Volume 675 Week 67 - Wednesday 20 February 2008 
Volume 675 Week 67 - Wednesday 20 February 2008 
[Volume:675;Page:14381] 
Wednesday 20 February 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Political Parties—Donations 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 2 on 19 February 2008; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: When did the Prime Minister become aware that the President of the Labour Party Mr Mike Williams had asserted that no donations had been received from Owen Glenn since 2005? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would think since the matter has been in the public arena within the last few days. 
John Key 
: Why did not the Prime Minister seek to correct the false impression given by Mike Williams given that at the point she learnt of the statement she knew it to be untrue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When I say in the last few days it was probably in the course of preparation for question time yesterday that my attention was drawn to that statement which I think was made on or around 31 December. The member himself may have been in Hawaii at the time which is probably why he refused to comment on the matter when asked by the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
John Key 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the fact that she chose not to correct the statement by Mr Williams which she knew to be incorrect with her promise that she would deliver a Government that people could trust and that would be open and accountable? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course no such choice was made. I have made it clear since this matter has come to my attention that Mr Williams made a mistake. This donation of forgone interest will be in the Labour Party’s audited accounts. I note that the National Party’s audited accounts have no track of any donation ever made by Mr Key. Are we to believe that he is just mean or has he hidden his donations in the Waitemata Trust? 
John Key 
: Further to her response to my question yesterday has she at any time had any discussions with the President of the New Zealand Labour Party Mike Williams regarding the possible appointment of Owen Glenn as New Zealand’s honorary consul to Monaco? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said to the House yesterday I became aware that Mr Glenn had expressed such an interest. Since becoming aware I have obviously had that as a matter of discussion with Mr Winston Peters. Mr Williams has also talked to me about it. I repeat that Mr Glenn’s interest was expressed in just the same way that Mr Richard Worth advanced the cause of a friend of his; when Mr Worth wrote to the previous Minister of Foreign Affairs about the matter he told Mr Phil Goff: “There is an aspect of substantial self-interest behind my request that the New Zealand Government appoint a consul in Monaco.” 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister then confirm subsequent to her answer just a few moments ago at what point did Mr Williams actually inform her about the conversations that he had had with Mr Glenn; was it before or after they had received the various donations he gave to the Labour Party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those donations go back to somewhere around 2003 2004 2005 so quite a long time. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister worked out that not only is she wrong but she is actually continuing to propagate the myth that Mr Williams has been trying to propagate because in fact Mr Glenn gave a donation some time after that and that may well have been around the time that he was talking about becoming the honorary consul? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is starting to believe his own propaganda. There seems to be a view that being an honorary consul is a plum post. Well it might be for Mr Worth who sees it as being in his self-interest to recommend people for the position in Monaco but for most people they offer to do it because they think they can do something for a country. 
Meat Industry—Restructuring 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Has he received any reports regarding the restructuring of the meat industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I have seen one report from the  
Southland Times 
 last Friday of a promise of a so-called “financial umbrella” to help meat companies form a megamerger. The “financial umbrella” evidently full of a $200 million suspensory loan the usual meaning of which is a loan at no interest and not necessarily repayable is to provide capital for a new commercial entity. That is the first suggestion of a subsidy for our agricultural exports since Sir Robert Muldoon was in office and the person responsible for this financial helicopter which is to drop money all over the rural landscape of New Zealand is the leader of the National Party John Key. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What research has he seen to support the use of $200 million of taxpayers’ money to subsidise the meat-processing industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen none because the analysis has obviously not been done; Mr Key just made the policy up on the spot. The  
Southland Times 
 report states: “When National Party finance spokesman Bill English ambled across the paddock’’—presumably in his electorate gumboots—“Mr Key quickly told him ‘I’ve just committed you to a suspensory loan’. Apparently unfazed Mr English replied: ‘As long as it’s under $200 million I don’t mind.’ ” That shows how much effort the National Party puts into its policy announcements. The Leader of the Opposition pulls policy out of thin air and the party’s finance spokesperson sucks it all up. The result is a $200 million subsidy promise to the meat industry. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister consider it ironic that while the meat industry is trying to emulate the brilliantly successful Fonterra model by whatever means as we understand it the board of Fonterra is likely to take dairy farmers back to the failed model of the meat industry by its proposal to list the company and therefore lose the benefits of vertical integration? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The policy of a former National Government of paying family benefits for sheep practically bankrupted this country and now the erstwhile leader of the National Party who aspires to govern this country promises to take us back to those failed policies which led to the economic ruination of this country. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister provide the House with any assurance that a huge monopoly meat processor that is not even farmer owned as Fonterra is may drive down prices paid to farmers for their meat without there necessarily being any reduction in the price charged to families? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I can confirm is that if this is a good idea—and that is yet to be tested—then it will stand on its own feet as a proper business case and the farming community will give it its support. If it is not then the farming community will not give it its support. That is where the idea should stand. The idea of the leader of a political party saying he will fly over New Zealand’s rural electorates in a helicopter and drop money over them is just simply ludicrous. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the sort of subsidy being advocated by Mr Key would not only contradict New Zealand’s strong and consistent opposition to agricultural subsidies under both National and Labour Governments since the mid-1990s but also would likely be in breach of our World Trade Organization obligations and therefore could result in a case being taken against us in that particular forum? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I can confirm that it would be in total contradiction of New Zealand’s consistent leadership in international trade forums against agricultural subsidies and that a payment such as that advocated by Mr Key and Mr English would likely be deemed to be an export subsidy thus putting New Zealand in breach of its own World Trade Organization obligations. As a result we would immediately lose all credibility in global trade negotiations. I wonder what Mr Groser and Mr Hayes think about this—and I would be happy to take supplementary questions from them—whether they support their leader’s agricultural subsidies policy and if they do when they were converted to this mad idea. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order are heard in silence. If members wish to remain in the Chamber they will hear this in silence. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I just draw to your attention if I need to the fact that when I was getting up to ask that question there was a barrage of comments from the Opposition benches but not one of those members had the conviction to get up and ask the Minister a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It is a point worth making Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It may well be but it is not a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What reports has the Minister seen of the likely reaction of the European Union to the reintroduction of subsidies for our meat exporters? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The  
Southland Times 
 gave us that report— 
Hon Members 
: Did it? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: —yes—which stated: “one of the biggest hurdles would be getting the European Union to accept it.” That was a comment of John Key’s about his own policy announcement. To say that that is an understatement is one of the most understated things I have heard this century. The mere fact that a senior political figure in New Zealand is advocating for agricultural subsidies is in itself the biggest embarrassment for New Zealand in international trade forums in many years. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why will this Government not reintroduce subsidies for agriculture? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] If the National members are so keen on the idea they can tell us why it will be introducing them. For several decades this country tried to subsidise our most important industries in the primary sector. That was under a National Government and now National apparently wants to take us back to those days. We opposed subsidies then and we oppose them now. This Government does not make policy on the hoof—literally. We have a clear vision of how New Zealand’s economy will be developed over the long term and it is not by the worst kind of pork-barrel politics that this report evidences on the part of the National Party. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek the leave of the House for one additional supplementary question for the National Party today on the basis of its— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot do that as he knows. 
Prisons—Overcrowding 
3.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that her Government has “worked hard to meet the challenge of accommodating rising prison numbers”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that Daniel Crichton somebody who has previously been refused bail for serious drug charges has now been released into the community as part of a deal that saw the return of the stolen medals? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that the police made a decision not to oppose that bail after full risk assessment and in conjunction with the Crown solicitor. This is of course an operational matter for the police and in the end it is a judge who makes the decision. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister seen statements made in December 2007 that there was a crisis over inadequate numbers of prison cells in New Zealand and then statements made in February 2008 condemning the Government for oversupply of prison cell numbers; is she aware that both contradictory statements were made by the National Party’s spokesperson on corrections Mr Power; and does she put this down to confusion or opportunism? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I probably would put it down to both confusion and opportunism. I note that Mr Power has complained both that we have too few prison beds and now that we have too many prison beds. When he sorts out what his position is could he let us know? 
John Key 
: Is it not a fact that the safety and security of New Zealanders are now being put at risk because someone whom the courts believed was not eligible for bail has now been released back into the community? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a matter for the courts. The judge makes that decision. 
John Key 
: What sort of precedent does it set when a New Zealander who has previously been refused bail is allowed to be released back into the community because somehow he was the inside snitch on getting back New Zealand’s medals? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not my practice to attack what an officer of the court does. The decision was made by a judge. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House then whether Daniel Crichton is more or less of a risk to New Zealand society now that he has been released into the community than he was before when he was not allowed to be released as a result of giving his information on the medals? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My response is that that is a matter for the court. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister give an opinion then on how secure she thinks our prisons are when Daniel Crichton was able to negotiate the return of the hottest stolen property in the country from his prison cell? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no advice on whether the scenario put to me by the member is true. 
John Key 
: Is the reality of this situation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is the man who cuddled Tame Iti! 
John Key 
: You are the one who has spent more time in front of judges than I have. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If there are any more interjections I will be asking members to leave the House. John Key will please ask the question. 
John Key 
: Are not the simple facts of the situation that a New Zealander who should not have been released on bail who previously had not been released on bail because the judge decided he was too significant a risk to our community and who was charged with serious drug offences has now been let out into the community; that he is someone closely associated with the Headhunters gang; and that the only reason that has happened is that he gave information that saw the return of the medals and is that not an enormous price to pay for the security of New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have advice on that but I do know that John Key’s bail policy is to be seen hongi-ing a man who is on bail for serious firearms charges. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Prime Minister give this House an assurance that Daniel Crichton is still facing drug charges; that those charges will be prosecuted by the police to the fullest extent of the law with vigour; and that if the police are successful no doubt they will be seeking to ensure that he is returned to the cell from which he came? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that the answer to each of the member’s three questions is yes. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister explain what changed between the time when Daniel Crichton was not allowed bail and then all of a sudden after giving some information he received bail? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The matter is a matter for the court. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A short time ago you looked in the direction of the Opposition and said that if there were any further interjections while a question was being asked then someone would be leaving the Chamber. I understand why numerous Ministers are upset and on the back foot but they are repeatedly—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there you are! They are repeatedly interrupting. Normally if such an interruption occurred someone like Mr Carter would be out of the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There have been interruptions from all sides I am afraid but you are all on your last warning. Thank you for reminding me and that goes for both and all front benches. 
Air Force—Air Combat Force 
4.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Is he confident that the air combat force is being maintained to a level that preserves its market value and can he confirm that the fleet is still worth the US$110 million that was quoted in the heads of agreement announced on 12 September 2005? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am advised by the New Zealand Defence Force that the answer to both questions is yes. In terms of preservation it advises that the A4s are protected primarily by a layer of black latex. That stops any moisture absorption. Secondly the Defence Force advises there is a further layer of white latex. The sole purpose of that layer is to reflect the rays of the sun which would otherwise be absorbed by the black layer. The white latex layer is distorted from the effect of the weather but I am advised by the Defence Force that that has no impact to the detriment of the preservation of the aircraft. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think that is an acceptable answer from the Minister. Right at the top of our minds is what happens if someone wants to take a test drive? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order Mr Brownlee. Points of order that are not points of order and that are repeated create disorder. 
Heather Roy 
: Did the latex coating of the Skyhawks in December comply with the Royal New Zealand Air Force manual guidelines; if so why after just 2 months outside are several of these latex coatings already torn ripped and weathered—for example as shown on this chart here here and here—why is only the top half of jets covered rather than the entire jet as shown here; why is at least one coating visibly thinner than the rest; and why are three Skyhawks still kept indoors with no coating at all? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Clearly the member did not listen to the primary answer that I gave to her. Had she listened she would know that the protective coating is the black latex—I know that members opposite get a bit excited when one talks about black latex! The outer coating is a solar reflective coating and that coating is to stop the absorption of the sun’s rays. The fact that that layer has distorted in no way detracts from the preservation of the aircraft. But if the member wants to be briefed by the Royal New Zealand Air Force I am happy for her to be told directly. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When will the Minister give up this pretence that there is a contract out there just ready to be fulfilled even though it was signed before the last election; these aircraft have been put in long-term storage and everyone knows they will eventually be sent to the gas axe? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Opposition spokesperson on defence says he wants to cut up the planes we currently have an offer on of US$35 million. That is the A4s. If that is an example of the economics being pursued by the National Party then people should not have confidence in it. But they should not have confidence anyway because that member was saying 2 years ago that the scrapping of the air combat wing was a disaster and now he says he supports it. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the latex coating on the Skyhawks only one-third of the recommended thickness as set out in the Royal New Zealand Air Force manual NZAP137 to save money; and is the Minister planning to do anything about the deteriorating latex on the jets before they corrode or will the air force be forced to spend even more of its limited operational funding in patching up his botched sale plan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am by no means an expert on the impact of the thickness of latex I should assure the member. But I can tell that member that the decision taken by the New Zealand Air Force—not a political party trying to make capital out of an issue—was to provide the coating that it is adamant in its statements to me protects those aircraft better than if those aircraft were in the hangars they were previously in. And Dr Mapp knows that because the Vice Chief of Defence Force assured him of that before the select committee. I am advised by the New Zealand Defence Force that the protection is not only adequate but better than the planes had before. 
Ron Mark 
: Would the Minister be prepared to admit that the disbanding of the Aermacchi squadron was a wrong decision that it was possibly ideologically driven and that the most sensible thing the Government could do now is fund the return to service of the Aermacchis; if he does agree with that could he tell the House when that will happen? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not agree with the member because there is nothing ideological about the disbandment of the Aermacchi wing. If we were not to have an air combat wing I am told—and in fact have asked the air force to comment to me on it—that the cost of using the Aermacchis for any other purpose was not economic and far far more expensive than better alternatives for training pilots. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table two photographs—one of the Skyhawks with the latex peeling away and the other to show how they should be covered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Health Services—Sentinel Events Project Working Party 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action if any did the Government take to implement a national standardised sentinel events reporting system as recommended by the Sentinel Events Project Working Party in 2001? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 First let me note my concern that when a serious issue such as sentinel events is raised some people put the lives of those who have been touched by these events second and their own agendas first. Politicians may argue the details but real lives have been affected and we need to respect that when entering debate. Since 2001 the Ministry of Health has been working closely with the district health boards on training in reporting sentinel events and more important on how to put procedures in place to learn from those events. The first guidelines in this area were published in September 2001. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the Government fail to set up a national system when that was recommended in this 2001 report and recommended in four reports of the current Health Committee and why after the Government sitting on this report for 7 years should New Zealanders have any confidence that this Government will make our hospitals safer? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the presumption in the member’s question is incorrect. Since 2001 the Government set up in 2003 an audit system based on HealthCERT to improve the efficacy of individual hospital reviews and those certifications occur at a minimum every 3 years; the district health boards have been implementing local information technology reporting systems and building infrastructure; the Government further set up in 2004 the National Health Epidemiology and Quality Assurance Advisory Committee—EpiQual—which was established in particular to look at mortality and morbidity reviews; and in February 2007 the Quality Improvement Committee was established to take over that work and a budget of some $20 million was allocated to further its work in the sector. 
Lesley Soper 
: Why is the Minister supportive of today’s release of information pertaining to serious and sentinel events? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is through transparency that we achieve improvement. Today’s announcement is a watershed moment in health. It recognises the fact that those are areas we need to improve in. In order to make those improvements we need to look openly and honestly at all the information and be prepared to learn from those events. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does not the release of the data today really just show that the entire system for the reporting of adverse events is still a shambles with different district health boards using different systems different reporting requirements and different definitions and with some choosing not to report at all; and given that the entire system is still voluntary meaning it is up to the district health boards to decide whether and what they choose to report if at all and given the fact that the Health Committee this morning was given completely different data on adverse events by Capital and Coast District Health Board from what was reported today how can we have confidence in the figures that have just been released? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that since the publication of guidelines in 2001 the effort of the Ministry of Health was about building capability in district health boards and working with each of them to set up their own systems. I am further advised that the function of the HealthCERT division of the ministry has been around individual district health board review processes. However I agree with the member that an opportunity exists from here forward to ensure ongoing national consistency of data collection and reporting and that will happen. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise that this is the tip of the iceberg with his own officials admitting today that many more serious and fatal events have not been included in these numbers and that some district health boards are unable even to collect these numbers; and what does it do for the public’s confidence in the health system when no one actually knows how many people are dying needlessly? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Let us reflect on what these statistics are and are not. They are a 1-year snapshot of the year 2006-07 with 2.2 in every 10000 hospital admissions resulting in a serious or sentinel event. They are different from adverse event reporting which is a broader pool and I am advised that the Quality Improvement Committee and the Ombudsman are comfortable with the national set of standards that is being used to pull these together. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is the Waikato District Health Board the only district health board that has clearly reported on the number of deaths—23—caused by its action or inaction last year and can he help the members of this House by telling us now clearly and unequivocally how many people died last year and how many people became permanently disabled as a result of an action or an inaction by a district health board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Data according to the consistent definitions worked through by the Quality Improvement Committee was released this morning. I agree with the member that the time has come to ensure going forward that there are nationally consistent definitions nationally consistent data reporting and nationally consistent monitoring of systems. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think I could have been more plain with my question which was how many people died and how many people became disabled last year as a result of actions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Sue Kedgley 
: He did not answer the question as to how many people died. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. The member knows full well what the Standing Orders say. The Minister must address the question; the Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise that he just said that the time had come for nationally consistent data and for nationally consistent reporting yet that is the very thing that was recommended to Annette King in 2001? When New South Wales brought in a system to monitor this matter it saved lives. This Government has done nothing and what explanation does it have for that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: May I repeat for the member’s benefit that in 2001 a set of guidelines was published and the district health boards were assisted to follow them. However the review process of the district health boards was on an individual basis. I have already agreed with the member opposite Sue Kedgley that more can be done to ensure nationwide consistency in implementation and monitoring and it will be done. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. What action if any has the Government taken in response to Professor Peter Davis’ 2006 paper in  
The Lancet 
 which showed that Maori patients received a lower standard of care in hospital than other New Zealanders and were more likely to suffer adverse effects? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Davis report has fed into the ongoing work of the Quality Improvement Committee which has five key work streams and on which I am expecting a further briefing very shortly. I have signalled that this issue is a priority for action and I have linked that action to the district health boards’ receiving their full budgets in the coming year. The member raises a very important point. During the lost decade of the 1990s Maori suffered more than any other part of our community did from the explosion of disparities in living standards and health outcomes in this country and that situation must never be allowed to be repeated. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his press statement of earlier today which stated that on the basis of this information New Zealand’s hospitals compared favourably with Australian and American hospitals when his own officials admitted today at the press conference and in Parliament’s Health Committee that we simply cannot rely on this information for any comparison whatsoever? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Absolutely I stand by that in two respects. Firstly the Davis study is on a like-for-like basis with comparable studies made available to us through the Commonwealth Fund and secondly those studies show that New Zealand compares very well with countries like Australia and the United States in that we have a lower rate of adverse events. 
Hone Harawira 
: What action if any has the Government taken in response to Professor Peter Davis’ recommendation in the same 2006  
Lancet 
 study that data should include patients’ ethnicity; and can he tell the House why he is unable to tell us how many people actually died in hospital last year as a result of action or inaction by any of the district health boards? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In respect of the first part of the question it is my understanding that patients’ ethnicity is currently collected. In respect of the second part I will verify the contention and get back to the member. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is going on in our hospitals when the Health and Disability Commissioner says they are unsafe and these documents today show that basic care is being neglected and New Zealanders are dying needlessly; and is that what the people were expecting when they put Helen Clark in charge in 1999? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What is going on in our hospitals is that around the country dedicated clinicians are seeking to make New Zealanders well. What is going on in our hospitals is that the Government has invested substantially more in facilitating those outcomes to occur. And what is going on in our hospitals is work that needs to continue without the petty point-scoring of the Opposition spokesman. 
Hone Harawira 
: I seek leave to table an article “Quality of hospital care for Maori patients in New Zealand: retrospective cross-sectional assessment” by Professor Peter Davis and six other writers. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table information from the financial review today of the Capital and Coast District Health Board by the Health Committee that gives completely different data. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the report from the Sentinel Events Project Working Party to the Director-General of Health in 2001 that recommended setting up a national standardised system for sentinel events. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the Health Committee’s 2004-05 financial review of the Ministry of Health calling for a national standard on sentinel reporting. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the 2005-06 financial review of the Ministry of Health calling for priority to be given to the setting up of a national mandatory reporting system on sentinel events. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table yet another report calling for action on sentinel events—the Vote Health estimates for 2006-07. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table another call for information on hospital-related adverse events to be standardised and nationally reported—the Vote Health estimates for 2007-08. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a statement made by the New Zealand nurses association supporting today’s disclosure of serious and sentinel events. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a statement made by the New Zealand Medical Association welcoming the release of today’s report. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that there is to be silence when members are seeking leave. It is very difficult for members to hear in order to judge whether to raise objection. 
Health Services—New Technology 
6.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied with the current processes relating to the acquisition of new technology by the public health system? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 District health boards and the Ministry of Health have a joint process for assessing relative patient benefit from investment in new technologies. Proposals are considered by the National Service and Technology Review Advisory Committee. I am satisfied that the process is thorough and enables close coordination of the evidence. I expect the process can be further streamlined and I am expecting to see significant progress on that this year. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister assure us that delays such as Wellington Hospital’s 9-year wait for a third linear accelerator to treat cancer patients will not occur anywhere else in this country? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that once the health need for a third linear accelerator for Wellington Hospital had been demonstrated capital approval was received within 6 months. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware of new research resulting in new definitions of what constitutes a heart attack which will lead to a big increase in invasive angioplasty procedures; if so what contingency plans does he have to ensure that the appropriate technology will be available? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Health of course is a dynamic field. Advances—or claims of advances—emerge all the time. District health boards need to stay abreast of the emerging evidence and assess how they can respond so that patients receive services that best serve the needs of the whole population. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister also aware that positron emission tomography scanning is increasingly being used to determine the extent of coronary artery disease; if so can he advise the public of New Zealand when they will finally have access to this technology? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that district health boards agreed last year on the indications for patients requiring positron emission tomography scans. District health board chief executive officers will be considering any further evidence on positron emission tomography scanning in April this year and will be able to review whether there is any need to change the clinical indications for positron emission tomography scanning. 
Electoral Finance Act—Enforcement 
7.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Who is responsible for enforcing breaches of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 related to the supply of credit to political parties at better than market rates provision in section 21(2)? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I presume the member does not really mean what he says in the question—that is that someone should be enforcing breaches of the Electoral Finance Act. I think he meant to ask who is responsible for the enforcement of provisions of the Act but I am not sure. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the member recall telling this House during the debate last year that in fact the police are responsible ultimately for enforcing the Electoral Finance Act; in the light of those statements is she concerned about a statement on Monday by the Labour Party President Mike Williams that interest-free loans do not constitute donations under any electoral law and does she believe that he should be investigated by the police in case he is breaching the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Under the Electoral Finance Act the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office have administrative responsibility for aspects of the Act and the police have the prosecution function. 
Hon Bill English 
: So what action does the Minister expect would be taken by the Electoral Commission or the police when the president of a major party says: “We don’t declare these sort of donations but we get lots of them.” and will she be ensuring that the credibility of the Act is reinforced by some show of enforcement of its provisions? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A show of enforcement will be made either by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commission or the police if that is necessary—it is not for me to say that. But what I will say to the member is that up until the end of last year the provisions relating to donations were part of the 1993 Act. That member yesterday asked in this House whether I was aware that the Electoral Finance Act made it quite clear that interest-free loans would be counted as a donation. There is no mention in the 1993 Act of such a thing. 
Hon Bill English 
: If that is the case can the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister has gone to so much trouble to say that the Labour Party will now comply with that piece of legislation over its interest-free loans? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The law is in effect and in terms of any donations that were made in relation to the 2007 Act the Labour Party would certainly be following it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us whether the 1993 Act or the Electoral Finance Act includes provisions designed to stop parties from splitting up donations in order to avoid declarations; if so can she tell us what she thinks of an apparent statement made by the president of the Labour Party that “We get lots of these interest-free loans.” and that he may be splitting them up so that they do fall under the $10000 threshold and do not have to be declared? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All those questions raised by the member are hypothetical. I do not have the answers for them and I do not intend to make it up which the member is doing. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Just making it up. 
Hon Bill English 
: So I am making up what Mike Williams said on the record? You have to do better than that Phil. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question please. 
Hon Bill English 
: What credibility does the Minister think she has in answering these questions when in this House last year she railed against big money in politics and said that the whole point of the bill was transparency only to find that Labour’s own donor and own president were doing big-money secret deals behind closed doors while she was making those statements in this House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is very rich indeed because Mike Williams has spoken publicly about donations but the National Party has never answered this question: why were its members scurrying around just before the Act came into force in December asking for anonymous donations to be made so that they did not have to comply with the new Act? Why do not we have some editorials written about that behaviour? Talk about transparency! What we would like to know is how many anonymous donations those members managed to sneak into their bank accounts before the Act came into play. 
Wages—New Zealand and Australia 
8.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on the patterns of wage growth in New Zealand and Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen a report that shows the gap in average weekly earnings between Australia and New Zealand grew from 18.9 percent in 1990 to 28.4 percent in 1999 and since then has barely moved. Under the last National Government average real weekly earnings increased by a total of $1.31 a week in 1990 dollars over that 9-year period. Under 8 years of a Labour-led Government the rate of increase has been 30 times that level. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on the merits of pursuing higher wages for New Zealand workers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. Last week I listened on the radio to a strange interview from the leader of the National Party who called for higher wages then said he really meant tax cuts. Much more concerning was that he told a business meeting in Northland late last year: “We would love to see wages drop.” We know from question No. 2 today that Mr Key likes to tell audiences what they like to hear but that is going a bit too far. However it is consistent with what happened in the 1990s when in 5 out of 9 years average real earnings fell in New Zealand 
Hon Bill English 
: Is that the best that the Minister of Finance can do in the face of the fact that in the last 5 years estimated real net disposable income per person—that is the measure of the income each person has available to him or her—grew twice as fast in Australia as it did New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The fact is that despite the minerals boom in Australia average weekly earnings in Australia are moving barely faster than they are in New Zealand. Under National in the 1990s average real weekly earnings in New Zealand went from $463 when it became the Government to $464 in 1990 dollars when it left the Government. That is National’s record on earnings growth. 
Peter Brown 
: From that response can we take it that the Minister shares the New Zealand First view that the Employment Contracts Act introduced in the 1990s had a huge adverse impact on wages and conditions from which we have never caught up; if he does agree with that will he ensure that such legislation will never occur again in this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I do agree with that. The difference between then and now is that in 1990 National promised not to cut wages and conditions but it did. This time National is promising to cut wages. 
Environment Ministry—Confidence 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he have confidence in the Ministry for the Environment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The ministry is working hard to regain my confidence and that is the first issue the acting chief executive officer was asked to focus on by the State Services Commissioner. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister’s senior official Mr Steve Dixon threaten recycling advocate Mr Warren Snow following his submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee that was highly critical of the Government for failing to deliver on its 1990 election manifesto on waste and what does it say about the culture of the ministry that such conduct would be seen as appropriate? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have been briefed on the issue. The official’s behaviour is unacceptable and I am advised that the official has apologised in writing directly to the submitter. I am also advised that the official’s manager has apologised to the select committee. This is a serious matter. As the member knows staffing issues are an operational matter for the chief executive and I have been advised that the chief executive is taking it seriously and dealing with it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it that his ministry officials see fit to threaten select committee submitters who dare to criticise Labour for not delivering on its manifesto that they are able to delete a key chapter in a state of the environment report that was critical of the Government that they last year sacked staff linked to National and hired staff linked to Labour—does not this whole series of sad events point to a Government that is using and abusing this ministry for its own political ends? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of questions there and it becomes clear when one listens that the member is not aware in which year some events occurred. But leaving that aside to the substantive question and the latest allegation I have made it clear that what the official did is wrong. I understand that the matter has been referred to the Speaker and I think she should deal with it appropriately. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that Mr Warren Snow has an application before his own ministry’s sustainability fund what was he to make from the threatening comments from his officials about the status of the application for funding due in January decisions by March if it was not a message of “Don’t criticise the Government or we’ll take your money away.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I have indicated the comment of the official was inappropriate. I was not aware of the fact that the submitter had an application in. I will seek the chief executive’s assurance that that official is not involved at all in making any decisions in that area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about the culture that this Government has established within the public service that it thinks it is appropriate when someone is making a submission before a select committee that is critical of the Government to make threatening and intimidating comments to that person? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a matter that is being dealt with by both the chief executive as a staffing issue and I understand the Speaker. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the letter from Mr Warren Snow detailing the threats. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Services—National Medicines Strategy 
10.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reaction has he received to  
Medicines New Zealand 
 the National Medicines Strategy he released in December last year? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
Medicines New Zealand 
 which was an outcome of the confidence and supply agreement between the Government and United Future has largely been positively received by stakeholders in the sector including the pharmacy sector the Access to Medicines Coalition the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders Pharmac and district health boards. There is a general view across the medicines sector that there has been a need for an overarching strategy to guide medicines policy in New Zealand for some time and  
Medicines New Zealand 
 provides that opportunity. 
Judy Turner 
: What specific steps will be taken this year to implement 
 Medicines New Zealand 
? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Let me give the member some by no means exhaustive examples. Already the Ministry of Health has begun a review of the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee’s—that is PTAC’s—appointment protocol and of the operational guidelines to ensure that Pharmac gets the best advice to inform its decisions. Work has begun on developing a national procurement process for vaccines and work is also well advanced on what is needed to enhance both electronic prescribing and other prescribing initiatives. 
Judy Turner 
: Why did the Minister consider it necessary to develop a National Medicines Strategy for New Zealand? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: New Zealand is amongst a number of countries in the world that are grappling with quite complex issues about the future approach to the provision of medicines adequate to meet the needs of the population. For example determining the right level of investment in medicines compared with other health services is the subject of ongoing debate in a number of countries. There are no simple answers but we felt it was necessary to develop a policy approach in New Zealand in order to try to give us a framework for working through those questions and building a medicines system that is responsive to the needs of New Zealanders and works in their best interests. This strategy which will be ongoing achieves those objectives. 
Work and Income—Towage and Storage Costs 
11.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does Work and Income pay towage and storage costs for beneficiaries whose cars have been impounded because they have been caught drink-driving? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Beneficiaries can get an advance payment of their benefit or a special-needs grant if they have an immediate and essential need. Work and Income staff will consider all the circumstances including the effect of the situation on the person’s family or children whether the person himself or herself can afford to pay and whether the person will be able to afford the repayments. The amount of the advance will be the least amount required to meet the essential need of the person and his or her family and the person then has to repay that money out of his or her benefit. The current policies in these areas are unchanged from those developed by Roger Sowry in 1998 and 1999. 
Judith Collins 
: Why did the Minister say in answer to written question No. 20337 in December last year that it was unusual and exceptional for Work and Income to pay towage and car storage fees for beneficiaries when in fact tow-truck drivers around the country told TV3 just yesterday that Work and Income regularly paid them to release cars that have been impounded by order of the police and in fact direct-credit those payments? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member confuses two situations: one where there might be illegal activity and one where there may not be. Both of those are situations where the tow-truck company may well have the fees owing paid by Work and Income. I will give the House a real scenario—literally—not from a tow-truck company but from Work and Income records. A woman “Mary”—that is not her real name—receives the invalids benefit and looks after her granddaughter who has spina bifida is on dialysis and is in the final stages of renal failure. This woman’s car was towed from the Starship Children’s Health car-park despite her having a permit from the hospital for car-parking while she was there getting treatment for her granddaughter. The security company towed the car regardless of the notice. A loan of $100 was given to that woman for the recovery of her car from the towing company. I think that is fair enough; it is a tragedy that Judith Collins does not. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What would be the alternative approach to dealing with these cases? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The alternative approach advocated by the National Party seems to be for the towing and storage fees to remain unpaid. Let me tell the House what would happen in that situation. After 10 days from when the empowerment finishes the towing company can sell the car and it would keep the money so the family concerned would be left with no car they would continue to repay any money owing to a finance company on the car and they would descend into more and more debt. So we have no car and more debt for a beneficiary and a towie with more money in his or her pocket. That is National Party policy. 
Judith Collins 
: Why did the Minister also say that Work and Income could not advise how much had been spent on towage fees when it turns out that Work and Income direct-credits those tow-truck companies; and why is she using an example of a woman with very serious needs when we are actually talking about drunk drivers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I explained to the member in the answer to my previous question they are all actually classified under the same heading and other examples of advances on benefits are also classified under that heading which is why Work and Income gave me the advice to give her an accurate answer to her question which I always endeavour to do. Those figures I gave her in answers last year were estimates. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister accept that drunk drivers and disqualified drivers frequently cause car accidents; and how can she justify Work and Income using taxpayer money to help these dangerous and irresponsible people get right back behind the wheel? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It may surprise the member to learn that some families who have beneficiaries amongst their members have only one car per family and it may well be that in order for that family to maintain their essential needs which is the criterion for an advance on their benefit the car may well be needed by another member of the family. 
Judith Collins 
: What does the Minister say to the families of people maimed or killed by drunk or disqualified drivers when they hear her suggest that these fees owed on impounded cars are just like any other debt and that it is quite OK for Work and Income to pay up when the driver was drunk disqualified or because in some cases the car itself has posed a threat and the police have impounded it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would say to the House that I support advances of payment to beneficiaries when they meet the criterion which is that that person or his or her family has an immediate and essential need. I would prefer that to be the way to remedy the situation rather than the alternative of their having to pay high interest to a loan shark which the member may well be advocating as a supplementary to her policy or that the tow-truck company can sell the car and the beneficiary ends up with no car and more debt. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister prepared to instruct Work and Income to cease encouraging disqualified and unlicensed drivers to get back behind the wheel in this way or will she continue to say that it is just like any other debt and include drunk drivers along with people who are genuinely in need? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My expectation is that there are no circumstances at all under which Work and Income would assist people to continue to break the law. The advance of their benefit payment is made if they meet the criterion for an essential and immediate need. If the member has a mate who has lied to Work and Income in order to get his or her benefit I suggest that she tables the information or gives it to me privately and that person will be dealt with appropriately by the department. 
Auckland—Northern Busway 
12.  
ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What benefits is Auckland seeing from the opening of the Northern Busway? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In the week ended 17 February patronage on the Northern Express bus service has increased by 48 percent compared with last year to 17967 passengers. This is a magnificent result and I expect that investment in public transport will continue to pay huge benefits to the quality of life and economic well-being of our largest city. 
Ann Hartley 
: When will the busway be open to high-occupancy vehicles? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Northern Busway management team is working on developing options to consider the use of high-occupancy vehicles on the busway. At present both Transit and the local authorities involved want to ensure that the busway is working effectively before they give consideration to opening it up to other traffic but they are working on this issue right now. 
Keith Locke 
: After the success of the busway in reducing traffic over the harbour bridge will the Government be supporting the current proposal to provide a cycleway over the bridge? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Transit New Zealand and its regional partners Auckland City Council the Auckland Regional Council the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and North Shore City Council yesterday agreed to jointly look at all options for walking and cycling on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The partners will joint fund the investigation and consider the connection points at either end of the bridge. The options include but are not limited just to Cycle Action Auckland’s proposal. So they are already on the case investigating the feasibility of that. 
Ann Hartley 
: How much has the Government invested in the busway? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government has contributed $210 million to the total cost of the $300 million Northern Busway project. This is another example of the Government plugging the deficit left by the National Government in the 1990s—where public transport expenditure was capped at $40 million for all of New Zealand. I would like to show the House this graph of just how much money this Government has put into Auckland land transport since we became the Government The difference is very clear indeed. 
General Debate 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. There is a wealth of opportunities for this debate today and I will take a few of them. We will talk about National’s bail policy and the fact that National members cuddle up to people who are charged with arms offences. We will talk about wages and about the promise John Key made at the Kerikeri District Business Association to drop wages. We will talk about John Key’s hidden donation to the National Party through the Waitemata Trust and some of the details around that. We will talk about Richard Worth. He is someone who is transparent unlike John Key in that when he wanted one of his mates to be a consul-general for New Zealand he admitted that he had a substantial self-interest in the request. And if there is time we will get on to the Brownlee diaries which are very very interesting. 
First of all I ask John Key the same question I asked him last week. It is a question that I will ask him every time I have the opportunity. Why did he not have the courage to turn his back on Tame Iti when Tame Iti approached him? We expect someone of principle someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister to say “I will not cuddle up to someone who is charged with serious firearm offences.” We expect someone like him to have the courage to front up in these matters or in this case to not front up—to turn his back to walk away and to say it is not appropriate to meet with someone like that to hongi to give endorsement and to give approval. Every single week that we have the opportunity to do so we will ask that question until John Key gets off his backside gets into this House and answers that question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member knows that he cannot refer to an absence from the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He certainly did not say that. He said until he gets off his backside and comes into the House. It was a reference to the future. Most of us do go out of this place at least at 10 o’clock at night and come back again later. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Dr Cullen. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Why did John Key propose to the Kerikeri District Business Association that he would drop wages then say later on that he wanted them to go up? I am not saying that he is a liar—I cannot and I will not—but when was he telling the truth? What does he believe? Was neither time the truth or was it just another case of John Key saying one thing to one group of people and another thing to another group? The truth does not matter to John Key; he just tells people what they want to hear.  
My next question to Mr Key is when he will tell this House how much he gave as part of his hidden donation—hidden in order to avoid the declaration—to the National Party. Was it six figures as we understand; and was it more than what Owen Glenn gave to the Labour Party? We know that John Key did it through the Waitemata Trust and we know that Murray McCully’s mate Bob Browne arranged for that donation to be hidden. Bob Browne distinguished himself while chair of Transit by having the only motorway extension that happened in Auckland go to his own front door! We are talking about someone who is used to doing dodgy deals and the fact that he is a business partner of Murray McCully is probably an indication of that. We want to know how much John Key’s donation was that Bob Browne hid. 
I again compliment Richard Worth and indicate that at the end of this speech I will seek the leave of the House to table the letter from Mr Worth— 
Hon Member 
: Dr Worth. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No Mr Worth at the time—before he bought his PhD. 
I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Richard Worth OBE MP for Epsom which states: “There is an aspect of substantial”— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government let out on bail a hardened criminal—after he had been refused bail by the courts—as part of a deal which also included $100000 in cash. Today we have found out that the Government has cooked the figures in the report on serious hospital incidents which shows that many Kiwis have died avoidable deaths. We have also had the revelation that Work and Income is paying towaway fees for drunk drivers so they can get back their cars. That is just today and that is just the small issues. 
The big issue is Helen Clark’s judgment over Labour’s billionaire donor friend. Let me read what Helen Clark said in November 2007 as the culmination of Labour’s campaign for transparency in political donations: “The important thing is to have fair rules and a level playing field and what we’ve seen in New Zealand”—listen to this—“is the intrusion of very and I underline very big money into our election campaigns.” But Labour received very big money from a very big donor by the name of Owen Glenn. There may be questions about Mr Glenn’s judgment but he is not Prime Minister of New Zealand. The serious questions are about the judgment of Helen Clark who is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. 
Helen Clark needs to explain these following issues: why was it that she was advocating the Electoral Finance Act for transparency and was against big money in politics when she was part of deals behind closed doors to get more big money from a big billionaire donor? Why was she spending all year going on about very wealthy people trying secretly to influence New Zealand’s politics when she was party to an arrangement where a billionaire lent $100000 to the Labour Party interest-free? Why was it that Labour instructed the Justice and Electoral Committee under Helen’s Clark’s guidance to change the law so that Owen Glenn could keep donating despite the fact that he was an expatriate? Why did Helen Clark sit on the Cabinet strategy subcommittee on appointments and honours knowing there had been a secret loan to the Labour Party and give Owen Glenn a serious New Year honour and expect there to be no comment on it? Why was it that she knew about the loan and had been party to discussions with Mike Williams and Winston Peters about giving Owen Glenn a job as consul for Monaco but when she read in the newspaper that Mike Williams had said there was no donation she said and did nothing? What person in the Labour caucus let alone in the New Zealand population believes that Helen Clark did not know about that—till yesterday? No one believes it. That is the ultimate misjudgment if Helen Clark thinks that New Zealanders still believe her. 
New Zealanders do not believe her because she rammed the Electoral Finance Bill through the House and said it would bring transparency and would exclude big money influence from politics yet behind the back door she was making precisely that sort of deal. That also raises questions about the judgment of Mike Williams who is meant to be the world’s best political party strategist for the world’s best Prime Minister the man who denied—[ 
Interruption 
] He is the guy who dumped Labour in it. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a transcript from the  
Breakfast 
 television programme this morning where John Key says he supports the honour given to Owen Glenn. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Work and Income rules for advances to beneficiaries drawn up by the former deputy leader of John Key’s party the Hon Roger Sowry. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a photograph of John Key hongi-ing with Tame Iti who is currently on bail and facing serious firearm charges. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Bill English 
: It has been tabled. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has already been tabled. 
General Debate 
Debate resumed. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. On a different note one of my great loves is to go back home to Ngati Kahungunu and the people on the marae and to listen learn and reconnect. All our marae have histories and legacies that can assist us in understanding our world. I think particularly at this time of Rongomaraeroa and its dining room Te Uaua Tamariki—literally the Sinews of Youth. This name came from a great feast kaihaukai hosted by our tipuna Te Whatuiapiti and his eldest son Te Rangiwawahia. But like so many of our names it represents another meaning. It honours the effort the sinews of the younger people of Ngati Kere who fundraised who refurbished the marae and who made it happen. The name recognises the hope that young and old like Te Whatuiapiti and Te Rangiwawahia can work together. And this is the ambition I hold for our nation. 
It is an expression of hope that I have returned to in sharp contrast to the otherwise grim anger and despair that have played out across our screens over these fledgling weeks of the New Year. We have had talkback radio erupting with the rage of New Zealanders about tagging and taggers a rage so violent that one would almost assume that the brutal death of a young tagger in Manurewa was being minimised—accepted as his fate. In the same period we have witnessed an elderly couple— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but would members having conversations—unless they are directly related to their portfolio areas—please take them outside and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the Chamber. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to Mr Sharples for interrupting his speech further and in no way Mr Assistant Speaker do I dispute your ruling in respect of people their seating positions and the conversations they may be having. But it is also important that we have a line of consistency here. During the speech made by the Hon Bill English during the general debate several Labour members moved from their seats to positions of advantage and barracked during the entire speech that Mr English gave. Mr Assistant Speaker no action was taken by you to rein in that barracking and I would ask for some consistency to be applied to both sides of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Power. Both sides were engaged in barracking and the issue raised by me was not to do with barracking; it was to do with general conversation. There is a difference. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I was referring to talkback radio erupting with the rage of New Zealanders against taggers and tagging and that it was almost assumed that the brutal death of the young tagger in Manurewa was being minimised—accepted as his fate. In the same period we witnessed an elderly couple randomly attacked in their home by a man armed with an axe and a knife. 
We have had a Cabinet Minister describe Waitangi Day as being a recruitment drive for gangs and referred to what he calls the “ongoing degeneration in the behaviour and conduct” of young Maori men doing the haka as “making growling noises like underfed mutts”. While these comments were being aired other media outlets were seeking conflict as the theme for Waitangi Day in 2008—the fascination with Tame Iti and with whether the Prime Minister would go on to Te Tii and the astonishment that there could be peace at Waitangi. Well contrary to some speculation Waitangi Day has always been an opportunity for peaceful reflections around Te Tiriti o Waitangi for collective spirit and commitment to our nation’s good and for challenges whether they be in protest or in the addresses presented in the church services of this festival. 
I could go on but it gets depressing. The point is that if one is searching for conflict and fury sooner or later an issue will come bubbling to the surface. But just when we thought Operation Eight and the terror raids against Tuhoe were a bad memory more arrests in Ruatoki and Maketu have taken place. As Tamati Kruger the chairperson of Te Kotahi a Tuhoe Trust remarked these arrests felt like further persecution of Tuhoe. 
This weekend at Opotiki the Mataatua kapahaka regional competitions were held and I am informed there were 18 teams with over 700 adult performers. And every group had chosen in their compositions to deal with the terror raids from their viewpoint. This shows the effect that those events have had on the people of Mataatua waka. So what will be the legacy from this period of time for the mokopuna of Mataatua? 
Last November the  
Marae 
 DigiPoll of 1003 Maori voters described how Maori perceived the impact of Operation Eight. The poll revealed that 68 percent of Maori surveyed saw the armed raids in te ao o te Urewera as unnecessary overreaction 52 percent of Maori polled saw the raids as having negative consequences for race relations and 55 percent of Maori surveyed agreed that the police had acted in a way that has terrorised Maori communities. 
In the midst of this darkness I do however hold perpetual faith that it is the very nature of our people and our traditions that we can stand strong as we face our future. For what our histories also show is how uniquely Maori responses developed across Aotearoa in resistance to the actions. In Kahungunu at home when the police commissioner came to visit and talk about these things the elders all wore black balaclavas as they sat on the paepae to greet him. Other iwi made their way to Tuhoe to show support others lodged complaints with the Human Rights Commission the Police Complaints Authority and so on and others had peace vigils. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 What do we know this week about the National Party’s economic policies that we did not know last week? We have found out that they do not have any principle. National Party members’ policy is to say just whatever they think their audience wants to hear. 
Last week John Key went to Southland and what did he have for the people of Southland? He had a $200 million subsidy in the form of a suspensory loan to form a commercial meat export company. This is the most cynical form of naive pork-barrel politics we could ever imagine. It is a return to the worst excesses of Muldoonism. The meat companies never even asked for the loan. The subsidy is supposed to help them create a megamerger company for the export of meat. The megamerger might well be a good idea. We will have to see. But the meat companies have to produce a business case for it. If John Key has seen the business case I would be surprised because I know that it has not been formed yet but when it is we will see it. It might well need assistance from the Government through legislative changes for example but it will not need a cash handout; nor should it get one. It will not need us taking away money from schools hospitals or the police and giving it to the most important foundations of our economy. 
If we have to subsidise the primary industries’ system in New Zealand we are in big trouble because that is where 65 percent of our export earnings come from. What would happen if we go back to subsidising agriculture? We would take an immediate hit in our major markets around the world. Retaliatory tariffs would be imposed before the sun came up. Our trade negotiations would be laughed out of every forum around the world. But the long-term effects are even worse than that. Farmers would get the message that they do not have to adapt to market conditions and they do not have to build successful creative or innovative businesses. If they want cash they can just invite John Key and Bill English down to the paddock for a romp. 
What does this policy tell us about National’s vision for New Zealand’s economic development? It tells us it does not have any. National has no ideas about the way to make New Zealand more innovative. It has no ideas about the way to make our businesses more competitive globally. National has no ideas at all about the way to improve our international connections but it has a fair idea about the way to destroy them. It has no ideas about what agribusinesses actually need. It can put up taxes on average New Zealand families to pay for cash handouts to export businesses that can succeed without them. But that is National’s policy. 
We know that is National’s policy because National members in this House this week could not even answer a most simple question: under National would a household with two kids and on the average wage get a tax cut of the same size as a family with $100000 of income? National will not answer that simple question because the answer is no it will not. Every other party in this House could answer that question but National will not answer it because the answer is no. There will not be room for tax cuts for “Joanna Average” because National is taking out any tax cuts in order to return subsidies to the agricultural sector. That was a policy in the 1970s that led to a top marginal tax rate of 66c in the dollar. That is what happens when every part of the economy tries to subsidise every other part. 
When National is faced with hard decisions it cannot be trusted to make the best call for New Zealand’s long-term interests. I watched those backbenchers over there. I watched the face of Mr Groser. How would he ever stand up and answer a question on that with any credibility in any of the forums in the world he used to trot himself around? I wonder whether he was told about this great new subsidy policy. How would he ever hold up his head in the areas in which he has walked before? What about Bill English? The  
Southland Times 
 said: “When National Party finance spokesman Bill ambled across the paddock Mr Key quickly told him ‘I’ve just committed you to a suspensory loan.’ ” Did Bill say “Shock horror! What have you done?”. Mr English replied “As long as it’s under $200 million I don’t mind.” Oh well so much for Bill English’s financial credibility. 
National has no fiscal credibility. Its members have the credibility of a sailor in a saloon. They are completely cynical. They are far too inexperienced for Government office. The official National Party policy is now to bring back Rob Muldoon’s “family benefits for sheep”. That is it. They have had 9 years to think of a policy and that is the one they have come up with. I cannot believe it. I always knew that John Key was a flake but I did not know he was an absolutely ridiculous stupid flake and that he would go to Bill English’s electorate and tell the people there with Bill beside him that they are going to give them a $200 million bribe. How many electorates are there in the country? Sixty-nine or so by the time of the next election. So we have had one which has cost $200 million and there are only 68 to go. I am going to count as National goes through each electorate to see how much this is going to cost New Zealand. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Would Lianne Dalziel please put a blanket over that member’s knees in case he catches a chill. That was the most pathetic little speech I have heard from the failed man who does not deserve to be in this House. 
Let us talk about credibility. Seven years ago that Government was told to start a national standardised reporting system for serious fatal errors in the New Zealand public health system. It did nothing. In the meantime people have died and services have not improved because this Government has done nothing. What has been released today goes to the heart of Helen Clark’s credibility. She is the Prime Minister who orchestrated the health system in our country today and it is the health system that is failing New Zealander after New Zealander. 
What a patronising pompous response that was today from the caretaker Minister of Health. Did members hear it? Let us just go through the nonsense that he said. First of all he said “We compare well internationally.” But his own officials told a press conference and a select committee today “You can’t compare the information.” Then he said “It’s only a few people per 10000.” But he did not know what his officials at the press conference said earlier today. Dr Mary Seddon said “Well actually we don’t count everything. We’re not telling you some of the sentinel events because they are confidential.” and “Our hospital cannot pull the information out of the system.” That is what she said. So the Government has tabled the information that it did not want to table. The only reason that information is being made available is that the Ombudsman has forced the Government to provide it. The Ombudsman has forced the Government to provide that information. 
And that information is shocking; that information is frightening. I think New Zealanders will be shocked when they see some of the mistakes that have happened: the patient whose skull was opened on the wrong side after the wrong patient’s CT scans were sent to the referring hospital; the brain tissue sample that went to the wrong laboratory department requiring the patient to undergo a second brain operation to get a sample; the kid who was administered the wrong drug and whose mother was ignored; or the rest home patient who developed a clot on the brain and died in her bed 3 hours later after neurological observations were ordered but not carried out. There is a litany of these stories. 
We should not blame and shame. That information should have been out much earlier on a consistent standardised reporting basis so the public could be assured the Government had done something. But instead we have only the tip of the iceberg. Even the Government’s closest advisers say that not everything has been reported. One of the advisers said that her hospital is not even able to get that information in order to be reported. That is how bad the health system has become. I agree with the  
Dominion Post  
headline “What is going on in our hospitals?”. What is going on in our public hospitals when over $5 billion a year extra has been put into the health system but Ron Paterson says that our hospitals are unacceptably unsafe? Is that what Helen Clark promised in 1999? Is that what Labour is about—that people who use public hospitals have to use them when they are unacceptably unsafe? Is that what Labour stands for? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes that is what Labour stands for. What would Michael Joseph Savage think? A public health service run under a Labour Government is described by a Labour-appointed Health and Disability Commissioner as being unacceptably unsafe. That is what is happening to our public hospitals. Seven years ago that failed Government opposite was told that if it brought in a national standardised reporting system it would save lives. That has happened in Australia and it has saved lives. But this Government just ignores it and it will carry the consequences in November. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I ask the members on my right to please look at Speakers’ rulings 57/3 and 58/4. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 What a hugely ironic speech demanding high-quality public health services from the member Tony Ryall who was part of a Cabinet that charged people to go into every public hospital in New Zealand. We did not call them public hospitals in the bad old days of the 1990s; we called them Crown health enterprises. Nobody will ever forgive National for that and nobody will forget that Tony Ryall sat at the table in a Cabinet that said that every patient who goes into a public hospital in New Zealand should get a bill. That is what he said. Mind you given Judith Collins’ version today of National’s social welfare policy I am not at all sure how beneficiaries would be able to pay their bills to go into the public hospital if they had no money because she certainly would not be giving them any advances on their benefit. 
My colleague Jim Anderton referred earlier on to John Key as a flake. Well I have read a lot of John Key’s statements and I think that Jim Anderton was really underestimating John Key. I think he is a whole snowstorm all on his own frankly. He has the most amazing ability to say just whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear and then on the same day and sometimes in the same hour say completely the opposite to a different audience. He must think that we do not get the papers. He must think that nobody reads the  
Southland Times 
. Lesley Soper reads the  
Southland Times 
. She makes sure that we know what is in the  
Southland Times 
 and we know what John Key said to the  
Southland Times 
 which was that he would give a $200 million interest-free subsidy to the meat industry in Southland. It is just extraordinary. 
But if that is not bad enough he then comes into this House and demands accountability. He demands that everyone tells the truth and that everyone sticks to their policy. He rants and raves about tax cuts and about improving opportunities for New Zealanders and he weeps crocodile tears about the number of people who are moving over to Australia. He says that we should pay people better but then he says—and I happen to have the very quote here from John Key on 17 December last year—“We would love to see wages drop.” That is what John Key said. That is an exact quote: “We would love to see wages drop.” How will low and middle income New Zealanders feel when they read that that is the National Party policy and that its policy is not to cut their taxes actually because for 8 years the National Party has voted against every single tax cut for business and for individuals. It voted against the Working for Families package and it voted against research and development initiatives and tax cuts for business. National voted against them every single time and for 9 years prior to that when National was in Government how many tax cuts did it introduce? 
Hon Members 
: Ah! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: OK I will give members a clue: it was fewer than three. I will give them another clue: it was fewer than two. I will give them another clue: it was fewer than one. The answer is zero—9 years in Government and not one single tax cut from National; 8 years in Opposition and National voted against every single tax cut made by Labour. There is a word for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: We are not allowed to use it in the House so I will not even stray down that path Mr Assistant Speaker and I appreciate your guidance. But I will tell members that the public in New Zealand will use that word and more to describe the way John Key is tricking them into thinking that they would be better off because they will not be. They will be better off under Labour because we not only have a commitment to our policies but we also have 8 years’ track record of increasing the minimum wage every single year. 
On 1 April this year the minimum wage goes up to $12 an hour. What did the minimum wage increase by for 9 years under National? By how much did it go up? It went up by 87.5c. [ 
Interruption 
] No not in a year and not in 2 years but in a total of 9 years there was less than a dollar’s increase in the minimum wage. It is an outrage to treat our most vulnerable hard-working citizens in that way for 9 years. It is now at $12. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 That Minister and her colleagues are almost at the point of becoming irrelevant to the political debate in New Zealand. I am pleased that the Hon Lianne Dalziel is in the House because while I was sitting here thinking about the nature of the amendments we will have to make to the Financial Advisers Bill it struck me that if I were Owen Glenn and I had invested in the Labour Party and ended up with Lesley Soper and Darien Fenton then I would be making a submission on that bill as to how my investment should reflect some decent advice. It should not be allowed; we should have an exemption clause in that bill to disallow those sorts of investments from occurring and I know that the Minister is smart enough to agree with me. 
One of the things I have been enjoying most about question time over the course of the first couple of weeks of this year has not been the faces on the front bench members of the Labour Government necessarily but those of the next generation of Labour—the David Cunliffes the Clayton Cosgroves and the Shane Joneses who throughout question time now have their heads down ignoring what is going on around them and slowly trying to distance themselves from the carnage that is occurring on the front two benches of the Labour Government. But only one person in this House is enjoying it more than National members are and that is Phil Goff. Phil Goff is sitting across the House and having a ball. He is grinning from ear to ear knowing that his time is coming. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s a hated man. 
SIMON POWER 
: The member has got that right! 
One of the things that has disturbed me most over the last couple of days is the issue that revealed itself this morning. A leading gang figure previously associated with Black Power and now associated with the Headhunters gang was released from jail after negotiating the return of the stolen war medals. The  
New Zealand Herald  
revealed this morning that this gentleman Daniel Crichton was granted bail on serious drug charges after acting as a “conduit” for those thieves. The fact that this transaction occurred within the walls of Mt Eden Prison is extraordinary in itself but the question on the minds of the public today will be whether this individual is any less dangerous to the public today than he was when bail was originally denied. 
The interesting thing about the Prime Minister’s response today was that she said it was a matter for the judge who was hearing the bail application. In fact the police must have changed their position in order for the position relating to bail to have changed so dramatically. The question is this: if this individual had not been involved from within Mt Eden Prison in allowing the return of the medals would he have got bail in ordinary circumstances? The answer is no. Has his behaviour changed? Has his history changed? Has his propensity to commit further crime changed? Has his risk of flight changed? Those are all matters under consideration at a bail application. Nothing has changed around the risk factors; all that has changed is that this individual has now “After negotiations with the Crown and the police” gone on bail. 
It was not a matter for the judge. The judge would have listened to the applicant for the bail application—that is the counsel for the defence—would have listened to the police’s application on the bail and would have made a decision there. The  
New Zealand Herald  
reports today “After negotiations with the Crown and police Crichton was released on bail” in a decision that has been described by Amanda Upham the daughter of Charles Upham as “disgraceful”. She says: “This deal is becoming more farcical by the day.” 
What we found out earlier this afternoon will actually make the matter worse. We knew today at 2.51 p.m. or thereabouts that Tony Wall from the  
Sunday Star-Times  
had filed a story stating: “Crichton said he found out through his contacts who was behind the theft but would not say how he found out … He said other gang members also found out and there was something of a clamour to take advantage of the information. ‘Everyone saw it as an opportunity—they”—that is the gangs—“are opportunists like everyone else they will have a go. Everyone tried to grab them.’ ” Under Labour this is what our justice system has been reduced to. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 There are clear lines of division down this House and none can be clearer than the division between the National Party and the Labour Party on wages incomes and protecting workers’ jobs. Every so often we get a flash of honesty from the National Party leader John Key. Recently he was in Auckland and said to a business group “You can ignore quite often what I say publicly. Trust me when I become Prime Minister I will be a traditional National Party Prime Minister.” Putting aside for example his dreams and ambitions it does show something of the man himself and what he says. It shows an underlying amount of duplicity. 
We can look at another very interesting and revealing quote from the man on 17 December: “We would love to see wages drop.” This demonstrates the National Party’s attitude to wages and incomes as being a cost to business. It is not a matter of how much people need to sustain themselves or look after themselves and their families to pay for bread to put meat in the fridge and to look after those things; it is a cost to business. It is also reflective of the National Party’s view about trickle-down and supply-side economics. 
National Party members have traditionally argued that if we give money to the wealthy and look after them then they will invest the money and from the investments jobs will flow and so on. That is the trickle-down theory which was characterised by the great economist J K Galbraith as something akin to giving the horse the finest bundle of hay and when the horse is finished with it the birds can feed. That is the National Party’s attitude towards workers. Labour has a different view. We believe that if we look after ordinary working people then they will strengthen their families and do much better. 
Again another very clear line between National and Labour is that during the 1990s the National Party held down the minimum wage. As Ruth Dyson said it increased by 89c over 9 or 10 years. It went up something like 10c a year. During that period with the Employment Contracts Act and all the rest that was done wages in New Zealand fell dramatically behind wages in Australia. A 50 percent gap opened up. In that time in 1990 the National Party went around New Zealand assuring New Zealanders that it would protect their wages. The National Party even wrote letters telling people it would look after their penalty rates. What happened? Their letterboxes were stuffed with these letters and penalty rates went wages were slashed conditions were slashed and New Zealand went downwards in a terrible spiral. The wage gap between New Zealand and Australia rose. 
That is what the National Party did when it promised to look after workers and their wages. Now we have a National Party leader saying “We would love to see wages drop.” I have to say that workers in New Zealand should be afraid—very very afraid. What will be the first line of attack? The Employment Relations Act will go. The National Party will bring back the Employment Contracts Act on steroids. If this happens the National Party will do what it did in the past. It will hold the minimum wage and the regular increases in the minimum wage under Labour will go. Workers can look forward to no more increases in holidays. Remember that the Labour Party increased annual leave from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. The National Party has promised to put the fourth week of annual leave up to be negotiable. We know what that means; it will be negotiated away and workers will be back to 3 weeks’ annual leave. 
Under National the apprenticeship system was scrapped. Our young people had no hope or opportunity of learning skills and getting a career. Labour brought the apprenticeship system back and we got young people gaining skills and a career for themselves. Labour achieved paid parental leave. National voted against it all the way. Labour brought in KiwiSaver to help people save for their superannuation or homeownership. National voted against it all the way. 
As we can see there is a clear line of difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. The Labour Party understands very clearly by way of making interventions in the market supporting contract negotiations and supporting people who work for a living. Labour is helping New Zealand families and we have reinforced that with family support. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: They’re going to Australia. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member talks about people going to Australia. I have suddenly developed a theory about this. Maybe a number of people are going to Australia because they realise that the National Party just might get in—but I doubt it—and that if National said in 1990 that it would look after wages and conditions and it is now promising to cut their pay it will be a tough life. Workers need to believe that and believe it very clearly. It is very scary for New Zealanders to be confronted by the leader of the National Party saying “We would love to see wages drop.” That is what he said and I believe him. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Today 20 February is something of a “Green letter day” because today finally after 8 years of our requesting the information the Government has begun to release some of the documentation about adverse events in hospitals in New Zealand. For 8 years the Green Party—year after year like a broken record—has been calling for consistent public documentation of how many adverse events are taking place in our hospitals. Finally we have begun to see some of the data. 
The data is chilling; it is horrifying. But apart from the horrifying reading that all of the documentation provides it also shows that sadly the entire system of adverse events reporting in New Zealand is still a complete shambles with different district health boards using different systems definitions and reporting. Some choose not to bother to report adverse events at all; Tairawhiti District Health Board for example did not bother. The entire system is voluntary. It is up to district health boards to decide what to report—or whether to bother. Then we have the huge discrepancies. Capital and Coast District Health Board ambled into the Health Committee today. It officially released information about its serious and sentinel events—that is official information—then we learnt that completely different statistics on those same events were released today by the same district health board. Whom on earth do we trust? 
Through the Green Party’s raising of this issue in the Health Committee we have written to the Minister of Health but Minister after Minister has refused to divulge the statistics. We asked for every district health board as part of its annual report to show its statistics on how many adverse events there had been. Here we are 8 years later and despite the documentation released today we still do not know even basic information: how many medication errors there have been the infection rates and how many surgical deaths occurred in our hospitals last year. In the House today the Minister refused to answer a simple question and divulge how many people died last year as a result of a district health board failing to take some action or taking some action. How many deaths were there? How many people were permanently disabled as a result of a medical error or an adverse event? The Minister refused to answer those questions. He is trying to fudge. The statistics talk about different things; one lot talks about preventable deaths and another lot talks about different forms. The Minister pretended he did not know the answer. We know that the Minister knows only too well and does not want to tell New Zealanders the truth. 
These statistics are simply the tip of the iceberg. They do not even include simple things like data on hospital-acquired infections even though adverse events ordinarily include them. We simply have no idea of how many people are suffering for example from hospital-acquired infections in New Zealand hospitals. Last year the Health Committee was assured by Capital and Coast District Health Board that it had a policy of open disclosure in reporting adverse events. But then we discovered that at the same time that it was telling us that it had been locked in a 2-year battle with the  
Dominion Post 
 over its refusal to disclose its adverse events—its deaths and serious disabilities. It was only the intervention of the Ombudsman that made that board—forced it to kicking and screaming—reveal its figures. 
I believe that the only reason we have these reports today inadequate though they are is that district health boards have been forced and the Minister of Health and the Government have been forced kicking and screaming to divulge these statistics even though Minister after Minister for 8 long years has refused until now to divulge them. We know that every single adverse event costs about $10200 yet every district health board that reports to the Health Committee has refused to answer the question of how much adverse events cost it. Here the boards say: “We don’t collect this data.”—which is all they need to say. Capital and Coast District Health Board told us this morning that it had 1009 adverse events that included patient harm. If we add up $10200 for each of those 1009 events we find that they cost the board about $10 million a year. But the board is trying to hide that as well. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Last week the Minister of Health issued a press release that said the Minister was keeping a close eye on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board because he was concerned about several things including continuing apparent tensions with the present board and its clinicians. I put it to members today that this press release was a total smokescreen to try to redirect the public’s attention away from the mess that this Government has got itself into by mistakenly appointing to the board an outside director who is now the subject of a review about conflicts of interest. 
Let us go through the details of this mess. Firstly the Minister of Health appointed a Wellington-based independent director to sort out the Hawke’s Bay District Board. The board had apparently bucked the trend by not simply saying “Yes Minister” on a range of issues important to the district health board. Secondly following that director’s appointment that outside director’s company Healthcare New Zealand was the recipient of an initial small million-dollar contract with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. The company was made preferred bidder in a multimillion-dollar contract that was subsequently withdrawn. Thirdly a whistleblower revealed that documents regarding the terms of reference for the contract on the withdrawn bid had been emailed back and forth between various recipients with accusations that the terms of reference had been changed in an attempt to favour the bidder. 
Fourthly the serious accusations of conflicts of interest are the subject of a review that is currently being conducted by the Ministry of Health. Lastly there is an underlying matter that necessitates total transparency and the exposure of all relevant details uncovered in this investigation. The husband of the then Minister of Health who was chief operating officer at the district health board at the time of the Healthcare New Zealand negotiations is now an employee with that company. So why do I suggest that the accusations of discontent at the district health board between the board and the senior medical staff are a smokescreen? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Quite simply because it is untrue. Firstly it implies that the whole board has a breakdown in its relationship with the senior medical staff. That is simply incorrect. By making these accusations the Minister accuses two board members who are themselves senior medical staff both of whom have a pedigree that is hard to beat in New Zealand. David Barry and David Davidson are two board members who between them have over 70 years’ experience and service. David Barry set up the paediatric service at the Hawke’s Bay Hospital. He has an international reputation in asthma research. He is a man who is respected by his colleagues and he has the utmost integrity. David Davidson was the Hawke’s Bay’s first specialist obstetrician. He was a pioneer and is totally respected by all medical professionals in Hawke’s Bay. The board has full faith in him. 
The second reason that this is a smokescreen is that the fact is there is no breakdown no apparent tension and no discontent between the board and the senior medical staff. I personally rang around a significant number of senior consultants on Sunday evening and spoke to them. My research indicates that there is virtually unanimous support for the board not ongoing tension. In fact a number of consultants believe that the relationship they have with the board is one of the best in the country. Once specialist David Lawson said: “This is the best board we have had in 15 years. Our department had made huge progress in recent years with waiting lists reduced from 800 to 100.” He said that this was hardly a sign of a malfunctioning board. John Rose chairman of the senior medical staff told me that at present there are no issues simmering or ongoing between medical staff and the board. There will be a meeting in which these staff will get together and make sure that the message is clear. 
I challenge the health Minister to call a range of senior medical staff—which he has failed to do until now—as I have to ensure that next time he accuses the board of having a breakdown with senior doctors he gets his facts right. As my colleague Craig Foss said these accusations about the relationship between the board and senior medical staff are a pathetic attempt at diverting the public’s attention from the relationship between the Government and the board. So why has Minister Cunliffe done this? In short he wants to get rid of the board. He wants to drive a wedge between the board and the Hawke’s Bay public by falsely accusing them of a bad relationship with senior medical staff. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I would like to take a minute of the House’s time to say a few words about my wonderful colleague Ann Hartley who will be making her valedictory speech this afternoon. Ann is one of the most encouraging and supportive MPs in this Parliament. She has seen the best and the worst of this House not least in her role as Assistant Speaker and I admire her immensely for her courage and her integrity. She is a hard worker. She does the hard yards out in the community often behind the scenes and without fanfare or ego. She is a woman with great heart and great commitment and I will miss her sorely. 
We have seen an extraordinary event in the National Party—John Key has been caught telling the truth. He has been caught out owning up to his real views on the wages of ordinary working people. He wants to see them drop. National wants to cut their pay. There is a great election slogan: vote for National and vote for a pay cut! John Key has confirmed what we already know. National does not really believe in wages going up for ordinary workers. In fact those members quite despise workers and they have no idea what to do about it anyway. John Key says that National will cut taxes and hey presto wages will go up. Well no they will not. He says that National will lift wages by driving economic growth. What the heck does that mean? I want to know how National will make sure that the growth and the wealth that workers help to create is passed on to them in better wages. Are workers supposed to hope that economic growth will somehow trickle down into their pay packets? 
To increase wages requires real measures like those that this Labour-led Government has introduced—and may I say National has voted against those all the way through. I refer to such things as the annual increases to the minimum wage—and is it not wonderful that there will be a minimum wage of $12 an hour from 1 April—14 weeks’ paid parental leave 4 weeks’ annual leave and fair and decent compensation for working on public holidays. I am talking about such things as strengthening health and safety laws and labour laws and protecting vulnerable workers in situations of contracting out. That is why the gap between Australian wages and New Zealand wages has stopped sliding under this Government—it is due to active labour market policies not National’s approach of “anything goes” “take it or leave it” and “tough luck if you’re a low-paid worker with little bargaining power”. 
National has a shameful record on wages. It slashed Kiwis’ take-home pay in the 1990s and it made sure that its friends got richer at their expense. The gap between Australian and New Zealand wages grew by 50.4 percent between 1990 and 1999. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: By 50.4 percent. But real wages grew by just 0.3 percent in 9 years. In 5 out of 9 years wages did not grow at all. That is disgraceful and that meant misery for the people John Key now pretends he cares about. In many cases lots of workers like caregivers—whom I hear him bleating on about—and hospital workers retail workers factory workers and many others were earning less than they were 10 years before. National cut their hourly rates their weekend rates their overtime pay their allowances their sick leave entitlements and their annual leave. It meant that the families of those workers struggled to make ends meet that they had to work two or three jobs and that they had to work longer faster and harder—and one will notice that the National Party is very sensitive about these figures. 
National seems to be very firmly committed to the same old low-wage low-skill “work until we drop” economic model we had back then. John Key has just confirmed it. Now we know what John Key would like to do about wages but what about the rest of National’s plan to do over New Zealander workers once again? When will National members come clean about the rest of it—their real agenda? They cannot soft-soap working people forever. Workers are asking questions such as these. When will the 90-day bill be reannounced? When will the minimum wage freeze be announced? When will the sale of annual leave be announced again? When will those members tell the people that they are going to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation? When will those members tell people that they are going to scale back workers’ rights? John Key has been caught telling the truth about wages. It is time for him to tell the truth about the rest of it. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to talk for 5 minutes about one of New Zealand’s most fabulous success stories—in particular the New Zealand dairy industry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You were against Fonterra! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: As I say that I am already hearing jibes coming from the National Party because those members do not think that Fonterra or any of these outfits in New Zealand are important. Those members think they should be sold off to whoever is prepared to buy them because those members do not know the history of this industry. 
This industry was brought up to what it is today by men and women who understood that each generation would take the previous generation’s work build on it and pass it on to the next generation. It was not something that one flogged off or put on the stock market to reap a windfall reward. The people who grew this industry knew what a cooperative structure was. It was people banding together to add value to their farm produce so that the efforts of many small farmers could be put together to take on the world. People in that industry never ever had a problem raising money and they do not have a problem raising money today. Everybody in this country should know that. 
What they cannot do using just their own money they can and have done through joint ventures and other recognised business models and they have been hugely successful. In excess of 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports go through that one company today. We know that there are people who do not care about that. We know that there are other people who look at that with envy. We know that there are other people who have had no access to this company who now want access so that they can reap the rewards of something that was not built up by the present generation nor built up in the last 5 or 15 years but was built up by farming people for in excess of 100 years. There are people who want to go in there and clip the ticket and strip it. When I say that shares may reach a spike if they are listed on the stock market and may go from something like $7 per share to something like $30 or $40 per share—admittedly for a short time—one can see why people are keen to list this company on the stock market. 
I want to make sure the average good hard-working farmer—the likes of whom built this company and who are still out there today—is heard in this process. Thank heavens those farmers have been heard recently. They have said to the directors and they have said to the moneymen who are advising on a listing for Fonterra: “Hold on a minute. Not just yet. We want to stop for a cup of tea we want to have a talk about this we want to know what you’re doing we want to know what you’re saying to those investors—not farmers but Queen Street farmers—we want to see what you’re offering them and we want a fair vote in this company. We want to make sure that all of the issues are on the table.” God bless them! I knew they would understand. I knew they would hold up this reform if only they were given a chance. My fear was that they would be overruled by a few big operators within the company and by the propaganda of the executive. 
I want to compare those people who are running this company today with the people who started it and the people who made it what it is. The people running it today want to flog off 100 years of hard work but we never ever doubted the intentions of the people who built it up. We may have disagreed with them we may have had robust arguments but they were hard people who worked their guts out for the industry and we never ever doubted their intentions. They wanted the company to succeed for the farmers not for the international moneymen and New Zealand First will help them. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. This is a private bill and it has been promoted by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd for Parliament’s consideration. It is the third time in 7 years that we have had legislation of this sort before the House and I want to thank the House for its patience in dealing with it. I also thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work in reviewing this bill and for their recommendation that the bill be passed without amendment. I have since requested that the Business Committee agree to omit the Committee of the whole House stage of this bill and proceed to its third reading as permitted under Standing Order 76(b). This has been accepted and I look forward to moving ahead with this bill. 
This bill substitutes the name of the Guardian Trust parent company from the Promina Group Ltd to Suncorp-Metway Ltd in order to enable the company to transact business with its parent company. Over time Parliament has decided that this privilege—and I emphasise the fact that this is a privilege that Parliament is giving Guardian Trust—is to be given with a great deal of careful consideration and with suitable warning to the public. New Zealanders put their trust literally in the trustee companies and in Guardian Trust and they are entitled to know what business arrangements are being entered into and to know that their interests are being protected. I note that it has been said in the House before that there are some business commercial laws—for example in Australia—that give preference to Australians over New Zealanders and we have to be very careful in this House about how we give this sort of privilege. 
I further say that Guardian Trust is one of New Zealand’s oldest and most respected companies. It was established in 1852 and has been operating as a trustee company in New Zealand since 1883 when the Guardian Trust and Executors Company Act was passed. In 1982 the Guardian Trust merged with the trust department of the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd necessitating the passing of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act in that year. The trust has 14 branches and acts on trusts and estates for many thousands of New Zealanders and their families. 
The Guardian Trust is a trustee company authorised under the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982 to carry on business as an executor a trustee a trustee company and in other fiduciary capacities. This Act currently allows the trust to transact business with its parent company which is named and any subsidiary or company associated with its parent company. The Act also allows it to attain the financial benefit from such transactions that would otherwise be precluded under trust law. The ability to transact business in these circumstances is necessary given the size of the corporate group with which Guardian Trust is associated and the many opportunities that could be lost if the ability to transact business with such companies were not available. Similar concessions exist for all other trustee companies. 
The Act currently defines the parent company to mean the Promina Group Ltd. In March 2007 the businesses of Promina and Suncorp-Metway were merged by way of a scheme of arrangement. Under this scheme Suncorp-Metway acquired all shares in Promina. Accordingly Suncorp-Metway is not the ultimate parent company of the New Zealand Guardian Trust any more thus rendering the name of the parent Act now inaccurate. 
I recognise that a number of select committees and indeed this House have wrestled with the issue of whether generic legislation could adequately protect people who have dealings with the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. and other trustee companies. However in respect of the second and third readings of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill we can deal only with the Guardian Trust. Each select committee has recommended that generic legislation be introduced to deal with the need of various trust companies to bring legislation of this sort before the House. I hope that the work the Finance and Expenditure Committee has done on this bill will be taken up by the Ministry of Justice because I think that we have to balance the trust relationship and the ability for trustee companies to operate in the best commercial interests of their beneficiaries along with the protection of those beneficiaries. This legislation which the Finance and Expenditure Committee has said should proceed unamended will allow the legislation to go forward so that any changes in the parent company of the Guardian Trust Co. can be notified by way of Order in Council. 
This is the third time in 7 years that the Guardian Trust has been required to promote a private bill to maintain this authorisation and I think it is a good use of the House’s time to consider the broader issues rather than the individual issues each time they come up and to retain the need to notify beneficiaries and New Zealanders more generally very carefully that these changes have taken place. I again thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work it has done on this bill and I commend the bill to the House for its second and third readings. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Let me make clear at the outset that the National Opposition will be supporting the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. I have to say that it is good that Labour is at last seeing some sense in this legislation. As the Minister Judith Tizard just told the House this is the third time in 7 years that the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. has had to come to Parliament to get its 1982 Act amended to cover the circumstances of a change of parent company. 
The last time this legislation was in front of Parliament National members—and there may well have been members from some other smaller parties as well—tried to get a change in the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. legislation to enable future changes of parent companies to be made by Order in Council. If I look back at the Commerce Committee report on the bill of 2005—when the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. was last in front of this Parliament having this kind of change considered—I see that the National Party had a minority view in the report. It stated: “The National Party supports the proposal to approve a new parent company by Order in Council and is disappointed with the decision of the committee in not supporting this initiative.” 
So there we have it. The last time the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. was in front of Parliament with a private bill on this issue Labour refused to do the sensible thing. So here we are today spending more of Parliament’s time on one of these amendments to the legislation to provide for a change in the parent company of the New Zealand Guardian Trust. 
It is good that this legislation is going through and I am pleased that the Parliament is dealing promptly with it today because I think on one of the three occasions in the last 7 years when the Guardian Trust was in front of Parliament the legislation took 18 months to get through the process. At least it is being dealt with more quickly this time and we can look to the future with the Order in Council process. This process is not just a rubber stamp; the Minister of Justice will be involved. The provision in the legislation requires the Minister of Justice to consult the Minister of Commerce on the matter so there are appropriate safeguards if you like for the beneficiaries of the trust. 
As the Minister explained the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. was formed in 1982 through the merger of the trust department of the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd and the South British Guardian Trust Co. Of course the current Act for the Guardian Trust states that the Promina Group is the parent company. The Act has to do that. In New Zealand trust law if a trust company conducts business with a related company and pays itself for doing that business it would be outside our trust laws because these trust administrators cannot gain—they are not allowed to profit—from the administration of their own trust. So we have to provide in law—in the legislation that provides for these trust companies—the ability for trust companies to trade or conduct business with their own parent companies and associated subsidiaries because they can actually give benefit to their beneficiaries through being able to do that. 
That is why we have these provisions in the legislation but it is crazy that each time the parent company changes the trust has to come back to Parliament to get approval for that. In fact as we look at this particular case—the Promina Group being taken over by Suncorp-Metway—it is a very major company that has now become the parent company. Suncorp-Metway has I think a market capitalisation of $19 billion. It is a very very major financial institution. I think there is absolutely no risk in respect of the beneficiaries of the trusts that are administered by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. 
The Finance and Expenditure Committee looked at whether it would be possible to pass some generic legislation that would provide for this Order in Council process for a change of parent company for all the trust companies caught up in similar provisions as the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. In fact when we had a look at this we found that there are actually four trust companies in New Zealand that have these specific Acts of Parliament: the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd; the Trustees Executors Ltd which was formerly called TOWER Trust; Perpetual Trust Ltd and PGG Trust Ltd which operate together; and the New Zealand Permanent Trustees Co. Ltd. Those four companies have these kinds of specific pieces of legislation. 
We were advised at select committee that one of these four—the Trustees Executors Ltd formerly TOWER Trust—already has in its legislation an Order in Council provision similar to that going into this New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. legislation. One of the four already has the Order in Council process so it does not have to come back to Parliament. The New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. once we pass this legislation will have the Order in Council provision so it will not have to come back to Parliament. That leaves just two of the four trust companies. One of them I gather is largely Government-owned so it is not likely to have its parent company change. That leaves only one trust company. It may well be that this Parliament will yet have to address a further private bill should the parent company of that trust change. 
I think Parliament is doing the sensible thing this time. It is a shame this was not done in 2005. When the New Zealand Guardian Trust was last in front of Parliament National recommended this change. The National members of the Commerce Committee actually recorded a minority view following the select committee consideration arguing that it should be an Order in Council process and it is good that Labour has finally agreed. The Order in Council process is robust. It does not leave beneficiaries of the trust at risk. 
I am pleased that this legislation now means that the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. will not have to go to that huge expense or that time. Members should not forget that this bill not only changes the name of the parent company but actually validates the transactions that have taken place between the new parent company Suncorp-Metway and the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. since May 2007. There have been 9 months of transactions that the bill validates since May last year when the change in parent company actually happened. 
All in all this is good legislation. National is pleased that the bill has the Order in Council provision. We will not have to address this for the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. in the future and that is why National is supporting the bill. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise supports the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. I cannot add anything to the contribution of the honourable Minister Judith Tizard or to that of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith either. Between those two experienced members the full story has been laid out. It is clearly a nonsense that we have to come back to this House each time there is a change in this company and the simple amendment being proposed makes sure that we do not have to do that. As the previous speakers have said this is not some penny ha’penny outfit; this is a company with robust procedures around it and it is in good hands. So without further ado I say that New Zealand First supports the bill and I will leave it to other speakers. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 First of all in response to the member who shouted across the House at me: “We’d like to hear you talk about the WTO.” I say that since I am not sure that I am capable of speaking for anything less than 2 hours on that subject the old phrase “Be careful what you wish for.” came to mind. 
On this occasion the danger of my speaking even up to my allotted time limit is zero as my knowledge of this issue is—I will be kind to myself—less than encyclopaedic. However I have looked at the issue and it seems to be a very sensible thing for this Parliament to do. It is obviously not a partisan issue; it is supported by the parties concerned. Of course it has become what seems to be if not quite a hardy annual a very frequent affair for this Parliament to address. Its purpose I think we understand is to validate the transactions of this very important financial institution in terms of its dealings with its new parent company and to try to change the procedure for the reasons that my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith very succinctly pointed out in order to try to avoid so much of Parliament’s time in the future being taken up with this type of procedure. 
Nevertheless it is important that things are done properly. There is as far as National members can see—and obviously as far as other members can see—absolutely nothing remotely dodgy about this. It is simply that the normal provisions of trust law in this country are necessarily conservatively drafted—they have to be; they are protecting the assets of thousands of New Zealanders who use this trust or other trusts who quite often are quite vulnerable New Zealanders. 
We have just seen the collapse of the finance companies and how would we describe that? On a nationwide scale it is frankly entirely manageable simply because the assets of the finance companies were I think only 5 percent of the total banking sector. But I do not think the individuals involved would want to hear anyone say what I have just said because it has been an absolute disaster for them individually. I have always had the view that the phrase caveat emptor though it is necessarily the only practical way to proceed in these financial matters is as cold as charity and makes assumptions of people’s knowledge that are probably completely unrealistic. The law governing the actions of these trusts is necessarily conservative and we would not want to change that but for this particular reason because of the change of parent company we need to change the legislation through Parliament and validate those transactions. 
I am glad that the Government has now agreed with the proposal that National put forward the last time this occurred. It will I think expedite this matter. It is a reflection I suppose of the pace of corporate activity—mergers and acquisitions are happening not only in our country but around the world at an extraordinary pace. Although I suppose many New Zealanders may think that Suncorp-Metway is nothing more than a rugby stadium it is I believe one of the five or six largest financial institutions in Australia. 
I also reflect on the fact that the change in the name over the course of the last 30 years from South British Guardian Trust Co. to Suncorp-Metway tells us a lot about the distance we have travelled culturally. It is fascinating that our predecessors would have used the phrase “South British” as a winning name but there we have it. We have moved on I suppose as a country. 
The legislation seems eminently sensible and technical and National is very happy to support it so we can get on with rather more important business—or so I hope. Thank you. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The concept of guardianship is well known in Maoridom. In fact we live by the concept of kaitiaki where there is spiritual and cultural care and guardianship of others. It is something that is derived from one’s whakapapa and one has a responsibility to look after things. We also refer to our taniwha tipu which act as protectors over water land and other things. This is represented in our carvings. So it is an important concept to us. 
It is with these thoughts in mind that the Maori Party comes to consider the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. The bill amends the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982 to enable the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. to establish business with its present parent company Suncorp-Metway Ltd. The Guardian Trust is our largest independent investment funds manager and has been in existence since 1859. Twenty-three years later it merged with the South British Guardian Trust then later in 1916 it merged with the New Zealand Insurance Trust Department. One could say that mergers are fairly common in this line of business. 
Suncorp-Metway is an Australian banking insurance and financial services company. The company boasts over 7 million customers with approximately 223000 shareholders. Numbers are all well and good but the central issue concerning the Maori Party is what these groups do and what relevance this work has to tangata whenua to Maori. Does the notion of “guardian” as understood in this bill bear any relationship to the concepts and philosophies in Te Ao Marama? 
The work of the Guardian Trust is pretty much as expected—wills trusts mortgages estate administration enduring power of attorney property finance financial planning—and so it goes on. But there are a few interesting features. The Guardian Trust is a major supporter of the Cancer Society and it has recently been funding research with the Canterbury Respiratory Research Group into the key causes of asthma and allergies in young children. 
That is a good start given the disproportionately high statistics for Maori in all these areas. It has never been clear to me why Maori are 18 percent more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than non-Maori but nearly twice as likely as non-Maori to die from cancer. One would hope that the Guardian Trust in supporting key advocacy groups will advance our knowledge in unpacking such inequities. Similarly I must ask why it is that although the prevalence of paediatric asthma in New Zealand is similar for Maori and non-Maori Maori children have more severe symptoms when they present to the health provider require hospitalisation twice as often as non-Maori and are less likely to receive adequate asthma education or to be prescribed preventive medication. All these questions of the day may of course now be answered through the support of the Guardian Trust. 
There was a third area of support and I think this is important to refer to when thinking of the Guardian Trust. This is in relation to its trusteeship role of the Palmerston North Maori Reserve as a trust under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The Palmerston North Maori Reserve Trust owners are descendents of the Taranaki people who settled in Wellington in the early 1800s. The Guardian Trust and 10 managing trustees appointed by beneficial owners are motivated by the primary objective of retaining and growing the core asset as well as being risk-averse in terms of decision making. 
All these examples of the role of the Guardian Trust are by way of background to our support for this bill. We believe that there are some potential gains through lower costs and increased financial stability through the merger of Guardian Trust with Promina Group and Suncorp-Metway. If these changes are able to assist the work programme of the Guardian Trust in protecting the ongoing welfare of the people then clearly nothing should stand in their way. 
Finally I make a brief comment on clause 5(4) of the bill as it relates to the conclusions of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This provision authorises the Governor-General by Order in Council to amend the principal Act whenever there is a new parent company without the need for legislative amendments. The issues of the day that this House could be debating include another series of police raids on Tuhoe the revelation that the district health boards have committed 182 serious mistakes involving patients the current situation in which so many New Zealanders are caught in the midst of a severe housing unaffordability crisis or even the fact that the vital mechanism for maintaining our electricity supply the Cook Strait cable is old unreliable and in need of major repair. Instead the House has been debating whether a trustee company can change its parent company. It just defies reason. 
We do however support the bill in its final readings and welcome the initiative taken to move the responsibility for parliamentary scrutiny of the amendments included here to the approval of the Regulations Review Committee—a committee that I can vouch to this House will do a proper job and give proper scrutiny as it does with every item that comes before it on the table. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in rather unusual circumstances. It is the first time I have spoken in a combined second and third reading of a bill—the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill 2007. I know that we are allocated normally 10 minutes for the second reading and 10 minutes for the third reading but as Mr Groser recently said I would struggle. On a bill that takes probably 3 or 4 minutes to read it is hard to speak for a combined 20 minutes. However I acknowledge the previous speaker Dr Pita Sharples who brought a whole raft of new material into the debate on this bill. I listened with interest and I also acknowledge that we were hosted by his iwi the other day and had a very very enjoyable time. I acknowledge the Hon Judith Tizard and the background that she gave recently to the private bill in her name. It covered all aspects and I thank the Minister. 
On Tuesday we received the message from the Governor-General to facilitate this bill through the House—a speedy passage—and I think we should also acknowledge the Business Committee for making this happen. I acknowledge the sentiments of the previous speaker in regard to the time that we are spending on this bill. Yes they are technical matters and yes they have to happen but in a legal sense there are much larger issues that the House could be debating. 
There is one part of this amendment bill that grates with me—though I appreciate and understand the reasons for it—and that is the retrospective nature of the bill. It legitimises the formal ownership of the Guardian Trust with the Promina Group back to 20 March 2007. That retrospectivity grates with me. I fully understand and appreciate why that is and in a legal context we could argue about it forever but this Parliament should get its act together and predict and have a schedule of bills that will mature rather than coming to a crisis point as in this instance—I guess it is not a crisis but we are doing something retrospectively. Let us try to do something proactive. 
That brings me to the point that the previous time this bill was before the House— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It’s hardly a crisis. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: —and I would appreciate the honourable member hearing me out as I politely listened to her history lesson on this bill—not only the National Party in its minority view but also the entire committee noted that in 2001 the Minister of Justice informed the previous Commerce Committee that such a review would be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and completed by mid-2003. That review is now long overdue. That was at the previous time this matter was before the House. I am not here to score petty points or anything like that but I think this Parliament certainly needs to look at its processes procedures and priorities. 
I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we had quite a discussion about perhaps having a generic bill to avoid having to bring a bill like this to Parliament every time a trust wanted to change some definitions its name etc. We got quite excited about the prospect of a bit of a legislative burn-up and we were going to make a change. Sadly the officials won on the day and basically told us that it simply could not happen but I would quite like to take up that challenge in about 9 months’ time. 
I noted the honourable member’s background and it was quite hard to keep up with the changes. I have to declare an interest because I probably had some relationship with the Royal and SunAlliance group in 1993—I think I did so I will put that on the record as I speak about the new company. 
I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its cooperation and the eminent common sense it applied in getting this bill through when the Commerce Committee did not. I make one further point that is noted in the explanatory note. It is true and fair for all stakeholders investors and policyholders to know and understand totally—and to have the backing of this institution—that all the definitions as they understand them are correct and are backed up by legislation. As we have seen recently in the financial crises around the world many huge organisations such as banks insurance companies reinsurers etc. have suffered major financial losses—in some instances to the surprise of their shareholders investors and policyholders—when they were not able to access full and total information or perhaps they were led up the garden path in some instances. I do not for a moment suggest that that is what is going on here. 
I go right back to the start and say that yes we fully support this bill and the speeding up of its passage through Parliament with a combined second and third reading. It should be encouraged. National supports this bill. 
Bill read a second and a third time. 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We finally come to the Committee stage of this member’s bill after a long long delay because of the very fragile numbers the Government has on it. First I want to raise concerns about the preamble that is proposed. If there is any debate around New Zealand’s resource laws it is that they lack the clarity we need to provide for clearer direction to the courts. Yet the preamble to the bill has the words: “this land is a fish” for example. I would like to know from somebody how the passing of a law that states: “this land is a fish” will improve the quality of the management of our environment. 
National’s concern about this bill is that it is all about politics and not about improving the quality of New Zealand’s resource management laws. We already have the extensive Resource Management Act. We have national policy statements regional policy statements and district policy statements and now this bill will require local area plans. How does having five tiers of wordy documents somehow result in better management of a precious area like the Waitakere Ranges? 
When I read through decisions of the Environment Court and when I read through the extensive decisions that are made by regional and district councils I say over and over again that there is a pleading for Parliament to be clearer about its intent. When I read the pages of the preamble about the history of the Waitakere Ranges I ask how that possibly provides greater clarity in the law. How does saying: “the land is a fish” which would be perfectly proper to say on a marae or in terms of a religious context provide greater clarity? I cannot believe that we are intending to put into law the sort of nonsense rhetoric that we see in the preamble to this member’s bill. Can any member opposite tell me how the courts are to make sense of a statement like: “this land is a fish”? Do members in the Labour Party really believe that the land is a fish? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I think the member said something about spiders once. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Darren Hughes interjects and says something about spiders. Well that would be more sensible than some of the things that Labour is proposing to put into the law. 
I simply plead with this House and say that if we are to improve the country’s environmental performance—and the report on the state of the environment shows we have some big challenges—then this sort of law will not somehow result in an improvement. I tell the House that it just adds to the bureaucracy. It just adds to all the frustrations that New Zealanders feel about this current Government. It adds to all the concern about a whole lot of bureaucrats and a whole lot of council officials having a word game at the expense of New Zealand taxpayers and ratepayers. We need good concise environmental laws that say what we mean and mean what we say. But that is not what we see in the preamble to this bill. 
This bill makes worse all the problems and concerns that New Zealanders have about the Resource Management Act. When the Ministry for the Environment came before the Local Government and Environment Committee it said it did not support this bill and did not support this sort of piecemeal approach to the reform of the resource management laws. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Cullen wants me to digress and talk about the mess that this Government has made of the Ministry for the Environment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Dail Jones. 
Hon Members 
: Welcome back! 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you very much. I have some experience with the Waitakere Ranges area having been the constituency member of Parliament for a good part of it for 9 years a long long time ago; from 1975 to 1984. Having lived or worked in the area from 1975 to 2008 I am very familiar with the area involved. I went to the meetings on this bill held by the Auckland Regional Authority a meeting at the Bruce McLaren Hall and a meeting at the Henderson High School. I was able to speak at the first two meetings but at the Henderson High School meeting run by the Greens’ organisations they would not permit me to speak even though they knew I was there. That gives some indication of the attitude of the promoters of this bill including Mayor Harvey who was present at the time. 
The Waitakere Ranges park is 17000 hectares. It is safe. Nothing can happen to the Waitakere Ranges park because it is owned by Aucklanders. All of us in Auckland own it; it was bought by Aucklanders over time in the traditional way. The founders of Auckland bought it piecemeal acre by acre as it was then and now 17000 hectares are owned by Aucklanders. So no changes can be made to that park unless Aucklanders and the Auckland Regional Council want that to happen and I am sure it will not happen because Aucklanders own it and that is made clear in recital (6) of the preamble if the member in charge of the bill wants to read it. 
What this bill is all about is the 10000 hectares in private ownership. This bill is socialism by stealth. This bill is a takeover of property rights of individuals on the fringes of the Waitakere Ranges park which as I say is protected. This bill is an affront to the rule of law because what this Parliament is doing in an arbitrary way is taking away the rights of 21000 people who live outside the park and who own 10000 hectares. I say to the Maori Party members: “Your people own land outside the park. Are you prepared to deprive them of their ownership rights?” which is what this bill does. I heard a lot of fuss and bother about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill—and that is what the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill does. It takes away the rights of ownership of Maori people who live in that 10000 hectares and I ask the Maori people to think about this. [ 
Interruption 
] The other 17000 is owned by all of us in the Auckland area. Dr Sharples owns it; I own it; we all own it. 
The history from a Maori viewpoint is very interesting. In 1823 the Kawerau people were destroyed by a visit from Ngapuhi. Only about one or two people were left after one of those raids in the musket wars and the remnants of the Kawerau people were protected by the Bethel family. If it had not been for the Bethel family there would have been no Kawerau people in the area. [ 
Interruption 
] That is absolutely true and if the member wants to learn the history of the area he will find that it was a European family the Bethels who saved the Kawerau people. 
In speaking to the preamble I say that this bill is the theft of land that is not ranges land at all; it is housing land. As we see if we look at the photographs from the 1950s the land was rather barren and if we look at photographs taken in 2007 we see that it is built up in beautiful parks developed by owners who care for that land. They have built houses they have grown trees they have grown estates and this land is beautiful now outside the ranges area because people care for it and have shown how much they regard it. Yet this Parliament is telling these people who have cared for the land: “We don’t care what you do; we’re going to take if from you.” It will be done in a stealthy way and we are telling them: “The Resource Management Act is to be ignored and you’re to be treated differently from other New Zealanders. You’re to be picked on.” This legislation is a gross breach of the rule of law and New Zealand First will be opposing it. I have some amendments to put forward to protect the housing needs of people and will be speaking to this bill again. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to be suspended while we take Ann Hartley’s valedictory speech and then we will proceed back into Committee after that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Therefore it is in accordance with a decision of the Business Committee for Ann Hartley to make a valedictory statement at 5 o’clock. I will report progress and ask to sit again presently. 
Debate interrupted. 
Valedictory Statement 
ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. It is a pleasure to give my valedictory speech before our first woman Speaker. Madam Speaker it has been a delight and pleasure to serve as a presiding officer with you. I acknowledge you and thank you for all your support. I say to our Deputy Speaker Clem Simich that I have enjoyed working with you over the last 5 years and I thank you. To my bench mate H V Ross Robertson—“Spot”—what can I say? We have shared a good close working relationship and we have had a lot of fun. I do not know whom he will tell now about how fast he runs every day—but thank you. 
I thank our Clerk Mary Harris and all the support staff who contribute to the operation of Parliament. I have spent a lifetime with involvement in politics and community affairs. The last 8 years serving in the Helen Clark/Michael Cullen - Labour led Government have been the high point of my working life. 
When I look back to 1999 I recall that it was a daunting task to rebuild New Zealand in so many areas. Throughout New Zealand investment in infrastructure had been neglected—in hospitals schools tertiary institutions early childhood centres railways public transport roads prisons and defence. It is somewhat ironic that it always seems to be the lot of any incoming Labour Government to re-equip our defence forces. 
We can add to that the social devastation throughout our communities. There was a 7.6 percent unemployment rate and 410000 people were on benefits. There were charges for public hospitals as well as high doctors’ fees and prescription charges. The minimum wage was $7 an hour or $4.20 if one was under 20. The Employment Contracts Act decimated our workplaces and there were appalling health and safety conditions for ordinary workers declining real wages and the demolishing of social housing stock not to mention a superannuation scheme that was unsustainable. 
When I look back on the Labour-led Government’s achievements over these years I see throughout our communities the fruits of our hard work and commitment. Schools have upgraded buildings and new halls which were delivered by Trevor Mallard’s excellent school property policies. One of the personal joys for me was our early childhood partnership policy. It has delivered superb new premises to a local Beachhaven Samoan group after those families had been meeting in grotty premises like garages for 12 years. Now we have 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds plus a professional early childhood teaching service that offers children a great start in life. 
We have invested right across the education sector from early childhood to tertiary and that included the restoration of the apprenticeship system. The commonest comment one used to hear around the community from mums and dads grandparents and aunts and uncles was about the decimation of the apprenticeship system. In response Labour has created 14500 Modern Apprenticeships. 
In the area of health one constantly hears feedback about the affordable doctors’ fees and prescription charges. A mother told me recently that she used to have to choose which prescription she picked up for her family. At $3 a prescription she can now afford the medications her doctor prescribes. The services that have been extended at North Shore Hospital including improved mental health services and facilities the new obstetric wards the recently opened cardiac ward and the extension to the orthopaedic wards along with the new Waitakere Hospital all add up to a huge increase in access to secondary health services for local people. This is not just stories and figures; this is verified by the New York - based Commonwealth Fund research institution which rates New Zealand health services up with the best in the world. 
Two weeks ago I was very proud to be with our Prime Minister when she opened the North Shore busway. These two bus lanes carry the equivalent passenger capacity of five motorway lanes and represent a real investment in public transport. In my own backyard of Northcote the new motorway on-ramps under construction include a dedicated bus lane that will be completed by early 2009. North Shore people enjoy all the new links through the central motorway junction and the huge investment in the new motorway from Albany to Hobsonville. Workers tell me they are saving at least 20 minutes a day on this route—a $500 million investment in the North Shore alone compared with not one dollar in the 1990s. 
When I was campaigning in 1999 it was very sad to hear stories from workers about the fact that their pay and conditions had been consistently and unilaterally cut and their rights had been stripped away. Today under the Labour-led Government they have better labour laws better health and safety protection better wages better conditions and more family-friendly workplaces including 14 weeks’ paid parental leave and 4 weeks’ annual leave. 
None of these achievements would have been possible without the financial stewardship of Michael Cullen. Labour’s stable economic management has opened up opportunities during the first three terms of our Government that previous generations of Labour MPs could have only dreamed of. The growth and wealth created by 377000 new jobs low unemployment and 150000 fewer people on benefits has meant that we could apply resources to rebuilding New Zealand. Now I can look people in the eye and say “Yes your superannuation is secure.” because Labour has created the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The fact that over 450000 New Zealanders are investing in KiwiSaver adds to our overall financial security. 
Underpinning the progress we have made economically and socially has been the leadership Helen Clark has given to celebrating our New Zealand identity. We have so much to celebrate. Understanding our history some of which is painful is important in allowing us to move forward. The early promise of partnership with Maori was not fulfilled. However over recent times New Zealanders are realising how much we all have to gain by working together and genuinely valuing the legacy Maori have gifted to us all. I always feel humble when Treaty legislation is passed in our Parliament. The Maori spirit which is encompassed in that legislation is one of generosity love forgiveness and the honouring of the place we call home. 
New Zealand’s identity is also a Pacific identity. Pacific people have contributed so much to New Zealand’s development. It is wonderful to see us now celebrating that contribution in so many different ways. In a couple of weeks hundreds of thousands of people will gather for the annual Pasifika Festival at Western Springs. To develop an inclusive society we must genuinely reach out to others and this is epitomised by the leadership Helen Clark has given through the Asia-Pacific Interfaith Dialogue which is about building understanding across cultures and faiths. This reinforces to new migrants settling in New Zealand that we do not just talk about building an inclusive nation; we take decisive action to do just that. 
There are many facets of an MP’s work and one I have enjoyed is the select committee process a vital part of our democracy. The work is very satisfying and has real parliamentary participation from all parties. During my 5 years on the Local Government and Environment Committee it was a pleasure to work with our chair Jeanette Fitzsimons. We had a huge legislative programme including the 2002 Local Government Act the benefits of which I am now seeing as a North Shore city councillor. This legislation introduced development levies which has meant that there is a much fairer sharing of the huge infrastructural costs faced by ratepayers. Our committee was responsible for the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act. Those beautiful forests are preserved for everyone and I can say to my grandchildren that I played a part in preserving their heritage. 
Closer to home the former defence land at Fort Cautley in Devonport is now a stunning coastal reserve. It was rescued from certain development by Helen Clark and our colleague the late Helen Duncan who campaigned in the North Shore electorate in 1999 to secure the land for everyone. Helen Duncan would have been delighted to know that only a couple of weeks ago over 2000 people enjoyed free movies at this park courtesy of the North Shore City Council. 
We enacted Steve Chadwick’s smoke-free environments legislation which was passed by a very small majority but now everyone lays claim to the smoke-free environment they enjoy in bars and restaurants etc. You did well Steve and I am delighted you are now the Minister of Conservation. 
It was a privilege to work under the leadership of Lynne Pillay to pass the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill thus contributing to a safer environment for all children. The recent inquiry into victims’ rights by the Justice and Electoral Committee has seen our recommendations adopted by Annette King the Minister of Justice and I say well done to Nandor. 
As a person with a background and involvement in community development I am constantly reinforced in the view that the most enduring changes occur in society when they are owned and implemented by the community. A project was launched in our community in 2002 by the Hon Phil Goff. It was called the multi-agency strategic team—MAST. This project is about reducing youth crime and helping at-risk people avoid a path of crime. Community coordinator Jill Nerheny and two skilled youth workers Peter Wolf and Phil Squires worked together with schools residents police and community organisations to achieve an excellent reduction in youth crime. Seventy-eight percent of young people referred to the programme did not go on to reoffend. That is a great result. 
I would especially like to thank my colleagues Maryan Street and Darien Fenton our dynamic Labour north team. I would especially like to thank Mark Gosche for his leadership of the Auckland caucus. To all the Labour supporters and activists in the Northcote electorate and throughout the Labour north area I say that we have shared a lot of fun and hard work together and I thank you for your commitment. To our staff who have worked in the Birkenhead office Karen Logan Trish Hall Barbara Chapman Lisa Shepherd Enzo and Gina Giordarni and Chris Ball I say thank you. Your dedication and compassion for the people whom we serve has been very special. To my former executive secretary whom I worked with for over 8 years Helen Kennelly I say a sincere thank you. Mark Burton is fortunate to have an executive secretary of Helen’s calibre. I thank you Janina for your work over the last few months. 
To the many people in Parliament whom I have worked with or who have assisted me in my duties as an MP I say thank you. We all know the contribution our families make to our work as members of Parliament. I simply could not have done this job without the love and support of my husband Maurice. You have always been there for me and this has made the difference. Michael Joe Paul Piupiu Ryan Louie Tricia and John I thank you for all your love and support. 
In conclusion I extend my best wishes to all members of Parliament. I say to my Labour colleagues that I know Labour will go from strength to strength because they believe in New Zealand and are passionate about having a country where everyone can participate in a fair and prosperous society. Thank you. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will make a small correction to the answer I gave to question No. 11 this afternoon. I described the woman whom I used as an example in my answer as being in receipt of an invalids benefit; in fact it was a sickness benefit. 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Preamble ( 
continued 
) 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take a brief call in support of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I acknowledge and thank my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay the member in whose name this bill has been brought forward. I acknowledge the very many people who have gone before to bring this bill to the House today. 
Work on this bill started some 30 years ago—30 years ago—when the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt Tony Randerson now Justice Randerson and other members of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society recognised that Auckland was growing fast and creeping stage by stage into the beautiful unique area that we know as the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. They had a vision then that if our law did not catch up with the pace of change and if it did not find some way of bringing together the long-term needs of future generations with the short-term pressures of subdivision and property development then we would all be the poorer—we would all be the poorer. 
This is absolutely the right thing for this Parliament to support for several reasons. Firstly it is an expression of the national significance and the nationwide uniqueness of this area not just because it has beautiful bush not just because it has significant biodiversity but because it is one of those very rare gems of a natural ecosystem that is directly proximate to a major and growing urban city and in that it is relatively unique. This bill is the right thing to support because it breaks new ground in dealing with the problem of incremental effects—the fact that each consent assessed on its own may be reasonable but the combined effect of consent after consent being granted is such as to lead to an irreversible degradation in our natural heritage and the amenity values of the area. 
I welcome my colleague Dail Jones and tell him it is good to see him back in the House. He raised the issue that this bill would somehow abridge private property rights and would be socialism by stealth. I would like to think so but I doubt that 81 percent of Aucklanders are in favour of socialism by stealth. In a scientific poll 81 percent of Aucklanders voted in favour of this bill as did 77 percent of Waitakere residents. It does not trammel any existing property rights nor does it change in significant measure the consenting process. What does it do? It ensures that the consenting process takes place with a set of objectives and a legal framework that provide for the long term as well as the short and that is absolutely the right thing to do. 
I said that this bill has been a long time coming and I have acknowledged some of the region’s tipuna who have supported it over many years. Let me mention some others. I acknowledge the good work of Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki who have been wonderful kaitiaki of this area and have engaged with local councils and whose support for this bill is vested now in the Supplementary Order Paper that our colleagues in the Maori Party have put forward as well as in their earlier consultation with the proponents of the bill. 
I am happy to say that this issue was one of the first regional issues I embraced as a first-time candidate in 1998. In my first campaign in 1999 I travelled to the UK to look at the British national park system and at areas of unique national importance and I brought some of that learning back into the discussion with my local and regional authority colleagues working of course with my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay. 
This bill has been a long time coming because it has been the subject of extensive local consultation over many many years. It has broken ground in cooperation between territorial authorities and the regional authority which have all stood behind this bill. If anybody was in any doubt about whether supporting the bill was the right thing for this Parliament to do I simply ask them to reflect upon the fact that the processes of local democracy operating freely and through their democratic system have seen all of those local representatives join together to bring this bill to the House. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill which is being promoted by the Waitakere City Council. First I will address the way in which the community has had to deal with this issue. Although differing opinions are a good thing and it is good to come at things from different angles there is absolutely no doubt that this bill has split the community to its detriment. That is a fact. The member speaking previously David Cunliffe spoke about surveys being put out that show 81 percent support it but we need to ask what question the people answered on that survey. Is there any doubt from members of the public living in Waitakere that they want to see those ranges protected? There is none. I have not yet met one person who does not want that protection. Certainly members of Parliament from this side of the Chamber can stand proudly and say they wish to see those ranges protected. 
The preamble to this bill talks a lot about what those ranges mean not just to the Waitakere area but also to the wider Auckland area in general. Yes for those of us who live there and look at the ranges we do think they are jolly special. The National Party stands up and says that if we really think the ranges are as special as that then we should protect them and we should give them the highest protection in the land by turning them into a national park. There are no national parks north of Taupo and if we are serious about seeing the Waitakere area truly protected then there is no greater protection that we could give the ranges and the regional park than to turn the area into a national park. That is what the National Party puts on the table. It is not the first time we have said publicly that we think that idea should go to the New Zealand Conservation Authority and that it should be given due consideration. 
But this bill affects all those people who live in the area. The population was 21000 in 2005 I say to Mr Jones although I think it is more than that now. I do not have an exact number at this stage but I think we are talking about significantly more people than that. As a consequence this bill is putting a caveat over those people’s land and if it is not then why do we have the bill? It is as simple as that. If this bill will not affect detrimentally what people can do with their own land then why do we have the bill? 
Let us put a few other facts on the table at this stage as well. This area is not being carved up willy-nilly for town houses and medium-density housing let alone high-density housing. This area already has very strict rules about what can happen and the way in which it can happen. There are already rules about the land within the heritage area affected by this bill. People cannot just build a house right next door and they are restricted in what they can do with their property. Communities within the Waitakere Ranges have spent not just months but years working on their land area management plans. They have consulted talked and met and they have been in consultation with the councils and have decided what is best for their area. And now we have legislation coming along that says doing all that is not enough. That is fundamentally wrong. 
What can happen in the land affected by this bill at the moment—the land mass and the boundaries that we are talking about—is incredibly limited. There are families on 8 hectares who would like to build another home for their families. That is the sort of stuff we are talking about; it is not mass land development. We are not talking about subdivisions like Henderson Heights where I live and places like that where some of us choose to live. We are not talking about areas like that. In the argument on this bill over the years we have managed to have hysteria around mass housing and subdivisions and there has been talk about the land being unable to cope with those things but that simply is not true. 
We are talking about development in an area such as Piha for example. I think I heard from the council just recently that something like only six sections are for sale now within the Piha area. The development that can go on in an area like that is fairly limited. I would be one who would stand up to say that if we were to put any caveats on property then perhaps that is the sort of area where we might do it. We might say that we do not want a lot more housing going into an area like that purely because of the way the land is. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. I note that the previous speaker acknowledged the Waitakere City Council but I think it is important that we acknowledge the other two councils the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council. I congratulate them on their vision on the extraordinary consultation and community involvement they carried out in support of this bill and on their ongoing support and energy which has brought this bill before the House. I also acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee led by Steve Chadwick and the constructive recommendations made by the majority of that committee which has brought this bill forward and recommended that it proceed before the Committee today. 
I will speak very briefly about the comments made by Nick Smith because personally I found them quite offensive. I would never dream of insulting the Committee by my Maori pronunciation but I would like to give the translation of the words in the bill. The preamble states: “Listen all of the assembled tribes to this talk of olden times this land is a fish. The person who fished it up was Maui. I will remain here on it indeed until I die:”. That was a Waitakere chief at the Kohimarama conference in 1860. It is acknowledging feeling passion and—even back in 1860—the desire to keep Waitakere and those beautiful ranges as they are and as they should be. 
My good friend David Cunliffe acknowledged all those people who came before us—I think three decades ago—and really worked hard and attempted to get a bill such as this before the House. It was not successful. I will not talk too much to that; I will wait for the third and final reading stage. But I really want to acknowledge that this bill was supported by many. Dail Jones entered the House and hit the ground running slightly losing the plot but being enthusiastic nonetheless. 
In terms of Aucklanders I agree with him in one place; Aucklanders own the regional park through grants and amazing goodwill. The Waitakere Ranges Regional Park is something we hold with great pride. I completely and utterly agree with Dail Jones on that. It is quite mischievous to suggest that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park and certainly it is a red herring before this House. But I do not agree with Mr Jones that overwhelmingly Aucklanders do not support the heritage area. 
I will talk very briefly about the name of this bill. David Cunliffe and I along with many regional counsellors and officials plus iwi representatives were on the committee a working party that looked at this bill and really worked towards drawing it up initially. We decided not to call it a park because of the perception that a park is something that is publicly owned. That is why it is called a heritage area. Every single consultation and poll taken with the people of Auckland and outside Auckland overwhelmingly supported the principle of having a heritage area. 
Paula Bennett 
: What was the question? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member keeps asking what the question was. The question was whether they wanted more protection for the heritage area. The mistake that happened is that unfortunately the likes of poor old Nick Smith rode in one day and decided there were a lot of votes in opposing the bill not taking into account what many of the residents and ratepayers groups wanted or what the three regional councils wanted after their consultation. He completely overrode that. Basically I am very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. I do not agree with Paula Bennett that it has split the community. Misinformation splits the community. When people had the appropriate and real information they supported it. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The first thing I want to reflect on is the valedictory speech given earlier by Ann Hartley. I have to say it was the most political valedictory speech I have ever heard. It was a disgrace. 
I will move on to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I say first of all that the fact that the member Lynne Pillay was talking about 83 percent of the scientific poll that was carried out by somebody asking people whether they would like more protection for a heritage area is a bit like someone in the Labour caucus being asked whether they are opposed to Helen Clark. It is the same sort of question. 
Nathan Guy 
: Do you want more protection from her? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes that is right. I mean what a nonsense question. It is crazy. For Lynne Pillay to sit here in this Chamber and suggest that on the basis of that “scientific poll” we should support the bill she has to be kidding. 
I want to come to something I consider to be very serious. I want those members who support this bill to listen very carefully—particularly my colleagues from the Maori Party who are honourable people. I make the point that when I went into the first hearing of the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill I said to the officials: “Can you please tell me why we are doing this? Obviously we are doing something extra over and above the Resource Management Act that cannot be accommodated under the Act.” The officials said no that the bill just develops the Resource Management Act but does not do anything extra. So I kept asking them: “Well if it does not do anything extra then why are we doing it?”. I wanted to know. There was no answer other than: “Well we just need it to be there so people know that it is there. But it does not do anything extra.” 
I constantly kept asking for the reason why we have this bill if it does not do anything more than can be done under the Resource Management Act. After about 3 months— 
Mark Blumsky 
: Longer. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am not sure how much longer it was but I have witnesses here to the answer. Finally I had a concession from the officials that actually yes the bill did go further than the Resource Management Act. They had lied to the select committee—deliberately lied. 
Even further down at the local government conference last year I was talking to the Mayor of Waitakere City Bob Harvey. I asked him: “Do you realise your worship that your officials lied to the select committee?”. He said he did not believe me and that it was not true. I said that he should come over and we would talk to some of them. So we went and talked to some of his officials who were there and I said to them— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point I make is that it is an accepted understanding in this House that we do not call members liars. It is grossly unfair for somebody to accuse officials of lying when they are not in a position to defend themselves. I think it is inappropriate for the member to refer to officials in that way inside this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I just have a query Mr Carter. Were you referring to anyone in the House? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No I was not referring to any members of Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I want to make it clear that it was the council’s officials not the parliamentary officials who misled the select committee. It was not our parliamentary staff; it was the officials for the local authority. That is what I was saying. 
I said to the mayor Bob Harvey that he should come and talk to his officials and ask them whether this bill will do more than the Resource Management Act can do and ask whether they had told the select committee that it would not. Bob Harvey himself asked the officials whether they had told the select committee that the bill would not do anything more than can be accommodated in the Resource Management Act. They said: “Yes your worship we did say that.” Bob Harvey then asked whether they could confirm that the bill actually does do more than the Resource Management Act. Their answer was: “Yes your worship. That is true. We have now told the select committee that it does.” 
Those officials deliberately misled the select committee and that really makes me angry. There may well be some purpose behind this bill. There may well be some good reason why there are people who want to support it. But the one thing I will not and cannot tolerate is being misled or deliberately lied to. Quite honestly that is not acceptable. That really made me angry and it makes me angry to think that now we have other parties who support this bill on the grounds that they have been told—because they were not there—that this bill does not do any more than the Resource Management Act because it does. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Given the comments made by the speaker would it not be more appropriate for him to have those officials brought before the Privileges Committee if he seriously considers that they have lied to a select committee? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it is not a matter for us to discuss here. That is not a point of order but if you were just clarifying something then that is fine. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the preamble of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The first thing I really must do is compliment my colleague Mr John Carter on drawing the attention of the Committee to the very very loose advice that clearly some officials gave to the Local Government and Environment Committee. That in itself should be a major warning sign to the Committee. When I look at the preamble I find myself asking whether this bill is really necessary. Why are we doing this? Then I reflect on a couple of things. I reflect particularly on the comments of the newly admitted member Mr Dail Jones. I congratulate Mr Jones and welcome him back. 
Dail Jones 
: Re-admitted. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Of course—for the third time I think. Well done! He made the point that this is socialism by stealth. 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh rubbish! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Away she goes again—the member who could not even hold her seat. She is squeaking and squawking in this Chamber again instead of addressing the issues of this legislation. It was interesting to hear from the Minister who has a constituency out there. He is the bloke who is struggling with the health portfolio at the moment. It was interesting to hear him talk about socialism and say that 81 percent of Aucklanders would not accept it or something like that. That is the point. These members operate by stealth. If members read the preamble to the bill that is what they will see. 
Mr Jones made a second point which also causes me to reflect and that is that this bill is an affront to the rule of law. No legislation that is based on poor or weak advice no legislation that is an affront to the rule of law no legislation that takes away rights from people should stand in this House. It just should not happen. 
I come back to the preamble to talk about it in a little more detail. This is a preamble to a bill that has split a community. No good legislation comes from a community that is split as this one is over this legislation. The preamble is telling us that there will be more bureaucracy more rules more frustration more confusion more uncertainty and more work for those in our community who are not genuinely productive. The frustration that taxpayers and ratepayers will experience will know no bounds. This bill with its preamble does not serve the interests of either the people who live in Waitakere—which I agree is a beautiful part of New Zealand—or the people of New Zealand generally. If this Committee lets this sort of preamble stand and lets this sort of legislation stand there will be no stopping the socialists on the other side of the Chamber from trying to get every bit of New Zealand covered under this sort of legislation. 
It is not necessary and it is not wise. I would have thought that when there is no valid reason for legislation it would not be necessary. That has been made pretty plain by previous speakers on this side such as the outstanding member from out west Paula Bennett. Goodness me is she not going to deliver a lesson to the Labour Party at the coming election! It has also been made clear by my colleague John Carter. This legislation is not necessary unless there is another motive and that motive is socialism by stealth. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of this bill although I am putting forward an amendment by way of Supplementary Order Paper 141. As an independent MP I have received many representations from concerned people both for and against this bill. Many of those people have given stark and passionate evaluations of the need for this bill and its effect on their lives and on the future of the area. Consequently I have examined this bill and the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee quite closely. I have visited the area the foothills and the ranges and I have talked to concerned people—to both promoters of the bill and those who oppose it. In addition I have met with representatives of the Waitakere Pacific Board who strongly endorse the bill as well as received supportive messages from tangata whenua. 
My first impressions were that those who opposed the bill had some valid points to make. They feared for example that certain wording especially in the revised clause 13 would add to the complexity time and costs involved in gaining a consent under the Resource Management Act. They said that the bill would effectively prohibit reasonable development of their private land. On further investigation I found that such consequences were certainly not the intent of the promoters or indeed of the select committee and I was able to allay some fears by reference to new clause 10AA which clarifies the “Relationship between this Act and Resource Management Act 1991” to clause 29 “Preservation of existing rights” and the “Transitional provisions” in clause 30. 
However some sense of alarm remained amongst sections of the Waitakere community and that disquiet was coherently expressed by Mr Arnold Turner a former Environment Court judge and a man whose family members have long associations with the ranges as landowners farmers and conservationists. Mr Turner is also a former member of the Auckland Regional Authority and chairman of the regional parks committee. He expressed concern about the consequences of the bill and the possibility of ambiguity in terms of the way it was drafted. That related to the district plan and in particular to compliance with section 75 of the Resource Management Act. I know that National members give a lot of weight to Mr Turner’s views and I say that Mr Turner and other opponents such as members of the Swanson group the Structure Plan Advocates Network were passionate in their desire to see the area managed in a way that protected its values for the long term and they were prepared to negotiate constructively on possible ways of improving the bill. 
As a result of those negotiations I agreed to promote an amendment to clause 13 which I believe will improve the bill and the relationship between the bill and the district plan. It narrows the matters to be considered in assessing an application for consent to those matters that are relevant. I must say I was satisfied that there was strong consistency between the Waitakere City district plan policies and the intent and provision of this bill. The two are not in conflict and should work together very well. Their joint administration should add to the certainty and cost-effectiveness of the consent process and certainly appropriate development will obtain consent. My amendment will contribute positively I believe to achieving that outcome. 
I said “appropriate development” because from my inspection of the proposed heritage area I can see there are real constraints on the kinds of developments that are sustainable. Even in the foothills high rainfall steep slopes and unstable soil make urban development unwise. The contrast between the intensive urban development of Waitakere City and the heritage area is stark and abrupt but so is the landscape change and particularly the ability of the land to carry such development. My amendment I believe is also consistent with the views of Mr Turner whom I quote: “I confirm that the wording of the amendment is satisfactory from my point of view and if that amendment is made to clause 13 by way of a Supplementary Order Paper I will no longer have any objection to the bill.” That comment is from Mr Turner who was very much part of those who raised concerns about and objections to this bill. 
I believe that this bill is appropriate. I thank the officials of Waitakere City in particular Graeme Campbell for the way they adhered to the need to consult the community widely. I believe that that work has paid dividends by and large in terms of unifying the community despite the comments that have been made on the other side of the Chamber about splitting it. I believe that a significant majority are actually in favour of this bill and I commend it to the Committee. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Speaking to the preamble I first of all say that I believe that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has clear historic significance. I am going to refrain from personal jibes across the Chamber because I believe that the debate on this bill through this Committee stage and through the remaining readings is profoundly significant. We have to see it in context as debates are being held on iconic areas abutting urban landscapes such as the English Peak District and the Sheffield and Manchester conurbations Table Mountain and Cape Town the Blue Mountains and Sydney and the Dandenong Ranges and Melbourne—those iconic areas define those urban landscapes. 
A member opposite talked about—shock horror—socialism by stealth. I say that if we do nothing we will have the destruction of this heritage by stealth. 
Mark Blumsky 
: You’re joking! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I am not hearing the interjections from the National side of the Chamber because history will record the interjections of the narrow-minded and the short-sighted. History will record the West Auckland members Lynne Pillay David Cunliffe and Chris Carter and the Mayor of Waitakere City Council Bob Harvey and his team as the visionaries. I doubt very much whether the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt is listening to the Parliamentary feed on the Internet—I am not quite sure of the time zone difference it will be about 5.55 a.m. in morning—but if he is he would be delighted because we are now on our way to protecting one of New Zealand’s major iconic landscapes. That is what this bill is all about. 
I refer members to the notion in the preamble that “Local statutory guidance”—statutory guidance those are the words—“is considered desirable to better protect the Waitakere Ranges and their foothills and coasts in particular in relation to—(a) managing the cumulative and precedent effects of development on the landscape the desired future character and amenity of the area and the ecological and biological environment:”. This is about maintaining heritage. If we do nothing year by year month by month drip by drip there will be cases like the submitter who said he really wanted the right to do what he likes because it was his sort of superannuation fund. I am sorry but the superannuation fund that counts is the superannuation fund of heritage for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. That is the fund that counts and that is the future that counts. 
That is why this country will see the Waitakere Ranges as an iconic landscape just as the people of Sydney look upon their Blue Mountains in a similar way the people of Melbourne look upon the Dandenong Ranges in a similar way and the people of Cape Town look upon the Table Mountain and its environs in a similar way. That is why we are having quite a significant debate and discussion even on the preamble. I acknowledge the contribution that Taito Phillip Field made previously and I express appreciation from members on this side for his considered support. I acknowledge if I may that he has done some soul-searching and a lot of consultation and I think that is very valuable. 
I hope to take more calls on this bill during its readings but it is a moment of pride when we can stand up in this Chamber and actually have a very clear look at the future and frankly look beyond the horizon in terms of expediency and say that this is a very critical heritage area to be protected. What we do tonight and in the subsequent sessions is going to be reflected upon by grandchildren who live now by great-grandchildren and by history. In the future people will look back on this moment and on this Parliament and say that this bill was another significant step in saving what is absolutely a vital heritage area of national significance. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I enjoy having the chance to speak on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill before the dinner break. I wanted to speak in this part because I am hoping some of the officials are still within the precinct. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee considering this bill and it was a very long and a reasonably arduous process. For a Luddite like myself for want of a better word I am not good on the Resource Management Act at all and this bill was an education and a half on the Resource Management Act. It was also an education on how to rewrite a bill. This bill has been just about totally rewritten by the select committee. When we look at the changes that have been made we see that they are quite comprehensive and I think that the bill is better for it. The Parliamentary Counsel Office has done a sterling job on guiding us through that and I acknowledge it and the other officials who have been involved in the process. 
There is always an upside to everything. For me the upside to this one—and for this I thank the Auckland Regional Council—was that we had a stunning trip on a helicopter to view the Waitakere Ranges which is something I had never experienced. Being a Wellingtonian I did not fully appreciate the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges. They are stunning and of course they are worth protecting. I can fully understand why there is passion in the region passion in Auckland about these ranges. I was also lucky enough to be sitting beside Marian Hobbs on the helicopter. It was a good thing they had shut the door on the helicopter because there was a debate at the time about who would push whom out of the helicopter! That was the upside. 
The downside is that I have found this to be very disturbing legislation—totally. There are a number of reasons why I found this legislation very disturbing. The first is that it came before us in 2006; it is now 2008. This took a heck of a long time to get through the select committee process. In fact it took so long that I just about had to reread the papers to remind myself of a lot of the issues because it did not get the numbers to bring it to the Committee of the whole House until just the other day. This is controversial legislation. For it to sit on the Order Paper for as long as it has means there was concern about the numbers. Obviously those have been rectified but the fact that it took so long to come before the Committee was a concern. 
For me the second concern is in regard to the council activities. I am uncomfortable with the way that the local community has not picked up on this local bill as with other local bills that have come before the select committee I have been on for the last few years. I would have thought that when local bills come before us they actually have a pretty high degree of local support but I do not believe that this one has. I think that is incredibly disturbing and sad. 
There has been talk about the poll and the sponsor of the bill rabbited on beautifully about how fantastic the support was. But as the deputy chair of the committee John Carter alluded the question was a sop. When people were asked whether they supported protection no one would have said no to that. The result was a bit different from the result of the poll I heard that Labour had in its caucus and I must let people know about that. The poll on protecting the heritage area was a farce. To use that poll as the reason for assuming that the population of Waitakere supports this legislation is wrong. 
But I became most concerned about the public submissions. Picking up from the commentary on the bill we had 221 submissions with the majority coming from individuals and groups in the Waitakere area. To quote from the commentary: “Submissions were almost equally split between support for and opposition to the bill.” I repeat what I said earlier: I think it is wrong that a local bill comes from the area and has that sort of division in it. The amazing thing about this bill is that neighbours were on absolutely different sides of the fence with regard to the arguments about this bill. Neighbours were arguing with each other as to what they thought the ramifications of this bill were. That is not good local government. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Can I take this chance to congratulate the New Zealand and the English cricket teams on a great game of cricket. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 There are a few points I want to get through on the preamble and one we have much concern about really is the vagueness of the bill—the fact that it is open to interpretation—and it is the opinion of this side of the Committee that the only winners out of the whole bill will be lawyers. We will see more litigation we will see lawyers in courts and we will see them try to battle out this piece of legislation that quite frankly is not succinct and does not accomplish anything. I would like to add that I think some good people in the community have gone into this with perhaps a good intention and their intention I think has been to protect the very ranges and the heritage area that the bill lays out in the schedules. But all good intentions aside what we are dealing with in this Committee is the fact that the bill will be enacted legislation. The concern on this side is that we actually believe it will be yet another layer of bureaucracy and we will see lawyers having to interpret statements a little bit like “natural and dynamic character;” clause 8(c)(i). 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Give us examples. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Now that phrase may actually even explain the member who just interjected. We may speak about that very member and say he is natural and of a dynamic character in some way or another but do we define a piece of land that way? What does that mean? I think that in this Committee alone we could come up with 121 definitions from members of what “natural and dynamic character” actually means. Another example which we could apply to that member is “the quietness and darkness of the Waitakere Ranges” in clause 8(e). So are we concerned about bird calls? Are we concerned about cars driving through the ranges on a scenic road and heading out to Piha? 
Hon Member 
: Turn their lights out. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Should drivers turn their headlights off to protect the darkness of the ranges? Should we let only a certain cc rating of vehicle drive through the ranges so that we actually protect the quietness? As a westie I could say there is the odd person who likes to hoon it up a little. So are we actually going to start restricting the cc rating of vehicles that can run—[ 
Interruption 
] 
For those who cannot hear them I tell members that the Greens are speaking up now. I will be most interested to hear them speak on this bill because during the bill’s first reading I must say that at least Nandor Tanczos said they had some very serious concerns about it. During the first reading they raised concerns about singling out one piece of land within New Zealand and asking why one particular place was being singled out for special attention in a bill and they had real concerns about that practice being shared throughout the country. I think that concern is incredibly legitimate. 
I will give just one more example because I know that the member Shane Jones is excited about hearing one and it is a quote from clause 8(i)(ii): “the distinctive harmony pleasantness”. So to reiterate the types of things we could expect to hear in future court cases and could expect to hear time and time again will be the sorts of language around natural and dynamic character the quietness and darkness of the ranges and distinctive harmony and pleasantness. They are just three examples that are picked out quite easily from the bill and that this side of the Committee has genuine concerns about. If we debated them quite openly I think members would find there would be many different meanings from many different people. How can a piece of legislation possibly hope to legislate for that sort of language? 
When we talk about the ranges it is so easy to do the sort of “devil developers” and “eco-angels” labelling used during the submission process but quite frankly I think that that is a very naive way to try to define this argument. People on both sides have come from both sides of the argument. We certainly heard people in the submission process talking about the environment the rehabilitation of the ranges and their natural resources and the fact that people who live there and who have moved in during the last 50 or 60 years have done more in relation to the natural resources of the land than those who were there before. They are the ones who have replanted they are the ones who have looked after the land and they are the ones who have regenerated it. That is something that the Greens should take into consideration. People are not always the enemy. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 In the preamble as I have mentioned already there are clearly two areas of land being considered. One is the 17000 hectares that belong to us all in Auckland and the other is the 10000 remaining hectares. 
When one reads the preamble and looks at say recital (9) we see that it is worded in a way to give everyone fear about what is going to happen to the 17000 acres. Recital (9) suggests that it applies to the 17000 acres which of course it cannot. Recital (9) reads as follows: “The area is subject to development and urban intensification pressures.” Well that cannot apply to the 17000 hectares because it belongs to the people of Auckland and the Auckland Regional Council. Nothing can happen there. 
Recital (9) goes on to state: “These pressures are compounded by the area’s proximity to metropolitan Auckland and threaten to undermine the unique natural landscape cultural historic and community features of the area including its farming and rural character:”. In so far as the 17000 hectares is concerned its unique natural landscape and its cultural historic and community features are always protected because we in Auckland will make sure they are protected and no law is required to give them any further protection because shared ownership means that we in Auckland as ratepayers of the Auckland Regional Council will make sure that nothing will happen to that land. 
However where we are today of course is in dramatic comparison with the way in which the founders of the Auckland regional park area established it. They bought the land. As they required more land they went out and bought it. They added to it so over time the people of Auckland came to own 17000 hectares of land. Nothing can happen to it. What is the contrast today? Today instead of going out and buying the land—this additional 10000 hectares which has been in private ownership for a long time—the Waitakere City Council wants effectively to gain control as if it were the owner of the land and control the way in which people use the land. That is what I call socialism by stealth by the Waitakere City Council. The council has restricted one’s use of one’s own land. In the old days that land would have been bought but the council does not want to buy it; it wants to restrict people’s use of it. 
I have put forward a couple of amendments that make it clear that on every title in that 10000 hectares there is to be a note stating that it is subject to this bill because that will be important when one comes to sell it. Any lawyer acting for a prospective buyer will have to advise buyers: “Look I can’t tell you what is going to happen to that 10000 hectares. It is subject to this bill.” It will reduce the saleability of the land in the area. Lawyers will make $500 to $1000 a time when advising purchasers on how the land can be used. I have suggested in another amendment that it should be noted on the title because a principle of the Land Transfer Act is that one should have a clear definition of what is on one’s title. There should be a  
Gazette 
 notice stating that this land the 10000 acres is subject to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. 
If the member in charge of this bill says that it is not socialism by stealth I say “Well prove it.” Let us make everybody aware of what is happening. Let us get something registered on the titles so that everybody knows and so that everybody advising a person—and I suspect that one may be a real estate agent; there are real estate agents in the Committee—on selling a piece of land is able to say to the buyer: “Look this bill will stop you from doing additions to your house.” for example. That is what this bill will do. Because of the nature of the land owners will be prevented from putting additions on. That is why my other amendment refers to housing needs—so that it can be made quite clear that those people who live and work in the area will also be protected in respect of their housing needs. 
The bill is silent on housing needs. If a person had a family of one that rose to three and that person wanted to extend his or her house and put in a second bedroom a third bedroom or a garage this bill would prevent that person from doing that in this area. That person would have to go through an extra resource consent process to establish whether that particular extension affected the area. If the member in charge of this bill is quite clear that it is not socialism by stealth let us make sure that everybody in the area knows what is happening. Let us have it done by 30 September 2008 and let us see whether this member is returned to Parliament at the next election. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Later on I would like to speak to Part 2—I have a Supplementary Order Paper—but I would like to respond to some of the comments made about the preamble. To begin with I refer to Dr Nick Smith who opened his remarks by saying: “ ‘This land is a fish’—who believes that?” and so on. 
I am surprised that Dr Smith has not read the explanation in the bill which states that the saying was said by a chief Te Waatarauihi way back in 1860 at a conference in the Auckland area. The point is that he was making a spiritual and cultural expression relating to the occupation of the area. He used Maori mythology to do that. In these days when religion is used metaphorically and references are made to supernatural happenings I find it strange that Dr Smith would not allow a Maori reference to ownership or occupation. The whole idea of saying that the land is a fish is a reference to Maui which is a spiritual and cultural reference to the beginning of time. He is saying that his tribe has been here forever so that is the reference. I say to Dr Smith that we do not really think that the land is a fish at this time. 
There has been talk about the fact that consultation has split the people. I do not know of another bill where Maori have been so united. The tangata whenua Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara and the five marae representing the hapu of that area Reweti Haranui Kakanui Araparera and Puatahi—the whole five—are unanimous in supporting this bill and they approached me to support it. Te Kawerau-a-Maki of Tainui Waka the other major tribal interest in the area also support the bill. In addition to that the taura here the visiting Maori intertribal communities of whanau Waipareira and Hoani Waititi Marae also support the bill. So there is no division amongst Maori over this issue and I just wanted to make that point. 
I have spent some time on the Regulations Review Committee and on researching various bills for speaking in the House and the one thing that I find common to most bills is the lack of true consultation with tangata whenua. Yet in this case I do not know of a better example of consultation with tangata whenua than is evident in this bill. They are in my electorate I have a mandate to support them and I do support this bill. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call to put on the record my support for Part 1of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Unlike most members of this House I actually live in this area in the foothills of Waitakere. I have lived there for 20 years. My child went to school there. My family have grown up there. The people in my street are not rich people. They are ordinary New Zealanders who like me have chosen to live in an area that is special and has cultural historical and ecological importance. 
This area is important to all New Zealanders. I can confirm absolutely being in touch with my neighbours and having been at the meetings and other things that this bill reflects the desire of the people of my community to ensure that the magnificent Waitakere Ranges are kept for the enjoyment of future generations. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How is the National waka burning? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. May I say that I live at the working-class end of the Waitakere Ranges so I am not one of the people who have high-value very expensive properties that they might want to develop and sell for megabucks. Where I live is a wonderful area and there has been a wonderful opportunity for my neighbours and me to grow up in this area near the wonderful Te Henga/Bethells Beach where people have lived for a long long time—for 1000 years. The nearby village is Swanson. 
If people have any doubt about the importance of this bill they should go along to Swanson Road and look at the scar on the landscape caused by one developer locally. It has taken years and years and years to mend. The developer not only scarred the landscape but also polluted the waterways and put ordinary ratepayers like me to a whole lot of extra effort and money. People have had to get out and clean that pollution up. One developer thought that he or she had the right to go and screw up the landscape. 
I just want to say that I live in the Waitakere Ranges. I live in the foothills I treasure them and they are precious not only to my family and me but to my community and all of our country. 
Sue Moroney 
: They want to subdivide the Waitakere Ranges. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I know they want to subdivide them. 
David Benson-Pope 
: They want private developers to subdivide them. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is right; they want to allow developers to make huge amounts of money. I do not support that. 
My neighbours and my community do not support what the National Party wants to do. We support this bill. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Kaumatua! 
TIM GROSER 
: No I would never aspire to that title. I am speaking as a weather refugee from Wellington who for the last year and a half has lived in the Waitakere Ranges in Laingholm Drive in a regenerated kauri forest and I have never enjoyed an environment more than the environment that I am living in. I have the strong sense that this debate reminds me of the old phrase “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”. It reminds me of the phrase about people talking past each other. 
Let us be honest here: we have all become green in the last 20 years. We have all been influenced. We have not necessarily gone completely to madness as have some of the former members of the McGillicuddy Serious Party who are currently in this Parliament as representatives of the Green Party. But in one way or another in our own individual way we have all been deeply influenced by the environmental movement over the last 25 years. Part of that process is I would say a strong shared sense in this Committee and amongst the people who live in the Waitakere Ranges that the older style of suburban development is absolutely anathema. We have turned our backs on that; we will never go there again. 
As I sit in the weekends when I have time off amongst the regenerated kauri forest that I live in I am shown something that I did not understand until I went there to live which is the amazing capacity of the forest if it is given some minimal protection to regenerate itself. It is quite extraordinary. These are trees that were I assume clear-felled by our predecessors about 100 years ago and they are from guessing here 10 metres high. They have not developed the breadth and the girth of the magnificent kauri that have been left untouched by exploitation but they are well on the way towards that. 
I come to this bill from that perspective. I genuinely feel either that I am perhaps missing something here or that we are talking past each other. As far as I can say from the discussions I have had with colleagues on my side of the Chamber we absolutely want to protect the Waitakere Ranges from the appalling exploitation of the past. That is not what this issue is; the issue is do we need another level of bureaucracy over the top? We feel that the answer unequivocally is no. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Coming from the South Island—the home of eight beautiful national parks—I fully appreciate what it is to be able to live amongst beautiful scenery wonderful heritage areas and special and significant landscapes. Like most New Zealanders I have become a bit green over the years and the quality of the New Zealand natural landscape is very important to me. The thought that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill might protect the beautiful Waitakere Ranges is very attractive but it is not as simple as all that. This bill is not what it first seems and in many ways the Labour members of Parliament have misrepresented its intentions and misled the public. 
From listening to the Labour speakers it might be concluded that everyone in the Waitakeres supports this bill. But when one looks at the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee—all 221 of them—the support and the opposition were about even. Earlier this evening Minister Cunliffe also quoted an 83 percent support by locals which he had ascertained by survey but when we dig a little bit deeper his unscientific survey merely asked locals: “Do you want to protect the Waitakeres?”. Well of course they did. Why not? All Kiwis want to protect their local environment. 
I would like to refer to more robust research which was done by the Growth and Innovation Advisory Board in 2003. What this told us was that 87 percent of all New Zealanders surveyed felt that the quality of the natural environment was “important” or “very important” to them. That was beaten only by the argument about the quality of life. Ninety-three percent of people felt quality of life was “important” and “very important” to them. But when one considers that the quality of the natural environment in New Zealand absolutely underpins our quality of life one can see that New Zealanders really do want to look after their natural environment. So that makes me quite surprised that only 83 percent supported the Minister’s survey. I wonder whether they were a little suspicious about what that survey would be used for and what the Minister was going to use it to support. 
Submitters on the bill were concerned that the bill was unnecessary. They considered that the bill’s purpose and objectives could be achieved through existing legislation. There was real argument by the submitters and in the select committee about whether the bill would do anything more than the Resource Management Act. This issue was further clouded as we heard from John Carter earlier tonight by the Waitakere City Council officials who seemed to be confused themselves and that is a charitable explanation of it. They were confused about what the legislation would do. At one stage they said it would do nothing more than what the Resource Management Act did. But then they had to revise their opinion when they were asked the obvious question: “If it will do nothing more than the Resource Management Act why would you bother to have it at all?”. 
Many submitters were also concerned that the bill constrains existing private property rights without addressing compensation and well may they be concerned. We have heard this discussion from Dail Jones tonight who talked about the erosion of property rights as socialist stealth. I would like to contrast Labour’s position on this bill with the rhetoric we have been hearing in the House for the last week or so about homeownership. Labour has been talking about the value of homeownership; the importance of families being able to own their homes because that gives families more control over their lives and builds community. But this bill does exactly the opposite. It undermines property rights. It adds more rules more regulations and more bureaucracy to homeowners who live in the Waitakere area. 
There was also some debate over the national significance of the whole area. There was no debate over the Waitakere Ranges but there were some parts of the 27720 hectares that were not considered significant. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the purpose of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill in our mind and the intention that members had when the bill was first introduced and that of the Waitakere City Council in the long discussions we have had for more than 10 years in the community of Waitakere and west Auckland as has been stated by members previously. The purpose of the bill was certainly to protect the ranges. As has previously been stated I do not think that anyone can deny that protecting the ranges is a favourable thing to do. No one in this Chamber would disagree with that and National certainly would not either. 
But we are not talking about just the ranges. We are not talking about just the area of the regional park which as we have stated should be a national park anyway. We should be looking at well and truly protecting that area and turning it into a national park. We are actually talking about the foothills about private land and about more than 21000 people who live in that area. What will happen to those very people once this bill is introduced? Those are the questions these people have had for the last 10 years and I do not think they will be answered when the bill is introduced. 
Although the purpose of the bill may be admirable in many cases it simply will not be achieved through this bill. The ranges and the foothills area will not be any more protected. What will happen is that there will be court case after court case uncertainty and language that quite frankly leaves everyone in doubt as to what it actually means. That will not help anyone. It will not help the supporters of the bill quite frankly and certainly it will not help those who oppose it. The purpose of the bill although admirable in wanting to protect that area of New Zealand considered to be unique beautiful and the backdrop to Auckland City—which of course it is—will not do that. 
We hear talk about development being the main reason for the introduction of the bill but if those members actually knew the area they would know that local area plans are already in place to address development in the very area that this bill covers. There are already caveats that mean there can be no more than one or two houses on a 4-acre block unless they are there already. So there are already arrangements in place now because the people of New Zealand and the people of Waitakere love that land and do not want to see either medium or high-density housing up in the ranges but they do not believe that this bill will help matters. Although the purpose of the legislation may be admirable having legislation that is quite frankly too ambiguous to make sense of is not the answer for those who seek to protect that area. 
How should the area be protected then? We have the Resource Management Act. We have a city council that is elected every 3 years and goes out to the community with its vision for Waitakere City. Those very people who are on our local councils are selected when they go out every 3 years and talk about their vision for the city they wish to serve. They have the means and power to put in place that vision. They do it in consultation with the people and have been doing so for years. They should continue. We have a Resource Management Act that actually addresses these very issues that arise in this document. If there are problems with that Act and people believe that it is not doing what it should be doing then perhaps they should look at amending the Act. 
Why should a member’s bill address only an issue in a small local area when there are other ways to fix the problem? No one would say there should be medium or high-density housing in that area. No one would say the land should be carved up for houses to be built on top of each other. But this bill will not prevent that and that is what those members do not understand. Although the purpose clause may be admirable in reality we will be in litigation time and time again because the purpose of the bill cannot be fulfilled through this legislation. Another layer of bureaucracy will not solve the problem that those members seem to think is there. If one looks at the boundaries and drives around the boundary for the heritage area one will find— 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill for these reasons. First of all I say to Mr Jones or is it Master Jones who is trying to interject that we all want to provide greater protection to the Waitakere Ranges which have high ecological and high landscape values. Anybody who has seen the film  
The Piano 
 can attest to that and I have visited the area myself. If we are to protect the ecological and landscape values of the area we need to be careful because there is something at stake. 
This Labour Government wants to involve itself in the private affairs of citizens who own private land in this country. That is what it wants to do. This bill effectively takes away private ownership rights and imposes central government rights. I think that is wrong. Extending the National Parks Act to include regional parks would be a very good idea but it will not address the particular issue that this bill is pursuing which is to include privately owned land. That is absolutely wrong. If the existing Resource Management Act and other legislation are not sufficient to enable the city and the regional council to provide appropriate legislation for this area—and none of us denies that that is required—then we need to change the legislation for the benefit of all the communities in this country. 
There is no point in having a special law for Auckland and ignoring the rest of this country. We have the same problems in many of our communities. We could look at the coastal development anywhere along the Wairarapa coast or in the foothills of the Tararua ranges or the Ruahines. Exactly the same law is impacting on people who are developing those areas. It is totally irrational I say to Mr Jones to be cosying up to and creating a special law for the people of Auckland and saying: “To hell with the rest of the country.” This bill is bad legislation and the Government is infringing on the property rights of existing owners. If the Government wants to change that then it must buy the land from them and then it can have its special cosy legal arrangement. 
This bill is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent citizens’ rights to be involved in planning and management. As my colleagues Paula Bennett and Tim Groser have said this bill adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already well-overladen bureaucratic slate. National stands against that. I think that if Waitakere City cannot stop rampant property development by using the existing legislation then almost every other local authority in the country must be in the same boat. It is exactly the situation in the Queenstown area where huge developments are happening around Lake Wakatipu. The Queenstown Lakes District Council has to operate under the same rules as the Auckland Regional Council the Auckland City Council and the collection of councils in the Auckland area. 
It seems to me that if the people living elsewhere in this country were to be given the same stronger powers that the Waitakere City Council is demanding then we have to do that for everybody. It seems to me that this area is no more important than the Crown Range down in Central Otago or any other range in New Zealand. Just because it is Auckland it does not make it any more special than if it were in Eketahuna in my electorate. 
Dail Jones 
: Give the land back to tangata whenua. 
JOHN HAYES 
: There is absolutely no difference I say to Mr Jones. This legislation is highly unsatisfactory. [ 
Interruption 
] I refer that member to the New Zealand Law Society’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The first section asks whether the bill is needed and states: “In many ways it duplicates other legislation.” If one were trying to make any sort of development in this country one is totally constrained by local body rules central government rules and regional council rules. The whole system is clogged up and nothing is happening. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to focus the Committee’s attention on the actual wording of the purpose clause but first I want to look at the clause that was struck out and compare it with its replacement. Those who have the bill in front of them will see that the wording has changed because it was considered that the original wording might well take the clause outside the scope of and put it above the Resource Management Act. Therefore officials went away and worked on changing the purpose clause to bring it back within the scope of the Resource Management Act. Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to recognise the national regional and local significance of the Waitakere Ranges heritage area”. No one would disagree about that. It is to promote the protection and enhancement of the area and so on. The clause further states that to this end the Act establishes the Waitakere Ranges heritage area states its national significance defines its heritage features specifies the objectives of establishing and maintaining the area and provides additional matters for the various local authorities. 
The point is though that I think two issues are really important to consider when we are debating this and they are as follows: if it brings it back within the scope of the Resource Management Act then why in their district schemes cannot the various councils then put a chapter in that provides the significance required within their district schemes? Surely that happens in other places and rather than our having to go through wasting the time of Parliament costing a huge amount of money—goodness knows how much money has been spent by the various local authorities on this but I bet it is— 
Dail Jones 
: A couple of a million. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well it certainly will be significant. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Value for money. Protect the environment. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I know that the guy who aspires to be the Labour Prime Minister at some stage Mr Jones probably does not worry about $2 million but the fact is that some people do actually. It is important to them. The ratepayers worry about that sort of money and so do taxpayers. That is not a thing that Labour actually considers much. 
But the point is that it could well have been put in as a chapter within the plans of the various local authorities or the regional council could even have written a chapter. It also brings focus on this: if it is so special we have to go back and ask ourselves how it got to be so special. And if people like to go back and have a look at the history of the Waitakere Ranges over the last 100 or 150 years and even before—but certainly 40 50 and 60 years ago—they would find that a heck of a lot of an area was burnt out cleared clean felled and had all sorts of things happen there that were far worse than what there is now. Now we have an area that people care for. 
The reason why it is in such a state that causes people to want to protect it is that those inhabitants who are there and who have a history of being there have made it like it is. They actually care for it; they worry about it. We had hundreds of submissions from people who said: “We have planted this.” and “We have made all sorts of things on the place so that it can’t be developed further because we want it to be like that; that is why we are out there.” So the fact is that already the inhabitants of the area are achieving the purposes of this bill—they already have. So for some officials local authorities and now Parliament to come along belatedly and say “Oh bless my soul! We should do something about this.” I say “Too late mates. It’s already been done by the good people out there.” So now we have this silly nonsense of someone saying “Oh but all of a sudden someone might have a blood-rush to the head and want to start hacking things around.” But I say “Not on your nelly!”. They are not interested out there. We can go and talk to each and every one of them— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’re not like that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well some people get rid of their hair early! But the fact is that the people out there nevertheless are seriously interested and do look after their place. So when we look at these purposes we can see that the people out there have already achieved them. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and I will comment in particular on the bill’s purpose. It was quite interesting to read the preamble and after reading it and talking about it we noted that in 2005 over 21000 people lived in the area. I suppose that in 2008 23000-odd people probably live in the area. I have not seen the latest figures. 
The bill talks about the impact of urbanisation and about what could and might happen but it actually misses the point. Clause 3 the purpose clause states: “promote the protection and enhancement of its heritage features for present and future generations.” but what it does not talk about and should talk about a lot are visitors. This bill does not talk about visitors coming into the area. Twenty three thousand - odd people may live there but sure as heck one heck of a lot of people will visit the area—probably hundreds of thousands. Those people can bring in weeds and rodents. They can create destruction on the sand dunes and run riot in the vegetation. They can smoke they can camp and they can light fires and there are times of course like now when the area is incredibly dry. 
I suppose that brings me back to the point that this legislation is not clean. If we are going to do the job we should do it properly. This local bill should talk about visitors and their impact. That should be covered in the purpose clause but it is not. 
The second point I raise in relation to the purpose clause is that clause 3(2)(e) states: “provides additional matters for Auckland Regional Council Rodney District Council Waitakere City Council and certain other persons to consider when making a decision”. I suppose I will just bring the Committee back to the point that my colleague John Carter talked about earlier. Initially when this bill was presented we were told that it did not make a heck of a lot of difference. Well if it does not make a heck of a lot of difference why in the purpose clause are we talking about providing “additional matters … to consider when making a decision exercising a power” in relation to the area? We get nervous. 
The interpretation of the bill which we are also covering under this part of the debate talks about the term “LAP” which as clause 4(1) states: “means a local area plan prepared and adopted under section 23A”. This is new terminology to enter the resource management arena. You see the Government is setting about and trying like crazy to confuse the poor citizen who really does try hard to live within the rules become involved publicly participate and add value to local decisions. There is a desire for locals to make a significant input into local decisions. So they have been hit with the “LTCCP” which is the long-term council community plan and within that plan there is a “LAMP” at the moment a local area management plan. 
A lot of work has been done by many communities in particular by those in the Waitakere area on putting together such management plans—plans for the area plans that the locals believe will add value and make a significant difference to looking after the area for all concerned. But no we are now saying goodbye to local area management plans and we are introducing a “LAP” a local area plan. 
I suppose it is even more significant that the community can do a ton of work with a local area plan in order to put together the right sort of vision or the right set of rules but—guess what—clause 23A(5) states: “The territorial authority may amend revoke or replace a LAP.” So again it makes a bit of a farce of community consultation. I think it is disappointing that the bill’s purpose does not cover those who probably have the greatest destructive ability on the Waitakere Ranges—that is the visitors. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Chairman. Kia ora e te matua te heamana o te Whare. I will not take too long. The purpose of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is only to stop those who want to go and live in a nice place. And it is to stop those who already live in a nice place from developing their pieces of land that they may have bought 20 years ago. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What about kaitiakitanga? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh well this is the man who buys houses from the old Meremere Power Station and trucks them all the way up north expecting his whanaunga to buy them for cheap housing—I am sorry Mr Assistant Chairman; I should not have reacted as I did. 
This bill is essentially nothing more than the ladder mentality of those who do not want any more neighbours: “Oh no. We don’t want anybody to share the pristine conditions of the Waitakere Ranges.” And I tell members that most of these people are Labour supporters—dyed-in-the-wool socialists. They are dyed-in-the-wool socialists and they like nothing better than to have a block of land and tell everybody else that they cannot be their neighbours. Is that not right I ask Mr Jones—the real Mr Jones Dail Jones that is. This is nothing more than—what did they used to call it—the bourgeoisie. Do members know that the bourgeoisie used to sit up there on their 20-acre plots and say: “I’m not having any of this. I’m not having any grubby little neighbours coming to live next door to me. Oh no we’re not going to have any of that.”? 
That is the purpose of this bill. That is the reason behind this bill. I am sure that Bob Harvey knows as well as I do that that is the purpose and the reason behind this bill. Part 1 states: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) recognise the national regional and local significance of the Waitakere Ranges heritage area;”. We did not need a bill to do that. We could have put a sign up at the end of the north-western motorway saying: “We the people of Waitakere—the people of New Zealand in fact—recognise the national heritage of this area the Waitakere Ranges.” They have been the Waitakere Ranges for ever and a day. Why now after all these years suddenly do we want to protect the ranges? They have been protected by some of the good folk who went in and bought the areas and brought up their children. They are the ones who protected it; not the council and certainly not this House. 
This bill is a rort. This is nothing more than some sort of socialist rort basically to give themselves mana. It is not to give anybody else mana but to give themselves mana. I am appalled that some of our members could even think of supporting such a measure. 
Again I say that this bill is nothing more than the ladder mentality which is: “As soon as I have got my property I am going to pull up the ladder so that other people cannot have any of the goodies that I have.” This is nothing more and nothing less than that. If people think this bill is to protect the beauty and the pristineness of the ranges they have another think coming. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Part 1. [ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps I will pause for 20 seconds and let Mr Jones let loose his vituperation use up a bit of energy and practise being the deputy leader of a party that will never elect him to that position and then I can get down to the business of the bill. There is not a sound. He is all talk when other people are talking. Earlier speakers have spoken clearly on the purpose of the bill. But everything that that discredited Government does has behind it another purpose and it is that purpose I wish to address. 
The first purpose the real purpose of this bill was never better put than by the member for New Zealand First when he spoke about socialism with stealth. The members over there know that they are gone. What we will see from the Government side of the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting of this Parliament will be efforts to interfere with the freedoms and the individual rights of New Zealanders. I will move on and look at the real purpose behind this bill. There is no doubt at all that one of the purposes in the minds of members opposite is to interfere with private ownership rights and to shift the balance in favour of the ability of the Government and local government to interfere with the rights of individual New Zealand citizens. That is the true purpose of this bill. 
I take the opportunity to congratulate Ms Paula Bennett. She is the member on this side of the Chamber who is leading our opposition to this bill. She spoke intelligently and incisively on the purpose of the bill. She is a member who comes from the west of Auckland. She knows better than the Labour members from that area how divided the community is. The question we have to ask when we look at the purpose of the bill and at the real purpose of the Government is this: where is the mandate for a Government that is in its last days in office struggling and holding on by its fingertips to introduce legislation into this House the real purpose of which is not to protect this beautiful part of New Zealand? Those areas are always protected—always have been and always will be. The real purpose is not the one stated in writing in the bill; it is to advance another agenda. 
Members on this side of the Chamber take great comfort from the knowledge that as a result of the work of Ms Bennett and others out west there will be a significant shift in political power come the next election. I think it behoves the member in the chair Lynne Pillay to think a little about her position and about whether the purpose of this bill which she is supporting is reflective of the real feelings of the community. The select committee got a very very clear message of division on that issue. 
This bill is not good legislation. It does not serve the purpose of this House to push through this sort of legislation which is so open to interpretation that its purpose is actually vague. We read this bill and we read the preamble and we ask ourselves whether this is actually the purpose of legislation or just the start of a fairy tale. It is written in the language of fairy tales. It is imprecise it is inaccurate it does not reflect what is going on out there— 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
:  
I will not take too long because my voice is going on me. On behalf of New Zealand First I am here to defend the property-owning people of west Auckland including the Maori people of west Auckland who are not being supported by the Maori Party in the Chamber tonight. 
The interesting point I wish to raise from the purpose clause concerns the division in the community. This clause to some extent also highlights the division in the viewpoint on this bill between the Waitakere City Council and the Rodney District Council. If we look at schedule 1 at the back of the bill we will see a map. It is only in the area covered by the Waitakere City Council that private owners are affected by this bill. In the Rodney District Council they are smart. It is only the Waitakere Ranges park area that is included. No private land in the Rodney District Council area is included at all. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: An attack on property rights. 
DAIL JONES 
: The Rodney District Council will not permit an attack on property rights because of the sound views of the council but of course the Waitakere City Council has no hesitation in attacking property rights. So to say there is no division in the areas is totally wrong. Even the councils are divided in their viewpoint on this bill. The Rodney District Council is in the bill only because some of its land is in the Waitakere Ranges park area and therefore it supports the concept of the park being protected as we all do. Everyone supports the protection of the park which is owned by the public and there is no way anyone can possibly damage the park because we the members of the public who are all ratepayers of the Auckland Regional Council area own the 17000 hectares of the park and nothing can be done to damage that. 
I just wanted to raise that one point in the time that is available with my voice as it is and to say that there is division on this bill even at local authority level. If we have so much division why on earth should we support this bill? New Zealand First will be opposing it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Heritage area heritage features planning requirements etc 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on this part also includes debate on schedules 1 2 and 3. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Te Tiriti o Waitangi promised the protection of Maori custom and cultural values. The guarantee of rangatiratanga in article 2 was an investment in the rights of tangata whenua to possess and control that which is ours. It was a strong declaration about the value that the Crown saw in its relationship with Maori yet local and national legislation has consistently sought to minimise the strength of such a relationship by making consultation an added extra—a discretionary provision available for the Crown to choose whether it would seek a relationship with tangata whenua. 
The Local Government Act 2002 outlines principles of consultation for local authorities. It suggests that councils must provide reasonable access to relevant information in an appropriate manner and format and that they must provide clear information about the purpose and scope of that consultation. The Local Government Act 2002 also mandated councils to give emphasis to the participation and involvement of Maori in local authority decision-making processes. Principles are one thing; putting them into practice is quite another. 
In 2004 Local Government New Zealand and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet surveyed 86 councils to identify practices used by councils in consultation with Maori. Over 90 percent of the authorities had established processes for informal consultation yet the findings of the survey were revealing. The survey concluded: “How effective these processes were or are is not known; but the survey does show that consultation processes do exist.” It is not good enough that processes are established but lack evidence on whether they are actually used and lack evidence that tangata whenua find them to be usable and appropriate. Indeed a recent study of Maori in local government  
He Wharemoa te Rakau ka Mahue 
 by Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tawhai concluded that structural changes to council processes are needed to ensure tangata whenua involvement in local decision-making. 
The Local Government Act 2002 also makes it clear that the Treaty obligations are the Crown’s and the role of local government is to help the Crown fulfil these Treaty obligations by providing opportunities for active participation in local and regional governance. Therefore the amendments in my Supplementary Order Paper 173 which amends clauses 23B and 24 and inserts new clause 28AA seek to clarify the relationships and also to ensure a level of specificity is adopted in order to achieve quality outcomes for all. In essence the amendments will ensure a mandatory rather than a discretionary obligation on the Crown or local authority to enter into deeds of acknowledgment with tangata whenua in relation to the land within the area specified in the bill. 
Clause 23B identifies the tangata whenua encompassed in this bill as Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Clause 24 details what would be included in a deed of acknowledgment; a deed that would be entered into through consultation. Clause 28AA places a positive duty on the relevant local authorities—namely Auckland Regional Council Waitakere City Council and Rodney District Council—to “establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau A Maki to contribute to the decision-making processes” of these bodies. I want to particularly acknowledge Waitakere City Council Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki for the constructive role they have played in working through the amendments. 
Our desire in bringing these amendments to the Committee today is to ensure that adequate and proper consultation occurs as a fundamental tenet of a healthy democracy. We believe that if the Crown via local authorities is to take appropriate account of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to maintain and approve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local government decision-making processes then it is helpful to spell out the terms of the relationship in detail. We believe that our amendments to clauses 23B 24 and 28AA fill in the detail necessary to articulate the way in which the historical traditional cultural and spiritual relationships of tangata whenua to the heritage area can be best expressed and we welcome the support of the Committee to this effect. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2. The first part of Part 2 talks about boundaries and I will address those for a little while. At the moment the boundaries do not take in just the ranges; I think that is really important for people to acknowledge. So the title of the bill which we will discuss in a lot more detail later totally misrepresents what the bill is about. When members talk about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill they actually mean the bill concerning the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. Those foothills are perhaps what is most at debate today and they certainly are from my perspective. 
We are talking about some of the villages within the Waitakere Ranges. I have to make a bit of a confession here in that I feel more sympathy for people living there than I do for those living in the foothills in other areas because I see that the people in those villages are suffering from a bit of intensification and are trying to keep their landscape the same. I do not believe that this bill is the way to address those issues but I can certainly acknowledge that people living in places like the beautiful Karekare Piha and Bethells beaches are restricted because of the landscape. Those places really are little coastal villages tucked into a certain area; only so many houses can be fitted in and only a certain type of housing perhaps suits the area. We can better acknowledge that situation but the bill quite simply will not help those people. What would help them is a council that acknowledges the constraints of that area a Resource Management Act that works alongside those constraints and local area plans that can address the issues. 
But we are talking about huge areas of the foothills—which go into Titirangi Glen Eden Henderson Swanson Waitakere village and up to Muriwai—when we are thinking about how this bill works land-wise. If some of those areas were simply not included in the boundaries then I think we would have seen a lot more support for this bill in the Committee. I think we would have been hearing more from the National Party about how we might have been able to find a compromise if the boundaries had not been so broad and if they had not taken in what in so many respects are actually residential areas that we notice when we drive around them. 
How do the heritage areas the bill talks about differ? Clause 8(2)(a)(i) in Part 2 talks about heritage features including “large continuous areas of primary and regenerating lowland …”. Why is that land regenerating? It is regenerating because the people there love the land and care for it and they have put in the effort to bring it back to its absolute natural beauty. Let us not pretend that that area over time was not bogged down and destroyed. When there was milling and everything that went on over a hundred years ago the ranges in fact were quite a sad place to look at in many parts. People moved in. People are not the enemy; people love the land look after the land and have actually nurtured and regenerated it to the state it is now. It can only get better. 
To “have intrinsic value:” in clause 8(2)(a)(ii) is part of the heritage characteristics that are defined in this bill as are to “provide a diversity of habitats for indigenous flora and fauna:” in sub-paragraph (iii) and “to collect store and produce high quality water:” in sub-paragraph (iv). The list goes on. The other challenge I put out and something I would be interested to hear from the sponsor of the bill is how that situation is different from for example that of my colleague and local MP Chris Tremain—who does a fantastic job—when he talks about the Napier hills and the hills that surround his very area. How is there a difference really when we look at that building-up and the changes wanted there? 
Mark Blumsky 
: A great local MP. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: He is a fantastic local MP. The member is right; he is an outstanding local MP. There is no doubt of that. 
I would like to hear from the promoter of bill if she might just take a little time to talk. Some of us who sat through the select committee process understand perhaps how those boundaries were decided on but I think a lot of people out there would like to hear that. One thing I commend the select committee for as I think it did a great job with this—and I commend the council and officials as well—is that it changed what was in the original drafting of the bill. Speaking from memory I think the original draft stated that the boundaries could be changed by the council but now the bill states that the legislation has to come back for boundaries to be changed only by an Act of Parliament. That is a good thing. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I will take only a brief call but the first thing I want to do is acknowledge all parties who support this bill—in particular the Maori Party and Taito Phillip Field who have also put up very constructive amendments to the bill. That support did not come just from nowhere either; it came from them consulting with tangata whenua on the part of Taito Phillip Field from meeting with the Pacific Island advisory board and indeed from both the Maori Party and Taito Phillip Field meeting with many many people within Waitakere. The amendments they put up add value to the bill. I really thank them for their support and of course the Green Party and the Progressive party. We see people in this Parliament who are committed to supporting our beautiful areas within New Zealand where the councils have had the foresight and vision to look at and think about how they work with the Resource Management Act and how they can build on what is in place to ensure that what we have—a beauty that is so valued by the vast majority of people who live within the area—is protected for generations for come. 
When I hear people saying that the member in the chair—me—should look really carefully at and reconsider my support for this bill I remind them that first and foremost I am actually a resident who lives within the area proposed by the bill. I am really proud of that. I have to say that Paula Bennett and Tau Henare despite all their rhetoric cannot say that. I guess I am “walking the talk”. I am somebody who if I were to listen to them it would be confiscation by stealth. If I were to listen to Dail Jones—[ 
Interruption 
] The member Paula Bennett said something; I could not quite hear it. If I were to listen to Dail Jones it would be socialism by stealth. What a dreadful thing that would be in this country! 
Sandra Goudie 
: Well it is. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member says it is but that is not the case. I remind this House because I think it is important that this bill was put forward after extensive consultation with every group possible—Waitakere City Council Auckland Regional Council and Rodney District Council—and was supported by many residents’ and ratepayers’ groups. The professional polls which have been denigrated were carried out by very reputable organisations. 
Let us face it the west is actually held by Labour members of Parliament except for that one who never actually turns up and does not live in the electorate. We never see him. Who is that? It is John Key. John Key never fronts up and has a debate in this Chamber. He never fronts up on this bill. Do members know why? It is because he does not want to commit himself. 
I am very proud to be accountable to the people of Waitakere. I know that this bill is driven at the grassroots by the people of Waitakere and is supported by councils who listen to the people and do what they wish. Waitakere City Council and the members who drove support on the Auckland Regional Council were absolutely re-elected. Mayor Bob Harvey who was a very strong advocate for this bill—and I commend him in this House—was re-elected. That is an endorsement by the people for this bill. The “confiscation by stealth” Paula Bennett said the area is a divided community. She is right but why is it divided? It is because National members divided the community by false information. 
I am proud of the parties that support this bill and I am looking forward very much to seeing its progress through the House if we can actually stop some of the silly amendments that are being brought in and that are designed just to delay its progress. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will follow on from the speech by the member who spoke before Lynne Pillay when she talked about the local councils—in plural—supporting the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It raised the point that Dail Jones brought up about Rodney District Council not actually supporting this bill. I wonder whether Lynne Pillay is aware of the concerns the other member raised about one of the councils not actually supporting the bill in the sense of extending the heritage area into its boundaries. When we look at boundaries in relation to this legislation we see that the issue is about boundaries. It is about Labour trying to put boundaries on people. It is about Labour saying it knows best about what people should do with their own land. It is about Labour telling people how to live their lives. Again it is about Labour knowing what is right. It thinks it knows what is right. Labour thinks it has a God-given right to tell the people in this country what is right. 
Well that is not the way it is. People have their own ability to build their own lives. People invest in their houses and properties. People put major contributions from their life savings into their properties. Do they expect the Government to come along and tell them what to do with them? No they do not. They go hard. They work hard. People save money even though they are taxed to the death. They buy their own properties and build their own assets only to have the Government come along and tell them that it knows better than they do. This Government thinks it knows better than the individuals do who have worked saved and scraped along in order to build something they wanted for their futures and lifestyles. 
This legislation is not about an environmental issue. It is not a case of Labour coming in and saving one of New Zealand’s pre-eminent environmental treasures. This is a case of Labour dictating to people what should be done in their backyards. This is a case where the Labour Party members see the hand of the Government as being more important than the ability of humans and individuals to build their own futures. That is what the Labour Party stands for. It is a party that sees the Government as being the answer. It is a party that believes that the Government knows best. Well that is not the case. The reality is that the Government serves the people. The people know what they want; the people can dictate their own futures. Why do we not give the people the chance to do that? Why do we not let the people make that choice about how they use their land? Why do we not let the people decide through their councils what should be done on their properties? 
But no these guys in the Labour Government say they know best. They know that they can pass another piece of legislation and put another tax on New Zealanders—and this is another tax. This bill will create more costs for the ratepayers in that area. They will have to fund people to go along and comply with the legislation. There will be more compliance costs more taxes and more rates. This bill is Labour through and through. It is classic Labour legislation. It tells people what to do it puts a cost on them it makes them pay for it again and then they have to give up all their rights to go against it. The Labour members say people cannot complain because the Government is greater than the people and the legislation has come in and told people what is right. That is what those members are about. That is what the Labour Government has been about for 8 years and that is why it will go out of office at the end of this year. Labour members have not listened to the people. They have not got out there and been on the streets unlike our good MPs of the west. The Labour members do not know what the people want. They know what they think they want to see happen in this country but what they think they want to see happen is not what the people want. 
We are here to represent the people. We are not here to represent one political party’s agenda and we are not here to represent Labour’s haloed vision of what this country should look like. The Government should let the people decide. It is their country and their properties. Let them have a choice. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 E te whare tena koutou katoa. To all of Aotearoa who during the speech made by Mr Bennett may have fitted into a telephone box I point out that that was the advertisement for Brylcreem. The man was talking about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. He did not refer at any time to Part 2 of this fantastic legislation. 
I have been pondering on the meaning of the term “Waitakere”. As members know “wai” means water and “takere” is the base of something either a waka or a vessel. The term of course refers to the fact that unless the catchment area the mountains the valleys the streams the trees—the entire environment—are adequately cared for the environment will not be protected in the future. That is why this legislation is completely and utterly embraced except for a few malcontents who have been led astray by Paula Bennett and a variety of other members who realise they cannot compete intellectually work-wise or in terms of industriousness with the great stewards of the environment here. 
It behoves me to mention Dr Pita Sharples. He supports this bill. Of course it is a shame that he has not seen the light and supported me with my whanaunga Hone Harawira away in Waikiki and Australia but let me come back to Waitakere. This bill will not divide the people of west Auckland. This bill will draw them closer to the ethic of stewardship. This bill will cause people to realise that when pressures are visited upon the environment occasionally the legislature—the highest court in the land—has to stand debate and then through democracy vote to protect the fragile areas of the environment. That is the purpose of the legislature. That is why we have democratic opportunities to make a contribution vote and then move on. Of course Mr Dail Jones is well entitled to make his contributions. If however his contributions reflect what we saw on the television then despite his short appearance he may too be moving on. 
In relation to the perspective of the Rodney District Council I say that Rodney District Council is but a bit player in this bill. The main driving forces of the bill are the citizens of Waitakere and their very thoughtful council. 
What elements will be protected? I have a strong connection with this because quite apart from protecting pleasantness—and I can relate to that—and cultural integrity the bill protects in particular the remains of nga keringa kapia the gum digging the flax mills and the timber extraction. Those are remains of rather sad but still interesting chapters of our history and they will be protected in this legislation when it passes so that the environment is not just botany and biology but all those extractive industries that our people have worked in over the years. 
Why on earth would a person come to Parliament and not show forward-thinking and vision like our member here Lynne Pillay? Not even the ear-chipped dogs that run around west Auckland can stop this woman from being industrious and going out and extolling the virtues of this bill which is soon to be an Act. She has joined forces with Dr Pita Sharples. He knows. He recalls that when the marae was developed it was like a barren wasteland. 
A bill like this reminds the citizens and the property owners that our rights in the end are fettered by the imperatives of overall society. Overall society places its trust in people who are prepared to reflect long-term thinking not short-term profit taking. 
I think it is very disappointing that Paula Bennett this evening gave us the indication she is worried about the villages as if she is the defender of some quaint historic accident called a village. No she did not stand this evening and reflect back to the people of Waitakere that this bill is well before its time. That is why—long after this debate has come and gone—the children the mokopuna will think back very very admirably to Lynne Pillay her supporters and Mr Cunliffe a man of great vision into the future. The people of Waitakere know it. Kapai me whakamana e tatou tenei piri. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow Shane Jones my colleague from the far north. The first thing I have to say to him is that the young boy from the north— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is this the member who lost the cemetery records? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Actually the one thing I did not lose was my temper when someone poked me and had a shot at me. So I would be quiet if I were Mr Mallard. The one thing that the young fellow from the far north needs to learn is that if he aspires to be the leader of the Labour Party at some stage then he had better believe in what he is talking about. The way he expressed his argument was eloquent and interesting but it needs to come from the heart. The member has to believe in what he is saying. 
I can see the reason that Mr Jones spoke on this bill; I can see what he has in the back of his mind. He wants this bill to pass through so that he can then use it as a reason why he should put his land in the far north into a trust like this as well. He has a vested interest. I can see him saying to the Jones whanau: “Look we have done it down in Waitakere so now we can have it up in the far north and we will be able to look after it.” That is what will be behind it. 
The second thing I will say is that Mr Jones was correct on one thing. He was absolutely dead right with one thing he said. He said that this bill would not divide the people of Waitakere and he is absolutely right. It already has—it cannot divide them any more. They are divided all right. Members should have heard the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Talk about a divided community! 
Local government is about local governance is it not? That is what it is about and here we have an authority that is meant to be representing the people of the Waitakere area and what has it done? It has caused an astonishing amount of division amongst the people. It has caused serious acrimony. It is unfortunate that neighbours who have got on for years while developing the area will now not talk to each other. Now they cannot go into the same street and they cannot live together because this bill has divided them. So I say to Mr Jones that he is right. The bill will not divide those people because it cannot any more. They are already divided and that is rather unfortunate. 
The next thing is that I listened to Mr Jones and I thought— 
Dail Jones 
: Shane Jones. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes—Mr Shane Jones. We should make that distinction now. We have two Mr Joneses who are list MPs but we need to distinguish between Dail and Shane. The next thing is that Mr Shane Jones criticised my colleague Mr Bennett from the central North Island who I thought made a particularly good speech. Mr Jones got up and said that Mr Bennett did not talk about Part 2 of the bill. I listened very closely to what Mr Bennett said and I thought that he actually made some very good points about Part 2 unlike Mr Jones who wandered off all over the place. I was frantically looking through the bill when he was talking about gumfields people up trees and all sorts of things and I could not see them in the bill. I ask whether any member can point out where it talks about gumfields and all that. I thought to myself that maybe Mr Shane Jones has not actually read Part 2 of the bill. I suspect that is the real problem. 
What we need to talk about is the purpose of Part 2 of this bill which is about managing the Waitakere Ranges is it not? That is the purpose. 
Paula Bennett 
: And the foothills. 
JOHN CARTER 
: And it is about managing the foothills and the surrounding areas. That is what it is about. We need to pause and just reflect on this: who until now has been managing that area? The people who live there have been managing it which is why it is like it is. The people who live there love it. They want it to be like it is and they want it to be better than it is. They are constantly striving to improve it. We talk about the management of the Waitakere Ranges; well bless my soul that is already there. We do not have to have a whole lot of rules and regulations idiocy and nonsense and costs and bureaucracy. I can see that this bill will drive people mad. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I will be a bit boring during this stage because I am going to look at this from something of a legalistic viewpoint from the point of view of anyone who owns a house in the area anyone who wants to sell a house in the area and of the housing needs in the area. We have already heard a lot about the need for houses in New Zealand. There is a shortage of houses in New Zealand and that is important in this part of the bill. 
I have put forward two amendments. I have made it clear that clause 3 should be amended so that all people who own land in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area are notified that this bill is being passed and that the purposes of the bill itself are noted on their title by a  
Gazette 
 notice so that when someone comes to buy these pieces of land in this area they know that the land is subject to this bill. I am sure that when the existing owners get notices to say that they are subject to this bill they will be horrified because they will realise that it will be harder for them to sell their houses. This will be another encumbrance on the title another thing in the land information memorandum procedure that a buyer will want to go through. If say the buyer wants to do an addition to the house—put on a garage or do something else that requires a resource consent as everything does under this bill—it will cost him or her extra money because of this bill. 
How many agreements for the sale and purchase of land in this area will collapse because of this bill? Of course there will also be cases where lawyers will not be aware that this bill has been passed and there will be even more complicated court cases. So it is vital that this is noted on the title. That is an amendment to clause 6. 
The second amendment is very interesting. It is an amendment to clause 9. Clause 9 deals with heritage area objectives and paragraph (j) states that one objective is “to recognise that people live and work in the heritage area in distinct communities and should enable those people to provide for their social economic environmental and cultural well-being:” I thought about that and I thought that if people live there presumably they live in something like a house. 
I believe this clause must be amended so that it recognises that people live and work in the area in distinct communities and enables these people to provide for their social economic environmental housing needs and cultural well-being. Without my amendment are we saying that people can live there but we will not be concerned about their housing needs? That is what the bill says without my amendment. This Waitakere City Council bill is saying: “We do not care about housing needs in the area; people can live there but what they live in goodness only knows. We are not interested in their housing needs.” 
That is such a blatant omission from the bill and it justifies my concern that the Waitakere City Council is not interested in any extensions to homes. For example if a Maori family or a Maori group wants to set up a whare of one kind or another well goodbye—that will not happen. If there is some special need for one of those community places where items are stored and suchlike we can forget it. It will not happen under this bill. This bill will prejudice the Maori people in the area very very considerably and I am sure they have been misinformed. We have heard from Mr Carter that Waitakere City Council officials have misinformed people. It is very clear that the Maori people have been misinformed by the Waitakere City Council. 
Again as a lawyer I say that lawyers will make a lot of money on this bill. What does clause 9(c) mean when it states: “carefully consider the risks and uncertainties”? How can we consider risks and uncertainties? The consideration of a risk and an uncertainty by definition is never-ending. One never knows when a risk ceases to be a risk or when an uncertainty ceases to be an uncertainty. One has to “take into account the best information available;” in considering these applications. How does one know that something is the best information? We have had a survey done that we know has the wrong information. 
This bill will be a real lawyer’s dream. It will prejudice housing needs in the Waitakere area. It will lay out all sorts of problems when one searches the title and finds there is nothing on the title and a lawyer will assume it is OK to go ahead and buy the place. Boy oh boy! A Minister of Housing who votes for this bill should realise that there are grave consequences. A proper Minister of Housing should ensure that people are warned about the risk. We talked about land agents not doing their job properly; well the Waitakere City Council and anyone who supports this bill is not supporting homeowners. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Having listened to that speech I feel compelled to make just a brief contribution with regard to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I do understand that there is a lot of support to see the Waitakere Ranges protected and certainly from my visit and discussions with the council that view was very strong reflected. 
I commend Lynne Pillay and the members of the committee for their stewardship in moving this bill though. It has taken some time to work up a bill that we can all consider. I also commend the Maori Party for working constructively with the local member to ensure that we get a bill that will accommodate many of the needs in the area. 
With regard to the amendments proposed by Dr Sharples I want to put in context the amendment that I propose to include with the support of the Maori Party to ensure there is no misunderstanding about the intent. It is very clear that the intention of the Maori Party here is that Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted with regard to developments in the area. My provision in particular is to ensure that private landowners will not be affected. In fact the consultation provisions specifically refer to Crown and local authority lands. 
The amendment is for the purpose of clarification. It does not take away any obligation to ensure that Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted and rightly so. It is to ensure that the issues raised by Mr Dail Jones are more accurately put into some context because these provisions will not affect the private landowner who wants to build a garage on his or her land. However they will affect happenings on Crown land and local authority land. So I think many of the issues raised by Mr Jones are him scaremongering a bit and are not helpful to the purposes of the consideration here today. 
That is the nature of the amendment I am proposing. It will be in addition to the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by Dr Pita Sharples and I hope that with the support of members in this Chamber it will proceed favourably. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 and I will endeavour to stick to Part 2. If ever there was an endorsement by this current Government that the Resource Management Act was not working this has to be it. One has only to look at clause 10 in Part 2 which quite clearly shows that the Government has no regard for the Resource Management Act. It actually has to bring in another piece of legislation because the Resource Management Act is not enough. It is not working. 
This Government has done nothing to change the Resource Management Act. It has done nothing to streamline it and it has done nothing to improve it to make sure that it is workable. So what does it do? It introduces yet another bill to control and manage private property and to manage any area in this country. I am talking on Part 2 of this bill and that is why I can say what I am saying because clause 10(3) states: “When evaluating a proposed policy statement or proposed plan change or variation that affects the heritage area ARC must also examine whether the statement plan change or variation is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives (having regard to the purpose of this Act).”—right but under subclause (4)—“The requirements in subsection (3)” which is the one I have just read out “are in addition to the requirements in section 32(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991.” 
Now why on earth would one introduce a bill such as this when one already has a piece of legislation that gives one the tools to do what one wants to do—and yes there is a catch of course. The community has to support that process and as we have heard here tonight from my most excellent colleagues the community is divided. So the elected representatives instead of actually allowing the community to move in one direction or another completely ignored the community’s dilemma and decided to ride roughshod over the community to disregard the divisions in the community which is as we hear evenly split and to do what they wanted to do which is not necessarily what everybody else wanted. They are doing what they want to do which is contrary to what Nanaia Mahuta was saying. She said that there is no effect on private property. Well all one has to do is go to clause 9(e) which states: “to recognise that in protecting the heritage features the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision:” Well what does that tell members? This bill will add nothing but cost upon cost for any property owner wanting to build a home on his or her private property. So much for the statements that this will have no effect on private property! Mr Jones—Dail that is—talked about the fact that there will be increased costs on any housing whether existing housing or new housing because of what this bill does. It ties up any further use of private property. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Give us one example. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I have just told members that it states in the bill that there is no further capacity to absorb further subdivision. All one has to do is go to clause 9(b) which states: “to ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of it:”. What area is actually being talked about here? How large is that area? The area should be defined. How far away is it from people who might want to build a house on their property or to sell their property for future housing? Let us face it the bill is all about getting rid of houses because it is to protect and restore the area and its heritage features. So why not get rid of all the houses and all the people who live there already? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: That’s a dreadful interpretation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Look I tell Mr Jones—Shane that is—that I am reading from the bill. Maybe he might try reading the bill. I find it astounding that the members on the Government benches do not even understand the wording in their own bill. Clause 9(c) states: “(i) carefully consider the risks and uncertainties associated with any particular course of action;”. That is a euphemism for “Let’s not make a decision because it is too hard.” 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 When one reads through Part 2 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill one realises the work that has been done by the Local Government and Environment Committee on it. The most common words used in Part 2 are “struck out” “unanimous” and “new”. I raise that because when we read this bill we see that it has literally been rewritten by the select committee with the support of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and officials. 
There has been talk about the divided community and it has been acknowledged by the member who brought the bill forward that there is division. It is caused by confusion. There is confusion in this bill—it has been rewritten—and one has to ask whether arrogance was shown by the bill’s promoter by the local council in bringing the bill forward without going as is normal to the Parliamentary Counsel Office for advice on the best way to bring it forward. That did not happen. 
The local council—the promoter—and its lawyers Simpson Grierson showed arrogance in totally thinking they had the answer written down here. Because guess what? We have rewritten the bill. There is confusion and there has been confusion. Even now tonight there are people such as Andrew in Glengarry Road who asks: “Is my house included? Is Glengarry Road included?”. I say to Andrew that we have no idea. No wonder he is confused. It is an issue; there is confusion. As I said was there arrogance on the part of the council in bringing the bill forward? There is a divided community. The bill’s sponsor admitted the community is divided. We sat— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I said quite the opposite. I did not say the community was divided. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I have dismissed the point of order. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: You have? The member actually stood and said that we in the select committee had caused the division by the confusion. I remember those words specifically because we took exception to them. So I will accept the member’s apology in writing. 
The bill is confusing. It has been rewritten by the select committee. The community is confused; it does not really know quite what is happening. Will the bill protect the community? Is it adding further cost? Will it stuff up property rights? Will it enhance property rights? Members of the community do not know. The Waitakere City Council I believe has done this wrong. It should have stepped back when it saw that the community was not on board as much as it should be for something that is so damn important. It should have stood back had a cup of tea and had another discussion with the community to clarify the issue. It should have brought forward a bill that would not be rewritten by the select committee and brought forward a bill that was understood by all. For sure we do not expect something that is 100 percent to come forward but we do not expect a bill as split and divisive as this bill is to come forward. 
I rate Bob Harvey as a mayor but I think Bob Harvey got this one wrong. I fully buy into his vision—I fully buy into what he is trying to do—but I think this bill has not delivered the vision. I think it has left his community not as cohesive as it should be. Bob Harvey’s role as mayor is to make sure the community is onside and I think his officers have led him wrong. As I said I think an arrogance came through in the way that this bill was presented to the select committee and the way that the lawyers tried to argue and jockey with the officials to present the arguments. Bob Harvey cannot blame the community for being confused. 
The interesting thing is that the community is absolutely passionate. We have to take our hats off to all parties who came forward to everyone who made submissions—they really do care. They really do care but they want to draw the line at what the Government is doing to them. They do not believe that the Government has the right to impose new conditions on them. They believe that the existing scenario that they bought their houses under the existing Resource Management Act conditions are actually appropriate. They should not be redesigned and rewritten halfway through. That confusion is not necessary. 
To finish as I said I think it is sad that the Waitakere City Council has not brought this bill forward cleanly sharply and with the community behind it as the council could have should have and really must do. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 and particularly to clause 6. I want to speak about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and I want to contrast it with the Ocean Beach area in Hawke’s Bay. In clause 6 subclauses (1) (2) and (3) focus on the specific area of the heritage area and the ranges. Clause 6(3) gives a legal description of its boundaries and clause 6(2) refers to the schedule that deals with the boundaries in the area. It is this area that Waitakere chief Te Waatarauihi spoke about when he was at a meeting at Kohimarama. He said as quoted in the preamble to the bill: “Whakarongo mai e nga iwi ki ta te korero i mua. He ika tenei whenua. Ko te tangata nana i huti ko Maui. Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.” I will just repeat that last part in particular: “Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.” When the chief spoke he was speaking from his heart about his passion for the area for his whenua and for the land that he had grown up on and lived in. He said in the last part of the quote—“Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.”—that he would remain there on the land until he died. 
I think the same could be said by many people in this Chamber tonight whether they are from the north from Christchurch from Heretaunga where Pita Sharples is from or from Waitakere which is where my colleague is from. These are places that we love in our hearts and we will cherish them until we die. That applies to many places around this country so the question we ask is do we need to introduce legislation like this to protect every area around the country? Do we have to have a Part 2 in numerous bills to protect each and every area? 
I have a place in Heretaunga in Ocean Beach which is currently under threat of significant development. If we relate that to Part 2 we see that Ocean Beach goes from Cape Kidnappers south to include the surf club and the hapu that has a small village at the bottom of Ocean Beach. This area is under severe threat from development and the developer there is looking to put 1000 houses on to that beach which in summertime would increase the beach population to between 5000 and 7000 people. Hawke’s Bay people have come out strongly against that particular situation. They do not want 1000 houses on Ocean Beach. But are they going through legislation like this to protect that area to protect the beauty and isolation of Ocean Beach and to protect one of the most amazing natural resources up by Cape Kidnappers where there is a heritage area that people in Hawke’s Bay would die for? There is a hapu at the end there and “Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.”—they will live there until they die. 
They do not need legislation like this; they are using the Hastings District Council through a Resource Management Act process and they are using protest with banners around the place to make sure that that development does not go ahead. The reality is that some form of development will happen there because currently property owners there have a property right. They could develop property across the beachscape at Ocean Beach. They could add maybe 150 to 200 properties. Do we want that? Do we want telegraph poles separate sewage tanks on each of these 10-acre blocks? No way. It is far more sensible under the current district plan to put together a smaller development—not 1000 houses but something that is contained that is right there in Ocean Beach and that can be managed. 
Once again we do not need a Part 2. We do not need legislation like this to achieve its goal; we just need concerned citizens who stand up for their rights and concerned citizens who are prepared to take the Resource Management Act on to take proceedings and to take them all the way to the Environment Court. That is what that process is for: to make sure that beautiful areas places that we would stand and die for are protected for ever and a day. So I am totally against this bill and National is against this bill. We believe that it is a case of bureaucracy gone wild. It is totally unnecessary so we will not be voting for Part 2. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is interesting to take a call on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The logic behind why this bill should not go forward should not be voted successfully on tonight has been well canvassed. Those arguments have been well documented on this side of the Chamber. 
When we talk about the interpretation of this bill and when we look through the changes that the member Mark Blumsky talked about we see that so much has been rewritten within this bill that there is much confusion. As a member who originates from the eastern side of the north part of the South Island I say that I am very concerned because this very bad legislation sets a precedent. It is something that has been touched on tonight. We have the beautiful quotation of the Maori chief in 1860 and we have the commentary that goes with it and it is borne out in the interpretation. I just make the note that there are many other parts of the fish. Dr Nick Smith in his opening comments referred to the fish mentioned in the preamble. When Maui pulled the fish up he actually had his foot on Kaikoura. When we stop and think about that aspect of it in terms of the interpretation and the notional aspects of this bill we see that it does have a national connotation. 
It is hugely concerning that this House continually passes bills into law and what drops out of them are regulations—truckloads of regulations. That is what we have received under this Labour Government. What I see here is a senior executive of the Waitakere City Council controlling the elected members and that was borne out effectively by the way that the advisers treated with contempt the importance of honesty and frankness towards the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Part 2 is typical of what Labour is responsible for. We see there an increase of bureaucracy in order to enact these values that the bill talks about; values that are at present maintained by the very well-intended carefully minded and passionate residents of Waitakere. When we look at the comment in clause 9(c): “to adopt the following approach when considering decisions that threaten serious or irreversible damage to a heritage feature:” we see that people who are seeking permission to develop their garages or patios in that area will have to prove that they will not adversely impact on the environment there. We have already heard that this will cost them heaps. There will be a process and lawyers will make a living out of that process. Unfortunately under Labour we have had to endure enormous amounts of that. 
Those of us from other areas of New Zealand are exceptionally suspicious and worried about the precedents that this bill sets up. For instance when we look at the city of Christchurch we see that there has been a long convoluted process of engaging and combining Banks Peninsula into the Christchurch City Council. It will not be too long before somebody starts to eye this up—some future council that wants to show the level of arrogance that we have become very used to from this Labour Government. People from such a council will want to leave a monument to themselves. They will use this bill as a precedent of good law when all the way through we have all heard about the division about this ideological notion of a new level of protection. It had to be rewritten so that it did not usurp the responsibilities of the Resource Management Act. 
Clause 9(l) states: “to protect those features of the area that relate to its water catchment and supply functions:” and clause 9(m) states: “to protect in perpetuity the natural and historic resources of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit use and enjoyment …”. Is that not happening already? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I am going to call Dail Jones because he has two amendments and he sticks very closely to Part 2. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I do want to speak to the amendments especially given the quizzical look I am getting from the Minister for Building and Construction which I also got earlier on. Quite clearly in the ranges area we own the land as the people of Auckland and the ranges area is protected. So I am talking about the extra piece of land in the foothills: privately owned land. 
If people live in the foothills how do they go about getting additions to their houses garages and patios as the case may be? Clause 9 states that the objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage area are—and I am trying to be brief as well—“(f) to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect”—that is how it adds on to everything else that is there already—“(i) is of an appropriate character scale and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:”. Inevitably as soon as one builds something on to an existing property one is contributing to urban sprawl. That is the very definition of urban sprawl. But what is the meaning of the word “development”? Is the addition of a garage a patio or two bedrooms a development? I looked up  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 and if one looks at the meaning of the word “development” one sees it is a fact event or happening especially one that changes a situation. And that is what an addition to a house a patio or whatever else the proposal may be is: it changes a situation. So a thing as simple as that is caught by this legislation. 
What happens next? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: He’s only been here 1 day and we have to put up with this. 
DAIL JONES 
: I say to Mr Shane Jones the Minister for Building and Construction—if only he would listen to me—that he should go to clause 12 and note what the simple homeowner in the Waitakere City area will have to do. Clause 12(1) states: “A local authority may reject a request in whole or in part if the request is inconsistent with the purpose of this Act or the objectives.” Well how do we know it is inconsistent? But clause 12(2) states: “To assist the local authority in deciding whether to act under subsection (1) the person making the request must explain how it is consistent with the purpose of this Act and the objectives.” But what does “consistent” mean? Clause 12(3) states: “For the purposes of this section an explanation under subsection (2) must be—(a) treated as if it were information required under clause 22 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and (b) supplied to the local authority in accordance with that clause.” 
So what does the poor bloke or the husband and wife who have been living in the Waitakere Ranges for 15 years and who have a couple of kids and a third one on the way do? Mum might want to come and live with them. Gran might want to come and live with them. They might want to do a home extension for grandma but they have to make a request to the council and explain how the addition of a granny flat or how helping out their children in a growing family are consistent with the purposes of this legislation. 
For heaven’s sake that would cost people another $5000 at the very least. They would have to get a consultant to explain how they can get their addition. At the end of the day the consultant’s and lawyer’s fees will cost more than the addition would ever have cost. Such people will give away the idea of the addition altogether and will live in cramped housing conditions in the Waitakere heritage area because no one will buy their place. Who would want to buy it? A lot of the homes in that area are quite old; I am talking about homes that are 50 80 or 100 years old. Who will buy a place that cannot be altered or extended? That is what will happen to people who live in the foothills area. 
We are looking at homes in Sunde Road from Oratia going through Swanson and around and up to the Goldies Bush area. The main areas are Green Bay Oratia Henderson Valley Swanson and Waitakere village. If people live in the area leading up to the actual Waitakere Ranges park itself they are in big trouble if this bill is passed. At a time when we need to care more about housing needs and do more for housing we will restrict even alterations to existing houses. Those people love the area and they want to stay in it. Their mothers fathers and grandfathers have lived and/or worked in the area since the 1830s 1840s and 1850s. They are the real tangata whenua because they have been there for all that time. What will happen to them? Because of this legislation those people will not be permitted to stay there. They will have to try to sell their house to someone who has only a small family and move out of the heritage area. 
This bill is opposed by New Zealand First. It should never be passed. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will take one more speaker. I was giving preference to those members who have been on the select committee. I sense that the Committee really wants to move on to Part 3 and there are a lot of amendments. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am indebted to you for your wisdom Mr Chairperson in allowing me an opportunity to speak on this bill. I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and I heard the submissions on the first part of the bill. I spoke in the first reading debate and I have travelled over the Waitakere Ranges and observed the suggestions made in regard to this bill. So thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. However in coming back to this bill after being away for most of the deliberations the select committee has made I find myself very confused. 
I think the initial point was that there needed to be some clarity around the purpose of the bill. Recital (2) of the preamble states that the area is of local regional and national significance. I have some difficulty with that particularly “national” significance because my background is in Fiordland Stewart Island and places where there is a much more pristine and exciting experience. However if this area is of national significance as I think Paula Bennett suggested we should protect it. But with this bill we have created the most litigious legislation I have ever seen and the previous speaker Dail Jones highlighted some of the difficulties in terms of wanting or needing to do something. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 8 which talks about the area being of national significance and its heritage features. I am particularly drawn to new paragraph (i) of clause 8(2). I would like the member in charge of the bill to explain to me precisely what those words mean. We want to get a blueprint where some people can make the decisions that the honourable member Dail Jones illustrated if there is a need to do something. Paragraph (i) states: “the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape”. What does that actually mean when we come to hearings and a consent is required? Could the member in charge of the bill also explain new subparagraph (iii). She must have agreed with it because it is marked “unanimous”. It states: “the rural character of the foothills to the east and north and their intricate pattern of farmland orchards vineyards uncultivated areas indigenous vegetation and dispersed low-density settlement with few urban-scale activities:”. 
In terms of wanting to get consents I can see litigation after litigation lots of lawyers’ fees and procrastinations and hold-ups. But let us go back to first principles I say to Lynne Pillay: if this area is of national significance and having heard the discussions in the Local Government and Environment Committee and five generations of submitters saying in their presentations: “You want to capture my private land and put restrictions on me.” we then come up with the words: “the subservience of the built environment” meaning that these people are subservient to the built environment in a land where property rights are important. We heard from people representing five generations of lineage. I have a view that the Waitakere Ranges are important and I think there is a significant portion of them that should be protected but if we want to protect the area then we should set out and protect it in a national park or in some provision for which there is clarity and allow those areas that are on the fringe or are necessary for Auckland’s development to have a clearer road map to be able to do the things they need to do. 
There are others issues too. I have grave concerns about clause 7 “Boundary extension by Order in Council”. The House has got into the habit of issuing delegated responsibilities on a regular basis and as I have said as a member of the Regulations Review Committee I happen to see a goodly number of them coming before us. We say that we are protecting this heritage area for national and local reasons and then we put in a provision where that boundary can be extended by Order in Council. Who are the people who actually have this right to extend this area? Well it is the Minister but rightly there are some provisions in the Local Government Act that the Minister has to consult. But then I ask the member in charge of the bill to tell me what the appeal procedures are in terms of this power to the Minister to annexe further areas into the heritage area. What are the procedures for those people who have private property rights in that area and who will need to know their options should this be about to occur and who have lost confidence in the process which as have said will be litigious litigious litigious? 
We have an issue of property rights coming in here and clearly those members who sat on the select committee with me would have seen the passionate heartfelt call by some of those families—in one case three generations—representing a historical lineage in that area of five generations and here we have a provision where the Minister through Order in Council with delegated authority can annexe private land into this area. I want some answers to those questions before we proceed with the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that Part 2 stand part. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I think I made it fairly clear before that I would put the question. The question is that the question be now put. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Were you just making a call or a point of order? 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I was going to take a point but Mr Roy is now looking to do that. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is my understanding that if a member is calling and you do not have a closure motion the tradition of this Committee would have it that you take that call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Well that is correct; that is the tradition. But I think I signalled on the previous call on your first call that that would be the last. In fact I should have put it to the vote then. I was well into that before Mr Carter sought the call so I will proceed with the vote if members do not mind. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point is that if the Government wanted a closure then its members quite honestly should have sought the call and put the closure motion—which would have then assisted you in the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a procedural matter which I will take. Mr Gallagher was seeking the call first then. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3) and substitute the following: 
(3)The legal description of the boundaries of the area is contained in Schedule 2 and all titles to land in Schedule 2 shall be noted that they are subject to this Act such notification on the land register to be completed no later than 30 September 2008 and all registered proprietors of such land are to be notified that their land is subject to this Act no later than 30 September 2008. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (j) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(j)To recognise that people live and work in the area in distinct communities and to enable those people to provide for their social economic environmental housing needs and cultural well-being. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of Taito Phillip Field to clause 13(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of Taito Phillip Field to clause 13(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay to clause 23A(3)(b) be agreed to: 
to omit “identity” and substitute “identify”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 23B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 24(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 24(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to proposed new clause 28AA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(2)For the avoidance of doubt subsection (1) does not apply to a decision of a local authority in relation to land that is held in fee simple by any person other than the Crown or a local authority (for example a decision in relation to a consent permit or authorisation). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to insert a new crossheading and new clause 28AA as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.