial unwillingness to give a clear line on the party’s Iraq policy Dr Brash said: “I can’t say.” He cannot say anything! He never knows what to say. He wants to say what he really thinks but he knows that it is not popular and he will go down in the polls. So it is all weasel words. 
What about Lockwood Smith yesterday? What a fiasco! At the same “gone by lunchtime” meeting he asked: “Would it be worthwhile to get American think tanks to help change New Zealand’s mind on nuclear policy?”. What an outrage! What an outrage from a senior National member of Parliament in a formal meeting with senators from America asking them to give National a hand to change people’s minds! Well the good thing that those senators said and rightly so was: “Changing people’s minds in New Zealand is not our business; it’s your business.” and rightly so. Do members know what was also said? Dr Smith now says this morning: “I don’t recall saying that.” That is another case of political amnesia. 
And what about Iraq? What a fiasco on that! He said: “I would have done what President Bush did.” but when asked eight times on television to clarify that and repeat it he said he would not do it. The problem is that Don Brash actually wants to say the things that deep down are part of his background—part of that extreme hard right-wing philosophy that he follows. He wants to say those things. One can see him bursting at the seams to say what he actually wants to say but he knows that if he does he will not get elected. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’ll be gone by lunchtime. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That leader of the National Party and that National Party will be gone by lunchtime. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 This year’s Budget contains massive operating surpluses. Those surpluses combined with the more than $3 billion that Dr Michael Cullen has stashed away in his slush fund mean that there is plenty of room for tax cuts and that is exactly what United Future will offer to all New Zealanders in this year’s elections—meaningful simple straightforward justifiable tax cuts. 
We will do this firstly by income splitting for couples with dependent children. As pointed out by the 1982 McCaw Task Force on Tax Reform this would create a fairer tax system for New Zealanders. The reason is that at any given level of income a couple with dependent children have less ability to pay tax than other taxpayers with no such dependents but the same income. It is actually pretty simple: if a couple have two children they have four mouths to feed; if they have three children they have five mouths to feed; and so on. By contrast single people have only themselves to feed as do couples with no children—“dinkies”—and that is simply completely unfair. Under the current system a couple with children where both spouses or partners work obtain a tax advantage in so far as they pay less tax than a single-income family with the same number of children. That is also unfair. The current tax system gives a tax rebate for the direct cost of childcare incurred by a family whilst failing in any shape or form to recognise the indirect cost of income forgone by a parent who stays at home while caring for children and that is unfair. 
All of the four points I have just outlined to the House were identified in 1982 by the McCaw Task Force on Tax Reform. I was actually speaking to Malcolm McCaw yesterday and he said to me that the task force was greatly disappointed that at the time the Government of the day simply rejected its recommendation. In fact every Government whether Labour or National has consistently ignored the recommendations of the McCaw task force since 1982 and they have been wrong to do so. 
United Future aims to change all of that. There are 325000 couples—that is 650000 taxpayers—who will benefit from this change to income splitting. Indeed for a couple with dependent children on the average household income level in New Zealand as put out in this year’s Budget our change together with the other changes we are proposing will give them up to an extra $163 per week in the hand. No other party in this Parliament is able to offer such generosity to couples with kids. 
The 420000 graduates who are now in the workforce and who have student loans will be better off with United Future. They will pay no tax at all on the first $3000 they earn each year. Under Labour they pay 15c in the dollar. Those on incomes of between $38000 and $43000 will pay 19.5c in the dollar. Under Labour they pay 33c. People on incomes of between $60000 and $65000 will pay 33c. Under Labour they pay 39c. If we do the sums based on those realities this is what we discover. If a graduate who is now in the workforce is earning $35000 which I guess is probably almost a starting salary for graduates he or she will save $585 in tax a year. If graduates are earning between $45000 and $55000 they will save $1260 a year. If they are earning $65000 the saving will be more than $1560 a year. That beats by a large margin the measly $450 per annum—that is right; just $450 per annum—that they save under Labour’s zero-interest offer. That is based on the average student debt of approximately $15000. The zero-interest offer of Labour compared with United Future’s interest offer saves graduates only $450 at the average level. Therefore it is quite clear on those numbers and on that arithmetic which I invite graduates to check that they would be much better off under United Future. We are offering real and substantial tax gains; Labour is not. 
Superannuitants will also be better off with United Future. We will increase the total for married couples on New Zealand superannuation by $21.34 a week or $1110 per annum. An equivalent increase for singles will give them about $720 per annum extra. In addition we will remove GST from rates. GST should not be charged on rates because it is simply a tax on top of a tax. It is not charged in Australia Canada or the European Union. Taken together those measures will increase the household income of senior citizens on the married couple rate by an average of about $1300 per annum. It will more than ensure that our seniors can cover the increased cost of electricity and rates both of which have increased dramatically in the last 3 years. The Labour Government says it has cared for the elderly in the last 3 years by bringing the superannuation rate back to 65 percent. But I tell members that since it did that to this day rates have gone up in this country by something like 40 percent over inflation electricity has gone up by something like 50 percent over inflation and Labour has done nothing about them—and nor is National offering to do anything about them I might add. So if people over 65 vote Labour or National in this election they will get zip. Under United Future they will get a significant increase which will enable them to pay their rates bill and electricity bill and to live with the dignity that surely all of our senior citizens deserve. We will address that issue. 
United Future will reduce the company tax rate to 30c. Under Labour companies pay 33c. We have that policy in common with National. Both of us are intent on bringing the company tax rate down. Why? Because it is important to incentivise additional investment in and through New Zealand companies. Why? So that we can increase productivity. One of the craziest arguments that I have heard from Labour in the debate since the Budget is that somehow or other those measures will lead to inflation. They will not. That is nonsense. In short every single taxpayer and every single company in New Zealand will pay less tax under United Future. 
We can pay for those commitments and still maintain a surplus in the Crown accounts of almost $10 billion over the next 3 years. We believe that that is more than enough for capital expenditure. Dr Cullen having told the country that it must wait for 3 years to receive a tax cut of—wait for it; we all know it—67c per week has now revealed that that is only because he has reserved a slush fund of $3.6 billion. Members can see that on pages 71 and 99 of the Budget if they want to check out the figure. He has put away $3.6 billion as a slush fund for election lollies such as the “no interest on student loans” policy with its moral hazard but there is nothing for couples with kids nothing for senior citizens nothing for companies and an inferior deal for graduates in the workplace with student loans. 
 At least the people of New Zealand have some clear choices in this election. We have Labour on the one hand saying: “We know best how to spend your money.” versus United Future saying: “We will leave it to you to decide how to spend your money.” We should never forget that leaving money in the pockets of families at this stage will build strong families and without strong families we cannot have a strong nation. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Going into the election campaign people in New Zealand will be looking at three things. First they will be looking at the record of this Government compared with the record of the National Party when it was in Government. Second they will be looking at the future commitments the parties are making and judging the value of those policy commitments. Third they will certainly be looking in the end at the difference between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government. 
What is the alternative that is being offered? I and my Labour colleague candidates around the country will be very very proud to stand on our record in the last 5¾ years as the Government—our record based fundamentally on Labour values and on delivering those in policies particularly in jobs education health and housing. There are now 250000 more jobs in our country than there were when we were elected as the Government. That is six new jobs every hour. There are 100000 fewer working-age people on benefits. I have heard the National Party and the ACT party—a thing of the past almost—say that we have shifted people from one benefit to another. Well the facts are before this House and before the country: 100000 fewer working-age people are on benefits than when we were elected in 1999. Three hundred thousand families are better off financially because of our Working for Families package. Money is directed into their pockets so they can decide how to spend it—big money—whereas it would be $5 or $6 for average working families under National’s tax cuts. 
Paid parental leave which is a policy that National opposed at every step means that new mothers can take time out of their paid job look after their babies and get direct money to help them support that new baby. Paid parental leave will increase to 14 weeks at the end of the year and if Labour is elected to lead the next Government it will also be extended to self-employed people. 
The investments we have made in early childhood education and the compulsory sector have seen a significant increase in the number of teachers above that required for roll growth and supported our children to have high-quality education. 
In the health system nurses are finally getting fair pay after years of waiting. Through the primary health organisations our younger people—those under 18 years—and our older citizens aged over 65 years now have reduced costs when going to the doctor. For an elderly person going to the chemist the maximum charge for Government-subsidised medicine is now $3 compared with $15 under the previous administration which means $12 per item at the chemist that they get to keep in their own pocket. 
One of the things I am most proud of is reintroducing the apprenticeship scheme. We all know that during the 1990s our tradespeople were not New Zealanders who had gone to school here whose parents had paid their taxes and who had an opportunity for a trade. We were importing tradespeople from overseas because the National Government had pushed away all of those training opportunities. Our apprenticeship scheme is now up and running strongly supported by our Government. 
It is the same in housing. We remember during the 1990s the great sell-off of State houses up and down the country. The introduction of market rentals for those in State houses meant that people were paying over 50 percent of their income on rent. How can people afford to support their family if half of their income is going on rent? One of the first things we did was start up again a State housing programme whereby houses were built around the country and we reintroduced income-related rent. People on low incomes now who are in a State house have a cap of 25 percent of their income for rent. So now they can afford to feed and clothe their children properly instead of all of that money going out. Our record in health education employment and housing is one I will be very proud to take to this country. 
 That demonstrates the integrity and delivery of the commitments we made prior to the election. One of the most important things in a democracy is when a party can stand up and say: “Before the last election we said we would deliver on these things.” and 3 years later go back to the country and say: “Tick off those commitments.” The process with the commitment card that we put to the electorate in 1999 and in 2002 is exactly the same with this election: people can tick every one of those commitments because we delivered what we said we would deliver. 
But what about the integrity of the National Party? We are still waiting for National’s long- promised tax announcements. Every week the story is different. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It will happen. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Wayne Mapp says that it will happen. I am sure it will; so will Christmas! We know that it will happen; it is just a matter of when. Originally National gave the excuse that it did not know when the election would be so it would wait until that announcement. We all waited for the announcement and 8 weeks out from the election we got the announcement but suddenly the story had changed; Dr Brash said: “Oh we’re no longer waiting for the election date to be announced; we’ll do it soon.” Then 3 or 4 days later he said: “We’ll do it a little later.” And now: “We’re finalising the details; we haven’t quite decided.” Dr Brash recently said that he did not even know the details of his own policy. How is that for a leader who is challenging Helen Clark for the position of Prime Minister of this country? 
I say that the odds are pretty clearly in Helen Clark’s favour. In fact I do not think it is a fair battle at all. Don Brash should probably move over now rather than wait till after the election and give somebody a decent chance at running the campaign. If he does not even know the details of his own tax policy how can he possibly take it to the country with any integrity? 
The people of New Zealand will look very carefully at the record of this Government. We know the record of the 1990s under a National-led Government where everything that moved was sold. Our major infrastructure support was privatised. We had fewer teachers fewer nurses and fewer social workers. The most important social services in our country—namely health services education services care and protection and youth justice services—were all run down. That is now being portrayed by the National Party as “cutting bureaucracy”. It says that a National Government would cut the waste. We know where the cuts were made in the 1990s; the last time that that party had the opportunity to lead the Government nurses’ pay was cut and the number of nurses was cut; teachers’ pay was cut and the number of teachers was cut; social workers’ pay was cut and the number of social workers was cut. We know the alternative that is before us. 
So when the public hear the term “cuts in bureaucracy” they know that National is talking about fewer teachers fewer nurses and fewer social workers. That is what the National Party describes as bureaucracy. To me those services are fundamental social services without which New Zealand families cannot get by. That is the sort of social support that we should be giving as a Government rather than cutting services and describing it as bureaucracy. 
So the record of our Government compared with the record of the National Government is very clear and very different. The integrity of the parties is very clear and very different. The alternatives facing New Zealand for the future leadership of our country are very clear and very different. 
It is very hard to try to get any clarity from the National Party about any of its policies. Just what is the National Party’s position on Iraq? Who knows! My bet is with the original statements made by Dr Brash that we would have troops sent to Iraq “by lunchtime”; “before Christmas”; whenever. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rubbish! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is not a hypothetical question. That member knows that Australia has just done it. New Zealand under a National-led Government would be sending troops to Iraq. National members cannot deny it because they know that that is National’s policy. Who knows what would happen to our nuclear-free policy which has been a flagship of our country for two decades now? That would be gone under a National Government no matter how much members opposite squirm around and change things. We know that National would reintroduce bulk funding of schools yet that practice divided our education system up and down the country. It pitted teachers against parents and pitted teachers against boards of trustees. Why would we want to go back to that sort of division? 
We know the sort of racial division that would be created under National. We know the sort of intolerance that National creates by describing its own party as “mainstream” thereby excluding people whom they do not consider mainstream. I am not sure what mainstream is under Dr Brash’s definition but I bet that a lot of New Zealanders would feel excluded in their own country. What sort of intolerance do they want to create with that sort of description of their policies? 
We need a country that is led by someone with integrity and that is Helen Clark. We need a party to lead the Government that has a record of commitment where what it says it will deliver it will deliver so that the public of New Zealand can have trust in their leadership and trust in their Government. They will not get that under a National-led Government. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous Labour speaker Ruth Dyson ended her speech on a very good point and that is the question of leadership. We have no leadership from Labour. We certainly have no leadership of the Opposition by National. The leadership shown in this House comes from New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
I am sure that if the Rt Hon Winston Peters was travelling in a car at 180 kilometres an hour and the windscreen broke and the car was damaged he would be fully aware of what was going on. The leader of Labour—the Prime Minister—tells us that she can travel in a car in those circumstances and not know what is happening. What a disgrace! She is letting down our fine New Zealand police force by indicating she had no idea what was going on. Of course as usual with Labour she lets the police force carry the can. Someone else as far as Helen Clark is concerned can always carry the can. How many Labour Ministers have been sacked? It is always someone else’s fault; she will never accept responsibility herself. 
Instead in New Zealand First we have a leader who takes full control of what is happening and knows what is going on. At the last election we promised three things. We would have a close look at law and order for starters. We have had any number of questions asked of Labour Ministers on this matter—in particular of course the so-called Labour Minister of Police. If there has ever been a disgrace to the name of our fine police force it is George Hawkins as Minister of Police. There has never been such an atrocious Minister of Police as George Hawkins but he has had the full support of this so-called Prime Minister. He has had the full support of Helen Clark—the lady who does not even know that her windscreen is broken or her car is damaged or that she is doing 180 kilometres an hour. No wonder she supports him when she is party to the breaking of the law and the endangering of people and supports dangerous driving. She should be on that stand because she must surely have accepted responsibility and given the order. But no in New Zealand Labour Party leaders do not accept responsibility. 
New Zealand First is very clear about what a New Zealand First Government will do as far as law and order is concerned. We will separate the traffic police from the police. We do not want our main police handing out traffic tickets. We do not want our main police chasing after people who are doing 63 kilometres an hour in a built-up residential area where they should be doing 50 kilometres an hour. The main police should be out there catching burglars murderers and rapists. They should have been making sure that Iraena Asher the young woman who disappeared in the Piha area was attended to—they should have called on her and made sure she was safe. That is what the police should be doing. Instead we have a disappearance that will remain one of those mysteries and that we might still read about in 25 years’ time. 
New Zealand First wants to make sure that the police do policing and we will increase the size of the New Zealand police force to achieve that. Any responsible Government would do no less and that is what New Zealand First will do. 
The other area we said we would be involved in was Treaty of Waitangi matters. It is interesting that Labour and National now support New Zealand First policy. We have a 100 percent record on that. We have now drawn the two tired old parties kicking and screaming into the 21st century to ensure they support the policies of New Zealand First. After the next election New Zealand First will make sure those policies are carried out. 
The third area we mentioned was immigration. It is very pleasing to note that even in Opposition New Zealand First has been able to ensure Labour has changed its policy. We insisted that there be English language tests for migrants and Labour has done that. We wanted changes to the skilled migrant category and Labour has done that. New Zealand First wanted stricter health requirements for migrants and Labour has done that. We wanted to establish an undesirables category and Labour has done that. We wanted to put a stop to foreign nationals processing visa applications and Labour has done that. We wanted the regulation of immigration advisers and Labour has done that. We wanted changes to the investor category and that has been done too. New Zealand First has run the administration of the New Zealand Immigration Service from Opposition. Time and time again throughout the past 3 years of this administration from 2002 to 2005 the Rt Hon Winston Peters has hammered the successive Ministers of Immigration to ensure that there are good policies as far as administration is concerned. 
Unfortunately we have no control over the number of people who come into New Zealand. On looking at the figures I see that the smartest people in New Zealand are clearly Wellingtonians because in the 18 years from 1986 to 2004 Wellington’s population increased by only 15 percent. That is nice steady growth of population in 18 years. By contrast those of us who live in Auckland saw a population increase in that region of almost 60 percent. That is an appalling situation for Auckland. That is why I say Wellingtonians are smart. Their increase has been gentle and can be managed. In fact the increase in the population of the Auckland region in the last 18 years equals Wellington’s entire population since day one. It is no wonder that things are so chaotic in Auckland and that so many born and bred Aucklanders regard Auckland as a foreign city and do not go anywhere near its main streets; they are frightened and nervous to do so. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Ha ha! 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr Samuels might laugh but it is a fact that many born and bred Aucklanders do not go down the main street any more. New Zealand First says we must have control of immigration and we must ensure that we grant entry to immigrants with skills and knowledge of the English language. That is a priority. There should be a 5-year probation period for new immigrants. 
New Zealand First will have a population policy to make sure that all New Zealanders can be involved in what happens to the future of New Zealand. I am very appreciative of the Taiwanese Association to which I and other members of Parliament spoke a little while ago. As one of its questions it came up with the idea of a population policy. I was able to say to its members that the Rt Hon Winston Peters had already announced in his Orewa speech that that was what New Zealand First would be doing. We are working closely with migrant groups to ensure that everybody knows we have some sort of plan in respect of what happens to New Zealand. 
As things stand at the moment we can build as many roads as we like in Auckland but they will never cope even with our present population let alone with an increase of 1 million people which is the number that some political parties want our population to increase by. I ask members if they can imagine another 450000 people in Auckland or another 500000 people in 10 years’ time. Labour does not say no to that and it is quite happy to support it because it sees it as somehow helping it to win the election. It would be an absolute disaster for Auckland. After all I can remember when I went to Belgrade and saw all the tall apartment buildings that had been built. To a large extent Auckland now reminds me of Belgrade in post-Tito’s Yugoslavia of 1982. There are Aucklanders who are dreadfully concerned about the type of building that is being built. 
In this election New Zealand First is the only party that is concerned about the young children of New Zealand and their health. Plunket has supported New Zealand First’s policy to ensure that all children up to primary school age get free health-care. Labour does not care about free health-care for young children; neither does any other party in this House. But that is New Zealand First’s policy which continues the existing policy that we had when we were in Government. 
As far as students are concerned New Zealand First will have a universal student allowance. That means people do not have to borrow anything. They get an allowance and do not have to pay it back. There is no interest to pay and there is no principal to pay. People should have a closer look as I know the students associations are doing at New Zealand First’s policy. 
As far as the elderly is concerned New Zealand First says it is very simple. The current law allows retirement income to be calculated at between 65 and 72.5 percent of the average wage. The present Government and the National Party—the tired old parties—are cheating our elderly. One can increase retirement income to 68 percent by an administrative action and New Zealand First will do that. It does not require any change in the law. All it requires is a change in the Government. All it requires is for both tired old parties to be gone and for New Zealand First to have a say in ensuring that by an administrative act it can be increased— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Dream on! 
DAIL JONES 
: Dr Mapp does not support the elderly people on the North Shore. That is fine; he tells me to dream on. [ 
Interruption 
] Now he interjects and now he wants to withdraw his interjection. I will be telling the people of the North Shore that all Dr Mapp wants is for them to dream on about an increase in retirement income which I have been talking about. We will increase it for the elderly people of the North Shore to 68 percent and then to 72.5 percent. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The Budget and this third reading of the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill are all about the sort of country we are building in New Zealand today—a country in which the regions are thriving; a country in which we are a gateway to the world and are sending our exports to all the markets of the world where we are respected and independent; and a country in which we are building a skills-based economy. Our people are getting more and more skills and more and more education. We are taking new initiatives by the month to increase the accessibility of advanced training and education for our young people. But what do we have from the other side of the House? It is opposition all the way—opposition for its own sake. 
It is quite apparent that the National Party would say anything—anything at all—to get elected in the forthcoming election. It does not have much hope but it is prepared to sell out our nuclear-free policy which is supported by an overwhelming majority of all New Zealanders in order to advance its party political vested interests. National members will say anything Dr Brash will say anything and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD as his friends call him will say anything to get elected. Dr Smith wants his old job back but he is not going to get it. It is not just about whether New Zealand is nuclear-free; it is about whether New Zealand would rush to war any time Australia or the United States decided to take pre-emptive action or to make a pre-emptive strike somewhere. Would we go? Well Simon Power said we would go wherever the United States goes wherever George Bush goes. 
What will National do if the Americans ratify the Kyoto Protocol—which they are likely to do one of these days? Will National do a flip-flop? You betcha! It will absolutely do a flip-flop then. National ought to do one now because it would be good for New Zealand to have bipartisan support for tackling the desperate problem of human activity - induced climate change. But the point is whether we are going to rush to war. What are the fiscal consequences of rushing off to war every time Uncle Sam or the Australian Prime Minister decide that a pre-emptive strike needs to be made? I say that the fiscal consequences of that would not be good at all. The issue is about whether New Zealand makes its own decisions. Do we have the capacity to make our own decisions in the world? Are we an independent sovereign nation? 
Now that is not just about the Budget; it is about whether we have the moral strength to stand up for what we believe in and to make our own decisions and that is a very important matter. At the moment New Zealand has credibility around the world. We are respected because we cooperate on matters that we approve of. We work on the side of people who are trying to do good things in the world. We stand up against things that we think are bad wrong or mistaken and we are respected for it. No matter how big a nation it is it is worth its being able to say: “New Zealand agrees with us. New Zealand is prepared to do an FTA with us.” That is money in the bank for New Zealand and it keeps our reputation high but our opponents would get rid of that reputation by being slavish followers of our traditional allies. 
 The days when New Zealand would say: “Where Britain goes we go” without knowing first where Britain was going are gone. We are a fully independent nation. We do not rush to war because our good friends rush to war. We would go to war only if it were a last resort and necessary for the security of ourselves and other countries that share our values. That will be the most important issue of the forthcoming election. 
Of course it has fiscal implications. Every week Cabinet has to make tough decisions about what we spend on the resources needed to have an independent foreign policy an independent military policy and an independent trade policy. Those things do not come for nothing. We have to put the resources into them. Thank goodness that we on this side of the House have moral fibre and are prepared to commit those resources to them in order to maintain New Zealand as an independent sovereign nation that makes its own decisions on the basis of what it sees as right. [ 
Interruption 
] The member opposite who is bellowing away into space should take a lesson from that and stand up for an independent sovereign New Zealand that does the right thing in the world. 
Let me turn to the issues in the Budget that are dear to me—biosecurity trade training a skills-based economy and thriving regions. All those things are dear to my heart. This Government is funding and delivering bigger and better results on the trade front than any Government I can remember. We have delivered three new closer economic partnership agreements or free-trade agreements in our 6 years so far. We have another clutch in negotiation. In 9 long desert years the previous Government managed to start one negotiation and completed none—not one single little free-trade agreement could it complete. There was no rain in the desert for 9 long years under National Winston Peters and the rest of them. I would not like to list all the coalition partners National had. Even when National was in a coalition involving one other member or a one-person party it would be in two minds. How much unity did National display? Not a lot. 
As well as delivering on the trade front which of course underlines and bankrolls our prosperity in New Zealand this Government has delivered on the biosecurity front far better than previous Governments. I must say that the only rational response to the ever-increasing number of tourists and travellers and the ever-increasing flood of sea freight containers coming into New Zealand whereby every one of those passengers every sea freight container and every passenger and air crew carry-on bag is a potential source of a catastrophic biosecurity breach to New Zealand is one of continuous improvement and this Government is delivering that. 
The previous Government could only cut cut cut. The “mother of all Budgets” did not leave much room for manoeuvre; things just got worse and worse. Labour has been cleaning up the incursions of moths bugs viruses and bacteria that flooded into New Zealand under the previous National Government. We have been slowly working our way through that huge list. National allowed hundreds of incursions per year. It allowed passengers to come into the country without being in sight of a detector dog and without being within cooee of a soft-tissue X-ray machine. No more! 
 They all go through the process now. Even visiting heads of State go through it. Their bags are X-rayed and analysed they go before the detector dogs and if there is any undeclared risk material all their bags get searched—even visiting senior politicians and heads of State. We have the most rigorous watertight biosecurity system at the border of any nation on earth and we will continue to make it better for the sake of New Zealand. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 That was Sutton the speedster—the man who was so oblivious of road conditions in South Canterbury that he was not aware his vehicle was travelling at 172 kilometres an hour. That is over 100 miles an hour in the old language and frankly it is simply not believable that someone could be unaware of that speed. I guess one is judged by one’s actions. There is a man—Mr Sutton—who simply will not fess up who will duck and weave and who will then expect people to believe other things he says. Well he will be judged by the public of New Zealand for speeding at 172 kilometres per hour. 
Where is his public statement defending the loyal police officers of this country? Frankly the matter is outrageous—and it is no wonder he is walking out right now. If only he would get on a plane and go down to the District Court in Timaru! 
Despite the bluff and bluster of this Government the big contest will be between National’s tax package versus the Government’s desperate actions and desperate speeding. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Got a think tank working on it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is why the Government is in trouble. Government members know it—and we saw the actions of Mr Goff yesterday. They know that New Zealanders are being crushed by the prospect of a miserable 67c tax cut. When will they get it? They will get it in 2008. That is as good as it gets under this Government and that is why New Zealanders are saying: “Goodbye Labour. We’re sick of you. We know it can get better than 67c per week in 3 years’ time.” 
Mr Goff is in the House today. He knows full well why he released those documents yesterday. That action was desperate and devious because this is a desperate Government trying to distract attention from its complete and utter failure on the tax front. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What did “Locky” say? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I say to Mr Goff that New Zealanders are not that foolish. They will not be distracted because they know that the real issue is the one that affects their real lives: the money in their own pockets. 
I say as well that the election is about values. I ask the Government why the Prime Minister cannot acknowledge her role in the notorious speeding incident. Frankly it is so— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Ha ha! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Government members laugh about that. The speed was so high that children in a bus had to leave the road in fear for their lives. The Prime Minister is like some Eastern potentate streaming through the hamlets of New Zealand faster than a light aircraft scattering villagers in fear. What an appalling example to New Zealanders! The public will judge the Prime Minister by her values. She is no Eastern potentate; she lives in a democracy. She will be accountable to the public of New Zealand and I predict that she will not like the verdict. 
Elections are about the big issues; they are not about the sideshows and they are not about the desperate diversions. The Government knows full well that taxes have gone up from $32 billion 5 years ago to $45 billion now. We have 41 new taxes but that is not enough for Labour; Labour wants more. Its more is open to having ever more so it will increase taxes to $57 billion. Even though there is a $7 billion surplus Labour will increase taxes by another $12 billion. 
Do members know what taxpayers will get? They will get an extra 67c in 3 years’ time. I say to this Government—and more importantly to New Zealanders—that relief is on the way because National is going to announce a significant tax policy. We know perfectly well that a surplus of $7 billion—which is a $2000 surplus per head: every man woman and child in this country—provides an opportunity for a decent reasonable and prudent tax cut. In fact every party other than Labour that I have heard from in this Parliament today ranging from United Future through New Zealand First to ACT—and dare I say it even Mr Anderton himself who proposes a 30c corporate or business tax—says there is scope for a reasonable tax cut. 
In reality it is about background and experience. No one in New Zealand can possibly believe the preposterous allegations by the Labour Government that National would put up interest rates. For heaven’s sake the leader of the National Party is a former Governor of the Reserve Bank. For 14 years he was the man who squeezed inflation out of this country to the everlasting benefit of the country and its economy. The growth that exists today is a direct result of sensible Reserve Bank policies so for Labour to suggest seriously to the New Zealand public that National would be so imprudent as to have a policy that would increase inflation and interest rates is sheer cant and completely irresponsible. 
 Frankly the public will see through that because as I have said and as is clear the public will not be fooled. They will not be fooled by Mr Goff. He can make his desperate plays as much as he wants. He can focus on the sideshows. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The truth hurts. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is Mr Goff focusing on the sideshows. Well I say to Mr Goff that in 7 weeks’ time the public will judge this Government on the real issues. The real issues will be the Government’s reckless spending and our prudent tax approach the Government’s reckless division of New Zealanders on the basis of race and our policy of bringing New Zealanders together the Government’s reckless student loans approach and our approach of giving New Zealanders real choices in education and the Government’s reckless approach on welfare spending whereby the number of sickness beneficiaries has increased by 44 percent. That is reality: the number of sickness beneficiaries has increased by 44 percent. We say that there should be accountability. 
I conclude by saying that in the year 2000 Mr Goff introduced legislation that he said listened to New Zealand’s concerns about crime. He said in the select committee that New Zealanders were sick and tired of people being released after serving two-thirds of their sentence. What was his solution? They are out now in one-third of the time. 
National says that the violent criminal will serve the full time. That is the cry; that is what New Zealanders want. So the election will be contested on Labour’s divisions and failed policies and National’s policy of dealing with the issues of mainstream New Zealand. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I will just comment briefly on the previous speaker’s valedictory comments about crime. Everybody in this House is aware that the crime rate is down 22 percent since it peaked under the National - New Zealand First Government. Everybody in this country is aware that four new prisons are being built because of a much tougher stance on law and order. Everyone in this country is aware that people like William Bell get a life sentence and serve 30 years before they can even be considered for parole. Everybody in this country knows that the Parole Board now cannot release offenders where there is undue risk to the public. Everybody in this country knows that the police have raised crime resolution rates to the point where the rates are doing better than at any time since the 1980s. There are now more police than ever before with a budget of over $1 billion. This Labour-led Government has responded to the referendum. 
But I have one question for Lockwood Smith. What did he mean when he asked senators “whether it would be worthwhile for the United States think tank to assist with a public campaign following the National Party study review” on nuclear-free New Zealand? What did he mean? Why was it that the United States senators said he was being inappropriate in asking the United States to intervene in something it should not and they would not intervene in. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
Points of Order 
Tabling of Document—Hon Phil Goff 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of the last debate the Hon Phil Goff was waving around an official document and quoting from it. I request that he table that document. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I tabled it yesterday. The member needs to come up to speed. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 No what Mr Goff tabled yesterday was a very minor quotation from the document. I believe he had the full document here today and I request that he table the full document he was quoting from. The member needs to come up to speed with the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has indicated the paper he was reading from. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Motions 
Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005 made under section 4 of that Act.  
Those orders demonstrate the Labour-Progressive Government’s commitment to a national drug policy that targets drug use in three ways: through supply control through demand reduction and by providing treatment services for the victims of drug peddlers. 
Last year the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs recommended the reclassification of amphetamine commonly known as speed as well as MDA or Ecstasy and as Associate Minister of Health in charge of the Government’s drug policies I accepted those recommendations. Both amphetamine and Ecstasy are currently classified as controlled drugs under Part 2 of the second schedule—that is under class B2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 before the House today will reclassify those drugs to Part 1 of the second schedule and as class B1 drugs. 
That reclassification will have the effect of enabling police officers under section 18 of the Act to detain search and seize for those drugs without warrant and reflects the degree of potential risk of harm that experts associate with those substances. I want to point out to the House that that recommendation to the House is not made in any sense by a political decision. It is a recommendation to me as Associate Minister of Health through the Cabinet committee and Cabinet process that that action be taken because of the extreme seriousness and effects of those drugs. Those substances are as I have said extremely harmful and by supporting this move Parliament is saying it agrees that it is not in the public interest for those drugs to be used as so-called recreational drugs. That reclassification is also consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations drug classification framework. 
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs also recommended that the amount for the presumption of supply for amphetamine be set at 5 grams. The presumption of supply concept is a rebuttable presumption that when a person is found with a certain amount of a controlled drug he or she possesses the drug for the purpose of dealing by way of sale or supply. In plain English that means that the onus is on the person found with the drug to prove that he or she was not supplying the drug and that the drug was instead intended solely for personal use. Currently the amount for the presumption of supply for amphetamine is 56 grams. While that may not sound much in terms of the weight of groceries we buy I can assure members that my official advice is that that is an enormous supply of amphetamine—way beyond what anyone could possibly want for his or her personal use. 
So the change will have the effect of significantly increasing penalties for offences involving possession of 5 grams of amphetamine as well as possession of between 5 and 56 grams. As an example I tell members that a possession for supply offence rather than a possession for use offence will carry a maximum sentence of up to 14 years in prison. It is entirely up to the courts how they exercise their discretion under that change of course but if anyone thinks that that indicates the seriousness with which the Government takes the use abuse and proliferation of those drugs then they are right. We do take those drugs seriously and we do believe they are a real threat to the health and well-being of many New Zealand citizens. 
That offence can be compared with the offence of possession of a class B controlled drug which carries a maximum sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment a fine of $500 or both—in other words a wrap over the knuckles with a wet bus ticket. Our advice is that that penalty should now change. 
 In relation to amphetamine the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs found that that drug like its counterpart methamphetamine can quickly cause addiction has been linked overseas to violence and can cause psychosis depression and erratic behaviour. I think that all members will be aware of some of the outcomes of that kind of situation. 
The committee identified an increasing number of risks associated with amphetamine’s current use and distribution. Amphetamine’s addiction potential carries significant health risks. It is also linked to deaths through cerebral vascular haemorrhage so none of the drugs affected by the motion before us today should be regarded lightly. The Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005 therefore reflects the fact that that drug’s level of harm to New Zealanders is potentially and in fact very serious indeed. 
MDMA or Ecstasy already has a 5 gram presumption of supply so we do not need to change that. Ecstasy was classified class B2 in 1987 but the experts recommended its reclassification to class B1. They noted the mounting evidence that Ecstasy-type drugs have a neurotoxic effect which means they are poisons that act on the nervous system and that there is a worrying link between New Zealand’s MDMA market and organised crime—some recreational drug! The experts also advised in their 2004 report to me that there was an increasing number of cases of attempted MDMA/Ecstasy manufacture in New Zealand and they also noted that MDMA/Ecstasy is classified as a schedule 1 or class A drug in other jurisdictions—not of course in New Zealand. 
These orders are designed to help ensure that enforcement officers have the powers they need and I hope to see the orders come into force as soon as possible. Just for the information of the House I say that if this motion is passed today the new authorities and penalties through the process that needs to be followed will come into force by 9 September this year. To complement all the other measures that I have overseen as leader of the Progressive Party and as Associate Minister of Health in this coalition Government in order to target the abuse of drugs in this country these measures in my view and in the view of the Government are a necessary and desirable step in one element of our fight against drugs. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005. I do note that the Hon Jim Anderton expressed the commitment of the Progressive-Labour Government to this legislation. I think it fair to say that all parties that have been involved in the Health Committee are hugely worried by the spread of drugs such as amphetamine and methyl amphetamine in New Zealand. 
I am however concerned that though we now have a rapid classification mechanism to deal with those drugs as they are changed from time to time it has taken a huge amount of time over the last 5 years to get to where we are. After all it was in 1999 that under the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech this suggested change to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was recommended and it has been almost at snail’s pace I believe that the Labour and so-called Progressive coalition Government has finally got to the stage where today the changes to be made involve amphetamine and methyl amphetamine going from a B2 to a B1 classification and the presumption of supply of amphetamine is going from 56 grams to 5 grams—a much more reasonable amount. 
I want to re-emphasise once again the importance of the rapid classification measures through the affirmative resolution procedures that were decided on in the amendment in 2003. I do not think that the importance of that procedure should ever be underestimated. It was designed to be used only in the rarest of circumstances and certainly the Regulations Review Committee that dealt with this made very very strong recommendations as to the rare use of these procedures. The reason they have come about is the very fact that criminal gangs and others have rapidly increased the use of these dangerous drugs in New Zealand. But more worrying the methods they have used to import them into New Zealand and distribute them have become more and more sophisticated and more and more difficult for the police to deal with—hence the extraordinary measures that are proposed by this motion. 
In essence one of the effects of classification from B2 to B1 is to extend the search and seizure powers of the police. I note that from the justice perspective the most significant feature of this particular decision is that it provides the police with the power to detain search and seize without a warrant in circumstances where they have reasonable grounds to believe that offences associated with amphetamine or methamphetamine are occurring. Examples of what has constituted reasonable grounds include in some cases actual sightings of a controlled drug—or at least bags of white powder—information or the presence of a “smell” particularly of cannabis. 
 Now all of those things do have certain dangers to innocent parties associated with them. So these powers should be exercised only with great caution where there is indeed a very good sense by law enforcement officers that they should be used. I note that the criminal justice group says that the actual search and seizure of any controlled drug must also be carried out reasonably for the purposes of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which provides that everyone has a right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure whether of the person property or correspondence or otherwise. 
There is a substantial body of case law on section 21 that indicates the courts will rule that any evidence obtained in the course of the search that is carried out unreasonably even if lawful is inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However there is undoubtedly a tension of balance here as to how it will be used in the future given particularly the extreme lengths that criminal gangs are using to import and distribute both methyl amphetamine amphetamine and their precursors around the country. 
It is also really important to point out just how serious the penalties are when drugs are changed from one schedule to the other. The first schedule which includes drugs such as heroin has penalties that include life imprisonment. They are pretty damned serious penalties that one would hope indeed do make a difference to the gangs. Unfortunately one of the practical problems is that many of those involved in that traffic are so addicted or otherwise totally involved in what they are doing that they seem almost impervious to any penalty that is laid down even life imprisonment. I think we have seen this all around the world particularly in cases in Indonesia and Thailand. But today we are changing amphetamine and methamphetamine from B2 to B1 to become class B controlled drugs in the second schedule with a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment for importation manufacture or supply; up to 10 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit an offence; and up to 3 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine or both for possession. 
So the point that I have been trying to make is that we know there has been an almost terrifying escalation of drug use in New Zealand particularly over the last 6 years. We have heard that the first clan-labs were busted by the police in about 1998. There were about three that year and it has evolved rapidly to the order of 200 or 300 clan-labs per year being busted over the last few years. There is no doubt that the escalation of those drugs in New Zealand has been very dramatic and very worrying and that is the reason why the affirmative resolution procedure has been brought in. Today we have made realistic changes in terms of methamphetamine and methyl amphetamine changing them from B2 to B1 and taking the presumption of supply from 56 grams down to 5 grams. However it is important to remember that here we are also allowing the police to have pretty well uncontrolled search and seizure actions available to them and that balance must be very much kept in mind in terms of individuals’ rights and must not be overused by the police. 
The National Party supports this resolution and hopes indeed that it will help in the responsible control of this sort of illicit drug expansion in New Zealand. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 This may seem a very technical measure but it is very significant. I thank the members of the Health Committee who worked on this in an extraordinarily rapid manner in order to get this measure through in this session of Parliament. It does show the commitment of this Parliament to look at all three aspects of national drug policy and control which are about the control of drugs the demand reduction and also treatment services for those addicted to drugs. This little measure today is about controlling the supply side of drugs. It certainly targets the dealers and not the users and that is a very important message. 
One other really important message in this measure today is that a lot of our young people—and this extends to quite young adults—are using drugs quite prevalently out there as party drugs and they think that they are safe. They think they are recreational drugs that will keep them going through the night. They have no idea of the emerging evidence of the harm these drugs can cause. We on the Health Committee also learnt about the harm related to the use of alcohol at the same time. 
The member who spoke before me said that we had been very slow with the expeditious scheduling notice of motion mechanism that is now in the misuse of drugs orders. The member is quite wrong. This was referred to the Health Committee on 23 June. We all agreed that this matter was very important and that we should debate it and pass it in this term of Government. We were a little bit concerned about some aspects of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It had not been publishing its minutes its reports and its papers and that was something we had agreed to when we debated the original Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)—that is information from the Expert Advisory Committee must be made publicly available on the web and on the Internet as an educative tool for New Zealand to understand why that committee was making those orders. 
This notice of motion process is really interesting. The expert advisory committee notifies the Minister of Health the Minister of Health then takes a paper to Cabinet and the order is referred to the Health Committee. The Health Committee has 28 days to report back to the House. We can call for evidence in that time. Today we are having this debate on two substances. We did not really call for public input into this and we on the select committee acknowledge that. That was a step that we overlooked because we wanted this measure to be expeditiously scheduled and passed now. 
Two substances are considered in this measure. One is amphetamine commonly known as speed and we are just changing the presumption of supply; and the other is Ecstasy or MDMA. We are changing the classification from B2 to B1. We looked at amphetamine and we heard from the expert advisory committee on the evidence. Decisions are evidence based. It is not because we are worried about the increased use out in the community but we asked for evidence. There are some treatment modalities that amphetamines are useful for such as narcolepsy and ADHD—for children on Ritalin. It is a type of amphetamine substance. Amphetamine does have some euphoric effects. It is a controlled drug. Therefore it needs to be prescribed by a medical specialist. Out on the street it has lots of names like speed crank go fast whiz and uppers. It is an upper. But there is confusion out there in the public eye about methamphetamine and amphetamines. They are all lumped together in their mind. They are just known as amphetamines and they are used very very regularly as recreational drugs. 
 The expert advisory committee was really concerned about the increased use and abuse of amphetamines and strongly suggested that they were not safe recreational drugs. Obviously increased availability on the street and importation levels have been quite astronomical. There has been an increase in arrests for amphetamines of 650 percent since 2002 which is really really high. There is a high risk of harm especially for those who are vulnerable and those with depression and mental health problems. We have also noted an associated increase in road safety harm especially the combined use of amphetamines and alcohol. So we decided and all supported that the presumption of supply had to go from 56 grams to 5 grams. These are actually used recreationally in little lots of 100 capsules or tabs. We decided that was a most unsafe practice which was the evidence that we received. But we did need more evidence on police interception especially their powers without a warrant and we are becoming increasingly concerned about that. 
On the other hand MDMA or Ecstasy—it has lots of street names such as E Adam “Ecy” Hug Drug—has no known therapeutic value at all it is simply a recreational-use drug on the market. Overseas it has a much higher classification than we use in New Zealand. We were very concerned about Ecstasy statistics for young users coming into accident and emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights after having been out partying. We have known of three deaths in New Zealand that were Ecstasy related. They were predominantly though from hypothermia and over-hydration. There is a common myth that one has to drink lots of water while on Ecstasy and those three deaths were related to over-hydration and hypothermia. 
We need to get these drugs in perspective. It is known that Ecstasy alone is actually less harmful than alcohol. I think that all of us are worrying and panicking about street use of recreational drugs and we forget that the most harmful effects are from alcohol which has caused a lot more actual physical harm than these street drugs. However we are concerned about increased use and importation and this reclassification today allows for increased search and seizure powers without a warrant which is something that I am sure my colleague Nandor Tanczos will be concerned about as we all were too and we need to watch this trend on the Health Committee. 
The penalties are substantially increased by this reclassification. At the moment the penalty is 3 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine. As a result of this reclassification the penalty can now be up to 14 years’ imprisonment and that is something we all need to be concerned about. I am pleased to support this motion today and I thank the members of the Health Committee for taking this so seriously. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the motion that this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply—Amphetamine) Order 2005 made under section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In New Zealand First we recognise the extraordinary harm caused to New Zealanders by drugs and more recently amphetamines. It is an extremely serious problem out on the streets. Despite the number of prosecutions and the very best efforts of the police this drug industry appears to be thriving with no signs of any abatement. We know that the escalation of usage is dramatic. We urgently need a strategy to try to turn round the harm caused by the usage of these drugs in our country. They are dangerous and they are exceedingly harmful. 
The onus in this legislation is on the person found with the drug to prove that he or she was not supplying the drug and that it was intended for personal use. How that can be proved appears to be a challenge to me. Hopefully it is very clear in other legislation. We do need to get very tough on the peddlers of these drugs—in fact all drugs—and reducing the amount at which amphetamine is presumed to be for supply from 56 grams to 5 grams is just one of those measures. From the evidence that we received at the Health Committee this is a much-needed change. 
While the committee discussed the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee about the need for the affirmative action procedure to be used very carefully because we all know that the basis of any democracy is for submitters to have their views heard by a select committee New Zealand First believes that for situations like drugs where rapid action is required in the interests of the public this course of action is definitely appropriate. 
The officials said to the select committee that they needed the ability to amend the supply levels rapidly if there was clear evidence that the supply level was set too low. The lagging of the required legislation in this drugs field has meant that our law enforcement agencies—the Customs Service and the police—have often been totally hamstrung under the present law. We all know that importation levels have increased dramatically. Parliament has a duty to support both the police and the Customs Service in a timely manner in their fight against the illicit use of drugs and the importation of those drugs into this country. Enforcement officers need these powers. New Zealand First supports this motion. We believe that these changes are necessary and desirable in our fight against the use of illicit drugs. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party joins other parties in the House in supporting this motion. We commend the Health Committee which presented its report on 6 July. ACT’s Heather Roy is a very active member of that committee and she has advised our caucus that this measure is very worthy of support. We note of course that it is aimed at the pushers by tacking the change to the order on to presumption of supply with amphetamines. 
We all know the damage that substance abuse associated with the misuse of amphetamines and methamphetamines is causing in our society. That damage is very severe although I note and the point has already been made that alcohol taken as a substance is possibly even more dangerous. But that is not to condone the use of amphetamines or any substance abuse. 
The issue in our society is what is causing people—particularly young people but not exclusively young people—to engage in substance abuse. We have things like glue in our hardware stores. People can buy a 10-litre tin of glue and do immense damage to themselves through substance abuse. For that matter they could buy gallons of petrol at the petrol station. As a substance itself petrol would do them harm if it was abused. So the real issue is what is causing people to abuse these substances thereby doing themselves harm and too often others harm in the process. 
So without any hesitation the ACT party supports this motion which is aimed at those who are pushing the misuse of these substances. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Let us move beyond the “tough on drugs” rhetoric and get real about what the House is actually considering today. The Minister stated in his press release this morning that Parliament is saying that it is not in the public interest for these drugs to be used as so-called recreational drugs. Well actually that is a load of cobblers. How Parliament says that these drugs should not be used as recreational drugs is by making them illegal which it did many many years ago. The changes we are considering in this motion have no logical connection with that statement whatsoever. 
This motion does two things: it changes the presumption of supply level and more significantly it introduces search without warrant powers for speed and Ecstasy. The only message sent by introducing search without warrant powers for the police is that this Parliament has no regard for the basic human rights guaranteed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed in our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which includes the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure—and I thank Mr Hutchison for the comments that he made in that regard. 
 I have in front of me the briefing paper given to the select committee as evidence for why that change was needed and the reason given was the “involvement of international drug-running syndicates and the increasing seizures”. It is pretty logical that if we are seeing an increase in seizures then the police already have adequate powers to police the law. It does not make sense to use that to argue that police powers are not adequate. I think the advisers were a bit thrown by the select committee even questioning the need for increased draconian powers for the police. 
Let us be clear what this is all about. The advisers told us that the measure is intended to target dealers and Mr Ken Shirley echoed that delusion. It is not about that at all. Let us look back on history. When the Government introduced search without warrant powers for cannabis it said the same thing—that it was to target dealers not people on the street. But history shows us that those powers are used primarily to target users of drugs rather than dealers of drugs. In fact a number of cases before the courts have been acquitted because of police abuse of those powers. It is obvious: if there is a move to bust a major international drug-running syndicate then the amount of police intelligence and work required to make that drug bust would probably require all that information being used by the police to obtain a search warrant. Getting the warrant would be no problem in such cases. The only time the police do a search without warrant is on an opportunistic fishing expedition on the streets. On those occasions they primarily target users not dealers. So the argument that somehow these search without warrant powers will be used to target dealers is simply a fantasy. It is not borne out by logic or the evidence of history. 
I note that search without warrant powers were never vetted under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because we did not have that legislation in 1975 when the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed. The committee was advised by Crown Law that it had not considered the issue in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the primary legislation was already in place. It is time that the “search without warrant” powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act were put through a proper test under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to see whether they meet with the fundamental human rights that we take for granted in this country. 
The motion also lowers the presumption of supply levels and of course I agree that 56 grams is probably a large amount not a realistic amount. But let us be clear: if a person has 6 grams or even 2 or 3 grams he or she can still be prosecuted for possession for sale and can be convicted if the case can be proved. The only difference made by the proposed change to the legislation is that the presumption of supply level simply means that the basic principle of justice—that is one is innocent until proven guilty—is overturned. That is what is meant by presumption of supply. Therefore if a person is caught with more then he or she has to prove that it is not for supply. How does one do that? Honestly God only knows. I say that advisedly because the advisers did not know the answer; neither did the Minister when I raised the matter with him. So how on earth do people prove that drugs in their possession are not for sale when police have no need to provide any corroborating evidence whatsoever? I have no idea how a person could defend that in a court of law. 
So the matter is a highly significant one because possession for supply carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. It is to our shame that people convicted of crimes of violence rape and the importation of child pornography regularly receive sentences lower than those handed down to people convicted of supplying drugs to people who want to buy them. We see such cases regularly reported in our newspapers and we really have to question our priorities in terms of the criminal justice system. 
The affirmative resolution procedure was designed for expeditious scheduling of drugs and for evidence-based decision-making. It is totally unacceptable that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs could recommend to the Health Committee a change to introduce search without warrant powers for the police yet not provide any evidence as to the need for that change in the law. When advisory committee officials were asked about that they apologised and said that next time they would do a little better. I say that is unacceptable. The whole point of the procedure is to have evidence-based decision-making. 
It seems contrary to the intention of the Misuse of Drugs Act to put forward bold and bald assertions without proving the evidence as to why they are needed. The affirmative resolution procedure was also designed to allow some public input either during the consideration by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs or during the select committee procedure. I note that the Minister introduced this notice just before a 4-week adjournment and I wonder whether it was to ensure that the public had no opportunity to have its say before the select committee because when advisory committee officials were asked about that they confirmed they had made no attempt to get information from anyone outside their own committee which has a pretty restricted area of expertise. There are a whole lot of areas of expertise that are not represented on the committee; neither did the select committee have the opportunity to call for input from the public. 
It is scandalous that this Parliament passes motions like this one whereby the penalties for possession of 6 grams of speed or Ecstasy are significantly increased where a draconian new search power for the police—in the context of those powers already being abused—is introduced and where the public has had no input whatsoever. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005. 
I was driving home the other night from a late meeting as most of us are doing now in the time leading up to the election—and my human rights were violated. I turned the corner and there they were with lights flashing ready to pull me over and breath test me! I celebrate the fact that the police were prepared to have a team out there to breath test me and everybody else on the road that night because what that offered me was protection. It meant they would be checking that the other people using the road that night were safe to be driving and that my safety was important. I did not for 1 minute object to being pulled over and delayed for the short time it took to be breathalysed. In that case the innocent until proven guilty rule was not being applied but I am grateful for the efforts of the police in that regard. 
United Future is very keen to help move this issue along. We understand and appreciate that on these matters Parliament needs to be able to reflect on the evidence-based but urgent needs that cross our path in respect of the supply of illicit drugs in this country. Certainly the therapeutic benefits of the drugs we are talking about are quite minimal. They do have some uses and we accept that but generally they are mostly used in this country for illicit purposes. 
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is able to approach the Minister and suggest that new substances be added to schedules or that the classification of a substance be upgraded by Order in Council. United Future in our recent amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act made sure that the movement by Order in Council can only be used to strengthen the provisions around the substance—that is if there were ever a decision to liberalise the classification of a drug that could not be taken by Order in Council but would require full scrutiny by Parliament and full input by the public through the submission process. We are very pleased to have put that amendment forward. We are very happy to be able to respond quickly to crises but we think the opposite effect of an Order in Council—whereby it could be used in an unhelpful way to downgrade the classification of a substance without full parliamentary scrutiny—is an unwise and reckless provision and we are glad to have been part of the change. 
I want to counter something that was said previously. One of the members talked about the fact that Ecstasy we were told was less of a risk than alcohol. I think we need to read very carefully what was said because it is not actually quite true. What was said was that the public health risk of Ecstasy was notably lower than that of alcohol—and that is quite a different matter. We accept that we still have a way to go in terms of the binge-drinking culture of New Zealanders in order to address our approach to the substance of alcohol. Binge drinking is wrong unhealthy and dangerous. 
I was interested in talking recently to a publican who objected to the amount of host responsibility the law puts on him and who felt there should be a lot more responsibility put on individuals to manage the amount they drank. My response to him was: “You sell poison; you take responsibility.” I really do think we need to look very carefully at our attitudes towards alcohol. I accept the Green member’s position on that—that we do sometimes give alcohol a lighter treatment—and I agree that that is wrong. United Future would support efforts that are sensible in that regard. There are also some rather silly suggestions about how that might be achieved and we need to be sensible about it. 
Why should we reclassify amphetamine? Well the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs told us that they found there has been increasingly prevalent amphetamine use and importation into New Zealand clear evidence of the high risk of harm associated with amphetamine use limited therapeutic applications for the drug evidence of drug substitution between amphetamine and other amphetamine-type stimulants and a need for decisive police powers to tackle street-level amphetamine offending. 
It is interesting that they also gathered evidence to say that there are clear links now between New Zealand’s illicit amphetamine market and organised crime. As I mentioned earlier there is also a growing concern about the link between substance abuse and road safety beyond just our current monitoring of alcohol consumption. I believe that in New Zealand when people are found driving recklessly and breaking the road rules in some way we need to collect a lot more data to determine whether other substances are present in their systems if alcohol is not. We need to understand a lot more accurately the impact of what is going on with road safety issues and the link between those and drug abuse. 
United Future does not really need to say more at this stage; we are supportive of this legislation. However I would like to signal one thing in relation to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs on which we rely so heavily for information on these matters. I am very supportive of a lot more transparency in that process. I think it is good that we expect to see the reasons behind the advice it is giving. We need to see where it gets its information from and who it consulted with. 
United Future would be supportive of seeing an increased level of transparency in some of the advisory committee’s recent advice on things like party pills which we have some personal disquiet about. I know that New Zealand First also shares our disquiet. It may be that all we are dealing with is just the cocktail effect of party pills with alcohol but some of us just want to be really really sure that these issues the committee gives us clear rulings and advice on are revisited from time to time and that in an ongoing way it is considering evidence from overseas as other jurisdictions deal with this very very serious problem. 
Motion agreed to. 
Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The amendments in the bill will be the biggest change to the Resource Management Act since 1991. The key objectives are to increase certainty reduce delays and costs and ensure consistency of process. The amendments are evolutionary improvements rather than revolutionary. They are about finding practical solutions to make the Act work better. Importantly the amendments do not affect the Act’s fundamental principles of strong environmental protection local decision-making and public participation. Rather the bill focuses on ways to improve the quality of decisions and processes. It includes measures to increase certainty and to reduce delay cost and the abuse of process. As Michael Barnett the CEO of the Auckland chamber of commerce noted after surveying 350 of its members: “The issue with the Resource Management Act is not so much the contents of the Act preventing development proceeding but how it is administered by local authorities.” 
The bill forms part of a wider package of reform which includes improvements to legislation practice and resources. We know this package is already having a real impact. According to a 2004 Business New Zealand - KPMG compliance cost survey average total environment-related compliance costs have decreased by almost 40 percent between 2003 and 2004 from $12930 in that first year to $7860 in 2004. KPMG attributed the reduced cost to improved implementation of the Act by local authorities and to increased resources for the Environment Court since 2001. Delays in appeals to the Environment Court have been slashed by more than half since 2001 due to a substantial boost in funding and a new system for managing the caseload. The Ministry for the Environment is taking on a greater role in helping local government to develop knowledge and practice. That includes enhancing the ministry’s best-practice programme and targeted one-on-one assistance for specific councils. 
The Government understands that making the Act work is about achieving better administration of the Act. That relies on input from local and central government developers and the community. The process for the review built on that. Extensive discussions were held with local government industry environmental organisations and the wider community over an 18-month period. That process was very different from previous reviews of the Act and Local Government New Zealand has described it as: “an exemplary collaborative exercise.” I will contrast Labour’s approach to working with the local government and business sector successfully with that of National. It is only a week ago now since National Party leader Dr Brash had to lead Nick Smith back to apologise to local government representatives after a typically boorish attack by Mr Smith at a social gathering at the Local Government New Zealand conference. Though few people would actually consider being described as a traitor to the National Party to be any kind of insult at all Mr Smith’s uncontrolled outburst has offended and angered many in the sector. 
This bill is about achieving the right balance between local and national interests. It enables greater use of national policy statements and national environmental standards by reinforcing their role and status under the Act. National policy statements and national environmental standards will give clear national direction and will provide certainty and consistency for communities and developers. The review of the Act highlighted that some decisions need to be dealt with at a national level or with assistance from central government. The bill provides more tools in that area including the ability to make Crown submissions appoint a member of a hearings panel and direct councils to consider matters jointly. Those options are decided in consultation with local authorities from a menu of options that will ensure that central government can play a more effective role in matters that may have national significance. The bill also provides more powers for the Minister for the Environment to ensure local authorities are addressing their functions and duties under the Act. 
The Government has signalled its intention to take a stronger leadership role in implementing and supporting the Act. However that will not be at the expense of local decision-making. We have rejected the calls of a few extreme voices that want to see the Act ripped apart for the sake of unfettered development. Quite frankly that is neither sensible or necessary—nor is it what even the business community has asked us to do. The Government is committed to good local decision-making. Dr Brash says there is too much decision making in the hands of local communities and their councils. Developers should be able to bypass local community decision-making and there should be less recognition according to National of those affected by environmental effects in favour of recognising those who produce them. Silencing communities is after all becoming a theme in National’s election promises. Labour’s bill rightly shakes up the decision making under the Act. It sets accreditation standards for local decision-makers and it gives them powers to make first-instance hearings more effective and robust. The bill improves the design and process for local policy-making. Changes to the requirements for plans mean they will be streamlined and easier to understand. Other changes give greater status to regional policy statements and therefore enable more integrated and strategic planning across and between districts and regions. 
 The bill clarifies consultation requirements and promotes better consultation with tangata whenua during the development of plans and policy statements. In terms of resource consents iwi will have the same opportunity to participate as any other person or party affected by an activity. The bill provides a framework for local authorities to enter into joint management agreements with public bodies and iwi. That is aimed at encouraging success stories such as the partnerships that councils have established with Ngati Tuwharetoa Te Arawa and Ngati Whatua. Other key changes clarify regional council functions under the bill in respect of contaminated land the integration of infrastructure with land use and the allocation of natural resources. 
The bill had the benefit of a robust select committee process and I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for all the hard work it put into the bill. My colleagues will talk more about that process. The Government heard submissions from all sections of the community and as a result it has recommended a number of changes. Those changes are consistent with the principles of the review and the original policy intention. The select committee process has also highlighted that many of the criticisms of the court are outdated. The court is taking steps to minimise costs and delays. It does not conduct every appeal on a full de novo basis and it tailors the process to the circumstances of each case. 
The bill also amends the Electricity Act 1992 by extending the existing rights of operators in terms of works relating to roads and level crossings. The bill extends those rights to high voltage works but not to above-ground structures such as poles or towers. 
A Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled today containing several amendments that the Government wishes to make to the bill. Most of the amendments are technical in nature and seek to clarify wording or to improve the workability of the bill as a result of changes recommended by the select committee. However there are six more substantive amendments. First it is proposed that the bill be amended to include a clear statement that consent authorities must consider the value of existing investment when considering applications for a new consent to replace an existing consent on its expiry. That was part of the Government’s original policy and it will encourage maintenance of and long-term investment in existing infrastructure. Second the bill as reported back creates confusion about the content of the iwi register and the process for its development. The Supplementary Order Paper includes changes that clarify when local authorities should include details of hapu on the register. There is also material relating to the national policy statements and the New Zealand coastal policy statement and an amendment to the ministerial powers to intervene in matters of national significance in the coastal marine area. Finally there are two technical amendments proposed to resolve issues that have arisen out of the aquaculture reform and foreshore and seabed legislation. The current wording requires regional councils to carry out a full review of regional policy statements. That requirement is being somewhat softened. 
Labour is committed to having a clean and healthy environment and to giving people a say in environmental decision-making. Protecting our environment is a strategic investment that all of us wish to make for New Zealand’s future. The Resource Management Act is about striking the right balance between using our environment and protecting it for future generations. The wide support that this bill has received reflects the acceptability of the changes it contains and I am pleased to commend it to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In no area of public policy has the Labour Government made a greater hash of things than in respect of resource management. It has been a comedy of errors and blunders for 6 years for which this country is paying a high price. It is paying in terms of a 38 percent increase in traffic congestion in a city like Auckland. It is paying in terms of security of power supply. A number of officials are crossing their legs their fingers and everything else to try to keep the lights on and power prices have gone up by over 52 percent. I am not at all surprised that the Minister is running to hide. I would be too with this sort of a botch up. We have seen a lack of investment in key areas such as forestry. New Zealand should be investing in timber processing rather than in exporting logs. The environment is paying a high price as well for the fumbles and errors of the Government. 
It is quite telling that this is the last legislative act of this rotten dying Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Samuels that on its very first day the Labour Government said that the Resource Management Act was beautifully written beautifully crafted and did not need changing. One of the very first acts of the Government in 1999 was to reject Simon Upton’s amendment bill. Six years later a grovelling snivelling Minister is back before the Parliament saying: “Well actually we got it wrong. We’ve got to somehow patch up this RMA in the very last week of the House.” 
When the bill was introduced—the Minister’s big flagship—David Benson-Pope said that the most significant change was removing de novo hearings in the Environment Court. That is what David Benson-Pope told the Parliament and the people of New Zealand. Yet now it has suddenly gone. We have seen more flip-flops on this bill than on Bondi Beach. The Government has had to surrender ground all over the place. 
Let me give another example. The member opposite Judith Tizard said that it was “evil and dangerous” to refer things directly to the Environment Court. Well what does this bill do? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I did not. What absolute rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well she did. I ask her to check the  
Hansard 
 of November 1998 when she said in the House that Simon Upton’s proposal for projects to be able to go directly to the Environment Court was “evil and dangerous”. But now she supports it. That shows that members opposite will say absolutely anything to save their political bacon. I would like to know whether Marian Hobbs will contribute to this debate. She is the Minister who has been in charge of Labour’s botch-ups with the Resource Management Act for the last 6 years. The Government is like a beached whale. It is flailing about and has no idea what it will do to resolve the very serious issues for New Zealand in respect of the Resource Management Act. 
I go back to the issue of direct referral to the Environment Court. Labour says that National would politicise the process. Well is that not interesting? Under this bill who will decide which projects get referred directly to the Environment Court? The answer is the Minister. In other words if someone is a mate of the Government and if someone has written out some big cheques for Labour’s election campaign that person will be able to avoid the council hearing and go straight off to the Environment Court. 
Jill Pettis 
: At least it doesn’t come from Uncle Sam. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well well is that not an interesting remark from Jill Pettis? Perhaps she would like to talk to Dover Samuels who has been getting cheques from Uncle Sam—I understand that the amount was $10000. Such diversions are not surprising. The Government’s position is so weak on these issues that it does not want to debate the real issues. 
Then the Labour Party talked about the importance of community consultation and community involvement and it introduced a 32-page Supplementary Order Paper which was tabled this morning to become law by tonight. Such is the respect that this Government has for public consultation it is prepared to make 32 pages of changes to the Resource Management Act with zero consultation. Opposition parties such as mine received this Supplementary Order Paper only this morning. I ask what sort of outrageous abuse of the lawmaking process is that. The Government has the cheek to talk about the importance of public consultation. Do not make me sick! 
I turn to what is wrong with this bill. Firstly it is quite extraordinary what this bill does not do. Everybody knows that a gravy train of indulgence has been created for Maori and iwi as a consequence of the Resource Management Act. 
 Can I give members a practical example. My local Richmond garden club wants to be able to upgrade an area of public park in my electorate. Its members are all volunteers but they have been told they have to pay a local iwi supervisor $40 an hour to ensure they do not dig up any old pipis or the like that Maori had there. What sort of outrage or lunacy is there in that respect? This Government has forked out millions of dollars in relation to the new prison at Port Waikato—paid to grease the palms of the local friendly iwi so that the prison might be built. There is example after example and what does this bill do to deal with the matter so that we might not chase the taniwha when we are trying to build a road? What does this bill do about those issues? The answer is: absolutely nothing—in fact it actually makes it worse. What this Government is proposing with regard to co-management will only make those problems with the Resource Management Act more difficult. 
Then there are issues in respect of how long it takes to make changes in a plan. What really makes mainstream New Zealanders angry with this Government over the Resource Management Act is when it messes with their sport. Eden Park in Auckland needs to be upgraded in order for New Zealand to have a chance of hosting the rugby world cup in 2012 yet this Government is handing out money to the opponents of that upgrade so that they might prevent it. With regard to the Western Springs Speedway we see that this Government is killing it off and giving money to the speedway’s opponents. National will be putting forward amendments at the Committee stage to provide for the resolution of that problem in a sensible way by empowering the Auckland City Council to make decisions for its community. I ask Dover Samuels whether he will be voting for the amendment to save the Western Springs speedway. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: You are doing all the talking; you tell us. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Ah! You see members opposite for all the talk about trusting councils will have a real test in deciding whether to support our amendment which says that it is for councils to decide whether a notified plan will take effect at that time. I will bet that members opposite will vote for bureaucracy rather than for common sense. For all the talk we have from Labour members about empowering councils and communities those members are really into funding their narrow sector mates. 
The reality is that the Resource Management Act has turned into legislation whereby the minority is able to stop the majority. A National Government—a change of Government—will be required to inject some common sense into that Act so that we can have decent environmental standards and also so that New Zealanders can get on grow and develop. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The unprincipled rhetoric of that last speech can be unpicked by two simple examples. National will always scratch the itch. Its representative did so in relation to Maori issues in that last speech by saying that nothing in this bill changes the status quo. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has just said that that is right. He was obviously asleep at the relevant times at the Local Government and Environment Committee because one of the things this bill does is make it absolutely clear that no applicant for a resource consent has an obligation to consult with anyone—with anyone including iwi or Maori groups. There is now no obligation to consult. There was an uncertainty of law until this bill was brought forward as to whether that was the position. This bill remedies that uncertainty by making it clear that no one has to consult with anyone else prior to making an application for a resource consent. That change in the law is appropriate because we all want to have transparent procedures in this country whereby no one can blackmail other people to pay money in order to get resource consents. So Dr Smith on behalf of the National Party has misinformed listeners today on that important point. 
The other issue is that he said there were problems with great delays in dealing with applications under the Resource Management Act. That was the position 5 years ago but it is not the position now. Again Dr Smith was on the select committee when we met with Judge Bollard the principal planning judge of the Environment Court. Judge Bollard set out— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there are far too many interjections across the House from one to another. I mention to members that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call and that practice has been going on far too often. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was true of my speech. I had a continual barrage of interjections—quite contrary to the speech of the Minister to whom we gave a pretty fair hearing. Now when the tables are turned and a Labour member is speaking suddenly you get all precious— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No! The ruling has been given because two members who do not have the call—you and Mr Samuels—have been interjecting on each other. You have been doing it far too often. I did not pick on just one person; it was one all. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I thank you for that ruling Mr Speaker and trust that that time will not come out of my speech time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Certainly not. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The second issue on which Dr Smith misled listeners concerned the suggestion that time frames for dealing with appeals on consents have not been improved. We heard from Judge Bollard the Principal Environment Court Judge— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I never said that. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member said there were still substantial delays that were problematic in terms of consents but the reality is different. Judge Bollard came to the select committee and showed us that the majority of cases are now allocated a hearing date upon appeal within 6 months of the date of the appeal. There are exceptions to that but those exceptions are cases where the parties are in mediation and are happy on all sides for the matter to be delayed. Apart from those cases the majority of cases are being dealt with in a very timely period. Why is that? The answer is twofold. Firstly a large number of plan references—or appeals against plans as people might understand them to be—that were outstanding have been resolved. Secondly the number of Environment Court judges has been increased so there are not as many delays as there were. 
The select committee and indeed the Government were faced with strident criticism of the Resource Management Act. The essential choice for any central Government on those issues is whether the decision-making process is delegated to councils with appeal rights to another body or whether decisions are taken at central Government level in Wellington. I for one and this Government believe that the current principle of delegating those decisions to territorial authorities is the right way to go. 
When the matter came to the select committee we had experimented with the idea that we would truncate appeal rights by limiting them to re-litigations of evidence that had already been given at initial council hearings. That had some initial attraction because it was thought that it would avoid going through the facts twice. But as was pointed out by almost all submitters be they territorial authorities developers environmental groups the Law Society or the Planning Institute the sting in the tail is that because only fewer than one in 10 cases goes on appeal we do not want to add costs to the nine cases that do not go on appeal in order to save costs on the one in 10 that does. 
 The problem we have to grapple with is that if we limit appeal rights so as not to give people a right to introduce new evidence on appeal then everyone is forced to go about their initial hearing before the council in a much more thorough way which requires them to lead more expensive expert evidence to take a more litigious approach and probably more often to employ lawyers to represent them at the first hearing. That is undesirable in terms of both the accessibility of the initial forum to lay people and the cost of the process to applicants and objectors alike. The Local Government and Environment Committee felt that that evidence was compelling and the Government agreed. So we have reverted to a position similar to what we had prior to this bill. 
But we have made an important change: the Environment Court must now have regard to the original decision at the first hearing. Until now the Environment Court has been able to start again and completely ignore the council hearing. Indeed on occasions the Environment Court has said that it does not even need to read the original decision because it has the right to start again and to decide as it thinks fit without regard to the original council decision. We have changed that situation by making it an obligation of the Environment Court to have regard to the original decision. In effect that means that the Environment Court will have to give reasons if it departs from the decision of the council. That is very proper. 
This bill does a couple of other things. It sets up a regime to deal with matters that cross boundaries and projects that are very large. The most recent examples are Meridian Energy’s applications for consents on Project Aqua. Such projects are so large and so complex that they are very difficult for smaller councils especially to deal with. Those councils do not have the expertise or the resources needed to deal with some of those applications relating to very large projects. So there has been a call not just from developers like Meridian Energy but also from councils and other interest groups to have some of those bigger things dealt with under a separate process. We have set up that separate process in this bill but we have taken steps to ensure that it will apply only Resource Management Act principles. We are not weighting it in favour of the outcome. 
The select committee made an additional recommendation to protect the independence of decisions on those matters by making sure that the decision-making body is always chaired by an independent judge. In this case the judge has to be either a member of the Environment Court or a retired member of the Environment Court. So a judge will always hear those matters independently with an expert board that will be well placed to consider the issues raised. 
Long hearings on big complex issues can take 6 months to a year and no one who is running that particular gauntlet wants to have to do it twice. We do not want a board of inquiry listening to things for 6 months and then an appeal right creating a similar sort of hearing again on the facts for another 6 months. That is a waste of everyone’s time and money. The appeal might reach a slightly different answer but I do not think it would normally be a better answer. So in respect of applications that have been called in and put through this special process appeals are limited to matters of law rather than re-litigation of the facts. 
The select committee heard about problems with the complexity of layers of plans where some councils have not finished their planning documents. The plans are the planning laws for the district. Some areas have old transitional plans—which were old town and country plans—proposed plans under the Resource Management Act proposed variations and proposed variations to proposed variations none of which have been finished. That creates layers of complexity and means that more applications have to be dealt with as non-complying activities. Even the most expert people have trouble knowing what is allowed and what is not allowed. As a consequence the select committee has recommended that plans and variations at the council stage of proceedings should be completed within 2 years of the date of their notification. That recommendation came from the select committee and it is a good one. I thank the select committee members for their hard work on this bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very serious point of order about parliamentary process in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 389 which has been tabled by the Government today. It is a 36-page Supplementary Order Paper. I have counted up the number of clauses it changes—it changes 132 clauses of the bill. It is a very significant Supplementary Order Paper. On the back page the Supplementary Order Paper states: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill …” and includes this sentence: “It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” That is all it states—“to give effect to new policy.” If we read the Standing Orders—and I notably want to introduce members’ attention to Standing Order 256—we see that an explanatory note must state the policy that the bill seeks to achieve. Well for the explanatory note simply to state that the Supplementary Order Paper is to give effect to new policy— 
Jill Pettis 
: Is this a speech? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is a very important point of order. I know that Jill Pettis— 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. I am well aware and so are members that there are to be no interjections at all during a point of order. The member will stand and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the Government is not interested in democracy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Come to the point of order please Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point of order is that all the explanatory note states about the 36 pages of changes to this bill is: “It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” That cannot in any way be deemed to comply with the requirement that an explanatory note state the policy it seeks to achieve. The reason why this is such a serious matter Mr Assistant Speaker and why I ask you to give a considered ruling—and I am drawing it to your attention at the earliest possible moment—is that this Supplementary Order Paper was tabled only today. It is intended to be the law of the land by tonight. For MPs to be able to debate it intelligently when there have been policy changes—and quite clearly there have because the Supplementary Order Paper states that it will give effect to new policy—there must actually be in the explanatory note as is a requirement of the Standing Orders something about what that new policy is. I ask you Mr Assistant Speaker to make a ruling that this explanatory note does not comply with the Standing Orders and to urgently seek the Government and the Minister to provide an explanatory note that does comply with the rules of this House and treats democracy with a bit of respect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for your deliberation and consideration Dr Smith. Standing Order 256 relates to the explanatory note of a bill. It does not apply to a Supplementary Order Paper which does not have to have an explanatory note at all. There is nothing to prevent a Supplementary Order Paper from being circulated during the second reading debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes I do note that Standing Order 256 relates to the explanatory note of a bill. But are you giving a ruling that an explanatory note of a Supplementary Order Paper does not have to comply with that Standing Order? Quite clearly a Supplementary Order Paper is about a change to a bill—it introduces new policy. This Supplementary Order Paper is quite direct in saying that there is new policy; it just does not tell us what it is. Are you really giving a ruling that an explanatory note on a Supplementary Order Paper does not have to comply with the requirement in Standing Order 256 with regard to explanatory notes? This is a change to a bill. I do not expect you to make a ruling straight away. It is a very important point. If we are going to have an explanatory note that simply states: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee. It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” and if that is going to be accepted by this Parliament as an explanatory note then the whole purpose of having explanatory notes is thrown to the wall. That explanatory note could be used in every single bill or Supplementary Order Paper introduced by a Government without giving anybody any idea of what the Government intends by the policy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you again Dr Smith for that consideration. The Speaker himself or herself cannot decide on the adequacy of a Supplementary Order Paper’s explanatory note. There does not have to be a note at all. It is a matter for criticism in debate and I am sure that the member will take every opportunity to raise that matter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It concerns the last point you made. The Standing Order is very clear. It does not say “may” and I am not asking the Speaker or the Clerk’s Office to make a determination as to whether it is a proper interpretation. What it states is: “must have an explanatory note that states the policy …”. That is what the Standing Order states. How can an explanatory note that simply states: “to give effect to new policy” possibly comply with a requirement that it state the policy? Where in that explanatory note is the statement of the policy? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to Dr Smith that the Standing Order does not apply to a Supplementary Order Paper and there is nothing to prevent a Supplementary Order Paper from being circulated during the second reading debate. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the point you make drawing a distinction between a bill and a Supplementary Order Paper and the requirement for explanatory notes. We would not dispute that case. But Dr Nick Smith raises an interesting point. The Standing Order you refer to with respect to amendments by way of Supplementary Order Paper—Standing Order 299—states: “Any member intending to move an amendment to a bill may lodge a written copy of the amendment …” and then goes on without stating any requirement for an explanatory note. The interesting thing about that is that the explanatory note in this case indicates that the drafting is to give effect to new policy which I submit is quite different to an amendment to an existing bill. That is the important distinction. When Standing Order 299 refers to Supplementary Order Papers it makes clear that it is talking about an amendment to an existing bill—that is the first instance. But the explanatory note to this Supplementary Order Paper indicates that new policy is being introduced. That is quite a different matter and a matter to which Dr Nick Smith has drawn your attention in a pretty acute way. I ask for your views on that matter. The two cases are quite distinct. I accept the point that a Supplementary Order Paper does not have to contain an explanatory note and that that is a matter for debate. But when a Supplementary Order Paper itself states that it contains new policy that makes it different from just an amendment to a bill as in the explanation with respect to Supplementary Order Papers contained in Standing Order 299. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker your first ruling was quite right. The other point that the last honourable member spoke about is dealt with under the question of whether the amendment is within the scope of the bill. As long as an amendment is within the scope of the bill it can be included within a Supplementary Order Paper without an explanatory note. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for your contribution Mr Parker. The test for admissibility of an amendment is whether it is relevant; not whether it is new policy. It will be for the Chairperson to rule on whether these amendments are relevant when the House gets to the Committee stage of the legislation. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Briefly—I have ruled. 
SIMON POWER 
: I accept that. But it raises another interesting question. How are we to know whether an amendment is relevant if it is not contained in an explanatory note on the reverse of the Supplementary Order Paper? That is the very question we are asking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That will be a matter for the Chairperson Mr Power but thank you for drawing it to my attention. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I thank my colleague Jim Peters for allowing me to speak earlier as I have to be somewhere else at 12. When the Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc. business associations local authorities and the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand all turn up at a select committee and say the same thing—that the Government has got major parts of this bill seriously wrong—and give the same reasons then we know there must be something in it. That in fact did happen in this case at the Local Government and Environment Committee. There was widespread agreement among the submitters that the draconian ministerial powers allowing the Minister to instruct councils to put certain things in their plans and the interference with the powers of the Environment Court to conduct a complete hearing were wrong unnecessary and damaging. 
David Parker 
: And were changed. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: And they were changed. A lot of the changes in the bill as introduced were mindless tinkering with the Resource Management Act. It was as though the Minister had said to officials: “We’re getting a lot of flak about the Resource Management Act. Go and fix it will you?” the officials had asked: “Minister what exactly do you want us to fix?” and the Minister had replied: “Basically don’t totally damage the environment and do away with public rights but just fix it so that we don’t get all these complaints about it.” 
So the officials came up with things as mindless as mandatory mediation. Mediation is a process that works if one has goodwill and cooperation on both sides and achieves absolutely nothing if one does not. How on earth does one make mediation work if somebody is there under duress? So we got rid of that one. The officials came up with mindless tinkering like taking away the requirement for plans to include objectives because it would make plans shorter by about a paragraph—or maybe up to a page. Yet if plans do not include objectives how does one measure whether the rules and policies in the plans achieve what they are there for? That had huge consequences right through the bill and the committee has put mandatory objectives back into plans. There was tinkering with the role of the Environment Court trying to shorten court processes but thereby making council processes much longer more laborious and more difficult for the public to participate in. That was clearly not going to work and that has been fixed as well. 
I am proud to have chaired the select committee that has substantially rewritten considerable parts of this bill—with I have to say a lot of cooperation and good sense around the table. Even though many of us had different views about where the Resource Management Act should be heading we nevertheless had a high degree of cooperation about using this amendment to make things work as well as we could. We have restored the powers of the Environment Court to hear all the evidence before it and consider that evidence properly. As I said we have left objectives in plans. We have got rid of the bizarre requirement for regional councils to promote infrastructure. Regional councils are there to manage effects on water air and soil—to manage effects on the environment of the region and planning across the region. Giving them the job of promoting power lines and motorways was clearly in conflict with their purpose. 
We have got rid of the requirement for regional councils to remediate contaminated sites which they could have done only by putting the full cost on the landowner because at present there is still no legal defence for innocent landowners who have taken over a piece of land with no way at all of knowing that it has been contaminated by a previous owner and the State still takes no responsibility for contamination that it has caused on land that it has managed or contamination that it has required through the requirement to use certain chemicals with long-lived effects. That matter still needs to be addressed. We still need law on the innocent landowner defence. We still need the State to step up to its responsibilities in terms of contaminated sites. But at least we have prevented this bill from obliging regional councils to clobber landowners at present. We have at least provided for an appeal against the draconian strike-out procedures whereby a council may decide that evidence is not relevant and refuse to hear it. We know that in many cases councils will use that power with extreme care but that in some cases the Environment Court has found that councils were far too close to developers and could well have used such a power wrongly against members of the community who wanted to be heard. 
 After hearing many many submissions from Maori that kaitiakitanga lies often not with iwi authorities but with hapu in particular cases we have provided a role for hapu. We have recognised hapu in some circumstances as the people who should be consulted on plans and who should be on the register that councils will hold of the Maori organisations they should deal with on resource issues in their community. 
We have constrained the ministerial powers quite considerably. There are now criteria against which ministerial decisions are reviewable and Ministers will not be able to give just any old instruction to councils and plans. But this bill is still an attempt to centralise decision making; to put the national interest as perceived by the Government of the day ahead of the local interest as perceived by the people; to skew the Resource Management Act towards development rather than towards environmental protection; to provide an easy track for big infrastructure projects like pylons prisons motorways and power stations which will have preference over the ordinary person’s resource consent; and to make life harder for community groups that are trying with very little in the way of resources or help to protect their local environment against big damaging projects. 
Much of that agenda remains in the bill despite the improvements that the select committee has made and the Greens therefore do not support the bill. In particular we are concerned about the new process for setting national policy statements. Rather than a board of inquiry and a broad public debate leading to a robust national policy statement with cross-party and cross-society support that will be enduring to guide plans and policy statements we will have a quick and dirty national policy statement written by a Government official with no public inquiry no hearings a submission process—which the official may or may not read—and then it will be law. It will be binding on all plans and councils will gradually have to change their plans to comply. By the time they have done that there will be another Government in power which will use the same quick and dirty process to overturn the national policy statement. We will get this policy see-saw every 3 years which is not good for planning or for resource management. 
We know that national environmental standards are now being drafted in conjunction with the officials by the industries that are being regulated by those standards. This bill makes the default position that those standards will be absolute and that councils will have to allow the degradation of their environment down to that minimum standard. So if people have really high-quality water in the rivers in their area because they have been fortunate in the past and have not had a lot of polluting industry they will not be able to set a standard to keep those waters to that high quality. They will have to allow them to be degraded down to the national standard which of course will be set down to standards that rivers like the Ngakawau which is full of coal tailings and the Otara Creek in Auckland can potentially meet. 
The call-in provisions have been changed so that the biggest and most controversial projects called in by the Minister will unlike all others not have to go through two hearings. They will have to go through only one. So there will be two hearings for someone’s veranda application but one hearing for the giant motorway or pylon process. At least the select committee insisted that that one hearing must be chaired by an Environment Court judge. That is an improvement. 
The benefits which were unanimously agreed cannot compensate for these serious damages to the Act. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In 2002 New Zealand First claimed that the time was appropriate to thoroughly review the Resource Management Act. The backdrop to that of course was the work done in 1998-99 in the bill that is before the House. That review was not done. Our view then as it is now was that it was an appropriate time to see whether Part II of the principal Act “Purpose and Principles” was still valid and whether the 1980s thinking embodied in the Geoffrey Palmer concepts was still appropriate. Today we remain firmly of the opinion that sustainable management with its attendant goals and values ought to have been reviewed. Sustainable development now enshrined in the masthead of the  
New Zealand Environment 
 magazine needs to be aspired to. 
There is growing scientific understanding of the environmental costs and risks associated with the use of our resources. We understand much better the inherent tension in the impact of the ethical and value judgments in the Act and how they may not or do not accord with the property owners’ values and their right to develop and use natural and physical resources. We see and have seen the Resource Management Act as an enabling Act. My experience of the Act is that it has largely been so. It is an Act that allows New Zealanders to strive and thereby thrive. But others unfortunately see it too often as a limiting and restraining factor and look to avoid and mitigate rather than to use the express intention of the Act. 
When we looked at the legislation before us in 2004 we looked at the fact that it does need to have defined and clarified processes but obstacles and frustrations have become part of those processes and we need to ensure all affected parties have unhindered access to the consent process. That was the basis on which New Zealand First went into discussions last year. New Zealand First members were on the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
The committee did well in its work in picking up a bill from the Associate Minister for the Environment that was ill formed and lacked clear direction in regard to what the Minister intended and throughout that time including the hearing of submissions the committee worked really hard. I pay tribute to the chairperson of the committee who has just spoken for her work and her ability to resolve some of the inherent difficulties that the committee saw in the bill as introduced. 
Therefore it is with considerable alarm that we see today a 35-page Supplementary Order Paper. I thought that for the first time the Government had got it right unlike the earlier bills we had discussed such as the Local Government Bill 2002 which passed through the House without anyone outside the House having a chance to consider them. I thought that the month between the committee’s final examination and deliberation ought to have been the time to have come back to the House to see whether the Government had had a change of mind. Four weeks and some days later on the very last day of the session we are asked to consider the impact on the bill of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The very slim explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states that it “refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee.” really begs the question of why the select committee was not part of that process. Why was it not the considered opinion of all parties in this House trying to develop a sounder bill than what was given to us? The explanatory note finishes: “It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” It really is something of a disgrace that a Government in its dying last days is endeavouring to persuade the country and the House that that is reasonable and fair practice. It is not and New Zealand First protests against the Minister’s intention. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill after hearing numerous submissions and made a number of amendments and changes to the bill. A former member of this House the honourable Rob Storey made an interesting comment. He told us in Hamilton that he sat for 4 years on the committee that gave birth to this legislation. He conceded that the bill was not perfect and that amendments would be needed as faults would develop but in his mind this bill as introduced gave him great cause for concern. 
 Despite the excellent work done by the select committee New Zealand First is of the same mind today as when the bill first came to the House. 
The select committee examined the broad sweep of ministerial powers—some new. It looked at the development of national environmental standards. The restatement of regional and district plans and policy statements were all examined. It gave extensive thought to local authority hearing processes for plans and resource consents and how these could be speeded up and in the course of that gave more flexibility to pre-hearing meetings which have always been available under the Act but have not been used as they could have been. The committee heard the concerns of applicants and councils regarding the requests for further information provision. That is a real issue for them. The provision was redefined and now gives new powers to hearing panels and provides for accredited commissioners. In other words the bill gives some foretaste of the known wish of district and regional bodies to have a higher level of skill in regard to hearings and indeed the whole resource management process. In particular we heard interesting comments from the Environment Court and they were taken into account in the considered mind of the committee. 
New Zealand First is still concerned about ministerial call-in of applications. Under the previous regime the Hon Simon Upton did it once. The insertion of another option as a major feature of this bill introduces some uncertainty as to the Government’s real intentions in the future—should the people of this country be so unwise as to put them back in office. The new provision was somewhat defined by the committee in regard to a potential board of inquiry. We spent some time ensuring that the skill knowledge and expertise needed must be part of a defined rationale from the Minister. 
When I look back at the policy that the New Zealand First caucus looked at last year seeking a faster speedier fairer process I wonder why I would not support this bill. In developing our policy we were conscious of the immense amount of work done by councils in formulating and formatting the present state of planning. We were conscious of the millions and millions of dollars of ratepayers’ money and others spent to put together plans. More important we were conscious of the number of local people who throughout the course of that planning period of the past 11 to 12 years had been a core and essential part of district and regional plans. Alongside that of course we have the definitive and abundant almost too many judgments and decisions handed down by various courts of the land about many aspects of planning and consents. 
So against that backdrop New Zealand First measured its response to this bill. We contend very strongly that despite the excellent work done by the select committee the final impact of this bill is just a modern version of the “command and control” approach to environmental decision-making. Territorial and regional authorities will be forced to accept overriding statements from central government either in national policy statements or in environmental standards and not in accordance with the matters that the Labour Party has talked so much about in the past with regard to consultation but imposed directed mandatory statements from on high. 
That is not in keeping with the whole history of this bill and the Act. It is not in keeping with the whole history of participation within the democratic process and an approach to public law that have been the hallmarks. Was there a need for change and has that change been properly expressed? The answer is partially. Are the people out there such as farmers community groups local authorities industry lawyers and the community who wanted change satisfied? Yes but this is not the change sought. 
New Zealand First strongly believes that in 2005 this bill should be primarily concerned with promoting the sustainable development of our resources which is about understanding people’s needs and the capacity of this country to further use and better use our natural and physical resources. New Zealand First as part of an incoming Government or with ability to be part of a Government’s future programme will later this year move to further review the Resource Management Act to better effect and fit the common good. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The member who just resumed his seat made a very profound statement. He described the Resource Management Act and this amendment as part of a control and command philosophy. He has identified the exact problem that underpins the Resource Management Act. It is really the icon of the socialist legislative tool kit. This is the biggest instrument for control and command. It is the abuse of the Resource Management Act that has caused so many problems to our country. The ACT party is opposing this amendment. It is almost a bit of déjà vu—here we go again! We have been fiddling with it since it was enacted by the National Government way back in 1991— 
Dail Jones 
: Who? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The National Government implemented the Resource Management Act. But all the philosophical thinking was done by the earlier Labour Government and that gives it no credit. But the point is this. It is a bit like communism—like those apologists for communism who say: “There is nothing wrong with communism it is wonderful it is just that we have not implemented it properly yet.” It is exactly the same with the Resource Management Act. Is it not time after how many years—15 years—we decided that there is something fundamentally wrong in principle? All the tinkering and amendments in the world are not going to make this little puppy work because it is fundamentally flawed. 
The socialists love it. They love it because they can keep more control and more power. It underpins the expanding bureaucracies that we see in local government and all this endless process. It is all about process—endless consultation rather than outcome for the country’s well-being. 
Having said that some aspects of the bill—some of these tinkerings—are improvements and I would like to refer to some of those. Most of them were done by the Local Government and Environment Committee not by the bill as introduced by the socialists over there. I would classify in the improvements the dropping of the provision that an appeal to the Environment Court could not be a de novo hearing. Because it became very clear that if one does that one has to front up at the local council with a lawyer at all those cases because there is not another chance. So one would actually have to further the process and the costs in a lot of routine cases. 
Someone made the point that only one in 10 cases actually goes to the Environment Court. But if one said that it could only be a de novo hearing then one could not afford to take the risk and all applicants applying for resource consent would actually have to stump up to the council with their lawyers and all the costs associated with that. 
The other point made in evidence to the select committee and made by the judiciary themselves was that often in the time before a hearing—and hearing an appeal can take 1 or 2 years perish the thought—new information and new technologies come to hand and one would of course have precluded the consideration of new technologies if that law as proposed by the Labour Government when it introduced the bill had been carried through. 
The other aspect the ACT party supports is the dropping of the legal phrases. We had this wonderful “urban form” and “rohe”. They were going to become legal terms just as in a previous amendment which the Labour Party promoted we had “cultural landscape”. Does anyone know what a cultural landscape might be? But that is what the Labour Government earlier tried to import into the Resource Management Act. 
We do support the direct referral to the Environment Court because that can facilitate the process. There are some projects—usually bigger projects—that are clearly going to go directly to the Environment Court so why carry out the charade of preliminary council hearings? It is far better for all the parties to prepare thoroughly and go straight to the Environment Court because one knows that it will be there in any event at the end of the day. ACT and National have both defended and promoted that and of course Labour tried to sort of make capital mileage out of it but totally without success. 
The real problem with this bill and why the ACT party will be voting against it is its failure to actually address the fundamental problems that the Resource Management Act has delivered to us. It was meant to be for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. It was meant to be part of deregulation. It was meant to be a one-stop shop. It was meant to be effects-based not prescriptive rules. What has really happened is that it got captured during its gestation period and during the intervening 12 years by three interest groups: Maori greens and planners and bureaucrats. I will go through those three. 
There are definitely Maori issues that need addressing in this country but what happened was that the gestation of the Resource Management Act coincided with the renaissance in Maori claims and sovereignty and the Act has been ruthlessly used as an instrument inappropriately. It is meant to be about the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. It is a totally inappropriate tool with which to try to determine metaphysical and spiritual concepts. Yet we have imported all that language. We have even provided for taniwha in the Resource Management Act and all sorts of nebulous concepts that weigh it down. That is not to say that those matters do not need to be considered but they certainly should not be considered in the Resource Management Act. It tries to do too much and it defeats itself in doing that. 
The other aspect is that it was captured by the green movement during its gestation and development and now it lacks balance. It was meant to be for sustainable development and that language was cut out and it became “sustainable management” but it was meant to be development-focused legislation. It was meant to be part of deregulating the economy—an enabling Act. But instead it has become bogged down used as a tool and of course the Department of Conservation is the biggest user of the Resource Management Act to impose its will and strip people of their property rights. 
The third category that has captured the Act is the planners and bureaucrats. The Act was meant to be a simplification. It was not meant to be rules-based; it was meant to be effects-based. But if we go to the Resource Management Act or to any district plan we see that the planners hated the thought of anyone taking away their rule book because that is their power-base. So at every turn the bureaucrats and the planners have managed to capture the councillors. Some councillors have gone along willingly and turned the Act into a heavy coded rule-based law rather than letting it be effects-based law which was the basic philosophical starting point. It has been totally lost on the way to the forum and that indeed has meant that the Resource Management Act has become a very destructive instrument in the New Zealand economy. 
But perhaps the biggest criticism is the lack of recognition of property rights and this amendment bill does nothing to address that problem. In a modern market-based economy that is based on tradable property rights in a global environment if we do not recognise and provide for property rights in our basic management and allocation of resources then we have a problem. Property rights are not mentioned in this legislation and that is because it is the tool in the socialist kit bag and it is used to strip away property rights at every turn. 
Anyone can look at a hillside and say: “Oh that crop of trees is nice. I’m going to go to the council and we’ll have it designated as a protected natural area and have it designated in the district plan.” and a compliant council lobbied by the greens would do it. But that hillside happens to belong to someone. It is someone’s property right. If the public at large is saying that it wants that protected for the public good then they should stump up and pay compensation. That is the test of whether it is really in the public interest. The test is whether the public is prepared to pay compensation for the taking of a property right. But no the Resource Management Act at every level restricts property rights strips away property rights and takes from people the right to do things on their land that they would otherwise be able to do. 
In conclusion I say that this bill does not make any amendments. It is just more tinkering. It totally fails to make the amendments that are required. When I say “amendments” I mean we have to gut the Act and go right back to first principles because the Act is based on shaky ground. Its foundations are so unstable. We do not even have a definition for “sustainable”. We have had 15 years of the courts trying to define this wonderful concept that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy inside but the legal profession and the courts cannot get an agreement and an understanding of what it means. If we cannot understand the basic meaning of the basic premise of the legislation then what value does it have? 
What we really have here is another lost opportunity to address the Resource Management Act and sort out the problems. I fear that the problems confronting the country and affecting the prosperity and wealth of New Zealand citizens will remain in check because the problems with the Act have not been addressed adequately. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of United Future in the second reading debate of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill as often seems to be the case on bills I have had the pleasure of working on during the last 3 years is not the same bill that was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee earlier this year. It has undergone considerable change and one of the good parts of the parliamentary process is the fact that we are able to listen to submissions and make amendments that respond to input from the public. 
I put on record my thanks to the officials for their hard work and assistance over the gruelling submission process. We had to work to a very tight time frame and the officials were very helpful through that process and through the consideration and deliberation phase. I also thank the committee’s advisers for their assistance and advice. Over the past year we have had a lot of discussions with the Government and in particular the Associate Minister for the Environment and officials from the Ministry for the Environment on how we could work to make the Resource Management Act more effective and more efficient. We concluded that it was the process provisions in the Act that this next reform bill needed to focus on rather than amendments to Part II in the bill—the major foundation of the principal Act itself. That is still our view—that we do not need to touch those provisions but that we need to work on making the Act work more efficiently and work on the local council processes and on their handling of this Act. 
It is true that some of the proposals contained in the original bill were soundly rejected by a broad cross-section of the community that presented submissions to the committee. It is to the Minister’s credit supported by Cabinet and the officials of the Ministry for the Environment that these concerns were listened to and responded to. I think that part of the process of amending legislation—the select committee process—is the strength of our parliamentary democracy. 
I also want to thank the committee clerks who worked so long and hard to serve us and the people of New Zealand in the work surrounding submissions to the select committee and the drafting of our reports. Thanks also go to the staff from the Parliamentary Counsel Office who draft and redraft our suggested changes. As I said some major parts of this bill were rejected by a broad cross-section of the community that presented submissions to the committee particularly the plans to shift away from de novo hearing processes in the Environment Court but that does not mean that this bill does not still contain many useful amendments that have been welcomed supported and endorsed by many. The suggestion from the Green Party that this bill is just a little bit of tinkering is far short of the mark. The amendments in this bill once adopted will result in more workable proposals and more workable implementation of the Resource Management Act across the nation. 
To our surprise a very interesting by-product came from this process. I once suggested to the committee that it might have even been a clever plan of the Government to have engineered it this way but I have since discarded that possibility. It was that we had representatives from the business community the development community and sector local government and environmental groups all coming to the committee to assure us that the operation of the Resource Management Act was not as bad as some were continuing to make out and that in fact the Environment Court in particular was now operating on a much more efficient and timely basis. They begged us really not to make too many radical changes to the Resource Management Act because they believe that the amendments passed in the past 3 years and the efficiencies gained in the Environment Court were making major changes and major improvements to the way the Act was operating. 
Certainly much of the credit for that must go to Judge Bollard and I thank him for the time he gave to the committee and for the insight we gained from his advice and his comments. The planning system the management file case tracking system which he has implemented has made huge improvements to the operation of the Environment Court so much so that many of the submitters said that it had taken only 6 months for them to have their appeals go through the Environment Court and that is making everything work much better. 
Based on all the feedback we received I think it is a little out of date to be blaming the Resource Management Act for all the problems in the country and to be calling for a major overhaul. In my opinion that is no longer the way forward. We hear the speech from Ken Shirley and the ACT party frequently but never do we find any real policy from the ACT party on what it would do if it did abolish the Resource Management Act or on what it would replace it with. 
I note that National is intending some further changes in its election policies and I think that some of those changes would have United Future’s support. Certainly three of National’s proposed changes are already accomplished in this bill—namely enabling resource consent applicants to refuse further information requests from councils and to have their consent accepted or rejected on the information provided. In fact it was Nick Smith who helped us find the way forward with this and I thank him for that so that in practice it did not become a back-door way for applicants to bypass the local authority processes and go direct to the Environment Court—something all the committee wanted to avoid. 
The bill also expands the capacity of councils to reject vexatious and frivolous objectors. That is another part of National’s policy though we may find that that new capacity is very seldom used. The new power although given to the councils may not be useful on many occasions because the amendments we have had to make in order to safeguard any abuse of that power make it almost potentially more of a risk to ever strike out a submission that is frivolous or vexatious. In many cases it is simply better to let it sit there and be ignored. Then there is the direct referral to the Environment Court which is something else National is calling for and something certainly that United Future has been urging the Government to consider since our time here in this Parliament. In 2002 we began to call on it to do this and we are very pleased to see that although it is in a slightly different form than we first envisaged and certainly slightly different from what National is proposing it is adopted in this legislation and is given to the Minister as one of the very useful tools he or she may have when exercising his or her powers under the call-in provisions of the Resource Management Act. With those proposals addressed from National’s own policies one can only hope for its support for the bill as we proceed through all stages of the passage of this amendment into law this week hopefully today. 
In United Future we acknowledge that there are some changes that we have been unable to convince the Government to make as yet. One of those would have been the reintroduction of the ability of the Environment Court to require security for costs which we always felt should not have been taken from the court but we are pleased with the progress we have been able to achieve in the last 3 years which culminates in this bill before the House this week. It is United Future’s intention to ensure that future Governments conduct a biannual review of the Resource Management Act to ensure that ongoing improvements are achieved for all concerned. Legislation such as the Resource Management Act will always be somewhat of a work in progress and will need ongoing monitoring and improvement so that we can make it work as best as possible. 
In this bill we have deleted the words “national interest” mentioned in it. United Future was keen to see that go because the concept of national interest is not defined and many submitters considered its use ambiguous and we agreed with them. Also there was a need to make much clearer what the new ministerial powers were because many submitters thought they would be Godlike powers and we were pleased to see that corrected. We understand though that the Minister needs adequate tools to monitor the performance of local authorities particularly our regional councils for they are the first level of Government that are supposed to be our environmental watchdogs. The Minister must be able to give them advice and ask them to do certain things and that is what has been accomplished by the amendments. 
United Future was very happy to see the deletion of “urban form”—something that we lobbied for—and we are happy to have the Minister agree to that because it was introducing new terms that were not easily understood and not necessary. Councils already have sufficient tools to be able to address issues of urban form. In fact many are beginning to do so. In that regard I of course refer to the excellent work done by Smart Growth in the Bay of Plenty. It has not needed this new amendment in order to proceed with its proposals. 
United Future will be supporting this second reading and we look forward to further debate through the Committee stage and the passage of the bill later in the day. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I shall take a very short call to support this bill. I had the opportunity and privilege to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee that heard the many many submissions and we had the opportunity to travel around the country to listen to many and varied submitters. This bill is a good bill. It shows that this competent Government is providing strong sound leadership and effective services. This bill amends the Resource Management Act 1991 to improve the quality of decisions and processes by creating certainty and reducing costs and delays while not compromising environmental outcomes nor sacrificing public participation. We do not apologise for making the Resource Management Act work better. The Act can and should be made to work better for all New Zealanders. We have identified a series of issues and have come up with timely sensible and well-thought-out solutions. We are committed to protecting and preserving the unique aspects of New Zealand’s natural environment. That means striking the right balance between our desire for a clean healthy environment and our expectations of growth and opportunity. I support this bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I was as aggrieved as Nick Smith and the majority of members in this House to see Supplementary Order Paper 389 come forward today in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope without any forewarning from the Government not just to us as members of Parliament but of course to the general public whom we are supposed to represent. In it we see 132 clauses that cannot be considered by this House in any depth or by the public and we are appalled at that. Of course it is not the only supplementary order paper brought into this House—rushed in under urgency—this morning. There is also Supplementary Order Paper 388 again in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. I remind members in this House and the public who are listening intently to this debate that the commentary on the bill states—and should members who know what the bill actually does do buckle over in laughter when I read this out we will forgive them—“The bill seeks to improve the operation of the Resource Management Act by addressing problems with delays costs inconsistencies uncertainty and a lack of national leadership regarding the Act’s processes and in decision making. The bill seeks to address these concerns.” A footnote from the National Party is that the bill fails to do that. It fails to address the problems with delays and costs as it states in the commentary or with inconsistencies uncertainty and the lack of Labour Government leadership regarding the Act’s processes and decision making. 
I was appalled at the temporary member for Otago’s reference to energy issues throughout this country when he spoke some 30 minutes ago. The member for Otago who is a temporary member must have his head in the sand. I know that he is diverted by the fact that John Carter and the National Party candidate for Otago are out there door-knocking today in Otago in Queenstown and around there collecting votes—he will be diverted by that. The reality is that his statement that energy generation projects—those begun in the last few years—have improved under the Labour Government is absolute rubbish. All of New Zealand knows there has been a raft of energy generation projects and transmission projects put on the back burner with no decision pending throughout this country over the last few years. Companies such as Meridian Energy Genesis Power and Contact Energy have all put proposals on the table. They have all stumped up with the cash set out their ideas for where they would generate electricity and asked to be shown where they need to make changes. But there has been no certainty for them and there has been no certainty for the public. 
I will give just four examples. Project Aqua in the South Island was a proposal for hydroelectricity generation. There was no certainty on that proposal for the farmers the public and the generation company down in the South Island for many many months because of the elongated and bureaucratic processes of the Resource Management Act. There was the wind generation project in south Auckland which apparently was going to scare a whole lot of horses. Under the Act and this Government for months and months there was no certainty for the public the energy generation company and the horses in south Auckland in respect of that wind generation project and of course it has not commenced. In the electorate that I represent there was a proposal to put in a coal-fired power station at Marsden Point. The good people living at Marsden Point and Whangarei Heads and the energy company Mighty River Power have had no certainty at all of that project going forward because of the elongated and uncertain processes under the Act—absolutely no certainty whatsoever. 
Of course there is also the issue of the transmission lines into Auckland. For the landowners affected this Government has kicked the issue for touch by passing it on to the Electricity Commission which will not make a decision until next June. There is uncertainty for those landowners for Transpower for 1 million Aucklanders who when they get up in the morning like to have a hot shower for the dairy farmers who when they get up in the morning would like to think that the milking machines will work and for all the businesses in downtown Auckland that want to open up their tills. There is no certainty for them for landowners in the north Waikato and south Auckland area and for Transpower. Those are four examples under this Government of electricity industry projects being put on the table with the proposal and the cash but of there being no certainty for those affected or for the generating companies either. So it is a joke that the temporary member for Otago says that things have been going smoothly under this Labour Government when it comes to the Act. 
The National Party is absolutely delighted that it was able to make some major changes and gut the bill that came into the House originally. Originally the bill was tied up in bureaucratic processes that gave people more and more opportunities to object irrespective of whether their objections were vexatious or genuine and we had some effect on pulling back that bureaucracy. But we believe that this bill still just tinkers with the Act. A major overhaul of the Act is required and this bill will not resolve the substantial concerns over costs delays and uncertainty. We need to fix the Act. It needs a major overhaul not tinkering. National has come out very clearly and said that in the first 3 months of taking over the Government offices we will table a serious Resource Management Act bill. In 9 months we will pass that bill having given 6 months’ opportunity to the public to have an effect on the bill that we table. We know that after 13 years most of the country understands the difficulties in the Act and what is required and we will introduce those changes. 
For example we will prevent vexatious and frivolous objectors by doing three things. One is that we will not fund them to be vexatious and frivolous. At the moment the environment fund pays objectors to go to court. There is no cost on them and they can stop projects from going through. The Labour Government funds people to do that. National will get rid of environmental legal aid for vexatious and frivolous objectors. Secondly we will hold them to account. We will allow the court where it has been proven that objectors have been frivolous and vexatious to award costs against them so that they will carry risk when they object to a proposal for no good reason. They will carry costs if it is proven that they have objected for no good reason. We will also introduce standing whereby only someone directly affected by a development proposal can be involved in the process. It is easy to work out who is directly affected. It is simply a test-case scenario whereby someone is affected to a greater degree than any normal citizen. If people are affected in that way they can involve themselves in the process. But if they are sitting in Invercargill and objecting to something in Kaitaia then that will not be allowed. 
This bill only tinkers. National will introduce a bill that seriously overhauls the Resource Management Act and I can hear the country clapping from inside this House. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I want to speak in support of the bill and in particular of Supplementary Order Paper 389. I do so having spent all morning in my office looking after the positive developmental concerns of my Napier constituency which is throbbing with progress as it strides in development. 
When I came into the House for my 30-second speech in support of this bill I picked up Supplementary Order Paper 389 and I cannot see what National members are complaining about. Perhaps because it is not in cartoon form they have trouble dealing with it. My eyes lit upon this phrase here which amends the definition clause for contaminated land. On the first page of the Supplementary Order Paper it states in relation to contaminated land: “if there is no applicable national environmental standard on contaminants”. Of course there is no applicable national environmental standard on contaminants because the National Party members are social anarchists. They are the apparatchiks of the commercial world who would have no applicable national environmental standards at all. That is why we need a Labour Government. There are no applicable national environmental standards in the National Party. We need this legislation to have some control over rampant commercialisation and policy directives from overseas as carried out by this terrible National Opposition which is fading into obscurity. 
I take this opportunity during my 30-second speech to welcome the election because there are no national environmental standards and this bill at least recognises that. I have not heard one member opposite refer to any national environmental standards. So we need a definition clause because of the absence of any national environmental standards. We need Supplementary Order Paper 389. This bill is a very good piece of legislation that I am glad we are passing under urgency because if it were up to those fellows over there they would still be sleeping until Christmas and they would not know an election had taken place. They lack any national standards and that is why this bill is such a good bill. 
Before I use my 30 seconds I have to say that the good people of Napier know there are no national standards at all. That is why it will be a Labour seat for many years to come. They know the fraud that has been perpetuated by these people who travel to Washington for policy. No that is not in the bill—I am talking about applicable national environmental standards and if we had one from the National members we could sit here and applaud them. But we sit here in desperation at the lack of policy and at all the bluff and all the social anarchy. This bill brings common sense to the Resource Management Act. I welcome it. I just wish I had 30 minutes to talk on it not 30 seconds because this is the most important piece of legislation that could come before this House today. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 What a splendid 30 seconds of nonsense. Just in case people have been listening on the radio to those comments they need to know that the last Labour Party speaker had 10 minutes’ speaking time and instead chose to rant for 30 seconds. It is not an original comment to make—that this is a Government characterised by flip-flops and foolishness. Nowhere is that more exemplified than in this legislation the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. It is small wonder therefore that National strongly opposes this legislation. 
We see another execrable trait of this Government in the late tabling today while this Parliament is in urgency of Supplementary Order Paper 389. Unsurprisingly it contains 35 pages of densely written turgid amendments. What has happened here of course is that as a matter of deliberate policy the Government has chosen to circumvent the select committee process. That process exists for the careful evaluation with public input of the provisions of a Government bill. What has the Government done? It has gone through a select committee process sure but then it has subverted that process by the amendments that come to Parliament today. That is wholly unsatisfactory lawmaking. That is stuff that any reasonable Government should be utterly ashamed of. That is why I say that this is a Government characterised by the flip-flops that are contained in this Supplementary Order Paper and by the flip-flops that have occurred in the select committee process as dramatic reversal decisions have been made. 
I just remind members that the history of town planning legislation in New Zealand is quite old. We had the first Town and Country Planning Act in 1926 we had another statute in 1953 another statute in 1977 and then of course the Resource Management Act came in 1991. If one looks at that legislation in its various historic forms it is to be seen that it has become steadily more and more complex. 
But that is only one aspect of the dynamic of complexity because sitting in behind the Resource Management Act and the subordinate legislation that comprises regulations and rules is a raft of other materials. I am referring to district scheme and district plan documents. I will take the case of the Auckland City Council as an example. There are literally volumes and volumes of material that seek to exemplify and explain the provisions of the Resource Management Act as they relate to the city of Auckland. It is an absolute disgrace that this legislation passed in 1991 with an obligation to provide operative district plans has seen an outcome where in many parts of the districts in New Zealand that work has not been completed. So local authorities and those who come to local authorities to seek planning consents are forced to grapple with a plan that is in the process of being made operative and the need to give effect to the current operative plan. 
National is committed to the substantial reform of the Resource Management Act because we believe that such reforms are critical to addressing New Zealand’s roading and electricity infrastructure crisis. They are also important in attracting investment in industries like forestry and reducing compliance costs for farms small business and homeowners. Surely the objective must be to reduce the costs the delays and the uncertainties of the Act while maintaining high environmental standards. 
That is not to say we do not support the underpinning principles of the Act. We do. We support the commitment to sustainability. We support an integrated approach to environment management. We support a focus on environmental effects. Our major concern is that the Act has become too complex and cumbersome. 
Let me give just one illustration. There are 15000 pages of district and regional plans. There are 50000 consents required each year and a 7-year average time is required for a council to process a plan change. Just by way of comparison in earlier legislation there were simple identified circumstances where consent was required. There were predominant uses conditional uses and uses neither predominant nor conditional that required a specified departure planning consent. That has now been made incredibly much more complicated by new classes of activity and by subtle wording of different tests for each class of activity. 
So what we want to do is to rebalance several key aspects of the Act. The Act is too idealistic about public consultation. People talk about consultation fatigue: the circumstance where so great is the consultation obligation that both the parties and those being consulted are simply worn out by a process that is itself incredibly time enduring and incredibly costly. We have the situation—and Mr Heatley has spoken about this—that because of the wide-ranging ability to object minority interests can impose huge costs or delays on communities. Dr Nick Smith who knows a substantial amount about this legislation will cite the illustration of how these days it takes longer to get the necessary planning consent to build the road than to actually build the road itself. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Rubbish! 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I hear Mr Benson-Pope whose ignorance of town planning legislation is manifest. He is a Minister who struggles with his portfolio in even its most simple aspects and he is groaning that what I am saying is incorrect. He is a man who should focus for the short period of time that remains in this Parliament on his portfolio responsibilities. He is a man who should seek to gain some greater insight as to why this legislation is not working. He should heed the public concern which is manifestly out there in connection with delays in connection with costs and in connection with the unsatisfactory nature of this legislation. 
I have said that the Act is too idealistic about public consultation. A second point is that it gives insufficient weighting to the rights of property owners about how their land is used. A simple illustration of this is that some councils have zones that impact on rural areas where substantial tracts of forest in private ownership are preserved in effect in a park-like setting for the benefit of the public at large. It should be no part of the plan that it is for private landowners to retain land effectively as a public reserve. 
Thirdly the Act is too devolved. It results in councils in every part of the country having to reinvent the wheel. Let me give an illustration of that. In the noise area with the number of local authorities in New Zealand there are separate noise standards for each local authority district. So as we traverse the country seeking to establish a particular activity we need to look at the specific noise standards in each particular district. Those standards are quite arbitrary and they should be constant. Another illustration is in the area of air quality controls where there is huge variation from regional council to regional council. 
Mr Heatley has said what our plan is which is to reform the Resource Management Act in two phases. The first phase involves process issues which have been extensively debated. As Mr Heatley has said the bill will be introduced within 3 months of the election and passed into law within 9 months. That drafting work is well advanced. The second phase of the reform will deal with the more complex issues of resource allocation and infrastructure provision. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support this Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a tricky area for Parliament to deal with in terms of the balance we have to strike between legitimate development and both the preservation of the conservation estate of New Zealand and the resources we have to manage and look after. I think that wherever that balance is struck there is always debate around its edges. 
But when we start talking about the Resource Management Act National goes into overdrive with its rhetoric. We have heard from Nick Smith that the Resource Management Act is stifling growth in New Zealand. That is of course despite the fact that New Zealand has a higher average growth rate than any other country in the OECD. But National members put all that to one side; facts can be a real nuisance in that regard to National. 
We have to make sure we get proper legislation that protects people’s rights to appeal and that protects the rights of local authorities to put in place responsible plans for managing their areas’ environmental assets but that also allows people to get their applications considered quickly and fairly and if they are approved on the basis of the standards agreed to allows that work to start. I think that what we have come to Parliament with today in the second reading of this bill is the latest attempt to get that balance right. 
But I say to the House that if we were to give in and agree to every concession National wanted in its pursuit to strip this country of environmental standards National would then argue that the Resource Management Act was too tight—even if we moved to that position. So wherever we strike the balance there is argument around it; that is the nature I think of resource planning. 
We have made enormous improvements in the Environment Court—in halving the time of cases there—and we have also been able to put in place a number of key changes so that local governments have the tools to be fair and consistent arbiters of consent applications. 
I think David Benson-Pope has done a great job of listening to the people who have to make this legislation work—that is our local government authorities across the country. Of course when there are 74 of those authorities there is some variance in the way the legislation is judged and that is why training is so important. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water in our rush to have the toughest rhetoric on the Resource Management Act. It will always be a difficult area in which to come up with the right balance but I think this bill does that. 
I heard Dr Worth mention the fact that National has a timeline for a reform of the Resource Management Act. I give that about as much credibility as the much-vaunted tax cuts we have been waiting for. We were told were we not several weeks ago that tax cuts were due to be announced? Then we were told we were playing games with the election date and as soon as that was out we would know the date of the tax cuts. Now we find out that the New Zealand public has to wait until almost 3 or 4 weeks before the election for National to put on record what its members say is so important. So I have no faith in what Dr Worth was saying about a Resource Management Act process. 
Finally I want to reiterate what my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope had to say—that although we have heard lots from National speakers about how outrageous the Resource Management Act is with all its appeal rights slowing down development what is the first piece of legislation National members all reach for whenever there is a development or idea they do not like? The Resource Management Act! 
Hon Paul Swain 
: And prisons. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Swain the Minister of Corrections mentions prisons. I am glad he has done that because I notice that Paul Hutchison the member for Waikato opposed the Spring Hill Corrections Facility. I notice that “brains trust” Phil Heatley railed against the Northland Regional Corrections Facility up in Whangarei. Bill English the former—soon to be next—leader of the National Party did not like a prison at Milton and wanted to use the Resource Management Act to oppose that and the theatrical member for Bay of Plenty Tony Ryall in doing one of his law and order routines said he wanted six to 10 more prisons everywhere with parole but as soon as one was going to be in his backyard he reached for the Resource Management Act to try to stop it. There are words for that. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What about the member for Nelson? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: We could not expect a consistent thing to come from Nick Smith. He likes to beat his chest and say how tough on crime he is but as soon as the authorities sniffed around Nelson for a prison site he rushed out for the appeal processes of the Resource Management Act he rushed out to embrace tikanga Maori and he rushed out to make sure there were strong provisions in the Act in order to give his local people in Nelson the appeal rights he felt they needed. So it really is all a bit much! 
And I have not even had time to mention Judith Collins who sort of runs the National Party independently from the second row and operates in splendid isolation much to the chagrin of all her colleagues as she sails forth. She wants to use the Resource Management Act and all its rights on the situation of the Transpower pylons. Apparently it is quite good to have the Resource Management Act processes for that. 
When National members are talking rhetoric they say they must shut down all that Maori “nonsense” and all those appeal rights and that the Resource Management Act is a terrible terrible thing until something turns up that happens to be a campaign area of theirs—that is prisons—and then they must have a tougher Resource Management Act. National is all at sea it is not ready for this general election and I think that that is the view the New Zealand electorate will take in 6 weeks and 3 days’ time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In a typical act of arrogance from this rotting decaying Government 45 pages of amendments have been tabled today and are intended to be passed into law today by a Labour Government that lectures us on public consultation under the Resource Management Act. I have heard some loopy suggestions from the Minister in the chair— 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to remind Parliament about the fiasco that is taking place this afternoon. The Government says that when it comes to resource management issues we have to consult to death. If a developer or a council wants to do something in their community the Ministry for the Environment tells us that on average it will take over 4 years to make a change in the rule. But today in Parliament we will pass 38 pages of law and 134 clauses that were tabled this morning. What sort of double standard do we have when the Labour Government says that if a little council wants to make a teeny-weeny change in the rule it has to consult to death but if this Minister wants to he can change the law today? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Like the Prime Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is lawmaking even faster than a prime ministerial motorcade. 
Darren Hughes 
: Or Don Brash. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can the perky member on the Government benches explain to me why it is that the Government insists on an extensive consultation process on public participation etc except when it comes through the Government? I ask the outgoing member for Otaki what public consultation there has been on the changes to the Resource Management Act in this 38-page Supplementary Order Paper. The silence is deafening. 
The problem with this Government and the reason it will be rejected by the electors of New Zealand is that it has an approach of “Do as we say not as we do.” The Government tells everybody else that they have to consult and that they have to involve public participation. [ 
Interruption 
] Now Rick Barker is poking in. Could he explain to me how it is fair to be passing laws that say that one has to consult extensively and involve the public but the Government can make 134 changes that will be introduced and passed into law today? 
I have never known such double standards. They are the same sorts of double standards that we get from the Minister in the chair Mr David Benson-Pope when he launches a programme to ensure there is no bullying in schools and then it is revealed that he has stuffed tennis balls into kids’ mouths. The number of examples by members opposite— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. That comment from the member is not acceptable. The member will please withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What comment? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows the comment he made about the Minister David Benson-Pope. He will withdraw it please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. The Minister in the chair is on the public record as having stuffed tennis balls into his pupils’ mouths while simultaneously launching a campaign to stop bullying in schools. Now that is as consistent— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take a point of order to assist the Committee. We will descend very rapidly into the very silly state that the member himself has objected to and has been very emotional about in this Parliament when personal attacks are made. He is now pursuing things that are not true and is misrepresenting what the Minister has said. I caution him that he is going too far. We should debate the bill—we are happy to do that—but this member in particular is the person who gets so upset when personal references are made. He is now leading the charge. I just offer that as a way forward. Let us debate the resource management legislation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to stop telling the truth about them if they stop telling lies about us. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. These matters have come up several times before and I would caution members about behaviour and personal reflections. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would just like an explanation from a Government member as to why the Government put out three press releases in the last week talking about the importance of public consultation and participation but then rolled up this morning with 38 pages of changes to the Resource Management Act about which there has been absolutely no public consultation or participation at all. It is a double standard and I say again that that sort of arrogance—to say one thing and do the opposite—is why this Government will be rejected by the electors of New Zealand in a few weeks’ time. 
I also want to come to some of the lunatic provisions in this bill. Ninety percent - plus of consents are dealt with on a non-notified basis. Somehow the Government thinks that the problem will be solved by making those notification decisions appealable to the Environment Court. If there is any way in which one wanted to add bureaucracy costs delays and uncertainty to the Resource Management Act it is by introducing that provision about which we unanimously heard in submission after submission that it was unwise. 
I would also like an explanation from the Minister in this respect. When this bill was introduced David Benson-Pope jumped up and said that the answer was to remove de novo hearings in the Environment Court. In fact in February I put out a statement challenging Mr David Benson-Pope about his claims that he would somehow resolve those problems by taking away de novo hearings in the Environment Court. In the Local Government and Environment Committee even the Environment Court Chief Judge said that the Minister had lost the plot that this was not going to work and that this was going to make things worse not better. So I have to challenge the Minister in the chair by asking him what has gone wrong. His own press release said that the most significant change in the bill was the removal of de novo hearings in the Environment Court. Why has it gone? Why has he put up the white flag? The truth is that the Minister has made another error and has got it wrong again. 
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment tabled in my name that would insert a new clause 5AB. This affects 50000 New Zealanders who are enthusiasts for the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland. My amendment is a very sensible proposition. It states that when a council—and I have heard so much from Labour members about how they want to empower councils—proposes a rule change it will be able to determine whether it shall take effect at that time as compared with existing provisions of the district plan. It sounds like quite a complex mechanism. It is about trusting councils. It means that the Western Springs Speedway will not close. Any member who votes against my amendment is effectively sounding a death knell for that speedway. This speedway has operated for 75 years. There is a petition of 50000-plus New Zealanders who want to see that speedway survive. 
The Auckland City Council which interestingly is dominated by the political left unanimously wants this amendment so that it can fix the problem of the speedway. But this is not just an amendment to fix the problem with that speedway. There are similar problems up and down New Zealand whereby councils know they have provisions in their district plan that are not working for communities and they want to make changes but it will take them years to do so. They do not have the option of banging the House into urgency bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper and passing it all on the same day. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Minister that they do not have that opportunity. This amendment enables them to fix those problems. It is about trusting councils and it is about a very sensible change. 
I have another amendment in my name. A very significant issue for New Zealand is the security of electricity supply and what happens with the waters of the Waitaki River. We know that the process that was set up by Marian Hobbs is an absolute botch. The Government’s own submission states that it will cost New Zealand 300 megawatts of electricity generating capacity. My amendment says what every single mayor in the South Island has sought—that there be a further round of consultation on the regional water plan for the Waitaki River. Every single mayor in the South Island has called for that amendment. 
 And I say that a further round of consultation would be required— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: And they have all changed their minds since. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well they have not actually. Marian Hobbs just keeps stuffing it up. That is why she got sacked; she is no longer in charge of the Resource Management Act. The job has been given to Mr Benson-Pope. The draft plan for the Waitaki River is a disaster for New Zealand. It will cost Jim Sutton his seat; he is a goner. It will probably cost David Parker his seat too. But what is really important is that it will create a crisis in New Zealand’s electricity supply. We need to do that job properly and I seek the support of every member of this Parliament who is concerned about maintaining security of electricity supply and sensible use of that magnificent resource the Waitaki River. I plead with them to support this amendment please so that we can fix the botch-up that Marian Hobbs has made—that her own Government says it has made—with the submission the Government made to the Waitaki Catchment Board. That further round of consultation is absolutely vital to getting it right and I seek the Committee’s support. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want again on behalf of New Zealand First to register our dismay at the fact that the Minister for the Environment has been so cavalier in the treatment of Parliament that this morning was the first time we had the opportunity to see the considerable number of matters raised on Supplementary Order Paper 389. It reminds me of a memoir of the last days of the Attlee Labour Government that tells of a newspaper correspondent who went to see Mr Herbert Morrison and found a half-smoked soggy cigar—the emblem of a dying ministry. The rush and haste evident in that Supplementary Order Paper indicate something of the same sort of feeling across there on the other side of the Chamber. 
I particularly want to ask the Minister in the chair why at this late stage there are so many references to the coastal marine area. Why was the coastal marine area not subject to the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee or is there some truth to the rumour that this Government has a desire to embark upon mining expeditions up and down the west coast all the way from Kaipara down into the Taranaki Bight? Is that the reason why there suddenly appears for the first time and for no sound reason at this late stage reference to the coastal marine area to the Minister of Conservation and to their place in the whole matter of resource consents and planning? One questions why the committee was not subject to the same thinking that seems to be indicated there. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s answer as to why there is that late reference in more than one provision to the coastal marine area. It certainly would not have anything to do with the foreshore and seabed legislation; if it did we would want to know exactly what that was. 
Secondly I want to make very brief mention of the fact that in my earlier second reading speech on behalf of New Zealand First I did not mention a key factor—that is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. Unlike other parties in this Parliament New Zealand First members have high regard for on matters of national importance Maori traditions and culture being exactly and expressly spelt out. But we believe that the Treaty of Waitangi provision which was put there in 1991 by National which was not the subject of the review by the group who looked at this matter in 1998 and 1999 and which now seems to be the subject of some concern does not belong. Because of that I want to register now our concern— 
Phil Heatley 
: That’s not what the member says on marae. 
JIM PETERS 
: I beg your pardon; we say here exactly what we say everywhere else. That is unlike others I tell Mr Heatley who have a background of including Treaty of Waitangi principles in over 25 Acts passed by the National Party in its time in Government and who now wish to completely repudiate in an instant—in a flash; before lunchtime—all of those sections. New Zealand First is a party that knows what Maori mean to this country that knows their place in the culture and history of New Zealand and that is prepared to give every ability for that to be expressed in the right and proper manner in the Act. But I want us to go through those provisions in Part 1 that we believe elevate particularly with regard to co-management a concept that this party has no truck with.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 People always know when there is a socialist administration in the last throes of its existence in this Parliament. They can always tell. Here we are in the eleventh hour on the last day of Parliament locked in a time warp still in Tuesday with a piece of legislation that is so out of touch with what needs to happen today it is unbelievable. The Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope who is only 5 minutes in the job has now come up with a Supplementary Order Paper of some 136 pages which was delivered to people this morning to have a look at—a Minister who has spent his whole political career both before he came into Parliament and since he has been in Parliament telling people how important it is to have a robust consultation process. 
I just ask the question: how could that happen? Listening before to the co-leader of the Green Party—the potential future coalition partner of any future Labour Government—I heard it all revealed. That member chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee in the first instance after the 1999 election and the red pen was put through all the recommended changes to the legislation that had been put forward after a thorough consultation process. That was Simon Upton’s bill and a red pen was put through all those recommended changes. Now here we are today with a bill and with a Supplementary Order Paper that is almost as big as the bill itself being recommended to make some minor amendments along the lines that Simon Upton recommended at that time. It is ad hoc; it is the wrong way to go about it; and it certainly will not work. It will not fix the problem. 
I say to the Minister that we all know that this has come about as a result of the circus that took place with Project Aqua in the South Island. We all know that the “muesli man” the new Mayor of Auckland has said to his favourite political party that what it is proposing will not work that it will add a whole layer of cost to the Resource Management Act and that it will not achieve what it is designed to achieve. We all know that power prices have gone up by 50 percent under this administration and that they are continuing to rise. We all know there is a crisis in the electricity industry because new generation capacity cannot proceed. We all know that—all of New Zealand knows that. We know that there is a huge crisis in roading right across New Zealand. We know that the small-business committee that did an investigation under the leadership of Paul Swain came back and recommended to this Government that the single biggest issue concerning small business and the development of New Zealand is the Resource Management Act. We know that but here we are in the death throes of this Government with a piece of legislation that will not address those issues. 
Phil Heatley 
: It tinkers! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It tinkers with the edge of the issues but it will not address them. 
We ask the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope in his last gasp of air in this Parliament why he cannot just listen to his own people—his own constituents his own supporters—on the left of local government around New Zealand and do what they ask him to do. It is interesting to note when we look back that the member for Auckland Central—the “member for Auckland Affairs” I believe they call her—Judith Tizard said in one of the earlier debates on this legislation that the recommendations put forward by Simon Upton in 1999 were evil—evil and dangerous. She said that a direct referral to the Environment Court was an evil dangerous thing to do. Today in this debate with exactly that proposal before us we hear— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It’s not. Tell the truth. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: It’s not exactly the same. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well I will be interested to hear the Minister take a call or either of the Ministers—the one who was there for a start and who got the sack or the one who is in the chair—to tell us why I am wrong. That is exactly what we are doing here today. Those Ministers need to know that it is our roads in this country that need engineering not our people. So the Ministers should front up and tell those people who have supported them why they will not pass legislation in Parliament today that would save the Western Springs speedway—why they cannot do that. Why are they so against that kind of thing particularly when their own people and all of local government are telling them that? 
It has been stated many times that this Government has been supportive of local government. Well this is where the rubber meets the road right here today. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We had a ruling from Assistant Speaker Robertson this morning that it is perfectly within the Standing Orders to change policy in a Supplementary Order Paper that is introduced on the day a bill is getting passed into law with no explanation of what the new policy is that we are being required to vote on. That is as may be—it is within the Standing Orders—but it is wrong in principle and it shows contempt for the role of the House in scrutinising legislation. I was so concerned when I saw that statement in the Supplementary Order Paper about changes in policy that I went to the Minister David Benson-Pope and asked for an explanation of what the changes in policy are. The Minister was good enough to send over an official to run through it with me. Given that the Greens are not supporting the bill I am sure the Minister would have done the same for other MPs who asked in advance for that advice. But given that that has not happened I think it would be appropriate for the Minister to take a call at some stage to go through the new policies introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I am not surprised that there is a 35-page Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. The Local Government and Environment Committee made a lot of changes to the bill. We were working through policy in some depth quite late in the process to the point where we were presented on the day of deliberation with considerable changes to the drafting of the bill. Right at the very last minute officials were still working out—and colleagues in the Chamber who were there will remember—how to give effect to the things the committee had done. I can remember saying as we went into deliberations that I foresaw a substantial Supplementary Order Paper because the officials could not possibly have all the details right if they were changing the drafting from one day to the next. 
In particular with reference to the option the Minister has of referring a called-in project to the Environment Court there was still no realisation at that stage on the second to last day that the Environment Court is not used to dealing with projects from scratch. It is used to dealing with appeals and we cannot simply treat a case as an appeal at the Environment Court if there is no decision to appeal against. So considerable work has gone into that Supplementary Order Paper and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. 
There are three changes of policy in this Supplementary Order Paper that directly overturn very considered decisions made by the select committee. Those were decisions about which Government members acquiesced—presumably at the time with the agreement of their Minister. I find it of considerable concern that those decisions are being changed at this point. 
I mentioned when I spoke on the second reading that representations from Maori were unanimous that iwi authorities are not always the appropriate people to be consulted on plans and that hapu are often the appropriate kaitiaki. In the committee’s amendments to the bill we provided for hapu in cases where it was appropriate to be on the council register and to be consulted over plans. 
Well one of the things this Supplementary Order Paper does is to take out any consultation with hapu over plans. Hapu will stay on the register but that will have no practical effect. The form is given but the substance has been taken away. Of course councils can still consult hapu if they wish—that is the case now; no change has happened there. But they are not required to and the fact that that provision has been taken out at this stage when it was in the bill as reported back may well be taken by some as evidence that the bill does not intend councils to consult hapu. I find that a real concern and I think Maori around the country will find it a real concern. The bill has clarified that there is no mandatory consultation with Maori iwi authorities or anybody else at the consent stage. That is probably appropriate given that the thing we have to get right is the plan but if there is to be no consultation with hapu at the plan stage either then where is the treaty relationship in all of that? 
The second thing that has been changed from the select committee’s considered view is that power stations have been reinserted in the definition of “infrastructure”. Infrastructure has always been seen in the words of a former Minister of Energy as consisting of “long stringy things”—that is networks—and in order for a network to function one has to own land. Infrastructure has always been taken to mean developments that require a network that connects land over considerable distances. Power stations do not do that and in this Supplementary Order Paper a higher status is given to power stations in terms of the planning process than the committee felt they deserved. 
The third change that overturned a decision of the select committee is that the value of existing investments must now be regarded when considering the re-consenting of a consent that has expired. The committee always agreed that when looking at contesting applications for let us say a water right the fact that the incumbent had invested quite a lot in the infrastructure to use that water ought to be taken strongly into account when deciding whether the incumbent should get the re-consent or somebody else should get the water. But when there is no contest like that—when the contest is between whether the natural environment needs that water back for some other value or whether the incumbent should be allowed to continue to take it—this amendment now jigs the situation very strongly in favour of the incumbent and continued extraction and taking from the environment rather than the restoration of environmental quality. That was something the committee decided not to do but that the Minister has reinstated. 
Other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are good. I commend the clarification on the joint-management agreements and I commend the clarification on the aquaculture law reform. The technical amendments will I hope make the bill more workable. 
But overall the Greens will not be voting for this Supplementary Order Paper. We believe that the considered views of the select committee which the Labour members agreed to should be allowed to stand. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I always find it very interesting when people get up and complain about lack of consultation then do not withdraw and think about where a Supplementary Order Paper comes from. A Supplementary Order Paper about this subject normally arises because as a bill has gone to the select committee a number of people—some of them Environment Court judges some of them from the Resource Management Law Association and some of them from a variety of industries—have come knocking on the door and said that they have listened to the submissions and that they have something they would like to say or that they have some way through that might actually help. That is in addition to the normal process that occurs when we are presented with a problem and we work our way through. That is what a Supplementary Order Paper is. It is an indication that there has been listening out there involvement out there and a lot of talking with Local Government New Zealand. 
I want to show two examples. One relates to the question of courts hearing de novo. We listened to what the courts had to say about that and included in the Supplementary Order Paper the addition which the courts and Local Government New Zealand agree with that the court has to have regard to the council decision. We are again trying to prevent people from going on and on and introducing new material forever. It is a way of moving forward. The part I really want to take apart is this question about direct referral. I find that delicious. Yes we did agree back in 2000 not to go ahead with direct referral which is a friend of all developers who would say: “I do not want to go through local government; I as a developer elect to go straight to the Environment Court. I can exclude all the small people who might have a prison built beside me and go straight to the Environment Court.” We took that out and said that we believe in democracy—we believe in people having their chance up before local government. As a result of a lot of thinking and what we learnt in Waitaki—that sometimes things are really difficult when multiple councils are involved and when a council does not actually have a water plan—we put up a provision whereby at the moment the Minister can decide to intervene and can intervene in about five different ways. Sometimes it is just a matter of saying that three councils will join together to have a hearing. Two of the options for intervention involve call-in. Call-in occurs when the Minister—not the local developer—can say that the matter will go directly to the Environment Court or when the Minister does as we have done in Waitaki and appoints a particular panel to conduct a hearing. That is not the same as what the National Party proposed. Its proposal was for developers only—not Ministers—to say: “Let’s avoid local Government altogether.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If you buy Maori off you will get there. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I really object to that particular comment about my probity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member— 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am dealing with the matter. The member knows that it is out of order to make that accusation. The member will withdraw that remark. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister was asserting that any old developer would be able to get direct referral under National’s policy. Under Labour’s policy direct referral is determined by the Minister. I quite properly intervened with the remark that the Minister might get a cheque and be influenced. There was nothing wrong or improper about that comment. It is a fact arising from what is in Labour’s bill. That is the difference between Labour’s policy and National’s. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows very well that the comment was not in order. I ask the member to withdraw the remark. He cannot insinuate that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This morning we saw a Supplementary Order Paper introducing 38 pages of new law—134 clauses. The Green Party member in her contribution suggested that it would be fair to Parliament if one of the Ministers gave some explanation because the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper only goes as far as saying that it includes drafting to give effect to new policy. I have been waiting for the Government to tell us what the new policy is. It seems to me quite extraordinary that on the last day of Parliament 38 pages of law are being slammed through without anybody standing up and explaining what it is. I think it would be proper for you to direct the Minister Marian Hobbs to give us some explanation as to the policy changes that are proposed in this 38-page Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. It is a matter for debate. If the member is raising a point of order about the relevance of the amendments I tell him that that has certainly been looked at. It has been considered and certainly the amendments are relevant to the bill. I am happy to give the member a longer explanation if that is what he wants. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I would like it from the Minister actually. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point I am making is that as far as the Chairperson is concerned the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant to the bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I understand that the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant but its explanatory note states that it makes policy changes. Nowhere in the main bill is there any reference to for instance marine farming. That is not included in the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper makes quite extensive changes in that area and we have heard no explanation from any member of the Government as to what is intended by this lawmaking—which is faster than a prime ministerial motorcade. We have had no explanation of the reasons for the neck-breaking speed of this law change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I want to clarify this again. I heard an assertion from the opposite side of the Chamber that we had done a U-turn and advised that there would be direct referral to the Environment Court. That is not so and I want to make that very clear. It is not so. There is a step in between and that is ministerial intervention which can take about five different forms two of which involve call-in. Something else that was asserted by the member—[ 
Interruption 
] I am responding to comments the Opposition has made—concerned an amendment to extend the submission time in the Waitaki plan hearing. I am quite happy to advise the member that Meridian Energy Ltd and all those people who have submitted—I think Meridian finished its submissions today or yesterday—have finished making their submissions and the process is about to be wound up well within the time that was set. The panel will report in September as it stated. Why did we ask for this plan to be reported by that time? The reason is that I made a commitment to the Minister of Energy that this public consultation about finding a way forward for the people of Otago and Canterbury in relation to the use of the water in that river would in no way delay any decisions out there. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a botch-up. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it is not a botch-up. It is a way forward for the future that has been taken on board and approved and it has been wanted very much by the people. So far it has not been liked by Local Government New Zealand which tends to have a different response to the National Party’s proposals in relation to the Resource Management Act and Dr Nick Smith is up there threatening the chair of Local Government New Zealand with banishment from the National Party because he tends to disagree—because Local Government New Zealand knows that this Government has actually worked with it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not extraordinary? The Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs who has just resumed her seat lives in an absolute fantasy world. She is wrapped in cotton wool and has rocks in her head. Let us look at some of the things she said. She tried to explain away a 36-page Supplementary Order Paper that has been dumped on the Committee today as the Government listening to the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a gross abuse of process. 
Let me spell out for the Minister who should know better how it is meant to work. The Government the executive is meant to bring a bill to the Parliament. The bill is referred to a select committee then the select committee is meant to be given due time to consider that bill. That is how the legislature scrutinises the laws the executive intends to pass. That is how it is meant to work. But—no—what did the Government do? First of all it put its members on the select committee under incredible instructions to ram everything through as fast as they could. Now the Government comes here right at the last stages of this Parliament—possibly the last sitting day; we might dribble over into tomorrow but effectively it is the last sitting day—and on something as significant as the Resource Management Act it dumps on us a Supplementary Order Paper with a whole lot of new measures that no New Zealander will have a chance to submit on and no select committee will scrutinise. And this Minister has the audacity and temerity to try to say that that is listening to the people. What absolute rot and rubbish! Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Another interesting point is that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope put out a press release today in which he stated that these amendments will not have an impact on development—the Resource Management Act will not have an impact on development. He referred to a KPMG report that is purported to say so. The truth of the matter is that the people who did that report did not consult with one farmer or one representative of the farmers of this country. 
Shane Ardern 
: Or the foresters. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Or the forestry sector for that matter. The introductory comments in the bill itself state that it will have an impact on the primary industries of New Zealand. What a contradiction! The Minister in the chair—again wrapped in cotton wool—puts out a press release probably drafted by officials saying that this will not impact on development when the primary sector of New Zealand is reporting to us that it was not consulted in any way and when the Government’s own introductory comments state that the bill will impact on primary industries in this country as we know it most certainly will. 
Some aspects of the 36-page Supplementary Order Paper—and members have had only very limited time to look at them—are I think acceptable. I think that the measure to take into consideration the value of existing infrastructure in consenting or reconsenting is significant. We have that farcical situation of the Tongariro power scheme a sunk investment. Some of us would remember that incredible investment of the 1960s and 1970s and all the tunnelling that went on to produce that infrastructure for New Zealand’s power; yet another decision made by the Environment Court has virtually truncated those water rights and reduced the capacity of the Tongariro power scheme to function. Of course the Tongariro power scheme in turn feeds into the Waikato River and all the power schemes down the Waikato River. 
But the Government has to appreciate that because of all the metaphysical nonsense and spiritual values it has imported into the Resource Management Act we have decisions like the one in the Tongariro instance. Those matters should not be dealt with under the Resource Management Act. They are totally inappropriate. The intent of the Resource Management Act was meant to be the sustainable management of natural and physical resources yet somehow successive Governments have tagged on all those spiritual metaphysical values that we cannot deal with in this way. We have to have separate legislation if we are to try to tackle those. The Resource Management Act tries to do too much and it fails miserably. 
There are other matters that I think do require mentioning certainly with regard to the iwi authorities and hapu. It is good to see that it is confined now to consultation at the plan development stage and not actually at the consent stage because extortion was occurring in this place. In this country we had extortion whereby any consent applicant was held to ransom by people purporting to represent spiritual values. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity to give some more background to Supplementary Order Paper 389. Those members who were in the House at the time of my second reading speech will already be aware of this but I will repeat at a little greater length. First of all most of these issues are technical but as has been identified there are also some policy issues. 
In terms of the recognition of existing investment the Government has made a change to section 104 of the principal Act to be inserted by a proposed new clause 43A that requires consent authorities to have regard to the value of existing investment when considering applications for a new consent to replace an existing consent on expiry. 
In respect of the iwi register the reason for the change from the recommendations of the Local Government and Environment Committee was so that although that consultation can still take place councils are not required to resource it at the hapu level. Section 36B proposed in clause 15 is amended to allow for joint management agreements between local authorities and public authorities iwi authorities and groups that are recognised. A proposed new clause allows for the incorporation of external material into national policy statements and the New Zealand coastal policy statement by reference. 
In terms of the relationship between standards and designations we are recommending in the Supplementary Order Paper an amendment to clause 21 to require that where a designation to which a national environmental standard otherwise applies is created over existing works those works shall not have to comply with the national environmental standard at that point. As was mentioned by the member Jeanette Fitzsimons there is also an amendment to clause 5 to include under the definition “infrastructure” infrastructure associated with electricity generation. In respect of the new ministerial powers for intervention in relation to the coastal marine areas this was a compromise position negotiated between the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment in terms of the respective roles of the Ministers and the statutes under which they operate. 
The two other matters relate to aquaculture law reform. There is an important clause to amend section 165Z of the Resource Management Act to rectify an issue that came out of the Aquaculture Reform Bill to clarify that regional councils must identify excluded areas prior to inviting proposals for private plan changes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So you screwed up last time. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In response to the foolish interjection from Dr Smith no the Government did not screw up; neither did officials. But we have listened to communities and to local government unlike that member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh yeah! Tell us what consultation you had. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: If Dr Smith just closes his mouth for a moment and listens I will draw to his attention a comment made by local government—one that we are and should be justifiably proud of. It is that the development of this bill has been “an exemplary collaborative exercise”. Later on in the day I will also refer him to some of the documents I tabled in the House yesterday. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to take up some of the comments that have been made in regard to this bill. I am also appalled at the substantial Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope which has been put to the Committee without any public consultative process whatsoever and without any parliamentary scrutiny at all. I just reiterate that the purpose of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill is to address problems with delays costs inconsistencies uncertainty and leadership. On the question of leadership I refer to the purpose of this bill. In clause 4 one of the stated purposes is: “(v) consultation with iwi and resource planning by iwi;”. I take exception to the fact that the Government says that that purpose will improve the Resource Management Act in any way whatsoever. In fact I think that it shows a continued disgrace in terms of the leadership provided by the current Government in that it continues to promote increase and exacerbate the separatist environment that we live in today. This should be a nation where we stand alongside one another and together rather than apart from each other. In my view when one group of people is identified separately stands apart and is consulted separately from the rest of the community that is separatism. That is being promulgated through this amendment bill and is also supported by Supplementary Order Paper 389. 
That sort of leadership filters down into our communities and is the sort of leadership that means that when given an inch people take a mile. We have talked in this Chamber about bureaucrats and planners running amok with the sort of largesse that has been given by this Government particularly with regard to consultation with iwi etc. Now iwi will have a pre-eminent position in the planning process outside the resource consent process. In the planning environment iwi management plans must now be taken into account. But the problem with doing that is that nobody has a chance to have any say on those iwi management plans apart from the iwi itself. What is the public input into those plans and how will councils adjudicate on those plans in terms of the public interest when all the weighting is given to the iwi or hapu that puts forward the management plan? 
I can give members a classic example in terms of the Draft Wairoa River Valley Strategy a combined draft strategy of Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council. It is a draft strategy but it gives major cause for concern when we look at the costs involved and see the fact that the councils actually identify that funds will be put towards iwi management plans. Those are ratepayer funds. Do ratepayers have the opportunity to say they do not want to fund management plans from iwi and that they will fund only management plans for the community as a whole recognising that iwi are a part of the community? 
I would hope that more and more of our communities make those statements because when we look at that particular strategy we see it not only talks about councils funding some of the iwi management plans but also identifies some matters that the councils state should be included in the iwi management plans. It states the councils will: “Recognise in decision-making the home or kainga of Ngati Kahu and Ngati Pango including the Pa cultural and spiritual sites within the LMA”. Now the reference to “cultural” is fine. There is more than one culture in this country so I wonder whether the councils will recognise only one culture. But the other aspect is that of the “spiritual sites within the LMA”. Spiritual sites could be anything. How does one prove that something could come under those spiritual parameters? There is absolutely no way on God’s earth—in God’s heaven maybe— that we can do that. In terms of how that clause will be interpreted people could actually dance on a site or say they have sung a song on it and it will become “of spiritual value” to those individuals. 
I just find it extraordinary that we are giving such incredible largesse and we are doing it through putting this bill through the House aided and abetted by Supplementary Order Paper 389. We are exacerbating the problem we already have of identifying people in a separatist way separating them out from the community and standing them apart from the community instead of including them within the definition of “community”. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to make some comments first of all on the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled. There has been much comment on the size of it and how preposterous that is. I expected that when we were going through the select committee process we would have to deal with a fairly sizable Supplementary Order Paper because of the speed with which we had had to work. In fact right until the last moment we deliberated in the Local Government and Environment Committee we knew that it was impossible for the drafters and officials to have got everything right and that there would be a number of technical changes. 
The bulk of the Supplementary Order Paper is simply technical amendments to make sure that everything is right. However United Future and I do not support the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper was tabled only yesterday. I do not see any reason why other members of the House could not have perhaps had more time to view and examine it. Nevertheless the size of the Supplementary Order Paper is not an indication of major policy changes within the bill. We do welcome some of those changes though because they are not exactly new issues. They were debated during the select committee process. 
I was really pleased to see that in the Supplementary Order Paper we were taking on board some more submitters’ recommendations to the committee and I think further improving the bill and responding to submitters’ requests. One was the consideration of existing investment in applications. The bill already deals with that consideration where there are competing consents on a renewal basis and this is simply extending the case where there are no other competing interests. Of course local authorities should take into account someone’s investment when that person seeks to renew—in a sense although we never have renewals—a consent. That is something business would welcome. Where people have invested a great deal in infrastructure they should have that taken into consideration when they seek to have their consent renewed. 
The select committee also discussed the matter of the definition of “infrastructure”. Some very good submissions were made on that matter. I was quite impressed by the submission—I forget the name of the organisation the gentleman was from—that talked about quarries and their importance. That actually opened my eyes to how important quarries are in our communities. One can live in a place drive around and not know where all the aggregate comes from until someone brings it to one’s attention. The submitter showed us that making sure there is adequate provision for aggregate is important for our road construction building and so on. Unfortunately that will not be included but I think the submitter made a very good case for it. 
But I am pleased to see that the Minister and the officials have agreed to include infrastructure associated with electricity generation in this definition of “infrastructure”. I am sure David Parker will also be smiling as we have had a great deal of discussion about this. Recent announcements by Todd Energy in Auckland about its desire to perhaps build some smaller power plants there which may lead to dealing with the pylon and national grid problems makes this amendment even more worthwhile. I think regional councils should be looking at not only how power can be transmitted into our regions but also where possible where we can generate that power within the regions and therefore avoid reliance on our national grid. So we welcome those particular amendments and believe they will also add to the bill. 
One of the things we discussed in the select committee that was also amended slightly was the original proposal to give councils the power to require attendance at pre-hearing meetings. This comes out of a great deal of frustration for applicants and I think for local authorities when objectors and submitters may agree to attend a pre-hearing meeting and they then fail to turn up. They do it once do it again and then do it again. Everybody else takes the time to turn up to try to deal with issues but some people particularly if they are frivolous or vexatious objectors abuse the system. So we thought it would be a good idea to require them to attend. But as we started to examine what that would mean we realised we would have to have some amendments. 
We finally arrived at allowing the councils to have the flexibility to require or invite people to attend because in many cases what may be seen as a bit of a draconian power to require people to attend may not be the way forward. So I think we have arrived at a reasonable compromise to give local authorities that flexibility and we have to trust in their wisdom to be able to exercise it. In most cases they will simply invite people to attend. 
We felt that because additional costs could be placed upon an applicant with the pre-hearing meeting it was wise for local authorities to have an applicant’s consent before taking that measure. I think that will improve the operation of the Resource Management Act. 
Another issue that we dealt with was accreditation requirements and it was probably the most well received proposal in the bill right from the word go. Everyone thought that it should be compulsory for over 50 percent of those sitting on consent hearing processes at the local body level to be at least minimally qualified to handle those responsibilities. That process has been going on voluntarily and it is already making an improvement to the operation of the Act. So there was no need to change it per se but we were concerned about what would happen if fewer than 50 percent of a council’s councillors or of those sitting on appeal hearings or consent hearings were minimally qualified. We were concerned that it could mean applicants would suffer from having their consents nullified. I think it was wise to make it clear that factor would not impinge upon applicants but would reflect upon the council itself and once the person’s consent had been granted that consent would remain. 
Another issue we covered and discussed at some length was the transfer of discharge permits—a very good idea in order to maximise the benefit of discharge permits that had been issued and to make it possible for people who are not using their discharge permits to the full to be able to transfer it to someone else. However we did recognise the possibility that it might lead to the further abuse of the environment because if someone is not fully using his or her discharge permit and someone else comes along and uses it to the max we have not gained a net benefit for the environment. The amendments proposed to section 137 are intended to deal with that matter so that at the end of the process the environment is the beneficiary. Now the provision will not be a financial windfall for someone who has held a discharge consent for a long period of time and never really used it and who suddenly has almost a property right that he or she can go out and trade to someone else while the environment is left worse off. 
I welcome these amendments and I think we are progressing in this debate and in this passage of the bill towards a very good resource management amendment that will—unlike the member opposite—be recognised by most throughout the country as a vast improvement to the Resource Management Act. That was the overwhelming message we had from submitters as we went around the country and we have listened to them. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak in regard to new clause 90AA in Supplementary Order Paper 389. New Zealand First does not have regard for the opinions already expressed with regard to the Waitaki catchment. Our party gave firm support to the Waitaki Catchment Board being established. We have faith in that board. We have followed very closely day by day the submissions made to that board and the time frame that is set is one with which we concur and we concur with the insertion here of the provisions that relate to the implementation of that plan. 
 We know contrary to the belief outside that should there be concern on the part of any of the local authorities they have the right of appeal. That is not generally understood because there is a widespread feeling and myth being perpetuated out in the community that this board’s finding is absolute. It is not. In actual fact all local authorities have the right of appeal before the final plan becomes part of Environment Canterbury’s regional water plan. In actual fact anyone who has studied the Waitaki catchment and the valley past and present and the need for water will understand exactly why this Waitaki board plan was a sound move. 
We in New Zealand First hope that this will set a new regime for water flow and a new regime for rivers and that it will be a model as we stated during the debate. So we earnestly support this part. It is the one part although we do not support the Supplementary Order Paper and the rest of the bill that we can relate to. 
I come back very quickly to another matter. I said this earlier and I want to reiterate it. Unlike other members we see provisions in Part II of the principal Act relating to Maori. We will be looking for further explanation in a reviewed Act as to what sections 6(e) and 7(a) actually mean. We do not concur with the opinions that have just been expressed by other parties in this Committee. We are very conscious of the fact that as far as we are concerned we agree with Dame Anne Salmond—it is a basic fact that Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. They forged a unique society before other settlers arrived and they in turn with regard to Maori language arts marae and tribal histories have a real part in our present and are part of our past and our future. They exist nowhere else in the world and they help to define what is special about our country. 
That is the New Zealand First stance but having said that if that were implicit in Part 2 in an expanded form there would be no need for the issue of co-management. That introduces another element altogether. That is an element in this revised bill that we do not concur with because that takes us into another realm and it is nothing more as far as most rate payers are concerned than a recipe for uncertainty. The bill should have clarity. This creates uncertainty with regard to issues place by place and region by region and with that part we do not concur. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I rushed down to the Chamber because I could not believe the comments made by the outgoing member for Otago David Parker—and I say that because Jacqui Dean from National is doing an extremely good job there. Earlier David Parker told the House that there was no abuse and no blackmail and that no money changed hands under the Resource Management Act. I thought that it is no wonder the Labour Party is totally out of touch. 
I will give a real-life example to Mr David Parker and then he can go back to Queenstown and understand why people there think their MP is totally out of touch. We have had a case in Christchurch concerning a motel developer at 160 Riccarton Road. He bought a piece of land and started to develop a motel. The neighbour objected and we thought that was fair enough because it is understood that that process exists under the resource consent process. But I want to read a quote from a letter from the objector’s lawyer to the motel developer’s lawyer: “We are however ready to entertain the prospect of a compromise provided that your client undertake to postpone the commencement of his building operation until the end of February 2004 and pay the sum of $7500 as a compensatory payment for the significant disturbance for the remaining period of our tenure the costs we have incurred and our time.” There is more: “If on the other hand your client would prefer to be free to build immediately and is prepared to recognise the greater value to him and to compensate for the greater cost and loss to us then we will be prepared to withdraw the appeal without condition on payment of $22500.” Well! And Mr David Parker says that those sorts of things do not happen under the current Act! 
The best part of the story is that the motel developer refused to pay up. The objector drew out the hearings process by objecting to one of the panel members former city councillor Charles Manning. He objected to him and kept on filing papers to delay the hearings process. Eventually a week before the hearing was about to take place the objector withdrew his objection without getting any of the compensation demanded. But that had caused the motel developer a 12-month delay. We have to ask why anybody in New Zealand would consider going through with building a factory or whatever the project is when all an objector has to do is to put in an objection and the other people then suffer. 
This amendment bill is still a compromise. I am extremely disappointed to hear from United Future’s Larry Baldock who is prepared to compromise and be a doormat. It is no wonder that United Future as low as it is in the polls. The United Future members came in here after supposedly making a promise to stand up for their supporters demand a high standard and demand the ideal solution. Who actually says that Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope should not be subject to the scrutiny of the Local Government and Environment Committee although the need for that is pointed out by our most hard-working member the Hon Nick Smith? Significant changes are included in that Supplementary Order Paper and even the Minister eventually and reluctantly took a call to briefly explain the Supplementary Order Paper. I think its tabling shows a complete disrespect for the rights of the select committee to properly scrutinise legislation. That Supplementary Order Paper is totally unacceptable. 
I hope the outgoing member for Otago has listened to the case I have outlined and will not now stand up and insist that things like that do not happen. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The first thing I will respond to is the misquote that the previous speaker attributed to me. Finer arguments are often missed by her and she missed one on this occasion as well. I did not deny that there is a history of stand-over tactics on occasions by objectors who use the position of their objections to try to extract some promise from applicants in order to secure the removal of their objections. I did not deny that. What I said was that the way we remedy that in this bill is to make it absolutely clear that no one has an obligation to consult anyone in relation to a consent application. 
Sandra Goudie would go further. She would have us say that Maori do not have a right to be consulted in relation to plans—a position that is absolutely irreconcilable with National’s own legislation the Nga Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act was passed by a National Government and gives absolutely express statutory recognition to a promise made by the then National Government that it would consult Nga Tahu in respect of plans for the South Island. What cant we are hearing from that inconsistent National Party today! 
The next issue—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that hurts those members: the fact that I stand here representing the formerly true blue seat of Otago must be like a burr under the saddle for all those old hacks in National. All I can say is: “Look forward to another 3 years of it!” It was no accident that I overturned the many-thousands vote majority of the previous National Party spokesperson on agriculture. My constituents in the Otago electorate made a reasoned decision— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is not relevant to the issues that arise in this debate on Part 1. We do not want a recitation of that man’s successes and failures. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that this matter has been put into the debate by National members. They cannot now deny its relevance having first put the issue into the debate. 
Brian Connell 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. I am going to rule on the point of order. 
Brian Connell 
: I just wanted to make a contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. Members all know that there have been numerous references—I think it is the time of the week the end of the term or something to do with something else. Maybe it is in the water but certainly they have been general throughout this debate. 
DAVID PARKER 
: They do not like the situation do they? But they have it and I am here to stay. 
Let us just reflect on the Waitaki legislation. Why is it that the National Party is so out of step with every newspaper in the Otago electorate? It is because they have flip-flopped so many times on that issue. Within this term of Parliament Gerry Brownlee National’s deputy leader has called for the Government to wipe aside resource management constraints and push through Project Aqua—as the National Government did with the Clyde Dam. 
Some months later in Oamaru Dr Brash said: “Oh no we don’t need that. What we need is a board-of-inquiry approach.” What did the Government do? The Government actually agreed with that. We set up a board-of-inquiry approach chaired by a judge in order to apply Resource Management Act principles independently. 
What was National’s response to that? It claimed that we were trying to “think big” Project Aqua. That was strange. Project Aqua was pulled and what was the National Party’s response then? All of a sudden an independent board-of-inquiry approach was wrong and National members were saying that if they did not like the result they would overturn it. What would they do? What is that code for? They would “think big” Project Aqua; that is what that code is for. National would impose a central government decision rather than a proper principled Resource Management Act decision chaired by a judge. 
What is the latest bit of cant? It is a Supplementary Order Paper by Dr Smith calling for more time for submissions to be heard in respect of the Waitaki legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has just said that that is right. He should read this morning’s  
Otago Daily Times 
. The hearings have finished; everyone who wanted to be heard has been heard. The hearings are finished and now that board has 2 months to write its decision. What absolute sophistry we are getting from the National Party on those issues; it is ridiculous! 
In relation to the other suggestion that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper is full of new ideas I tell members that I actually sat through all the submissions I read the bill and I know about the issues. There is only one issue in that Supplementary Order Paper that was not considered by us at the select committee and it relates to aquaculture. That is the only issue. If those National members cannot get their heads around that now it really shows the lamentable lack of intellect on that side of the Chamber. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am a keen supporter of the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland. I first went to the speedway about 40 years ago. I am not sure whether any National Party member in this House has ever been to the Western Springs Speedway least of all Dr Brash when the speedway is actually on—and it is on at a convenient and appropriate time. But I have been to the speedway and enjoyed it off and on over the years. I have taken my children there. [ 
Interruption 
] I have driven a twin-turbo Subaru GTB which is a nice car. I drive a Subaru Impreza now and I have a Rover Tomcat. I have a tomcat car apparently. [ 
Interruption 
] If I could just get my speech across. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a minute; I am going to rule. There is far too much barraging coming from the side. It is very hard for the member when it is going that way. 
DAIL JONES 
: It might be very hard for those people who are actually interested in the speedway which clearly National Party members are not. 
I want to refer to the amendment put forward by Dr Smith to find out what he is actually getting at. The key I think to that amendment is this: is the present decibel-level provision for the speedway part of the operative plan? I need to know that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is. 
DAIL JONES 
: If it is part of the operative plan then how can that amendment have any bearing on it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it will allow the proposed plan when it is publicly notified to stand over the operative plan which will enable the Auckland City Council to resolve this problem. 
DAIL JONES 
: But that is the case anyway. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s not. 
DAIL JONES 
: If I may just carry on with my speech now. Dr Smith confirms that there is an operative plan with regard to the 75 decibels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s 85. 
DAIL JONES 
: I think the member might find it is 75 and that is the whole problem. It is 75 and that is too low. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s 85. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well 75 or 85 we will sort it out later but I happen to think that it is 75. If it is an operative plan surely the only way an operative plan can be changed is by going through the process and changing the plan. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. Surely that can be done under the present legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But it takes 3 years. 
DAIL JONES 
: And it can take 3 years; that is fair enough. What in this amendment will take less than 3 years? That is what I am getting at. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can I explain? I want to help the member. 
DAIL JONES 
: The member can take a call. That is what I want him to do because I am very concerned about the whole situation. His amendment to section 20 of the principle Act in proposed new clause 5AB would add the following words to section 20(1): “or a change to a plan” and section 20(1)(a) talks about a “proposed plan” and section 20(1)(b) is new as well. The only other new bit is section 20(6). That is the important thing that I shall clarify. Is the member for Nelson saying that a city council can change an operative plan before the time comes to do the ordinary district plan set-up? Does he want it to be done earlier and be treated as a special case? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAIL JONES 
: If that can be done now what is the problem? I shall be very interested to see just how that would work. I am concerned. If we can speed things up if we keep chopping and changing how many times within a district-plan period can those changes be made? Can one be done every year? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes. 
DAIL JONES 
: Dr Smith is saying that with his proposal it could be done every year. So there would be no certainty in a planned period. If one has a plan that is meant to be for a set number of years before it can be changed with Dr Smith’s amendment one could keep on changing the plan regularly not necessarily even yearly. Where would we end up with that? There would be no certainty all the time. I am also concerned about what effect this would have on say an operative plan for Wellington Airport. Could there be constant changes to the noise levels for Wellington Airport and perhaps the Nelson Airport? Where would there be certainty for people who go through an expensive legal process to fight a case—[ 
Interruption 
] Sandra Goudie tells me that there is no certainty. She is giving the whole thing away. Surely there must be some degree of certainty with the whole planning situation. 
I would be very interested to hear what Dr Smith has to say from the point of view not only of Auckland but of other areas as well. I would also be interested to hear whether there will be regular changes to that plan as the case might be. I am a great supporter of the speedway and I would be willing to give it every chance to see whether it could go ahead. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I shall take a brief call to answer the points that have been raised by Dail Jones about my amendments. First he makes the point that councils can make changes to their district plan. That is true with or without my amendment and they can do it as often as they like in proposing new plans. 
The law as it stands under the Resource Management Act is that if one has an existing plan and a proposed plan whatever is the more restrictive applies in the interim. For instance at the moment the Auckland City Council district plan states that 85 decibels is the minimum noise level and if the plan is amended to provide for a minimum noise level of 88 decibels—which is the proposal from the Auckland City Council to solve the problem of the speedway—then the lesser of 88 and 85 is still 85. 
The key change provided by my amendment is that when the council proposes its change it can make the decision as to whether it applies immediately. In other words it has the choice—it is not automatically the most restrictive; it is for the council to determine. So it makes no difference as to the number of changes that can be made. The only significant change my amendment would make is that the council has the discretion when it introduces a proposed plan to say which of those will apply in the interim and that is different from the current law. And yes it will solve the problem of the speedway and it will be a test of this Parliament as to whether it is prepared to back those 50000 users and support this amendment. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The singularly most important issue for this Parliament to deal with in this term was the reform of the Resource Management Act and the Government has made a hash of it. Under this legislation the Resource Management Act is not being reformed at all. People were calling for simplification. They believe that the genesis of the Resource Management Act is right but the execution has been appalling and they are looking for a vehicle to enable them to get on and develop their primary areas of interest and infrastructure development in a sustainable way and this bill does not allow that to happen. What we had in its stead until yesterday was a 94-clause bill. We now have a Supplementary Order Paper that increases the number of those clauses to about 134 yet we have had very little time to consult and discuss those as a Parliament. I think that members will agree in their heart of hearts that that is not the way to make good law. 
Pansy Wong 
: Apart from United Future. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: United Future seems to think it is OK but the majority of members do not think it is the right approach. The Hon Richard Prebble made reference to this in his valedictory speech and I totally agree with him. If we are to pass good law we need the time to understand exactly what it is that we are passing. I defy any member of this House to have picked up a 34-page Supplementary Order Paper read it understood all of the detail and be in a position today to make an intelligent contribution to this debate that will stand close scrutiny. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope has made a couple of statements via the press that do not stand close scrutiny either. He has said that the Government has consulted business and business has said that the Resource Management Act is not its No. 1 priority. I know that he has taken a very narrow definition of what business is. I know that Federated Farmers believes that reform of the Resource Management Act is the No. 1 priority. If we talk to any developer or anyone trying to provide infrastructure they will tell us that reform of the Resource Management Act is absolutely their No. 1 priority. 
It is not as if the Government did not have prior notice of this importance. It commissioned the Al Dunn report. Some members might recall that report which identified 162 compliance issues. Of that number 42 related specifically to the Resource Management Act. The Government’s own report stated that 42 of the most significant compliance issues facing New Zealand right at the moment relate to the Resource Management Act but what do we get apart from tinkering? Yet the Minister in the chair is trying to tell us that it is wide-reaching change. 
He also argues that the bill will strengthen the position of district and regional councils. I remind him and other members of the recent decision on Blue Mountain Lumber. The local council and the regional council approved that timber mill on the Coromandel. It was rolled by the Environment Court. The Minister in the chair should take a call and explain to the Committee how this legislation will strengthen the powers of regional and district councils when they can make a decision having received and looked at all of the evidence in detail yet that decision can be overturned by the Environment Court. 
Blue Mountain Lumber is just an example of a forestry industry in free fall through no fault of its own. All the industry experts in forestry accept that the way to trade out of their current problems is through midsize processing. They all accept that but guess how many mills have been built in this country in the last 2 years under the Resource Management Act? Zilch zero. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The bill and Supplementary Order Paper we are discussing are of considerable interest to me partly because I was listening in my office and I heard the speech made by Mr Baldock of United Future and I listened to Mr Peters for the New Zealand First Party and I was curious as to what changes there could be that would produce such wildly divergent views. 
I came down to the Committee and found in debating Part 1 that a Supplementary Order Paper dated 2 August yesterday had been dumped on us with an explanatory note— 
Dail Jones 
: Today. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Today was it? It is dated 2 August and it has an explanatory note that states at the end of 35 pages: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee. It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” I think I am reasonably quick at studying legal drafting after the time I have spent at it but I cannot fathom this. I think the Minister should be absolutely ashamed that he will be asking this Committee to vote on material as hard to understand as this. 
Why would a bill not be amended using what is now 20-year-old technology showing us what has been omitted and what has been inserted? Why is there no redline version? Why is the Labour Government now trying to bring a closure motion on the Part 1 debate when I do not think anyone has understood it other than perhaps Nick Smith? We had what should have been debate between New Zealand First and National in the person of Dr Smith which actually halted as they tried earnestly to explain to each other what they thought the provisions mean. 
There is no doubt at all that this Committee will be voting on very important provisions when maybe only one or two people in this Chamber have the faintest idea what they mean. That is a disgrace. There is no justification for it. I have tried to work out what exactly is being done with regard to iwi consultation. As members know the ACT party has long considered that to be racist that there is no justification for iwi consultation to be a separate right from the right of all New Zealanders to be consulted on rights or usages that affect them. I cannot work out exactly what is happening here. It seems that iwi consultation will now be restricted to the determination of a plan. 
On the other hand plans may be able to be modified daily. It may well be particularly if the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment goes through that the plan can be modified whenever the local authority has a whim. In that case we will have constant consultation and the whole notion of long-term planning which gives people a framework so they know what they can do with their land will be gone. 
Perhaps it is only the final nail in the coffin of a false premise anyway. The ability to bring in plan revisions midstream and give them immediate effect has probably seen long-term planning gone but I am very concerned that no one in this Chamber seems to be standing up for the notion of property rights. Article 2 tried to protect the right of individuals to do as they would with their land without interference from their neighbours—or princes or despots or priests or anyone else—provided that they were not harming third parties. 
 I was fascinated to hear United Future members on this part saying that they supported this planning and criticising the ACT party when United Future has brought in a bill purporting to want to entrench property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It has brought in a bill that is almost a clean copy of Owen Jennings’ bill of 5 years ago and then we have Mr Baldock another United Future member essentially dumping all over Mr Copeland’s ideas. He is essentially supporting a Resource Management Act that makes a total mockery of property rights. 
As far as I can tell this Supplementary Order Paper will be making power stations part of infrastructure—which I guess is useful only because the Greens oppose it. The one guide we can use when we cannot understand the provisions is to see who is supporting it and who is not. As there is bitter opposition from the Greens I know that it must be in New Zealand’s interests so I suppose we should vote for that part. That is the only guide I can use when dumped with 35 pages. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We heard from Minister Hobbs this afternoon that this Supplementary Order Paper is the result of special pleading—a kind of special pleading that is open to some stakeholders but not to others. In the adjournment month they have knocked on her door and local government and resource management lawyers have come as have other stakeholders and they have persuaded the Government to change policy as introduced in this Supplementary Order Paper. Yet the only example the Minister could give us of changes that were the result of listening to the people in this way was that the Environment Court when it looks at the evidence should have to consider the decision made by the council hearing. That matter was actually inserted in the bill as reported back. So it is still not quite clear which of these changes are the result of special pleading to the Minister during the adjournment. But it does reflect the selective approach to consultation that we see also in the Cabinet minutes which agree to the setting up of reference groups on national policy statements and national environmental standards whereby selective consultation is with the industry to be regulated rather than with the public the environmental movement or whatever is progressing the work on these environmental standards and national policy statements. 
Transpower told the Local Government and Environment Committee that it was already working with officials to write the standards for high voltage transmission lines and the standards for electromagnetic fields as produced by those transmission lines. Transpower told us that the draft of those standards was expected to be ready to go out for public submissions in July. So we must be very close now given that this is the beginning of August. But nobody on any of those consultation groups is reflecting the wider public interest or the environment. It is the regulators and the regulated working together. 
I have to comment on Brian Connell’s remarks about Blue Mountain Lumber. As far as I know Brian Connell does not live in the Coromandel and is not particularly familiar with what has gone on in our local community. Everybody in the Coromandel agrees that processing the forests in the northern Coromandel locally would be a good idea. But the site chosen by Blue Mountain Lumber was a peaceful rural valley a completely inappropriate site between two streams that fed directly into the waters of the Whangapoua Harbour against the backdrop of the spectacular “castle” up on the Coromandel ranges. There was no possibility of that site not contaminating the two streams and the harbour. It was not an industrial site. It was a rural site and it was an area of tourism importance and the local community objected to that site being used. The local councils did not agree because they want to see economic development but the Environment Court did agree and that is the way the Resource Management Act is meant to work. 
Furthermore one of the points of local processing was to reduce the amount of timber trucking on the roads so that what was taken out from the mill would be sawn timber instead of whole logs and that would reduce the number of trucks going down the Coromandel coast on those windy roads. But lo and behold what did Blue Mountain Lumber want to do? It wanted to build a really big mill too big for the trees in the forests of the northern Coromandel so it wanted to truck trees in. That company wanted to truck whole logs up the Coromandel Peninsula to the mill so it could then truck the sawn timber back down again. That is the reason why the local people opposed this site. They did not oppose an industrial site for example in an industrial part of Whitianga or another town up there. It was inappropriate development and that is exactly what the Resource Management Act is for—to stop that kind of development. The Act worked and the National Party should just accept that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5ABCertain rules in proposed plans to have effect 
The principal Act is amended by repealing section 20 and substituting the following section: 
20Certain rules in proposed plans or proposed plan changes to have effect at the discretion of the local authority— 
(1)A local authority may before publicly notifying a proposed plan or a change to a plan resolve that: 
(a)any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan does not have effect until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative; or 
(b)any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan will have effect in substitution for any existing rule until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative. 
(2)Public notification of the plan must include the resolution. 
(3)If the resolution is rescinded the local authority must as soon as possible publicly notify: 
(a)the rescission; and 
(b)the resolution to which it relates; and 
(c)the date of the rescission. 
(4)A rule to which a rescinded resolution relates has effect as a rule in the plan or ceases to have effect in substitution for any existing rule for all purposes on and from the day after the date on which the rescission is publicly notified. 
(5)A reference in this Act (except in Schedule 1) and in any regulations made under this Act to a proposed plan excludes a rule in the plan if— 
(a) the rule is subject to a resolution under subsection (1)(a); and 
(b) the resolution has not been rescinded. 
(6)If a local authority has resolved that any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan will have effect in substitution for any existing rule until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative pursuant to subsection (1)(b) then for the purposes of this Act the existing rule will cease to have effect until the resolution is rescinded or the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
90ABTransitional powers to enable a further round of consultation on Waitaki Water Allocation Placements 
1The Waitaki Board must undertake a further round of consultation on requiring water allocation placement taking into account amendments made in this Act. 
2The Waitaki Board shall allow a further four months for this round of consultation. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 32 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Abstentions 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendment to Electricity Act 1992 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. An interesting issue arises in connection with Part 2 that I would like to briefly explain to you. The Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill makes changes to two pieces of legislation. The first is the Resource Management Act and the second is the Electricity Act. Standing Order 259(1) makes it quite clear: “Except as permitted by Standing Orders a bill must relate to one subject area only.” 
We know and I am sure you know Mr Chairman how broad the scope and subject of the Resource Management Act is. When one looks at these provisions under the Electricity Act and what they do one sees that they in no sense relate to the subject matters of the Resource Management Act. When one looks at the principal Act the Electricity Act 1992 and its purpose one sees it is concerned with the regulation and supply of electricity with consolidating and amending the law relating to the regulation and control of electrical workers and with the repeal of the Electric Linemen Act the Electricity Act 1968 and the Electrical Registration Act. When one looks at the particular changes in this bill proposing changes to the Electricity Act one sees that they all centre on the powers and duties of electricity operators and other owners of electrical works. You will see Mr Chairman that they are concerned with the construction or maintenance of works on roads and with the rights of entry in respect of level crossings. That is way way removed from the subject area of resource management. 
Although it is true under Standing Order 259(2) that “A bill may make consequential amendments to a number of Acts…”—and that is an obvious point to acknowledge—a bill must relate to one subject area only. When one looks at Standing Orders 261 and 262 one sees that none of the exceptions referred to apply. I am asking you Mr Chairman to take a hard look at what seems to be a clear breach of the Standing Orders. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 This bill received its first reading on 14 December 2004. The member referred to Standing Orders 259 261 and 262 but helpfully for his own argument left out Standing Order 260 which states: “The Speaker scrutinises each bill on its introduction to ensure that it complies with Standing Order 259.” By virtue of the bill receiving its first reading on 14 December last year it had to be introduced into Parliament before that. For the introduction to have been accepted the Speaker had to verify that it did indeed comply with Standing Order 259. So 8 months later is a little late to raise objections about the content of the bill. It is clearly covered by Standing Order 260. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am advised also Mr Chairman that the very issue of the appropriateness or not of the inclusion of these two matters in the bill was determined by the house—I believe on 1 December—immediately after its tabling so the House has already made a decision I understand on the very matter that has been raised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for that. Can I just say— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just keep on cheating. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order. I am ready to rule but I will hear the Hon Mark Burton. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member opposite Nick Smith cannot make the claim against the Chair that he made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It wasn’t against the Chair; it was against the Government. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. The member has been here long enough to know the Standing Orders. He directed the words “Keep on cheating.” at the Chair. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No at the Government. You know all about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that members in this place are of long-standing. The member well knows that there are to be no interjections at all during points of order. The member is warned. He has his first yellow card. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am curious—as this is a matter of principle—about the reference to the House having previously made a decision on this. I would be obliged if we could be referred to it rather than there just being an assertion. I imagine there must some record of it if the House did in fact make that earlier decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that the House has resolved to allow the bill to proceed despite Standing Order 259 and the Government gave notice of a motion to gain the House’s authority for the bill to proceed. The House resolved accordingly and it was done on 1 December 2004. I have the notice here and the member is quite welcome to look at it here on the Table. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to commend my colleague Richard Worth for highlighting the way that this Government will trample all over the Standing Orders. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: But the House did it by majority. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh but the House did it by majority he says. That is what I mean by cheating. The Government is always cheating on the rules; it is always ahead of the play. That is why I have in front of me a press release from the Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope stating that we need to consult more with regard to the Resource Management Act and electricity but he does not apply that to himself. We have Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope which includes 134 changes on which there has been absolutely no public participation consultation or anything. In fact we received that Supplementary Order Paper only today and that Mr Chairman is a disgrace. 
What is even more extraordinary about this Government is that this bill is so radically different from the version introduced by the Minister. The Minister brought a bill to the House and said he had done all his homework he stood by the bill and he had got it right yet very little has survived of the significant proposals that David Benson-Pope introduced in this mashed bill. 
The provisions in this part relate to changes to the Electricity Act. We rightly ask why the Government is sneaking through some changes regarding electricity in a resource management bill. Actually Dr Cullen has let the snake out of the bag. He said that Labour knows it is going down the tubes and that if it does survive by the skin of its teeth it will be with the Green Party’s support. There is no way the Green Party would ever support these sorts of draconian measures so Dr Cullen said Labour should bang them through the House–ram them through the House. 
Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is what Dr Cullen insinuated at a public meeting that included Business New Zealand. He said Labour had to ram these changes through before they get dished up to—[ 
Interruption 
] Government members want to talk about everything but that which is in the bill. I understand the reason for that. If I were a Government member in my last few days in Parliament as Clayton Cosgrove and Darren Hughes are the last issue that I would want to talk about is the mess that the Government has made in terms of electricity and resource management. I would be so embarrassed that I would be like the rest of their colleagues who are hiding in the corridors. 
The reality is that the Government has made such a complete hash of this area of law that the changes it is making to the Electricity Act are nothing more than a panicked reaction at the last moment before an election. The Government knows that it is in trouble. It knows that from the reports of electricity crises throughout the country. It knows that because it has rejected initiatives like the Dobson River scheme and Project Aqua and because it has refused over and over again to make changes to the Resource Management Act this country is lining itself up for a very serious electricity crisis. The Government has nobody but itself to blame for that and that is one of the many reasons why it will go in 51 days’ time. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in respect of Part 2 which has now substantively become a bill in its own right. I remind the Committee that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard a very interesting submission from New Era Energy. I want to quote the Hon Rob Storey a former Minister for the Environment because his comments are in line with our thinking in New Zealand First—and this is talking not just of the original bill but of the revised bill. He said: “As a former Minister for the Environment I am horrified at the amount of uncheckable and largely unfettered power which is proposed to be given through this law to any Minister who in future holds this portfolio.” He also stated that he was mystified as to why an advocate which is normally the role of the Minister for the Environment could in future be forced into a situation under this bill where “the environmental interest may be secondary to short-term commercial gains”. 
If that statement was to stand alone one would think that that was a matter of opinion. But today we read that at long last—although it has widely been known in the wider world—this Government is planning a series of new national standards particularly in regard to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure and that these when they come on line particularly national policy on contentious topics such as electricity generation should help to set a standard for construction and operation. One must regard the late addition of this section of the bill as being one for justifiable suspicion because that is the way it would seem. 
One of the issues about this bill—and on behalf of New Zealand First I want to express this very strongly—in regard to policy statements and national standards is the uncertainty and the mixed message that the Government has been sending throughout its time. What happens is that Government members have probably gone off to a conference been clapped on the back and cheered by the party leaders there— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Go drinking! 
JIM PETERS 
: They probably go drinking as well in the after hours then make an unfettered promise that they would fix it. Then they come back here and suddenly realise that the reality may be something different. So we have a whole series of uncertain opinions culminating in the bill that is before us. There can be no other explanation for this very late change. Those of us who heard the submissions were particularly interested to see that the small but interesting section was put right particularly in regard to where works could be carried out above the ground or at which height. 
New Zealand First still has reservations about what national standards and policy statements under this Government would mean particularly with regard to their gestation and the lack of community input throughout the whole process. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 National members have criticised the Labour Government for not doing enough to ensure we get more big power stations more big pylons and more big roads. They need not be concerned. This whole legislation and everything that flows from it is about forcing big infrastructure projects on to unwilling communities. In Part 2 those two clauses about works crossing roads—extending it from 110 to 400 kilovolts—are just a detail of the Electricity Act. The real meat of it is in Part 1 which we have discussed before. 
The combination of absolute environmental standards with ministerial direction may say for example that huge transmission lines shall be a permitted use in district plans—that is clearly what is envisaged. National environmental standards will say for example that electromagnetic fields must be allowed to be 100 times stronger than those that have been shown in recent UK studies to be associated with a doubling of leukaemia risk in children because that is about the standard that is being advised by the National Radiation Laboratory at the moment. The weakening of the rights of the public to make submissions and the striking out of submissions from members of the public who offend councils in some way is all part of closing down public opposition to this. This is being done for only one way of providing for our electricity needs. It is not as though there is no other way of keeping the lights on in Auckland. There are lots of alternatives that could do so without imposing those huge transmission lines across Waikato. But this Government has done absolutely nothing to make sure that those alternatives can be properly developed. 
The Government has given the Electricity Commission the job of evaluating the transmission lines against the alternatives but has not done anything to ensure that the alternatives will be properly developed so that they can be evaluated. There are certainly no law changes being proposed to make it easier for example for new gas finds to be used as a direct fuel and to be taken to Auckland through the gas pipelines rather than being wasted and turned into electricity at 50 percent efficiency or less which requires new transmission lines to get it up to Auckland. No legislation is being proposed to make it easier to get a coordinated programme of energy efficiency implemented across Auckland’s commercial buildings where so much electricity is wasted at the moment and could be saved at much less cost than generating it. There is no special legislation or other Government favours being proposed to enable better metering and load management in order to send the right pricing signals in Auckland about the time of day of electricity use. There is a lot of technical stuff that one can do with the lines that will reduce that peak loading on the grid. 
There is no special legislation or other provisions being put forward by this Government to make it easier to use wood waste in Northland as a fuel for forestry product processing which would reduce the amount of power that had to be brought to Auckland. All those alternatives are clearly possible and cost-effective but all the effort is going into making sure that it is easy for the pylons to be built because that is what Transpower New Zealand wants to do. It is extremely unfortunate that when we have planning that is designed to facilitate a particular way out of some problems we have such as power demand in Auckland we are facilitating only one approach to the problem—actually the most destructive and unpopular approach—rather than facilitating the alternatives that could have solved the problem. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will make a few comments on Part 2 which deals with the amendments to the electricity legislation. It has been amazing to hear some of the claims about this very small part of the legislation. I have had people in my office who have told me that this is the Government’s sneaky way of making provision for Transpower to do its work all through the Waikato and so on. 
There is a very simple amendment to allow for transmission lines which are above the currently allowed-for capacity to go over roads—not to go through farms and everywhere else but to go across roads. We had representation from our advisers to the Local Government and Environment Committee. They were with us very briefly because there was so little to discuss about the legislation. We did make some changes because some things came up in submissions that made it clear that not everything had been thought about and they have now been resolved adequately I believe. 
United Future is happy to support this part because it simply means we will have fewer difficulties later on. If consent is given for transmission power lines to go wherever when they come to roads they will now not have to go through a whole lot of unnecessary processes just to get across the carriageway of the road. So United Future is very happy with the amendment and we will support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It will be helpful at this time in the debate to recite the sorry history of this Government’s approach to resource management law. Six years ago Labour’s very first act as a Government was to kill off a very constructive bill Simon Upton’s Resource Management Amendment Bill. At that time Labour Ministers said that the Resource Management Act was all honky-dory that it was beautifully crafted and beautifully written and that things were all just going very well. Well is it not interesting that in the very last act of this dying rotten Government it has to revisit the cock-ups it made 6 years ago? In fact it is interesting to note that over 12 of the changes in this bill are straight out of the amendments proposed by Simon Upton over 6 years ago. 
I have been waiting patiently to hear a Government Minister get to his or her feet and apologise for stuffing things up and admit the Government got things wrong put people to extra costs stopped roads from being built to deal with congestion and stopped power stations being built. I have been waiting to hear a Minister say the Government has added millions of dollars of cost to people and that he or she is sorry it got things wrong. But no this arrogant Government does not know the word “sorry”. Its members will use whatever trick they like in order to try to avoid scrutiny of their mistakes. 
I want to note for instance that the big change that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope promised in this bill was to get rid of de novo hearings in the Environment Court and everybody said that he had got that wrong. Even in February the Minister in the chair was saying no he had got that right and it would work really well. But that provision has disappeared. He has had to concede that his most important reform in this bill was a dog and appropriately it has gone. 
What is really worrying is the lost opportunity with regard to this bill. Every New Zealander knows that a shambles is going on in respect of Maori consultation and the Resource Management Act but we hope that a Government will be able to see through that. We hope that a Government will be able to cut through that nonsense and let New Zealanders get on with creating the wealth the jobs and the infrastructure needed for our country to go forward. [ 
Interruption 
] But the sad reality I tell Mr Cosgrove is that we will still have the Environment Court chasing the home of the taniwha because of the PC brigade like that member of the Labour Party. 
 I was driving through Waimakariri last week and what is really interesting about Clayton Cosgrove’s hoardings was that there was no mention of the Labour Party. The Labour Party just was not there. I can remember that; I can believe that. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You can’t read. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Did I not take my microscope? Does one need a telescope to be able to find the tiny little Labour logo on his hoardings? I do not blame Clayton Cosgrove. If I was a member of the Labour Party I would be deeply embarrassed at the mess-up that Labour has made in respect of the Act. This bill will just make the problems of cost uncertainty and delays with the Act worse. 
But there is good news. The good news is that help is on the way. In a few weeks’ time New Zealanders will reject this rotten decaying Government and employ people with the wherewithal to get on and make the changes that are needed so that we can fix the transport problems in Auckland provide security of electricity for our homes and businesses and let farmers get on with creating wealth for this country without the politically correct nonsense that Labour would impose on them. The reform of the Act is absolutely critical to New Zealand’s well-being. We more than any other country depend on the smart use of our resources to create wealth. We want to be able to provide the sorts of changes that will make New Zealand prosper. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am pleased to respond to some of that nonsense because it really encapsulates the difference between what the Government has carefully done over the period since 1999 and the extraordinary contradictions we are already seeing in what National would offer to our community. I was a city councillor in Dunedin during the time of the last National Government and I recall only too well the appalling “we know best” attitude that was shown by Dr Smith and his National Party colleagues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How much did rates go up? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can recall that Dr Smith was part of the Government part of the executive indeed that made the council and the community of which I was a part sell the Waipori power station. Dr Smith should not talk to me or the Dunedin community about talking to people. We have seen the same arrogant unconsultative behaviour in terms of the development of the National Party’s policy. Labour inherited a shambles with the Environment Court in 1999 because of Dr Smith’s incompetence. Since that time we have resourced the Environment Court. It has reduced its backlog by 50 percent since 2000 and currently it mediates 80 percent of cases. We have put in new judges to cope with the workload that the court could not cope with because that member and his incompetent colleagues did not resource it. 
One of the most satisfying things as part of this process is the way we have worked with local government—a way that Local Government New Zealand describes as an exemplary collaborative exercise. Is it any wonder that that level of cooperation could not be achieved with our predecessor in Government National because it was making cities sell power stations and was even embarking on a lunatic proposal to privatise our roads? That member cannot talk to me or my community about working with people. 
The most telling comments I can contribute to the debate are not my words but come from two articles that were in papers in this country in the last 3 or 4 days. The first comments come from an article by a senior planner in Auckland who is writing on behalf of the Environmental Defence Society. I will read just a few comments from that article: “The National Party’s policy proposals to ‘rebalance’ the Resource Management Act are a direct attack on people’s rights to have a say on what happens to their environment… That provision removes significant rights of people to protect their property interests and the environment. It is backward move… This is because National proposes to abolish legal aid for RMA cases so there will be no financial support available for those without financial means… So what will be the result of these provisions if they are implemented? They will mean poorer quality decision-making greater degradation of our environment more procedural litigation and huge frustration in the wider community at the new system. This is in no one’s interests apart from second-rate developers who will be able to get their proposals approved more easily.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did Business New Zealand say? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well what did Business New Zealand say? I am afraid that Dr Smith has walked into that one because the Business Council for Sustainable Development has written to me and said that it got six out of the eight things it approached us for. While Dr Smith is accusing Labour of bribing people I can tell him that we do not bribe the editorial writers of the  
Otago Daily Times 
. I will repeat for him comments from the document I tabled yesterday. The editorial from last Friday’s  
Otago Daily Times  
states: “The Government wants faster decision-making for resource consents more power for local councils to work with developers to speed things along and national guidelines to avoid the conflicting standards between regions. National wants to go much further—too far in fact … Under National’s proposals we very much doubt whether for example the campaigns which succeeded in Lake Manapouri being saved from destruction or Aramoana from smelter construction would have been more than pipe-dreams. National’s proposals … are a bare-faced attempt to erase basic rights of dissent while its measures intended to diminish the rights of local government in resource consent matters would actually extinguish a basic premise of the Act which is that communities most affected by applications should have the principal say in decision-making.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just your mates. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That member cannot talk to me and the Government about mates when he is advocating a “chequebook wins” policy in resource consent applications. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The leader of New Zealand First often refers to “two tired old parties”. That exchange first of all by Dr Nick Smith and then the response from the Minister brings every use of that phrase to mind. I have been familiar with this Act since it was passed in 1991. When I hear Dr Smith making those very passionate comments I think of the period between 1991 to 1999 when I saw one guiding step from the Government—namely a coastal policy statement. Not one other item of real guidance went to councils throughout the country who basically had to find their way through the planning stages from 1991 to 1999. It is no wonder therefore that many councils although they are sympathetic to the present suggestions in this bill are also very well aware as I have already mentioned of the high cost in terms of funding staffing time and even more important the community input that produced their plans. As has already been said although the councils have been under the auspices of Local Government New Zealand generally sympathetic to this bill in other ways they have reservations about how it will impact on the community. 
For a Government that has prided itself as it did during the passing of the Local Government Act 2002 on a high level of advocacy with regard to consultation and that has talked about expanding the role of councils—I believe unwisely—so that they are now all things to all people at a high cost to their ratepayers to now come to the Chamber and suggest that it has adopted a different path is rather unseemly. I too recall coming to this Chamber in 2002 and seeing a truncated attempt by the present Government with regard to the reforms advocated by Simon Upton. It was very very strange as I observed in the first reading debate to come back and see how many of those ideas are inherent in this bill but never acknowledged. Instead we still have no real acknowledgment of much of the genesis of the ideas that are being expressed in this bill. 
I know that many councils are friendly toward this bill and the suggested changes. They have yet to see the real teeth with regard to policy statements and national standards which I have no doubt will be superimposed on what I have already stated as being a command and control approach to these matters. I would have hoped that for once in the course of this debate there would be a reasonable explanation by the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope as to what the Government’s intention really was in bringing this bill into the House. I see it as being not much different from that envisaged by Simon Upton in 1999. 
I say on behalf of New Zealand First that we do not support this bill. We recognise again the excellent work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee and the people who were involved in advising it but this bill is not the answer. The time for change is yet ahead and I look forward to being part of that process after the next election. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is unusual for clause 2 of a bill the clause that sets the date on which certain provisions will come into force to be as significant as clause 2 of this bill. I want to talk about the significance of this clause 2. It relates to clauses 82 and 83 in Part 1 which deal with an idea introduced in 1999 by the Rt Hon Simon Upton. The idea was that it should be possible to seek a declaration from the Environment Court on whether a matter should have been notified by a council. 
The Resource Management Act is very clear on the question of notification. It makes it clear that an application must be notified unless the effects on the environment are minor. Even if the effects are minor the application must still be notified if persons affected have not given their consent. The Supreme Court in a very useful judgment just recently made it clear that that minor effects test is the overriding one and that if the effects are not minor one does not even go so far as to ask who might have to give consent; the public must have an opportunity to be heard. 
Councils for some years have been taking a very strange view of “minor effects”. A number of projects have been declared to have minor effects and have therefore not been notified—projects like big open-cast coalmines coastal landfills 13-storey buildings right next door to people who did not even know those buildings were going up and the clearance of very significant areas of native forest. There has been increasing concern that the test of “minor effects” has been interpreted extremely liberally and that people who should have been notified about a project have known nothing about it—but there has been no real redress. 
To challenge those notification decisions people have had to go to the High Court for judicial review of council decisions. Not only is that very expensive—most community groups cannot afford it—but it is also unlikely that the High Court would be able to issue any redress even if it found that challengers were right. So the cases that have been taken to the High Court for judicial review have tended to be cases of wealthy businesses reviewing decisions on the applications of other wealthy businesses rather than those concerning community groups and individuals who have been shut out of the process. 
Simon Upton proposed that instead of the High Court the Environment Court was the court that should be able to consider whether notification decisions had been made in error. The Environment Court is used to considering environmental issues. It is familiar with the minor effects test and it is accessible to people who cannot pay $20000 first up before they even hire a lawyer. 
The Greens strongly supported that provision of Simon Upton’s bill—unlike most of the other provisions which we managed to knock out at the select committee stage. The select committee agreed to support that part of the bill as well. But the bill came back to the House sat here for 2 years then that clause was taken out by the Labour Government in a Supplementary Order Paper to an earlier amendment to the Resource Management Act. 
The provision is now back in clauses 82 and 83 of this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee added to it and gave the Environment Court powers to offer redress in situations where the public had been excluded wrongly from commenting on an application. But it is a pyrrhic victory because clauses 82 and 83 will never come into force unless Cabinet chooses to pass an Order in Council. 
That is the same trick Jim Bolger played on Winston Peters over the Overseas Investment Act. Mr Peters’ amendments were passed into law and he did not notice until the time of the next Government—when the Greens pointed it out to him—that in fact his amendments had not come into force at all but were waiting on an Order in Council as well. 
That did not happen this time. I read the bill from the beginning looked up the references in clause 2 and knew immediately where the Government was coming from. The Government argues that it is necessary to delay the coming into effect of those clauses because the Environment Court is too busy to hear such cases. It has promised that when the Environment Court is less busy then that Order in Council will be passed. 
Well I am sorry but I have to point out that the Environment Court is now meeting its deadlines. It is hearing cases within the time frame that has been set for hearing cases. In fact in some cases it is offering a hearing date before the applicant is even ready to proceed and the applicant is asking for a delay. A great deal has been done—and I have to give Labour credit for that—since the Labour Government came to power to speed up processes in the Environment Court by creating a new division more resourcing another judge and so forth. That court is never likely to be less busy than it is now so this is clearly just a tactic to make sure that that clause never comes into effect. 
The Greens are not to be duped like that; we are not like Winston Peters. We do read the legislation and we were aware right from the beginning that this was happening. I want to place on record our very great disappointment and concern that a good proposal like this has been put on indefinite hold by the Labour Government. But I also have to express my disgust at Simon Upton’s erstwhile colleagues in the National Party. After lauding all the things in his 1999 Resource Management Act Amendment Bill they are now totally opposed to this legislation because it would give members of the public a real opportunity to exercise some control over councils that sometimes get just too close to developers. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Before we move on to speeches on the third reading I would like to make just a few comments in response to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ very clear description of what is taking place within this bill in terms of amendments to allow for appeals on notification to go to the Environment Court. I think she explained the situation very well in that while this bill does allow for those appeals to take place it is unlikely they will ever occur in the future. I think that that is United Future’s position. We would probably rather see the Order in Council for appeals to transfer to the Environment Court never materialise. 
Today I reviewed United Future’s position on this matter going right back to October 2002 when I made a speech concerning the Resource Management (Controlled and Discretionary Activities) Amendment Bill a member’s bill of Owen Jennings and when we first committed to reform within the Resource Management Act. I made it very clear that United Future’s position was that we did not want to see the removal of appeals from the High Court. In fact as I looked I found that it was the Government of the day that removed that provision from the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No. 2) so it was certainly not keen to see that happen. 
In this bill we really do have a great compromise between United Future’s position and the Labour Government’s position as has happened on many occasions—unfortunately not on some of the occasions when we would have liked to see it happen. Certainly in this case we are pleased with the arrangement in this bill—where we have provision for the change to occur but a recognition that it is probably not in the best interests of the overall process for the Environment Court to have to deal with those issues—and we look forward now to the final passage of this bill through its third reading and into law. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 As other speakers have said this bill and the time that Parliament is spending on it have given an opportunity to try to fix something that many many New Zealanders have been begging to have fixed for a long time. It has also been an opportunity to fix something that a huge number of New Zealanders—probably the vast majority of New Zealanders—do not even know is making their lives a misery. They are New Zealanders like the Grey Power members who are busy demanding that the Government renationalise power generation. They are people like those sitting in traffic jams right now as traffic starts to build up in Auckland and wondering why it is so hard to get what seem to them to be common-sense requirements to break the logjam in Auckland roading. 
This bill or what it should have been reforming is affecting the people who are trying to meet their water rates in places where there are water rates. It is affecting people who are struggling and wondering how they can ever buy a house on their income when land prices have gone to a multiple of three or four times the average wage. 
This bill does not touch on the basic problem that the Resource Management Act created. The Act’s intention may have been well meaning but for years people have clung to the idea that all that was wrong with it was its silly administrators—that all that was needed to do was to tell the bozos in local authorities that they should not misuse its provisions. I have heard it said so often that there is nothing wrong with the Resource Management Act except that it is badly run. 
But the Resource Management Act is fatally flawed and this bill simply eliminates a small part of the difficulty for Government in relation to infrastructure. It eliminates some of the worst irritants particularly for those major developers who will be able to afford to attract the attention needed to get their developments called in under this legislation but it leaves irritants in place where the Act most needs reform—that is for the everyday developers who are probably individuals maybe once or twice in their lifetimes needing to make some change in their land use. 
This bill should have been absolutely panned by every Maori member of this Parliament because it simply confirms that the Government regards article 2 of the treaty as an empty nonsense. The bill continues to entice Maori into using their iwi consultation rights when the very existence of those rights is a denial of the undisturbed use possession and power to control the use and disposition of land that article 2 promised them. Instead of Maori being here to ask for the legislation to be repealed and to ask for the property rights they were promised to be restored they have been suborned into being part of the process of attacking everyone else’s property rights. Maori have been gulled into being part of the process by which busybodies and newly-minted planners impose their ideas of how property should be used on the people who actually wear the costs. 
If this bill had been doing what it should have been doing we would have seen house prices falling as sections became available without the imposition of years and years of delay and years of complaint from people who want the status quo. The absolutely natural tendency of humans is to want the status quo all around them but also to have the freedom to do what they wish on their own property. The whole idea of property rights promised in the treaty was that within one’s boundaries one could do what one wished even if the authorities did not like one’s disturbance of the status quo. 
What New Zealand has done with the Resource Management Act is to re-communalise property decisions and we are paying an enormous price for it. We are paying for it with our risks of electricity shortage and we are paying for it in our roading paralysis. My executive secretary 35 years ago was buying the land to complete the Auckland roading network. He looks at it now and sees that the roads are still not built. That is not just because of political paralysis; it is because of the absolute despair that people feel when they know they will have to go through this palaver. 
I heard from someone working in the authority responsible for fixing up that death-dealing road between Hamilton and Auckland that the authority did not dare build a new bridge because officials could not stand the thought of the consultation processes they would have to go through in order to build it. It was considered to be far better to build wings on the existing bridge—but less safe less long-lasting with less capacity with millions more in costs and with more disruption while being built—than to go through the hassle of having to apply to build a new bridge which would have gone alongside the old bridge. The Government should be absolutely ashamed that it has not moved to make that sort of outcome impossible. 
Sure Supplementary Order Paper 389 is now doing the sensible thing of involving iwi consultation—at the risk of mysterious taniwha being discovered—and restricting it to the planning stage. But of course plans can be changed—and need to be changed frequently—so we will not see an end to that little irritant in the relationship between Maori and Pakeha. 
Unfortunately this bill is a huge missed opportunity. There are sensible things in it but what has been missed out is of much greater importance so ACT will be obliged to vote against this part of the bill in order to mark what has been lost. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Abstentions 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3)  
divided into Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3)  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 388 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) 
Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Readings 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment)  
on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. Labour is committed to a clean and healthy environment and to giving people a say in environmental decision-making. Protecting our environment is a strategic investment in New Zealand’s future. The Resource Management Act is about striking the right balance between using our environment and protecting it for future generations. 
There are those who have signalled their intention to gut the Resource Management Act. They want to tilt the playing field so that development will win out over the legitimate concerns of communities. I think most New Zealanders would regard that as incredibly short-sighted and would be most concerned. New Zealanders in major surveys consistently rate quality of life much higher than economic drivers. 
I wish to affirm today the belief that the Resource Management Act can be improved. However those improvements are not to be found in changing the sound fundamental principles of the Act but in listening and responding to the genuine concerns of those who use the Act. The Government’s view of the Resource Management Act after 18 months of consultation has highlighted concerns associated with delays costs inconsistency and a lack of national leadership since 1991. The solutions contained in this legislation relate to those very real problems. 
There are people who are trying to put up phantoms distortions and out and out lies in their bid to rip the Resource Management Act apart. They would have us believe that we have had no new roads and no new power infrastructure and in fact that all projects requiring any sort of resource consent have had to be cancelled. Of course that is just nonsense. Attacks of that kind are big on slogans but very short on facts. 
In recent times the New Zealand economy has grown 3.5 percent against an OECD average of 2.2 percent. In fact growth has been significantly higher in New Zealand compared with most other OECD members for a number of years now. In excess of 49000 resource consents are issued by local government each year and 95 percent of them are considered minor and non-notified. Fewer than 1 percent of consent applications are declined each year. A comparison of environmental compliance costs internationally shows that New Zealand is a better place in which to be doing business than many of our competitor nations including Australia. 
The New Zealand system of environmental management places huge responsibilities on local government—more so than anywhere else in the world. The amendments proposed in this legislation tackle decision making at all levels. Local authorities and the Environment Court have made huge improvements in implementing the Resource Management Act since its inception in 1991. Due to increased funding and new case-management systems the backlog in the Environment Court has been slashed by 50 percent since 2001. Those who have been dealing with the Environment Court know that cases get attention within weeks now not years as it used to be. The court now puts pressure on parties to mediate or progress cases as soon as possible. 
The legislation builds on those improvements by introducing accreditation for hearing consents and by requiring local decision makers to set out the matters that inform their decisions. Councils will be given more tools to conduct robust hearings. Decision makers will need to be accredited and when they have achieved that accreditation they will have new powers to deal with vexatious submitters. I am delighted to inform the House that nearly 600 local government elected members have already committed to and completed the training process. 
The legislation introduces a series of timely sensible and well-thought-out improvements to the workings of the Resource Management Act. It provides greater certainty and efficiency in the way the Act operates while not sacrificing protection for the environment. It will enable the Resource Management Act to work even better. 
This legislation is about achieving the right balance between national and local interests. The Government recognises that local authorities are increasingly being asked to consider projects that raise issues of national significance. The current policy environment provides little guidance on balancing local and national interests. This legislation provides a new way for councils and Government to work together when matters have more than local implications—when they raise issues of national significance. The legislation implements policy developed by Local Government New Zealand to give the Minister for the Environment more tools to deal with matters that need to be decided at a national level or with assistance from central government. Those tools will be exercised only after consultation with the relevant local authorities. The Minister has also been granted new powers to investigate local authority performance to make recommendations and to direct local authorities to prepare plans. 
The Government is committed to greater central government leadership in the Resource Management Act. It has already adopted 14 national environmental standards and the Ministry for the Environment is currently scoping a further five national environmental standards and three national policy statements. Changes in the legislation will facilitate both the development of national policy statements and the implementation of national environmental standards. The legislation is a reinforcement that national standards should be able to set clear and consistent environmental bottom lines without allowing significant adverse effects on the environment. 
The legislation also supports local policy formation and makes improvements to its design and process. It reaffirms the local authority’s role in setting local policy. It elevates the status of regional policy statements and thereby promotes integrated regional planning. The Government has placed emphasis on working with local government and communities and this legislation focuses on empowering councils so that they have the skills and the resources needed to implement improvements to the Resource Management Act process. We can and do as a nation need economic growth but in such a way that it does not ride roughshod over communities or the clean air water and soil guaranteed and necessary for generations to come. 
The Resource Management Act is a good one. We want to make it work even better for all New Zealanders. I am pleased to commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 That was a fitting valedictory speech from the Associate Minister for the Environment for the mess that he made of one of New Zealand’s most important statutes. One need look only at the traffic congestion problem in Auckland or at the concern in every one of our daily newspapers about the security of electricity supply and one needs only to read the magazines of small business and farmers to understand that this Government has made a complete hash of the Resource Management Act. Six years ago when Labour came into Government it rejected a very important bill to reform that Act. It said in the words of Marian Hobbs that the Act was beautifully written was beautifully crafted and was not in need of any change. That in fact was the policy of the Government for that 3-year period. I notice the Minister is running to hide. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well he is. I tell the Minister that he is an embarrassment in terms of the way in which he has treated the House in respect of this amendment legislation. 
The great irony is this. Labour has put out repeated press statements stating that National is going to take away the rights of people to be able to be consulted and have a say in decision making. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can the member who has chipped in explain this to me: why did the Government this morning introduce Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope which included 45 pages of changes? Today the Government introduced and passed 140 clauses. The silence is deafening. This Government says we should do as it says not as it does. If the Government wants to change the law it puts forward a bill rams it through Parliament and tells everybody else to get lost. But a council a farmer or a small-business person will have to consult for months—for years—before being able to make any of the important resource management decisions. 
The Minister says we are brewing up and exaggerating the problems with regard to the Act. Well let me give members some information about the Government’s own reports on it. In 2002 the Government commissioned a compliance cost report with all its cronies—all its people—on the committee. They came back and said that the No. 1 concern in respect of compliance costs in New Zealand was the Act. Then we had the IMD study which was an international study that ranked countries in terms of their competitiveness. Overall New Zealand went down under this Labour Government. That is not a surprise but what was surprising was the fact that in the area of environmental lawmaking New Zealand ranked bottom—No. 60 out of 60. If that is not a message for reform I do not know what would be. 
One of the really important industries for New Zealand is our forest industry. We have a wall of wood that is coming on and I do not know any New Zealander who does not want to see that timber processed and have value added to it in New Zealand rather than be exported as logs. What is interesting is that we have a greater forestry industry our near neighbour Australia. Right now Australia has 21 new major timber mills being built and in New Zealand we have none. If we were losing an All Blacks game to the Aussies by that sort of margin there would be nationwide uproar yet that is what is occurring in one of our most important industries. 
I will give some good practical examples of what occurs. Transit New Zealand which is given the job of building the roads told a parliamentary select committee that it now takes 7 years on average to get a consent for a new highway. Can we wait 7 years to fix the traffic problems that are affecting cities like Auckland Tauranga Hamilton Nelson and Wellington? Of course we cannot. I also have some little examples. A boating club in Auckland wanted to put in a boat ramp. It cost the club $160000 to get consent for a boat ramp that cost $35000. The stories go on and on and this Government does not understand what is occurring. 
Then we have the issue of the speedway. It is just an example but it really does bring home the attitude of this Government. Fifty-thousand people signed a petition to try to ensure the survival of the Western Springs Speedway but the Government chose to give $28000 to 34 residents every one of whom had moved in and bought a house after the speedway was there and in January the residents using taxpayers’ money successfully shut down the speedway. Now the Auckland City Council unanimously—the councillors are Labour members; hard-left members—wants to have the power to be able to change the council’s district plan. Under this Government legislation that will take 3 years. The Western Springs Speedway will be well and truly dead and buried in 3 years so during the Committee stage I put forward a very simple amendment. It simply stated that we would empower the Auckland City Council and every other council in New Zealand to be able to make a change to its plan with effect straight away if it so wished. It was designed to empower councils. The interesting thing was that not one Labour member got to his or her feet and explained why he or she opposed that amendment. Effectively today the Green Party and the Labour Party have killed the Western Springs Speedway. I acknowledge New Zealand First United Future and ACT for supporting that amendment but I would love to hear from a Labour member as to why Labour does not trust councils to have discretion in respect of those plan changes rather than automatically applying the most stringent provision to them. It does not make sense. 
Then we have the Government’s approach to try to clog up the Environment Court. This legislation provides that every single little one of the 50000 resource consents—and that is far too many—is now able to be appealed to the Environment Court on notification. I have never heard of such a dopey idea. Yet that is what we have put in the law and it will make the delays the uncertainties and the blackmail that occur under the Act even worse. 
Every person in this Parliament would know that the most important speech that has been given in the term of this Parliament was the brave speech made by Don Brash at Orewa in respect of how we deal with relations between different sorts of New Zealanders. Don Brash said that all New Zealanders should be treated equally in the law. But in this legislation we have a continuation of the situation and that will make it even worse. 
Jill Pettis 
: Tell us what that means. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Jill Pettis the retiring member for Whanganui asks me to explain. National says that the Act should be colour-blind. Whether one is a Maori an Asian a Pacific Island or a Pakeha New Zealander one should be treated absolutely equally under the Act—and that provision will be in a bill that we will introduce to this House as a new Government in a few weeks’ time because that is what New Zealanders want for their future. This legislation from Labour introduces co-management whatever that is. It will mean that people will have to write out even bigger cheques in order to be able to deal with those who claim that taniwha live in the neighbourhood when one wants to build a road or something of that sort. 
In no area of policy has National been as explicit as in outlining the 22 changes that it would make to the Resource Management Act. National wants to have high environmental standards. We want to make sure that this country uses its resources wisely but we want to end the gravy train the waste the costs and the uncertainty that has grown around the Act. This legislation is a big disappointment. It is noteworthy that the single most significant change—as said by the Minister himself—in this legislation has subsequently been rejected. This legislation is a dog. It takes us nowhere. I know that the people of New Zealand are looking forward to having a Government that does know how to fix the Act and ensure that New Zealand has a clean environment and a prosperous economy. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 After listening to that last member one would think that even the present Resource Management Act has stopped any progress on the development of new electricity generation facilities. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It has. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Well let me give members a list of some of the things that have recently been approved under the Resource Management Act without undue delay. There was the re-consenting of schemes on the Waitaki River and the Clutha River in my area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Those are old schemes. They’re not new. 
DAVID PARKER 
: That is quite right. They account for more than a third of New Zealand’s power output but they are old schemes and they have been re-consented. What about new schemes? I will give the member a list. There was the extension of Manapouri power station. Improvements to that scheme—actually in the middle of a national park—gained resource consent under the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That was under National. 
DAVID PARKER 
: No I am sorry I say to Dr Smith but the Manapouri scheme has just been completed within the last year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The resource consent was under National. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Oh zip up! The Te Apiti wind farm near Palmerston North was granted resource consent under the Resource Management Act and extensions to Te Apiti were consented under the Resource Management Act. Gas and coal-fired plants in the central North Island were consented under the Resource Management Act and the oil-fired backup facility at Whirinaki was consented under the Resource Management Act. So it is not as dire as Dr Smith would have members believe. 
It is true that there were very considerable delays in appeals being heard in the Environment Court and that provided fertile ground for stand-over tactics by unreasonable objectors. I agree that that was a problem. That was a problem when National had conduct of the Resource Management Act. Appeal periods were normally around 2 years. There was a 2-year period in which people had to wait before they could get a decision from the Environment Court on their appeal. So at times people were persuaded that to avoid 2 years’ delay they should come to a compromise with objectors on terms. There were some stand-over tactics. 
We have remedied that. The simple remedy was to bring appeal periods down to a more reasonable period. Now the norm is 6 months rather than 2 years or more. Most of those blackmail tactics have already dropped out of the system. We have gone further in this bill. We have made it clear that no applicant has to consult anyone prior to making his or her application and having that application heard and that is the way the law should be. So in this bill we have fixed the extent to which there was a grey area as to whether some groups—in particular Maori groups—had to be consulted prior to an application being made. But members would not believe that if they were listening to Dr Smith. 
In relation to requests for information one of the complaints we have had from some groups is that requests for information can be made ad nauseam by councils and sometimes those requests are unreasonable. Of course some of the accusations that the council’s requests are unreasonable are themselves wrong and reasonable requests from councils for further information as to adverse environmental effects have been wrongly refused by applicants. 
How does central government deal with that in a fair way? The solution this bill comes up with is quite good. It states that if an applicant is asked for further information the applicant can call the bluff of the council and say no and proceed to a hearing. The council then can either grant the consent or it can turn it down on the grounds that it needed that further information and the applicant would not provide it. The applicants or objectors can then appeal against the decision to the Environment Court if they are dissatisfied with that decision. But if the Environment Court finds that the information requested by the council and refused by the applicant was in fact properly requested then the Environment Court has to turn down the appeal and it goes back to the start. That is quite a nice way of managing the tension so that applicants cannot be unreasonably forced to provide additional information but councils can turn down applicants who refuse to comply with reasonable requests. 
I turn also to a question raised by Dr Smith about trees not being logged in New Zealand at the moment. The main reason trees are not being logged in the volumes that might have been contemplated a decade ago is that prices are very low and landowners or tree owners—if they just own the trees on the land—are taking a rational economic decision to leave their trees in the ground where they continue to grow while they wait for prices in forestry to recover. Given the cyclical nature of the timber industry those prices are expected to increase again in the future and at that time the tree owners will log and process their trees. 
I refer also to the question of appeals. It is true that in the initial draft of the bill that came to the select committee some pretty radical surgery was proposed to appeal rights—that is to limit appeals to a rehearing on the evidence that had been given in the council hearing with some limited exceptions for additional evidence to be given. 
At the start of that process I was in favour of that as a suggestion. But I was wrong. What I am pleased about is that it flushed out the somewhat irrational criticism we had heard at times of the Resource Management Act. The vast bulk of submitters to the select committee be they councils—local or regional authorities—developers environmental groups or the Law Society all said: “Hey look it’s not that bad. Please don’t gut the Resource Management Act of the protections that citizens and the environment need.” They told us that we need to be a bit careful given that only one in 10 cases—or even fewer than that—does go to appeal. We would not want to load costs on the process for the nine cases that do not go to appeal just to save costs on the one in 10 cases that did go to appeal. 
They pointed out that had we not changed the provisions to the form in which they now appear in the bill today the effect would have been to create additional formality in all council hearings. Everyone would have had to cross every “t” and dot every “i” in the first hearing. As a consequence initial council hearings would have become more formalised and longer. There would have been more expense of expert evidence and it would have been more costly for the councils applicants and objectors. So cost would have been added in all 10 cases even though cost savings were being saved only by shortening appeal times on the one case that went to appeal. 
So what did we do about that? The Government came up through the ministry with a very neat solution. It said that it was not good enough that at the moment the Environment Court could completely ignore what happened at council. At the moment under the present law the Environment Court can absolutely disregard what happened at the council hearing and conduct its de novo hearing on appeal. We said that that was not good enough if the council had made a reasonable decision. They are people who are empowered to make decisions for their local people and they should not be overruled unless there is good reason to overrule them. 
So the proposal that the Government through the ministry officials recommended to the select committee and that the select committee adopted was that the Environment Court must now have regard to the original decision. It must have regard to the council’s decision. The effect is that for the Environment Court to overrule a council decision it will have to give reasons—and so it should. If the Environment Court does not have good reasons to overturn an original council decision why should it overturn it? I think that is a very good amendment. This legislation will improve the function of the Resource Management Act. 
I make one further reference. I am very comfortable with what is happening on the Waitaki River. It is a very fair process where an independent board of inquiry with considerable expertise chaired by an Environment Court judge independent of political interference applies Resource Management Act principles to the writing of a plan. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Do you support the draft? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith asked whether I support the draft plan they produced. I support large parts of it but of course it is only a draft. If it were not just a draft there would not be a need to have a draft and neither would there be a need to have submissions. Obviously a draft is not perfect. That is why a draft is produced and that is why there are submissions so that one can perfect a plan following an inquiry. 
In my opinion the criticisms of those independent judicial officers on that board have been reprehensible. The critics have been unprincipled and the people now on the Opposition benches who say that if they were in central government they would know best and they would overrule a decision of an independent board really showed the National Party for what it is and what it has always been. It is “think big” and the Clyde Dam. To hell with principles just do what is necessary in order to scratch the itch that they need to on the day. This is the response they also give in relation to Maori issues in this bill. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3). I begin by going back to the policy that we looked at early last year as we thought about the changes that were needed to the Resource Management Act. We noted then that the Act in 1991 was designed to promote sustainability when managing economic development in relation to our resources. But after 13 years we thought last year that the Act required provisions to improve processes and procedures to reduce compliance costs to clarify the expectations that people had of the system and most of all to make certain that there was progress yet protection for our resources. To some degree I rise to support the fact that much of that is achieved in the legislation before the House. 
But I do not come to the House as one who thinks the Resource Management Act has never ever worked. In Northland right now as we speak there is an application by Mighty River Power for a coal-fired station. The application by the way has had a response from the community of 3200 submissions. A panel was appointed and it went as far afield as Perth in regard to gaining the skills and expertise needed to hear the application. The joint hearing is on behalf of the Whangarei District Council and the Northland Regional Council. The Minister for the Environment has agreed that the staff have the expertise and the ability to handle such a project. As I said the hearing is now in progress. No doubt when the decision is made there will be an appeal to the Environment Court. 
That is the system that we know; that is the Resource Management Act operating today and working. When I hear the calls I have heard during the course of this debate and elsewhere that the Act is responsible for so much that is not happening I cringe because it is not the reality. We all know that every major development project in this country not least the one to develop Transmission Gully or an eastern highway here requires adequate planning sequential phasing and funding and that the consent process under the Resource Management Act is but one part. The National Party’s stance is to take no responsibility whatsoever. That party was in Government between 1991 and 1999 and it did not undertake any significant major development in that time in regard to either land transport or energy yet it now has the gall to come here and in speech after speech express concern about the fact that nothing has been done. That is indicative of what the Rt Hon Winston Peters always says—that National is but a tired old party somewhat renewed in the past 6 years but not much different. 
When I think of the present Government’s response to some of these matters at this very late stage just before the election when it is trying to cobble together something of a development phase to please some of its recently acquired supporters—no doubt party funders—again I cringe to think that so much time has been wasted and so much has yet to be achieved. 
So far as New Zealand First is concerned we saw the original bill as an opportunity to catch up on some of the issues we know are inherent in the Act in regard to processes and making decisions. We were surprised as we have already expressed at how many of the submitters who came to us particularly those from councils and the legal profession were relatively satisfied with the Act and were looking for major change in regard to the first bill which we saw back in December of last year. As I have already mentioned the Local Government and Environment Committee went ahead and took out much of that bill. The final legislation that we are looking at now despite the late call on the Supplementary Order Paper is remarkably better than what we saw at the start. We acknowledge that the issue mentioned by other speakers in relation to increases in staffing and funding for the Environment Court has had a very good result in terms of reduced time for appeals. That has all been acknowledged. 
But for New Zealand First’s part I still find it very interesting that the policy statements and the national standards remain largely undefined. That is a substantial reason why we find it very hard to support this revised and improved legislation. We do not have in it an explanation of what is national interest nor do we have a clear indication of who should be heard in various matters. As we were told in Hamilton and other places there does appear to be a belief in various parts of the legislation particularly in regard to the supposed vexatious and frivolous submitter that natural justice ought not to prevail. I have here a comment made by Megarry in 1971: “It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice. ‘When something is obvious’ they may say ‘why force everybody to go through the tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunity to be heard?”—and this is the issue for this bill—“The result is obvious from the start.’ ” For us. we would always hope that there was a part for the battler the ordinary person in our society to have an unfettered and unobstructed path in regard to what happens in his or her community. At times that ability of the ordinary ratepayer the ordinary citizen to have that part seems to be almost lost. It is one feature that we found interesting. I agree with the co-leader of the Green Party that the rights that that person has still are not clearly defined. 
The other issue which I wish to conclude on is that we have heard much debate in this Chamber about the issues pertaining to Maori. I reaffirm on behalf of New Zealand First that in the future we would look at removing from the Resource Management Act reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but in no way would that denigrate sections 6 and 7 in Part II. We would expand them after a fuller discussion of what sustainable development would be. I go back to the fact that we acknowledge absolutely—which other parties do not appear to do—that Maori in this country authorised by the Treaty of Waitangi wholesale European settlement and that the treaty promised them that they and their possessions would be treated fairly and that Maori language arts tribal histories and so on which have remained different from the European equivalents would remain. Again I restate what Dame Anne Salmond said early last year: they exist nowhere else in the world and help define what is special about New Zealand. Any attempt in the Resource Management Act to move away from that position would be one that New Zealand First would not favour. 
In this country we have no option except to find common ground. Our task in this Parliament and in the community must be to build a successful country in which people are always able to find a common cause. We should always be mindful in our legislation of our heritage whether Maori Pakeha or other—all of whom have sought to become members of our country. We should share our pride in our shared heritage with Maori and others. That should be the mark of any rethinking or redevelopment in regard to Part II. Having said that I say that we look forward to the opportunity in the future to redevelop and look at Part II. We believe that the concept of sustainable development with all the values and ethical issues it has and most of all its emphasis upon the property rights of the occupier and the owner has been lost in the past in regard to this legislation and needs to be asserted. We look forward to seeing whether this legislation really works. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I am sorry to say that we do not support the legislation going any further but will watch with interest the way that it operates. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on the third reading of this legislation and confirm that our vote will be a regretted vote. We will vote against the legislation regretfully because some parts of it are long overdue. But we also will vote against it regretfully because of such a wasted opportunity. We will vote against it because it is a patch and perhaps it is the kind of patch that makes a very poor vehicle last slightly longer. It is a patch that only just touches on many of the things that are wrong. One of them which the Hon Jim Peters— 
Jim Peters 
: Thank you. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The member can share his brother’s honours! One of them which Mr Jim Peters has just talked about is the fudge that is left after this legislation of the position of Maori under the Resource Management Act. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has made a feature of going around the country declaring his discovery that so-called principles of the treaty do not mean anything—that no one can tell him what they mean. At his recent conference he made a real feature of declaring in ringing terms that he would dump them—he would get rid of them. But he has not told us what theory he does work on. We got a glimmering of it just now from Mr Jim Peters that it is a theory based on the fact that Maori were here first and that the treaty was a deal that enabled Pakeha to settle peacefully in Maori territory. 
 But that does not deal with the problem of race privilege under the Resource Management Act. What this legislation does is state that the worst feature of it namely the consultation processes that have made a misery for so many people including Maori who are loathed because of it will be limited to the planning stage instead of being on every application for a resource consent. But both Mr Winston Peters and Mr Jim Peters have said that they are not tackling the really big myth the really big fake in this whole treaty industry. The big myth is the so-called partnership. The big myth is that the partnership that was invented in the mid-1980s entitles Maori in perpetuity to some kind of trump card that overcomes electoral democracy some kind of eternal privilege that means they get a power which is called consultation but that delay can often veto in the Resource Management Act. 
All we have heard from the New Zealand First Party is that it will look at developing the role of Maori consistent with the original concept in the treaty. Partnership does not appear anywhere. The role of consultative power does not appear anywhere. It was all invented at the same time as the so-called principles. I tell Mr Peters that if we take out the principles what is left is no better. It is the fake partnership. 
Jim Peters 
: Justice Cooke stuff. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is Justice Cooke stuff exactly. I know that at least Mr Peters is well aware of the problem. But it does not deal with the problems that this legislation leaves in place. For example who is Maori for this purpose? Is it tangata whenua local iwi? Possibly it is but the Local Government Act does not say that. The Local Government Act requires that local authorities involve Maori in decision making not tangata whenua not the people whose rohe it is. So what do we do about that? There is nothing in this legislation. 
It does not tell us how long this will go on. Will this privilege still pertain to the third generation that has been living in Sydney? Is it a race privilege or is it some kind of privilege that comes from still living in the area—the kind of respect that any community would want to give to those who have been there for a very long time and whom one would ask about a land-use proposal because we might assume that they knew a bit more about the area and had a stronger feeling for it than the more recent arrivals? 
That kind of consultation we can understand but instead it is cast as a race privilege. It is cast as an inherited aristocratic power—the inherited status of lord of the manor whom the other tenants must approach and obtain consent for the way they use their land. 
The real problem with this is that the New Zealand First Party has not identified the essence of the property rights promised by article 2 and the property rights that have been trashed by the Resource Management Act. This legislation does nothing to reinstate full exclusive and undisturbed possession—the right to use and enjoyment that was promised in article 2. That has been trashed. 
This legislation does everything that Mr Baldock says it will do which is maintain the communalisation of New Zealanders’ property. Instead of property being a glory to us instead of property rights protecting every ordinary New Zealander—[ 
Interruption 
] The rangatiratanga is exactly what it is I say to Mr Baldock. It is what Gordon Copeland’s bill should do. But why then does United Future vote for a Resource Management Act that simply undermines all those rights? 
United Future members tell me that their bill to insert property rights back into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act where they should be will fix the problems that they are about to vote for in the Resource Management Act. Why not cut out the middle man? Why not face the fact that that bill will vanish with the closing of this Parliament and there is no right on the part of New Zealand First to insist that it be revived in the new Parliament? 
In fact the bill to protect property rights—which was picked up from Owen Jennings of ACT and I commended Mr Copeland for that—will be gone when this Parliament is dissolved. [ 
Interruption 
] They dissolve. They are picked up only if the new Parliament decides to pick them up. United Future is counting on the fact that it will have the same pulling power with the new Government. I think it is being pretty hopeful. I think there might be a Green Party that says: “We don’t think we want that one.” The Green Party trashes property rights. The Green Party will not allow that one. 
So we have a United Future vote for this legislation but it does not believe in important parts of it; and we have a New Zealand First vote against this legislation because it has concerns that we did not exactly hear. National and ACT are voting against it for the simple reason that they are looking after the interests of the New Zealanders whose costs have been elevated whose power costs have gone up whose water rates are going up who are stuck in traffic jams and the young workers who can see the price of a house moving out of their reach now that land prices in many areas because of the obligations imposed on developers have gone out to three or four times their annual pre-tax income. 
No wonder so many young New Zealanders are looking at property rights that they cannot cope with! It is not the free market. I say to Mr Baldock that this is the market that is created when a developer takes 4 or 5 years to do a simple subdivision when everyone’s neighbour is enticed into objecting to try to preserve the status quo to stop infill housing to stop anything going over two or three storeys in the centre of a city. Then at the same time they are begging for public transport. 
We can have effective public transport only when we have high-density housing. But we have created a Resource Management Act that means that anyone can say: “I don’t want high density on my neighbour’s land. I don’t want high density until I decide that I too want to sell out and see it.” We have a completely constipated property market because of the Resource Management Act. We have constipated traffic in Auckland. They have money and land but they cannot get permission to put the bulldozers in and build the roads. 
The Labour Party is panicking. and promising to throw billions of dollars at Auckland traffic but here it is passing legislation that does not fix the Resource Management Act. I would say that in 3 years’ time we will still see people wasting hours of the only life they have sitting in cars wishing that they had even the traffic flows of Sydney. 
This legislation should be rejected as a disgrace. For 6 years the Minister for the Environment has been telling us that it is perfect legislation. Then today we had dumped on us 35 pages of fine print which are now embodied in the legislation we are being asked to vote on. I would guarantee that there is not a member in this House at the moment who could say exactly what that fine print does. There would not be a person in the Chamber who could read 35 pages of fine print dumped on us without any kind of red-lining assistance and know what it does for the Resource Management Act. Yet this House is about to vote on it at the last minute. 
It is being rushed through under urgency because they are too ashamed of the nonsense that has been spun by the Minister for the Environment and the nonsense that has been spun by Cabinet in charge of this legislation. Now they are trying to undo some of the damage at the very last minute with rushed legislation. It would be much easier if we were able to vote for the bits we thought were sensible. I have said there are one or two. 
Phil Heatley 
: There are now because you changed them at the select committee. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: There are one or two exactly! A few changes in the select committee brought some common sense into this legislation and there has been some redrafting at the last minute which I trust has further improved it. But when $10 million of power goes whooshing down the Whanganui River because not to send it down might offend the Maori of the water because going through turbines somehow offends the spirit of the water when we have oil and coal being burnt because New Zealanders cannot put in small-scale hydro because it is simply too expensive to go through the Resource Management Act process and then we get trifling legislation like this that says that it is time for this Government to go. 
Debate interrupted. 
Valedictory Statement 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
:  
Karanga mai rau rangatira ma me nga hoa hoki. Te Whare e tu nei te papa e takoto ki waho tena korua. E nga mana e nga reo e nga tangata o te wa tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Call to me the chiefs of a hundredfold and colleagues as well. To the House that stands before me and the earth lying out there greetings to you two. To the powers languages and the people of the moment greetings greetings and greetings to you all 
.]  
Having greeted this House in the first language of our nation I now just want to say in the language that I must admit I am most comfortable in how really delighted I am to be able to be here today and to say thank you to all my fellow members for their agreement for me to speak at this time instead of yesterday. I would have liked to be here yesterday to share the occasion with my colleagues who are also retiring at this time but I just could not make it. Actually I underwent neurosurgery last Monday and I needed to see my doctor this morning to get the staples removed before I came down here. And yes I did say staples not stitches or sutures—it is amazing to learn of the different procedures they carry out in our wonderful health system. Although I have to admit that I did not much like the look of the staples they did seem to do a very good job. 
The other thing I am a bit sorry about today is that Richard Prebble is not here. Some members indeed most members may be surprised at that given that Richard and I have never been what one might call great mates. But I had promised myself the indulgence of having a long-deferred go at him for the game he played on the occasion of my entry to Parliament. He may not be here but I have decided not to be done out of my chance to make a public comment—after all I am the only member who has ever had to sit in the gallery and listen to the House debate whether or not I should be permitted to take my seat. Never mind that all the rules and requirements had been met—the honourable member wanted a debate about it. There had of course been a number of changes to personnel of the House before I came in 2 years into the term but the issuing of warrants had always taken place during recesses so there was no opportunity for debate. To be fair Richard did make the point that his objection was not personal but constitutional. The debate did however delay me taking up my seat and required the rescheduling of my maiden speech. Still that is politics and I guess we would all agree that games are part of the fabric of this House and they can provide a bit of light relief at times. I certainly appreciated finally making it to my seat. 
My time here although not the shortest of the current retirees is not as long as I would have wished. I had hoped before learning of my illness to stand for another term. But as it seems unlikely that I would see out the session in good health I feel with real sadness that I have to say goodbye. I want to thank all my colleagues from all parties for their continuing expressions of concern and support for me through some very difficult times. 
Coming into that first MMP Parliament was not an easy experience for many of the new MPs especially for those on the list as it was largely uncharted waters. But I have to say that coming in 2 years into the term and trying to set up an office on the North Shore with a limited budget and absolutely nothing left in the Parliamentary Service store was quite a test. That we managed to set up a pretty respectable office was a real testament to my wonderful North Shore team. I do give special thanks to my staff at that time Kerry and Karen for all their wonderful work. One thing that did amaze me was the number of people right from the start who came to us for help. As an Opposition list MP I had not expected there would be much demand but from the time of the first newspaper notice we had lots to do. I think being an MP must have the least pre-service training of any job with similar responsibilities. I know how hard I worked to come up to speed on accident compensation claims benefit entitlements medical misadventure and tax issues. I must say though that those issues are much less of the workload now than at that time. 
Then of course after the 1999 election of the Labour-Alliance Government everything changed. Not only did I have my friend Ann Hartley as another Labour MP on the North Shore but I was also appointed as deputy-chair to Graham Kelly of the special select committee established to consider first the new industrial relations legislation and second the restoration of the social contract between the State and the people for the provision of accident compensation. I cannot think of anything that has meant more to me than both those pieces of work. The workload was huge because as well I sat on both the Education and Science Committee and the Social Services Committee. The special committee met each afternoon and evening. We heard hundreds of submissions read thousands and considered a mountain of reports and I enjoyed almost the entire process. It was certainly on a par with leading the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa to the first pay parity settlement and I had never expected I would be involved in anything quite as momentous as that again. I count myself as being very fortunate because the chance to be part of a team working to make a positive difference in people’s lives is a wonderful experience. 
I did not set out to have a career in politics and although I am usually referred to in this Chamber by members of the Opposition parties as having been a trade union official that was actually only for 2 years of my working life when I was the elected national president of the Educational Institute. The rest of my working life I spent as a classroom teacher and about half of that time was spent in the special-education field. For that reason I am glad to have had the chance to serve on the Education and Science Committee for my 7 years here. I want to place on record my thanks to both Liz Gordon for her work as chair from 1999-2002 and to Brian Donnelly for chairing it for the last 3 years. They both chaired the committee with dignity charm and good humour and always showed concern for submitters which has meant that it has always been a pleasure to attend that committee. 
The establishment of the Teachers Council and sensible forward-looking legislation in a host of areas have made great improvements in education provision. The excellent research being done at Waikato University may well hold the key to better outcomes for our underachieving students—I do hope so. There has been a huge growth in the tertiary sector and although there have certainly been some problems we could all have done without the need to increase the skill level of our workforce is imperative. New Zealand needs apprentices industry trainees and constant retraining opportunities if we are to become the high-skill high-wage economy that our people deserve. I find it difficult to understand why those who argue vehemently for the need for executive salaries to be internationally competitive cannot extrapolate that lesson to the payment of their workers. For instance it is not low taxes that lure Kiwis to Australia since its tax rates are higher than ours but Australia’s pay levels are certainly more attractive than ours. The remedy for that lies in the hands of employers especially as we have had 6 years of excellent economic performance. 
In the university sector we can be very proud of the performance of our institutions in many areas but I do remain concerned about the way they cling to the competitive market model. Large amounts of money are squandered on fancy advertising campaigns that serve no useful purpose while staff salaries languish. Competition should be only in the achievement of excellence in academic results—not in which university can expand the fastest into other regions or attract the most sponsorship. 
While on the subject of education I cannot let this opportunity pass without commenting on the series of seminars sponsored by the Royal Society of New Zealand and the Education and Science Committee. Started by Liz Gordon and Brian Donnelly in 2002 and continued in this session the seminars are designed to improve the understanding of science issues by MPs and to give the two groups a chance to get to know one another. We have considered some fascinating topics from crime-scene analysis to the origins of the first Pacific settlers. The Royal Society puts on a lovely meal enjoyed by an enthusiastic group of regular attendees. For those who have not tried the seminars I thoroughly recommend that they do so in the next session. I know they are one of the joys of my time here and one that I will really miss. 
Being a member of this Labour-led Government has been a really satisfying experience in so many ways that I cannot possibly detail them all. But some of the highlights for me have been the restoration of income-related rents in State houses and the upgrading and building of State houses to replace those neglected or sold in the 1990s. No one who visits those communities can doubt the huge positive benefit of that work. As well the improvements to the delivery of benefits coupled with the huge increase in employment are a source of real pride to me. The huge investment made in public health has made life a lot easier for many of our most vulnerable citizens and I am happy to place on record my appreciation of the care I have had in our hospitals and clinical services. Of course I have had to wait for treatment at times but now that we have increased numbers in training particularly in areas such as radiotherapy the delays are no longer critical. 
Probably my proudest moment here was when I became the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and likewise the saddest time was when ill health meant I had to resign. Still I have enjoyed both that first year and the last 2 years as a member of the committee with Mark Gosche as a great chair. Which Auckland MP would not have loved to deliver the wonderful roading progress and as well the improvements to the industrial relations legislation and the Holidays Act—sheer bliss! Paid parental leave enhanced childcare provisions the improvements in the minimum wage the appointment of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner the Property (Relationships) Act and the Action Plan for New Zealand Women are all policies dear to my heart that make a difference for women. As a feminist from way back that is really important to me. 
I want to take a little time now to talk about MMP. This is another little indulgence that I promised myself I would have if I got to make a valedictory speech. It stems from the occasion of the valedictory speech of my dear old mate Graham Kelly. I was actually sitting beside Graham as he launched into his opinion of the work and usefulness of list MPs. Although careful to acknowledge the hard work of many list MPs Graham compared unfavourably the relative workloads of list and constituency MPs. Although he may have had some justification for his opinion that the community pressures are greater for those who represent a constituency unfortunately he forgot to factor in the difference in staff resources provided to the two groups for the work they do. In any case his view that all MPs should be allocated a patch or a constituency would hugely increase the complexity of the system and I do not believe that it would add the accountability that he felt was lacking. From my own work and from my observation of my fellow list members from all areas and parties out and about in our community I can say that most are working damned hard. 
I am a true believer in the MMP system and in its ability to deliver a better form of democracy to the people. Under first past the post we too often saw the party that won the most votes winning fewer seats because of the way the electoral boundaries were configured. That has been and always will be a problem with electorates. But under MMP that becomes less significant because it does not decide the final result. That is a plus but it is not the really important factor. The really important issue that lies at the heart of democracy is the right to be represented in Parliament and to have one’s political views represented there. Prior to 1996 too many people were denied that right. Large numbers of people voted for parties such as the Social Credit Party or the Values Party which won a significant share of the vote but on most occasions no seats. Of course the double jeopardy was that people were often discouraged from voting how they were truly inclined to vote by perceiving that their vote would be wasted. Even quite large votes could yield no result and probably the most potent example of that occurred in 1984 when the New Zealand Party won about 20 percent of the vote yet not a single seat. Regardless of whether we thought that was a good result a number of us started to think seriously about electoral reform at that time. I do realise of course that the 5 percent threshold does disenfranchise some small groups but I believe that the balance between delivering true representation and maintaining stable Government is about right. 
The other non-representative scenario from first past the post that really bugged me for the first 20 years I lived in Auckland was the safe seat. I lived first in the Tamaki and then in the Remuera electorate. Although I always cast my vote it did sometimes seem a little pointless as I watched Sir Robert Muldoon and then Sir Douglas Graham sweep in as my representative. The current situation is much better. Communities still get the constituency representative that suits their taste but at least the overall truly democratic party vote is the electoral decider. 
In conclusion there are a number of people that I do want to thank. It may seem a bit effusive but having a terminal illness does make me want to say things that I feel are important. So here goes. I want to place on record my appreciation to Mayor George Wood and the North Shore City Council for their inclusion of list MPs in civic affairs. I really enjoyed working on issues such as the Tamaki land and the Bayswater Marina and I believe that it was to our mutual benefit. To the messengers security catering and select committee staff—in fact to all the parliamentary workers—I say they do a great job of looking after us. I thank them. To Chris who spent 6 years as my electorate secretary I express my heartfelt gratitude. You have always done more than asked and have been a wonderful support to me and to those who seek help from me. Thank you. To Audrey who has looked after me better than anyone has any right to expect for over 5 years I say you are a wonderful friend a brilliant secretary and probably the most willing worker whom it has ever been my pleasure to know. Thank you. 
To my wonderful North Shore Labour electorate committee and to Francis and Bill Bell in particular I say they have been great to work with and I truly appreciate all their efforts. I also want to thank the North Shore Labour team. It has been great to work together across the three electorates and those people have become really good friends. 
My friends in the New Zealand Educational Institute and the union movement are too numerous to mention individually so in the spirit of collectivity I will just say a representative thanks to Ross and Carol that includes all of my comrades. 
To my caucus colleagues I say thank you for the extra work you took on to cover my absences for treatment. To the lovely long-suffering whips I say thank you for uncomplainingly sorting out leave for me when needed—no matter at what notice—and also for the personal support they have provided. To Ann Hartley and Lynne Pillay I can only say thanks you two for cheering comforting and cosseting me through some really hard times. No one could ask for more. I want too to say a special thank you to Helen Clark who went that extra length to make sure that I felt sure of her unequivocal support to continue in my MP role for as long as I felt able. While I am on that subject I also say thank you to Helen for restoring my faith in the Labour Party and so making my service as an MP possible. 
I guess all of us have friends who are very special in our lives. For me Fiona Johnston is such a friend. We have known each other for over 25 years and I have shared a lot of activities and interests with her. She has been my campaign manager for three elections and has served above and beyond the call of duty. I just cannot possibly say how much her unfailing support has meant to me. 
I have an amazingly wonderful family—too numerous to mention—but I just want to say thanks to my three sisters who are here today to my brother in Australia and to my beautiful children Scott Leigh and Blair who have supported and encouraged me in everything I have done. I must also say that I have seven grandchildren who fill my life with joy. To my very special man Alan I can only say that you are my support my rock my anchor and my love and I am so lucky to have you in my life. 
I have loved this job and I know I will miss the work and all the wonderful people. Good luck to you all. 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) 
Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Resource Management Act has for 14 years had the purpose of ensuring that people can provide for their social and economic needs without damaging the life-supporting qualities of ecosystems while ensuring that resources are still there for future generations and avoiding—or at least minimising—adverse effects on the environment. For 14 years it has done a rather imperfect job but nevertheless has done the job of protecting our future protecting our environment and protecting the rights of the public to participate. Some projects get stopped as they should. An Act that ticked off everything would not be doing its job. 
Today we have seen three approaches to the future of that Act. It is perhaps fitting that today Parliament ends a session and goes into an election campaign because this issue will be an issue in the campaign. We have seen Labour scared to leave power with communities. It started off supporting the environment and people but it has given into pressure and has been panicked by National’s relentless demands for more “think big” projects more big roads more big power stations and more power lines. The Labour Government has amended the Act to give itself the power to override communities and to impose big infrastructure projects on them. 
But as we go into this election we need to look at what National would do instead. It wants to wipe away all impediments to anyone’s development projects. In particular it does not want the Environment Court to have the benefit of all the relevant information on a project; it wants only the information that comes from the developer. Nick Smith has been claiming all day that the amendment in this bill that allows called-in projects to be referred directly to the Environment Court is the same as direct referral as proposed in the Upton bill in 1999. That is absolutely not true. The difference is that in this bill the power of the Minister to directly refer a project is subject to criteria in new section 140 and it is judicially reviewable against those criteria. By contrast what the National Party wants is an automatic right for any developer that wants to bypass the local community and local council just to go straight to the Environment Court in order to save itself time and money. 
National wants to cut out any reference to the treaty or Maori cultural values in the Resource Management Act. It wants a monocultural society where Maori are expected to be brown Pakeha. It wants a law that does not recognise that the values of the indigenous people of this country have special status here because they exist nowhere else. 
National wants to reintroduce standing like we used to have under the Town and Country Planning Act where only those directly affected are able to have a say. Standing has a history that we should be very worried about. “Directly affected” is interpreted by the courts to mean that one’s property is affected. People whose personal health may be affected have often been held by the courts to have no standing to make a case. Nick Smith is saying that he as a South Islander should have no right to be heard on the question of how polluted Lake Taupo should get because he does not live there. It is a national icon but he does not want to have any say about it. He is saying that I as a resident of the Coromandel should have no right to comment on the ecological importance of our South Island braided rivers which are unusual in a global sense. 
National wants to scrap the environmental legal aid scheme. It costs less than $1 million a year so it is obviously not the costs that he is concerned about. What he is concerned about is that when local community groups form incorporated societies and want to bring the information they have to the table at the Environment Court he does not want that information heard. He wants to shut them out. He knows that the David and Goliath battle between the local environmental protection group and a multinational is such an unequal contest that if the group does not have that $25000 to $30000 of legal aid it is unlikely to be able to make a good case. He is also ignoring the fact that without that money and without the legal advice it can give the group it is likely to waste more of the court’s time by raising issues that are not relevant under the Act. So in fact he shoots himself in the foot. And he wants to put back the provision that was in the Act for a few short years until the previous committee removed it whereby a developer can stop a community group from bringing any evidence and taking part in a case at all by saying that if it puts in an objection the developer will seek security for costs against it right upfront. The developer will go to the court and demand that the group put up $30000 to prove that if it loses it can pay. At that point most community groups drop out of the process because they cannot participate. 
So the National Party’s programme is a clear and unambiguous recipe for cutting out public participation and for degrading the environment. The Green Party initiated that environmental legal aid project and we persuaded Marian Hobbs in the year 2000 that it was a good idea to resource the community to participate well. It has meant that David when he faces Goliath is not totally barefoot. 
The Green Party says that property rights which we have heard a lot about today stop at one’s boundary. The idea that people can do what they like on their own land does not give them the right to affect the rights of others by imposing noise spray drift flooding sedimentation nitrate runoff or faecal coliforms into other people’s space on to other people’s land or into the common property of rivers the coast our air and our water bodies. Property rights have never meant the right to damage and downgrade the property of others or the public property that we all hold in common. If property rights are circumscribed in that way so that people cannot have any impacts outside the boundaries of their own land people will find that property rights are actually a great deal less than what some members of this House have been arguing for for some time. The Green Party is now the only party that stands up completely for the right to participation under the Act for the right for all the information to be brought and heard in court and for the natural environment. 
I finish by reading a short piece from an editorial in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 which the Associate Minister for the Environment has been quoting from considerably during the debate. I want to read a bit that he has not been reading: “Despite the tourist advertising about some fantasy New Zealand where everything is 100 percent pure the realists who actually live here know this is far from the truth. The destruction of much pristine land with ribbon housing development the conversion of top-class agricultural and horticultural soils to accommodate vanity farming the gross pollution of many if not most of our rivers and the wholesale assault on ancient and limited aquifers for immediate commercial gain—there is hardly a limit to the examples of our longstanding reckless environmental stewardship.” That is why we need to protect the Resource Management Act. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading debate of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3). 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: As I begin this third reading speech I want to pay tribute to a few people who I have had the pleasure of working with throughout the last 3 years on the Local Government and Environment Committee. First of all I thank the chair Jeanette Fitzsimons. Although I have disagreed with her on many occasions I have found her to be very hard-working and a servant to the committee. I appreciate all she has done for us during that 3 years. I have appreciated all the members of the committee and I have learnt a great deal from them. They have had many years of experience from which I have been able to draw. I have also enjoyed working with Ministers Marian Hobbs and David Benson-Pope in order to bring this bill to completion. United Future is particularly pleased to see this bill passed before the House rises for the election. 
I want to review United Future’s position over the last 3 years. United Future made it very clear early on—in fact in a speech I made in the first reading debate of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—that we were very keen to see Resource Management Act reform become a major part of our work with the Government during this term. Reflecting back over 3 years I see that a number of things have been accomplished and have also changed. I remember 3 years ago when Winston Peters stood up a few months after the election and said that United Future would not be around for more than 3 months. Here we are 3 years later—we are still here and we have had stable Government. 
It is interesting. People say that imitation is the highest form of praise and now the leader of New Zealand First is talking about supply and confidence agreements. He has sat here for 3 years and watched how we have operated and he has learnt that he made the biggest mistake of his life in 1996 in the way he approached his relationship with the then National Government. Imitation is the highest form of praise and we have seen other parties in this House begin to adopt our policies. Even with regard to the Resource Management Act National has come out with policies that include three things that are already in the bill we are passing today. The National Party has virtually adopted our outdoor recreation and conservation policy and I guess that is high praise. We fully expect National to announce that it will adopt income splitting in its tax policy which is soon to be announced because it is such a good policy. It will not surprise us if National adopts it. New Zealand First has copied us also and not just in terms of our supply and confidence agreement. It has stolen our marine reserves policy almost word for word. ACT is about the only party that has not stolen any of our policies. That is because the ACT party does not have any policy; it just attacks everybody else’s and hopes that that will see it through. 
The passage of this legislation today is a statement about a number of things. It is firstly a very good example of how MMP can work. Despite the fact that only United Future is supporting the Government to pass this bill it is a fact that all parties—or nearly all parties; we did not see Ken Shirley very often during this process—have made positive contributions toward making this legislation what it is today. I think that is a tribute to the way that parties despite the debating that goes on in this Chamber do work together at the select committee table. Secondly the passage of this legislation is a testament to what can be achieved by a small party that works constructively within the rules of a supply and confidence agreement. Our supply and confidence agreement with the Government had only four requirements and no mention of Resource Management Act reform. The last 3 years however have seen significant developments in Resource Management Act reform so much so that we are dealing today with the Resource Management Act Amendment Bill (No 5). 
I take members back to the some speeches I made in 2002 and 2003. On 2 October 2002 speaking on the Resource Management (Controlled and Discretionary Activities) Amendment Bill I said: “… it is the view of United Future that the first priority is to get the main Resource Management Amendment Bill which has been languishing on the Order Paper for so long through the House before attempting to introduce even more legislative amendments.” Despite enormous criticism from the Opposition United Future did support the Government to get that bill moving and passed and then we were prepared to move on and work with the Government constructively to deal with other reform to the Resource Management Act. Speaking in the third reading debate on Tuesday 13 May 2003 I said: “When the 47th Parliament convened last year United Future made it clear to the Government that we considered the reform process of the Resource Management Act to be a priority. When it asked us for our support to pass this legislation which had been sitting on the Order Paper we gave our support.” 
We also indicated early on how important it was to us to deal with some specific issues in the legislation and we wanted to see the passage of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). We said it represented a first step rather than an end point. We believe as I said in a speech earlier today that the Resource Management Act will always need some reform. It will be a work in progress forever. It is a huge piece of legislation and managing the balance between environmental concerns and business development concerns will require constant monitoring. That is why United Future’s policy is that every 2 years there should be a review of the Act to see how it has worked—not necessarily the vast review that we have been through in the last 12 to 18 months but a review none the less to see whether any further fine-tuning or improvements can be made to the legislation. That is something United Future will continue to be committed to. 
In a speech during the second reading debate on 6 May 2003 I said: “One of the things we in United Future are very interested in comes from one of the recommendations referred to earlier”—which were the earlier recommendations in 1999 made by Simon Upton—“—that is that we may have direct referral to the Environment Court for projects of national significance such as power and road projects.” Members can imagine that United Future is very pleased that the Minister adopted my suggestion that rather than have direct referral as was originally intended we have direct referral as one of the tools that Ministers can use when they deal with the call-in powers. We thank the Minister for listening to our advice on that and bringing it into the legislation at the select committee stage. We believe it will enable the Minister to address the specific needs of each project that is of national significance to this country. It is important that the infrastructure in this country can be addressed in a timely fashion but not as National is suggesting by running roughshod over any environmental concerns. We must maintain that balance and that is something United Future will remain committed to. 
I also said way back then that when it comes to overriding private property right concerns in the national interest for things we want to preserve it was important that those should be paid for out of the national purse. Although that provision is not in this legislation I am pleased that Gordon Copeland’s bill—and members can be assured that Gordon Copeland will be back in the next Parliament; I intend to be back as well—which protects private property rights will be brought through the select committee process and back to this House for further debate. It is important if we are asking property owners to preserve something of national interest that the taxpayers of New Zealand make some compensation payment for that purpose to the property owner. That will lead to the success of another of United Future’s initiatives which we indicated way back then needed to be brought into the Resource Management Act. 
The passing of this bill today is evidence of United Future’s commitment to work little by little inch by inch at nudging the Government along. We are only 8 MPs but we are enormously proud of what we have accomplished in this 3 years with 7 of us being newcomers to this process. We believe we have a significant list of achievements and we are ready to go out into this campaign to let the people of New Zealand know what we have achieved. We believe that they will respond when they know what we have done—we have been terribly ignored by the press throughout this 3 year process as most people have noticed. When people know the truth about what United Future members have achieved such as this resource management legislation we will be returned to this Parliament with additional colleagues so that we can continue to serve the people of New Zealand. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise to support the third reading of this legislation. I am glad to see the improvements to the Resource Management Act that are expressed in this legislation. I owe a great many thanks to the members of United Future because they understand the notions of compromise and working an issue through but they also understand that complex legislation like this requires constant improvement—as does my other favourite the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
I want to put this legislation into context—the context of planning. People sometimes think that the Resource Management Act is all about the environment but it ain’t. It is about our living and working together. Those members who can look far back to their first marriages and think about the arguments about how they operated in the bathroom the bedroom the living room or wherever and how they and their partners organised their lives together—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Mr Cullen. I am referring to people squeezing the toothpaste from the middle or whatever. 
Those members will know that there are always difficulties. That is what the Resource Management Act is about. Environmental planning is far more than legislation. It is about councils that make decisions. It is about paying for training of their councillors. It is about demanding that they are able to make good decisions out there. It is about supporting the quality planning website where people can go to avoid reinventing the wheel because it gives them access to the arguments of other good planners in other councils up and down the country. 
It is about strengthening the Environment Court. When I assumed this ministry 6 years ago people were waiting 2 or 3 years to get their cases heard. The average was 18 months. Now the waiting time is down so far that one can get a case heard in that court in 6 months. We had a backlog there of I think over 3000 cases. The backlog is down to about 1200 and falling. 
How did that come about? It came about through appointing more judges. It came about through setting up the system of mediation so that 80 percent of the cases are now mediated successfully and do not go to court with all the money that that involves. And it came about through simple processes of recording and planning for the Environment Court and the registry. 
Then we have questions around enforcement and monitoring. As the Minister for the Environment I do have concerns about this. That is why I have some strange problems with National going on and on about that speedway. The speedway may well be a good thing but the problem is that a rule was made and ignored. It is the same story with some of the problems we have had in Environment Waikato where consents have been set and ignored and we have had some very strange habits as regards discharge of contaminated water. So we have some real issues around enforcement and monitoring. 
It is also about the review of effects of plans and consents. It is all very well when people sit down and write up a plan or give a consent because they think that X is going to happen. Do they ever check whether X has happened? That is the role of the Ministry for the Environment. A whole division has now been set up in that department to be involved in looking at enforcement and monitoring as we work through it. 
Then there are things like the national environmental standards that were set up by this Act so many years ago—15 years ago—and totally ignored for 9 years. In fact I was told when I first became Minister to ignore the whole idea of a national environmental standard because it would cost $4 million to introduce one. Now at this very moment the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand headquarters staff are saying: “Whoa we’re being left out.” They do not understand that so far in the setting of further environment standards we are just at the stage of scoping to see which standards may actually be of use before we impose something written out of someone’s head and not tested out there in the industry. A standard will be set as will a time line just as was done when we set the air quality standards—on which I note the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society made no submission. [ 
Interruption 
] It did not tweet. For us to be involved in something that will have significant effects on the environment—effects such as clean air—is terribly important. 
The last thing I want to say to do with that—as the Minister looks round at me—is that setting standards alone is not enough; it has to be supported with some finance. So if we set a standard for clean air we have to do something about supplying warm homes. We do not just tell people to turn off their fires or their wood-burners without finding something to replace them and working with those people particularly the most vulnerable. I have just been in Tokoroa and in Christchurch where some excellent work is being done on that matter. 
New Zealanders say that a clean and healthy environment is an aspect of living in New Zealand that they value highly. But we do not get such a healthy environment merely by wishing for it. We believe with many other nations that economic development environmental health and social justice must be balanced. The Resource Management Act is a matter of balance. So are district plans. They are matters of balance. That demands good process. It demands the type of compromise between the competing demands that often exist between United Future the Greens and ourselves. But that planning and consent can be informed only by efficient inclusive procedures. That is what this legislation achieves and it is why I strongly support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3; Maori Party 1. 
Bills read a third time. 
Voting 
Correction 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the voting tallies from the evening sitting of the House last Wednesday 27 July to delete references to the two Progressive votes in the party votes on the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is asking for leave to alter the votes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. The voting will be amended accordingly. 
Standing Orders 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix B to the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled  
Review of Standing Orders 
 to be deemed to be amended by Supplementary Order Paper 387 dealing with split party votes and by the typescript amendments in my name amending Standing Order 79 and Standing Order 240A for the purpose of the consideration of Government motion No. 2. The typeset amendments relate to a technical amendment adding the term “expiration” after the term “dissolution” in the relevant Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I move  
That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix B to the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled  
Review of Standing Orders 
 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper No 387 (dealing with split party votes) and the typescript amendment in the name of Hon Dr Michael Cullen (amending Standing Order 79 and Standing Order 240A) be adopted and take effect on the day following the dissolution or expiration of this Parliament 
. These are nearly all I think very minor changes. They primarily relate in the first instance to changes that arise from the Public Finance Act in a purely technical sense in terms of the language used—the definitions used—to line up the Standing Orders with the new definitions used in the Public Finance Act; otherwise the Standing Orders are no longer appropriate in that respect. 
Secondly in terms of proceedings relating to the opening of Parliament the changes deal with an amendment to the Constitution Act that has been passed which provides that instead of having a motion—which we would normally in the past have dealt with tonight—to carry forward business the new Parliament deals with a motion for the reinstatement of business. That is constitutionally more appropriate because it is really a matter for the new Parliament to determine what business it wishes to pick up rather than for the old Parliament to tell the new Parliament what business it might wish to pick up. 
And we have a Standing Order amendment relating to what happens at the end of a sitting of the House particularly in terms of the House being in Committee. If we are interrupted 5 minutes from the end time it provides quite clearly that the House is adjourned at that point and does not move on to any other business. Again the reinstatement of business is dealt with in those Standing Orders. 
The new matter dealt with—and I thank the House for the leave granted—is a matter raised by Mr Peter Brown and quite properly I think. The habit has developed of leave being granted for split votes to be taken. Mr Brown raised the issue of whereas where there is a party vote it is normally clear that everybody has voted in favour or against—people can be assumed to be voting in favour or against according to the party vote—in a split party vote where say Labour votes 44 for and seven against it is not clear who the “fors” are and who the “againsts” are and the public should have the right to know which way members have actually voted in that respect. That therefore raises the further issue that at the moment split party votes are taken by leave. It seemed appropriate with that change for split party votes simply to be a norm within Parliament. 
I think that actually covers the changes that are dealt with in this first motion as opposed to the second motion that I will be moving in relation to members’ pecuniary interests. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I endorse the comments made by the Leader of the House. These matters were ironed out in the Standing Orders Committee. Far more time was spent on the next Government notice of motion than on the first one but we will come to that shortly. It is easy when looking at reviews of the Standing Orders and reports to the House such as this one to simply fob them off as being technical amendments and to say that some tidying-up is needed in order for the Standing Orders to operate more smoothly. But one or two things are worth saying about these changes particularly those in part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee. The Leader of the House has covered the changes that follow from the enactment of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. That is not my area of expertise and I do not intend to spend a lot of time talking about that. However the second part of the report does raise one or two interesting points. 
Firstly I would endorse the Leader of the House’s view that a reinstatement of business motion is appropriate because the business for a new Parliament should be a matter for that new Parliament to determine. The motion should not be left to the Parliament that sat prior to an adjournment or I suspect a prorogue before a general election. So the amendment to the Standing Orders regarding the reinstatement of business is appropriate. Secondly although somewhat sadly we will see—or we have probably had—the last vote on a part by part motion heading into the Committee stage of the debate on a bill. Although I understand the common sense in doing that—and it is not a partisan issue because one would hope that whichever party was in Government would think that that was a particularly good provision to change in the Standing Orders—it does deprive the Opposition of a small tool under an MMP environment. It is a small tool to use on the odd occasion on a procedural issue—rare though it may be and I confess I have not come across it in my 5½ years in this Parliament—when the Government is unable to muster the numbers to deal with a bill in the Committee in the way it wishes even though its voting partner may agree with the substantive matter. But the change makes sense so the National Party will be supporting it. 
The other issue the Leader of the House has raised which the House has given leave to include tonight is Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. It relates to Peter Brown’s move to see split party votes recorded and the names lodged in  
Hansard 
 to depict the way a split party vote occurred and how particular members voted. Although initially reluctant to move in this direction we had an interesting conversation in our caucus whereby we formed the view that this particular issue was more about the public’s expectation of knowing how particular members of Parliament voted rather than a mechanism that may or may not suit a larger party on issues where that party has some members voting against the majority—or indeed on the odd occasion the numbers may well be even. So I say to Mr Brown that that is a fair rule to change. 
Darren Hughes 
: The Brown amendment. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is right; it is the Brown amendment. It will ensure that the public knows which way members vote on a split vote and their names will be recorded in  
Hansard 
. That change strikes those of us who are in the National Party as being fair to say the least. 
We will not add any more to the debate on this particular motion but we intend to support the Government in its passage. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not think I will take my full 10 minutes because basically I want to talk on only two matters. New Zealand First will be supporting this motion but the two matters I want to speak about—and I urge the Government members who are listening and paying attention to this and indeed my National Party colleagues who may or may not be in Government next time depending on who we choose— 
Simon Power 
: And that’s the reason you won’t. 
PETER BROWN 
: We are ending on a lighter note. Honourable members might like to look at page 15 of the report where it refers to the part by part consideration of bills. There is a small little sentence. We would have liked its wording to be stronger and more definitive but it is there. It states: “The committee hopes that the new provision will result in more Government participation in debates.” Speaking seriously on this issue for a moment I have to say that it really gets up New Zealand First’s nose—and that is putting it bluntly—when we pass legislation in this House and few if any Government members speak and on many occasions no members of small parties that support the Government speak at all. This was highlighted to me when we passed the Electoral Amendment Act I think it was some 3 or 4 years ago. Then no contribution was forthcoming from the Greens who supported the bill and there were very few contributions from Government members. Yet that night on TV after the bill had passed through the Committee stage we saw the young man from the Greens whose name escapes me—the cannabis guy. What is his name? 
Hon Member 
: Ian Ewen-Street. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is he the cannabis guy? No it is Nandor— 
Rod Donald 
: Short-term memory loss—too much rum in your youth. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh they are all cannabis users. Rod Donald has just told us that. Nandor Tanczos was on TV explaining why a clause in the bill should go through yet in a sitting not long afterwards the Hon Dr Cullen was embarrassed because Gavin Ellis the editor of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 told the Prime Minister I believe or told the Labour Government that if they pushed the bill through with that clause in it his newspaper would not report the Government again—or some such language. So Dr Cullen was in the embarrassing position—he looks as though he does not remember it but I know that he remembers it well—of reversing and bringing that bill back to the Committee stage so members could take that clause out. The Committee took the clause out pretty promptly and then the bill proceeded. All that legislation went through with not one contribution coming from the supporting party in particular and with very few contributions coming from the Labour Government. That told members of New Zealand First that the standard of debate in this House is not adequate. 
Yesterday when I listened to the Hon Roger Sowry saying that the standard of debate under the first past the post system—which was before my time in this House—was much higher I tended to believe him. I say to list MPs in particular that if they want to be told that the first past the post system produced a better standard of debate and a more comprehensive debate then they should take note of this one little sentence: “The committee hopes that the new provision will result in more Government participation in debates.” That is what it says. That is an admission by the Government and by Dr Cullen who approved that little sentence that Government members do not participate as fully in debates as the public would like. The public who are listening out there are entitled to know the Government’s view and the Opposition’s view. I tell Government members to take heed. We in New Zealand First have supported this part by part consideration of bills on the basis that we got that sentence in the report because debates in this House leave a lot to be desired on many occasions. 
 I want to refer now to the Supplementary Order Paper that Dr Cullen has produced. He has very kindly given me credit for initiating the idea and indeed Simon Power the senior National whip has concurred with that view. Well it is not particularly my view; it is the view of New Zealand First. We are here because we believe we are serving democracy and it is only right and proper that when we vote in this House the public knows who voted which way. 
We have heard of occasions where MPs—not from my party I might add—have gone out and said; “Well we didn’t all support that.” and curried favour with whoever they were talking to and if it was in the individual’s interest to say he or she supported it then he or she did and if it was not in the individual’s interests then he or she did not. I have to say that ACT has been as consistent as New Zealand First on this. When we have split our vote we have always declared quite openly who voted for and who voted against. We think it is only right and proper again in the interests of democracy that when a party takes advantage of the split party vote it records who votes for who votes against and if necessary who abstains. We are accepting on that basis that it should not be by leave. It should be an automatic right for each party to say: “We want to split our vote.” and go this way or that way or part of the team this way and part of the team that way and now that their names are going to be recorded in  
Hansard  
we are more than happy. 
I do not want to say any more on this. New Zealand First supports this motion. We have concerns about the motion coming up shortly but we support this one. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I will miss Peter Brown who always stands up and says: “I’m just going to take a short call on this.”—and 10 minutes later he is still going. I will just take just a short call on this motion to say that we support the amendments to the Standing Orders regarding the reinstatement of business and also Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I do appreciate the constitutional importance of one Parliament not being able to bind the next Parliament. Of course one could argue that having the old Parliament prescribe what the business would be of the next Parliament does not actually bind it but a lot of time is wasted surely in having to pick up something and run with it when one knows that that is just in order to keep to the Standing Orders. So we do endorse that measure. I do also support Simon Power’s comments though about how easy it is to dismiss this sort of thing as being just housekeeping when it is not. 
The Supplementary Order Paper is the matter that I find most interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that the issue of split voting came up with regard to the smoke-free legislation especially when a number of parties had split votes. We were written to by a number of constituents who wanted to know who had voted against it and who had voted for it—for both sides of the argument. Of course we found out from the Parliamentary Library that one could not actually give details of the names in split party votes. This provision will cause problems for members because once one can give out that one voted against a bill say the smoke-free legislation one will have constituents writing to and emailing members and demanding a reply. Second Peter Brown said that some parties allow their members to split their votes. It is interesting if one looks at the case that ACT took all the way to the Supreme Court to have Donna Awatere Huata evicted to see that that finally almost rested on the fact that we had allowed split voting. Her argument that she still voted with the ACT party did not carry any weight in the court case in the end because of course we have always allowed a split vote. 
So we will be supporting this motion but we will have more to say on the motion that is coming up next. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Well I think that Deborah Coddington spoke for marginally longer than Peter Brown. I simply say that United Future supports this motion including the split voting procedure set out in Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the amendments to the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interests of members of Parliament and the transitional provision for the initial returns for the register as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 381 be adopted and agreed to and take effect on the day following the dissolution or expiration of this Parliament.  
This issue arose some little time ago. The Government made it clear that it was its desire to institute a register of pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. Ministers of course already have a register of pecuniary interests and that has now dated back a very long time indeed. I think the public has a right to know the nature of the pecuniary interests that members of Parliament have and how that might relate to ways in which they cast their votes within the House. It is a matter of transparency in terms of the way we act within the Parliament. 
There was an initial indication from a number of parties that there would not be support to address this by way of the Standing Orders and therefore the Government determined to introduce a bill which was introduced—the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill—and was referred to a select committee. I then received approaches from some parties indicating that while they did not support the changes themselves if they were to occur they would much prefer they were done by Standing Orders than by way of legislation. 
The reason for that was very clear. If this is part of the Standing Orders then the Parliament remains in charge of its own destiny in that respect; whereas if it is by way of legislation then there is at least a potential risk of some form of judicial intervention in these matters. I think that would raise some rather interesting and difficult constitutional questions which in taking off my Leader of the House hat and putting my Attorney-General hat on I would much rather we did not get into at some future point. It is far preferable in my view for this to be done by way of the review of Standing Orders. 
I actually want to thank those parties such as ACT and New Zealand First which opposed the changes for accepting that that was still a sensible method of moving forward on the issue given that the Government did have a majority to pass legislation. 
I wish to thank the National Party for its support on this matter. I think we had some very useful discussions within the Standing Orders Committee about the particular nature of the interests to be included. 
I do not think members of Parliament should be in the least alarmed about all of this. Indeed one of the interesting issues that is going to arise I think for the incoming Government whoever it may be—and I will dwell on that matter a little bit later on this evening—is whether a separate register of Ministers’ interests in fact will be required given that this particular register is at least as comprehensive as the register of Ministers’ interests. In the case of that register for example initially I put in the fact that I had shares within a collective investment fund—a BNZ managed fund—and was told I did not need to make that particular return. I must say I regard that as pretty strange given that it is not an insignificant sum of money now that is contained within that fund. I think it is quite appropriate that if I am engaged in issues—as I am as Minister of Finance—that might have some tangential relationship to such funds these people can clearly state absolutely openly that I do have an interest in that respect which is one that under our Standing Orders does not preclude me from voting because it is one share with a very large number of other people. 
I would much rather that than suddenly have someone in the  
National Business Review 
 discovering I had such shares and turning that into some kind of peculiar banner headline of no significance which I must say is sort of standard business reporting in this country by and large. I keep trying to persuade the publishers of the  
Australian Financial Review 
 that they should set up a new weekly business newspaper within New Zealand that has roughly the same kind of standard that the  
Australian Financial Review  
has in terms of business reporting. 
So members will be required to make a declaration of pecuniary interest that will cover a range of defined matters. The register will be published. The Auditor-General will review the returns and may inquire into matters if he or she thinks fit that that should be done. It will be published and I think it is simply a quite straightforward measure which has been done in a number of other Parliaments. And in a Parliament such as ours which is very open and very transparent this is simply another stage in that openness and transparency. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this motion through Parliament this evening. This has not been a matter free of controversy nor has it been a matter that has progressed smoothly and without hitches. As the Leader of the House pointed out initially lack of support across Parliament meant that this matter was introduced by way of statute. It then became clear as any Political Science 111 student would know that a separation of powers argument was definitely going to enter into the fray with the judiciary moving into areas concerning Parliament which was not appropriate. All parties on the Standing Orders Committee whether or not they agreed with the content of the bill concluded that the delivery of this outcome was far and away more satisfactorily done by way of Standing Orders rather than statute. 
There have been long discussions over the wording of these particular provisions and what they have meant—particularly I have to say around the timing of the lodging of an MP’s return depending on whether an election was held and on which side of July. I will acknowledge Rod Donald because it is fair to say that that member put his back into this particular provision and over a long period of time worked to convince the Standing Orders Committee of the merits of it or a variation thereof. Whilst Mr Donald did not always manage to achieve the result he wanted I think it is probably fair to say that the intent behind the drafting of that particular provision was largely due to his efforts around that committee table. 
Other amendments have been included particularly around the definition of family members in terms of debts owed to a member by those family members—how wide that definition should be. We had some interesting discussions about the width of the definition of family that would not have been out of place in some other select committees but the Standing Orders Committee which is not known for its emotional outbursts worked its way through those definitions pretty carefully. 
Late in the piece an issue arose around debts incurred in the course of business and whether those debts should be included if they would be settled within a standard business time period of approximately 90 days or thereabouts. Amounts around quantum of debt in the original legislation were amended by the Standing Orders Committee. Interestingly long discussions were held particularly with the current Speaker’s predecessor the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt about members’ roles in organisations that apply for funding through Government agencies. This was quite a complex matter because a number of MPs are patrons of organisations in their electorates or in the areas they represent and it took some time for members on the Standing Orders Committee to come across a formula that would work to prevent members who are simply patrons from having to declare interests as opposed to members who were part of the management or the governing body of those committees clubs or institutions. 
So quite a lot of thought went into these matters. I think the key though is that to be consistent with other jurisdictions an amount of transparency around members’ interests was always inevitable in some shape or another. I think that using the mechanism of the Standing Orders is an appropriate way to do that. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened intently to my colleague who has just resumed his seat because he usually gives us some substance in his speeches or outlines a reason why a bill or an amendment is required. But this time he did not do a thing. He just said he gave the credit to Rod Donald for the merits of this amendment to the Standing Orders. He did not outline what those merits are and we cannot find them. This is a nosy parker amendment to the Standing Orders. It will encourage nosy parkers and Rod Donald is the prima donna when it comes to nosy parkers. He knows everything about “nosy parker-ing”. He is the No. 1 nosy parker in this Parliament so he welcomes this sort of amendment to the Standing Orders. It will discourage able successful people from standing for Parliament. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: No danger for New Zealand First. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh the Labour members do not know what such people are. They do not have any so they do not have to worry about it. Nor do the Greens have any able successful people standing for them. But New Zealand First has and I have to say that from time to time one or two bob up in the National Party. So I wonder why it is supporting this sort of carry-on. 
This is a case of much ado about nothing. There is little corruption in politics in this country and the corruption that has occurred has been targeted found out and exposed. We do not have to have this sort of carry-on in order to declare a war on corruption. It has no relevance to that at all. As I said this is a nosy parker amendment to the Standing Orders. We would have preferred to see a bill. We would not have agreed with a bill—we would have opposed it—but we would have preferred to see a bill for one honest reason: a bill if and when it became an Act could have been amended to embrace civil servants. Civil servants have greater influence on the Government than Opposition MPs—far greater influence. There is a higher risk of civil servants having a conflict of interest that will affect Government legislation than there is when it comes to Opposition MPs. 
This measure is a sop to the Greens. I hope it is the only one because they will disappear at the end of this Parliament and we can forget all about them. This measure is unnecessary; it is a mistake. It will encourage nosy parkers and in the longer term it will discourage able people from putting their names forward to stand for Parliament. New Zealand First opposes this measure vehemently. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am delighted to say that the Green MPs give their wholehearted support to Supplementary Order Paper 381 because notwithstanding what Mr Brown has just said the adoption of a procedure for members of the New Zealand Parliament to declare their pecuniary interests is long overdue. Ministers have had to declare their interests since 1991. They have been making an annual declaration. I do not think it has been altogether too arduous for them and clearly it is not just Labour Ministers who have made such a declaration; National Ministers have as well. Perhaps even Winston Peters was in Cabinet long enough to have had to make a declaration—I am not sure. 
But the point I want to make is that this is a very important step forward for our Parliament and it is one that we should make because organisations like Transparency International assess all the Parliaments in the world to determine whether Parliaments and the members of those Parliaments are corrupt and I am pleased to see that New Zealand was rated the third least corrupt Parliament in the world. I am sure the fact that our Ministers—the people who are most likely to get some benefit from outside organisations providing them with air tickets meals or other gratuities—have had to declare those interests has given New Zealand the degree of transparency and accountability that it has and such a good rating from Transparency International. By extending those provisions to all members of Parliament I hope we will become No. 1 in the world according to Transparency International—the least-corrupt Parliament anywhere on this planet. 
But we have to kick off the new system before that can take place. I have to note as I did in my first reading speech when this matter was still a bill rather than an amendment to the Standing Orders that we are well behind our colleagues across the ditch in Australia. The state of Victoria has had legislation since 1978 South Australia since 1983 and the Senate since 1984. 
Peter Brown 
: What’s that achieved? 
ROD DONALD 
: What is more I tell Mr Brown given his ancestry the mother of all Parliaments Westminster—the House of Commons—has had pecuniary interest legislation since 1974. Maybe that is why he left and came out here—I am not sure. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Go back. 
ROD DONALD 
: No I am not suggesting he goes back. That is what Mr Peters suggests that immigrants do. Mr Brown is very welcome to stay in New Zealand when the Greens become part of the next Government. 
The new Standing Orders contained in the Supplementary Order Paper represent the politics of transparency and accountability. They are not as Mr Brown claimed in his first reading speech the politics of envy. It is extraordinary in fact for the deputy leader of New Zealand First strongly to oppose MPs being required to be upfront with the public about the financial interests that they may have so that the public can judge their subsequent behaviour in Parliament accordingly when Mr Brown’s own leader is forever making false accusations about impropriety in the public service in the business community and amongst ethnic organisations. So far from being nosy parker Standing Orders and far from my being a prima donna on this issue these are very common-sense amendments to the Standing Orders. The public of New Zealand expects us to meet high standards. We are after all public servants. We are the elected representatives of the people of New Zealand. We have a responsibility to set an example. Instead of New Zealand First accusing other people of not being honest it is time that it practised what it preached. 
The other party to oppose MPs disclosing their financial interests has been ACT. Mr Prebble’s speech during the first reading was breathtaking. It was fire and brimstone despite of course his new leader Rodney Hide having branded ACT as the perk-busting party. Of course these Standing Orders are all about ensuring that MPs do not take perks. We have to acknowledge that Mr Prebble certainly will not be taking any perks in the future from Parliament because he is about to retire. I suspect that Mr Hide will be gone too so he will not have to make a declaration after the election either. 
Notwithstanding however the opposition from ACT and New Zealand First to the Supplementary Order Paper before us I join with Mr Power in acknowledging that the select committee process was constructive. Although it took us some time to work through the current Standing Orders as a result of that due deliberation they are robust they will stand the test of time and they will I hope meet with the public’s approval and I would also hope the media’s approval. The absence of the media in the gallery suggests that they are very relaxed about the steps we are taking in this regard. 
In closing I look forward to declaring my pecuniary interests when I return to Parliament with an even larger Green team after the election. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose Government motion No. 3 which relates to the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. What is the problem that this is trying to fix? All this will do is be a burden for the honest who will agonise over it. It is so complicated and so badly drawn up that it is very difficult to see where to begin and where to end. It will build a climate of dishonesty. The crooks who do not give a stuff will just make it up anyway—and who will have the time and energy to trawl through everything and find out whether members have been honest? It is like taking the rich list at face value. The rich list does not even take into account people’s liabilities. All it can do is take into account their assets. The poor diligent honest MP who struggles to declare everything under this measure will possibly trip up or by accident exclude something and the media will pick it up have a field day and destroy him or her for no reason at all. 
This measure would not have caught Donna Awatere Huata. We asked her time and again whether she had any interest any personal gain and she lied to us. She would not tell us the truth. It would not have picked her up. If this Parliament really wants to get down on corruption why does it not take note of what Ian Ewen-Street said yesterday when he talked about the scampi inquiry and Mr Peters’ involvement with Simunovich Fisheries? That has never been fully explored. For instance provision 4(1)(b) in new appendix B states: “the name of every other company or business entity in which the member has a pecuniary interest …”. Is that direct or indirect? What if a member had shares in something like the New Zealand Investment Trust? That is a very respectable trust. If a member had shares in it he or she would not have a clue about all the things that trust does. How on earth would one list them? How would trusts like that be listed? Land holdings are mentioned further on in this measure. If we tried to get information from members on all the land and property they own they would probably tell us to go away and mind our own business. 
I was very interested in what Rod Donald the co-leader of the Greens said. A moment ago he said that the Green Party stood for high standards and that it was the cleanest party in Parliament. They would have no trouble declaring their pecuniary interests. Why does Rod Donald not start by reading what we already have under Standing Order 164 which states: “A pecuniary interest is a direct financial benefit that might accrue … as a result of the outcome of the House’s consideration of a particular item of business.” The Greens have a particular interest in high electricity prices. They opposed Project Aqua. They oppose any energy projects. Why is that? Because it is in their pecuniary interests to have high electricity prices because of their financial interests through their taxpayer-funded superannuation fund in establishing the commercial viability of wind energy. They should tell us these things. If they do not tell us these things we have to go into Google to find them out. This statement is from a press release in May 2001: “the Green Party’s Superannuation Fund have joined the growing list of investors in local wind power company Windflow Technology. Windflow director … said ‘We’re delighted that the Greens are going to be part of our company. Windflow Technology is both environmentally and investor friendly’ … Rod Donald said ‘Our superannuation fund has a policy of ethical investing.’” Why do they not declare that when they come into this House to argue against any power project or development that anyone cares to put up whether it be State-owned or heaven help us one of the few private ones? Not only that Jeanette Fitzsimons owns 30000 shares in the Green Party superannuation fund. She is one of the top 10 shareholders. One of the biggest shareholders is UK millionaire Sir James Goldsmith and US billionaire Delane Wyeross also owns shares. 
But they have directly benefited also from carbon credits. A subsidiary of Windflow Technology New Zealand Windfarms won Government backing of up to $10 million to set up a 60-turbine wind farm in the Manawatu. This was in December 2003. Members should listen to what the business development manager—[ 
Interruption 
] It is not a scandal at all. I never said it was a scandal. I am just pointing out the—we are not allowed to use that word but the term “conflict of interest” perhaps is a way to describe it when one stands up in this House and says that everyone has to declare their pecuniary interests and everyone has to declare how much money they are owed over $50000 and any debt over $50000. I do not see the point in that. Why have it declared that someone owes a member of Parliament $50000 or more? 
 Members will not have to declare it if it relates to a spouse a partner children step-children or foster children so the dishonest ones will put all these things in the name of their spouses partners children step-children or foster children and get them to pay them. The very thing that should be declared and the very thing we should be most suspicious of—that is electoral campaign expenses that could be covered up—is excluded. The very thing we should be suspicious of—where someone wants to try to buy one’s vote—is the only thing that we should be declaring and it is excluded. 
But I go back to this Greens’ thing. The business development manager of the wind farm said that it would not have been viable without the Government’s award of carbon credits. It was one of the two firms named by the Minister of Energy Pete Hodgson to take a share of 4 million carbon credits designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I think the public should know these things. The public should know that the Greens stand up in this House and accuse every other party except Labour of being dishonest and bordering on the corrupt yet the co-leader of the Greens did not declare all of these things which anyone can get on the website. The Greens are strangely silent whenever anyone brings the matter up and it is an example of how this legislation is just a nonsense. There is no problem here that we have to fix. In general most people who come into this place are honest. If they are not then the media are not doing their job properly because it is the job of the fourth estate to find out what is going on and report it accurately. ACT will not be supporting this motion. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call. I say two things to that member: she is leaving this place and she is moving to the fourth estate. I look forward to her exposés both on Investors International and on the questions I have asked Mr Hide for 3 years about who paid his air fares to Fiji. I say to Ms Coddington: “Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black.” For 3 years I put to Mr Hide questions about his interests in travelling to Fiji and attending a conference there where hundreds of New Zealanders subsequently lost millions of dollars. To date there have been no answers. It is the ACT party of course that will not support the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. I acknowledge the National Party’s support for it. Anything that makes this Parliament more accountable and transparent is a good thing. But I just say to the ACT party—the party of transparency the party of honesty the party headed by Mr Hide the self-confessed scambuster—that those things transparency and accountability must apply to our public service our Parliament our business people etc. They must apply to everybody—except of course to Mr Hide when his feet are put to the fire and questions are asked about him! 
I close by saying that the bill is a good bill. It is an exceptional bill. It brings us in line with many Parliaments around the world. Sadly of course this bill will not do one thing: once it is passed we will still not gain the answers from Mr Hide about why he went to the said conference about who paid his air fares about who paid his accommodation and about who paid the hospitality bill. This bill will apply only to members of Parliament who are re-elected. After the election we will not have the answers to those questions because Mr Hide will not be a member of this Chamber; neither will any of those so-called honest accountable and hugely transparent members of the ACT party. I support the bill. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to draw the attention of the House to a very important part of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. I have listened tonight to members from different parties reflecting on their interest and non-interest. But the amendment to the Standing Order reflects a very important part of the bill. The Standing Orders Committee received and considered four submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard three submissions. Hearing the evidence took 1 hour and 32 minutes and consideration took 6 hours and 52 minutes. If that is the priority New Zealanders put on the bill then it makes me wonder why it is even going through. Next minute nosy-parker parties like the Greens will want to how many damn cats we have at home. This is a ridiculous bill. A nosy party like the Greens should look at their own backyard. I just wanted to bring that particular part to the House’s attention. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I signal United Future’s support for the motion. We also support the issue of members’ pecuniary interests being dealt with via an amendment to the Standing Orders rather than by way of legislation. That follows the United Kingdom model and ensures that the question of MPs’ pecuniary interests is a proceeding of Parliament and therefore an obligation on members of Parliament. They are then accountable to Parliament instead of to the courts and that as Dr Michael Cullen mentioned is entirely appropriate. United Future is pleased with the amendments that are to be made and especially that debts owed by family members do not have to be disclosed. That was a point raised by United Future the family party. It was not in the earlier drafts of the bill; it was introduced at our suggestion. That measure is very important because compulsory disclosure of loans made by MPs to spouses partners parents a child a stepchild a foster child or a grandchild would be an embarrassment not to the MP but to the family member concerned. 
I was grateful to be part of the Standing Orders Committee which very patiently and painstakingly worked its way through the issues. I was privileged once again to represent United Future in those deliberations. I am disappointed however that New Zealand First and ACT opposed the notion of a register of members’ pecuniary interests. They gave two reasons for that. The first was that there was no evidence yet of any real or perceived corruption amongst parliamentarians so they asked why the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill had been introduced. But I ask why we should wait until we do have an instance of corruption involving MPs before we move. We would be wise to do so in advance and to learn from other Parliaments around the world that have introduced registers of members’ pecuniary interests in various forms. Registers have been adopted for example by Westminster and by other Parliaments. They have not in fact stopped well-qualified people from coming into Parliament. In Britain everybody knows that William Hague for example a former leader of the Conservative Party now makes several million pounds a year as an after-dinner speaker while remaining an MP. He has to declare all that income. People actually think that is not a bad career path so it has had the perverse effect of making the career of a member of Parliament seem more attractive to many people. 
The second objection is the one I have mentioned: that it would stop well-qualified people from coming into Parliament. I thought a bit about that and asked myself this: what is meant by a “well-qualified person”? By “good people” do we mean “rich people”? Rich people are not necessarily good people. I know some good people who are also rich and I also know some rich people who are rogues. The same applies by the way to poor people—some are good and some are bad. Nor are well-qualified people necessarily those with a string of degrees. So what kind of people do we want to have in Parliament? My answer is that they need to be people who love this beautiful country of Aotearoa New Zealand of which we are blessed to be citizens and who wish to serve it as members of Parliament. Such people may want to see New Zealand prosper as I do. They may want as members of Parliament to protect the environment as I do. But most important I believe they should be people who want to ensure that relationships in this country between men and women including those within marriage between parents and children and also between peoples of different races languages and religions—and believe you me everyone has a belief system whether or not he or she calls it a religion—are marked by charity and goodwill. Those are the kinds of people whom I think we want to see in this Parliament. So I have pleasure in supporting the Standing Orders that will give effect to that. 
This will be my last speech in this Parliament. I hope to see most members back here again shortly. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
Adjournment 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do now adjourn until Friday 12 August 2005 
. That is the traditional motion that is moved. The House of course will be dissolved on Thursday 11 August. 
I begin by thanking all the staff in this building beginning with the Clerk and the rest of the Clerk’s Office staff including the  
Hansard 
 writers; the security officers; and the messengers. I also thank you Madam Speaker and the other presiding officers of Parliament. Madam Speaker your style of chairing is quite different from that of your predecessor—but in my view a no less competent form of chairing. 
I thank also those parties that have been assisting this Government through a 3-year stable period—in particular United Future which has stuck absolutely to its word in terms of the confidence and supply agreement. That of course is why it continues tonight to be savagely attacked by the National Party which just might want to talk to United Future after the election if National believes its own rhetoric about what will happen at the election. But of course that is the National Party: always treating everybody else like dogs and scum but grovelling around people should it actually need them at some point within the future. 
I want to thank also the Green Party which has supported this Government on a whole range of progressive legislation. Indeed I note that it has voted against us less often than United Future has which has differentiated itself from the Government on a whole range of issues. I thank New Zealand First particularly for its support in relation to the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
It will be sad for some perhaps to see the back of ACT after this election but it is summed up by the fact that tonight the ACT party voted “3” on the only division we had. As ACT is entitled to two proxies if we subtract those from three that leaves Deborah Coddington who of course is the only person apart from Richard Prebble from the ACT party actually to give a valedictory speech. That shows ACT’s commitment to this Parliament. 
This election that is forthcoming and that we on this side of the House look forward to enormously is one about leadership credibility policies and the record. And our record is very good! We have achieved over 20 percent growth during our time in Government. We have averaged 3.9 percent growth versus 3.1 percent under the National Party Government. We have created 260000-plus new jobs and achieved one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world. At the end of National’s period in office all it could claim was that it had got unemployment back to what it had started with when it had become the Government in 1990. We have started reversing the unconscionable growth in poverty that occurred during the 1990s whereby when National left office one in three of all our children was living in poverty. What does Dr Brash say about that? “Well sometimes poverty goes up and you have to live with that.”—if one wants the kind of policy that he believes in. 
We have increased by tens of thousands the number of surgical procedures being carried out in this country. We have put in place the new primary health care— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Sex-change operations. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well some of those members obviously need it but simply have not turned up to get the treatment. I encourage them to do so. It is much cheaper now for most of those people opposite to get proper health-care. 
Of course the one thing that they agree with us on—they have to agree if they are to pay for their promises—is that we have governed fiscally in a highly responsible fashion. We have one of the best records in the developed world. We have reduced debt. Government spending is lower as a percentage of GDP than when we became the Government. I see that Dr Brash is giving me a signal; I say: “Peace to you too Dr Brash”. He should remember that signal at the present time—namely peace. We have lowered Government spending as a proportion of GDP. Taxation is just about the same as it was when we became the Government. What National cannot get used to is the fact that if an economy has grown by more than 20 percent in real terms then of course Government spending can go up by about 33 percent while actually going down as a proportion of GDP. National members cannot do the arithmetic properly; I would not expect them to be able to do so. 
I look across at the Opposition benches. This Parliament has ended exactly as one might expect—with the National Party in total disarray. Lockwood Smith was caught with his pants down. He spends his life trying to be caught with his shirt off but this time he was caught with his pants down. Dr Smith’s problem is actually the problem of the current National Party under Dr Brash’s leadership—that is he cannot tell us what his secret desires are. It is the love that dare not speak its name—the love for the atomic bomb and for nuclear power. We have known that for 20 years the thought of nuclear power coming to this country has brought a glow to Dr Lockwood Smith’s cheeks—I will not say which cheeks but to Dr Lockwood Smith’s cheeks. He wants to change the policy but cannot bring himself to say so. Just say it Dr Smith! He wants to abandon the antinuclear policy so that he can cuddle up to the Americans. 
Dr Brash wants to do it too. He wants to tell us that he wants to completely deregulate the labour market but he will not say it. He wants to tell us that he wants to cut superannuation but he will not say so. He has so many things he would love to tell us but he dare not say them because if he did National’s position in the polls would plummet almost immediately into the nether regions. Dr Brash came into this Parliament to rescue the National Party from its own dangerous centrist friends as evidenced by Bill English. Now he desperately tries to pretend he is not a far-right ideologist. My goodness me! The evidence is all there in speech after speech he gave as Governor of the Reserve Bank. [ 
Interruption 
] The great thing about going to Christ’s College is that one learns about the rich and learns to realise that not all of them are rich because of their own virtue. Most of them are rich because they had the good fortune to choose rich parents. That is the main reason that people are rich in this country. 
So National has a leadership that when it comes to credibility had to say yesterday: “I can neither confirm nor deny.”—Dr Brash not knowing how wonderfully appropriate that particular comment was. Asked whether he could remember Dr Lockwood Smith saying: “Please sir could we have some money for a think tank to persuade our people that nuclear weapons are a good idea?” Dr Brash said: “I can neither confirm nor deny that.” Goodness me! Dr Brash said that Trevor Mallard was telling porkies when he claimed that National’s policy was written in Washington. Well that “neither confirm nor deny” phrase was written in Washington a long time ago. Of course National’s big policy— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Get out of the gutter. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: America is not the gutter. That is a terrible thing to say about one of our longest-standing friends and at times allies in terms of our history. 
So what is National’s big policy at this election? It is to bribe the people with big tax cuts but will National show us those tax cuts? No it will not. Those members are a bit like this Dr Smith—not very big. Dr Brash has already promised over $1 billion of tax cuts before National starts counting the real ones. Company tax gets a nod carbon charge gets a nod and tax rebates get a nod-nod. “Noddy” sitting over there is agreeing with me. National has already promised tax cuts of over $1 billion a year and we have $1 billion to come according to Mr Key. That is $2 billion—it is quite easy; $1 billion plus $1 billion is $2 billion—in promised tax cuts. 
Somehow all of this can be done without cutting spending on health or education or superannuation. What are the weasel words from Dr Brash? “We’ll keep spending where it is this year and it will go up each year.” Well I say to Dr Brash that health spending has to go up about $650 million a year just to keep current services and keep up with changes in technology; Mr English knows that—$50 million will not do $100 million will not do and $200 million will not do. Education spending has to go up about $350 million a year to keep pace with demand to pay increased salaries and to do all the other things that we are supposed to do in an education system. That is $1 billion a year gone before one starts out of that $1.9 billion allocation. 
The worm has turned I think one can say. With the student loan announcement and the farce over nuclear ships the National Party is staring defeat in the face. I will make a confident prediction that the day after the election Dr Brash will be gone by lunchtime! 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That speech from Michael Cullen was full of half-truths quarter-truths and non-truths. It was full of self-satisfied self-congratulatory claptrap designed to fool the public—I will come back to that in a moment. Madam Speaker let me also add my thanks to you and to your colleagues for the way you have conducted this often very unruly House in the last few months. I also thank the staff who keep this place functioning: the Clerk of the House—and by that of course I mean “Clerk” spelled with an “e”—David McGee through to the Hansard reporters the messengers the telephonists the drivers the security staff and all the rest. I give special thanks also to the staff of the National Party. 
I also pay tribute to some of those who have given valedictory speeches here in the last few days. Roger Sowry has made a great contribution in this House—and not just as an MP but also as a hard-working conscientious and compassionate former Minister. He will be sorely missed. Lynda Scott has been unable to give her valedictory speech this week because she is unwell but she has also made a great contribution over the last 6 years and would have made a fine Minister in the next National Government. I am personally sorry to see Richard Prebble go. He has been an extraordinary politician and has left an indelible mark on New Zealand. 
Michael Cullen has argued that Helen Clark’s Government can take the credit for good economic growth over the last 6 years. No objective observer agrees with him—not one. Treasury does not agree with him the Reserve Bank does not and the OECD does not. They recognise that growth over the past 5 years has been virtually identical to growth in the previous 5 years despite two successive droughts and the Asian crisis in that earlier period. They recognise that growth in the past 5 years has been driven by factors Helen Clark can take no credit for at all: high commodity prices a low exchange rate low international interest rates and a flow of people into New Zealand after September 11. None of that has had anything to do with the performance of this Government. 
In the adjournment debate of 1999 when Helen Clark was Leader of the Opposition she said: “I am not prepared to stand back and see the best and brightest of New Zealanders leave this country taking their ideas and their businesses with them. We are going to build a future here for those people.” Well 6 years later New Zealanders are still pouring out of this country and Helen Clark has stopped talking about that because she has done nothing at all to stop it. She used to talk also about getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD within 10 years. She has stopped talking about that as well which is just as well because there is absolutely no chance at all of New Zealand accomplishing that with its current policies. The New Zealand economy has already slowed down sharply with growth in the 6 months to March this year of less that 1 percent— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Above the average. Better than you achieved. 
Dr DON BRASH 
:—to an annualised growth of less then 2 percent I tell Mr Cunliffe. No reputable observer believes the New Zealand economy will grow at more than 3 percent a year for the foreseeable future. 
A Government cannot crank up growth overnight—a Government cannot even crank up growth in 12 months—but surely a Government can crank up growth over 6 years. Surely there should be some sign of an increased trend growth rate if current policies will deliver it. But of course current policies will not deliver faster growth. On current trends we will never again be in the top half of the OECD let alone be there within a decade. As a consequence of that the exodus of bright New Zealanders will not only continue but will grow. The student loan policy announced by Helen Clark will have absolutely no effect on that. Why is that? Because 94 percent of those holding student loans already live in New Zealand. Most people with student loans do not leave the country. 
When Helen Clark finally announced the election date last week she said this election would be about trust at least in part. New Zealanders trusted Helen Clark to improve our economy and stem the exodus of New Zealanders overseas. Well she has done nothing to improve our growth rate or stem the exodus. She has failed to fix the Resource Management Act she has failed to fix the infrastructure problems of this country she has increased the bureaucracy she has increased the tax rates and she has increased the compliance costs facing the business sector. The exodus continues— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Bill’s on the way back! 
Dr DON BRASH 
:—and grows I tell Mr Mallard. New Zealanders trusted Helen Clark to deliver a good-quality education system but we have seen more resources channelled into the education bureaucracy while schools struggle with inadequate resources. We have seen the shambles of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement implementation and we have seen prodigious amounts of money wasted in the tertiary education sector. New Zealanders have trusted Helen Clark to lead the country towards harmony and togetherness. Instead we have State-sponsored separatism being extended from parliamentary electorates to local government district health boards and primary health organisations with special privileges for Maori New Zealanders in legislation and in the funding of health care and education. 
Now the Labour Party has taken to telling half-truths and lies as we have seen from Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff over the last week. Labour is desperate to avoid debating the issues of real concern to mainstream New Zealanders and will stop at nothing to try to divert attention on to something else. That of course is what has been happening in recent days. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who’s paying the bills? Who’s pulling the strings? 
Dr DON BRASH 
: There is no American bagman I tell Mr Mallard. National’s policies are being written in New Zealand I tell Mr Mallard by New Zealanders in the interest of New Zealanders and there will be no change in the antinuclear policy unless it is approved by referendum. I guess we can expect to hear more of those kinds of diversions every time Helen Clark or her Government get into trouble. 
Of course the Government has now started to throw bribes around. Less than 2 months ago Michael Cullen told the people of New Zealand that he could not afford tax cuts of more than 67c a week in 3 years’ time and all of a sudden he has found $500 million of extra funding for roads. National applauds more money being allocated for roads but asks why it took the election campaign for Michael Cullen to find that money. Last week the extraordinary and extraordinarily cynical student loan bribe was announced. Nobody whom I have met regards that as a good policy. It is massively expensive and it sends absolutely the wrong signals to students. 
I am happy to make this election campaign about trust and I am happy to make it about integrity and experience. It is true that I have had just 3 years’ parliamentary experience—about the same length as Bob Hawke had before he became Prime Minister of Australia—but I have had long experience in the real world. I am more than happy to contrast my experience in the real world with the experience of Helen Clark’s 24 years in Parliament and umpteen years in academia. 
The reality is that this election campaign will offer New Zealanders a choice. That choice is between on the one hand a politically correct social engineering arrogant Government that has done nothing to improve our growth rate or to stem the exodus of Kiwis and that believes it can spend our money better than we can and on the other hand a party that offers New Zealanders a fresh start with new faces and without arrogance—a party that wants to leave as much money in the hands of those who earn it as is consistent with the wider needs of society being fully met. The National Party is that party. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to carry on where Dr Don Brash left off because he has raised some points of considerable concern to New Zealand First. But first of all I take this opportunity on behalf of my colleagues to thank all the parliamentary staff. They have done an excellent job for all MPs. We are very impressed with them—not only with their competence and their attitude to work but also with their friendly disposition under sometimes very difficult circumstances. So we would like to offer our thanks to all the people who work in the parliamentary complex and that includes you Madam Speaker. We recognise that in the short time you have been in the job it has not been terribly easy for you and on behalf of New Zealand First I would like to offer our compliments. 
Dr Brash if I heard him correctly—I will give him the benefit of the doubt—accused people of lying. That concerns me because I know that National Party MPs are saying that the seabed and foreshore legislation is not in favour of all New Zealanders. We helped the Government to produce legislation that is in favour of all New Zealanders and there should be no doubt about that. Further I heard today—and maybe the National Party colleagues would like to confirm this—that a candidate in Hamilton told an audience that he or she would give tax cuts by increasing GST. I ask National members whether that is true. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It was the Green candidate. 
PETER BROWN 
: They had better sort something out. 
In April this year in my own patch I was a guest—as were all the spokespeople on transport—at the New Zealand Automobile Association conference in Napier— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did you hear it yourself? 
PETER BROWN 
: I heard this myself. Dr Don Brash gave a speech to the conference in the early afternoon. This is what he said and it is a direct quote from his speech: “In the late nineties the last National Government lifted road spending to a little over 1.0% of GDP by starting a process to move more petrol tax out of the consolidated fund into the road fund.” That would not have occurred without New Zealand First and Bill Birch is on record as saying: “Over my dead body.” We were there. But it gets worse. Dr Brash said: “At that time—1998—we said that as circumstances allowed more transfers would be made.” New Zealand First alone said that. Dr Brash continued: “Labour came in and stopped the process.” That is not true. It was stopped in the 1999 Budget by Bill Birch and I am absolutely correct on that. When I confronted the leader of the National Party in the foyer of the auditorium immediately afterwards he said: “I don’t know; I wasn’t there.” Those were his exact words. 
For the remainder of my speech I want to give a bit of advice to all parliamentarians and all parties. I say to National that if it wants to take policies from New Zealand First we are quite flattered but it should at least acknowledge it. It has taken large segments of our law and order policy large segments of our Treaty of Waitangi policy and large segments of our road funding policy. I have here the  
Hansard 
 of Maurice Williamson from 1995 when he spoke on a Winston Peters bill about shifting money from the consolidated account to the roading account. I have his quotes here and they do not bear any resemblance to what he is currently saying. 
I say to the Government members over there that they are doing very very well with the “Cullen fund”. It has had a 14 percent return. I say to those members that they should invest some of it in their own country and let this country get ahead. They might not get the 14 percent return but they will get the tax take from getting the country moving again—literally moving. The Minister got it half right by going to Tauranga and saying he would fund the Harbour Link project in part but he should be funding it all. Those members over there who know anything about roading and road funding know that I am absolutely on the ball on that. That should be funded from the roading account. I say to the Labour members over there that they should use some of that money in the “Cullen fund” to invest in this country and we would all be better off. I think that Clayton Cosgrove has the message; I think he was giving me the thumbs-up sign— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He hasn’t even put “Labour Party” on his hoardings. 
PETER BROWN 
: We cannot blame him for that can we? 
I want to give a little bit of advice to the Green Party. It should stand up for green issues. It should not leave it up to just us. It should not get involved in those loopy left-wing socialist-type policies. It should stand up for green environmental issues—there are plenty of them. We need some help. New Zealand First cannot do it all on its own. That party over there is the party that adopted the name “Green” and it should help us on the green issues. We invite those members to show concern for the environment. 
I want to give a little bit of advice to my colleagues in United Future. We have respected their strategy of sticking by the Government for 3 years no matter what. We respect that United Future had a strategy and that it said it would prop the Government up for 3 years no matter what. United Future lost the cause on the prostitution legislation but it stuck by the strategy. It lost the cause on the smoke-free legislation but it stuck by the strategy. It lost the cause on the civil union legislation but it stuck by the strategy. It did not get GST removed from rates but it stuck by the strategy. It wanted to revise tax thresholds on income and it got a little bit—half a packet of chewing gum in 3 years’ time—and it still stuck by the strategy. It lost the cause on tax splitting but it stuck by the strategy. I give the honourable members in United Future a little bit of “Winston” advice. [ 
Interruption 
] No not Winston Peters; Winston Churchill. He said: “However beautiful the strategy sometimes you should look at the outcomes.” United Future has done this country a total disservice. 
In all seriousness that advice from Winston Churchill should apply to us all: “However beautiful the strategy sometimes you should look at the outcomes.” We are not getting the outcome out of this House that New Zealanders deserve. We are not achieving it. Members are sitting there clapping their hands and moving legislation that the average New Zealander is appalled at. I suggest to members that they go away from the House—we are coming up to an election as I am sure they are aware—and talk policies that can advance this country rather than advancing the cause of MPs or any particular political party. Join us in New Zealand First and vote for this country. It is a beautiful country and it is worth doing the right thing for. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I thought I gave my last speech yesterday but 24 hours is a long time in politics and I did say I would not rule out a come-back. 
Georgina Beyer 
: That was quick Deborah. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It was a quick come-back. I do not muck around. 
I would like to thank the Clerk and the clerks the messengers the security service Hansard and of course the ACT staff. 
I listened to Michael Cullen give his speech just now. He was boasting about the economy and I wondered whether this is as good as it gets. Is this as good as it is ever going to get for New Zealanders if Labour can boast about it? If that is so it is absolutely nothing to be proud of. 
Labour boasts about employment figures. Well the reality is that hundreds of thousands of able-bodied fit young men and women are wasting away on unemployment and sickness benefits. There is no excuse. If the economy is so good why are those people wasting away on benefits? All that people need to do these days is to go to their general practitioner and get a letter. This Government has encouraged a policy of people going to their general practitioner and getting a letter and then as long as they are willing to drink two bottles of whisky a day they can sit on a sickness benefit for the rest of their lives. Welfare fraud costs us $2 billion a year in this country. We could use that money. If we attacked welfare fraud we could use the savings for tax cuts. We could get the top rate down to 33c and we could get all the rest down to 24c just by attacking welfare fraud. That is without even touching the $7 billion surplus and without touching all the horror scenes that the left always puts up because as soon as we mention tax cuts they ask which hospitals and schools we will close. 
The Inland Revenue Department constantly reports that the black economy costs us $10 billion a year. It is the same morality. It is not the corporates that are ripping off the tax department; it is the same people as those who are ripping off the welfare department. If they are morally immune to ripping off the welfare system they will feel the same towards ripping off the Inland Revenue Department. Even if we only halved that black economy there would be another $5 billion. In Wisconsin when the 40-hour week was brought in the black economy disappeared overnight because people on welfare chose a job rather than a cash job. 
Under this Government crime has just rocketed. There is absolutely no faith in the police any more. We have seen one of the worst police Ministers that anyone—even people older than me—can remember. He has just sat there doing nothing while people who dialled 111 have died because a cab was sent instead of a police car. The Minister of Police was given a list of suspected paedophiles on a disk by Interpol. He did nothing for 4 months. He just sat there. In the meantime public faith in the police has dropped to an all-time low. So what does the Government do? It goes out and has a massive public relations exercise. It rounds up a few celebrities and gets a few headlines with some celebrity drug busts which Labour thinks will restore faith in the police. It will not because the police are giving mothers who run their children to school in their dressing gowns tickets for speeding or for wrongly parking yet when those same mothers get home and find that their houses have been broken into it takes them 3 days to get a policeman to come. Anyone going to a police station to report a crime these days will find that the police are so under-resourced that they actually admit that people are better to go to their insurance companies and get paid out because they cannot do anything for people. 
Education has become another way to hide unemployment. What used to be called night classes is now called community education or tertiary education. If people want to learn basket weaving or macramé or if they want to go to a class that teaches them how to make a fire screen and a poker to match they just have to roll up to one of those tertiary institutes and the Government will subsidise it and shovel money into it. It is called adult education—“catch-up education” “second-time round education” or “second-go education”—and it takes more money. Then it is let fall over—especially if it is a wananga and it is privately owned. More money is shovelled in a blind eye is turned to all the waste and all the warning signs that are coming through and it is allowed to fall over. Then it can be taken over and its new owners can make it look like they are doing something. 
Pre-school education is in an absolutely shambolic state. This Government would wipe out the private providers if it could but it knows that if it did the not-for-profit providers would never be able to cope. The Minister of Education actually went out there and called private early childhood centres “Kentucky Fried Childcare”. That is what his opinion of them is. He is so out of touch as Minister of Education that he thinks early childhood education is still about changing nappies and warming bottles. That is what he thinks. He will allow free hours of early childhood education only for those who take their kids to a not-for-profit community-owned centre. It does not matter if the poor mum has to drive halfway across town to get there and has to spend all her money on petrol getting there and back as long as her kids are at a not-for-profit provider. This Government hates private enterprise. It hates profit and it hates competition. 
It has demoralised families and schools with its massive school closures up and down the country. The network reviews for no good reason closed schools that had got glowing Education Review Office reports. The United Future party which calls itself a family party sat there and did nothing while families were going through hell with their schools being closed. United Future which calls itself the Christian caring party quickly took down its website which had some very unchristian things on it such as a statement that the Prime Minister should not be the Prime Minister because she does not have children and she does not watch the rugby. 
The first piece of legislation that this Parliament passed after I came in was a social welfare amendment bill which provided that people could go on the domestic purposes benefit at the age of 18 that they would never have to seek work until their youngest child was 18 and that they could go overseas for 3 weeks and still get the benefit. The “Family Party” the United Future party voted for it. It voted for that legislation. It was the first legislation to be voted on and the “Poodle Party” voted for it. 
The Minister of Education calls the National Certificate of Educational Achievement a triumph. It is a total disaster. 
Before I go I would like to talk about the National Party. I remind the National Party that we do have MMP. I remind the National Party that when it and the New Zealand First Party fell apart in 1998 ACT supported the National Party. It was ACT that kept the National Party in Government and it was ACT that stopped the country from going back to the polls. Without the ACT support then National would have been back on the Opposition benches. National is campaigning in this election to get rid of MMP. The people of New Zealand own their votes—not the two old parties. It is not a two-party race. I give a warning to the National Party more in sorrow than in anger: if the National Party continues trying to kill off its future coalition partners it will ensure that Dr Brash will not be the Prime Minister and the National Party will be in Opposition. If the Labour Party gets 40 percent of the votes it gets 52 seats. If the Maori Party gets 5 or 6 seats we will quite likely have an overhang of 124 members. Does the National Party seriously think it will get 63 seats and team up with New Zealand First? Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. 
 The New Zealand public likes ACT’s policies of targeting welfare abuse of one law for all of zero tolerance of crime of a tax cut for every worker of world-class education standards; those have been accepted because the National Party and the Labour Party are promoting some of them too. The country wants a change—that is well known. But if it wants a stable centre-right Government it needs ACT there too. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As we reach the end of this term of Parliament the second in which the Green Party has been represented here in our own right we face an absolutely critical election which will be held in a volatile environment locally and internationally. Overseas wars in Iraq and elsewhere simmer and burn. Millions live in poverty and continue to die of starvation AIDS and other diseases. The planet keeps getting hotter and our ability to depend on fossil fuels as our main source of energy is starting to decline rapidly. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand we ignore all that at our peril. The general election in just over 6 weeks’ time pales into insignificance when put it up against those global concerns. Yet as always it is in our own place that we can all try to make our primary contribution towards improving the state of the world. I hope our next Government will be one that prefers peace to war that does not chase slavishly after American neo-conservative ambitions and that continues to increase our own small contributions towards helping to deal with desperate poverty and environmental degradation in the world out there. 
We have in front of us a stark choice at this election between a Government led by Don Brash and backed mainly by New Zealand First or one led by Helen Clark and backed primarily by the Green Party. Those two possibilities present very different outcomes and I hope people will consider quite deeply the kind of future they prefer. Unlike some of the other smaller parties we in the Greens have made it quite clear where we stand. We will not support a National-led Government under any circumstances and I am sure that National feels pretty much the same way about us. However we will be open to negotiating an agreement with Labour should it be open to that possibility. Indications so far are that it may well be. 
We nine Green MPs stand on our record through the last two terms of Parliament and believe we have a lot to offer should the voters give us and Labour the possibility and opportunity to work together in the next Government. The Green Party brings with it to the table a kaupapa of environmental nurturing social justice non-violence and participatory democracy. We have no bottom lines. Through both the Values Party and the Green Party we have maintained our principles for 3 decades despite the oft-times derision and contempt of our political opponents. Now we believe we have reached the point where we are ready to give Government a go. Labour needs us too; it is not a one-way street. Labour needs our commitment to a sustainable future and a fairer society and our many ideas about solutions to environmental and social problems. A Labour - New Zealand First Government would look very different from a Labour-Green one. One only has to look at Winston Peters’ approach to immigrants and refugees or at his outright support for “forced work for the dole as fast as possible” to see the direction in which he would quickly like to take the country. 
Although over the last 3 years of this parliamentary term the Greens have basically been an Opposition party that has given support to the Government when we have seen fit within that role we have brought a voice and a vision to Parliament and to public discourse that would not otherwise have been heard or visible. Our achievements in the last couple of years include our members’ bills. Recently Sue Kedgley’s bill promoted flexible working hours and now my own bill aims to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. Both of those bills are now before select committees. Our MPs also had a major input into the development of the Land Transport Management Act. We foiled the Government’s plans to set up a trans-Tasman food regulatory authority based in Canberra helped to stop Project Aqua on the Waitaki put animal welfare food safety and waste reduction firmly on the political agenda and supported civil unions Maori Television and the clean slate legislation. We have played a key role in the 2-year campaign to get Ahmed Zaoui out of jail. We have kept child and adult poverty on the political agenda negotiated a Government commitment to an independent prison inspectorate instigated an inquiry into cannabis and catalysed the party pill legislation. We have kept pressing for the reduction of the student debt burden and for a universal living allowance for students. We have supported Labour on all its reforming legislation around accident compensation and workers’ rights and conditions. We have consistently opposed the foreshore and seabed legislation have got the Government to adopt a proposal for a community-driven national dialogue on the treaty and have taken a leadership role on issues of human rights and peace. There is still no commercial release of GE into the environment of this country. A new monitoring programme for the use of GE in food has begun after years of Green lobbying. Green-Government cooperation on transport issues has assisted in achieving the buy-back of the rail track action on vehicle emissions screening and a big boost to Auckland rail and bus services including bus and cycle lanes. 
Our MPs have continued as we did in our first term here to take a principled stand on issues and not to trade between them. Nor do we get into personal stoushes here in the House. We are here to make a serious contribution. That is what we have done and will continue to do after 17 September. There is a lot of unfinished business. Just in my portfolio areas alone I am aware of legislation like the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill which would reform and improve the law for people living in boarding houses but which has sadly lingered on the Order Paper for years and still has not seen the light of day in this House for reasons unknown to me. The New Zealand Sign Language Bill and the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill also languish on the Order Paper. I am sorry that those two bills both of which are geared towards improving the situation of big groups of people within the disabilities sector have not quite made it out of the gate. As with the three bills I have just named my own bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act and remove the defence of reasonable force which allows parents to seriously beat their children and get away with it legitimised by the State will survive only if we end up with a new Parliament that supports continuing with such legislation. 
This year the Green Party is campaigning hard for the return of political parties to this Parliament that can work together in a cooperative and consultative way for the common good. Our kaupapa and our people can help to give Labour the heart soul and spine it needs not only to push through some of the legislation that has been left half-done but also to instigate a whole lot of new and positive progress on social economic and environmental issues. We would like to have the opportunity to do more to protect our native plants and animals and to restrict the sale of high country land and coastal property to New Zealand citizens and residents. It is critical that we speed up progress on the protection of our marine environment and nurture our coastal fisheries so that anyone can go out and catch a fish for dinner again. We must prepare for the end of cheap oil by future-proofing New Zealand against the shocks to come through our energy transport and housing strategies. 
The Green Party is committed to doing everything we can to bring an end to endemic child poverty the legacy of the last 2 decades which still affects over 20 percent of our country’s children even after 5½ years of a Labour Government. The minimum wage should be put up to $12 an hour immediately. We would very much like to see the introduction of a universal child benefit like the old family benefit and our income support system should be enough for people to actually live on without going endlessly into deeper and deeper debt. We will continue to oppose GE food and GE releases into our environment. We will do everything we can to protect and nurture taonga Maori including the foreshore and seabed and areas threatened by inappropriate mining. Our waterways should be safe for swimming and for collecting kai for the whanau. The food our children eat should be fresh and healthy. And there is so much more. 
The Green Party stands in Parliament to give a voice to those who often have not had a voice in this place: children people who have mental illness or other forms of disability and people who have been abused or raped. We stand here for prisoners refugees migrants unemployed workers beneficiaries and also for the non-human lives of our world which are totally defenceless here unless we humans give them expression. The Greens can and will add enormous value to the next Government. We intend to be back very shortly. We will be bigger bolder and stronger and ready to continue our work for a future that will work for us all here in this land and for all the species that share it with us. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take part in the adjournment debate on behalf of United Future and in particular on behalf of the Hon Peter Dunne who is unable to be with us tonight. I start from a position of gratitude—firstly to my colleagues for an amazing 3 years. To come to Parliament with one statesman and seven rookies was a pretty unusual start for a party. We have had a wonderful journey and we are very grateful to each other. 
We want to thank United Future party officials. Those people have worked tirelessly for us for 3 years and continue to do so at an increased pace right now. They do not get salaries at the end of the day but work in a very fine way because they are committed to the cause of New Zealand families as we all are. 
We would like to thank our new affiliated partner Outdoor Recreation NZ which has added strength to our party policy. Its members the “bright greens” have given us some common-sense conservation policies and have given voters a chance now to vote for conservation-based policies without having to be pro-drug or anti-trade in their ideology. 
We also want to thank our staff who have been amazing and who have supported us in amazing ways. In particular I thank our research team who include some of the most amazing young people I have ever had the privilege to work with. We want to thank the Clerk’s Office and we want to thank you Madam Speaker for the way you have so smoothly taken over your new role and provided support. 
As we go into this election campaign I want to reiterate what other members have said—that there is unfinished business. Certainly United Future believes that we have much unfinished business to continue after the election particularly in the area of family outcomes. 
Family law in New Zealand still needs a huge amount of work and the Care of Children Act was a wasted opportunity to do that work. It is unbelievable that in New Zealand right now there is no clear legal path by which a father can ensure that he is named on a child’s birth certificate and that the power for that decision still remains in the hands of the mother who can put huge legal obstacles in front of a father who genuinely wants to be part of his child’s life. United Future is committed into the future to seeing that changed. 
We also want to bring to the attention of the House as we finish this 3-year period the amazing work of kinship caregivers. In particular I want to give credit to the members of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust who have been valuable lobbyists for me during the last 3 years. Those people—thousands of them in New Zealand—are some of the unsung heroes of our nation. They are people who give up a whole season of their life to take over under difficult circumstances extremely traumatised children and who are yet to be acknowledged by the State by being given full foster-care status so that they may receive the financial benefits they desperately need at a time of life when they are often on fixed incomes. Again that is another family cause on which United Future is committed to seeing improved outcomes. 
United Future wants to thank the Sensible Sentencing Trust for the relationship we have had with it. We want to remain committed to the victims in New Zealand families who I believe are yet to receive the full support of law they deserve. Until the law in this country becomes victims-focused we will not see the kinds of outcomes we need. We need to see a complete restructuring of our legal system. Having 30000 cases backlogged in our court system is a complete nonsense and makes no sense. Victims certainly feel re-victimised by the lack of action in our court system. We want to be part of the ongoing work to see that situation improved. 
I also want to bring to the House’s attention the fact that although we believe that United Future has been able to make a series of sensible contributions to the improvement of the very dysfunctional Government department the Department of Child Youth and Family Services we believe there is still a long way to go. For every James Whakaruru and Coral Burrows who comes to the public’s attention every week—without a lie—I have had a letter from a family whose children have been removed by that department for reasons that seem shabby and shaky. It is years sometimes before those decisions are reviewed and those people get their children back. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes sometimes the decision is right and we are not trying to undo those situations when it is right. But too many families have had their children removed for reasons that are unclear and have waited a long time for a review of their cases. We want to show our gratitude to the many community organisations and non-governmental organisations that are working in the area of child protection in this country and working with families to improve outcomes. 
United Future remains committed to New Zealand families. We believe for instance that couples who are raising dependent children must get the chance to hold on to more of their income through the process of income splitting. It is absolute nonsense to say that somebody who earns $40000 and supports only himself or herself needs the same tax breaks as somebody on $40000 who is raising three children and who has a dependent partner. We must start to have a tax system that reflects the number of people being supported by each income and income splitting is an amazingly good way to go about that. It is fair and it gives recognition and value to a parent who chooses to spend some time at home doing the all-important task of raising children. 
Both the Labour Party and the National Party have a lot to answer for with policies that provide all the incentives at the other end of the spectrum—towards subsidising people to put their children into proxy childcare rather than providing any financial incentive to have their children raised at home by one of the parents. Income splitting is one of the best opportunities for that and there are National Party candidates standing at this election who support us on that policy. We know it and we believe that the National Party should have a serious look at the issue. 
We are about to discover in the next few weeks whether keeping one’s word makes a difference to New Zealand voters. Until 2002 the experience of MMP in this country was that smaller parties providing support either imploded on themselves or “tantrummed” and threw their toys out of the cot when they did not get their own way thus bringing down the Government of the day. They were punished severely by the voters at the next election for so doing. We are about to find out whether the voters see some value in a party giving its word keeping its word and sticking to the agreement it has made. 
I find the comments made by the deputy leader of New Zealand First absolutely ironic. That party has one of the worst track records in this Parliament’s history for poor behaviour and once absolutely held the country to ransom for 9 weeks followed by scandal after scandal with late-night drinking binges and with the whole media fiasco seen by the nation. He stood up tonight at the end of this 3-year term and made fun of a party that kept its word when after this election he is dying for New Zealand First to get the role United Future has had with the major party. 
Stability is something that should not have too small a price put on it. The OECD credits New Zealand with having had 5 of the most prosperous years in its measurable history. One of the main reasons the OECD has given for that is that we have enjoyed 3 of the most stable years of Government in our MMP history. United Future is hugely proud to have been part of that. 
But we want to put both Labour and National on notice right now because neither party is automatically entitled to our support after this election unless it is prepared to look very seriously at the policy planks on which we are going into this election campaign. Those things are not to be dismissed lightly at the end of this term. 
Simon Power 
: Are they bottom-line? 
JUDY TURNER 
: Yes some of them will be bottom-line. We have made it very very clear that the retention of the Families Commission and the maintenance of the current status in law of cannabis are bottom-line issues for us and we will certainly be bringing other issues to the table. We appreciate as does no other party that we will have to wait and see what window of opportunity exists after this election. Whether it is a centre-right opportunity or a centre-left opportunity we will have policy planks that are achievable in the following 3 years for New Zealand families. We are excited about those prospects and we are very willing to work cooperatively but if either of the major parties feels that we are some sort of political pushover and that the things written in our policies can be traded off—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Mr Brownlee that we are very proud of the fact that we can hold up pages and pages of accomplishments that United Future has achieved in the last 3 years. Some of them are clauses in bills that would not have existed if we had not been pushing for them. We are very proud of that. Those are the kinds of accomplishments one gets when one works cooperatively. Mr Brownlee might be very very pleased with our track record should he manage to drag his party over the appropriate line after the election on 17 September. 
Madam Speaker thank you for all you have done in this debate and in the time you have been leading this House. We wish everybody in Parliament well for this next period and we hope that everybody has a safe and exciting journey. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I hope you do not take umbrage if I do not make effusive statements about the job you have done. You have done it well but we expected when we elected you that you would make improvements on those who had gone before you. Besides when people receive effusive statements from their colleagues they know that the axe may soon be falling on them—as I am sure Bill English would attest to in his time and as the ghosts of leaders past would also attest. 
The general election is an opportunity for everybody to have an equal say on the type of society we want to live in and on the type of society we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party’s campaign launch is on Sunday week on 14 August. All are welcome. It will be in the Tamaki electorate in which I am campaigning for party votes. 
I am proud to have worked alongside Jim Anderton since the day he led the establishment of an independent progressive-left party in Parliament back in 1989. When Progressive MPs are returned in the next Parliament then the independent progressive left will have been represented in this House of Representatives for 19 years which is a full generation in biblical terms. Progressive is left of Labour on the issues of most importance to working families—that is access to universal education and health services and building an active role for democratically elected Governments to help in the transformation of our productive capacity as an economy so that by working intelligently together with industry and agriculture we are able to create the number of jobs we need to become a full-employment society in New Zealand. That is the most progressive and social democratic goal that any political party could have and it is one that of course is Progressive’s top goal: full employment and making poverty history. 
Our party stands for putting the common and public good ahead of vested and financial and sectarian interests. That is why Progressive puts young people and vulnerable people first and why we are not afraid to upset the liquor advertising and liquor marketing sectarian groups if we have to in order to give the coalition Government a real spine in the campaign to reduce the harm caused by alcohol consumption within our communities. Progressive is campaigning for party votes so that my bill on our youth binge-drinking problem is not buried by a reactionary Government that does not care enough about the people the family and the communities that are being hurt daily by our biggest drug problem: alcohol. 
Progressive is campaigning for an investment to cut the company tax rate to be in line with Australia because we want more private sector investment in research and development and in jobs. We want to ensure that New Zealand prospers in the global market so that we can afford First World social democratic type education and health services for all. The Progressive Party is campaigning on a much more ambitious first home policy to do more for low-income families to get over the deposit gap hurdle between them and their first home. 
Progressive is delighted that Labour our colleagues in Government recognised in 2005 the damage of the higher and higher fee-paying tertiary policy that was introduced in late 1989. Progressive is campaigning on a platform to cut the debt monkey off our graduates’ back in return for them working in New Zealand and using their skills to build up the regions of New Zealand. 
Progressive looks forward to helping Labour deliver the common left position now which is to move away from the policies of the last user-pays Government of 1984-90. Labour has governed in coalition with Progressive over the past 3 years and in coalition with the Alliance of five left parties between 1999 and 2002. Over the next 6 weeks 50 Progressive candidates and I will be campaigning for a historic third-term left-wing coalition Government. We will be campaigning for a further expansion and deepening of the industry and regional development programmes and the spectacular regional initiatives around the country none of which existed until the independent left party in this Parliament won over doubters and sceptics and built up the majorities we have always needed to deliver genuinely progressive policies for the benefit of all. 
I am looking forward to having the opportunity to explain the next steps that the Progressive party would like to see delivered by our next coalition Government. The only way that a strategic asset-selling pro-war National-led Government could be established under MMP is if New Zealand First emerges from an election in the position to deliver a National-led Government. That is why we are campaigning for no party on this side of the House to go into coalition with a Government that New Zealand First takes part in. 
The low point of this Parliament has been the attack on the Muslim communities and on other communities in New Zealand by the leader of New Zealand First who yesterday in this Parliament would not meet the two men whom he had grievously slandered as New Zealand citizens saying that they had been complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the Government of Saddam Hussein. He skulked in this Parliament he skulked in the building and he would not meet the two men about whom for 2 months he has refused to put any evidence forward as to why he has so grievously slandered them and their communities. That is the lowest point for this Parliament and that party has gone below a moral line that I think no other parties in this Parliament—no matter how much I disagree with them—would ever go below. 
I should like to say briefly that the progressive left has lost a good solid member in Ian Ewen-Street. He has many qualities—amongst them of course his being Australian-born. He is a man who has always kept his head down and worked hard and I have very much appreciated his vote in favour of Progressive’s Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill proceeding to a select committee. I thank Ian Ewen-Street and I wish him all the best. 
Finally I extend my best wishes and those of the Progressive Party to those who have given their valedictory speeches and I wish them all the best as they are rehabilitated back with their families and communities and into a new environment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Listening to the speeches tonight from the ACT party the Progressive Party and United Future I suddenly became aware of why the Nigerian scam men send so many emails to this Parliament. It is because there are literally tens of MPs here who believe that their electoral chances are so good that they will be back. It is interesting to note that those who will not be back are those who have seriously failed their constituencies. I want to say to Deborah Coddington who had hard words for the National Party that she should go back to the mirror and look at the ACT party. She should go back to see what drove the ACT party into Parliament in 1996 and the member will be able to see what that party lost forgot and is now being cast on the scrap heap because of. 
I want to discuss in the rest of my speech some of the issues raised by Michael Cullen. Michael Cullen claims that the Government will be re-elected because of its extraordinary economic success. It must be one of the only Governments in the history of this Parliament to go through the revolving door of economic success on someone else’s shove because during its 6 years in office it has done all it possibly can to prevent people from taking the best advantage of what this economy has to offer. A National Party in Government will have a clear plan for how this country can grow at an even greater rate than is currently the case. 
I say to the Government that the one thing it cannot get past is that the wealth gap between this country and Australia has widened during the term of its government. That is why 600 young people cross the Tasman each week for a better life and why so many people here decide that this is not a country that they want to do business in. That issue is perhaps crystallised to the greatest extent when we look at the Maori constituency which has been so loyal to Labour for so long. Labour will lose the Maori seats in this election. Those seven seats will go to the Maori Party. I have no doubt about that at all—not only because of the seabed and foreshore issue which I think was the issue that perhaps galvanised Maori into looking at Labour but because when they looked they started to see what Labour’s activities in relation to them were. They saw the patronising paternalistic approach that Labour has to most New Zealanders. 
Maori in this country today are a group of people who earn on average $7000 less in income than non-Maori. Labour has done nothing but sit and watch that gap grow wider throughout the last 6 years—6 years of not addressing the issues that New Zealanders Maori included want addressed and 6 years of dividing us racially through its very paternalistic programmes. 
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has gone out and said that this campaign will see candidates fight the election on the issues of trust experience and integrity. Well Dr Brash outlined some of those but when it comes to trust it is simple and easy for us to point out that New Zealanders trusted Labour in education and got the National Certificate of Educational Achievement debacle. They trusted Labour in education and got the wananga blowout. They trusted Labour in education and got universities absolutely screwed for funds. They trusted Labour in health care and got longer waiting lists. They trusted Labour to deal with the issues around social welfare and as the insider Judy Turner told the House tonight it is a seriously dysfunctional department. That is the sort of trust one gets from Labour. 
New Zealanders trusted Labour on defence and got Project Protector. We got the light armoured vehicles. What about those light armoured vehicles? We have all those light armoured vehicles and do members know that only 18 of the 105 are operational? They do not have the personnel. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Don’t be stupid. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I tell the Minister over there who thinks that he has been a marvellous Minister of Defence that I ran into a private from the New Zealand Army while I was out canvassing the other day. 
Simon Power 
: What did he say? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He said: “Mr Brownlee are you going to do anything about the wages and salaries for the military?”. I said: “Tell me what the situation is.” He said: “Well I’ve got three guys that I’m at work with in the Army all coming to the end of their sign-on term all about to leave. They are going to Australia to join the Australian Army—young men about 25.” Interestingly the salary increase for those young men will be about $27000 a year. That is why they are going. So even in our military—in our armed forces—we are losing young capable people to Australia day by day. 
So let us talk about the experience that the Labour Government wants to tout. Well as I said the other day in the general debate—[ 
Interruption 
] That is David Benson-Pope yelling over there—the Billie Jean King of the Labour Party—bouncing up and down in his seat as usual. I want to talk about experience. As I said in the general debate the other day one sums up the experience of this Government generally in a series of two words: “George Hawkins”. That is what one gets for experience a Minister of Police who had a 111 call answered by a cab; a Minister of Police who hides day by day from Parliament’s scrutiny by saying: “That’s an operational matter.” and a police commissioner who is such a blatant lackey for the Prime Minister that it is surely embarrassing. He is a man who has a very short career ahead of him. When one talks about experience one could also use the words “Trevor Mallard” because there are tens of thousands of young New Zealanders who do not know whether their secondary qualification has any great validity. That is what Mr Mallard has done for the education system. That is what experience does for one. 
Then there is the issue of integrity and we come straight to the Prime Minister on that one: “paintergate” “Bathgate-gate” the Yelash allegations the allegations against the Auckland surgeon—so many things. And then this week to cap it off a Prime Minister who said: “We were travelling at 170-plus k’s in a car. I had no idea. I was so engrossed in conversation with Jim Sutton that I didn’t notice that they were travelling at such an excessive speed. And when at the other end of the journey I got out of the car and said to the police officer: ‘That was a courageous trip.’ I didn’t know why I said it.” So we have five policemen and one civilian in the court because Helen Clark has not got enough integrity to take responsibility for her own actions. So on trust experience and integrity the campaign is going to be a lot of fun from our point of view. 
I tell members something else. One generally knows whether one is in the political frame. Politicians have a nose for it. And I tell members that National is very much in the frame. National will win the next election and National will form the next Government. Ask Clayton Cosgrove. He will not even put the word “Labour” on his hoardings in his electorate. Ask Darren Hughes who has been getting the door slammed in his face in his own electorate. Mind he has been out only half a day and he will not take any more of that! Ask so many of that Labour backbench what sort of reaction that they are getting. 
Here is a name for the nation—it will be one people have not heard before—“Martin Gallagher”. He is a dead duck in his seat. Even Tim Barnett has to work his feet off trying to gather some votes in his own electorate. One knows when it is on and when it is off and it is on for National. So I to say to the Labour Party: bring out the lies bring out the mistruths bring out the red herrings dry them on the table; they will not count. At the end of the day New Zealanders are not silly. They know that they are overtaxed. They know they are over-controlled. They are sick of it and there will be a change of Government. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 For those many millions of New Zealanders who are at home now with their ear glued to their radio listening to the end of Parliament—as New Zealanders so often do; they want to tune in to hear the best of speakers in this nation—that was the once great Gerry Brownlee. I noticed the other day that the newspaper said: “Where was Gerry Brownlee? Where has he gone? That great voice from the south has been silenced by so many things that have gone wrong. He must be marginalised.” I think he has been and that performance tonight seemed to me to be a defeatist speech. That is what came through. 
I am delighted to take part in this speech at the end of this Parliament. It is great to be here with the House packed the galleries overflowing and people tuned in all over the country to listen to this speech. It is one of those rare opportunities to speak to one of those mega audiences that of course we want to speak to during the election campaign. 
Before I begin my substantive comments I thank you Madam Speaker. You have been the best looking Speaker in that Chair for a very long time. I think you have controlled this House with real style since you have been in that particular Chair. 
 I say to all my colleagues in the House who are about to campaign that I wish them well and I mean that genuinely. We as New Zealanders are about to go back to the hustings to do something that in many countries simply could not happen which is to put before people what we think is the best way forward for them their families their communities their businesses and their country. We will do that within a democratic framework and the people will choose. We enjoy that very very important right and we should go out and do our best for the people of the country. 
On behalf of everyone on this side of the House I thank those members who will not be returning—some of whom have already given their valedictory speeches—for the service they have provided to the House. I know from the many people who have left the House over the years that whether or not one disagrees with them they all came here honestly to do their best and that is a very very important thing for us to acknowledge. 
As many people have said there are 46 days or so to go before we go to the polls and as Donald Brash has said this evening it is a real choice. It is a real choice this time. There is a choice out there for people to say whether they want to carry on with policies that for 6 years have made a real difference to their lives or whether they want to take a radical departure from that pathway and go off in a different direction. I emphasise that. This is not a choice about fine-tuning or about personnel; this is as Dr Brash has so rightly said a fundamental philosophical choice between a party that wants to slash taxes—and by doing so set the scene for slashing services that people rely on for health education roading and all of the things that we feel are precious in this country—versus what we believe on this side of the House which is that every single New Zealander needs the opportunity to do the best with his or her life. People can do that only if the foundation is laid by proper investment made by a sensible wise astute Government which is what we have tried to be. 
People on the other side of the House say they have an agenda but it is a gone-by-lunchtime agenda. Over the years Mr Brash has revealed an agenda to people around the country through his speeches comments and so on that he does not want to reveal now. He would have sent to troops to Iraq. That is what he said. He said he would not have nuclear ships in our harbours—oh he would have nuclear ships in our harbours. He is someone who does not believe in 4 weeks’ holiday for hard-working New Zealanders. That will be gone by lunchtime—and lunchtime will be gone by lunchtime as people say. What about the minimum wage—does he believe in that? It will be gone by lunchtime. Does he believe in public schooling? It will be gone by lunchtime. Does he believe in free health-care for New Zealanders? Does he believe in public investment in hospitals? They will be gone by lunchtime. That is the agenda for the National Party. That is what Donald Brash stands for. 
Don Brash does not stand for the kinds of advances made in a civilised progressive society. He believes that all of that should be swept away. It is the last gasp for the people who tried so hard to capture New Zealand for the private large international business interests that had tried through the 1980s and 1990s to capture Governments and to drive that agenda. They could not do it with Bill English because he was more like us than the National Party is today but they can do it with Donald Brash. Donald Brash believes the country should be made fit for the few. He does not believe that it should be made fit for the majority. He is prepared to deliver those people that agenda. That is what he is coming back for. That is why he is coy about his agenda—he knows that the majority would never vote for that agenda. The thing that will make the difference here of course is that New Zealanders will not vote for him. 
I say sorry to Mr Brownlee but he is wrong. It is wishful thinking. The National Party is not in the frame unless it is being framed to be put above the mantelpiece along with the other beheaded chooks that have been put up there over the years. It is not going to happen and this is why: every single member in this House will go back to an electorate where things have never been so good. That is why. Do people remember what Franklin D Roosevelt said to the American people? He said: “I want to ask one simple question. Are you better off after this Government’s term?”. Is there any electorate in this country where the halls will not be full of people who will say: “Frankly I am better off after 6 years of a Labour-led Government. Frankly my business is better my family is stronger the schools are better my roads are being built.”? 
We should just flick around the electorates. Let us take the example of youth unemployment in Rick Barker’s electorate. There were 10 unemployed people who were categorised as youth; there is one now. Nine of them are back in work he tells me. Ann Hartley tells me that investment in schools has transformed her electorate. Mr Goff tells me that he has never had so many new school facilities. Clayton Cosgrove tells me that $12 million is being spent on a bridge that he was waiting for under the National Government. Mr Hughes tell me that $14 million is being spent on the health system in his electorate. Mr Burton tells me that tomorrow he will announce a major regional tourism initiative worth $2 million. He has presided over more tourism in this country than ever in our history—2.3 million tourists are coming through under his watch. Mrs Hobbs tells me she has investment for her creative dance school. In the Manawatu there were 500 more businesses in the last 6 years—500—and 6900 more people are working. Taito Phillip Field tells me that Pacific Island unemployment has fallen by 52 percent in the last 2 years. Mr Damien O’Connor of the West Coast tells me that the rates rebate scheme has gone down fabulously with the old people of his area. In Auckland Judith Tizard tells me that people can hardly move for the investment in roads. Dover Samuels tells me that people in his electorate never thought they would see 1 percent to 5 percent unemployment again. In Auckland we have built over 4000 houses and in the Waikato we can see the new public investment in the incubator that is taking ideas and turning them into commercial realities. The list goes on and on. 
Do people know what eats up the National members? It is that unfortunately for them it is their story too. Simon Power has to go home and tell people to thank the Government for the new runway at Ohakea. He has to go home and say that $300 million has been invested in the Rangitikei area because the Government rebuilt the place after the floods. He has to go to EziBuy and watch one of the biggest pours of concrete put into a major business in his electorate. 
Who does Simon Power have to thank for that? Well for the last 6 years he has virtually been a Labour MP at home because he has so many things to open and so many things that he is pleased about. There are so many things he has had to congratulate people on. People have said to me: “That lovely young Simon Power what a great Labour MP he is!”. They tell me he is a fabulous young man and I have to say I have not disabused them. I have said that I think he is a fabulous Labour MP too—he is so positive all the time around his electorate. That is the truth of the matter. 
I say again to Mr Brownlee that I am sorry for him but he and everybody in this House has to go back to tell that story during the election campaign. National members can whinge whine moan and groan but in the end people are better off after 6 years of this Government. They will vote Labour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the forty-seventh Parliament comes to a close I would like to thank all those who have played a part in keeping the House running so efficiently. As members know I came to this role at a somewhat unusual time—part-way through a parliamentary term. I was then and continue to be most appreciative of the support of my deputy Ann Hartley and the Assistant Speakers Clem Simich and Ross Robertson. 
As of this evening this House has met on 256 sitting days spread over 293 days of real time. This gives a total of approximately 1800 hours including time in Committee—more hours than any of the previous three Parliaments. We have sat under urgency for nearly 400 hours and there have been more than 3500 votes. Members have put up 3063 questions for oral answer about 55000 written questions and have filled more than 22300 pages of  
Hansard 
. During the 3 years of this Parliament 402 bills have been served up for royal assent not including the four bills we have passed this week. A relatively high number—eight—of members’ bills have also been passed. In the hard-working select committee area there have been 1600 meetings during the session involving members and staff in considerably more than 4100 hours. 
Members would have gathered that the effort behind those statistics is equally impressive. and there are many people to thank. First of course is the Clerk of the House Dave McGee and the staff of the Clerk’s Office for their professional and administrative skills in servicing the Table of the House; compiling  
Hansard 
 records; processing legislation questions and petitions; and serving select committees. I thank the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service Joel George and the staff of the Parliamentary Service: members and party support staff executive secretaries the staff of the Parliamentary Library the security staff Building Services staff the telephonists messengers Travel Office staff and the Visitor and Reception Services staff. I also thank the Chief Parliamentary Counsel George Tanner and his staff for their role in drafting legislation. Nor do I forget the Serjeant-at-Arms Brent Smith and the Chamber and gallery staff my personal staff earlier in the session as a Cabinet Minister and my staff in recent months as Speaker of the House. I also extend my thanks to members and staff of the bodies that as Speaker I chair: the Parliamentary Service Commission the Business Committee the Standing Orders Committee and the Officers of Parliament Committee. 
Beyond these walls but closely linked to this Parliament my thanks go to the Controller and Auditor-General and his staff; the Chief Ombudsman his fellow ombudsmen and staff; and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
I also thank the leaders of all the parties in the House and their deputies; the Leader of the House the Hon Dr Michael Cullen; and in particular the party whips without whom I am sure that this Parliament would not function as efficiently as it does so I have a special thanks to them. My thanks to all fellow members of Parliament for their support and work throughout this year and for the contribution they make not only to this House but also to our country. 
Finally I extend my best wishes for the future to the colleagues of all political parties who have chosen not to stand for re-election. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House do now adjourn until Friday 12 August 2005. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 9.42 p.m.