Volume 683 Week 20 - Thursday 23 August 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 683 Week 20 - Thursday 23 August 2012 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4707. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 23 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 28 August the Government will look to complete the third reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill the first reading of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill and any other partially completed Government bills. Wednesday is a members’ day and the Business Committee has agreed to extend hours on 29 August for a debate on the Social Services Committee Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders and the second readings of the Legislation Bill the Identity Information Confirmation Bill and the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Is the Government going to make it clear to the House whether it is its intention to move on Thursday next week to any part of the alcohol legislation and to make it clear that there will be conscience votes on both Wednesday and Thursday in the House which is quite an unusual situation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will deal with the Committee stage of Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill on Thursday and the decision about how votes are cast is of course between the parties and the Speaker. 
Questions to Ministers 
KiwiRail—Turnaround Plan Network Maintenance and Confidence in Board 
1. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he have confidence in the board of KiwiRail? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)  
on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the board of KiwiRail advised him that from 2014 onwards the rail asset will decline and disruption risk will grow that when spending gets back to current levels it will take many years to pull back from the decline that virtually all rail routes will run down in some way and that by 2015 KiwiRail will be doing 50 percent less track renewal work; if so how can he still have confidence in the board? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not know where the member got those statistics from. What I would urge him to do is to identify where he got them from and whom he got them from. What I suspect is that this is an internal document in which KiwiRail has scoped risks to its network and made it clear that it needed to make investment in its network. So if I might say rather than those things happening we expect over the next few years $750 million to be invested in upgrading the network and that will include up to $80 million a year in maintenance. That is quite a different picture from the one the member is trying to paint. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the board of KiwiRail advised him that the amount to be spent on timber bridges will be cut substantially projects on the main trunk line will be cancelled or deferred the overall condition of railway sleepers will decline and KiwiRail will have to accept a higher level of unplanned disruptions such as slips and erosion? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well once again the member is trying to speak as if he has some document that he can authoritatively quote from without giving any context of it. My answer is that no it has not advised me of that. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the board of KiwiRail advised him that the coal routes between Lyttelton and the West Coast and the route known as the golden triangle of forestry which runs between Hamilton Murupara and Kawerau have been coded by KiwiRail as TM4 which means their track metrics are unacceptable and pose a safety risk and are prejudicial to the customer base; if so how can he still have confidence in the board? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I assume that the member is indicating that KiwiRail has itself identified a number of risks to the network that will require investment. I can confirm that in 2012 the capital investment is $216 million in 2013 it will be $163 million in 2014 it will be $133 million in 2015 it will be $174 million and in 2016 it will be $175 million. In 2005 when his Government bought the thing it spent $53 million. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The supplementary question contained two questions. The first one was whether the Minister had been advised and the second one was if so how he still has confidence in KiwiRail. It would be helpful if either of those questions were answered and if the Minister could indicate to the House whether he had been advised of these matters. It would appear from his answer he had not but it would be helpful to know or whether he still has confidence in the board because those were the two questions asked. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee—because the Minister did not answer— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I was unaware that you were asking questions Mr Speaker but the answer simply is that I have confidence in the board of KiwiRail because it identifies risks to the network and then comes along with a capital programme that would be needed to mitigate those risks. That is a good thing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought one of the rules when electronic devices were allowed in here was that answers from Ministers were not to be supplied by way of them the way that one was through Mr Joyce’s device then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order. How members use their electronic devices so long as they do not interfere in the proceedings of the House is up to them. 
Andrew Williams 
: Given the numerous instances of rail track defects and neglect will he immediately review the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan and direct the KiwiRail board to stop the planned redundancies of around 200 maintenance staff; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well one of the ways in which you can measure the quality and condition of a rail track is by looking at the incidence of derailment. Derailment may be just one wheel or it may be a whole train. In New Zealand seldom is it a whole train. But what I can report to the House is that the incidence of derailment in the last couple of years has fallen dramatically—fallen dramatically—because track maintenance has been a priority for KiwiRail since it took over the very distressed asset paid for at a record amount. In fact it was paid for at what you would say was a bonanza price for the then owners by the New Zealand First - Labour Government. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he agree with the statement— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will be aware that there was never any New Zealand First - Labour Government so why was he allowed to say so? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I really think that if the Speaker was to interfere in every one of those little comments it would be too much interference. I think the matter should be allowed to pass. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he agree with the statement of the Associate Minister of Transport Simon Bridges on 14 August that “The Turnaround Plan that KiwiRail is instituting is about business sustainability and putting precious funds to their best possible uses but in no way shape or form is this compromising safety.”; if so has he been informed by the KiwiRail board of an engineer losing his sight from flying shards when tightening a nut while repairing one of the faulty China North Rail locomotives? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I do agree with the comments made by the Hon Simon Bridges. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table an email informing me of this incident where the engineer lost his sight. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Clare Curran 
: Has he been informed by the chair of the board of KiwiRail of the appointment of Leon Bennett the former private secretary for Wayne Mapp who is not a chartered professional engineer to the most senior mechanical engineering position in KiwiRail; if so what action did he take when he was informed? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. That is an operational matter and Ministers do not interfere in those operational matters. 
Phil Twyford 
: Will he ask the chair of the board to tell KiwiRail management to call off the cuts to network maintenance because of the risk they pose to the organisation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Once again the member is presuming to speak from an authoritative document that he has not named and that he has not tabled and that therefore has I think very little authority. What I can say is that the chairman of KiwiRail has been overseeing a Turnaround Plan that will see KiwiRail invest $750 million over the next few years in the network. That is a good thing. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was direct and quite simple and I do not believe that the Minister even addressed the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to repeat his question because when I repeated the question for the member last time I was accused of asking questions on behalf of members. So the member may repeat his question. 
Phil Twyford 
: Your assistance is always appreciated. Will he ask the chair of the board to tell KiwiRail management to call off the cuts to network maintenance because of the risk they pose to the organisation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I do not accept the hypothetical behind the question. 
Phil Twyford 
: Will he acknowledge not only that KiwiRail cannot meet the financial targets of the Turnaround Plan as the Minister did in this House last week but also that the Turnaround Plan is unrealistic and is driving KiwiRail to make decisions like sacking 181 workers and deferring $200 million of network maintenance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Once again a supposition is put to the House as if it is authoritative. It is not. What I can say is that KiwiRail is doing its very best to effect the Turnaround Plan. It will put $750 million into the network in the next few years. That will make the operation safer. All the member is doing is pointing out to the whole world what a huge dog this thing was when his Government bought it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Phil Twyford—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear Phil Twyford’s supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That is sufficient. I want to hear Phil Twyford’s supplementary question. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is he satisfied that the board of KiwiRail acted appropriately in trying to cover up information on the cuts to network maintenance by taking out an injunction against the news media publishing the contents of this report? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes absolutely because the media outlet that wanted to publish an opinion about that document was going to do so in a most irresponsible way. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table the infrastructure and engineering business plan 2013-15 of KiwiRail. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can object. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well Mr Speaker you cannot ask the House to grant leave to circumvent a court injunction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon—I beg your pardon. Let me seek advice on this. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to make it absolutely clear my understanding is that there is not a general injunction against the publication of this document. It applies to only one radio station. It does not apply to me and it does not apply to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The interesting point that is being made was the last point—that such an injunction probably does not apply to this House. But members in deciding whether or not they will grant leave for the document to be tabled may well bear in mind the issue that there are injunctions around the document or court orders around the document. That is a matter that members may well consider in deciding whether or not to grant leave for it to be tabled. But it is my feeling that it would be inappropriate for me to refuse the House the opportunity to decide whether or not it wishes to grant leave for the document. So I will put it to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the invitation of the Leader of the House the acting Minister for State Owned Enterprises to provide documentation that backed up my colleague’s questions I seek leave to table the executive summary and outcomes section of the infrastructure and engineering business plan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table just the executive summary and outcomes from the report as a document. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Any member of the House has the right to refuse leave for a document to be tabled. 
Economic Growth—Progress and Initiatives 
2. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Canterbury economy and what effect will this have on the national economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The National Bank’s regional trends survey released this week shows that the Canterbury economy grew 4.4 percent in the year to June its strongest annual rate of increase for any individual region since 2007. The Auckland economy grew 3.0 percent in the year to June. These regions contributed to moderate nationwide growth of 1.9 percent in the year to June. 
Maggie Barry 
: In light of the Government’s programme to build a more competitive economy based on more exports and less debt what steps is the Government taking to promote business growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is setting out to assist with business growth across all regions of New Zealand. The Business Growth Agenda is based on the idea that business confidence and growth create sustainable high-paying jobs and boost our standard of living. Last week we released the progress report on building our export markets and this week we produced the progress report on building innovation. The Government is focused on assisting businesses to make the decisions that lift growth—that is the decisions to invest a bit more employ another person and pay a higher wage. 
Maggie Barry 
: Given the unsustainable build-up in New Zealand’s indebtedness in recent decades what progress is the Government making in lifting household savings and reducing household debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is focusing on lifting its own savings and reducing its own debt. Households though are making progress with the very substantial debt New Zealand households have. Savings are up and household debt is down. The most recent data shows that net household savings are positive for the first time since the year 2000 and positive for only the second time in 19 years since 1993. Household debt as a percentage of disposable income has fallen from 155 percent of GDP in 2009—one of the highest levels of household debt in the developed world—to around 140 percent. This is moderate progress but it is progress in the right direction. 
Maggie Barry 
: What reports on alternative approaches to managing the economy has he received? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen one such report recently that included as an economic policy “Changing Gear”. It was from the Labour Party. It did not say whether it was changing to a slower gear or reverse gear but it is changing gear. 
Child Poverty Abuse and Neglect—Every Child Counts Recommendations and Incomes Report 
3. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she agree with the recommendation made by Every Child Counts in its  
Netherlands Study 
 that national indicators of child well-being should be adopted so progress can be measured; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 The Government is already working on a number of the recommendations that have been made in this report but this is not one of them. The children of this country do not have precious time to waste on yet another debate on what measures their well-being. This Government has led the most comprehensive and substantial debate on child well-being this country has ever seen through its green paper process. The white paper will be out shortly and the public can judge us on that. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she believe that a child can have all of its basic needs met while living in a household on 50 percent of the median income in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am sure that would not be easy and I have absolutely no doubt that there are children in this country who are living in poverty. That is why this Government is focused on growing this economy and getting better jobs for those people so that they can move off welfare in many cases and see a brighter future for themselves and their children. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she believe that the decrease in median household incomes in real terms as set out in the incomes report released today has played a role in hardship rates for children rising from 15 percent to 21 percent on her watch? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes and I think that what we have seen is that the effects of the global economy have really hit those people hard. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it is the reality. The Labour Party members might like to think that that has not happened but actually jobs were lost people on part-time work lost some hours and that unsurprisingly has had a direct effect on some of those people’s household incomes. What we have done is protect those who are really at the bottom with Consumers Price Index adjustments by making sure that we actually looked after those who were on benefits when the GST changes were made and by looking after those children and families as I think we have got a role to do. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she agree with the suggestion in the  
Netherlands Study 
 that a universal child or family benefit should be a medium-term goal for her Government as a way to move children out of poverty? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I did note in that study also is that it talked about the economy of the Netherlands—and certainly of those Nordic countries—and about the kinds of choices you get to make when you have that stronger economy and that sort of money to spend. I think that that is what this Government is pretty well focused on. I hope we debate when we have got extra cash to spend where it goes and how those children get it. At the moment we have got the books to sort out we have got a country to get back into surplus and that is our focus. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question related directly to the suggestion in the study and to whether or not the Minister agreed that it should be a medium-term goal for the Government to look into a child or family benefit to move children out of poverty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that that was the question. The member did seek an opinion—whether the Minister agreed—but it would have been helpful if the Minister could have indicated in her answer whether or not she did agree with universal child support arrangements if I recollect the question correctly. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Certainly. My point is that actually the Netherlands economy is so much better off and they have so much more money to spend that they can make those sorts of choices as to whether or not they have a universal child benefit or what it is they spend on. We actually do not have that luxury in New Zealand at this time but I do hope that we do have it in the future. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not ask about the relative economic situations in the Netherlands versus New Zealand. It asked whether or not as a consequence of the study as recommended by Every Child Counts the Government would be looking into the possibility of a child or family benefit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Well no that was not what the question asked. The question asked whether the Minister agreed with that finding from the study that a universal child support system was important. The Minister in her answer because the question was asking for her opinion—whether she agreed with that—indicated that at the moment she could not agree with that because she was arguing New Zealand was not in a position to be even contemplating that at present if I interpreted the Minister’s answer correctly. If I am wrong then the Minister should correct me. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she take any responsibility for according to the income report released today under her Government inequality in New Zealand being the worst it has ever been? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I have already said I am sure that the Labour Party would like to ignore the conditions of the last 3½ years. But they are real. They have affected if anyone those on the lower and middle incomes of this country. We actually stand here and I tell you what New Zealanders say: “Thank goodness for a National Government that has managed its way through it and is now seeing real progress.” that I think we will see as we move out of that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I invite you either to ask the Minister to answer the question or to provide an interpretation for us as you did previously to indicate what the answer was if in fact the question was addressed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well in fairness the question was certainly addressed because the Minister clearly indicated in her answer that she did not disagree with what the member was saying in her question and explained why she did not disagree with what the member was proposing in her question. I cannot get too pedantic about the detail of an answer. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Reports on Release of Personal Information and Governance 
4. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What are the findings of reports released today by the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General about a privacy breach and governance at ACC? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner focused on ACC’s culture policies and practices around privacy and security of information. It found that these were not up to 21st century standards. The Auditor-General focused on governance of the corporation and found that senior board members involved and management failed to recognise the systems of systemic failure around privacy and security information and did not take the appropriate steps. I agree with all the findings. 
David Bennett 
: What specific concerns did the independent report and the Auditor-General raise and what is ACC doing to address these? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner noted systemic weaknesses including a variable culture around the importance of handling private information carefully and a lack of accountability for addressing privacy issues. ACC will undertake a significant programme of work to address concerns raised by both the independent report and the Auditor-General. A timetable for this programme of work is included in the report from the Privacy Commissioner and I expect ACC to make the required changes as a priority. 
Andrew Little 
: In view of the findings in today’s reports both released at 2 p.m. that ACC board members which her Government appointed were too inexperienced to appreciate the gravity of Bronwyn Pullar’s complaints and that the corporation took a cavalier attitude to protecting claimant privacy what steps is she taking to fill the multiple board and senior management vacancies with people who understand ACC and the importance of utmost public confidence in it? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The question is not quite correct in one of the assumptions. I will deal with that first and then deal with the substance of the question. In fact the board members who were named in the reports as having not appreciated the seriousness of the situation were its longest-serving board members—the chair and deputy chair. In relation to the filling of the board positions I can tell the member that there is a very thorough process that is ongoing. Interviews are being undertaken and I am putting a great deal of thought into making sure we get the right combination of board members with the right skills the right character and the right experience. 
David Bennett 
: What expectations has she set for ACC to improve public trust and confidence in how it operates? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Earlier this year I signed a letter of expectations and a service and purchase agreement with ACC outlining my priorities for the board. I expect the ACC board to improve public trust and confidence improve the management and security of private information maintain a focus on levy stability and financial sustainability ensure early resolution of disputes and provide high-quality service for clients. The Auditor-General noted that “this approach will lead to a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the governance and operation of ACC.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the Privacy Commissioner’s comment that the ACC culture change has to start at the top what action has she taken to plug the leaks from her office? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: There are no leaks from my office as that member well knows. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Timing 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is it still the Government’s intention for the first partial privatisation of an SOE to occur in the third quarter of this year; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Yes that is our intention. As we have always said the precise timing of all the Government’s partial share offers will be subject to market conditions and other factors. In the case of Mighty River Power the first offer we are currently working through issues such as Maori rights and interests in water. The Waitangi Tribunal is due to report on its recommendations tomorrow. We are confident these issues can be resolved. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree with the comments of Rob Cameron head of the Capital Market Development Taskforce that the management of the asset sales programme has been “a disaster”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not believe that those comments are correctly attributed and if they are I do not agree with them. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How is it good management to first ignore then needlessly inflame a dispute over water rights potentially costing the taxpayer millions of dollars from a reduced sale price— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Billions. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: —billions—and potentially billions more in legal compensation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is simply wrong. The Government has been aware of Maori rights and interests in water since the day after it took office and it has been working with a wide range of Maori representation on those issues. Those discussions continue in a constructive and positive manner. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that on 1 August he agreed with the Minister of Finance that the asset sales programme was “on track” how does he reconcile that statement with the news that as Bill English stated Solid Energy will be delayed or even cancelled Meridian Energy is being put over a barrel by tough negotiations by its biggest customer the chair of Air New Zealand says that the price of the company is too low to sell and Mighty River Power is faced with potential court action over disputed water rights? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I just cannot recall exactly what his initial question was but the sales are on track. The member is referring to a list of what are normal commercial risks. In fact his question I think underlines the point that these companies are subject to commercial risks. The fact that they are owned by the Government does not make those go away. Our intention is to get an ownership structure where those commercial risks will be handled more constructively. And actually all I said about Solid Energy was that it is not ready for sale now. 
Andrew Williams 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s 7 August comment that the Government’s asset sales have been hamstrung by the market; if so has he had any discussions with the Prime Minister about shelving the mixed-ownership model? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the sale of State-owned assets does not meet revenue expectations due to his Government’s mismanagement of the float or floats what actions will his Government take to make up the financial shortfall? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any risks to the proceeds from the sales which the Government has specified as being $5 billion to $7 billion will not be to do with the Government’s handling of the sales; they will be to do with companies like Solid Energy having to face the reality that coal prices have dropped and the fact that electricity companies may face flat or falling electricity demand for instance. Those are all real commercial risks and we will not know until we are fairly well through the sales process whether the Government will realise $5 billion to $7 billion. We expect we will realise $5 billion to $7 billion. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Does the Minister accept that reports of difficult power price negotiations with Rio Tinto jeopardise the timing of the first partial privatisation of a State-owned enterprise and how does this demonstrate the importance of keeping strategic assets in New Zealand control so that the New Zealand economy cannot be held to ransom by foreign-owned businesses? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Firstly I would point out that the so-called foreign-owned business has provided on average in excess of a thousand jobs in Southland since the early 1960s and not too many other investors have actually done that. So let us keep that in perspective. Secondly of course there is going to be some game playing around what are tough commercial negotiations between the owners of the smelter and Meridian Energy. I have to say that over the period since the mid-1960s every time the aluminium price gets a bit low the owners of that business front up to the Government and try to get the electricity price down. There is nothing new. 
Andrew Williams 
: Does he agree with the other comment made by the Prime Minister on 7 August that “We don’t have lots of flexibility and they are literally October-November of this year or March-April of next year”; if that is the case if Mighty River Power is not sold by March-April next year what effect will it have on the future viability of the mixed-ownership model? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a hypothetical question. The Government is on track for the sale of Mighty River Power this year. We have been working with Maori over water rights and interests for 3 years. Given that that is the principal issue related to Mighty River Power we believe that that issue can be handled in a constructive and positive way as it has been for the last 2 or 3 years. 
State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Costs for Mighty River Power 
6. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much has Mighty River Power spent to date on preparing itself for “transition to the Mixed Ownership Model”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 First I say to the member that this information will certainly be publicly available. However Mighty River Power is subject to a disclosure regime similar to that of a publicly listed company by Government policy which means that all this information will be made available. Because of the strict legal requirements in the run-up to the float about the provision of information in relation to the individual company the Government by policy choice is running a conservative policy that financial information will be released according to the disclosure regime not through ad hoc parliamentary processes. I can tell the member that the number will be available on Tuesday next week when the company discloses it as part of its annual results announcement. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In order to assist the House I seek leave to table four documents. The first is a letter from Genesis Energy disclosing that it has so far spent $670000 preparing for the mixed-ownership model process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The second letter is a letter dated 14 August this year from Meridian Energy disclosing that Meridian Energy has spent $562000 so far preparing for the mixed-ownership model. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The third letter is from Solid Energy dated 12 August stating that Solid Energy has spent $131000 so far preparing for mixed ownership. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Please I must hear this in silence so I can hear whether there is any objection. There is no objection on that one. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The final one is a letter from Mighty River Power refusing to release the information dated 16 August this year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that Mighty River Power according to the Minister’s answer is going to be releasing the information on Tuesday why on earth is the Minister not releasing the information today on Thursday? Is it because the Government is embarrassed by the cost of the asset sale programme which has now run aground like the  
Rena 
 and is leaking money left right and centre? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No that is not the case. The Government intends to be fully transparent about the costs but we are going about that in a disciplined manner in respect of Mighty River Power because of the strict legal requirements around information about particular companies. We do not intend to put ourselves at risk of breaking the law. I am not implying that giving the member the number now would break the law but we do not want to put ourselves at risk of it. We have consistently said that the costs will be around 2 percent of the $5 billion to $7 billion proceeds. We plan to release all the information the member is seeking every quarter. That will prevent him carrying on with his campaign that the Government is somehow hiding these costs. We are not. They will be available and it is unfortunate that that will be a bit less politically convenient for the member. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking your advice. The Minister has stated very clearly that he does not believe there is a legal reason preventing him from releasing it. I assume his argument is that it not in the public interest to release this information. Is that your understanding of why that answer is acceptable? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Indeed the only reason why the Minister could get away with not providing the information the member is seeking which is pretty straightforward information is that the Minister if I heard him correctly is arguing that it is not in the public interest because the Government has decided to follow the standard—and forgive me for not remembering the correct terminology—programme for release of such information under the public companies Act is it? The Government has obviously made one assumes an assessment that that is the safest way when dealing with these commercial things to handle such a matter. So certainly it is the public interest that the Minister has invoked. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry but in listening to the Minister’s answer he specifically said it was a matter of Government policy rather than one of following the law in the Companies Act or any other—that it was a matter of Government policy. Is it OK for the Government to say: “We are not releasing information just because it is our policy not to release information.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is absolutely at the Minister’s discretion. Only the Minister can make the judgment about what is in the public interest. It would appear from his answer—I stress “appear” because I know no more than the member—that the Government from what the Minister has said has decided that the safest way to handle what is obviously a commercial transaction is to follow the standard procedures for release of such information as it is a commercial transaction that is being carried out. It is a fair point that the member is raising but the Speaker cannot second-guess the Minister. It is quite clear that the public interest is being invoked here. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Government come up with this new policy of not releasing information even though there is no legal objection to releasing that information purely for the reason that the Minister gave in his answer which is to block political opposition to the asset sale programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No we would not dignify that member’s opposition to it by going to so much trouble. The fact is the Government is not blocking the release of the information. It will be released on Tuesday. The general information about costs incurred in the process of the float will be released every quarter. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Are the millions being spent by the State-owned enterprises themselves in preparation for privatisation additional to the $106 million in Vote Finance that the Government has budgeted for the sales process which includes things like public relations consultants brokers’ fees and lawyers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we have said we have made a general estimate of 2 percent of the proceeds of $5 billion to $7 billion. That is a reasonably wide range of costs because it is a bit hard to predict them out over a period of years. The fact is the total amounts will be available whether they are spent by the company or the Government. I would say to the member that the expenditure of money by the companies is pretty small in comparison with the much stronger focus they now have on cost control and careful capital investment which unchecked could have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the member I think the member’s question was very clear actually on that occasion. The member asked whether the figures he quoted were in addition to any money that might be spent by the companies. I think that was not an unreasonable question to ask. In answering the Minister said that the Government has made it clear that a certain amount of money will be spent—some percentage—but did not indicate whether that was in addition to the money that would be spent by the companies which was a fair question. I ask the Minister to please come back to that question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We simply have not classified the costs in that way. We have made a broad estimate of 2 percent. The member is free to ask about any costs and whether they are part of the cost of sales. Over future years we think the total of all those costs will be around about 2 percent of proceeds whether it is paid by the company or paid by the Government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the costs of the asset sales programme that we know about include the $106 million in Vote Finance the millions spent by the State-owned enterprises themselves the money spent on the Waitangi Tribunal hearings the hundreds of thousands spent on pay rises to energy company managers potentially the hundreds of millions for the share giveaway and the $100 million a year in additional deficits are there any other hidden costs of the asset sales programme that are not in that list? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. I think we will be adding to the list the expenditure by the Parliamentary Service Commission on people that the Greens have been paying to approach 12-year-olds—12-year-olds—as I saw the other day to sign a petition opposing asset sales. We will add that to the list. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear Dr Russel Norman’s supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I say to the National Party back corner there to please be reasonable. I must be able to hear the supplementary question. I see members looking around saying who me? But I can see you all from here and there was too much noise. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How would mum and dad shareholders be able to afford to buy shares in these companies when today’s household income report shows that middle New Zealand is getting poorer under this Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are also a lot of figures that show that middle New Zealand is increasing its savings rate for pretty much the first time in a generation. Mums and dads are quite capable of making their own decisions on that. They will not be listening to what the Government tells them and they certainly will not be listening to that member because they will be worried that their taxpayer dollars have been spent by him on paying people to gather signatures from schoolchildren. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister concerned that after 4 years of his Government middle New Zealanders’ after-tax incomes are in decline and how will those middle mum and dad New Zealanders be able to afford to buy shares in these companies he is flogging off when their real after-tax incomes are decreasing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are a fair stretch from the primary question but I do not want to deprive the honourable Minister. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is of course being selective about his years because the years prior to the one he is referring to showed significant increases in real after-tax disposable incomes. Of course the year to which he is referring shows the impact of a sharp rise in unemployment particularly among lower-income workers. New Zealand mums and dads are quite capable of making their own decisions about whether they can put money aside for this purpose or whether to put it aside for reducing their credit card debt or their mortgage. We believe New Zealanders are responsible and capable. Clearly that member believes New Zealanders should be protected from themselves. 
Science and Research Funding—2012 Science Investment Round Grants 
7. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What new investment is the Government making in science and research? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Today I announced that New Zealand researchers have been awarded $133 million in new research grants including $32.8 million in this current financial year as part of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s 2012 science investment round. Applications for the grant were reviewed by independent experts and selected by the ministry’s science board. In total 47 research projects were awarded grants in the areas of biological industries energy and minerals hazards and infrastructure the environment and health and society. Funding for research in the high-value manufacturing and services sector will be announced in the coming weeks. 
Scott Simpson 
: How does this very significant investment by the Government into science and research improve New Zealand’s economic productivity and competitiveness? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Science underpins the innovation required to increase the productivity of firms and create sustained long-term GDP growth. As part of this year’s science investment round we are providing grants to a range of areas including for example research into combating the Psa bacterial disease in kiwifruit enhancing the resilience of underground infrastructure in Christchurch and clean-energy storage technology to assist the integration of renewable wind energy into the national grid. On Tuesday I released the Government’s  
Building Innovation 
 progress report which lays out the science and innovation initiatives that build on our strength as a nation of innovators and scientists. This announcement today is another example of the Government’s science and innovation policies in action. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Ministers’ Statements 
8. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he stand by all his answers to parliamentary questions; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes as long as they are taken in context. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he stand by his statement made recently in Parliament that Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy managers “will have a laptop. They will no longer be stuck behind a desk in an office using a whiteboard. We are moving to modern technology”; if so when was he informed that tenancy officers have never had laptops will not be getting laptops and the so-called modern technology they have got is a cellphone that is not fit for purpose? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am surprised that the member has got it wrong again. First of all for the first part of the question the  
Hansard 
 will say “the changes we are making” the “tenancy managers will spend” “They will have” “They will no longer be stuck behind a desk” and “We are moving to” new technology. So clearly it is fairly future-focused. That is the first thing. The second thing the member says is that tenancy managers have never used laptops. Actually in Christchurch after the earthquakes tenancy managers when they were out and about did use laptops. But can I say to the member if she could just stop making things up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would it be appropriate for the Minister to table what he was quoting from because he missed out the fact that he used the word— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No no. Order! The member must resume her seat. The member if I understood him correctly was quoting from his  
Hansard 
 and that is already available. So it is all available for members anyhow so we will not be tabling that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that the uncorrected  
Hansard  
is also available to members because there could well be a difference here between what the member said and what he said he said? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Since when did members not understand this is a point of order. Both the uncorrected and the corrected are available. And I must say to the member asking the question that if the Minister’s answer missed out a bit she believed should have been in it that is obviously the next supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can the Speaker further confirm from I think the  
Prebble 
 case dealt with by a Speaker that it is a breach of privilege to significantly change one’s  
Hansard  
to take out a vital fact? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: What the member’s allegations are—and I think journalists and members can test this by looking at the  
Hansard 
—is that I would have had to have changed these words: “are making”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat. None of this stuff should be being dealt with by way of point of order. The Minister has the chance to answer further questions the member has the chance to ask further questions and that is the way this matter should be dealt with. The member asked a question. The Minister answered it. The member believed that he had left a bit out that in her view should have been in the answer. That is an opportunity for further supplementary questions to chase that up to see whether that was the matter. So I invite the Hon Annette King to do that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he consider after the promises he made in Opposition and his undivided attention to the housing portfolio to improve the quality of State houses that some State houses are now just “in a serious state of repair” as he claimed on 2 August this year; or is the Government the biggest slum landlord in the country? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have made it clear in Opposition and certainly coming into Government since I got the briefing as incoming Minister twice—actually three times—and other documents that there is a large amount of the State housing stock that is in a serious state of disrepair. The most immediate thing we can do clearly is to insulate all State houses. I do not know why they were not done historically in the last 10 years but we will be insulating every State house by the end of next year. But there is still an awful lot of work to do to get State housing up to a decent standard. We think we should not just look at those on the waiting list and be concerned about them but also those who are in State houses should be living in decent conditions and we are working on that. 
Hon Annette King 
: What was his reaction to the Minister of Finance Bill English calling the Government “the biggest slum landlord in the country by a long-shot” just yesterday therefore making him as the Minister of State housing the principal slum landlord; and how does this label stack up against his claim that he has “always suspected” that he was “a very effective member”? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have said ad infinitum for 4 years that the State housing stock is in a serious state of disrepair that in fact you know it took a decade to deteriorate and we are repairing it. But can I just say this. You know the easiest thing you could do is insulate the State houses. They were not insulated in a decade. We are going to finish insulating by the end of next year and that is a great thing. I am not denying it is in a state of serious disrepair. We have got to get on and do it. One more thing: every time we bowl a State house to rebuild kick out a gang member or whatever those opposite complain. 
Hon Annette King 
: When Bill English said yesterday the Government was looking for “viable capital recycling models” to deliver more efficient State housing is he indicating floating Housing New Zealand Corporation on the stock market so that we can all become slum landlord millionaires? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is a very complicated way of looking at what Bill English meant. What I think he meant though on the face of it is this: he thinks it would be a really good idea if we sold and bowled the old crappy ones and built some new ones for our tenants. Personally I think that is a really good idea. 
Agricultural Vehicles—Review of Rules 
9. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: What progress is being made on the Government review into transport rules affecting agricultural vehicles? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Earlier this month I announced changes to simplify the rules for the use of New Zealand’s 40000 agricultural vehicles. This followed a review and widespread consultation in response to concerns that the current laws do not take into account the special nature of agricultural vehicles or the demands of agricultural production. The proposed changes will improve compliance and provide greater operational flexibility for this important sector. 
Ian McKelvie 
: What are some of the key changes? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well there are many. The changes establish a two-tier system for agricultural vehicles based on a 40-kilometre-an-hour operating speed. Vehicles operating below this speed will be exempt from a warrant of fitness and work-time requirements. In addition a new licence endorsement will allow car licence holders to drive a greater range of agricultural vehicles once they prove that they have the skills to do so. Of course safety remains an important factor. The changes proposed require agricultural vehicles to use a flashing amber beacon to alert road users. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 10 Eugenie Sage. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Labour benches on this occasion to please show some courtesy to a member at the back. I have called Eugenie Sage. 
Conservation Land—Fiordland Monorail Proposal 
10. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Is the financial viability of an applicant company a factor in the consideration of concession applications on conservation land; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Yes. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Has the department sought a financial feasibility report from Fiordland monorail promoters Riverstone Holdings Ltd as part of its consideration of the company’s concession application; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The department is obviously working on a range of information in terms of this application. Obviously as I have already said in answer to the primary question the financial viability is a consideration. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Does the fact that two of the three directors of the monorail company are also the directors of Pegasus Town Ltd which failed and went into receivership last week encourage the Minister to ensure that there is full financial disclosure by the company promoting the $175 million monorail proposal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I have said at the outset the financial viability of a company is a consideration in all concession applications on conservation land. I am sure all relevant matters will be considered in what is a statutory process. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Given that the proposed monorail would involve felling and clearing more than 25000 trees and undertaking significant earthworks in a World Heritage area does the Minister accept that there are significant risks to conservation values if the application is approved and the company subsequently abandons it because of financial difficulties? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member is well ahead of herself. There is a concession process obviously under way to consider it at the moment. There is also a subsequent Resource Management Act process. So we will be getting a fair way down the track before we will be dealing with the issues the member mentions. 
Welfare Reforms—Effect of Future Focus 
11. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What impact have the Government’s Future Focus welfare reforms had to date? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Under the Government’s 2010 Future Focus welfare reforms we introduced a new obligation requiring those receiving an unemployment benefit to reapply after a year. Since these changes 62178 people have gone through the reapplication process and as a result 15768 people did not reapply during that process. This simple renewal request has saved well over $29.5 million in benefit expenditure. 
Melissa Lee 
: How have these changes supported more sole parents into work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As part of those changes we also introduced a part-time work obligation for sole parents with children over 6 years old which means we were actively working with around 6000 sole parents each month. As a result we have seen a greater proportion move into part-time work. Compared with 2 years ago the number of sole parents in part-time work has increased by nearly 2000 to 16300. 
Melissa Lee 
: What reports has she seen that show support for the Government’s welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen a number of reports as you can imagine. One is that “It is wrong to tax a working person almost to breaking point then give it to a person who is able to work but refuses to.” That is on the Facebook page of the member for Hutt South. I note that they also have support from the leader of the Labour Party. I have seen a report there that says he has “little tolerance for people who don’t pull their weight.” I welcome those members’ support for Government welfare reforms. 
Maternity Services—Performance 
12. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied that New Zealand’s maternity services are meeting all the needs of pregnant women in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the Minister of Health: It is important to state that the phrase “meeting all the needs” sets a very broad parameter. There is no definitive list of needs. What I can however say is that New Zealand has a world-class maternity system but we can always do better. From time to time service to an individual may fall short of that required sometimes with tragic consequences. That is why doctors midwives nurses and other health professionals across all 20 district health boards are now all working together for the first time ever on the national maternity quality and safety programme. We want the best possible services to protect the safety of mothers and babies. That is why the National Government has invested $114 million over the last 4 years in improving safety and quality. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How can he be satisfied with maternity services when there were 21 infant deaths in 2010 where midwives failed to follow best-practice guidelines including the case about which Hastings coroner Chris Devonport last Thursday said texting was an inappropriate way for midwives to complete clinical assessments and which resulted in the death of a baby boy last June? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: Each tragic circumstance is reviewed. Each tragic circumstance where a mother or a baby dies gives the opportunity for the individuals involved to learn from the review process. Ideally these tragic circumstances would never happen but the national maternity quality and safety programme gives us a new opportunity to not wait for tragic circumstances to actually move forward and improve the quality and safety of the care that is provided to mothers and babies in New Zealand. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware that 96 to 98 percent of midwife graduates undertake the additional Midwifery First Year of Practice programme; if so will he make completion of this programme compulsory to ensure some consistency across the sector? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: I am afraid that I am unable to answer that question given that I have not been briefed on the hypothetical question going to the Minister. 
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 17 October 2012 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member trying to address the business of the House. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: —thank you Mr Speaker—and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 190 and 191(1)(b) and (c). 
The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill includes major amendments to the New Zealand emissions trading scheme that the Government intends to make in response to the recommendations of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme Review Panel in 2011 as well as international developments and a number of technical and minor amendments that aim to improve the operational effectiveness of the emissions trading scheme. Although the Government has chosen not to implement all of the recommendations of the review panel I do want to acknowledge the considerable work of the panel in framing the issues in a way that has helped the Government address the issues in question. 
This bill will ensure that the emissions trading scheme effectively supports the Government’s economic growth priorities by keeping carbon costs at a level that is appropriate in the light of the current economic climate and other countries’ climate change actions. The amendments will mitigate the short-term costs for businesses and households and will ensure that the emissions trading scheme is flexible enough to cater for a range of future international scenarios. 
Let me briefly examine and outline the major changes to the bill. Existing transitional measures reducing the impact of the emissions trading scheme on households and businesses will be extended beyond 2012 without an end date subject to a review in 2015. This will facilitate New Zealand’s ongoing economic recovery by ensuring that there will not be significant increases to emissions trading scheme - related costs for businesses and households until at least 2015. 
The entry date for surrender obligations for biological emissions for agriculture will be deferred and will not be specified in primary legislation. The Government’s current intention is to re-examine in 2015 the entry date for surrender obligations for biological emissions from agriculture and the continuation of the transition phase. 
The bill introduces offsetting for pre-1990 forestry in the emissions trading scheme. This will give owners of pre-1990 forest land more flexibility. This bill also introduces a power to allow auctioning within an overall cap on the supply of New Zealand Units—NZUs. Auctioning will mitigate the risk that New Zealand businesses would buy too many international units and will give emissions trading scheme participants more certainty about supply of units in the scheme. 
This bill makes a number of technical changes so that the scheme is more workable and flexible. For example it improves the current treatment of the synthetic greenhouse gases sector in the emissions trading scheme. Equally it removes deforestation liabilities where forest land cannot be re-established because a natural event prevents it. Some of these technical changes will also address issues arising from the interaction between the emissions trading scheme multiple-owned Maori land and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. 
Because of the complex nature of the emissions trading scheme a couple of technical issues have arisen subsequent to consultations which we believe do merit further consideration at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The first relates to the very detailed and complex offsetting rules around pre-1990 forestry. The second relates to the Crown’s ability to manage its Kyoto Protocol obligation for the first commitment period. Further amendments to the Climate Change Response Act may be necessary to ensure that the Act can be certain to meet its first commitment period obligation in an efficient and effective manner by setting aside emission units required for that obligation now. If the committee considers that these issues do need to be addressed then it may wish to make recommendations on the bill. 
In conclusion this bill will keep carbon costs in New Zealand at a level similar to the current level which is appropriate in terms of the current economic climate and international progress. It will make sure that our businesses remain internationally competitive and that households are not weighed down by rising costs. I commend this bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think the Minister has forgotten why we are doing all this. He has talked a lot about carbon costs and the cost to business and a lot about the cost to industry. He has not talked at all about the cost to the environment and the cost to our planet of doing nothing. I think that the Government has completely forgotten why we have an emissions trading scheme in the first place. 
Frankly if this is the kind of legislation that we are going to be passing in this House we might as well get rid of it—because we do not have an emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme we have in place is “all sectors all gases”. That is how it was designed. It does not work if all sectors and all gases are not in the scheme and when 50 percent of this country’s emissions which come from the agricultural sector are excluded from the scheme it simply does not work. We are seeing the impact in the forestry sector at the moment. We have a lot of carbon foresters who would like to be able to sell the units they get from growing their forests to someone but half of the country’s emitters are not in the scheme. So the market for their credits is not there. 
We are going to be facing massive liabilities in the future when I believe there will be a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. When that will be I do not know and I know that the Minister is part of those negotiations and has a decision to make very shortly as to whether we enter into the European second commitment period or whether we enter into a voluntary period with non-binding targets. That is a decision the Government has to make and we await that decision with bated breath. But the fact is that if we are not going to do this properly then why are we putting everyone through the pain of doing it at all? This further undermines the scheme that Labour put in place when we were in Government. It further undermines any efforts— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Yeah. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Jacqui Dean is really pleased that we are not doing anything about climate change. She is really pleased that we are not taking our climate change commitments seriously. Does Jacqui Dean realise how much exporters in her electorate rely on our “clean green” branding? Does she realise the value of that branding to this country? If she does then she should be very concerned about legislation like this added on top of a pile of policies that are consistently undermining the very branding that we rely on to remain internationally competitive as the Minister said in the first place. 
 That is one of my biggest concerns about this Government and about this piece of legislation. It is the “say one thing do another” approach of the National Government. Government members go out there and they tout our “clean green” and “100% Pure New Zealand” credentials. John Key when he went on  
HARDtalk 
 on the BBC when he was in the UK got absolutely done over when some actual hard investigative journalistic questions were put to him about just how clean and green New Zealand really is—about just how clean and green New Zealand really is—and he could not answer the questions. 
Labour members say we should actually start walking the talk and living that brand rather than just paying lip-service to it which is what the National Government is doing—which is what the National Government is doing. It has relied on an economic downturn to provide a reduction in the growth in emissions but our emissions have continued to grow. When Minister Groser was asked at the Local Government and Environment Committee when New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emissions were projected to peak he did not know. He had to come back to us and the answer was never—the answer was never. 
So instead of actually having a scheme in place that starts to reduce our gross greenhouse gas emissions we do not. We have one that is going to allow them to continue to grow and is not putting any carbon price at all on the very people we want to drive that behaviour change—the very people we want to drive the behaviour change that we need if we are going to one actually take our commitments seriously internationally in terms of global climate change and two protect the very brand that has been built up over decades. I will tell you what: reputations are hard-earned but they are very very quickly lost. This National Government with its single-minded focus on oil and gas exploration whilst putting in no support for low-carbon or renewable technologies now with pieces of legislation like this is doing a very good job of undermining our brand which is so important to our economy. 
I want to give an example of the kind of “do as I say not as I do” contradictory statements that we are getting out of the National Government. Minister Groser is very very keen on promoting his involvement in the scheme of a group called the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. This is a group that has very very laudable objectives which are to go around this country and to talk to countries that have subsidies in place for high-carbon industries and for fossil fuels about the benefits of getting rid of those subsidies which are often costly to the Governments that provide them and also very very costly to the environment. 
If you go to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website there is a whole page on this particular scheme. It is all very grandiose it has got quotes in big fonts and it is on a very appropriately environmentally friendly green background. The quote from Minister Groser is this: “It is completely incoherent for the world to be tentatively coordinating actions to put a price on carbon while simultaneously massively subsidising consumption of carbon”. Agreed. It is a very good quote. So why then Minister are you introducing a piece of legislation into the House that entrenches for perpetuity for ever subsidies that come from emitters of carbon? We have this one-for-two surrender obligation which the Government put in place after the last election where basically for every 2 tonnes that are emitted the emitters have to surrender only one unit instead of two—so that has halved their costs. 
 The review panel which the Minister referred to said that that should be phased out and gotten rid of because it is expensive. Instead of doing that the Minister who goes around the world telling other countries that we should not have these subsidies has just entrenched them in legislation for ever—for ever. It says “maintain the 1-for-2 surrender obligation after 2012 without specifying an end date in legislation:”. Not only that but also the Government subsidises and has tax credits for oil and gas exploration for people who want to engage in that activity. As I said there is nothing for those who work in the renewables area in terms of that kind of assistance. Again how can the Minister hold his head up high and go preaching to other countries that they should get rid of subsidies for fossil fuel extraction and for fossil fuel subsidisation when we are doing exactly the same thing in New Zealand? It is this kind of activity it this kind of contradictory behaviour that does New Zealand no favours on the international stage. 
I have talked to a number of people recently who have said that New Zealand’s standing internationally has declined dramatically since this Government took over and that is something we should be concerned about. National used to accuse us when we were in Government of being world leaders in climate change. We thought yes we were trying to take a stand and that we were trying to be principled on this. John Key when he was elected said: “We are not going to be world leaders but let us be fast followers.” He said we will be fast followers instead. Well what we have actually become is apathetic spectators—that is what we are. We are standing on the sideline waiting for Australia to do something so then we might or might not decide what to do. And it has been noticed that for New Zealand the clean green country at the bottom of the world which people respect and look up to internationally our reputation is in sharp sharp decline. Members of this House should not be in any doubt about how dangerous that is to our economy. 
I want to come back to the issue of agriculture. The Minister could have done something very simple. If the issue with agriculture is price the cost to farmers and not the principle of bringing agriculture into the scheme which is what we are always told then he should bring them in but not put any price obligation on them. Bring them into the scheme so that they are in the scheme and they know that in the future they will face a price cost. Why can they not come in? The Government can subsidise them 100 percent if that is what it decides. We would not agree with that but that is what it could do. I remember that back in 2009 John Key was telling the agricultural sector that it had to come into the scheme or risk the loss of export markets. He was quite adamant. He said that the cost to agriculture would be about $300000 a year and that was when the carbon price was much higher. It is very low now. The cost would actually be minimal to bring some of these people in. You could argue that this is a good time to bring people in if they are worried about the cost. 
I want to raise one very important point which is that I do not think you will find a single farmer who will say that getting rid of the subsidies in the 1980s was a bad idea. They hated it at the time. They absolutely hated it but they had to then become innovative and responsive. They had to respond to market signals. They had to respond to consumer demands. They had to be aware internationally of what was going on. That is what has made our farmers the best in the world. That is what has made them the most innovative. They have not been shielded from these kinds of market signals. So I am stunned as to why the agricultural sector and the National Government would now argue that we should bring back subsidies that we should now blunt those market signals and that we should now shield the agricultural sector from the very signals that in the past it has responded to phenomenally which has made it the greatest farming industry in the world. I would like an answer to that question from the next National speaker. Thank you. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I would like to endorse the points made by the Minister for Climate Change Issues in his speech. National is committed to creating a cleaner greener brighter future for all New Zealanders. National believes that New Zealand as a responsible international citizen must do its fair share and act to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. 
The emissions trading scheme is driving investment in renewable energy energy efficiency and tree planting. By maintaining incentives to reducing emissions without loading costs on households and businesses our emissions trading scheme is helping to contribute to a stronger and more productive economy. These changes reflect the balanced approach the National-led Government is taking towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of these changes is to maintain the costs that the emissions trading scheme places on the economy at current levels. 
The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill also makes a number of changes designed to improve the operation of the emissions trading scheme. This will provide more flexibility and ensure that the scheme is fit for purpose after 2012. As outlined by the Minister the main provisions of this bill include keeping the one-for-two obligation in place until after this year. This means participants in this scheme will continue to surrender units for half the carbon they emit. Other provisions include maintaining the $25 fixed price option until at least 2015 which caps the price firms will face if carbon prices begin to rise internationally; introducing offsetting for pre-1990 forest land owners; and allocating the full second tranche of compensation where offsetting is not taken. We are leaving agricultural emissions out of the emissions trading scheme until at least 2015 and reviewing the emissions trading scheme in 2015. 
The bill provides much greater certainty for businesses. This is important because of the challenges the global economy continues to face and the range of possible international climate change frameworks. The bill provides certainty to businesses in three key ways. Firstly businesses will not face additional costs due to the continuation of the transition phase measures. Secondly businesses will continue to be able to meet the emissions trading scheme obligations by surrendering international units. This will mean the price of domestic emission units will continue to reflect the prevailing price of international units. Thirdly the amendments ensure that future reviews of the emissions trading scheme happen only as and when necessary. This should also reduce the concerns about emissions trading scheme review fatigue that have been expressed by some. 
I commend the work and leadership of Minister Groser on what is a balanced and responsible approach. This Government is not willing to heap further costs on households and businesses but we are committed to doing our fair share. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 That last speech came from Mr Bridges who I think is probably stronger when he is doing agricultural vehicles. I think he is probably stronger when he is talking about them. To finish his speech by talking about a fair system and a system that is going to help New Zealand’s reputation is unbelievable coming from that Minister. 
I want to start my contribution by referring to the climate change issues Minister’s announcement during his speech that the report-back date for this bill is to be 17 October—17 October. That is just how seriously the Government treats this issue and the views of New Zealanders and the people who will be affected by the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—rush it through get it back here on 17 October and not have a proper select committee process a proper analysis a proper opportunity for New Zealanders to comment on this. The Government is doing that because the transitional period runs out—December is coming upon us—and there need to be decisions made. That is the fault of this Government. That is the fault of this Government for not getting this legislation to the House earlier to allow a proper process so that people can actually— 
Paul Goldsmith 
: So you want to take the farmers’ prices they’re paying do you? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: What is that sorry Mr Goldsmith? Oh! He suddenly is very quiet—suddenly very quiet. He is suddenly very quiet because he knows that it is taxpayers in New Zealand who bear the brunt of the fact that polluters are let off the hook. Yes right the good people of Epsom are sitting there today knowing that Mr Goldsmith is prepared to subsidise polluters to carry on damaging New Zealand’s reputation overseas and ultimately making New Zealand taxpayers pay and be responsible because the Government has mucked around and not put a bill in front of this House at the time that it should have. 
New Zealanders’ integrity on the issue of climate change and on our clean green image is built on the fact that we are prepared to do our bit and that we are prepared to stand up as a country for the environment. Our credibility on climate change comes from the fact that we have an all-sectors all-gases scheme. Step by step since this Government has come into office it has put that idea on the back-burner it has put that off and we now have an emissions trading scheme that as my colleague Moana Mackay has said we may as well not have under the conditions that this Government is creating. It is a market mechanism with 50 percent of the market not even showing up. It is a joke for this Government to even call this an emissions trading scheme when half the market is not even there to participate in it. 
But moreover there is the damage to our wider global brand. It is worth billions of dollars to New Zealand that we are seen as clean and green. We know that we can do better to meet the reality of that image in a number of sectors in a number of places in our country. But what we can definitely do globally is be able to say that we take our obligations seriously in the area of climate change. This Government is simply not doing that. What we have here is simply a delay into the never-never for two key elements of the emissions trading scheme. We have got the delay of the entry of agriculture. Let us be absolutely clear: this is not even a delay in the way that was recommended by the review panel. This is a delay indefinitely. There is no date set for the entry of agriculture into this scheme. So there goes the all-gases all-sectors scheme in one hit. There is no date for agriculture’s entry into this scheme. 
 As Moana Mackey said when subsidies were taken off agriculture in the 1980s it hurt rural New Zealand. It was an incredibly difficult time. The rural sector the agricultural sector responded by becoming the most efficient agricultural sector in the world. That is what we have now managed to create. 
We now have this Government saying that we should keep those subsidies on while parading Mr Groser around the world at all of the conferences he goes to claiming that he is in some Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform group. I was actually very confused by that title because I assumed that he was a friend of fossil fuels but it turns out that the group actually has a different goal. But he is a friend of fossil fuels. What he is doing is subsidising now the polluters in New Zealand in a way that means New Zealand will be seen internationally as a friend of fossil fuels not a friend of ending fossil fuels. 
It is important to note that the extension of the one-for-two carbon credit subsidy really puts the nail in the coffin of New Zealand making an actual difference in the way that we reduce our carbon emissions. Let us be absolutely clear: for every one credit that is handed in it counts as two. That is what happens here. So this bill does nothing to actually start reducing New Zealand’s carbon emissions. And as my colleague Moana Mackey again said Tim Groser at the Local Government and Environment Committee could not tell us when emissions would peak and that is because they are not going to because there is no actual effort to do that. Climate change is not some abstract policy. Climate change is about the protection of our environment. 
I think the leadership on this issue from John Key is something that we should look at because he told farmers in 2009 that they needed to get into the scheme to be able to make sure that they could be internationally competitive. But I am not sure that he is totally committed to it. We have to remember that John Key named George W Bush and John Howard as his mentors on climate change. That is what he said. He named them as his mentors on climate change. He actually said in the House admittedly before he became our Prime Minister that “even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it … we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.” That is what John Key told this House. So the Government is completely lacking leadership when it comes to the question of climate change. What Mr Key needs to face up to is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—I think Mr Key might just call them “some scientists” and he can find another scientist but I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has probably got something to say about this—has told us that the probability that climate change is natural is less than 5 percent world temperatures are going to rise between 1.1 degrees and 6.4 degrees during the 21st century sea levels will rise by 18 centimetres to 59 centimetres and the level of greenhouse gases is higher than it has ever been due to mankind. 
Climate change is real. This bill tries to pretend that it is not. It tries to pretend that New Zealand can hide away from its responsibilities when it comes to addressing issues of climate change. But that has been the attitude of this Government from day one. The very first days that I spent in this House as an MP involved the National Government removing the Labour Party’s ban on baseload thermal generation removing the subsidy on biofuels— 
Moana Mackey 
: No the obligation on biofuels. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The obligation sorry not the subsidy—that is what they put in. It removed the obligation on biofuels and subsequently in Budget after Budget it has not invested in public transport and not invested in schemes for clean energy. And in terms of the big drivers outside of agriculture in terms of energy and transport not enough actual work is being done to say that we can reduce our emissions. So this Government is failing to introduce agriculture as a sector into this scheme and failing to undertake the work in the key areas of transport and energy that will actually make a difference to our emissions. 
This bill fails completely in terms of New Zealand’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. But Mr Groser seems to think that we can simply sit back and wait and see what happens at the international level. Once upon a time New Zealand was a leader in these things. I know how much Mr Groser likes to be a leader on the international stage. He loves it. He loves being in the green room the white room the blue room—any room that is going on at an international negotiation—and makes sure— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: The bathroom. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The bathroom as Mr Horomia says—any room that is going on at a negotiation. This is the opportunity and the chance for Mr Groser to be a leader on climate change. We want New Zealand to be a leader because it supports our brand and it supports our exporters. We do not want to be a fast follower and far worse we do not want to be the spectator that this Government is making us become on climate change. There is huge opportunity for New Zealand to show leadership here. There is huge opportunity for exporters if we do. There is huge opportunity for people creating and promoting new technologies inside New Zealand if we get on board with this especially in the agriculture sector. This bill is a giant missed opportunity and a huge step backwards for New Zealand in terms of climate change and our clean green image. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will vote against this bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill on the grounds that it weakens an already weak emissions trading scheme to the point of irrelevance. The deliberate weakening of the emissions trading scheme reflects a fundamental misperception of the nature of the climate change challenge. The primary objective in the bill as stated is to “ensure that the emissions trading scheme more effectively supports the Government’s economic growth priorities”. This one sentence reveals the multiple errors in this Government’s flawed world view. It subordinates climate change to economic growth. It reflects a 20th century understanding of economic integrity. It implies that economic growth is the principal criterion of the quality of life. It asserts a narrow and myopic view of the nature of climate change. 
To appreciate the way in which this trader Government has proceeded down the wrong path we need simply to have regard to the global context. Let us be clear. Climate change is not just another tough problem today and a potential crisis tomorrow. It is part of an ecological crisis today. It is the first of the nine planetary boundaries we must stay within if human civilisation is to continue to flourish. It is 20 years now since we agreed to avoid excessive carbon concentration in the atmosphere that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. It took 18 years to identify a 2-degree temperate rise and a 450-parts-per-million concentration as the limit for avoiding that danger. 
The global carbon budget for the climate boundary is 1600 billion tonnes of net greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1990 to 2100. In 20 years we have used almost half of that. The remaining budget from now to 2100 is 870 billion tonnes about one-third of the remaining fossil fuel reserves. We have to learn to say no to fossil fuel extraction. Such a global budget allows future annual global emissions of 9.5 billion tonnes. This is 20 percent of current emissions so the global emissions reduction curve will need to be steep if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. This requires global emissions to peak before 2020 and to drop by 8 percent in 2020 and by some 56 percent by 2050. The developed countries—the Global North—are required now to reduce their national emissions by about 35 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. 
These are not matters of choice. This is not the stuff of currency speculation dealing with toxic debt or hedging risk through derivatives and futures trading. We do not hear breathless talk about such antics these days yet the Government is still acting as if we have free choice over macroeconomic policy with the climate. This is not a matter of choice. Emissions reduction is an ecological imperative. Nature does not do deals other than with itself and certainly not with humanity. Nature is what it is. Human notions of choice will prove as ephemeral as a feather in an evolutionary storm if we court dangerous climate change yet this is what we are doing. 
The United Nations says the current global emission level of 48 billion tonnes needs to drop to 44 billion tonnes by 2020—some say to 36 billion tonnes—yet our voluntary pledges adopted at Cancun will see emissions rise to 50 billion tonnes resulting in an emissions gap of 6 billion to 12 billion tonnes. Clearly the international community is failing to prevent dangerous climate change. 
So where does New Zealand stand? We are called upon to reduce national emissions by up to 40 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. What have we pledged? We have promised conditionally a mid-point of 15 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2050. It is simply not possible for New Zealand to achieve even these weak targets with the spineless market instrument it has fashioned for the purpose over these past 3 years. The 2020 mid-point of 15 percent means 51 million tonnes of net New Zealand emissions. The current projection for 2020 is 63 million tonnes a reduction of 12 million tonnes within the next 8 years. For 2050 a 50 percent drop means 30 million tonnes a reduction of 33 million tonnes from today. 
These are significant reductions yet they are nothing compared with what is required for the 2-degree boundary. An 80 percent reduction by 2050 would mean a drop from 63 million tonnes to 13 million tonnes. How might we conceivably achieve this? Not by the 2008 Labour emissions trading scheme not by the weakened 2009 National emissions trading scheme and certainly not by this limp legislative construct masquerading as a model of responsibility and balance that is before us today. Today’s bill will defer the inclusion of agriculture indefinitely defer any increase in the price cap defer the one-for-one surrender obligation allow a greater switch from forestry to dairying and enable importers to increasingly use dangerous synthetic gases. What remarkable steel-like resolve! 
We need a Green plan for achieving the scale of reduction required. When National was busy moralising about the impossibility of achieving a 40 percent reduction by 2020 the Green Party was compiling a practical plan to do just that. The document titled  
Getting There 
 identifies opportunities for reducing emissions across all sectors in ways that transcend the emissions trading scheme. These supplementary measures include 5 million tonnes off electricity 2 million tonnes off industrial and manufacturing fuels 5 millions tonnes off transport 3 million tonnes off agriculture and 22 million tonnes through enhanced forestry sinks. All up this totals 36 million tonnes taken off domestic emissions in 2020. The remaining 12 million tonnes required to reach the 40 percent reduction would be met through the purchase of international credits. 
National has been disposed to cast aspersion on our plan. This absolves it it believes of the need to develop a plan itself. Others have queried some of the details. That is fine. No doubt the details can be refined; we are dialoguing with experts as we go. The point is that the Green Party alone in this House has the foresight and the gumption to draft an ambitious and positive plan. It is possible to develop a plan for New Zealand that would allow us to achieve the national reductions required to do our fair share in avoiding dangerous climate change. The Green Party has prepared a draft. 
National complains about the inability of New Zealand to achieve deeper cuts. Its reasons are twofold: first we have a large agricultural sector whose emissions are hard to reduce; second we have a high renewable portion of our electricity. This ignores the fact that both arguments are accommodated in the Kyoto allocations so there is a limit to how often we can unveil this monument to inaction. It ignores the fact that comparable countries like Sweden and Ireland have reduced agricultural emissions by 10 percent and 7 percent whereas New Zealand has increased them by 16 percent. Here we are trumpeting our determination to help the rest of the world reduce agricultural emissions through the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. I have nothing against the global research alliance just do not use it as a smokescreen for inaction on agricultural reductions here that can be achieved now. 
The amount of cant that National has injected into the climate change methodology is breathtaking. The difference between National and Green climate policy is driven by different underlying perceptions. National calibrates its policy in light of what other countries are doing. The Green Party calibrates its policy in light of what the science indicates is necessary. National then shapes its policy as a mechanism for deferring what it terms a financial burden on selected economic sectors. The Green Party shapes its policy as a societal opportunity to move to a high tech low carbon green economy. 
National sows fear and loathing about future emissions scenarios of the Global South with no acknowledgment of a historical responsibility or per capita differential. The Green Party acknowledges both historical and future responsibility. It embraces the need for contraction and convergence and for international equity and thereby global legitimacy to evolve. Above all the Green Party adopts ecological economics in its approach to macroeconomic planning and climate policy. This is a qualitative change from the traditional neo-liberal economics of National. We embrace a different cognitive framework from that of National. We have a different world view and thus employing the same logical reasoning we are all endowed with we emerge with different policies. We shall oppose this bill and when in Government we shall introduce a vastly different and more effective Green climate policy. There is something new under the sun. It is imperative that we act now. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Hello? Hello? Have you heard what I have just heard? I have never listened to so much claptrap in this Parliament since the last century when there were not any Green Party members in this Parliament because they could not get elected to this Parliament in the last century. They are here in this Parliament because they are on a party list in this Parliament. That member we have just heard from Dr Kennedy Graham would never get elected anywhere. I challenge him to stand in Epsom in 2014 and take his chances. 
I think that this bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill should be changed to the “Climate Change (Common-sense Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. After listening carefully to the bogeyman tirade from that Green list member of Parliament I could be forgiven if I went to the 11th floor of Bowen House and opened the window. That is how bad it was. Even if the Green Party ever got its hands on the lever of power New Zealand emits 0.2 percent of global emissions. Can the Minister for Climate Change Issues confirm that? We could not influence the climate one way or even another. I say to the American list member for the Green Party that if the USA put as much effort into climate change as this common-sense piece of amendment legislation this afternoon does the world would be a better place. Is that true Minister? [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister says that it is true. 
Most of the debate perpetrated by a Labour Government in a previous era and supported by New Zealand First—supported by New Zealand First—is humbug. That is why this Government has had to come in and tidy this up with an 80-page amendment bill that will minimise the worst costs of the emissions trading scheme on New Zealand families—the worst costs of the emissions trading scheme on New Zealand families New Zealand farmers New Zealand mum and dad businesses and the New Zealand economy. But it will have negligible effect on the environment—negligible effect. 
Not even the Greens campaigned in my electorate of Epsom on climate change in the election last year. The Green candidate whom the Green Party parachuted in from Otahuhu or some other place did not ever raise climate change in any of the debates because it was a dead duck issue in Epsom because the Epsom people know that most of the debate coming from the Greens is humbug. It is humbug. And the New Zealand First list MPs opposite—none of them elected—all those list MPs opposite are responsible for this bill in the first place. Market research should tell the Labour Party and tell the Greens that this issue is a dead duck. 
I am pleased to be supporting the emissions trading scheme amendment bill because the emissions trading scheme is a monstrosity. It is a monstrosity given that New Zealand emits 0.2 percent of global emissions. Even if the Labour Party wanted to with the support of New Zealand First and any of the others in this Parliament—the bogeymen in this Parliament—it could not influence international climate change anyway. 
So the conclusion is that the ACT Party supports this bill at least to minimise the scheme’s worst effects on New Zealand business and households. We owe a great deal of debt do we not National Party colleagues to the Hon John Boscawen and his tireless push-back of these bogeymen opposite: the Greens New Zealand First and the Labour Party. I have got to say that in a perfect world we would not be wasting the time of this Parliament—$6000 a minute—changing an Act that never should have been a statute and that never should have existed. Even the American list member for the Green Party will tell you that if America wants to lead in this let America do it. And to the co-leader of the Green Party the Australian member if Australia wants to do something do something sensible. 
But the scheme is costing small business small families people stretched for cash and the economy a lot of money and this bill ameliorates that and the Government is to be congratulated. I congratulate the young Minister in charge of this bill on the work that he has done on this. He has steered a very careful course and my advice to him in the early days was “Get rid of the legislation Minister and do the country a favour.” But given that that is not politically correct even on the centre-right of politics in this country—and I say to the leader of New Zealand First that I have learnt a few things since he wrote my first speech. But even if it did do something this country cannot afford it. 
I know that we are on the right track on this side of the House when there is howling and wailing from the Labour Party and from the Greens. Particularly when before me you heard that speech which was better than Mogadon from Dr Graham about what is going to happen and how the world is going to close in because of this bill. This bill is a recipe for common sense. The existing legislation should not exist in this economy at this time. We should be followers not leaders—followers not leaders—because it is too expensive for a country that is very stretched for cash. 
And so let us hear from the Labour Party members what they would do if they were on this side of the House to help small business to help the current account to help the tradable sector and to help the farmers. Do they deny the farmers the help that they need to keep this economy flowing? 
Well anyway this is what I call the “Climate Change (Common-sense Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill” which the ACT Party supports because it goes a little way to getting some common ground and common sense on this whole argument laced in humbug and bogeymen from the other side of Parliament. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Some people have 30 years of experience and some people have 1 year’s experience 30 times over. I will leave it to you to decide which category we just heard from John Banks. But where is this place called “Oh-ta-huhu”? You know there is a suburb in Auckland called Otahuhu but it is not “Oh-ta-huhu”. After all this time in 2012 we really should be doing better than that. I want to say that whether a believer or a sceptic what matters to New Zealand as an export-dependent nation is how the world sees us on this issue and more particularly what our international customers’ and markets’ perceptions are of this country. That means an irrational response to international concerns could cost New Zealand dearly. 
But let us be honest. What you get in this Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill all 79 pages of it and its size and its complexity leads you to conclude one word: Kafkaesque. This is the master of the absurd. Have a look at it—79 pages. This will keep an army of lawyers busy for years. Anybody in the legal profession or at Victoria University Canterbury University Auckland University or Otago University law schools be assured you have got a job certainly when you leave university because if we have this sort of mishmash of nonsense then it will be a lawyer’s lifeline. Whether it will help stop climate change is entirely doubtful. You have heard about the law of unintended consequences and that law of unintended consequences comes through on every page. Climate change is happening it is a serious issue and New Zealand First is not in denial about it but all strategies to address the climate change issue must be practical fair clearly understandable and comprehensive. This emissions trading scheme as amended here falls well short on every count. Trying to patch up the emissions trading scheme is not the answer to climate change. 
We maintain that the role of the State must be to strike a balance between economic progress and appropriate environmental goals. The climate change response debate is about where that balance should be and whether the emissions trading scheme is the best tool. Our policy as we campaigned on with the last manifesto is that we are against the emissions trading scheme in principle because it does not decrease emissions; it just moves them around to those economies that can afford to buy carbon credits. That is all it does. It does not decrease emissions; it just moves them around to those economies that can afford to buy more carbon credits. It is like making petrol more expensive instead of funding the technology to make cars that are more fuel-efficient or making cars that do not use petrol in the first place. The emissions trading scheme devised by this Government is unsustainable. Adopting an approach of market forces on this issue will not work. The emissions trading scheme is just another tax on people and production. 
I want to ask my friends in the Green Party: why have you gone for a scheme where all the capitalists get to run the whole show? How foolish can you be—to give it to a bunch of New York people to run. How silly is that? Will we be advantaged as a nation? No we will not be. We do not subscribe to a Wall Street takeover of the environment and profiteering out of just one more distortion of market forces. Carbon credit banks that turn environmentalism into a speculative business is not the pathway for New Zealand. New Zealand First advocates that this serious issue be handled by Government and industry working together. Industry and agriculture would be far more cooperative with a fair domestic regulatory regime. Why are we paying a fortune to some other country? In this well-understood situation— 
Hon John Banks 
: Are you going to support it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Look we are not going to support what the ACT Party says. And fancy mentioning John Boscawen! Ha ha! Boy I have heard of a few John the Baptists but not John Boscawen. 
Back to my point: in this well-understood situation and with many sustainable energy sources being available negotiated performance standards Government-assisted research and development and a carbon tax incentive to change are much better options than the uncontrolled financial machinations of an emissions trading scheme where there will be no opportunity for a long-term plan of managed change and improvement. The bottom line is it is going to cost about $2 billion - plus. That can be much better used to pay and repay debt. We are in need of a national understanding of the importance of climate change but we say to those sceptics and cynics your customers will decide what you do. You can take the arrogant attitude and you can forget about it but if your customers internationally say “Sorry we won’t deal with you.” then you will change overnight. 
We are against having a Wall Street - type of operation on this critical issue. It was all in the manifesto at the last election and we did do—what—seven times better than the ACT Party with no resources no financial resources and no man in a yellow jacket running around spending money like an eight-armed octopus. No we did it all with a simple appeal to the ordinary people of this country and if we had got a fair go we would have hosed in. We all know that. 
Hon John Banks 
: Where are the real members? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Where are the real members? Well I tell you what: we packed in our opening a hall of 800 people and that party had a telephone booth for its launch. There were 800 at our meeting and in its telephone booth—in fact it was a disgrace. 
I want to say something. One of the reasons that I personally pushed for and established the New Zealand embassy in Stockholm Sweden was that we have a lot to learn from the Scandinavians on these issues. They are light years ahead of us on the environment and they are light years ahead of us in terms of economic performance. They have managed to do both so I sought to establish a connection with the Scandinavian countries—all the four successful ones: Finland Norway Denmark and Sweden—in the biggest city there in Stockholm and there we got under way with a lot to learn from them and now they have the Government keeping on saying “Oh look Norway does this. Why don’t you people agree with that?”. But here is the point. In its petulance the Government shut it down—just got in and shut it down all of a sudden. Now it mentions Scandinavia like any port in a storm on the issue of development because it suits it. And Mr Groser will know full well that whilst he might be travelling around the embassies they cannot wait to put arsenic in his tea or in that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs because they are enraged at what is going on in that department. Scandinavian investment would have been very very sound for this country and when we get back which will be very very soon we are going to re-establish the embassy. 
Hon John Banks 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh do not worry about that. I would not laugh. Mr Banks the last person I would laugh at is New Zealand First because our track record is to have been within one seat in nearly every election of either having the balance of power or holding the balance of power. 
Hon John Banks 
: I’ve got the balance of power. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Within one seat—within one seat. No no. Mr Banks says he has got the balance of power. Look a bought man is never going to have any power. A bought man is always powerless. When John Key says: “Jump.” John Banks says: “How high?”. Where is the power in that? Where is the power in that? No there is no excitement-filled majesty. It has actually destroyed the steel and the spirit of that ACT Party. It is on a rollercoaster to oblivion. I am so sad that Mr Banks decided that it was a good idea to come back to this Parliament because it must be oh so lonely—oh so lonely. 
Hon John Banks 
: The caucus meetings are easy. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Now some of us—I know caucus meetings must be easy but every now and again when you are rattling around the office all by yourself you must think to yourself: “What on earth did I ever do coming back here? First of all I am a bought man; second I’ve got to do what I’m told; and third I have nothing to contribute any more because nobody in the country is interested in what the ACT Party has got to say.” On all three things— 
Hon John Banks 
: I’m here to keep you there Winston. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —on all three things—that is a sad indictment. 
But back to my point on this legislation. We are against a scheme where the operators of New York can use a critical issue like the environment to their personal advantage. I know why the ACT Party would support it I know why the National Party would support it but I have got no idea why anyone on this side of the House would support that. There is one party in this Parliament that knows what is going on and we have set our mind against this because it is against our national interests and it does not advance the cause that it seeks to address in the first place. Thank you very much. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The irony of that contribution from New Zealand First is extraordinary when we look at the  
Hansard 
 in September 2008 in the dying days of the Labour Government—and I see New Zealand First’s new MPs are looking on in interest. I challenge them to read the  
Hansard 
 in September 2008. Far from championing against international instruments for dealing with climate change the only reason the emissions trading scheme made it on to the books of the New Zealand legislator was the five votes recorded by New Zealand First to back Helen Clark’s bill at that time. That bill made broader instruments and had less control on international carbon units than the very bill we have before the House right now the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill which actually puts greater restrictions on the use of those. I can only conclude that Alzheimer’s is taking hold far worse than I thought within the New Zealand First caucus and I would just love Mr Peters to explain how it was that his decision to vote for that legislation was the only reason that an emission trading scheme made it on to the books. 
I also want to contrast the contribution that was made by Labour because in the 9 years that Labour was in Government it campaigned on New Zealand becoming carbon-neutral. Remember the carbon-neutral speeches? Remember every single bit of rhetoric we got in the House? I just want— 
Dr David Clark 
: And there was a plan. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Clark I think from Dunedin says there was a plan. Well there might have been but let us talk about the results. When Labour came into Government in 1999 New Zealand’s emissions were 59 million tonnes per year. I would be interested to know how close it got to zero in its 9 years in Government. Well it actually went from 59 million tonnes a year to over 70 million tonnes in its 9 years. In fact the most interesting fact is this: New Zealand’s emissions during Labour’s years grew faster than those of any other OECD country. New Zealand’s emissions under Labour’s jurisdiction grew faster than those of any other developed country and we on this side of the House will not take Labour seriously on climate change until we hear some apologies for its appalling track record. 
The two factors that contribute to Labour’s record have both been turned round by this Government. The first is that New Zealand has greater opportunities around renewable energy than any other country yet during Labour’s years in each and every year the proportion of our electricity that was produced by renewables dropped. I have to say I think this Government should be hugely encouraged that over our 4 years we have seen an increase in the proportion of renewables and the figures that have just been published for 2011 show that it is at the highest level. For those who want to bag New Zealand’s record I say let us be proud of the fact that New Zealand has a higher proportion of renewable electricity—levels that any European country would be jealous of—with only one exception and that is Iceland. 
The second point that was absolutely tragic in the Labour years was the huge levels of deforestation. In Labour’s years there was more deforestation than under any Government since the Great Depression— 
Dr David Clark 
: Before the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —more deforestation. We have turned that round. The deforestation has stopped. The New Zealand forest area is growing and that can attributed to the sensible climate change policies that this Government has been adopting. 
 I want to commend the work of Tim Groser. I say this quite honestly to members of the House: New Zealand has never had greater influence internationally around climate change negotiations than under Tim Groser’s leadership. Anybody in this country who recognises that on this global environmental issue what New Zealand does is quite small should be hugely proud of the contribution that Tim is making to those international negotiations. I have been privileged to be at a couple of those with him. The way in which he has been successfully getting the big players—the Indians the Chinese and the Americans—to make progress on this issue is something that frankly every New Zealander should and certainly members of this side of the House do take pride in. 
On this issue New Zealand needs to take a balanced approach. That is one in which we are doing our fair share as a country but one where we are also realistic about the sort of pressure business and households are under. This bill does that. I look forward to working on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to ensure the detail of this complex issue is worked through but I cannot tolerate some of the double standards that we have seen from both Labour and New Zealand First members in this debate. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on this Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We have been sitting here on this side of the House hearing the members opposite chanting generic National Party lines about the brighter future and making business easier to do and not a lot of substance on this bill particularly from their second speaker Simon Bridges. A lot of what we have heard today is frankly unbelievable as my colleague Grant Robertson said. We have just heard from the last speaker Nick Smith about how emissions grew under Labour but shrank under National and what a proud record National has in this area. 
Let us actually look at this. Let us unpack this and let us look at some reality. What we have is an emissions trading scheme that Labour introduced at the end of its term the bones of which National has been able to amend and reap the benefits of. But one of the real drivers of the drop in emissions under this Government is that this is a Government that has presided over a recession and with a recession comes a drop in emissions. The members opposite should look to Russia. I know they have a problem with this part of the world—Gerry Brownlee certainly does—but they should look at Russia and the staggering drop in emissions that Russia has experienced largely due to the fact that it is an economy in recession. 
But this is a piece of legislation that is absolutely critical to us as a nation. It is a piece of legislation that is absolutely critical to our future and I do not think it is being treated with the seriousness opposite that it deserves. This is a piece of legislation that is about New Zealand doing its bit as a global player and addressing one of the key issues of our time and of our generation. 
We have the member for Epsom opposite who tells us that New Zealand is but a tiny contributor to this world problem and challenges other nations to do it. Well I am proud to stand in this House as an heir to the tradition of a party that has seen itself as internationalist—as a party that can make a difference. I look to forebears on this side of the House like Peter Fraser who certainly did not think that New Zealand was too small to make a difference. Again we saw our last Labour Government realise that New Zealand could actually lead the world in this area. 
What we have had is the Hon Nick Smith telling us that New Zealand has never had a greater reputation internationally than under the leadership of Tim Groser. Well actually we are falling behind other nations. We are not a world leader. We are falling behind Australia we are falling behind the Europeans and we are no longer seen as someone who is leading the world whereas we were proud of the legislation that we passed in 2008. That was legislation that was passed with the support of other parties in this House like the Green Party. 
But one of the other important things that we cannot decouple from our discussions around having an internationally regarded piece of legislation to reduce our emissions is its importance to our trade and to our reputation and to our ability to sell our products at a premium into global markets. Our environmental record and how we fit into the global environmental system is absolutely crucial to us as an exporting nation. 
We just need to look at the campaign that European supermarkets ran against New Zealand in terms of air miles to see what an impact that perceptions of New Zealand’s ability to be an environmental player and to produce environmentally sustainable goods actually have. New Zealand had to put a lot of thinking and a lot of resource into countering this argument that a very cunning group of European supermarkets put together and came up with the idea of carbon miles. It actually was only because of our sustainable food production methods in this country that we could counter the air miles argument and we could protect our access into a number of key markets. We will continue to have access we will continue to get premium and we will be able to move beyond being a commodity producer only if we protect our reputation globally as a producer of clean and sustainably produced food. 
Labour opposes this legislation for many reasons. One that we would like very much to address today and my colleagues Moana Mackey and Grant Robertson have touched on it before me is that this is rushed legislation. This was rushed to meet a December deadline and again to quote Grant Robertson that is unbelievable. There are significant changes that should be subject to proper scrutiny in this House. This is serious legislation and those changes should not be rushed through. 
Labour also opposes this legislation because it simply will not work. We were told ad infinitum by the Hon John Banks that this was common-sense legislation. Well I prefer not to take my scientific advice from a man who is pushing the teaching of creationism in our charter schools. But what I am also told and what I would like to remind that member is that his colleague John Boscawen and ACT actually voted against the National legislation putting paid to a lot of what was contained in that member’s speech. It was incomprehensible to us because it just did not gel. But actually it fits with what we are seeing before this House which is a whole lot of revisionist history from that side of the House. My colleague Moana Mackey would just like to assure the honourable member opposite that John Boscawen was actually a pleasure to work with in the last term when they worked on this legislation. 
All this piece of legislation does is chip away at legislation that was put in place. You know it is kind of the back-door way of throwing the whole thing out because it is going to be so meaningless. This is the obsession with tinkering that this Government has. Rather than fix something it just tinkers a little bit around the edges and does not actually confront any of the fundamental problems that are facing us as a nation. This achieves absolutely nothing. 
But what it does achieve and what I am not looking forward to going back and telling the good people of Wigram—and I am sure my colleagues whether they be list or constituency MPs are not looking forward to going back and telling the people who elected them—is that actually they are going to be subsidising the polluters in this country. Taxpayers in this country are going to be shouldering the burden for reducing the cost of emissions from our polluters. That is not something that I am particularly comfortable about telling people with already stretched budgets in my electorate and I look forward to a progress report from members opposite on how the people who elected them feel about that. 
Another key thing that this bill does that is in fact dangerous is to reduce regulatory certainty. The flexible review positions that are contained in this bill do nothing to help business. It just creates a climate of uncertainty. Labour recognises that businesses need stability and certainty around their costs and that they need to know what they are going to be facing as a cost of the emissions trading scheme. The ability contained within this bill to allow for not only a 5-yearly review but also an at-a-whim review does nothing to create that certainty. The Government really should have worked to find a bipartisan or a multipartisan agreement around this legislation and these changes. This is too important. This is something that we all need certainty on. 
What we have talked about and what I am going to address for the remainder of my speech is the exclusion of agriculture and the fact that it should have an entry date. It is just ridiculous. It is just unfair to other industries that agriculture is getting the treatment within this bill that it does. What it does is leave other parts of our economy shouldering agriculture’s share of the cost. We have a manufacturing sector at the moment that is bleeding jobs but a Government that has no idea of the drivers of this. It has shown us in recent weeks in this House that it has absolutely no idea what is driving it and this piece of legislation is only going to make it worse. 
It is going to be damaging to the forestry industry and the jobs that are contained there. Forestry will be worse off as a result of this bill. There is a clawing back of the second tranche of compensation within— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The last member who was on her feet speaking Megan Woods has done more for global warming and increasing the temperature of the world through that speech than anybody else I know. You see what we heard there was a lot of huff and a lot of puff. [ 
Interruption 
] What was that member’s name? It probably does not matter because nobody is interested. Megan Woods said that it is OK to use the global financial crisis as a reason that emissions have dropped but it is not OK when one considers that GDP is down and recessions have been hitting different parts of the world. Far too much of that speech was in contradiction with what is important to New Zealanders. 
I want to commend our Minister for Climate Change Issues Tim Groser for bringing a responsible piece of legislation to this House. The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is responsible because it does our fair share on behalf of New Zealand but it keeps down costs on New Zealand consumers on New Zealand businesses and on New Zealand mums and dads. You see it is a responsible piece of legislation from a responsible Minister who is committed to a cleaner greener brighter future for all New Zealanders and again I commend him for bringing this bill to the House. 
It was interesting to hear the honourable member John Banks speak earlier. He spoke of the confused position of the Green Party. He also told us that New Zealand’s emissions are 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions—0.2 percent of the world’s emissions. He mentioned the Australian member of the Green Party and that if Australia did more it would have a greater effect than anything that that party suggests New Zealand should do. He spoke of the American member of the Green Party and that if America did its bit it would achieve more than anything that that party suggests New Zealand could do. He did not mention Catherine Delahunty the Martian member of the Green Party or the other members of the Green Party who come from a different planet because this is responsible legislation and it is about making sure that here in this country we do what is right for our businesses and for our mums and dads. 
I want to touch on two points extremely briefly. This legislation has come to this House following in-depth consideration of the recommendations of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. This legislation comes to the House following wide consultation with our communities after the committee received written submissions and following regional meetings and hui around the country. The purpose of these changes is to maintain the costs of the emissions trading scheme at the current level in our economy. 
Finally I want to say—and I am touching on something that is very important for my electorate—that what will be introduced is an offset scheme for pre-1990 forest land owners allowing for the full tranche of compensation where offsetting is not taking place. That is extremely reasonable. There is far too much farmland that we are growing trees on that we could be farming on and we are farming on land that we could be growing trees on. This bill is actually recognising what is important to the economy and bringing flexibility to a system that is also good for the economy. 
I look forward to this bill coming to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I look forward to us having the opportunity to hear from New Zealanders on all sides of this debate. This is a responsible thing for New Zealand. It is a responsible thing for agriculture in this country and I commend Tim Groser again for bringing a responsible bill to this House. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call between Labour and the Greens. We will have Dr Rajen Prasad. I will ring a bell at 4 minutes. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am surprised at how members opposite have not really defended the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill at all. They have simply made statements and assumed that— 
Jonathan Young 
: We don’t need to. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member says we do not need to. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: People love it. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Perhaps the Minister does all this to New Zealanders so that they can understand what your thinking is. That member simply made a few statements hardly realising what he was saying and he does acknowledge— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Don’t argue with me you’ve only got 4 minutes. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That Minister does acknowledge that he knows nothing about this. If he did give a reasoned speech if he did make the points then I might have listened to him. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: You’re not going to be able to say anything if we keep arguing like this. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member carries on from the benches there but he has nothing to say to defend the bill and none of his colleagues have either. I think that Moana Mackey was right. The Government has forgotten why we are doing this why this whole system has been designed and why the international community is worried about this. It has forgotten the environment. Moana Mackey was absolutely right. Of course there were no comments from the other side of the House about those things. It is almost as if those members are saying “We’re in Government. We’re saying it therefore it must be right.” Well I hope that at the Finance and Expenditure Committee those members get challenged by submitters for some of what is coming up. They say nothing to defend the clean green image we have. Members opposite want to trade on it but there is no defence of it and in fact the scheme we currently have actually is about keeping New Zealand clean and green. So those members are undermining the brand. 
The last Government member who spoke Todd McClay was questioning some of the figures given by my Green colleague but what Mr McClay needs to acknowledge is that New Zealand is one of the worst polluters on a per capita basis in the world. That is what Mr McClay needs to acknowledge—and John Banks also. I think Mr Banks that you are now irrelevant to this Parliament and your speech Mr Banks demonstrated that. Mr Banks criticised list members simply because they are list members—the Hon John Banks’ comments were that they were not elected. I do remember that member losing several elections. Auckland rejected him and Epsom would have rejected him as well if it was not for the gerrymandering of the National Party—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Banks ought to recognise that. Mr Banks you are irrelevant. Most speeches you give in this House and most points of order you take just do not make sense. If you were not here Mr Banks nobody would miss you. Winston Peters is absolutely right. 
There is a lot more I could say about that member John Banks his performance and his history. But he is history. If changes are made to the electoral system that member is history and I do not expect to see him back in the House. We will not have to put up with the kind of rubbish he puts forward as if he is now some kind of a god. The member’s time is over. Mr Banks go back enjoy life and stay in Auckland because Epsom will not want you again that is for sure. 
If members opposite want to know whether climate change is a problem they should go and talk to just one or two people from the Maldives and I have. They should go and talk to just one or two people from Kiribati and I have. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: What are you going to the Maldives for? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Mr Bridges you do not have to go to the Maldives to speak to a person from the Maldives. Go back to Tauranga and you might learn something Mr Bridges. We can talk to people we meet from other places. Many have come from this Parliament as well. 
There are two other points I want to make. One is this: the biggest polluters are being exempted. Where is the sense in that? 
Todd McClay 
: Who? Who are they? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Our farmers Mr McClay. The agricultural sector produces 50 percent of emissions and it is our biggest polluter. Why? That does not make any economic sense. There is no logic in that. 
The other point is this: why is this Government so scared of leading the world on anything? They want to follow; they do not want to lead. New Zealand is a proud country and there are times when New Zealand has led. I wonder what that side of the House would have done in the 1930s with social security. If they were in Government in the 1930s would they have led? No. This is a terrible bill and we will not be supporting it. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe. It is with great trepidation that I rise to speak on the first reading of this bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have to mention that the bill should probably be renamed the “Climate Change Inaction Bill” or the “Extending Subsidies to Climate Polluters Bill” as that would be much more accurate. 
I would like to thank the Hon John Banks and the member Todd McClay for raising a really relevant statistic which is that New Zealand’s emissions are 0.2 percent of global emissions. I think it is probably relevant—and I will help the Hon John Banks with some maths here—that actually the New Zealand population is 0.06 percent of the global population. So that means that our contribution to emissions is over three and closer to four times greater than our size. Surely that is the relevant test as to whether or not we can make a difference and whether we should make a difference. We need to look at it on a per capita basis and we are the fifth worst in the world right now. 
This bill is a disaster. It is another example of National’s economic mismanagement. What is the point of an emissions trading scheme? It is to put a price on carbon because that is how economic instruments work. I admit it is not the best way. The best way would be something much more direct and transparent that would give certainty to business. That would be something like a carbon tax and a fee and dividend in which case businesses could plan ahead for the increased cost of carbon and citizens could receive that money back directly and make different choices with their purchases and they could benefit. 
I know that members on the Government side of the House particularly the Hon John Banks do not have a real handle on economics but when you study economics as I have you learn about something called externalities. Externalities are costs that are not included in a transaction. Human-induced climate change which is absolutely undeniable right now—no thinking educated person could possibly deny the evidence that human activities are leading to dangerous climate chaos around the world—is going to be very costly. It is going to be very costly. It is going to be extremely bad for the economy. Even worse it is going to be bad for people. 
There is no way that New Zealand can escape the high costs of climate chaos which are already being felt across the world. National Party members know this—or they claim to understand this reality—but what this bill demonstrates is that not only are they not going to do anything to help New Zealand’s economy transition to a smart resilient footing; they are going in the absolute opposite direction. They are laying out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry. They want them to come and drill and frack and mine and do whatever they want to do to the precious places that New Zealanders love. They are subsidising this antiquated extractive approach so that a few foreign companies can turn a tidy profit under the big lie that somehow this is going to make ordinary New Zealanders richer or give them more opportunities. It is not the case. 
The impacts of this Government’s emphasis on a dirty fossil fuel economy are already being felt in the loss of clean renewable energy jobs. I spoke to someone who works in wind energy today and he said that with the gutting of the emissions trading scheme it is clear that there are not going to be opportunities and that nobody is planning for future wind generation. That is the cost. That is the cost of not putting a price on carbon. Anyone who understands the basics of economics could tell you this. 
The Minister for Climate Change Issues has said that this bill is about reducing costs to business and households but what it is really doing is reducing choices for business and households. If the price of carbon is not direct then no one can benefit from reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Innovative clean green business cannot compete because it is not a level playing field. 
National claims to be the party of economic credibility but in fact it is completely ignoring the fundamental way in which economic instruments work. This bill guts an already ridiculously weak emissions trading scheme. We have a choice. The path is diverging and we must choose one. We cannot develop a clean green economy with opportunities for all New Zealanders if we are simultaneously subsidising dirty industries. This Government has chosen to put off— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time is expired. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. I rise on behalf of the Maori Party to put just a few points before the House to set out our support for the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I want to reflect back just very briefly to late 2009. The Hon Nick Smith came to the Maori Party and worked with us on setting out I suppose the initial stand on the emissions trading scheme. We were able to negotiate some very important things that we thought were quite important. 
I am talking about the impact of power and petrol prices. We were able to have those halved. I am talking about home insulation for thousands of low-income households. I am talking about the Treaty clause in the legislation to ensure that the Crown’s obligations to its Treaty partner were not going to be compromised by the emissions trading scheme. I am talking about the recognition that iwi have issues in respect of deforestation provisions. We were able to get a commitment from the Government that it would work with iwi and the Maori Party to find solutions for iwi with forests returned in Treaty settlements pre the emissions trading scheme period. We were fortunate enough to be able to work again with the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group to play an ongoing role in international negotiations to allow for offsetting. The Maori Party was to be consulted closely on the review of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative in terms of membership for that reference group. 
 We sought allocation of New Zealand Units to iwi quota holders in respect of the fisheries industry. The Maori Party was also able to be consulted and to ensure that iwi agricultural interests were represented in an agricultural advisory group. The Government gave a commitment to work with the Maori Party to invest in domestic research priorities which were signalled as a part of our early speeches at that time and an international initiative to address agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. So the Maori Party has had input into ongoing dialogue on a broader environmental policy programme and this has been very important to us. 
Can I say that Maori have a very strong interest in this emissions trading scheme. It has a substantial impact on Treaty settlements that included forestry land. It has an impact on Maori farmers and of them there are many. It has an impact on iwi investment—in particular in the geothermal generation area. It has an impact on petrol prices and electricity prices for poorer people. And just as important it has an impact on Papatuanuku and the wider environment. To cut a long story short the emissions trading scheme impacts on Maori in almost every walk of life. We can say that we have appreciated very much the ability for us to negotiate with the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group and I believe that it has appreciated very much the involvement at the highest level with the appropriate Ministers over these last couple of years. 
I will not go over too much of the substance of the bill because I think that has pretty much been covered by a vast majority of the speakers today but more important I will focus on the very important changes that we do support. The Maori Party is very supportive of and pleased to support the Government fully allocating the second tranche of the New Zealand Unit allocations to pre-1990 forests. That is with regard to Treaty settlements. We think that is important and that it protects the value of forestry settlements with iwi who own pre-1990 forests. As far as the Iwi Leadership Group support for this goes it was able to let us know that in its regional hui throughout the country the single biggest and priority issue for Maori and iwi has been the allocation of the second tranche of New Zealand Units. “The government decision to allocate these units is welcomed by Iwi/Maori.”—so said Dr Apirana Mahuika as the chair of that group from memory. 
We are pleased with the introduction of the forestry offsetting. It allows forestry owners to turn forestry land into better land use—farms etc.—while setting up a forest in another parcel of land and allowing the carbon offsetting of the new forest to count. Prior to this bill one had to pay for changes to land use and that is no longer the case. That is important for us and the Iwi Leadership Group came to the party by making the following statement: “The introduction of forestry offsetting as an option is welcomed too as it provides a mechanism for Maori forestry landowners to explore highest and best land use where currently our Maori forestry landowners are effectively locked into forestry forever or bear crippling deforestation liabilities.” Those are some of the key points that we think are quite important and are good points that have certainly come through from the Iwi Leadership Group. 
One or two points that we might add just in closing are in respect of some of the key questions that we might have a few questions about in respect of the agricultural sector not having emissions trading scheme obligations until 2015. Maori have big farming interests. In fact the Maori incorporation Paraninihi ki Waitotara Inc. is Fonterra’s biggest supplier in Taranaki. We believe that we need to find a balance between keeping our most important exporter afloat during tough economic times but at the same time protecting Papatuanuku protecting the environment. On the one hand the technology does not exist to stop carbon emissions from livestock which means that making the agricultural sector subject to the emissions trading scheme means farmers are paying a tax for something that is a little bit beyond their control. On the other hand agriculture causes the most emissions of any sector and it should be incentivised to reduce emissions. Giving farmers a 3-year holiday for paying which is subsidised by the rest of us does not really incentivise them to reduce emissions. But over and above that more research and technology need to happen to find a way to lessen the emissions from animals.  
I want to make one or two final points. It seems to us that in a sense we might be actually forgetting about the environment itself. One of the most unfortunate consequences of the way the emissions trading scheme is set up is that the focus of emitters appears to be on negotiation and manoeuvring around the price for units. I am talking about things such as auctions exchange rates for the units where they are being bought where they are sold and where they are being produced. We think that those are valid questions that need to be addressed. The purpose of the emissions trading scheme was meant to be about improving the environment first and foremost. It has not necessarily played out that way—we tend to think about it in terms of business alone—but it is about that fine balancing act. We would suggest that it might be about time to consider green growth possibilities as well as the emissions trading scheme. We do support the bill at this point in time and we look forward to the discussion as it goes through the various stages. Kia ora tatou. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
The question was put that the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Question agreed to. 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Finance and Expenditure Committee report to the House on or before 17 October 2012 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 190 and 191(1)(b) and (c).  
I request a shorter than usual time frame for the select committee’s consideration of this bill as the proposed changes have been extensively debated during and through the 2011 review panel process involving written and oral submissions the release of the review panel report and a series of hui organised by the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group. A discussion document was released by the Government and discussed at public meetings around the country including meetings with iwi the opportunity for written submissions of which 370 were received and subsequent follow-up meetings with interested parties. The level of consultation to date with the public and interested parties has been extensive and in order to ensure that the legislation is passed into law before the end of this parliamentary year I feel it is reasonable to shorten the period available for select committee consideration. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister moving the motion suggested that the report-back date should be the year 212. He is about 1800 years too late for that motion and he might want to say 2012 or something similar. I am only trying to help him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have put the motion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Hang on. You brought up a point of order; I am going to rule on it. The intention of the Minister was well known it is written down and 20-12 or 2012 the intention was clear. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not written down for members of the House. You might have been included in some internal Government documentation which would be questionable but it has not been provided to members of the House and for you to suggest that it has been is quite wrong. If there is a run sheet that belongs to the Government that you are privy to then that is another issue. I suggest that if the Minister corrects his statement we do not need to have the whole speech all over again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The ruling is that the motion has been laid on the Table so it has been available for members to see. Even though the Minister may have inadvertently truncated the year the intent is clear. It has been available to members and so we will proceed as per the debate. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to officially put on the record that despite the long speech of the Minister for Climate Change Issues on the referral motion our concern at the very very short report-back time for this very significant piece of legislation the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—17 October 2012—is that it does not give the Finance and Expenditure Committee the time to do the job that it is supposed to do. The Minister may well have done consultation outside of the parliamentary process but that does not mean that he has the right to truncate the parliamentary process in the way that he is or that he has the right to undermine the parliamentary process in the way that he has by giving a report-back date that is less than 7 weeks away from where we are today. Normally we would take 6 weeks to receive submissions at a select committee. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Not really. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The member says not really. I know under National that has not been the case. That has been the convention and a 6-month time period at the select committee. We are being given a 7-week time period in which to advertise the bill call for submissions review the submissions call submitters in to hear before the committee have the officials do a summary of those submissions and a departmental report make amendments to the bill go through the amended bill deliberate and report back to Parliament. We cannot do that in 7 weeks. 
The fact is that although the Government went out and consulted as the Minister said in his speech on a raft of proposed changes what he has not consulted on is the actual final legislation that has landed in the House. That legislation differs not only from what the Minister said in the consultations that he outlined but also in some cases from what he promised would be in it. Some people who may have felt that they were consulted outside of the parliamentary process were led to believe that there would be things in this legislation that the Minister promised them would be there such as some kind of restraint on the number of international units that can be brought into New Zealand. That was promised; it is not there. I do not think it is fair for the Minister to argue that a 7-week process on a significant and technical piece of legislation is OK when he actually has not produced a piece of legislation that follows on from the consultation that he outlined before. 
So Labour is very concerned. The fact is that we will not be able to do the job. The fact is that it shows that the Government has absolutely no intention of making any changes at the select committee. It is just paying lip service to it. It is a waste of time. We are very very disappointed.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Just speaking to the earlier point of order I want to add my voice in support of the expression of concern. I do so for two or three reasons. 
Less than 4 months is an inadequate amount of time for the House to consider this particular bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It is well known and should be well known to the Minister for Climate Change Issues that there is a qualitative difference between the process by which a bill is developed by the Government through a series of hui and meetings and listening to submitters as the Minister said on the one hand and the parliamentary process by which the Government brings the bill into the House for it to be digested and debated by colleagues on all benches. They are completely different processes. To cite the first process and the length and comprehensiveness as he put it of the first process as a reason to truncate the second process is wrong and irrelevant. It is surprising that a Minister of the Cabinet should produce such a weak argument. 
Secondly on points of substance there is arguably no greater issue of moment before society and New Zealand and therefore this Parliament than climate change. To suggest that we can truncate that issue of any issue within a 4-month period is also erroneous. 
Thirdly on substance we heard in all glorious technicolour this afternoon a full range of views arguably from mine on the one hand to the Hon John Banks’ immediately following on the other. Unless we regard the parliamentary process as simply mindless unhearing unthinking legislative machinery then we would have regard to seeing whether there is any scope for either getting complete common ground between the Opposition and Government or at the very least identifying areas of disagreement that have been expressed this afternoon that we could at least shave off to move towards some common ground. Common ground on this issue as farmers business and other sectors have said is an essential criterion of predictability for investment purposes. To suggest that we just do not give a damn about that and that we will just run this thing through with the numbers as fast as we can is unedifying in the extreme and is not doing justice to the importance of the issue. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Finance and Expenditure Committee report to the House on or before 17 October 2012 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 190 and 191(1)(b) and (c). 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Third Readings 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I move  
That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Registered Architects Amendment Bill the Statistics Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill the Unit Trusts Amendment Bill the Wine Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Until the Committee of the whole House stage these amendments were progressed through the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. The 13 bills arising from the Regulatory Reform Bill remove unnecessary costs to business. Using an omnibus bill to fix up the fairly minor legislative niggles that cause these unnecessary costs is an efficient use of House time. 
These 13 bills will result in the following changes. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill will remove the requirement for unnecessary registry information to be included in a public register. It also simplifies the registry process for cancelling obsolete product registrations or when there is continued non-compliance. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill and the Wine Amendment Bill line up the recognition of agencies and persons across food safety regulated and related legislation. The Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) removes unnecessary requirements and provides greater certainty for business and I note as Minister for Small Business that companies will be able to use electronic voting systems and shareholders will be able to participate in meetings via the internet. 
The Conservation Amendment Bill provides increased certainty for concession holders and their business operations. The Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill modernises labelling requirement and provides more efficient and effective classification review processes. This amendment will produce savings of $53000 per week in this industry. The Fisheries Amendment Bill improves fisheries regulation and provides a simple process for registration as a notified user. The Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill removes conflicting or unnecessary requirements on credit unions. The Radiocommunications Amendment Bill simplifies the process for cancelling or modifying radio spectrum licences. The Registered Architects Amendment Bill allows for more efficient complaints and disciplinary processes. The Statistics Amendment Bill means that non-government researchers will have equitable access to microdata. The Takeovers Amendment Bill provides greater certainty in the application of the Takeovers Code and enhances the operational efficiency of the Takeovers Panel. The Unit Trusts Amendment Bill enables accounts and financial statements to be distributed electronically to unit holders. 
The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill clears the statute book of 31 spent Acts and consequently revokes three regulations. These bills all improve the regulatory environment. I commend these bills to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was a subdued approach from the member for Epsom the Minister for Small Business—the Minister who very rarely comes to the House. When he does come here he is normally a bit more excited. One might think that the animal remedies had been applied to him possibly a dose of horse tranquiliser or something like that to get the Minister to that level of stability. 
These bills are an interesting group of bills. Shall we start with the Statistics Amendment Bill? My question to the Minister in charge of the bill is whether this is of any assistance to lying people who do false returns as a result of their mayoral election campaigns. Can they fix the statistics that are lies in their returns as a result of the Statistics Amendment Bill we are currently considering? There is no answer—no answer whatsoever—from the Hon John Banks. I do not care whether he nods his head or shakes it I just want to see John Banks indicate that this is not a back-door method of getting him to fix the false returns that he so regularly makes on election returns. 
The Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) has amendments around how meetings are held. The question I have is whether this bill still requires people to have records of meetings and whether that would help to solve the amnesia that the Minister in charge of these bills John Banks has about meetings. Clearly he regularly forgets whom he has met with and when he has met with them and I wonder whether the “Methods of holding meetings” clause within this bill would be helpful. There is another clause in here which relates to the service of documents on offshore companies and I just want to ask whether there is any relationship between the documents—that is the cheques that John Banks regularly received from offshore companies including from Mr Kim Dotcom; we will get to Skycity in a second—and whether or not having those documents made public will be helped or hindered by this therefore checking whether there should be a declaration of self-interest on the part of the Hon John Banks in this area. There is a clause that relates to interest payable on outstanding payments. What about the money that John Banks has not paid back to Kim Dotcom the money that he took under false pretences from Kim Dotcom? The question is whether that $50000 will have to be returned in one cheque or two and whether or not there should be interest. That is a question that has to be raised. 
The Friendly Societies and Credit Union Amendment Bill which we are considering has to do with accounts that are held within organisations and the means of distribution. What I want to ask is whether there is any credit union account in the joint name of Skycity and the Hon John Banks. Is there any other method other than the brown paper bag full of money or the envelope with a cheque in it that John Banks has received— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to remind this member who has been around these premises for a very long time— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! If the member has a point of order he should make it clearly and not—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. He should not direct his comments about how long a member has been here or whatever. He should succinctly say what the point of order is about. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member has a point of order let us just— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: If you will allow me the point of order is that he is straying away from the subject matter of these bills and he is talking about matters that are totally irrelevant to the bills. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order the Chair is of course the sole judge of relevance but I would refer you to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill new section 117A “Meaning of distribution” inserted by clause 91A. I was talking about the distribution of— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All right. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is that enough? Are you happy? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You have brought me into it by asking about my state of mind and that is not appropriate. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. I believe the member was within the parameter of a third reading speech but that does not give him free licence. I will hear the member. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before when the member Sam Lotu-Iiga tried to make a point of order you cut him off rather tersely. I would ask that when— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! It is inappropriate to challenge the ruling in the manner that the member has done. The reason I cautioned Sam Lotu-Iiga was that he started referring to the member. He was using a point of order to cast aspersions on the member. That is the reason. Any member raising a point of order must do so tersely and they will find that quite clearly in the Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I was not challenging your ruling and I am not talking about your first ruling when you said that the member went on too long. It was the second time when you cut him off before he had even finished his point of order. He had not even spoken with respect and I am asking that going forward this side of the House is given a little bit of courtesy. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I hear the member but there is no requirement for the Speaker to hear a point of order in its entirety. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without wishing to relitigate the points that you have made in respect of the substance of the bill I am mindful of Speaker’s ruling 122/7 which states: “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill;” and also of Speaker’s ruling 123/1(6) which says: “nor may a member go through the bill clause by clause;”. In order to draw the very long bow that the member is attempting to do I am suggesting that he may be straying from those particular rulings. Although you have ruled and I accept that I hope that some cognisance of those particular principles could be had. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not really need the member—let me just say this. Members will be aware that I have only just assumed the Chair. I have not had an opportunity to hear in detail what the member has said. I think the points are well made: we are talking about the principles of the bill. I will hear the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to talk about the distribution to members which is most of the substantive part of the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill which is one of the bills that we are currently debating. I also want to say that I do not regard it as an insult in any way to be described as a member who is experienced in the ways of the House. That is not an aspersion. I regard that—I know I am referring to your ruling and I probably should not— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think he is referring to your ruling. I obviously talked about his experience—or his lack of common sense I suppose. It sort of weighs that up. But he is referring to it and you should bring him into line I think. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will uphold that. The member was referring to the point of order and I invited him to get on with his speech. Please do so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point that I want to make right now is that John Banks takes money from anyone. John Banks takes money from any route and I want an assurance that he is not using— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is way off beam from the contents and the topics of these bills. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I believe that is outside the main points of a third reading speech as outlined in Speaker’s ruling 122/7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This bill deals with the distribution of funds. I want an assurance that as well as receiving money in plain envelopes money in brown paper bags and money from Kim Dotcom John Banks is not receiving money through credit unions. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that in order for this line of debate to be in order it would be necessary for the member to establish that Mr Banks is indeed a member of a New Zealand credit union. I should just seek that assurance that indeed he is in order that the debate may be brought within the scope of a third reading. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will uphold that. I think that we are talking about principles here and I would ask the member to draw those conclusions. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to talk about the security of payments from credit unions which is part of this bill and the authorisation of those and I want an assurance from the Minister in charge of the bill that this bill is not being used to hide yet another payment that he has received. He has history— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I again draw you back to the substance of the debate. In order for the speech in my view to be within the terms of the Standing Orders it would need to be established that the member who is being referred to in the debate is a member of the credit union. I ask again for that assurance lest he trivialise the Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I just want to totally refute that you have to prove that someone is a member of a credit union before asking the House to indicate that he is not receiving money from one. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just invite members to look at this. There is actually a suite of Speakers’ rulings on page 122 on third readings and they do require these sorts of points: “Members must confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee.” and “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill;”. I just ask members that that be their guide when they are speaking. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The main purpose of this bill is to control the distribution of funds from credit unions. That is what this bill is about. I just want an assurance from the Minister in charge of the bill that the distribution systems around this are sufficient to prevent dirty money getting to him the way that dirty money has got to him— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without drawing you towards Speaker’s ruling 79/1 I strongly suggest the member is now trivialising your rulings and termination must be an option. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member was fine in the first part of his assertions about the requirement of the bill. To actually personalise it in the way that he did is a step beyond a third reading speech. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to raise an issue with you which is that in order for you be able to judge these matters you need to be able to hear out the member and it is up to you to interrupt members if you feel they are straying off. There are actually Speakers’ rulings about continually interrupting members during their speech—it is very clearly out of order—which is clearly what is happening here. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I think I am also seeking an assurance that you have actually looked at what is in this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is almost a step too far. I am familiar with the bill can I assure you of that. I think the points that have been made on both sides are reasonably valid. Points of order could be used for continual interruption but also I would just caution the member that a third reading speech is a little more confined than other speeches. I have directed the member to talk about the principles of the bill. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to prolong this but a direct accusation has been made that I am deliberately interrupting the member’s speech. I want to give the House an assurance that that is not the case and indeed I want him to complete his speech. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it would probably be helpful if we moved on to the next bill. This happens to be the Takeovers Amendment Bill and it is a Brash-Banks clause in the Takeovers Amendment Bill. Is this the one they rolled Rodney Hide with? Is this the one that they rolled Rodney with the Takeovers Amendment Bill? Would this prevent the sort of fraud that was involved in that? A combination of this and the Statistics Amendment Bill which we are dealing with—do they between them— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has alleged fraud against a sitting member. That is unparliamentary. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I was just trying to pick up the exact context. I know that the member did reference fraud but I did not actually pick that he tied it to a member. He said that this is the sort of fraud. In that regard he did not tag it to a member. He is skirting very very close to the wind but he is just inside the boundary on that one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The question I was going to ask is whether a combination of this and the Statistics Amendment Bill could be used to stop the publication of false polls by fraud in the way that Dr Brash and Mr Banks did before the last election when they were rolling Rodney Hide. They said that a Brash-Banks - led ACT Party would in fact get 15 percent. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How did that work out? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think that was fraud. I think that was fraud. Brash was not a member of Parliament and Banks was not a member of Parliament at the time but their activities were certainly a fraud on the ACT Party. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is far too much of a nuance. He is alleging fraud in relation to the member John Banks. That may be in the past before he was a member but it is still unparliamentary to do that given that John Banks is a sitting member. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are you speaking to this point of order? 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: No I am raising another point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I need to rule on that one. I am listening very carefully and I guess by inference one could claim that the member has done that. But he has actually stopped short of associating it or tagging it directly to the member. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The chief whip of the Government has asked you about whether that member is trivialising your rulings because takeovers as pertaining to what is in this bill have nothing to do with what the member is referring to. I ask you to please ask him to point out where the relevance is to this bill because he is clearly trifling with your rulings. I ask that termination be an option. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order you are the sole judge of relevance and for a member to tell you to take that into account is in itself disorderly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is a range of issues that are coming forward here. One is continual interruption and the requirement of the Speaker to make those rulings. The member who is speaking is actually in a way getting close enough to the line that he is baiting members. So there is a bit of to and fro on either side about this matter. The House can choose whether it wants to move forward. I invite the member to direct his comments at the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Can you just give me an indication of how much longer I have got? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just over 2 minutes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are only two of the bills that I will have time to refer to. One is the Registered Architects Amendment Bill and the question is whether in fact this bill will give recognition to architects and to particular houses and whether that would help some people’s memory. I know of someone who forgot that they went to the Chrisco mansion. The other thing is the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill and this has to do I understand with radio programming and spectrum licences. My question to the Minister in charge of the bill is whether again this will be helpful in the redevelopment of memory. In this particular case when asked about his relationship with Kim Dotcom he said: “I’m not in a relationship with that man. He is married.” 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Well I do trust that my contribution can be a bit of sense amongst the triviality of that last speech from Trevor Mallard which I am sure that people who have been listening to this debate have been appalled by. We who worked through this legislation in the Commerce Committee believe that it will make a significant difference to the businesses in our nation which is what this legislation is about. It is about nothing that the previous member spoke on. It is actually about bringing some relief and some lifting of financial and regulatory burden to those businesses out there to those New Zealanders to those hard-working people who want to see this Parliament be effective in helping them. I think that that is what this Parliament wants to do and what the people of New Zealand want this Parliament to achieve. 
So I believe that in progressing this bill here in its third reading—well all the 13 separate bills arising from the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill—are relieving what the Minister described as niggles and we have surely had enough niggles here today regarding this legislation. It is going to be something where I think New Zealanders may not see the huge massive impact of major legislation but they will receive the benefit of all the smaller changes that take place which in the end will have a significant benefit in the bottom lines of businesses and that is going to release more funds more finance and more profits to businesses. It is going to help with employment better public services and in the end a better way of life for New Zealanders. So what is good for business has got to be good for New Zealand. 
We believe that less but better regulation—not less is better but less but better—is essential to boost New Zealand’s productivity its growth its international competitiveness and its living standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member’s father knew how to make a speech without reading it. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Yeah well certainly I do not think you read your speech across the House there. Certainly I would say that the content of this speech is probably a lot more substantial than the content of the previous one. 
What New Zealand needs is a better policy environment which is a very good reason why we have National as the leading party in this Government. We are bringing a better policy environment for businesses in New Zealand which is going to create the economic advantage that we need. We live so far away from most of our markets. We live so far away from the great populations of the world in our isolation here and in our geographical distance that it is imperative and important that we have a very good robust positive attractive policy environment in order to retain talent—that mobile talent that can go anywhere in the world. 
We know that all New Zealanders do an OE. Of course you hear the haranguing around that but you know many New Zealanders go overseas and then return with global skills and global connections. All of that brings an improvement into the capability of our businesses here in New Zealand. It is important to have this environment which attracts people to business in this country. 
In fact back in April Bill English went to Australia and there many Australian businesses were very very jealous of the environment that has been created here in New Zealand. We know that investment is coming this way. It is because of what we are doing—it is because we are working systematically through the regulations that work in the business sphere. In particular we are working through this systematically to identify those areas that are redundant and those areas that are constrictive with a determination that we are going to have regulation that is robust that is essential that is reasonable and that has rigorousness about it. We are also going to remove those redundant pieces of legislation that just clutter the business environment. All of these are part of our plan to improve the environment for New Zealand businesses. 
We touched on this last night as we went through Part 5 of the Regulatory Reform Bill where we looked at the amendment to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. It is just a very simple measure that is going to bring significant savings to that industry. Instead of having to take a DVD slip out of its cover and then adhere a rating classification to it those in the industry are now able to print this at the source of supply and this is going to make a significant saving to them. 
 Comment has been made that we could have progressed this legislation a little bit faster in order to bring that benefit to people. But I understand that that area of the industry approached the previous Labour Government year after year and then finally it thought that this was a good idea. So it has taken a long time to bring that sort of relief and that sort of benefit to that sector. It is important that these things happen in order to build this better policy environment and in order to bring the success that people aspire to in this country. We believe that better regulation and less regulation is essential. This is what we are working on as a Government. 
One of the changes that we have made is a new system for assessing the health of New Zealand’s regulatory regimes. This will help improve economic performance over the longer term. The results of preliminary assessments are included in a report called  
The Best Practice Regulation Model: Principles and Assessments 
 which was released on the Treasury website this month August 2012. This new model for assessing major pieces of regulation considers whether each regime gives appropriate weighting to factors that can help improve economic performance competition innovation exports compliance costs and trade and investment openness. 
In 2009 the 
 Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation Less Regulation 
 made two major commitments. We said: “We will introduce new regulation only when we are satisfied that it is required reasonable and robust.” The second commitment is: “We will review existing regulation in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly.” So I am very pleased to stand and support this legislation in its third reading. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I started off talking in the House last night on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill by saying that it was surreal. It was surreal speaking on a bill that repeals 31 Acts that no longer exist. Well last night certainly turned into a surreal experience when it was more like karaoke than normal practice of the House and we certainly had some challenges before us. Certainly parts of the discussion and debate last night deteriorated into farce due to the issues that we were confronted with. But the real reason why it was so surreal was because the Minister for Regulatory Reform who had brought this bill to the House—the latest Minister to bring this bill to the House—was John Banks who as been referenced by a number of speakers has certainly been suffering from documented memory loss. 
I just want to refer to what the previous speaker said on a couple of issues because he said that there have been a lot of niggles raised on this side of the House about this legislation and the issues that lie in behind. I would just like to say to him that they are more than niggles. This legislation is about tinkering with regulatory reform but the niggles that the members on that side of the House seem to have such an issue with are serious issues. They are issues of probity—the probity of a Minister and the ability of that Minister to actually bring legislation before the House and have credibility on that. They are issues about the principles of regulatory reform what those principles actually mean and whether or not the Minister who brought this legislation to the House has the credibility to bring those issues before the House. 
The member on the other side of the House also talked about a better policy environment. Well you know that is a bit of a joke really when you think about it because the better policy environment that we have at the moment includes things that that Minister who has brought this legislation to the House has got some sort of responsibility for. It includes charter schools—charter schools which are actually using taxpayers’ money and interfering with our important State school system. He has got memory loss. He has got memory loss about donations. This legislation does contain a lot of information and a lot of change around the probity of how organisations such as New Zealand credit unions operate. 
Cronyism is another major issue that is before this House and it is before this House again today. The latest issue of cronyism is around the appointment of Wayne Mapp’s private secretary to a position that is doubtful— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! We have had some very clear instruction as to what the topic that is acceptable to this debate is and the member has strayed outside it. I ask her to return to the third reading speech. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I will turn to the legislation because the legislation in the third reading does make some important changes. 
I would like to reiterate that this legislation is actually legislation that came out of the work that was done by the previous Labour Government. This legislation sat on the Order Paper for several years and has not been progressed despite resulting in some quite significant money saving that could actually have already been taking place. There are four particular issues that it deals with. The Companies Act is amended and it will save money on using electronic shareholder participation. That could have been in place for the last 2 years if this Government had not lagged on bringing this legislation back to the House. The Unit Trusts Amendment Bill amends the Unit Trusts Act so that financial statements and accounts can be distributed electronically. We had a lot of discussion last night about amending the Films Videos and Publications Classifications Act. Millions of dollars could have been saved on this in the last couple of years. Then this legislation aligns inconsistency in all food-related Acts. So we support this legislation. It came out of work that we did and that we did in the previous Government. It should have been brought before this House before now and that Government and that Minister who brought it before the House have some serious issues. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the 13 bills that the Regulatory Reform Bill has been broken into. I want to talk about just a couple of aspects. I do not want to talk about all of the different 13 amendment bills that are contained here. I just want to focus on a couple of them. 
Before we start I say that it was interesting to hear Jonathan Young’s speech. I thought that Jonathan Young made an interesting speech about the philosophical framework for regulatory reform that the Government has adopted. I thought it was a useful exposition actually of where the Government comes from. In many respects I think that many people would agree with what Jonathan Young said in the sense that he was saying well how do we try to reduce the negative impacts of regulation on the operation of business? I think it is certainly true that there are regulations that exist that do have negative implications for business and I think we would all agree that there is a case for amending or reforming those to make sure they do not have that effect. 
I guess in a way the Government does not have a lot on its economic agenda beyond that kind of microeconomic reform. So in some ways that approach typifies the Government’s approach which is microeconomic reform and the Government’s approach overall is to do these kinds of microeconomic reforms in the hope that by keeping hands off more generally there will be some kind of great economic miracle. 
 To some degree there is no question that there is a role for that kind of economic approach. The problem I think is more broadly that if you look at macroeconomic policy the Government’s approach to macroeconomic policy more generally is quite problematic. Aside from picking a few winners like the mining industry it is not assisting some of our most important export sectors. So although this legislation before us I think makes some contribution it has to be seen in the broader picture of the Government’s economic strategy which is very much lacking and is of course reflected in the poor economic performance of New Zealand under this Government. Of course accepting that there have been external factors that have influenced the economic performance of New Zealand as well undoubtedly the fact that the Government lacks an economic strategy more generally I think has been problematic. 
In terms of the regulatory reform legislation I want to talk first about the amendments to the concessions process for the Department of Conservation estate in the Conservation Amendment Bill. That is the one bill that we will be voting against. We will be voting in favour of all the other amendment bills but that is the one that we are voting against. A concession is the right to access or use parts of the Department of Conservation estate for commercial purposes. It is very important that there is a concessions process so that parts of the Department of Conservation estate can be used for commercial purposes but the Green Party believes it is fundamental that the ecological or biodiversity bottom lines come first. So the fundamental starting point has to be that we protect the ecological or environmental values of the Department of Conservation estate first. Concessions or the ability to use the Department of Conservation estate for commercial purposes are secondary to that. That is fundamental to our approach to the Department of Conservation estate. 
Essentially what this bill does is make it harder for the Department of Conservation to protect those fundamental environmental or ecological values when it is considering applications to use the Department of Conservation estate for commercial purposes. For that reason we are voting against that amendment bill. When you think about it—and I think this is where it applies to the kind of philosophical approach to regulation that Jonathan Young was outlining—if we do not have regulations that fundamentally protect the Department of Conservation estate if we do not have those regulations in place then we will undermine the macro picture of what is one of the great opportunities or benefits that New Zealand has economically which is our natural environment. 
Look at the tourism industry which is totally built on clean green New Zealand and look at our primary produce exports which are entirely built on a clean green and safe New Zealand. Those things are built on the environmental integrity or the perception of environmental integrity particularly associated with protecting the conservation estate. So if our regulatory framework does not fundamentally protect the conservation estate then we will undermine our economy as well as undermine the biodiversity values that we think are important. 
I mean when you think about who the great builders of the New Zealand economy have been actually it has been the greenies who generation after generation have protected the New Zealand environment. If you were to name one person who has made a huge contribution to the New Zealand economy you could pick Kevin Smith one of the campaigners who protected the West Coast of the South Island against the opposition of many of the Governments of New Zealand that wanted to allow the destruction of the West Coast environment. People like Kevin played a fundamental role in actually building the foundations of our economy because by protecting the natural environment they basically protected the foundations of both the tourism industry and the primary production sector. 
So when we come to look at these kinds of regulatory reforms if as is the case in this bill the regulatory reforms make it harder for the Department of Conservation to protect the conservation estate essentially not only do they make it harder to protect the biodiversity values that are important to New Zealanders and to the New Zealand identity but they also make it harder to protect the foundation of the New Zealand economy. So for that reason we do not support those changes—because they tilt the balance against protecting the natural environment 
Looking at the philosophical approach to regulatory reform if you do not have strong regulations that protect the natural environment then you do not protect the foundations of our economy. And I think that that kind of short-term thinking is epitomised by the National Party in relation to this. National members think oh well a bit of environmental degradation for a bit of economic growth. That is fine. So we should have regulations that facilitate that. The Green Party takes a much more long-term approach which says we need regulations that protect the natural environment for the long term and not only does that protect the biodiversity and ecological values that are important to us but in the long term it also protects our economy because our economy is built on our environment. So we need a strong regulatory framework to protect that environment. 
The second part of this regulatory reform legislation that I want to talk about is the amendments to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act. These are very good and important changes and the Green Party is very pleased that these changes are here in the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill. There is a multitude of changes but basically what they do is facilitate the ability of the credit unions to compete more effectively. 
Credit unions are I believe an important part of the financial system in New Zealand. They provide a small but significant competition to some of the larger institutions. Because of the way that privatisation was run in the 1980s and 1990s we ended up with a banking sector that is extremely problematic and dominated by the Australian-owned banks. 
Having the Australian-owned banks dominating the finance sector has been a real problem for New Zealand. It has been a problem in terms of competition—it is only with the emergence of Kiwibank that we have had serious competition in the banking sector; the Australian-owned banks were acting in a monopolistic manner in reducing competition—and it has also been a problem in terms of tax. The Australian-owned banks have been illegally and unlawfully avoiding tax. They unlawfully avoided $2 billion worth of tax and the Government had to spend $50 million in court cases to get it back off them. So having the credit unions freed up so that they can compete better with the banks is important. 
It is of course important that we have proper prudential regulations in place to make sure that the credit unions do operate in a way that is safe for their investors but it is also important that they be freed up so they can at least be on a level playing field with the big banks so that they can compete with them and so that we do get some degree of competition in the banking and financial services sector particularly for lower income New Zealanders so that they do not get ripped off by the big Australian banks which of course has been the history since the extremely poor privatisations that happened in New Zealand. 
So those are two pieces of legislation—there is the bit around changing the rules around concessions and the commercial use of the Department of Conservation estate which we do not support because they tilt the balance against the environment and there are the amendments around the credit unions which give them more of a chance to compete and are I think very very good changes. So we will be supporting all the legislation except those changes around conservation. Thank you. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Schools Charter—Performance of Schools in New York 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to seek some assistance from you about the tabling of media articles. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 148/4(3) and if I can have a bit of time I will read the last sentence: “It is not the intention at all to prevent the tabling of those or likewise media articles from overseas publications that would not be readily available to members but would be relevant to them.” I seek leave of the House to table a  
Wall Street Journal  
article dated 27 July this year on charter schools. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As the member is aware it is our normal practice not to table media that are currently available and given that the article is an international one the House can determine. So I will put the question of leave. Leave is sought for that purpose— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make sure it is not an online article. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is not online. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to have a conversation. I think the point has been made. I shall put the leave. Leave is sought to table an international document from an overseas news source. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Registered Architects Amendment Bill the Statistics Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill the Unit Trusts Amendment Bill the Wine Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure for me to take a final call on the legislation arising from the Regulatory Reform Bill and I want to especially thank the Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon John Banks. He has been disparaged in this House this afternoon but he has done tireless work to make New Zealand a better place to do business in to make this country a better place to work in and to make this country a better place to live in. 
This legislation is about getting rid of unnecessary regulations so that businesses can focus on core activities grow the economy and in particular grow the export economy. What does this legislation do? The legislation will amend 13 different Acts and bring some of the outdated Acts into the 21st century of doing business—I will get to some of them. 
Amendments to the Companies Act will enable companies to hold shareholder meetings over the internet and also allow electronic voting. Companies domiciled here with connections overseas and across the country will be able to do business via telephone videoconference and obviously the internet. Not only does this reduce our carbon footprint but also it saves New Zealand companies a total of $1.5 million a year going forward. 
We have also heard in the debate so far about changes to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act. This will be done to modernise labelling. As we have heard from the Minister this will reduce compliance costs by an estimated $1.3 million next year and that figure will rise to $2 million per year by 2018. We also have changes to the Conservation Act which will allow time limits to be set within which applications for concession such as the permit to carry out activities in a conservation area must be processed. These applications may be affected particularly during duck hunting season in this country. Changes to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act as I said last night in the debate will save up to $50000 per year—medicines for the treatment of that world-renowned “Ugly Mallard” species which was last seen selling scalping tickets to teenagers in the Hutt Valley and which is otherwise known as “TradeMe Trev”. There are changes to the Radiocommunications Act which will save around $46000 per year. 
These are great examples of what can be achieved by systematic and considered reform of regulations. It is good news for business good news for consumers and good news for our kids. The measures implemented under the National-led Government to cut red tape have so far contributed to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the member get that tie from Tony Ryall? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —an estimated $200 million per year. Let me repeat that for the scalper—$200 million per year. Why is that important? Well that money can be reinvested into those companies and be used for more productive outcomes. That money can be used to hire more staff expand operations and invest in research and development. It is also about putting more money back in the pockets of everyday New Zealanders due to the reduced costs of production. 
As is clear from this legislation high-quality regulation is a source of competitive advantage for our country. We want to take every advantage we can to grow the economy reduce barriers to trade and become more competitive internationally. Ultimately it is about delivering a brighter better and bolder future for all New Zealanders including our friends across the aisle and their families. I am proud that this John Key - led Government is continuing to do this and I recommend this legislation to the House. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 My call will be extraordinarily brief because as I outlined last night the change being made in this legislation to the provision in the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act that is costing the film and music industry $50000 a week epitomises I think the good that is in this legislation but the bad continues to cloud us for any moment longer that we drag this legislation through the House. A total of $7 million is what the industry has suffered as a consequence of delayed legislation because of the fact that one simple word has not been changed. It is my hope that we see this legislation go through the House this evening. If it does not get through the House this evening I would say it is on the National Government’s head that another $50000 a week of expense falls on the industry that it claims to support. 
So that is my challenge to the members in this House tonight. If we truly believe in reforming regulation then we will let this legislation pass this evening. I commend this legislation to the House. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the third readings of the legislation arising from the Regulatory Reform Bill which was divided into 13 different bills and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. These bills in fact streamline frivolous red tape and bring order and regulation to the regulatory environment. The Government is strongly focused on assisting businesses by removing duplication getting rid of unnecessary requirements and clearing up irregularities thereby raising economic growth and living standards. New Zealand businesses face enough challenges without having to grapple with the compliance costs caused by unnecessary regulations. The world is changing dramatically. It is highly competitive and New Zealand needs to move with the times. It is vital that improved but essential legislation be set in place. 
The 13 bills amend 13 Acts and remove duplications unnecessary requirements and inconsistencies. Among the changes is a proposal to amend the Companies Act 1993 to allow companies to choose whether to use electronic shareholder participation. This could save New Zealand companies up to $1.5 million in total each year. Another change was to amend the Unit Trusts Act 1960 so that financial statements and accounts could be distributed electronically and another to amend the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 to modernise labelling. That will reduce compliance costs by an estimated $2.4 million in the first year and $3.1 million in 5 years. Through the Regulatory Reform (Revocations) Order 206 regulations will be repealed. 
These are just three measures that will make enormous differences to New Zealand businesses. These changes are made in a single omnibus bill that amends all the affected Acts at the same time. The National-led Government promised it would review existing regulations in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective and excessively costly. This saving will eventually be returned to the New Zealand economy benefiting all concerned. I commend this legislation to the House. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the regulatory reform legislation. I would like to commend the Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon John Banks for making sure that this legislation got the attention that it needed and that it is in the House now for its third reading. 
I would have to say that really this legislation is about helping our business community and our businesses—the private sector. The future for my kids the future for our kids and the future for the next generations in New Zealand does not lie in the growth of our public sector; it lies in the growth of our private sector. It lies in the growth of our tradable and export sector. Anything that this Government can do to make those sectors more competitive and to give them a competitive advantage we should be doing and this regulatory reform legislation is about that. 
I myself have been holding business forums for the last 8 months in my own electorate of Rodney and the common theme that is coming through from all my local businesses—whether they be small business medium-sized business exporters or retailers—is that we need to reduce red tape and regulation. This is exactly what this legislation is doing: it is reducing red tape and regulation. 
High-quality regulation is a source of competitive advantage. We might scoff—and I have heard scoffing from the other side—at small gains in some areas but every gain matters. A thousand dollars on the bottom line of a small business means something to it. It has an impact on its business. We might scoff at small gains but let us remember that the overall impact of this legislation is maybe a $200 million saving within the economy annually. That is a fairly significant saving to our private sector. The growth in this country and the future of this country lie with our private sector as I have said and anything that we can do to help it we must do to help it. 
 We believe that better regulation and less regulation is essential to assist New Zealand to become more internationally competitive and a more attractive place to live and do business. We hear every day in this House—week in week out—from Labour members talking about people having to leave New Zealand. Well you know what? Let us support a bill that actually goes some way towards making more jobs and making more opportunities available to New Zealanders and Kiwis to come home to come back to New Zealand to get involved in business to get involved in the economy to bring their kids home and to do something about the future and the growth of New Zealand. 
We have made improvements among others to the Resource Management Act the electricity sector the transport and communications sectors and ACC. We are all aware that the Resource Management Act is something that can have a profound effect on businesses. I am sure that they all welcome the changes that are being made to ensure that they are more competitive. 
The 2009  
Government 
Statement 
on Regulation 
 made two major commitments: we will introduce new regulation only when we are satisfied that it is required reasonable and robust and we will review existing regulation in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly. This is another great thing that is happening through this regulatory reform legislation: we are getting rid of unnecessary ineffective and excessively costly regulation. 
This legislation slashes red tape and it makes life easier for businesses. It contains amendments to 13 Acts removing duplication getting rid of unnecessary requirements and clearing up inconsistencies with the aim of reducing compliance costs and regulatory burdens to businesses. New Zealand businesses face enough challenges without having to grapple with compliance costs caused by unnecessary regulation. I am very happy to commend this legislation. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: During the third reading debate the Greens indicated that they wished to vote against one of the bills. So I propose to put the bills in three parcels to allow that to happen. 
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill Animal Products Amendment Bill and Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Conservation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill Fisheries Amendment Bill Friendly Society and Credit Unions Amendment Bill Radiocommunications Amendment Bill Registered Architects Amendment Bill Statistics Amendment Bill Takeovers Amendment Bill Unit Trusts Amendment Bill Wine Amendment Bill and Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill read a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have made excellent progress this afternoon. I seek leave for the House to adjourn 5 minutes early. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. 
The House adjourned at 5.54 p.m.