Volume 693 Week 55 - Tuesday 24 September 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 693 Week 55 - Tuesday 24 September 2013[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 24 September 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsChina—Environment Protection and Resources Conservation Committee National People’s CongressMr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Environment Protection and Resources Conservation Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China led by Mr WangHongju is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.Questions to MinistersHousing Affordable—First-home Buyers Reserve Bank Intervention and Government Measures1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding first-home buyers “I don’t want to see tools implemented that lock them out of the market”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. The sorts of policies that lock first-home buyers out of the market are planning regulations that restrict the supply of new housing to the market and I am pleased that everyone now except the Labour Opposition agrees—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Minister is on his feet and taking up Parliament’s time with a statement that has nothing to do with the question. I want you to bring him to order. He gave his answer as being yes—so that is it and he should stop wasting Parliament’s time.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If members want to stay for the balance of question time I suggest they behave themselves. The question was asked. The response was in order and was being given by the Minister before he was interrupted by the point of order. The Hon Bill English can continue with his answer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The second policy that locks first-home buyers out of the market is very high interest rates such as first mortgage rates of over 10 percent when Labour left office. Today they are 5 percent.Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister say in June regarding first-home buyers and loan-to-value ratio restrictions that “I’m pretty confident between the commercial incentives of the banks and the judgment of the Reserve Bank and the influence of the Government we’ll be able to navigate a way where they stay in the game.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes and the Reserve Bank consulted the Government regarding its loan-to-value ratio restrictions. The Government made its view clear. The Government also changed the policies in respect of Welcome Home Loans and KiwiSaver subsidies to ensure that within whatever restrictions the Reserve Bank put in place first-home buyers got a reasonable go. But the Government’s position has always been that the supply of new housing is much more significant in influencing house prices than the loan-to-value ratio restrictions put on by the Reserve Bank.Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Prime Minister’s confidence did the Minister of Finance in fact sign a memorandum with the Reserve Bank that contained no provisions to protect first-home buyers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes and the memorandum would be quite an inappropriate vehicle for that kind of policy. It is a memorandum that sets out the macro-prudential tool kit available to the central bank it is a memorandum that sets out the independence of the Reserve Bank in using that tool kit and it requires the Reserve Bank to consult the Government. In fact it is one of the world’s most developed macro-prudential frameworks and it is up to the Reserve Bank to independently exercise its choices. In respect of house prices we are focusing on increasing the supply; unfortunately the Opposition is not supporting us on that.Louise Upston: What progress is the Government making to assist first-home buyers in the housing market? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection is now unreasonable from this side of the House.Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all by doing everything we can to help keep interest rates low as long as possible so that they remain closer to 5 percent rather than 10 percent as they were under the previous Government. Secondly we have reached agreement with the Auckland Council to bring 39000 houses into the market over the next 3 years. We have passed legislation that sets up special housing areas which will enable the Government to provide a fast track to councils that want to consent more houses more quickly and we have changed the policy with Welcome Home Loans and KiwiSaver to ensure that first-home buyers get priority from banks.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the current Minister of Finance’s statement that New Zealand’s monetary policy is the best in the world and requires no change; if so can he explain why his solution to the housing crisis is to have such low growth that interest rates stay low?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do agree with the Minister of Finance. I have to say that is not always the case but in this instance it is. As for the member’s assertion about low growth New Zealand’s current growth rate is in the top five or six in the developed world. The answer to housing affordability is not low growth; the answer to housing affordability is a faster supply of more houses on the ground. After 2 years of intensive work the Government has now secured an agreement with Auckland City and has in place the legislation that will enable that process to get under way as soon as possible.Hon David Cunliffe: Did he his existing Minister of Finance or Treasury ever propose to the Reserve Bank that loan-to-value ratio restrictions not apply to regions with low or no house price inflation?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think probably every possible variation of loan-to-value ratio restrictions was discussed among the Prime Minister the Minister of Finance Treasury and the Reserve Bank as part of the consultation process. However we kept in mind through those discussions first the independence of the Reserve Bank and secondly that it is supply of more houses on the ground that will make the biggest difference. It is pretty clear that some of the reasons for the doubling house prices between 2000 and 2008 were planning regulations that restricted supply and bad Government policy that drove interest rates to 10 percent.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not a general one that asked about every possible permutation; it asked about one permutation and that was not addressed by the Minister.Mr SPEAKER: The question was adequately addressed. The question was—[Interruption] Order! I am just ruling on that point of order. The question was veryadequately addressed. I invite the member to go back and look at the substance of the question and the substance of the answer to satisfy himself.Louise Upston: Has he received any reports of support for loan-to-value ratios?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In so far as by the expression “loan-to-value ratios” we mean restrictions on particular loan-to-value ratios yes I have seen two reports. One says that “We support loan-to-value ratios. We have been calling for them for ages” and the second from another person: “you’re wishing to explore the use of a package of macro-prudential measures. … And you’ll get no argument … from the Labour Party on that.” The first was Phil Twyford and the second was David Cunliffe and I think he put the second one in his CV.Hon David Cunliffe: Did his current Minister of Finance ever propose to the Reserve Bank amongst the many tools that he talked about that loan-to-value ratio restrictions would not apply to regions with low or no house price inflation; if so why was he ignored?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to the first question is I understand yes and the answer to the second question is that the Reserve Bank Governor is independent. His independence has been a pillar of New Zealand’s economic policy for 30 years and in the end he made the decision about the loan-to-value ratio restrictions.Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister blame the Reserve Bank the retail banks the Opposition and the general public—everybody else other than his own Government—for his 5 years of failure on housing?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not accept the member’s assertion. Interest rates are at a 50-year low which has given the elevated prices in New Zealand made housing at those prices more affordable than it would have been. Secondly we have worked intensively particularly with Auckland Council but also with Local Government New Zealand to implement a framework that allows for local decision-making in planning at the same time as a recognition of the wider economic impacts of runaway house prices. I accept that that has taken 2 or 3 years but that is because of the participative and consultative nature of this Government and now we are ready to bring thousands—literally thousands—of extra houses to the market.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a long enough answer to that question.Metiria Turei:Tēnā koe Mr Speaker.Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Will the Prime Minister commit to a large-scale affordable home building programme in order to meet what he calls a faster supply of mixed houses on the ground given that for young families in Auckland house prices have now risen at three times the rate of wages in the past 4 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is yes and in two ways. The first is through reconfiguration of the Government’s State housing stock. The Government is an owner of $15 billion worth of houses—70000 of them. Not only are many of them inappropriate for housing people in serious housing need; many of them are appropriate for more development and densification. We will be a direct provider of medium-density housing to urban markets around New Zealand under that development strategy. Secondly we are implementing through legislation and local body accords supply measures that will enable something to happen in Auckland that did not happen under the previous Government and that is the building of affordable housing. For a decade in Auckland no affordable housing was built. In the next 5 years thousands of affordable houses will be built.Metiria Turei: If his Government refuses to commit to a large-scale affordable home building programme what comfort can he then give the typical first-home buyer who now needs to spend two-thirds of their take-home pay to service a mortgage on a start home in Auckland?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In case the member was not listening I said yes to her question not no. This Government is more committed to housing affordability than the last Government which achieved nothing. As I outlined to the member it is in two ways: one through the Government’s own direct building and development through its own portfolio and second through the agreements we have with councils which are now going to enable thousands of affordable homes that are funded by first-home buyers and others and built by builders not by Government departments.Metiria Turei: Why does his Government continue to allow housing property speculators to make tax-free income on their capital gains in housing investments which forces up prices and locks young families out of homeownership?Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all people who trade in houses pay tax on the earnings. If they buy a house for the purpose of sale and they sell it at a profit they pay the income tax rate on the gains on that house. I think that is a pretty important point. Secondly a few years ago the Government did adjust the taxation regime as it applies to investment property. We are collecting hundreds of millions more in tax from that sector; I think it is as high as $700 million or $800 million more in tax. Thirdly the most important influence on house prices is not conspiracies of speculators; it is conspiracies of planners who prevent the building of new houses in sufficient quantity to meet the growing demand in a growing economy.Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Minister aware of comments during a recent television debate that one of the ways of making first homes more accessible was to reduce the value of everyone’s home; if so what is the Government’s reaction to this inane proposal?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the kind of chip-on-the-shoulder vindictive stuff we can now expect from the Greens and we are seeing more of it.Metiria Turei: When will the Government give young families a genuine pathway to homeownership by leveraging the Crown’s low cost of borrowing and by using a modern version of the State Advances loan such as the Greens’ Home for Life progressive ownership scheme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Although there is some scope for supporting first-home buyers for instance through the Welcome Home Loan and KiwiSaver subsidies we also should avoid the problems created in other housing markets by large-scale first-home buyer grants which are shown inevitably and always to pump up house prices—therefore making it even harder for first-home buyers—because the Government simply subsidises the proceeds of a sale for the seller. We are not here to subsidise sellers and pump up what they get. The primary benefit for first-home buyers is to increase the supply of housing in a way that matches demand so prices do not race away at 15 percent per annum. We want to reduce rising prices not subsidise them.Metiria Turei: Given that house prices have risen at three times the rate of wages in the past 4 years and that the typical first-home buyer needs to spend two-thirds of their take-home pay to service a mortgage will the Government simply concede now that its approach to housing has failed to stabilise housing prices and it is time now for the Government to discourage speculation lead a building programme for affordable housing and give young families a genuine pathway to homeownership for them and their children?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is using measures of housing affordability that are not actually relevant to first-home buyers. For instance the Roost Mortgage Brokers affordability index shows that although house prices have gone up—and that is true and that is something we certainly want to slow down—interest rates have been so low compared with what they were when her party was in Government that housingaffordability is roughly the same as it was 6 years ago. The risk many homebuyers face is that interest rates will at some stage rise and they should keep that in mind.State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy2.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to theMinister of Finance: What recent progress has the Government made in its share offer programme—and particularly putting everyday New Zealanders at the front of the queue for shares?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week we registered the offer for the sale of a minority shareholding in Meridian Energy. This is the largest initial public offering expected in Australasia this year. The document provides information to help New Zealanders decide whether to invest in New Zealand’s largest electricity company. The share offer is expected to open to New Zealanders on Monday 30 September and close at 5 p.m. on Friday 18 October. The final share price is expected to be announced on 23 November. We expect Meridian Energy to be listed on the stock exchange on Tuesday 29 October. As with other offers in the programme the Government has made it clear that New Zealanders will be at the front of the queue and we want at least 85 percent New Zealand ownership.David Bennett: What offer features are being provided for New Zealand retail investors in the Meridian Energy share offer compared with large institutional or overseas investors?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is making it as easy as possible for New Zealanders to access information and if they wish to buy Meridian Energy shares. The indicative price range for New Zealand retail investors is $1.50 to $1.60 a share paid over two instalments. The first instalment will be a $1 share and the second will be no more than 60c a share 18 months later. So the total price for New Zealand retail investors is capped at $1.60 a share even if institutional and offshore investors pay a higher price. The indicative price range for them is $1.50 to $1.80 and there will be no price cap.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that his 2011 Cabinet paper stated that $3.1 billion would be raised from the sale of Meridian Energy why has he not revised the promised $5 billion to $7 billion to be raised from asset sales given that he now expects to receive only around $2 billion from the sale of Meridian Energy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Prime Minister indicated I think a week or so ago we would expect the proceeds to be around the bottom of that range around the $5 billion mark which is $5 billion of cash that we will get from New Zealanders investing in a New Zealand company which we will then reinvest in other public infrastructure. We are very proud that we can do that investment without borrowing from offshore lenders.David Bennett: What does the Meridian Energy offer document say about forecasts for the company’s dividends and what kind of return would they represent for investors in the share offer?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Given that investors will pay $1 of the issue price up front they will receive dividends in full during the 18-month instalment period. This provides investors with a higher-dividend yield during that instalment period. Meridian Energy is forecasting a gross instalment yield of 13.4 percent over the first 12 months. The company’s underlying gross share dividend yield for New Zealand retail applicants will be around 8.4 percent to 8.9 percent for the same period. This is the forecast return if investors pay for their shares in full.David Bennett: What alternative approaches to the share offer programme are available?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been some criticism of the share offer programme but we do not take the political criticism seriously because none of the people who have criticised it have promised to borrow the $5 billion offshore and buy back the company. I think that means that they do not really oppose the asset sales. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order—if the member wants to stay for the balance of question time.Resource Management Act Reforms—Environmental Protection and Planning3.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to theMinister for the Environment: Does she agree with the former Prime Minister and architect of the Resource Management Act 1991 Sir Geoffrey Palmer that taken as a whole the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 will seriously weaken the level of protection given to New Zealand’s natural environment under the Act and how will she address the concerns in particular related to the merging of sections 6 and 7?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): No I do not agree with Sir Geoffrey’s assessment on the impact on environmental protection. The Resource Management Act reforms are a package with a large number of elements that all work together. For example by improving our planning processes having better use of national tools and encouraging communities to make more decisions at the planning stage it is my view that we will get more robust and enduring decisions that better weigh all of the needs of our communities and their cumulative effects. In respect of sections 6 and 7 specifically we are continuing to talk with a number of parties about the optimal framing of those sections.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree that merging sections 6 and 7 into one list forcing decision makers to choose one principle over another without clear guidance from case law does protect the environment; if so why have so manyMāori submitters disagreed with this view?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well no I do not agree that merging them has the impact the member suggests. In fact the case law has been quite clear that decision makers have for some time become used to exercising overall broad judgment weighing up all of the factors to take into account in making their decisions. That is reasonably well settled and in fact I would point out that some iwi groups submitted in support of exactly this change.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does she stand by the statement made on 10 August that “The changes aim to incentivise effective working relationships between iwi/hapū and councils.” and how will this be done when the critical guidance in sections 6 and 7 will be merged together with no detail about whether local authorities can achieve this?Hon AMY ADAMS: Yes I do stand by that statement and I point out that sections 6 and 7 are just one part of the Act albeit a very important part and actually some of the specific reforms in the package that we are proposing around reform of the planning pathways and iwi participation in planning is exactly some of what we are pointing to. I would also point out to the member that the package of reforms includes: elevation of kaitiakitanga from a matter that particular regard must be given to to a matter that has to be recognised and provided for; clarity of the role of iwi andhapū in resource management planning including a requirement for councils across all planning pathways to seek and have particular regard to the advice of iwi andhapū; provision for hearing and review panels to include members of tikanga understanding and perspectives of the local iwi orhapū; greater transparency around how iwi andhapū interests are considered by councils; requirements in section 32 reports for councils to specifically record how their consultation with iwi has progressed and how plans meetthose concerns; stronger incentives for effective working relationships with iwi andhapū through stronger iwi planning agreements—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very long answer thank you.Moana Mackey: Can she guarantee that any policy changes to restrict or remove the public’s right to submit appeal or protest against any application under the Resource Management Act will be clearly signalled when the amendment legislation is introduced to Parliament and not done by a surprise Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage of this or any other bill as Minister Bridges did with the protest ban under the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill and as she is doing today with an amendment to shut the public out of the consenting process under the exclusive economic zone legislation?Hon AMY ADAMS: I point out to that member that our policy decisions from the National-led Government and the National Party have been announced for some months. A bill will come out in due course which I am assuming members of the Opposition are capable of reading but if they want help working their way through it I am happy to take them through it. I point out to the member that the Supplementary Order Paper that she is referring to this afternoon was notified by us in a press release back in April so exactly what her definition of “surprise tactics” is eludes me.Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Moana Mackey: Thank you. The Minister actually did not answer the question of whether she could guarantee that she would not do that.Mr SPEAKER: No on the basis of the question that was asked it was addressed satisfactorily by the Minister.Whānau Ora—Confidence in Scheme4.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister forWhānau Ora: Does she have confidence in theWhānau Ora scheme?Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister forWhānau Ora):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has she ever offered resources and staff such as report writers to prepareWhānau Ora commissioning agency bid documentation; if so why?Hon TARIANA TURIA: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did she give $500000 plus expert help to the National Hauora Coalition to prepare its bid forWhānau Ora money; if so why?Hon TARIANA TURIA: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You will not be laughing shortly gentlemen. Did she give $3 million to the Iwi Leaders Forum to prepare itsWhānau Ora commissioning agency bid; if so why?Hon TARIANA TURIA: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is she saying that a document that came to her at Parliament on 8 August at 3.26 p.m. setting out these matters and detailing the matters I am talking about was just made up?Hon TARIANA TURIA: I have no idea what the member is talking about.Crime Statistics—2012-13 Figures5.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to theMinister of Justice: What conviction and sentencing statistics has she received for the 2012/13 financial year?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Statistics New Zealand has today published the conviction and sentencing statistics for 2012-13. This shows that the number of adults charged in court has decreased by a further 7 percent in the past year. Since 2008-09 the number of people charged with criminal offences has reduced by ahuge 23 percent. This means the justice sector cooperation across police courts and corrections is working well so there are fewer people in the criminal pipeline and our courts. The Government is committed to making New Zealand a safer place for all and these statistics show that our initiatives across the sector are having positive results.Scott Simpson: What other justice sector statistics have been released today?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The statistics published by Statistics New Zealand confirm that the crime rate is falling. The child and youth prosecution statistics show that the number of young people appearing in our court is the lowest in 20 years down 45 percent since its peak in 2007-08 when another Government was in office. The statistics also show that the number of people charged with violent offences has dropped 19 percent over the last 5 years and the number of people convicted of crimes has declined across all age groups with the 17 to 19 year age group seeing the biggest decrease with a decline of 18 percent. The key to reducing crime in the long term is to keep our young people out of the criminal pipeline and away from the courts.Electricity Market—Impact ofTīwai Point Smelter Subsidy6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Did the July 2012 Treasury reportProject 14: Initial advice say that the closure of theTīwai smelter would reduce the market price for electricity by “roughly 10 percent” and why in his answer to Primary Question No. 4 on 21 August 2013 did he not disclose that advice to the House?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): A fresh new look with the same old questions.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Answer the question.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is misusing the quote from the report. In answer to the first part of his question the report cited a tentative conclusion by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to that effect against what it called a reference scenario over a 15-year period. The report’s conclusion was that the closure of the smelter would “likely lead to both positive and negative effects”. In answer to the second part of the question: for a very simple reason which is that that July 2012 report was about Meridian Energy’s electricity price negotiation with Pacific Aluminium. The member’s question last month was in respect of cost-benefit analysis on the $30 million payment made by the Government.Hon David Parker: Why did he omit to tell the people of New Zealand that the advice he had was that the market price for electricity could drop by 10 percent if he did not dole out the $30 million of corporate welfare and why does he pretend to cry crocodile tears over jobs when he did not even ask for a jobs guarantee?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because there was not clear advice that the electricity price could change. The fact is that this was fundamentally a commercial negotiation between Meridian Energy and the smelter with Meridian Energy facing the incentive to keep a large customer and the smelter trying to get the most leverage possible off that incentive. The Government at the end of that negotiation then refused extensive subsidies asked for by RioTinto—Hon David Parker: Is $30 million not extensive?Hon BILL ENGLISH: —but made a $30 million payment which did enable the smelter to stay open. I am happy for the member to continue his campaign to close the smelter. He is free to go to Invercargill if he really wants to put a sharp edge on it.Hon David Parker: Is not the real reason he wanted to hide from the public the true cost of the $30 million corporate welfare deal for the RioTinto - owned smelter that this deal keeps electricity prices higher for all other New Zealand businesses and for all Kiwis’ bills at home?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No that is simply not correct. The core of the deal was a commercial negotiation between Meridian Energy and the aluminium smelter. I also do not agree with the member’s description of the payment. It is fascinating how it is called smart intervention if Labour does something about regional development and it is some kind of seedy deal if we take action that helps preserve 800 jobs in one of New Zealand’s most rapidly depopulating regions.Hon David Parker: How can he still pretend that the electricity market is competitive when the advice he had from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and Treasury was that without his Government’s corporate welfare payment propping up RioTinto’s smelter the market price for electricity could have dropped by 10 percent?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree that that was the advice. The electricity market is competitive. It is—Hon Members: Oh!Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well that is pretty clearly demonstrated by the valuations of the partially floated companies. Whereas the Opposition regards them as cash cows with no commercial risks the market has made it quite clear that there are real commercial risks and it hasrevalued the companies appropriately. The member cannot have it both ways—that the deal that we have got will not keep the smelter going for very long but it would be a great thing if the smelter shut down.Hon David Parker: How can he disagree with those who say that in his desperation to proceed with the Meridian Energy sale he has provided yet more proof that the New Zealand electricity market is not competitive therefore providing even more justification for the need for robust intervention to bring electricity prices down?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is completely wrong. In this case there was a commercial negotiation between Meridian Energy and RioTinto which came to a commercial conclusion. That includes the ongoing usage of electricity by the smelter for a well-defined period. The Government then made a payment that has had no influence whatsoever on the electricity market. It was simply a cheque written out to ensure the completion of the contract. The member will have to put up better arguments than that for a scheme that is followed by only one developed economy in the world and that is a province in Canada.Question No. 4 to MinisterRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Relating to question No. 4 this afternoon I seek to table an email that refers to the $500k that was related to the National Hauora Coalition which the Minister denied and also the commissioning agency grant to the Iwi Leaders Forum of $3 million—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection to that course of action? [Interruption] Order! Can I just clarify is it one email? [Interruption] Order! Can I just clarify are we tabling one email or two emails.Rt Hon Winston Peters: One email referring to both sets of funds.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Benefits—Outstanding Arrest Warrants7.MELISSA LEE (National) to theMinister for Social Development: How is the Government’s new warrants to arrest policy for those on benefits ensuring a fairer welfare system?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): As part of this Government’s substantial welfare reforms we said we would stop benefits for those who are on the run from the police with an outstanding warrant. Since this policy took effect on 15 July 311 people have been matched and notification sent. Of these 161 warrants have been cleared within 6 weeks of operation and 95 people have been sanctioned.Melissa Lee: What process takes place before reducing or suspending benefit payments where there is an outstanding warrant?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The new policy means that beneficiaries who have an outstanding warrant to arrest for more than 28 days will receive a letter from Work and Income asking them to clear their warrant or face their benefit payments being stopped or reduced. They get another 10 days to clear it but if they do not the benefit is stopped. The exception to this is for parents who as with all sanctions never lose more than half of their benefit.Melissa Lee: How often has the discretion of the Commissioner of Police been applied in high-risk offending cases?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We did make an exception for the Commissioner of Police to request an immediate benefit suspension for seriously high-risk offenders. To date this has happened in nine cases.Sue Moroney: Does this policy help anyone on welfare to get a job?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What this policy does is make it fair and people who are on the run from the police are held to account. They should not actually be getting taxpayers’ money to be on the run from the police. It is that simple. This policy is about being fair.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Sue Moroney: Point of order. You go. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order.Grant Robertson: I think that Sue Moroney and I had the same point of order in mind. That was a very direct question which the Minister did not answer.Mr SPEAKER: I invite Sue Moroney to repeat the question please.Sue Moroney: To the Minister—another go. Does her policy—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Start the question again.Sue Moroney: Does her policy help anyone on welfare to get a job?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well these people need to clear their warrants to start with so currently they are actually breaking the law. We thought we might clear up the legal problems they have got and get them to account for that and then we will work on the job.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to say that that still did not address the question. I presume the answer is no so we can just move on. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! On this occasion the question was then addressed.Housing New Zealand—Emergency Accommodation Referrals8.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū) to theMinister of Housing: Has Housing New Zealand been referring people to live in campgrounds?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I am advised that Housing New Zealand does not place people in camping grounds but if an applicant has an emergency housing need it will refer them to a list of temporary accommodation providers. The list in Auckland has 21 emergency accommodation providers none of which are camping grounds. I am also advised that in other parts of New Zealandsometimes the list refers to a camping ground. I am further advised that the policy has not changed from the previous Government.Phil Twyford: Is he comfortable that elderly people some as old as 80 are being housed in camping grounds or should they just be thankful for any kind of roof over their heads under National however inadequate and unprotected?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My view is that camping grounds do not provide an answer for people’s permanent accommodation needs and that wherever possible we should try to accommodate those people in suitable permanent accommodation. That is why this Government with Housing New Zealand has got a record investment and is building more houses than ever but I do say that—Hon Maryan Street: Have you checked out the Nelson camping grounds recently?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —even in Nelson—as a constituency member of Parliament I have sometimes had emergency housing situations where the appropriate answer is to have somebody in a cabin at a camping ground rather than being out in the cold.Phil Twyford: Has he seen the research done by Dr ChristinaSeverinsen from the University of Otago which suggests that thousands of Kiwis are living in camping grounds because they simply have nowhere else to go; if so does his Government still think those people are making a lifestyle choice to live in a caravan?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I have seen that research. It is very interesting. It is based on 2007 census data—2007 census data. I would not be tempted to measure who might have been the Government in 2007. I will leave that to the House.Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table the research by Dr ChristinaSeverinsen which suggests that thousands of Kiwis are living—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular research—Phil Twyford: —in camping grounds and it is not based on the census data.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not necessary. Leave is sought to table that particular research from the University of Otago. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Phil Twyford: Is he aware that Statistics New Zealand defines people living in camping grounds as homeless and does that make him the “Minister for Homelessness” now that there are 4000 Kiwis on the priority waiting list—4000—which is up 1500 since 2012?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that the current number on Housing New Zealand’s waiting list is just over 4000. I am further advised that the number in November 2008 was 4300—4300. I also note that the research from the census data defined the number of people as being homeless as being about 35000 at the time of the 2007 census.Phil Twyford: When is he actually going to start providing more houses rather than fewer given that in the last quarter the number of properties sold by Housing New Zealand exceeded purchases by 42 percent demolitions exceeded new builds by 165 percent leases expiring exceeded new leases taken on by a factor of six and the number of State houses has declined by 500 in the last year?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It may not have been noticed by members opposite but there was a little event in Christchurch involving an earthquake which damaged 5000 properties—5000 properties. I can further advise the member that over the next 3 years Housing New Zealand is investing $2.7 billion—a larger figure than at any time in Housing New Zealand’s history.Aged Care Nursing—Resources Support and Staffing9.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to theAssociate Minister of Health: What initiatives has she announced to showcase aged care nursing?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): The Minister of Health and I have launched Showcasing Aged-care Nursing an online resource and video series showcasing new initiatives and innovative approaches to better support nurses caring for older New Zealanders. A key focus has been to upskill our dedicated aged-care registered nurses. This includes a new hot line to clinical experts for nurses in Counties Manukau and regular face-to-face time with specialists across a number of district health boards. There has also been a push to build better relationships between hospital-based staff and those in aged residential care facilities.Paul Foster-Bell: What initiatives are in place to support nurses taking up a career in aged-care nursing?Hon JO GOODHEW: In 2011 aged care was added to the hard-to-staff specialty list for nurses on the Voluntary Bonding Scheme. I am delighted to say that—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of noise is unacceptable. I invite the Minister to start her answer again.Hon JO GOODHEW: In 2011 aged care was added to the hard-to-staff speciality list for nurses on the Voluntary Bonding Scheme. I am delighted to say that in 2013 21 percent—that is 59 out of 281—of the nursing graduates who enrolled in the scheme were either currently working or intending to work in the aged-care sector. But the Government has also been supporting training for nurses working in aged care. Since 2011 736 nurses working in aged-care clinical service areas have undertaken either postgraduate or nursing entry to practice training funded by Health Workforce New Zealand—736.Hon Annette King: Having showcased aged-care nursing is she prepared to require mandatory staffing levels in aged-care facilities as recommended by the 2012Caring Counts report from the Human Rights Commission to ensure that nurses working in aged-care facilities are not expected to work longer hours than is safe?Hon JO GOODHEW: The answer to that question is that there has for a long time been debate over whether the member’s suggestion would in fact improve the quality of the standard of care in aged residential care. In fact this Government has made changes that really do ensure that the quality improves like the spot audits that were introduced third-party accreditation of aged residential care auditors—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question: was she prepared—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I invite the member to ask her question. If she could just start straight with the question instead of the bit at the beginning that would be helpful.Hon Annette King: Is she prepared to require mandatory staffing levels in aged-care facilities as recommended in the 2012 report—the most recent report—from the Human Rights Commission to ensure that nurses are not expected to work longer hours than is safe?Hon JO GOODHEW: Like the member asking the question this Government does not believe that that particular initiative would get the results that the member has suggested it would get.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Department of Conservation Submission on Plan Change Proposal10.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister of Conservation: When was he made aware that the Department of Conservation was preparing a submission thatwould address the potential effect of the proposed nutrient limits of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): On Monday 29 July I was advised that submissions closed that Friday that the Department of Conservation was “evaluating the project” and that there was a preliminary view that there was insufficient information on the nutrient management. I asked for more information and a copy of the submission and received that on Wednesday 31 July.Eugenie Sage: Given the Minister’s answer and the fact that the department’s weekly report of 29 July clearly stated that the Department of Conservation intended to submit on the nutrient limits how does he explain his comment that he had no idea that the submission existed until last week?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can only quote Doris Johnston the Deputy Director-General of Conservation and she said this: “He never saw the draft submission that everyone’s been talking about. It was never provided to his office. It was an internal working draft by [Department of Conservation] staff …”. I think that is pretty clear.Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table part of the report from the Minister’s office titled “Weekly Report: 29 July 2013” which shows that the Minister was briefed on the submission and it included nutrient issues.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document a ministerial update. Is there any objection? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Eugenie Sage: Is it not a fact that once he knew the Department of Conservation intended to make a submission that went against his Government’s irrigation agenda he raised concerns which resulted in that submission being stopped dead in its tracks?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is absolutely not true. Again I quote Doris Johnston the Deputy Director-General of Conservation who was very well respected under the previous Government in that role. She said this: “The Minister did not play any role in my decision making. He never told me his view.” So how could it be possible for them to have drawn any conclusion about my view? I simply asked for a full briefing and a copy of the submission.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister really expect the public to believe that the Department of Conservation’s U-turn on its proposed submission on water-quality rules in the Tukituki catchment within 48 hours of him being alerted to the issue had nothing to do with him?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I do. Can I quote directly from an email from a senior Department of Conservation planning manager who said this before the submission was finalised: “I’m a bit concerned that from a manager’s perspective the issue about whether we should be involved in the plan change.” That is there were senior managers in the Department of Conservation who did not agree with the draft submission.Eugenie Sage: Is it not the case that this review of the submission process that he wants is a sideshow and an attempt to distract from the real issue which is his political interference with the Department of Conservation’s submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have said that the Department of Conservation should review the process around the Tukituki submission. The reason is this. This is a major project and the first I knew of the issue of the submission was just 5 days before. I would note that there is actually a Labour Cabinet minute that said that when submissions are made in the resource consent process there should be a better process than what the Department of Conservation followed in this case. That is why it is being reviewed and I think there are some lessons to learn from the Tukituki submission process.Question No. 4 to MinisterRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Given the Minister forWhānauOra’s denials in answers to question No. 4 today I seek leave to table two further emails one dated Thursday 8 August of this year which states: “We would like to take up your offer to provide resources and a possible writer of the initial documentation to meet the necessary requirements of a commissioning agency for the North Island.” It is addressed to Minister Turia. The second email is dated 18 August where it is set out very clearly: “Also worth noting is that Minister Turia seems willing to provide funding to assist iwi leaders to prepare their bid for this mahi.” Those two emails—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table two emails one dated 8 August and one dated 18 August. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. They can be so tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Question No. 10 to MinisterHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in relation to question No. 10 the one we were dealing with before the previous point of order. During his answer to the primary question and a later supplementary question the Minister of Conservation first of all quoted the Department of Conservation and said that it was evaluating the project. It was a direct quote. Secondly he quoted from an email from a Department of Conservation manager—again a direct quote. He is quoting from official documents—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is easily resolved now. Was the Minister quoting from an official document?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Both the documents I referred to have been in the public arena and are on the Department of Conservation website.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In terms of whether he was quoting from an official document it is irrelevant whether it is in the public arena. If he was quoting from an official document he has to table it.Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way forward is to allow the Minister at some stage to table two documents that are freely available on the website.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I am more than happy to. I thought the convention normally was that you were not allowed to table documents that were in the public arena—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption] Order! On this occasion if the Minister was quoting from an official document and the member has asked for it it will be tabled in due course.Documents laid on the Table of the House.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Minister’s Involvement and Meeting with Officials11.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: Does he still stand by his statement on the Department of Conservation submission on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal that “I did not give the Department an indication of what that submission would be”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Yes and I also back that up with the record of the meeting taken at the time which says that the only action I required from the department was for me to receive a copy of the submission when it was finalised. I also note the comments from the deputy director-general that I referred to in the previous question. She said “He never told me his view.”Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he say to reporters on Tuesday 17 September: “I did not know that this draft document even existed until this morning.” given that he was briefed on that very document on Monday 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the meeting on 29 July I was told that the department was preparing a submission for when it closed on Friday. That does not give any great knowledge of whatever drafts there might be sitting within the bowels of the department. That is where the members in the Opposition are into faulty conspiracy theories.Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the note from the weekly report explaining exactly what the content of the submission was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Has this document not been tabled earlier in the day?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The very document that you have asked me to table which was asked for—Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am hearing from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I am hearing from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and if the member Grant Robertson wants to remain for the balance of question time I suggest he remain in his seat and refrain. [Interruption] Order! I will give the Hon Annette King a last chance. I am not prepared to put up with constant bickering from the Labour front bench when I am hearing the Hon Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The document that the Hon Ruth Dyson is seeking to table is the one that I was quoting earlier which you have already asked me to table and I shall do so.Mr SPEAKER: I think it is also a document that was tabled prior to that by Eugenie Sage so it has already been tabled in the House today in question time.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am talking to the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon Ruth Dyson: Could I speak further to that point of order. I am now challenged on my right to table a document. The Minister in his answers to an earlier question question No. 10 referred specifically to the quote that the department was “evaluating” the project. He then referred to an email from a departmental staff member. Neither of those is in the document I sought to table.Mr SPEAKER: Order! There may be some confusion because there are a lot of documents being tabled at the moment. Earlier today Eugenie Sage sought leave to table the weekly ministerial update that had this item on its agenda. When Ruth Dyson attempted to table a document I took it that she was attempting to table exactly the same. Could the member Ruth Dyson please clarify.Hon Ruth Dyson: My comments were in relation to the comments that Nick Smith made. I asked that he be required to table the documents he referred to in his primary and supplementary—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has already been—[Interruption] Order! That has been clarified and those documents will be tabled. The member then took a point of order seeking to table a document that I believe that Eugenie Sage tabled perhaps 15 minutes earlier. Can we have that clarified please.Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it the same one that I am holding? Yes.Mr SPEAKER: That is right. Well I thank you all for your patience. We got there.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that we get to it it is more of a general point that when a member seeks leave to table a document clearly you are within your rights to clarify what that document is. What we are seeing increasingly from Government members is that they stand up and take a point of orderin opposition to seeking leave. We have a right to seek leave to table documents without points of order coming from the other side.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This has gone quite far enough. There was clearly some confusion with your honourable member Ruth Dyson attempting to table something that had been tabled earlier. I sought some clarification of that. Nick Smith then took a point of order which actually assisted in clarifying for me that particular point so we have now clarified it. The document that was sought to be tabled by Ruth Dyson has already been tabled and we are not having documents tabled twice. Has the member the Hon Ruth Dyson got further supplementary questions?Hon Ruth Dyson: I have.Mr SPEAKER: Good. Go.Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he say in the House on Thursday 19 September: “In early July a 34-page draft submission was prepared by the Department of Conservation. I did not know about that until this week.” given that he was briefed on that very submission on Monday 29 July?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The draft submission the 34-page one the one that referred to the Tukituki River potentially becoming toxic is totally different from the brief note that she has wanted to table—[Interruption] Yes it does. It is totally different. I simply quote again what Doris Johnston said: “He never saw the draft submission that everyone’s been talking about. It was never provided to his office.” That is why I say that I had absolutely no knowledge that that 34-page draft submission had been prepared.Hon Ruth Dyson: When item 5.4 the Tukituki catchment proposal came up at his weekly meeting with Department of Conservation officials on Monday 29 July did he express any opinions at all in relation to theRuataniwha water storage scheme the plan change for water-quality standards or the department’s proposed submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am going to quote exactly that document because it is of some controversy: “The department is evaluating the project. Submissions close 2 August. The department’s preliminary view is that there is not sufficient information.” I asked for more information and a copy of the submission. That is exactly what a responsible Minister would do.Hon Ruth Dyson: What was his reaction to being told that a senior Department of Conservation staff member has resigned because of his political interference in the submission process?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have absolutely no knowledge of that. I would make two points. The first is that on—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants an answer she should listen.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: On 1 September as has been the subject of considerable controversy hundreds and hundreds of staff changed position with the restructuring and dozens and dozens of staff were given redundancy on 1 September as part of that restructuring. I have no knowledge that anybody associated with this controversy has resigned. What I further note is that nobody has resigned since this issue went into the public arena last Tuesday.Partnerships—Department of Conservation and Air New Zealand12.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister of Conservation: What benefits have been achieved for conservation and recreation fromDOC’s partnership with Air New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The partnership with Air New Zealand launched last year has enabled species like kiwi like whio likepāteke and like the robin to be reintroduced to areas where they have not been for half a century;the laying of hundreds of pest traps; and the promotion of New Zealand’s Great Walks. This promotion has resulted in—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Shane Jones need not look behind him. It is his barracking that I am finding offensive.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The promotion has resulted in a record increase in the number of people doing the Great Walks last season and a record increase in the number of bookings ahead. It illustrates how conservation and business working together makes good sense. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It will not be that long a walk at all.Nicky Wagner: How will the expanded partnership announced yesterday between the Department of Conservation and Air New Zealand change the focus of this work?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new agreement announced yesterday more than doubles the programme from $2.9 million to $7.4 million. We are taking the positive experience on land to the new conservation frontier the oceans where 80 percent of New Zealand’s endemic species live. The added bonus is that Air New Zealand will be promoting the advocacy of marine conservation and encouraging New Zealanders to replace their boots with snorkels and to get out and enjoy many of New Zealand’s marine reserves.Marine Legislation BillIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The debate on this part includes schedules 1 and 2.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Here we are debating the Committee stage of the Marine Legislation Bill. This is a bill that has taken the Government so long a bill that should have been passed more than 3 years ago and a bill that if it had been in place we would not now have taxpayers picking up the burden of the disgracefulRena tragedy. But even then—look we were ready to go with this way back in 2008. Who was in Government then? Oh it was the Labour Government. What it had done was a national interest analysis relating to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil which is known as the intervention protocol and it had done the national interest analysis on the basis that the Labour Government wished to introduce legislation to have that convention in New Zealand law. That was back in 2008.Then we had theRena crisis and of course we know that that has cost this country millions and millions of dollars more—$11.3 million of clean-up costs for the Crown and over $50 million—due to this sloppy hopeless Government’s failure to ratify the international conventions when all the work had already been done. All the work was in place. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which I was a part of which David Bennett was a part of and which Kate Wilkinson was a part of had already done the work on this. It was ready to go. Finally—finally—the Government got around to doing something about it last year more than a year after theRena disaster.The bill was referred to the committee on 11 September after its first reading. It was all a big rush then. We supported the Marine Legislation Bill then because we knew that we had to do something urgently because this Government had completely failed to do so. We had an urgent period of hearing submissions. The submission period was just 4 weeks—4 weeks to enable people to make submissions on what then became quite a substantive bill not only dealing with the conventions but also dealing with a wholerange of other issues in the Marine Legislation Bill. We heard 21 submissions. It was referred back and rushed through that great committee. All the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee cooperated so that we could get this bill back into the House. It finally got around 6 months later—6 months after it was referred back from the select committee—to having its second reading. What was the date of that? That was 20 March 2013. So it has just dragged on and on.It is interesting that one of the things that has been changed in the commencement clause is the commencement date. It was supposed to start on 13 April. It was supposed to start on 13 April. What is the date today?Dr Megan Woods: Which year?DARIEN FENTON: Well it was this year. What is the date today? It is nearly October is it not? It is 24 September so nearly 6 months later here we are in the Committee of the whole House stage debating this bill which should have been done by the National Government when it became the Government in 2009. So we struggle to understand why it has taken the Government so long. It is an utter shambles. It shows how hopeless this Government is in prioritising things that matter. As I said this was all in place and ready to go in 2008 and it has cost us money—it has cost us money. The purpose of the legislation is so that we will not have to pick up the tab we will not have to leave it to taxpayers to pay for polluters in the future but with theRena of course which is already sunk and being ripped apart it is just too late.There are quite a lot of things in Part 1 that bear consideration and I want to start with new Part 4A “Regulation of alcohol consumption by seafarers” new section 40A and onwards in clause 11.Iain Lees-Galloway: But I was going to talk about it.DARIEN FENTON: I am very sorry Mr Lees-Galloway but I am sure you can talk just as eloquently as I can and there is plenty more in Part 1 for us to dwell on. This is a very interesting part because what it does is regulate alcohol consumption by seafarers which is fine and we support that. There is a very very long new part in this bill with clause after clause page after page about regulating alcohol consumption by seafarers. But the interesting thing for us and the thing that has had this side of the Chamber fascinated is that we can pass this legislation albeit somewhat belatedly which has the regulation of alcohol consumption by seafarers but we cannot pass regulation or legislation that regulates alcohol consumption by motor vehicle drivers.The Government has mucked around with that as well because again some time ago that issue of reducing the blood-alcohol content was discussed and was brought to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was discussed there. It is some time now—I believe it is something like 3 years—since the Government told us that it needed to do research and that it could not reduce the blood-alcohol level because it needed to do research on it. We were told then that it would take 2 years. Where is the research? Where is the research? No answer. Do not know. Interesting.Sue Moroney: There is none.DARIEN FENTON: Oh there is none. It has kicked it for touch. It is not bothering with that. But here the Government can in this legislation regulate in a very very comprehensive way the proportion of alcohol in a seafarer’s breath have evidential breath tests and make sure it does not exceed 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. I know that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway will have a lot to say about this because I believe that he took over a member’s bill on this very issue in relation to people driving on our roads. It is still—Iain Lees-Galloway: Still in the ballot.DARIEN FENTON: —in the ballot. It is still waiting for the Government to wake up and realise that this is a very very easy thing for it to do. It would save lives on theroad if the Government supported Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill to reduce the blood-alcohol limit for people driving cars.As I said there is a lot in this part Mr Chairperson and I know that you will be very indulgent in allowing us to pursue this. I just wanted to touch on one issue that was of great interest to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which heard from regional councils. That was the issue of harbour masters. Harbour masters may be appointed by regional councils but harbour masters are very hard to find. They have a very very highly skilled job. The powers in this bill under new section 33F inserted by clause 6 are extensive.Harbour masters have to be highly qualified. They have to be highly qualified to be able to: “enter and remain on any ship in waters within the region: (b) enter and remain on any maritime facility or on any land or property of a port company or a port operator within the region: (c) give directions regarding—(i) the time and manner in which ships may enter into depart from lie in or navigate waters within the region; (ii) the position mooring unmooring placing removing securing orunsecuring of ships: (iii) the manner in which ships may take in or discharge cargo; (iv) the manner in which cargo is secured or handled on a ship if there is a risk of cargo falling overboard or becoming a hazard to navigation: (d) direct the master of any ship to—(i) weigh anchor; or (ii) moor unmoor anchor secureunsecure place or move the ship: (e) cause a ship to be moored unmoored anchored secured unsecured … (f) cause any floating submerged or stranded object that the harbourmaster considers to be a hazard …” and on and on it goes. It also includes requiring “… any person appearing to be in charge of any ship or seaplane”—or seaplane so they have got authority over seaplanes—“to stop and to give his or her name and address:”. So they have extensive powers and I am hoping that I will get quite a lot more time to talk about that.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): This will be the first of many calls on this bill the Marine Legislation Bill and particularly on Part 2 which is where unfortunately the Government is introducing some very disturbing Supplementary Order Papers but that will come in due course. The overwhelming question on Part 1 of this bill has to be why it has taken so long. Why has it taken so long?New Zealand has not yet ratified theInternational Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 and that fact was driven home to us in a very unfortunate and a very environmentally destructive way with the grounding of theRena off the coast of Tauranga some years ago. That particular environmental disaster cost New Zealand taxpayers a lot of money and our ability to recoup that money from the vessel operators or vessel owners was limited by the fact that we had not yet ratified this international convention which would have lifted the liability cap that was in place in terms of what New Zealand could claim.Currently we are party to the 1976 convention but we have not yet ratified the updated convention. When theRena disaster happened of course the issue of the ratification of this bunker convention was a very hot issue. Labour had moved to put in place legislation that would allow the ratification of this convention by Order in Council. That work had stalled for whatever reason and sometimes you know it takes a huge wake-up call like theRena to make us realise that we need to apply a bit of pressure really make this a top priority and ratify that convention as quickly as possible.Well I do not think anyone’s definition of “urgency” would meet what has happened since theRena disaster occurred since the Government indicated that yes absolutely it was going to ratify that convention and it was going to make sure that that $50 million cost to the taxpayers would be mitigated in the future. The scales have fallen from the eyes; these disasters do unfortunately happen and something needs to be done about it.Well that was years ago and here we are 2013 finally in the Committee stage of a bill that will make the changes that will allow us to ratify that convention.The reason I am so surprised it has taken so long is that this is an absolute no-brainer. I look at the national interest analysis that was produced on theInternational Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage—thiswas back in 2009 I believe—when the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee conducted the international treaty examination of the convention. It lists the advantages and disadvantages to New Zealand of ratifying this convention. The advantages are: “a) Shipowners operating in New Zealand waters and their insurers have a clear responsibility to carry insurance and the certainty of limited liability … b) An insurance certificate scheme (already in operation in New Zealand) gives transparency to the insurance responsibilities of shipowners and their insurers … c) Any claims for economic loss or clean-up costs can be made either in New Zealand or in another jurisdiction ... and can be made against either the shipowner or the insurer ... This arrangement allows more adequate prompt and effective compensation. It also substantially increases the probability of a successful claim in the event of the shipowner going into receivership. d) Third parties suffering economic loss because of a release of bunker oil have a simpler and more certain remedy available.”—something I am sure the good people of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty would have loved to have in place at the time that their own businesses were facing enormous risk and uncertainty because of theRena disaster—and lastly “e) Government and regulatory authorities suffering economic loss or facing clean-up costs because of a release of bunker oil have a simpler and more certain remedy available.” That was the advice given to the Government about the advantages of entering into this particular convention. So what were the disadvantages? “There are no significant disadvantages”.So here we have a convention that provides enormous advantages and with the benefit of hindsight the people of Tauranga the businesses of Tauranga the communities of Tauranga and the rest of the Bay of Plenty who were affected by theRena disaster know they would have had a transparent recourse to address their economic loss. The liability cap for what the Government could claim back would have been lifted and the process that would have been in place would have been far simpler and it would have been faster. There would have been requirements on the vessel operators to actually have proper insurance in place. It would have been clear that if the vessel was not flagged in New Zealand we could still chase that compensation not just in New Zealand but in the courts in other jurisdictions.All these things lead us to ask the question as to why it has taken so long when there are no significant disadvantages and when we have seen what happens when something goes wrong. Heavy fuel oil is just about the most disgusting kind of oil that you could possibly put into the water. It is very viscous. It is environmentally very toxic. It is nasty nasty stuff. So we are talking big big bikkies when it comes to cleaning this up—really big dollars. We saw that with theRena. So it is good that this legislation is finally finally passing through but this could have been passed very quickly I suspect with the support of all parties across the House. It could have been put in place far sooner rather than dragging it out so that we can have an excuse to have a piece of legislation to which we add dreadful Supplementary Order Papers that restrict the rights of New Zealanders to have a say in consenting processes because that is what we are going to be doing in this Committee part—Hon Amy Adams: Part 2.MOANA MACKEY: I know it is in Part 2. I am glad the Minister agrees with my assessment of what is about to happen in Part 2. That is in Part 2 of the bill and this isbeing dragged out so that we can add these Supplementary Order Papers into the next part of the bill when in fact this should be going through very very quickly indeed.I remember going to public meetings in the Bay of Plenty during the 2011 election campaign when the Hon Dr Nick Smith was the Minister in charge of this particular area. He promised a packed meeting inWhakatāne that everything would be done to ensure that we were not put in this position again. He promised that everything would be done to ensure it would not be the taxpayers who would be fronting up and that local business owners and communities would have some kind of recourse. He promised there would not be any kind of out when companies go into receivership or when they are based in other jurisdictions. He said the Government was going to tighten down on this; that yes this should have been ratified earlier; and that no one could have foreseen what was going to happen. He said the Government had learnt from its mistake learnt from this experience and that it was going to do something about it.It has been 2 years and nothing has happened—2 years when this could have happened again 2 years when the risk to the environment and the risk to our economy which relies on our natural environment could have put us in the same situation. I look forward to hearing from Government members as to why this has not been made more of a priority why this bill has been delayed in its passage through the House and why there was not more of an effort to look around the House for a cross-party consensus to get this done as quickly as possible in order to limit the liability of New Zealand taxpayers when a foreign-owned vessel whether it be its fault or not causes oil to be released into the environment—and of course one of the qualities of this international convention is that that is not part of the discussion. If something goes wrong and the oil ends up in the water then New Zealand taxpayers will be protected regardless of liability on the part of the vessel operator or owner.I look forward to taking more calls particularly in the next part but I do look forward to an explanation from the Government as to why this issue which in the 2011 election campaign was going to be an issue of overriding importance and urgency has since gone completely off the boil and why this legislation has been delayed while we have passed legislation that is far less important and far less urgent than this legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation on that.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a privilege to rise and take a call on Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill in front of this Committee. First up I would like to thank all of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members and the submitters. In Part 1 I am going to take a pretty short call. It is Part 2 that I am very interested in exploring in depth. Part 1 is pretty non-controversial. All it does is some port and harbour navigational safety upgrades and it is acceding to some international conventions and clarifying some miscellaneous amendments. It is the implementing of those international conventions contained in Part 1 that is the substance of my call.TheRena catastrophe almost 2 years ago was a wake-up call for New Zealand. It should have been a wake-up call for the Government but it is clear that the lessons of theRena still are not being learnt by this Government. What we know from theRena catastrophe is that the New Zealand taxpayer had to come to the party to the tune of tens of millions of dollars more than $100 million because successive Governments had not signed up to conventions or updated our legislation to protect the taxpayer. I think it is a shame. This money could have been spent on better things like breakfast for kids in schools supporting Kiwi businesses or creating jobs. I point to the Labour Party of course as those in glass houses should not be throwing stones. What we know from the Labour Government is that like the National Government it dragged its heels. It did notsign up to and ratify these conventions despite successive Governments signalling internationally that they wanted to.There are three international conventions on the subject on the floor of Parliament today. Firstly there is the Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1996 or the LLMC. All this does is update the limit for liability when ships have accidents at sea from $11.2 million to $27 million. Hopefully an Australian proposal to extend that further will gain international traction. Again we know that theRenawas I think the third most expensive maritime disaster this century possibly of all time. Still it was much much greater than the $27 million maximum cap under the Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. Secondly you have got the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage and then lastly the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil which extends powers in the Maritime Transport Act. They are three common-sense legislative upgrades ratifying international treaties that all parties in Parliament support. I agree with the Labour Party. We should have done this years ago and the taxpayer would not be in hock for tens of millions of dollars with theRena.Likewise what we should have seen is the maximum corporate rate under the Resource Management Act upgraded. The maximum penalty is only $600000 and the Government is not taking the opportunity in this legislation or further legislative actions to actually upgrade that. $600000 is laughable when we have seen the taxpayer having to pay tens of millions of dollars. While we were at it—protecting our Kiwi environment and protecting the taxpayer—we could have been upgrading our oil spill response capability. We could have been building up the Oil Pollution Fund. We could have been listening to business in union and purchasing a rapid response multi-purpose vessel. We could have had a truly independent inquiry into theRena not a stitch-up from the Government benches—getting the Prime Minister’s mate to do an in-house job which I am sure is just going to find that everything was hunky-dory. But what we know from theRena was that it is a case study in how not to deal with a spill how not to communicate with the public and how to alienate the public when it comes to volunteers who are going down to the beaches and picking up the oil blobs themselves because there was no one from Maritime New Zealand to tell them what to do.This Government fails to learn the lessons to protect the environment or protect the taxpayer. All in all the Greens will be supporting the measures in Part 1 but we should have learnt these lessons an awful long time ago.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill makes a number of amendments to the Maritime Transport Act 1994. It amends the Maritime Transport Act “to provide for local regulation of maritime safety and maritime-related activities by regional councils; to regulate alcohol consumption by seafarers; to implement four international maritime conventions; to create offences and prescribe penalties for the improper operation of ships; and to make other miscellaneous changes.”The bill does indeed implement a number of conventions—four conventions in fact. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims is currently only partially applied in New Zealand meaning that maritime liability is half what it could be for loss of life injury property damage or other damage or loss. This bill enacts the convention fully and gives it the full force of law. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 is fully implemented in this bill as well. It sets up a separate liability regime for fuel oil pollution meaning claims would not be limited by the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of OilPollution Casualties 1969 has a protocol that includes substances beyond those that New Zealand law currently applies to so the bill extends coverage to the substances in the protocol.These are all good important moves that we have been waiting waiting waiting for the Government to pay attention to. I take the point that the Green member Gareth Hughes made that Labour was certainly in Government when these conventions were brought before New Zealand and were considered by the New Zealand Parliament but the select committee that considered them and the select committee that was tasked with making recommendations to the Government came back to the Government of the day in mid-2008. Shortly after that we had an election. Unfortunately Labour was no longer in Government after that election but the recommendation was there. All the work had been done. It was simply for the incoming National Government to pick up all the work that had been done by the previous Labour Government and the parliamentary select committee and implement it. It was as simple as that. That is all it needed to do.Gerry Brownlee Leader of the House simply had to say: “This is a priority for our Government and we will push this legislation through.” and it could have been done. It would have been done a long time before 2.20 a.m. on Wednesday 5 October 2011 when theRena ran aground on to the Astrolabe Reef carrying 1368 containers eight of which contained hazardous material as well as 1700 tonnes of heavy fuel and 200 tonnes of marine diesel fuel. That was the moment when suddenly this bill became of interest to the National Government.It could have seen to it before then. It could have saved this country millions of dollars—millions of dollars—that could have been spent on far more important things. It could have been spent on schools. It could have been spent on feeding kids. It could have been spent on health care. It could have been spent on all number of things. Maybe a few projects to get New Zealanders into work—that might have been a good use of those millions of dollars. But no it was spent cleaning up a mess that was really of the Government’s own making. I am not saying that those members drove theRena on to the Astrolabe Reef but they were negligent in their—Darien Fenton: It had a little bit to do with their deregulation of coastal shipping though didn’t it?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry?Darien Fenton: It had a little bit to do with their deregulation of coastal shipping.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It did have a bit to do with the Government’s deregulation of coastal shipping as Darien Fenton points out but what it specifically has to do with is the fact that it did not make adopting those conventions a priority when all the work had been done. The Government simply needed to pass the legislation and it just was not important to those members. It just was not important to them. They have got no forethought whatsoever. They could not see the possibility of a disaster like theRena occurring.The other thing that Part 1 deals with is of course the breath- and blood-alcohol limit for seafarers. What it does is it adopts the international best practice of having a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 or 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The legislation adopts that number—the 0.05 number—because that is what all the international evidence tells us is the right level below which people are able to operate machinery or ships or motor vehicles and above which is inappropriate for people to be operating machinery or a seagoing vessel or indeed a motor vehicle.It is curious—at the very least it is curious—that the Government is happy to adopt the 0.05 limit at sea but it is not prepared to adopt the 0.05 limit for road-going vehicles. I heard an interjection from Mike Sabin who said: “Oh if you got run into by an oil tanker that would be a lot worse than getting run into by a car.” Well I say this to MikeSabin who is a former police officer and who I am sure has attended as a former police officer a number of road incidents where there have been deaths and injuries. I am sure that that member has seen firsthand the results of people being involved in motor vehicle accidents where alcohol has been involved. I refer him to this: as of today 24 September to date this year 184 people have died on our roads in 173 incidents. The fact that it has happened slowly one day after the next in 173 separate incidents does not make it any less of a tragedy than if it had happened in one incident involving a seagoing vessel.But do you know what—and the member opposite might want to consider this—Mike Sabin: Apples and oranges Mr Lees-Galloway.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No it is not apples and oranges Mike Sabin. That is exactly the point because actually—do members want to know what the officials think to do—Mike Sabin: So being behind the wheel of an oil tanker is the same as being behind the wheel of a Suzuki Swift is it?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No Mike Sabin just wants to be quiet for a second and listen to the official advice about this. Mike Sabin should know that the official estimate is that 80 vessels will be affected by this change and that on average there are around 10 incidents a year where this law change will be effective—10 incidents a year where at sea seafarers have been found to be over the limit and an incident has resulted. I compare that with the 173 incidents so far on our roads this year—we are in only September. So the member might want to think about that. He is someone who has seen firsthand what happens when someone gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car. He should think about why his party the party he is a member of refuses to do not only what the evidence tells us is the right thing to do but also what the public is telling us is the right thing to do which is to reduce the alcohol limit.Mike Sabin: How many people between 0.05 and 0.08 Mr Lees-Galloway?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Mike Sabin raises an interesting point. This is the red herring. Mike Sabin asks how many people were between levels 0.05 and 0.08 but he knows because I bet he has read the literature on this that reducing the blood-alcohol limit actually reduces the number of incidents of people who are heavily intoxicated getting behind the wheel. That is a fact. That is a scientifically proven evidence-based fact. Mike Sabin knows it and yet he continues to pursue the red herring of asking: “Oh how many people between 0.05 and 0.08?”. Reducing the blood-alcohol limit for driving would reduce the number of seriously intoxicated people getting behind the wheel. So that—Mike Sabin: Tell us what the member thinks about drugs and driving. What does the member think about drugs and driving?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: He wants to know what I think about drugs and driving. You should not use drugs and get behind the wheel of a car and if you do the penalties should be heavy and the law should come—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and if someone does get behind the wheel of a car under the influence of any substance the penalties should be severe for that person. Mr Sabin knows that and he is being disingenuous.This legislation is not only late it is not only behind—way way way behind—schedule and it has not only wasted this country millions of dollars but it shows up this Government’s hypocrisy.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Not that I wish to be critical of Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—and congratulations to him on his new position—and far be it from me to be critical but I thought that his speech on the Marine Legislation Bill was losing just alittle momentum and was getting a bit sort of personalised. This I think is a strong and sensible piece of legislation that will work well. It will work well. It was I must say one of the more interesting bills that we have had through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is a substantial piece of legislation in its scope and reach and being an omnibus bill it embraces a whole range of legislative detail.The submissions that came forward especially those affecting Part 1 of the bill were from a blend of local authorities and mercantile marine interests all of whom I think are to be complimented on the sincerity and the depth of knowledge that they displayed in their submissions. They are experts in their subjects and they put forward a lot of practical information from a user point of view that was useful to the committee’s consideration especially I might say on this business of alcohol consumption. These are people who know their stuff. It is not that Mr Lees-Galloway does not know his stuff but these were the guys who made the submissions and I found them to be very substantial.The significance of the bill is one of economic and environmental importance. These two elements go hand in hand in a successful society albeit that the Greens would like to chop them apart. I think that this Government can be justifiably proud of the progress New Zealand is making through its reforms. The reforms that are included in this bill provide enhanced environmental effects management—we will come to that in Part 2—greater certainty and reduced compliance costs for industry increased efficiency from avoiding the duplication of processes and the opportunity for improved public and iwi participation. This highlights the National Government’s commitment to build a more competitive and productive economy.In terms of Part 1 there are a number of key achievements in the maritime transport sector that this bill brings about. It addresses gaps in the current legislation it aligns regional and national interests and it sets penalties for offences within its scope that are consistent with other comparable offending. This includes penalties for overloading ships failing to comply with internationally recognised alcohol limits and knowingly breaching requirements for the carriage of dangerous goods. This bill has provided for conducting a value-for-money review with Maritime New Zealand to improve the services and reduce the cost.This is not something that has just been dreamt up; it is a tested well-discussed series of changes. It has developed the qualifications and operational limits framework ensuring the safety of vessels their crew passengers and cargo. One has only to dwell briefly on some of the tragedies that we read about rust buckets being used in overseas countries that do not have this sort of legislation and the dreadful deaths that result from that. Published port productivity data will improve the flow of exports through our ports—and may I just mention at this point how nice it is to hear that Lyttelton Port has had a tremendous acceleration in exports over the last year. This bill has made changes to the maritime rules around fishing boats which will improve safety lift compliance and better meet the needs of the industry. I would like to commend this bill to the Committee.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill currently under discussion. Previous speakers on this side of the Chamber have traversed some of the issues that have exercised me about this particular part namely the delay in this bill coming to the House so I will not traverse that again unduly. But similarly my colleague Moana Mackey also raised the issue about the bunker convention and the protocol surrounding that and why that had not been pursued with more rapidity by this Government. Other colleagues have talked about the completely indefensible difference around blood-alcohol limits for those in charge ofvessels at sea vis-à-vis people in charge of a motor vehicle on land so I do not need to go over those things again.But there are two things I want to talk about. One is clause 62 inserting new Part 26A “Civil liability for pollution of marine environment from marine structures”. The other thing I wish to talk about is the reference in the national interest analysis to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil—and this is the intervention protocol. This is included in the material that is in front of us today for consideration. One of the things that has emerged from the dreadful incident that was the wrecking of theRena—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Whoever has the radio on it is not permitted. [Interruption] Well it is no different from the telephone. If it is in the Chamber it should be switched off. This is a debating chamber.Hon MARYAN STREET: Before I was rudely interrupted I was talking about the intervention protocol. The thing that is emerging from the wreck of theRena on the Astrolabe Reef off Tauranga is that although the oil was the thing that was immediately obvious and did immediate damage to the environment and there was a great deal of effort put into the cleaning up of the oil discharge from the vessel into the water what is emerging now is that there is ongoing environmental damage from substances other than oil and from structures—marine structures which are defined in the bill. It appears that the cargo on board theRena and various containers full of material are still leaking into the water around the Astrolabe Reef and that the vessel itself the bit that is remaining of the vessel itself is a hazard. There is damage that is being done to the environment by things other than the oil that originally came out of that tragedy. So I am pleased to see belated though it may be that there is some consideration of civil liability for pollution of the marine environment from marine structures which means “an offshore installation a pipeline … [a] facility site structure or thing used to transfer a harmful substance to or from a ship or an offshore installation”. That is going to be covered and the civil liability for pollution from those things is to be covered under this bill.I want to go in particular to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil which is the intervention protocol. As I understand it and somebody could correct me if I am wrong about this this was one of the things that were considered by the former Labour Government in its preparation of a number of conventions that needed updating and ratification in this area and it was included in the select committee material that has resulted in this piece of legislation—well the legislation that was debated at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The select committee report at that time in 2008 as we know did recommend that the Government take action and ratify these various protocols.As my colleague Moana Mackey did I would like to draw attention to the national interest analysis which talks about the advantages and disadvantages of engaging in such treaty action. Again it is a call to the Government about why it did not see fit to exercise its Government privilege in respect of this matter before now. Why did it take so long? Under “Advantages of treaty action” in respect of the intervention protocol it says in this analysis: “The Intervention Protocol is an important element in the IMO marine protection regime of which New Zealand is a committed supporter. The advantages to New Zealand of ratifying the Protocol are: [it] affirms New Zealand’s right to take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent mitigate or eliminate danger to its coastline or related interests from HNS pollution following a maritime casualty; and ratifying [it] would maintain New Zealand’s good international standing and interests as a member of the IMO council.” It then goes on to talk about the disadvantages of treaty action and says that there are not any. But it goes furtherthan that and says that these are the disadvantages of not taking treaty action: “Given [our] role as a member of the IMO a decision not to ratify the Protocol may undermine New Zealand’s stated intention to be a good international citizen.”There is no excuse for the delay in this legislation. The fact that the Government has been catapulted into action by a disaster only serves to underscore the fact that it has been lacking in conscientiousness about our duties and about the protection of the Crown by making sure civil liability provisions are in place and by protecting the environment around New Zealand. That delay is inexplicable indefensible and is right in everybody’s face in the wake of this disaster. Thank you.Dr CAM CALDER (National): I moveThat the question be now put.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all congratulate you Mr Chairman on the extraordinary talent you display in chairing the Committee stage of the House—in particular most recently the calls you have just made. I am really pleased to be able to speak on this legislation the Marine Legislation Bill. It is a piece of legislation we support. It has made some progress over recent times but the question that is on the lips of every single member on this side of the Chamber is why it took so long. What on earth has this Government been doing? How does it see its priorities? And where is its vision for the country? None of it is evident in either the words the Government members speak or the contributions they make.One of the better ones came from Chris Auchinvole the member of Parliament who lives on the West Coast. I just want to pick up on a very good point that he made in commending the Lyttelton Port Co. That port company happens to be in my electorate. It is at the centre of my electorate.Dr Megan Woods: Oh!Hon RUTH DYSON: It should not come as a surprise to the honourable member for Wigram because she is right next door and gains a lot of the benefits from our port. I just want to say that the workforce in the port company the management and all those who are involved through contracting at the port company have been through a really really hard 3 years. They have had a hard time in their work environment. The wharves are extraordinarily badly damaged in Lyttelton. The home of the Lyttelton Port Co. itself has recently been red-stickered so all the workers had to move out into the city into temporary accommodation in Woolston which is another fine suburb right alongside Lyttelton. The workforce is now separated. Some of them are on the port and some of them are at the city depot in Woolston and it is pretty hard on them.Of course in addition to that many of those people who work on the wharf and those in senior management positions have had big impacts on their homes. They have had their homes damaged or destroyed. Many of them have children who are attending schools that are now going to be merged or closed. In the middle of all that the port company has not only kept operating but improved its efficiency its productivity and actually its profit. So I think that is a real commendation to the workers there.Lyttelton Port is very fortunate in that we have not had the sort of shipping disaster that landed us in the difficulty that the Government saw after theRena disaster. We are very fortunate not to have had that incident theRena disaster in our own port in Canterbury.If the Government had taken the international conventions that this legislation ratifies if the Government had listened to the words of the previous Labour Government when we went out in 2008 and had listened to the recommendation of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from towards the end of 2008 the Government would have realised that this bill was urgent and needed passing with some urgency. I do not know who the Minister of Transport was. It might have been the Hon Steven Joyce the person who features as the key character in that very very commonhash tag now “Come home Steven.” Since the Minister arrived in San Francisco we have not seen one victory for Emirates Team New Zealand. It is an amazing coincidence. So everyone use that hash tag “Come home Steven”. We are all very keen on him getting home.The Hon Steven Joyce was the Minister in charge of transport at the time and seemed to think this was not a big deal at all. He just put it on the back-burner. It was a very critical issue for us to progress. It had been recommended by a select committee—unanimously I think—and had been the intention of the Labour Government. I think the Hon Phil Goff actually had a bill that dealt with this very issue when he was a Minister. Had he stayed a Minister it would have been dealt with promptly and rigorously—I know that for sure. But it was not. It got put on the back-burner.Then we ended up with theRena disaster. People might be asking what the connection is between this legislation and theRena. Well the connection is that under our previous legislation there was nobody responsible for paying the bill incurred by theRena and that bill was significant. That was a very very big bill for a huge amount of damage incurred as a result of that ship crashing and sinking. The Government went into negotiations with the owners of theRena and has come up with quite a lot of money prised out of them as a result. But hours and hours and hours—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: As I did with your predecessor in the Chair may I commend you for the talent you have exhibited in your choice of speaker on this legislation. The Government put in a lot of effort and a lot of energy which cost us a lot of money because we were paying for very competent negotiators to try to get some money out of the owners of theRena. It is a good thing that it did that but had this legislation been passed we would not have needed to go through that negotiation process. We would have saved the taxpayer a lot of money because the liability would have been obvious in the law. Instead we end up short-changed because the negotiations competent though they were certainly did not get all the money that should have been paid by the owners of theRena. Secondly the taxpayer had to fork out a whole lot of money and instead spend our Parliament’s money if you like on the negotiators—money that we would have preferred to put into the failing health or education systems. It is solely due to the fact that the Minister—“Come home Steven.”—did not consider this a priority. Well frankly I think the Minister got it wrong. Unfortunately the taxpayers of New Zealand have paid big time as a result. When theRena first crashed the liability was just over $11 million only—clearly a drop in the harbour compared with what the actual liability was. The Government managed to get just over $27.5 million out of the owners but still nowhere near the contribution that should have been made.The final point I want to make is that this bill is amending once again the Government’s very weak exclusive economic zone legislation.Chris Auchinvole: Part 2.Hon RUTH DYSON: That legislation was meant to be set up to protect the environment. There are many qualified people both inside and outside the House who have said that it does very little to amend that legislation at all. I know that the member is keen to take another call on this part but he should just restrain himself. I know that this Marine Legislation Bill is very interesting but he has got plenty of opportunity to take a call.As I said at the beginning Labour supports this legislation. It does make progress but it is a huge puzzle as to why—despite the recommendation of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the then Labour-led Government of 2008 to progress this with some urgency—this matter was put on the back-burner and as aresult the taxpayer has to pay. That is the responsibility or irresponsibility of the Minister of Transport and the Minister for the Environment should have had a say as well. I think it is a shame that we have ended up in this situation as a result.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I will take just a very short call on Part 1 of the Marine Legislation Bill which amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994. As has been echoed throughout the Chamber the initial stages of its progress through the House—indeed the progress of the whole bill—have not been too controversial. There was unanimous support at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the bill was reported with no dissent from the recommendation that the bill be passed with amendments.But since then the Minister in charge the Minister of Transport has seen fit to bring in further amendments and the amendments affecting this Part 1 are contained on Supplementary Order Paper 360. Some of those amendments are quite detailed and quite technical comprising some 10 pages of changes. The date on that Supplementary Order Paper is today’s date—Tuesday 24 September 2013. It amazes me that once again this Government expects that these changes can be adequately scrutinised in the course of a few short hours. The changes on Supplementary Order Paper 360 that give me cause to worry are those that relate to the ownership of ships and the clauses that relate to the bunker oil certificates of insurance. I would like to hear from the Minister on the late changes.As we all know if this had been legislated for a while before now the disastrous impact of theRena and its financial costs could have been averted. Now we are in the ridiculous situation where a smallhapū—and there are something like only 50 people of thathapū living onMōtītī Island—are now fighting for justice and fighting for a promise that this Government made about removing theRena and cleaning up the oil. Here they are a smallhapū fighting for all of New Zealand—through the courts now—against an outfit the owners of theRena who are international polluters and who have resources of over $2.4 billion. And who but the smallhapū onMōtītī Island is fighting for New Zealand?I would say to all New Zealanders: remember the vacant promises of this National Government when it said even a week before the election that all the oil had been cleaned up. It was front-page news. There it was saying that it had all been cleaned up. On the weekend I managed to get out for a surf and I saw surfers still coming in with splotches of oil on their surfboards. You know some things are just not good enough. Vacant promises made by that Government are certainly not serving New Zealand.I just want to say that I support this bill. It should have been done a long time ago and I will not spend any more time on it. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We move to Part 2 which is a debate on clauses 88 to 112 schedule 3 and proposed new schedule 4.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It is with much disappointment that I rise to take a call on Part 2 of this Marine Legislation Bill—in particular with reference to Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Once again we find the National Government removing the ability for New Zealanders to have their say on consenting processes surrounding oil and gas exploration. Once again it is watering down environmental protections. Once again it is not doing it through the regular process of this Parliament which would have seen a select committee process that would see debate and submissions on the particular amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper; rather it is dumping amendments into the Chamber during the Committee stage on a completely different piece of legislation. Part 2 actually amends the exclusive economic zone legislation that was passed last year. Here we have the marine legislation a piece of legislation that was actually primarily amending the Maritime Transport Act and what we find is that we are amending another piece of legislation to undo changes that we were promised at the time would not be made.What this Supplementary Order Paper does in clause 89 is take the three classifications of marine consents which are currently “permitted” “discretionary” and “prohibited”. “Permitted” means that it is allowed to happen and does not have to go through a big process. “Prohibited” obviously cannot happen at all so there is no process. And “discretionary” is where the bulk of the exclusive economic zone legislation detail lay because that is the process through which a company could apply to carry out an economic activity in the exclusive economic zone and the Environmental Protection Authority would run a marine consent process. We were critical of that process for a number of reasons when that bill went through Parliament not least of all being that there was no ability to appeal as there is under the Resource Management Act. There was only the ability to appeal on points of law not on points of substance. But at least there was a process within that exclusive economic zone legislation for the public for environmental organisations for geotechnical experts and for industry experts to have their say and their input into whether or not that marine consent should be granted.At the time there was a lot of public concern that the exclusive economic zone legislation was far weaker and far more permissive than the Resource Management Act. That Act applies out to 12 nautical miles and then beyond that the exclusive economic zone legislation governs all that activity. Labour raised serious questions as to why you would have two completely different regimes operating side by side and regulating exactly the same activity. The answer to that question as one of the submitters during the select committee process on the exclusive economic zone legislation told us was that it was deliberately more permissive because it was deliberately going to allow activities to go ahead that possibly would not have been consented under the Resource Management Act because of the risk factors involved when it comes to environmental protection.So there was deep concern about this particular piece of legislation. But whenever these concerns were raised the then Minister of Energy and Resources Phil Heatley would reassure communities. He went toKaikōura and he reassured that community there because they are very concerned about the impact of oil and gas exploration on their whale watching tourism economic activities down there. They are very very concerned and Phil Heatley said to them: “I promise you that there will be a process within the marine consenting process where you can have your say on any application for oil and gas exploration in the exclusive economic zone.” That was a promise that the National Government made when that legislation was going through Parliament. That was the reason it gave for disregarding all the other concerns that were being raised about the legislation concerns about how permissive it was concerns about the lack ofenvironmental protection concerns about taking away appeal rights on points of substance—all these concerns were to be addressed by the fact that the public would be allowed to have their say through the consenting process. So here we are not a year later with an amendment that removes that right with an amendment that now says that we are not going to have just the categories of permitted discretionary and prohibited activities; we are going to introduce a new definition for a non-notified discretionary activity. This is a discretionary activity where the public will not get to have their say and the Minister has already indicated that oil and gas exploration for the drilling of exploratory wells is going to be a non-notified discretionary activity.Well the Gulf of Mexico disaster was not an exploratory well. This is not a low-risk activity as the Minister for the Environment has tried to claim. She said: “Oh it will happen over the course of about 6 weeks. You know it is fairly low-risk.” Well tell that to the people who had to deal with the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico which was in an exploratory well and in one that was in shallower water than that of some of the applications that are currently being considered—much shallower water than the waters in much of the most recent block offer for 2014. The Minister’s response to that was then: “Oh well we write legislation for what should happen not what does happen.” Basically she is saying that nothing can ever go wrong so she is writing legislation on the basis that it will never go wrong and ignoring the fact that it does sometimes go wrong. On this side of the Chamber we think that actually the legislation and the regulation should be robust enough to ensure that all those protections are in place. A part of that is very very much that public input process. It is not just the public who input during that; it is geotechnical experts it is environmental experts it is people from the industry who are not currently connected but who want to have their say people who have experience in the oil and gas industry people who know a lot more than the collective wisdom of even this Parliament because of their own experiences. Why that is important is that there are real concerns around the Environmental Protection Authority’s ability to process these marine consents now completely void of any input from any outside experts or individuals or organisations. The authority does not have an investigative capability. It does not have that. So how is it going to be able to now make a crucial decision on whether or not this stuff should go ahead based on a complete lack of information from those who would be interested?We know this because when we sit on a select committee hardly ever do we get a piece of legislation that goes through without amendment after we have sat down and heard submissions. That is why the select committee process is such a good one. That is why it produces good law. We do not have the monopoly on all the information in our Parliament or in our select committee or even in the Environmental Protection Authority. We get an awful lot of benefit out of that process of having people come along and submit. I do not think there is a single member in this House who would say that the submissions on bills at the select committee do not add an awful lot to the legislation and the changes that are potentially then made before it comes back to the House.This change could have gone to a select committee because this decision to introduce a new non-notified discretionary classification was adopted by Cabinet on 25 February 2013 and this bill was reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on 27 February 2013—2 days later. So there is no reason why this could not have gone to a select committee. The Minister knew that this change was going to be made. Months of work would have led up to this finally going to Cabinet and being approved and all the while this legislation was sitting at the select committee and no one was told that this was coming. Again this is exactly what we saw with the changes to the Crown minerals bill where Minister Bridges held off his protest banSupplementary Order Paper from the select committee until we had reported back and then threw it into the Committee stage. This is exactly the same thing—exactly the same abuse of process happening again—in order to avoid the scrutiny that comes from a proper select committee process.The interesting link back to that protest ban in that Supplementary Order Paper on the Crown minerals legislation is that Minister Bridges could have instead amended this Act the Marine Transport Act to carry over the provisions that exist for dealing with dangerous or reckless activity at sea in our territorial waters out into the exclusive economic zone. So not only could he have done it under the Crown minerals bill and actually have given it to the select committee but he could have done it under this piece of legislation as well which actually governs that dangerous and reckless behaviour in our territorial waters except what we know now from the regulatory impact statement which was finally released once Treasury forced him to put it up on the website is that it was not about banning dangerous or reckless activity. It was about banning protesting—full stop.The Government does not want anything getting in the way of the only plan it has for regional economic development in this country. Here we are again greasing the wheels. Here we are again with another broken promise. National promised that the public would be able to have its say and here it is again taking it away in a Supplementary Order Paper on a completely different piece of legislation about which the Minister says: “Oh well we alerted people to it back in April.” Why was the select committee not told about it when she would have been doing the work on that Cabinet paper for the entire time that this bill was at the select committee over those months leading up to the reporting back on 27 February? The reason is that when it comes to watering down environmental protections when it comes to greasing the wheels for industry as much as possible and when it comes to shutting the general public out this National Government will stop at nothing.Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is an absolute delight to take a short call on this omnibus bill the Marine Legislation Bill. Part 1 as we have heard amends the Maritime Transport Act and Part 2 amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. We as a Government are committed to building a more competitive and productive economy and this bill highlights our commitment to creating strong and sensible legislation that works. It aims to improve the clarity consistency and effectiveness of the Maritime Transport Act as we heard earlier and it will also provide more certainty around the laws involved as well as improving safety enforcement practices and environmental protection. We know that successful economic and environmental policy can and must go hand in hand. This is why we are putting in place policies to help local economies that rely on their ports and harbours and to ensure that our unique environment is protected.As we have heard the reforms will provide greater certainty and reduce compliance costs for industry increase efficiency by avoiding the duplication of processes enhance environmental effects management—this is dear to all our hearts—and of course provide the opportunity as we heard earlier for improved public and iwi participation. This is a decisive piece of legislation that highlights our commitment to building a more competitive and productive economy. We strongly believe that the natural environment is our greatest asset. That is why the bill places significant focus on addressing gaps in our current legislation and better aligning regional and national interests.I have made no secret in the past of being a “Naki” boy and I am proud of coming from “Taradise”—I am proud of coming from “Taradise”. I have grown up with the oil industry. From my earliest years I can remember a “nodding donkey” down onNgāmotu Beach which at one stage was the longest-producing oil well in the world—the longest-producing oil well in the world. As we would go there—we would go swimming occasionally—we would see oil actually coming up from the sand because it does that such is the richness of “Taradise”. That oil industry which is worth $2 billion—Chris Auchinvole: How much?Dr CAM CALDER: —$2 billion—to our country is the third or fourth leg of our economic prosperity and it coexists with an outstanding world-leading dairy industry and of course a wonderful tourism industry for those New Zealanders and world travellers who see the joy and delights to be found in that blessed province of Taranaki.Of course this would not be the case were it not for an incredible concentration by the major players in the industry on health security environmental and safety issues within the industry. That is why it gladdens my heart to see clause 90 in Part 2 which I understand the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in a unanimous display of good faith and good fellowship recommended be amended so that it could insert definitions related to the discharge of harmful substances and the dumping and incineration of waste and other matter at sea and insert a new definition of “mining activity” that would ensure that this term covered prospecting as well as other events so that the new definition of “mining discharge” would ensure that hydraulic fracturing—a very worthwhile technique used to improve the productivity of our fields there and used with due respect to the environment—would be subject to the legislation.So as a proud boy from “theNaki” and someone who is determined to see New Zealand achieve its best economic potential with due regard to the environment I commend this bill to the Committee.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on Part 2 of this bill the Marine Legislation Bill. I want to talk about two Supplementary Order Papers in particular—two amendments. The first is Supplementary Order Paper 347 which inserts new clause 102A. I do not want to bore anyone watching Parliament TV with a whole bunch of jargon. What this amendment does is it gives Kiwis no say when it comes to consenting exploratory wells in all of New Zealand’s deep water. Why? Because the Government does not want to give Kiwis a say. Why? Because it does not like what it will hear. The fact is that New Zealanders do not want the risk to our environment and economy from risky deep-sea drilling or risky exploratory drilling that they saw in the Gulf of Mexico from an exploratory well 1.5 kilometres down when we know we could see drilling twice as deep in New Zealand’s waters. They do not want to see that and that is why in this amendment the Government is shutting away their ability to have a say.It is embarrassing for the Minister of Transport to have to amend this bill. I mean this is legislation that Parliament passed last year legislation relating to a consenting regime in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. Here is the Government having to change it again only a year later and it is doing it through a back door. Instead of doing it through a normal select committee process where an amendment would have its due diligence from a New Zealand Bills of Rights Act vet this Government is introducing it through a back door through an amendment to take away Kiwis’ rights to discretionary exploratory drilling. It is just not on. It is the Kiwi way that we should have a say.It is deeply ironic that this Government in partnership withDulux is going to ask Kiwis what colour it should be painting Department of Conservation huts—of course inDulux paint—but not what they think about deep-sea exploratory drilling. This is an activity that could affect all of us. In the Gulf of Mexico we saw 600000 tonnes of oil enter the environment. It makes theRena look like a puddle. Three hundred tonnes had a huge impact on the taxpayer’s books on the local economy and on the local citizenryyet here we are looking at potentially 600000 tonnes of oil and the Government wants to do it without giving the public any sort of say.I would like to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment what she is worried about and why she is scared about hearing from the people of New Zealand. I am curious as to why in the Minister’s explanatory note it says that “The amendment requires the Minister when recommending whether regulations should provide for a discretionary activity to be a non-notified activity to take into account the desirability of allowing the public to be heard …”. The desirability of allowing the public to be heard! I find this language incredible. It is anti - New Zealand it is anti our values and it should not be going through this back-door sneaky path.What we have seen of course is that this is a pattern of this Government particularly in the energy and resources sector. We saw the Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges in an embarrassing display of poor lawmaking having to amend the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. We had the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill in front of this House. Now it is an Act and it saw the Anadarko amendment which took away Kiwis’ right to protest at sea an honourable Kiwi tradition. We are seeing a process of this Government circumventing normal legislative due diligence and good process and it is all for the outcome that is to support the oil industry and the extractive economy in New Zealand. It goes to the heart of the Government’s “drill it mine it frack it” approach to economic development. That is no economic strategy. There is no plan there is no innovation and there is no looking to the future. It is simply hoping that someone will find something and will not leave too much of a mess as they get it out and we will clip the ticket albeit with the fourth-lowest tax and royalty rates in the world for oil and gas.The Green Party has a clear position when it comes to deep-sea oil drilling. With our amendment we would rather see deep-sea exploratory drilling made a prohibited activity. That is what more than 99 percent of submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee wanted—not this non-notified discretionary activity class but a prohibited activity. I hear the Labour Party talk about deep-sea drilling an awful amount but I still do not hear what its position is on this bill.Also in respect of Part 2 of the bill we have new Supplementary Order Paper 363 introduced by me. This amendment would enact the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and insert a new section 37(5) in clause 105 that would amend the exclusive economic zone legislation to simply make seabed mining in benthic protected areas prohibited. At the moment we have the inconsistent situation where bottom trawlers cannot trawl within 100 metres of the seabed and dredgers cannot dredge the seabed but we see mining companies granted permits by this Government to literally vacuum up the seabed in benthic protected areas. It makes a mockery of our marine protection laws to allow this. [Bell rung] Thank you Mr Chair. I will be very brief because I need to get to the Business Committee. My Supplementary Order Paper 363 simply means that benthic protected areas would actually be protected. I think that if you cannot trawl and you cannot dredge you should not be able to literally vacuum up the seabed. I think that most New Zealanders would agree with me.It is akin to the schedule 4 mining proposals about which New Zealanders stood up and said that some parts of our country are off limits. Some parts of our country have intrinsic value. In fact when you look at the economic opinion on it you see that we are stronger and more prosperous as a country by having protected areas on land. When it comes to the sea we have got only 0.4 percent—that is less than half of 1 percent—protected in marine protected areas. The Government should not be allowing mining of benthic protected areas.Again I would like to issue a challenge to the Labour Party. I would like to see it support my amendment. I do not think that the Labour Party stands for mining marine protected areas. I do not think that its members want to see the Labour Party voting for mining marine protected areas and they are seeing an inconsistent approach. So the challenge is that the votes will be cast and the Labour Party can make its opinion—it can cast its votes and make its choices its way—but let us hope that the Labour Party members send the Labour Party a clear message that when it comes to deep-sea drilling let us not just hear talk; let us see some walk as well. Let us see a strong position. When it comes to seabed mining let us not mine marine protected areas Labour. What we can see is a greater prosperity for all of our economy if we focus on that “clean green” brand.All in all what we see in the Minister’s amendment is a back-door way to take away Kiwis’ rights to have a say. That is deeply un - New Zealand and deeply disappointing and that is why the Green Party will be voting against that amendment. Kia ora.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am going to take a short call just because I forgot to mention Supplementary Order Paper 363 on the Marine Legislation Bill from the Green member Gareth Hughes in my first speech.The first thing I will say is that it would have been nice if we had got the Supplementary Order Paper earlier than 10.30 p.m. this morning.Jacinda Ardern: A.m.MOANA MACKEY: Sorry 10.30 a.m. this morning. By that stage we had gone through our procedures process of determining how we would vote. We had a number of members including the two MPs for the Chatham Islands Rino Tirikatene and the Hon Annette King who wanted a little bit more time to consider it. We certainly think that there is a lot of merit in some of the concerns that have been raised. I know that it is an issue that has been raised with Maryan Street before but we did not feel that we could vote for a Supplementary Order Paper at such short notice when we had not given affected members of Parliament in our caucus—part of the Chatham Rise is included in this protect area—the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate and to decide No. 1 whether or not this Supplementary Order Paper was actually going to deliver what the Green member Gareth Hughes intends it to deliver and also whether there were not going to be any unintended consequences because this is an area where there is significant scientific debate. It is very interesting and I am very very sorry but I am afraid that 5 or 6 hours’ notice of a Supplementary Order Paper really is not enough for us in the Labour Party to feel that we have given it due consideration and have looked at the science and the evidence around that matter. So it is an issue that we are going to continue to consider as a caucus and we look forward to working with the Green Party further on that matter but it is not an issue that we can vote for today.I want to also address a question that the member Gareth Hughes raised about deep-sea drilling—I know that the Greens support a ban on deep-sea oil drilling—and the Labour Party position on this. My first question when someone says to me “Do you support a ban on deep-sea drilling?” is “What do you define as deep sea?”. I have sat through many many select committee considerations on many many technical bills and many many environmental bills and I do not want to sit in a select committee for 6 months arguing down to the nanometre about what constitutes deep sea and what does not only to then have enormous reviews about how it was measured especially when I think that it would be difficult around the science to pick where deep sea begins and shallow sea ends. What I want to see and what Labour wants to see is a robust regime throughout the entire marine environment. Depth is very much a risk factor. It is very much something that does need to be taken into consideration and conventional wisdom says that the further out you go and the deeper you get the more risky it is.That needs to be considered and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which we are amending today is not adequate to provide that robust risk assessment analysis. It is not. It is woefully inadequate.So what we want to see is a regime that is consistent right throughout our marine environment and that considers all the variables that are taken into account when carrying out a risk assessment. In some cases yes depth is going to be the overriding risk factor. In other cases it may not be. I would hate for a focus on one risk factor to be to the detriment of others. There may be other things such as seismic activity ecological sensitivity and a whole range of issues that occur in shallow water as well that need to be taken into account and that under the exclusive economic zone legislation are not adequately being taken into account.Labour supports a robust regime where environmental protection is the bottom line no matter how deep the water is—no matter how deep the water is. There may be some projects in shallow water that should not go ahead because of the risk assessment around them but at the moment the problem we have is that we do not have confidence in that risk assessment process. We do not have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority which does not have an investigative capability and yet which under an amendment being raised in Part 2 today is now going to be the sole decider of whether or not a marine consent for exploratory drilling goes ahead. It will be the sole decider because it is not going to have the benefit of the submission process that exists in the current economic exclusion zone legislation a submission process that the previous Minister of Energy and Resources Phil Heatley promised would remain in the legislation. That process has now gone so all that information and the benefit of that information that comes from experts from interested individuals from NGOs and from industry is now going to be non-notified. It is not going to happen and that is the issue that we have.So I certainly acknowledge the Greens’ concerns around these activities. I can say that although the exclusive economic zone legislation is woefully inadequate until we get a Labour Government that changes it we do not support that activity going ahead in the exclusive economic zone. It should not go ahead until we have adequate regulation in place that has environmental protection as its bottom line. We need to recognise that the line between our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone is jurisdictional only. It has nothing to do with the environment. It has nothing to do with risk. It has nothing to do with anything other than that our territorial waters are within 12 nautical miles and beyond that we have the right to extract resources only because we are a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is not our territorial area. For a jurisdictional line we do not see the need to draw some kind of difference between the two regimes in legislation that operate on either side of that: the Resource Management Act for our territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone legislation for our exclusive economic zone. When that line is jurisdictional only it makes absolutely no sense particularly on a scientific basis to have two such differing regimes one of which we are further weakening today by removing the public’s right to have their say during the consent process for marine consents for exploratory drilling.I hope that provides some clarity to the Green Party. As I said it is with regret that we were unable really to have the time to give more consideration to the merits of Gareth Hughes’ Supplementary Order Paper. It is an issue we will be considering further but in future the more time we are given to consider a Supplementary Order Paper around such a serious area the better. In terms of good decision-making on behalf of the Labour Party we simply did not feel that we were given that opportunity. Thank you.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I rise to take a call on Part 2 of the Marine Legislation Bill. Part 2 amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. As I observed in the debate on Part 1 of the bill for the initial stages of its progress through the House the bill was not too controversial. There was unanimous support for the first reading. In the debate at the time however I took a call and said that the support I voiced was with some reservations.In Part 2 we have Supplementary Order Paper 347 from the Minister Gerry Brownlee with amendments—a Supplementary Order Paper released in August well after the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee reported. The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 347 have two significant problems. The first is the provision for emergency dumping—that is emergency dumping of waste at sea in the exclusive economic zone beyond the continental shelf. The second is the proposal to create a fourth category of activity the category of non-notified activities.Let us briefly peruse some of these: first the emergency dumping of waste or the so-called dumping of waste. What is the emergency dumping of waste and what could that waste be? What might it entail? Could it be fish? Could it be radioactive material? There is nothing as permanent as a temporary provision for a brief emergency and it certainly opens the gate to all sorts of dumping. With these provisions National is opening up our oceans to dumping.I turn to the new definition of “non-notified activity”. Up to now the exclusive economic zone has had three types of activities within that legislation—that is “permitted” which is things that can be done; “prohibited” which is things that cannot be done; and “discretionary” which is things that can be done in some circumstances. But now this Government is bringing in at the last minute a fourth category the “non-notified activity”. In Supplementary Order Paper 347 we learn that this is to be a discretionary activity that will not—not—be publicly notified. This has a certain stench about it.To fully understand we have to consider the Minister’s consultation document which reveals that only one category of activity is to be non-notified and that is the activity of exploratory offshore drilling. One immediately thinks of the disgusting despicable backyard deals that this Government is so proud of doing. Even at the moment with regard to theRena the smallhapū fromMōtītī Island are fighting for the complete removal of the wreck of theRena off Astrolabe Reef. This Government has done a dirty backyard deal that if theMōtītīhapū fail in getting theRena off the reef the Government gets $10.4 million. This Government has done a backyard deal against the people of New Zealand.Hon Maurice Williamson: What sort of a dirty deal? Like doing your family out of money? That sort of dirty deal?BRENDAN HORAN: There is Mr Williamson. Where was he? He was watching a test match I think when theRena grounded. He was too lazy to get down there and get the oil off theRena. But he is very happy to stand over there and make comments throw comments at me.Hon Maurice Williamson: I’m just asking what sort of a dirty deal we’re talking about here. Is it like taking money off your family or something?BRENDAN HORAN: Unbelievable. What this Government is doing is giving corporations a rubber stamp and saying: “Come over. Get a rubber stamp. Come to our oceans our moana obtain the rubber stamp off the National Government and not be subject to any public consultation or input.” What idiot in New Zealand would drill in 1500 to 3000 metres of water? What is our rapid oil response unit? Three 8-metre aluminium dinghies—three 8-metre aluminium dinghies. But this Government is completely willing to put our entire coastline at risk for a few dollars.It is interesting. We saw on TV the Prime Minister going to church when he has openly stated that he is an atheist. It is interesting that the Pope came out just yesterday and said how Governments’ love of money is destroying families and that is what is happening in New Zealand—this Government’s grubby love of money.David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member should stick to the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member has strayed beyond Part 2 but his time has expired.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Marine Legislation Bill. I want to do two things. First of all I want to reiterate some of the points that my colleague Moana Mackey was talking about earlier in response to a call from the Green Party to find out just what Labour’s position is on deep-sea drilling. I keep wondering why those members keep asking because we keep saying it and they keep not hearing it. So I will say it again—I will say it again. When we talk about deep-sea drilling it is not clear from anybody’s definition what deep sea means. We have heard certainly those of us on our side of the Chamber Greenpeace for example say that deep-sea drilling is anything beyond about 200 metres. I would be happy to accept that as a definition because if we were to go in that direction its rationale for a depth of 200 metres is that that is the depth at which a human diver can go in order to repair any failure of equipment or any spill or any leakage from oil drilling equipment. But it begs the question about what the criteria are and what the science is that would determine what deep-sea drilling is. Surely the whole point should be about the protection of the environment. When we have clear criteria for the protection of the marine environment around this area then this Parliament could expect the Labour Party’s support. We do not have that and we need to consider those issues as a totality before we start sounding off about what we think deep-sea oil drilling is.What is very true is that the deeper one goes in offshore drilling the greater the pressure on those oil and gas deposits. When the rock holding down those oil deposits for example is pierced the oil emerges of its own volition. They do not have to pump it up to the surface because the pressure of the water is so great that it forces the oil up. This is what happened at a depth of 2700 metres in the Gulf of Mexico and that was the problem. It was too deep too risky and the pressure was so great that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of oil escaped and was responsible for the degradation of the environment that we have seen subsequently.We will have a look at offshore drilling and we will insist that criteria around offshore drilling are based on environmental protections not just 200 metres. What makes it better at 199 metres than it is at 201 metres? It all depends on the environment. It depends on the ecosystems. It depends on the benthic areas that are there. It depends on whether or not there are any benthic protection areas in that domain where the drilling is taking place. That is the first point.The second one I want to make is in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. This Supplementary Order Paper replaces Supplementary Order Paper 340. It amends this legislation by making a number of changes to Part 2 of the bill. Some of them are simply technical amendments but primarily its purpose is to provide for some discretionary activities to be prescribed as non-notified activities for which an application for a marine consent is not publicly notifiable. Again we are seeing this Government do what it has done in other pieces of legislation coincidentally or not that relate to oil and gas exploration. Certainly in respect of oil and gas exploration the Government is much more lenient on oil and gas companies than on anybody else.To deprive the public of their right to have a say on whether or not exploratory drilling should happen off their shores is an affront to democracy. It is as simple as that. It is clear from this Government’s previous behaviour that that is how it intends to proceed. When that tricky little business of democratic participation gets in the way it will ride roughshod over it and it will find ways of writing out of the legislation any requirements for public consultation. That is what this amendment does. It is a travesty. There are people—including the Gisborne District Council committee which because of its own experience with the possibility of offshore drilling exploratory or otherwise is looking to oppose this particular provision—who want to have a say. It does not matter whether offshore drilling is something that is likely or unlikely to happen for those people; what they want is the ability to have their say. So how can any potentially adverse impacts on the environment be assessed if it is going to be up to only the Environmental Protection Authority to determine and to give permission for things when it does not have its own investigative capacity?One other thing that I just want to draw attention to in Supplementary Order Paper 347 is this Minister’s particular penchant for regulations that are so broad ranging as to be likely to be used to undermine the original purpose of the legislation. It says here in new section 29AB(2) inserted in clause 100 by Supplementary Order Paper 347: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister make regulations that prescribe requirements methods or technical standards for emergency dumping of waste or other matter.” I use this one as an example because it is talking about the emergency dumping of waste which is a particular consideration but it will be the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister who makes the requirements and who makes the regulations that prescribe the requirements methods or technical standards. How is it the Minister’s responsibility to determine those regulations without any scrutiny from this Parliament? That is not appropriate.We know this Minister because of his track record with road-user charges and all sorts of other things. We know his track record and his protégé Simon Bridges’ track record in bringing in Supplementary Order Papers after select committee reports have been returned to the House and we know that they have no regard for anything other than the agenda to which they are committed—that is to drill and mine everything they can in order to get some economic improvement—because they lack imagination to do anything differently. That is at the heart of this. Even democracy gets in the way of any economic improvement that might be an alternative to drilling and mining. It is this lack of imagination and lack of a plan to modernise our economy that is going to be the death of this Government.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am not sure that that member Maryan Street is well placed to be talking about the death of the Government given the bloodshed that has been occurring in the Labour caucus in recent times but there we go. That is certainly a party that is in the practice of throwing many stones within the glasshouse.I want to come to Supplementary Order Paper 347 and speak to that just briefly. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when this Marine Legislation Bill was passing through the select committee but I have been listening intently to some of the comments made in the debate on Part 1 which I would also like to contribute to just very briefly.It is fair to say that there is little contention about Part 1 or the need for this legislation. The Labour Party did advance with “Why is it taking so long? Why is it taking so long?”. There was a lot of hand-wringing and clenching of hands and fingers over that. The question I would have—Hon Maryan Street: We’re on Part 2 now Mike.MIKE SABIN: I know that we are on Part 2 but this is my first contribution Maryan Street so I would like to actually offer something a little more fulsome. It has been raised in Part 2 anyway as to why we have not done anything. The member Ruth Dyson raised that exact point. Although not uncommon with Labour Party members the ironic thing here is that they sat around for 3 years when they could have done something about this but they did not. They have been in the practice of pushing the hard things to one side and just dealing with the populist issues to help them get re-elected. Then when they go into Opposition—I give them credit; Labour is actually an effective Opposition party when its members are not cannibalising one another—they turn round and say: “Why isn’t that Government doing what we didn’t?”. The difference between this party and the Labour Party is that we get on and actually do what needs to be done. So the posturing over why this has taken so long needs to be put to bed right there because Labour had its chance and it did not take it. Then it comes into the Chamber and spends the last 3 years filibustering—Iain Lees-Galloway: I beg your pardon?MIKE SABIN: The member heard me.Iain Lees-Galloway: We’ve spent 3 years filibustering this bill have we?MIKE SABIN: I could try to spell it out but I would probably struggle with that one I think. I am not sure whether that word starts with an “f” or a “ph”. I am not sure but never mind. I could come to the member’s comments about alcohol limits but of course we are on Part 2. I will pick that up on another occasion—what I would think about what pilots are doing not just what people are doing in ships because they also have some concerns around alcohol.Supplementary Order Paper 347 deals with introducing a new definition of a non-notified discretionary activity. The Environmental Protection Authority will have a regulatory opportunity to keep the sort of oversight that is required essentially where exploration is occurring or where a narrower field of activities are going on. There is a distinctly different implication to exploratory activities or short-term or controlled activities from full-blown production. I think that is where members may be getting a little confused—when we look to manage and mitigate risk and get the balance right in terms of providing a pragmatic and effective legislative framework in which we can encourage activities with a balance towards ensuring environmental needs are taken care of. This is what this Supplementary Order Paper is actually dealing with. The members on the other side would have us think that this is Armageddon that this is a disgrace to democracy and what have you. Well what I would suggest is that it is not a case that every single initiative every single policy of Government is subject to the referendum sort of approach that we see from the Labour and Green members. It just so happens that they cherry-pick particular issues that they believe that is important for.It is quite clear that when we look at the restrictions that are put on and what this Supplementary Order Paper actually relates to they are quite controlled and risk-managed practices. Yes this Government makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that we want to look and explore the opportunities that this country has in terms of its mineral resources. We would be doing New Zealanders a great disservice were we not to do that. It is a matter of doing it in a fashion that ultimately gets the balance between the environmental needs and the consequences of things going wrong and having effective vehicles for us to make something of the opportunities that this country has to offer in terms of mineral exploration. So I have no problem with Supplementary Order Paper 347 and I would challenge the Opposition to actually deal with that issue.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora andngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I cannot just sit here and listen to this faux debate we hear from this side of Parliament as if 200 metres is the critical issue facing the question of deep-sea oil drilling in AotearoaNew Zealand. The depth of 200 metres which is what groups and the Greens define as deep-sea drilling is not the critical issue; the critical issue is protecting our beaches protecting our moana and protecting our economy from the threat of deep-sea drilling. But it is academic because what we know is that the permits this Government has offered including the recent 343000 square kilometres that it has opened up are considered ultra-deep in the oil academic literature. We can have a debate as to whether 200 metres is deep or shallow; the fact is that it is deep. Only advanced robotics and submersibles can maintain the rig or fix a spill if it happens at that depth. But the fact is that it is academic because what we are talking about in New Zealand is a different kettle of fish from what we have seen in Taranaki and what is considered in the literature as ultra-deep. It is extremely risky extremely complex and operating at the frontiers of technology geography and geology. It is something that we should not be putting at risk—our marine environment.What we see with Supplementary Order Paper 347 which introduces new clause 102A is a back-door no-say amendment that takes away Kiwis’ rights to have a say on discretionary activities. When you take the precedent which is the Resource Management Act then the public gets a say on discretionary activities if they have an impact greater than minor. The Government is asking Kiwis what colour they think the Department of Conservation huts should be painted. There are various consultations on various issues. But when it comes to consenting the most risky activity affecting our marine environment the Government through this back-door no-say amendment is taking away New Zealanders’ right to have a say.This is the critical issue: should New Zealanders have a say on the greatest environmental threat facing New Zealand? The Green Party is clear. We have a strong position. Deep-sea drilling should be prohibited. It is a different kettle of fish from what we have done in Taranaki where the deepest well is 125 metres. What we are talking about in New Zealand—say at 1.5 kilometres or deeper—is well casing that has to be specially strengthened or it will burst under its own pressure. We are talking at 1.5 kilometres down about a water temperature of 0.4 degrees or close to freezing yet the oil is coming out close to boiling. What we are talking about is operating at the extremes of technology and in hostile environments kilometres down.There are no guarantees with oil drilling. The Government is clear on that point. The industry is clear on that point.Obama’s presidential commission into Deepwater Horizon said that it is akin to nuclear power. Not every well is going to have an accident and blow up but when an accident occurs the consequences can be catastrophic. What we saw with theRena is that New Zealand does not have a response capability to deal with such a spill. Maritime New Zealand has adopted only 5500 tonnes as its response capability that it is planning for. The Deepwater Horizon was 600000 tonnes yet Maritime New Zealand is planning for only 5500 tonnes and it clearly struggled with only 300 tonnes from theRena. In the Gulf they had more than 1000 vessels working on that spill. In New Zealand Maritime New Zealand has three skimmers which are more akin to dinghies. In the Gulf they had more than 46000 people working on the spill. In New Zealand Maritime New Zealand has around 180 trained responders. In the Gulf it cost $40 billion. In New Zealand we cannot afford to deal with a spill. That is why New Zealanders need a say. That is why it is egregious that we are seeing this back-door amendment taking away New Zealanders’ right to have a say.When it comes to the permitting process New Zealanders already do not have a say. It is because of Green Party pressure that with the granting of permits our councils now get a say. I urge all the councils across New Zealand to have a say. The fact is that an oil spill is not going to recognise the 12 nautical mile jurisdictional limit. An oil spill would affect all of our councils and affect all of our public. It is good that last year theGovernment extended the consultation out to councils. Now it needs to extend it out to the public.This bill is a step backwards. We need to stop having a debate around whether Labour thinks 200 metres is the right limit or not. Let us have a debate around ultra-deep drilling which is happening to New Zealand this summer with Anadarko’s ship theNoble Bob Douglas coming to New Zealand—this summer—to drill our first deep-sea exploratory wells off our coasts. This is the critical issue and this is why I am proud to be a Green member because we are standing up for the clean economy we are standing up for the innovative economy and we are standing up for real jobs for New Zealanders not for a sector that is going to see environmental risks and profits flow offshore with the lowest job-producing potential of any sector in the Taranaki economy. This is our future.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 in his name to Part 2 be agreed to:add to clause 102A the following subclause:In the heading to section 33 after “regulations” insert “under section 27”;insert the following new clause:102BSection 34 amended (Information principles)In section 34(1) replace “section 27” with “sections 27 29A and 29AB.”; andinsert in clause 107D(2) after new section 99(5)(c) the following paragraph:(ca)section 149RA(1) and (2) (which allows the board to makeminor corrections to board decisions and resource consents):.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments to the amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in his name and the following amendment in his name to Part 2 be agreed to.in new section 164A  in clause 111 replace “commencement of this Act” with “commencement of this section”.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 in the name of Gareth Hughes to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed toAyes16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.New schedule 2AThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to insert new schedule 2A be agreed to.New schedule 2A agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the following amendment in his name to schedule 3 be agreed to.In Part 1 item relating to section 272(1)(e) new section 272(1)(e)(iv) insert after “section 29A” “or 29AB”.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.New schedule 4The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to add new schedule 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.New schedule 4 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Clauses 1 and 2 deal with the title and commencement of the Marine Legislation Bill. The title clause reads thus: “This Act is the Marine Legislation Act 2012.” That might need a bit of updating seeing as we are now very late in 2013. Such is the length of time it has taken to progress this legislation late as it was arriving in Parliament late as it was to be introduced and late as the first reading was. The process since then has been so slow that we find ourselves not in 2012 but very very deep in 2013. So that part of the title will need a minor amendment as well.We could think of some names for this bill. I think there are plenty of clichés that could be applied to this bill—the “Shutting the Door Well After the Horse has Bolted Act” would be a very good name for it which leads me to the commencement. The commencement is not as straightforward as most commencement clauses are. The commencement clause allows for Part 2 of this Act to come into force “on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council; and 1 or more orders may be made bringing different provisions into force on different dates.” So Parliament actually has no control over when Part 2 of this bill will actually come into force. That has been handed over to the Government.Again I think it was my colleague Maryan Street who pointed out that when Gerry Brownlee is given this level of control over regulations and this level of control over when an Act actually comes into force he likes to push the boundaries to the absolute extreme. Gerry Brownlee has a history of making regulations that actually undermine the original purpose of the Act that gave him that regulation-making power in the first place. I fear what it means to give Gerry Brownlee that level of control over when the different aspects of Part 2 will actually come into force.The rest of this Act—Part 1 “Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994”—are the changes that we really needed before theRena disaster occurred. Actually there has been an amendment made at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I do not know whether there was a bit of crystal ball gazing happening at the select committee because originally—Andrew Little: Probably done on the Labour side.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes I think it was probably the Labour side that could see what was going to happen. Originally this read that the rest of this Act comes into force on 1 April 2013. Can anybody spot the problem there—that this Act was supposed to come into force on 1 April 2013? Again we have got the same problem: this Government is so slow and has made such a low priority of this legislation that we are a very long way past 1 April 2013. The select committee got it right by amending thecommencement clause to say that the rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. So that at least means that Parliament has control over when this Act will come into force because it should hopefully from here on in make speedy progress through its final stages be off to the Governor-General and receive the Royal assent and we should have it enforced the following day. But it certainly is not 1 April 2013—long past that particular date.But I wondered whether there was any possibility of retrospectively applying the commencement of this Act because we would really like to have had this Act come into force before two events that occurred. The first actually is Phil Heatley making a promise to a public meeting inKaikōura about the provisions in Part 2 of this Act. I am sure my colleague Moana Mackey knows about the promises made by Phil Heatley that have now been broken particularly by one of the amendments that Gerry Brownlee has pushed through this afternoon and that the Government has voted for. So we would have liked this to be applied before Phil Heatley made those promises just to save face for Phil Heatley really so that maybe he could be transported back in time and never make those promises so that he would not be breaking a promise today.But far more important than that would be for the commencement of this Act to have occurred before 2.20 a.m. on Wednesday 5 October 2011. If this Act could have come into force at any point in time before 2.20 a.m. on Wednesday 5 October 2011 we would have saved the country millions and millions of dollars. If this Act had been in force before theRena came aground on the Astrolabe Reef then the New Zealand Government would not be liable for the cost of cleaning up that disaster. I am surprised frankly that this Government has not promoted an amendment to the commencement date that would retrospectively apply this Act because that Government over there must be so embarrassed—so embarrassed—about its failure to act. It was handed this legislation on a plate from the previous Government. The work had been done. The bill was ready to go in early 2009. All it had to do was introduce it in Parliament put it on the Order Paper and make it a priority. If it had done that then when theRena hit the Astrolabe Reef and the ensuing disaster occurred and the ensuing cost occurred that would not have been borne by the poor old New Zealand taxpayer who once again has been hit in the back pocket by that negligent National-led Government.So I think that it would perhaps be fantastic if the Minister of Transport could whip down to the Chamber as quickly as possible and put an amendment up to change the commencement date back to any moment—any moment. It could be at 2.19 a.m. on Wednesday 5 October 2011. That date would be sufficient to have had this Act in place when it was needed because any date after that frankly is far far past the useful date of this legislation. Really if that Government had been on to it if that Government had understood the risks and if that Government had been prepared to make safety around our coasts a priority then this legislation would have been commenced long before today and we would not be debating it now.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Let us call this Marine Legislation Bill what it is which is the “Anadarko Bill”. The fact is that we are seeing laws for and by the oil industry under this Government. In this part of the debate on clauses 1 and 2 in the Committee stage as we look at the title and commencement clauses it is a chance to actually speak a bit of truth to power and to ask what the rationale is and what the truth is behind this billThe fact is that this used to be a good bill. This used to be a common-sense bill that all parties in Parliament could support. Sure it was a bit late in signing up to some common-sense international conventions making some minor amendments to the Maritime Transport Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act but now the Government through this back-door no-sayamendment has changed it. It is now a bill about deep-sea oil drilling and that is why Kiwis are so incensed. So let us also call it what it is which is the “No-say Back-door Amendment Bill”. Let us call it what it is: the “Deep-sea Drilling Empowering Bill”.This used to be a good bill; now it is a bill that I think the public could legitimately say was the “What is the Government Scared of (Asking the Public) Amendment Bill” because the fact is that this bill is locking out the public from having a say on discretionary consents when it comes to exploratory deep-sea drilling. We are talking about drilling kilometres under the sea an incredibly risky activity. Now that the amendment has passed it means that this bill should be called the “Government is Scared of What the Public Will Think Bill”.We have seen this twice now in this Parliament where back-door amendments have seen the scope for New Zealanders to express themselves and to express their opinions taken away. We saw it with the Anadarko amendment to the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Act which took away Kiwis’ right to protest. Of course what it is really doing is giving Kiwis a challenge because what that amendment Act said was: “Sure we and the oil industry are scared of protest. That is why we are going to legislate against it.” In fact it is a giant challenge to iwi and Kiwis to stand up and send those oil companies a message.Likewise with this amendment changing this bill and making it the “No-say Back-door Amendment Bill” for deep-sea oil drilling it is again giving Kiwis a challenge. The Government has sent them a very clear message: it does not want to hear what they think because it is scared of what the people of New Zealand will say. So the people of New Zealand need to say it loud they need to say it clear and they need to say it together: no deep-sea drilling in New Zealand’s waters; focus on clean energy—that is where our future is. Kia ora.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Well I think given the debate that has happened in the Chamber today an appropriate title for this bill the Marine Legislation Bill might be the “Marine Legislation (Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse) Amendment Bill”. When the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which this bill amends was passed through Parliament Labour was the only party that voted against it at every single reading. Then at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee other political parties realised just how dire the legislation was and that it was likely to be inconsistent with our commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; that it was woefully inadequate in terms of economic protection compared with the Resource Management Act which is the legislation that governs economic activity in our territorial waters; that we were removing the ability to appeal to the Environment Court on points of substance; and that basically it was a general greasing of the wheels for industry to make sure that projects that potentially would not have got through under the Resource Management Act process which is far more robust would get through under this very very permissive piece of legislation.When you consider that the line between our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone is jurisdictional only—it is not based on any environmental factors any scientific analysis or any risk factors; it is just that within 12 nautical miles is our territorial waters and beyond it is not—you would have to question the sanity of having two such completely different regimes regulating exactly the same activity operating side by side separated by only an invisible jurisdictional line in the ocean. Well the Labour Party thinks that that is not sensible. We do not see the sense in introducing untested legal terms in the exclusive economic zone. We question why we could not have used the well-known language of the Resource Management Act which has 20 years of case law behind it and which provides certainty for regional councils certaintyfor industry and certainty for communities so that they know what they are dealing with and they know what these legal and environmental tests are. We said “Why can we not just use those terms—mirror them in the exclusive economic zone legislation?” and the answer is that again it was intended to be more permissive than the Resource Management Act and not intended to mirror the Resource Management Act.Labour raised concerns the entire way through the process. We were very disappointed. We made approaches to Minister Adams saying to her that no one in the country whether they be from industry or environmental NGOs wanted to see this kind of pendulum swinging of legislation between National and Labour Governments. We have seen it too often on crucial pieces of economic legislation like the emissions trading scheme and the Crown Minerals Act—and it was not just Labour; it was a meeting that we had with the Greens and New Zealand First. We said “Look we actually think that there is a lot we could lock down in common on this exclusive economic zone legislation. How about we try to do it? Find something that none of us are entirely happy with none of us are 100 percent happy with but we can all live with and then give that kind of assurance that stability that it is not going to change.” and we were rebuffed. That I think was very unfortunate.But the reason I think that this bill could be called the “Marine Legislation (Just When You Think It Couldn’t Get Any Worse) Amendment Bill” is that at that time we really did think that well this was pretty bad and that we were going to have to make changes to it. We signalled clearly what those changes were going to be. No one saw this coming down the pipeline. We were not told at the select committee. In fact at the select committee it was reinforced for us time and time again that all these concerns that had been raised about the legislation and all the concerns that were raised in submissions—all the concerns that were being raised by councils that were being raised by environmental NGOs that were being raised by technical experts and that were being raised by the general public—would be addressed through the marine consent process which allowed for public submissions. That is what we were told.Minister Phil Heatley the then Minister of Energy and Resources was inKaikōura where there was significant public concern about the block offer that was being pursued off the coast. Given their extensive whale-watching interests and given how important that particular industry is to the economy inKaikōura the people there asked Minister Heatley why this legislation was so weak. He said to them: “You will get to have your say through a public submission process when the application for a marine consent off the coast ofKaikōura is being considered.” That was the promise that the previous Minister of Energy and Resources made less than a year ago to the people ofKaikōura and then to the people of New Zealand.Well I do not know whether he did not read it properly or whether he was lying or whether he was—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot say that.MOANA MACKEY: Sorry Mr Chair. I do not know whether he was being—Andrew Little: Wrong—he was wrong.MOANA MACKEY: —yes whether he was wrong—Meka Whaitiri: Misleading.MOANA MACKEY: —or whether he knew he was being misleading at the time or whether in fact someone had got in the ear of the new Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister for the Environment since that legislation has been passed and said: “You know that pesky process where we actually have to listen to people who have concerns and who want to have their say? Or to experts who have not been engaged in the process so far who think that maybe when we are considering an application for an activity as controversial as offshore oil and gas exploration we shouldnot rely solely on industry data maybe we should not rely solely on industry research and maybe it is good to have a contestable process where people can challenge the science and challenge the data and challenge the facts that have been put through by the applicant—people who think maybe that might make for a better process that No. 1 could result in decisions being made based on all the information available not just the information from one side.That is particularly the case when you consider that the Environmental Protection Authority does not have an investigative capability in there and that it is very new in what it does and also the fact that when the Environmental Protection Authority legislation was going through this Parliament Labour put up an amendment to make environmental protection one of the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority and the National Government voted it down. That leads us to have some concerns about whether the Environmental Protection Authority is actually about environmental protection or whether it is solely about economic development at any cost.On this side of the Chamber we see the value of a submission process. I do not think there is a member of this House who has sat on a select committee who does not see the value in that process. They accept that even in an organisation like the Environmental Protection Authority you are not going to have a monopoly on all knowledge. There are going to be factors that could be brought through a submission process. That is why very few pieces of legislation go to a select committee in this House and come back to Parliament unchanged. It is because we take on board the points that have been made and the comments that have been made and the same is true of a process that consents a very technical and controversial activity like offshore oil and gas exploration. To have that taken away not only undermines confidence in the legislation not only undermines confidence in the Government and not only undermines confidence in the process but also means that information that would have been put on the table in front of an agency that is brand new in front of an agency that does not have any investigative capability of its own is now no longer going to happen.Minister Amy Adams said: “Well that’s because we write legislation assuming that nothing’s going to go wrong.” Well I am sorry but I do not know whether the Gulf of Mexico disaster happened just to other people and not to Minister Amy Adams but it did because things do go wrong. In terms of legislation that consents risky activities even though the risks may be considered low in exploratory drilling—drilling of exploratory wells—we cannot get past the fact that the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon disaster was in an exploratory well. It was in a well about which Minister Adams has said: “They should not have to go through a full consent process because the risk is so low and I write legislation for things always going right not for things going wrong.” That is not good enough.The National Party appears to be the only political party that has not taken another look at its policy in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster in the wake of theRena disaster and in the wake of the Pike River disaster. It has not done anything to reinforce our emergency response capability. My colleague Andrew Little has been doing a lot of work on what a rapid response capability would look like maybe based somewhere like Taranaki where they have a lot of experience in this and maybe actually having some equipment in New Zealand ready to go in case something goes wrong. Having the expertise training people on a regular basis—surely these are lessons that we should have learnt from tragic recent experiences that have had enormous environmental and economic impacts. But it appears that the National Party members have not learnt.The reason that they refuse to do anything and that they want to keep their heads buried in the sands is because they have no plan B. Oil and gas exploration is their entire regional economic plan and if it does not pan out then they are kind of screwedand we in the provinces are kind of screwed. I am sorry but I think that the provinces of New Zealand deserve a plan B from this Government. If it wants to charge ahead with oil and gas exploration that is its right as a Government. If it wants to weaken environmental protection it will be held to account for that at the next election but we deserve a plan B in provincial New Zealand. Because if this does not pan out—and it has not; we have been told on the East Coast—David Bennett: Come to Hamilton.MOANA MACKEY: “Come to Hamilton.” says Mr Bennett. OK—Andrew Little: That’s plan C.MOANA MACKEY: That is plan C. Plan C my colleague says is to move to Hamilton.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I would like to take a short call on the commencement clause as well. I would like to follow on with regard to the friends I have inKaikōura—the electorate I live in—whom I joined when they protested the direction that this bill the Marine Legislation Bill and the Government is going in terms of oil exploration. They had hundreds of people on the beach in that very small community. They had a petition in which somebody from every household in that community said they did not want deep-sea oil exploration to go ahead as it could risk their livelihoods and risk the things that whole economy is based on inKaikōura.I just point out—the Government seems to have missed it and the Minister for the Environment missed it as well when she spoke about exploratory wells—that the riskiest phase in drilling is when exploration is happening because they do not know until they do that what is likely to go. The risk of blowout is worse in the exploration stage. I will just pop over to another area that has had exploration and that is just offD’Urville Island another part of my rohe over into Tasman Bay. I negotiated with an oil company that wanted to drill offD’Urville Island and ultimately did. I remember that the Minister—it was Nick Smith—actually got on the platform when they did do the exploration ultimately. That is in a much shallower area but the risks even there are too high.Even following that negotiation where we ended up getting some format where you could do decent environmental assessments—a matrix that you would look at to check what the risks were in a marine environment; we got that developed out of that negotiation—there is no way I would sign off again on something like that. What we found with that company which has got a very good record in theory is that it did not disclose to us that years before it had managed to pollute the Taranaki coast with a much smaller oil spill than what we are really worried about here. But that spill I think affected up to 15 kilometres of coast at the time.So these risks are very real and if we get the companies that have been associated with the Gulf of Mexico coming over here and thinking they can do the same thing without as my colleague pointed out the resources to support or back up any correction from a mistake in even just the exploratory part we have got some real concern. But I go back to the people inKaikōura. They are actually further away from some of the main focus of that protest which was closer to the Wairarapa Wellington the Marlborough Sounds Clifford Bay and Cloudy Bay areas—those people as we have heard were promised that they would have access to the process. That has been taken away from them and left with the council maybe and some of the iwi maybe and we can hopefully rely on them—we certainly can in respect ofKaikōura—to be very concerned and to be opposing this. But that is not necessarily the case elsewhere in the country for other councils that may have been told porkies as we were—we were misled—in terms of the exploration offD’Urville Island to some degree.So I just want to add voice to the fact that the Minister does not know everything and may be being misled by some of the officials as to where the risk lies. This Committee certainly has been misled if we are listening to the Minister on that. There is a major risk. We are an island nation. We have got a lot of coastline. The last thing we need is oil on our coastline. We do not need it in the Marlborough Sounds around aquaculture and we do not need it down through theKaikōura coast either.If people on the Government seats have an issue I ask them to come to my region and talk to me. I ask them to meet those people and actually realise what they are concerned about: their livelihoods their local flora and fauna the things that they are really proud of. The fact that they can drive to theKaikōura coast and see seals just off the beach is fantastic for the tourist industry.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 360 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 359.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment BillIn CommitteeHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I seek leave for there to be a single debate on all clauses of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill with each question to be put separately at the conclusion of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. This is that clauses 1 to 4 be taken as one question. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Clauses 1 to 4JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I will take the opportunity to be the first member to rise to speak on the Committee stage of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister of Commerce for talking openly with various parties through this process over how to proceed with this issue. This is one of those issues that I think Parliamentary colleagues can at least discuss and debate openly and frankly. I know that happened during the select committee process and indeed beforehand.I do want to put on the record that the general issue of parallel importing did meet with two differing perspectives within our caucus. It was very much a line call for the Labour Party as to which way we would go. Indeed there are arguments on both sides as to whether the time has come immediately at the point of expiration—which is currently for this existing law in mid-October—to just simply let it lapse and expire or whether we allow a small and final extension to the existing law. As I have said before in this debate where we have come to as a party is to opt for a time-limited compromise. That is to say we satisfy to a certain degree the view that it must go byrestipulating and restating clearly today that the extension being applied here and now will lapse in a few years’ time and that it will lapse for good. I think that is somethingthat even those members who are not voting for the bill today are indicating—that they want to see it go. I have even heard from members from the opposite side of the Chamber who agree that this is the final chance.The reason I think we need to state that very very clearly is that the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill is an amendment to the Copyright Act 1994 which bans the commercial parallel importation of films for 9 months from the date the film was first released. I believe there have been three extensions Minister?Hon Craig Foss: Two.JACINDA ARDERN: There have been two extensions. So this is the third extension to that legislation. So there had been multiple chances before. The reason we want to be very clear that this is the last chance is that I know that some parties have based their opposition on the fact that they are worried that there will be another extension. We will not support another extension under any circumstances. We have made that extremely clear. For us this is the line in the sand for the industry that the time is up.So why did we fall on the other side of allowing this one last final extension? Well we have put some caveats around it. Of course those are set out in what is a very short bill. Those are set out in the last part of the bill. Subclause (2) of clause 4 states essentially that this bill will expire on 31 October 2016. There was an opportunity for a longer extension than that. We have said no; we think that we can make it shorter and that is the time that we have gone for. The second indication that this is the last chance is the fact that under clause 4 “Section 35 amended (Infringement by importation)” those infringements apply where a person imports a copy of a film into New Zealand within 5 months of the date that the film is first made available to the public. So instead of as it was previously a 9-month window it has now changed to a 5-month window. Again that indicates that this is an incremental withdrawal of the ban on parallel importing of films that currently exists in New Zealand.I want to talk briefly though about the rationale behind that ban existing in the first place. We have heard some of the arguments already. There are currently 120 cinemas in New Zealand. In people’s minds they might immediately resort to thinking about the cinemas in the big cities—multi-screen cinemas the ones that look like they could probably sustain themselves quite readily if you removed any importation ban that exists. There is of course another set of cinemas that exists in New Zealand—smaller provincial cinemas which for instance may not have converted to digital exhibition and we know at this stage that only about 57 percent have. Those cinemas are quite reliant for instance on the revenue that they take in around family films at school holiday times in particular. And of course there are those that might specialise in providing smaller fringe films—arthouse films and so on. Those are the ones that certainly are going to need to adapt to a removal of an importation window. It is to those cinemas that we send the message that there is now this small amount of time left before that opportunity will no longer exist for them.Some might argue that there are other industries that have had to adapt to the changing world. The music industry is a prime example of an industry that has had to adapt quickly to the fact that citizens and consumers are now accessing products in a much faster way. Digital and online accessibility has changed the way that we consume those products and they have had to adapt rapidly to that. It is about giving consumers choice and accessibility. The film industry has not done that as rapidly. It is of course with some disappointment that I say that that is the case but as I mentioned this is that one last chance for it to do so. I would encourage the industry not to use the October 2016 date as an end point target but rather as an indication that it should move as rapidly and as quickly as possible for the sake of consumers.It is interesting that the regulatory impact statement does make some points around the factors that impact on the timing of release of films in New Zealand. I just want to share this to give the Chamber a little indication as to why this window is often used in the way it is and why it is important to those who work in the cinema exhibition space. The first thing to say is that when something does go to a cinema and if it has been released that does not stop a consumer from accessing and purchasing that DVD online from overseas. That is not prohibited by this bill. So this argument—that it is through only illegal means that you could access it online if has been released—is not a fair comment to make. You can do that online. An argument could be made that that disadvantages your domestic providers. That is a fair argument to make but it does not entirely stop a consumer from being able to access it.What are the factors that influence the timing of a release? Seasonal factors do. Family films that are based around school holidays—we have already talked a little bit about how that then impacts on some cinemas. Other factors are competition with other films; screen availability whereby some cinemas simply will not be able to display a film immediately on release because of that screen availability; availability of advertising; and a profitability assessment. For some films distributors will decide on whether they are going to bring it to New Zealand based on profitability. So it is not an automatic assumption that we will get everything. So these are all the things that impact on whether or not something is even released in that way. There has been some concern over whether or not the parallel import ban being lifted would stop New Zealand from receiving as many films. In particular I think that is an argument that can be made around some of those foreign andarthouse films as well.On balance though I think that that is something that we are willing to sacrifice on behalf of consumers by the time that this window lapses. So you can see that this was a finely balanced decision for us. As I have said it is absolutely fair to say that there are caucus colleagues who probably would have aligned themselves more with the other side of the argument. Again that is why I call this a time-limited compromise. It is a time-limited compromise because at the end of the day all members of this Chamber probably agree that the industry does need to move it does need to change it does need to modify itself and it needs to do all of those things on behalf of the consumers it serves. In the meantime we ask the industry to move as quickly as it can to find ways to innovate—and I do not think this window removes the incentive to innovate; in fact I think it gives it the flag it needs to do it quickly—and to try to salvage as many jobs as possible. We do know from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that was commissioned on this that we would have been looking at potentially immediate job losses of over the 100 mark for some of those smaller provincial providers. That would have been the immediate consequence.So now we are raising the flag for those providers and we are asking them to try to find a way to provide for consumers but also to try to save those jobs at the same time. Therefore that is why we have come down on this side of the argument.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. It gave me great pleasure to support Minister Foss’ Patents Bill but it also gives me great pleasure to oppose this bill because I think it is bad legislation. I think it is anti-innovation. I think it is anti-competition. I think it is an old-fashioned bill that looks at a single platform and is quite literally giving a single platform—cinemas—a statutory monopoly which is disadvantaging other platforms disadvantaging competition and keeping us in the past. That is why the Green Party is going to be opposing it.I think it is quite good that we are taking the debate on this two-page bill as one question because it could have been drawn out for quite a long time if this Committeeso desired. Being one question we can look at all the clauses in this two-page bill. All this bill does is reinstate the parallel importing ban of films—for 5 months down from 9 months—out to 2016.We have noted in previous stages of this bill our disappointment with the process. We received a letter from Minister Foss which we were discussing in our caucus and that afternoon the bill was put on the Table—introduced under urgency. It was not like we needed urgency for this bill. We have had 10 years’ warning that this date was coming—when the predecessor of this bill that enforced the existing parallel importation ban would expire. We had 10 years’ warning. There was no need for haste. The process was very poor but I would like to acknowledge the officials. I would like to acknowledge the Commerce Committee members—in particular Clare Curran and Jonathan Young the chair—and all the submitters. There was a small number of submitters but they made high-quality submissions.I take the position that there was no good reason expressed in the committee for why this sector this platform for distribution needed a statutory monopoly to protect itself for only 3 years. I heard no justification. In fact what we heard was that the sector had 10 years to prepare—10 years to prepare. If it cannot do it in 10 years why is it going to do it in 3 years? I am a supporter of cinemas I am a user of cinemas but I want to go to a cinema because it is a great experience and it offers a great service and maybe films on a big screen in 3-D. I do not want to have to go to a cinema because it is the only way I can use content.Disabled communities need different ways of using content. Giving them only the cinema experience limits their options. That is why it is going to drive piracy or as I call it copyright infringement. That is what we heard on the select committee. What this bill does is encourage online copyright infringement just as the music industry’s not providing legal content at an affordable price for so many years drove infringement by a whole generation of which I include me because I am 31 who learnt—not that I did it of course—to infringe copyright material because there was no legal way to get it online. What we are saying here is that under this bill this is the only way we are going to get content and the fact is that for many New Zealanders the only other way is to do it unlawfully.I believe this is akin to the butter-margarine debates we had in New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s where in order to protect New Zealand’s dairy industry and butter industry we gave it a statutory monopoly and actively discriminated against margarine—it was very difficult to get margarine—to protect our butter industry. What we are saying here is that in order to protect one content platform we are going to stop innovation. I hear the word “innovation” being bandied about in this Chamber all the time. Here was an opportunity to provide new digital content platforms to provide new businesses and to provide content. By limiting Kiwis’ ability to access content or in this case movies through having only platform cinemas we are stopping innovation from happening. It is good that the ban is going to happen for only 3 years and I hear the Labour Party’s example—in 3 years there will be a line in the sand. I love cinemas. I want to support them but I want to support good services and good quality not because they have a statutory monopoly.What we know is that this bill is a copyright change going through our Parliament. I find it deeply ironic that the much-anticipated copyright review which many Kiwis particularly businesses have been seeking again to promote innovation has been delayed ostensibly because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I find it deeply ironic that we can debate and pass this bill around a parallel importing ban on copyrighted films but we cannot talk about copyright in a modern age. We cannot talk about some of our antiquated and frankly ridiculous provisions in our Copyright Actwhich was written in a pre-internet age. Likewise we cannot do what the Aussies have done and the Americans have done and look at some “fair use” exemptions. We need to have a genuine debate about copyright.Going down this path is the wrong way our Parliament should be looking. It is an old-fashioned approach that is using laws to tell Kiwis what they can use. When you tell people what they can use and what they can consume they are going to go down other paths. It is disappointing. It is sending Kiwis the wrong message. Let us promote innovation. Let us support new Kiwi businesses and new jobs. Let us support those great cinemas competing because they are providing a great environment. There are many of them in New Zealand and many Kiwis use them. That is why the Green Party is opposing this bill. We will be happy to work with any party or any member in this House to have sensible copyright reform. Kia ora.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I rise to take a short call on the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films) Amendment Bill. Firstly I will just comment that I think it is fascinating that the Green Party member Gareth Hughes appears to be exceptionally happy to have competition in an industry when it is something that will give him immediate access to something yet often I hear Green members talking anti-market and anti-competition the rest of the time. As long as it gives them instant gratification Green Party members seem to be perfectly all right about arguing that there should be competition inside this industry.I also think that when Mr Hughes talks about the fact that the industry has had 10 years to make this adjustment he is quite right and another 3 years means that there is an extension to 13 years in order to make that adjustment. It is not the case that there has been no change over the last decade; there has been a huge amount of alteration and amendment made by this industry to try to get up to speed and make the changes required because of the digitalisation of film. But I think that the Green Party member has a lack of understanding a lack of appreciation about the amount of money required by mainly rural cinema owners in order to step up to this level. It is $100000 approximately in projection equipment and screen equipment. When you are in a rural area that provides a rural service that is a lot of money; that is a lot of profit you have to make in order to reinvest in your business.That is why this Parliament should actually extend this period of time because New Zealand jobs in this industry will be lost. Already we are in a recession. Why would we make it harder for New Zealanders to keep their jobs? Listening to Miss Ardern argue against her party’s minority view position was fascinating. I found it fascinating. The Labour Party’s minority view in the Commerce Committee’s report stated: “The Labour Party is concerned that if the public cannot legally obtain material in a timely manner through DVDs subscription TV or online streaming then they become sceptical of copyright law and use illicit channels.” This concern was repeated by the Green Party in its minority view report that it “ … encourages illegal file sharing in the absence of legal alternatives.”Apart from the fact that New Zealand First believes that this is an incredibly long bow to draw we refuse to believe that New Zealanders will break the law if they cannot go to The Warehouse or JB Hi-Fi or some other retail outlet on the same day that a motion picture has been internationally released and purchase a DVD. We refuse to believe that the New Zealand public are so shallow in the way they will see a delayed release protection that helps other New Zealanders keep their jobs. We do not believe that New Zealanders are that shallow as to turn to crime—that is what it is; it is a crime and we all know it is a crime—because they cannot see a film within a 24-hour release period. We do not believe it.We also want to point out to both of these parties that they appear to have neglected to mention that the DVD retailers have protection under other legislation.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.TRACEY MARTIN: Just to finish the point I was making both the Labour Party and the Green Party seem to have avoided recognition in their minority views and in their speeches today that the DVD retailer is protected by other legislation. So there is already staggered protection for other areas of this industry. For example the DVD retailer is protected for a period of 9 to 12 months from the same film being shown on pay television and for 12 to 24 months from that film being shown on free-to-air television. So when we talk about how there is a need for competition in the market let us make sure it is a level playing field when we do so.New Zealand First will be supporting this bill because we believe that the protection is required. Another 3 years’ protection is required for the rural cinemas particularly to be able to finish making the investment that they need so that they are not adversely affected by open-slather competition. I think it is worthwhile just pointing out that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of 2012 on the New Zealand film and television industry indicated that this industry has generated more than $3.23 billion in revenue for New Zealand.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Really support for this Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill is a line call for Labour. It has been very interesting listening to the speeches from New Zealand First and the Greens on this because we have all got something in common. It is not all the same thing but we do have some of the issues in common. I think when making this line call in Labour’s minority report on this bill we called it qualified support and in the second reading of this bill I called it grudging support.Kris Faafoi: Grudging?CLARE CURRAN: Grudging. That is because of the time period that it has taken to get to this point where the film industry is still not at the point where it has converted to the digital technology and where it has come before the Commerce Committee yet again asking for another extension.I certainly think that in the select committee we had one of the best discussions on copyright that I have experienced in my almost 5 years in Parliament. I was impressed by the evolution of understanding by my National Party colleagues. I think they finally actually get some of the issues involved. I do want to give credit to the chair Jonathan Young and to his colleague Sam Lotu-Iiga for the interesting discussion that we had on the business issues and the competition issues in the select committee.I acknowledge the point that New Zealand First is making around the need for the time period to convert to the technology. I have to say that I differ on the issue of the use of downloading techniques by members of the public in order to get access to material that they cannot get otherwise. That is I guess where the Greens and Labour converge to some extent on the absolute importance of this Parliament being aware of why those issues are so important and why—with New Zealand being a small country at the top of the world or the end of the world depending on which way you are looking—it is so critical that our economy and the habits of consumers so much rely on the internet and why the internet has to be considered and be up front in the consideration of any legislation in this House. I do not think that this legislation has quite got there but it is going some way there.We had 10 submissions on this bill. They were evenly balanced in terms of for and against. There was a submission by the New Zealand Motion Pictures Exhibitors Association. I do want to talk about that because one of the points that the associationmade is the critical reason as to why Labour supports this bill. We support it because essentially it is about protecting the viability of cinemas outside the five main metropolitan cities from the effects of unrestricted parallel importing. My colleague Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand First member Tracey Martin made this point as well about the absolute importance of our regional cinemas. I want to actually take us to what that importance is why it is important and where some of these cinemas are because that is why we think this bill is important. We think that the other reasons for supporting this bill that were put up and have been supported by the Government on the other side are not as important. It is time that the big cinema chains got their act together and worked out their business models to deal with the way that people and their consumer habits have changed.Regional New Zealand is important and Labour actually gets that. The services that are provided in regional New Zealand—cinema being one of them—are actually really critical for communities. It is really important that regional New Zealand does have access to the same kinds of services that its urban cousins do. This is one of the critical ones. I think my colleague Jacinda Ardern mentioned that there are 120 film venues around New Zealand. Well 80 of those film venues—in the sense of being chains and activities—are in regional New Zealand and are described as independents andarthouse cinemas. They are defined as being where they get to be seen in small independently owned cinemas art galleries film societies schools and university classrooms. They tend to be locally owned and operated by New Zealanders or community trusts and often can be dependent on the larger players for access to film titles and distribution.I will give a little bit of history here because it is important. In the early decades of film-going in New Zealand the independent cinemas dominated until the ascendancy of the duopoly of what were called then theKerridge Odeon and Amalgamated Theatres chains. Does anyone remember them?Hon Members: Yes.CLARE CURRAN: Yes. They largely controlled film distribution and exhibition in New Zealand. That has changed now and we have the large chains which are the Event Cinemas Hoyts Cinemas Reading Cinemas etc. There are others but a good number of these cinemas are small. They are a really integral part of New Zealand. I want to actually tell you what a few of them are. I did go through the list. There is an interesting list. They include the Capitol Cinema in Te Puke the Castle Duo Cinema in Kaikohe the Cathay Cinemas in Kerikeri and CinemaParadiso in Methven South Canterbury and CinemaParadiso inWānaka. They include the Circus Cinema in Martinborough the De Luxe Theatre inŌpōtiki the Fiordland Cinema the Focal Point Cinema in Levin and the Lido Cinema in Hamilton. They include the Light House Cinema and there are several Light House Cinemas—including Light House Cuba and Light HousePētone. They include theMetroCinema in the town hall in Dunedin and Rialto Cinemas also in Dunedin the Penthouse Cinema in Brooklyn the Starlight Cinema inTaupō and The Monkey House Theatre in Whitianga. There are many and I could go on about them. These are cinemas that provide an integral service in their communities. They are in the process of converting to digital technology but they have struggled. That is the reason why Labour supports this bill—because of that struggle and the time that it has taken which is longer than we would like but those communities need the time to translate.I would like to say that this bill does not address a wider issue. I would like the Minister of Commerce to hear this because it is actually important. This bill is just the continuation of an extension. What it does not do is provide a mechanism for some of these cinemas that may not be able to make that transition in this time period. We have said very firmly that if we become the Government and certainly while we are on thisside of the House we will not support a further extension. But there is a wider issue and that issue is that those cinemas are important. It is a wider community issue. It goes beyond the scope of this bill. I think that for the Government—this issue was raised in the select committee—there is an issue that should be addressed about community support for integral services such as community cinemas that may not under their current circumstances be able to make that financial transition to the digital technology. We certainly do not support this bill being extended further but for those cinemas that issue needs to be addressed by the Government.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I am sure that my colleagues will make excellent contributions in a few minutes’ time when they get that opportunity. I want to pick up where my colleague Clare Curran has just left off in terms of talking about the role of not just regional and provincial cinemas but also the independent ones that are in the cities. The Chair remarked briefly earlier that he could in fact remember the days of silent films in the cinema and no doubt standing for the national anthem and generally behaving yourself. I have to confess to the Committee that I was once removed from the Century Theatre in Dunedin for the rolling ofjaffas down the aisle so—Kris Faafoi: What a waste.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. If Kris Faafoi had been there there would not have been anyjaffas available to roll down the aisle. Those sorts of cinemas have a very important place in our history and indeed in the present day in many places.I want to make special mention of a cinema that Clare Curran mentioned which is the Penthouse Cinema in Brooklyn here in Wellington. In fact the cinema’s owners made contact with me as the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill was making progress through the House and they made the point very strongly that as an independent cinema it operates within the industry in quite a different way from the large chains that we know of—Reading Cinema and so on. It is not operating on a business model that is in tune with being able to automatically get a film on release put it out and reap the benefits of that as a business in the same way as those large cinema chains do. It usually continues to rely on a local community that will come along to a film and it will not necessarily be immediately upon its release. So this is not just a problem for provincial New Zealand; it is about the different business models that operate within the cinema industry in New Zealand.I think that as a Parliament we had hoped that by now we would have moved to digital technology operating in such a way that all cinemas would be in a position to be able to deal with the removal of what was a 9-month grace period and is now a 5-month grace period. That has not happened and it has not happened for a host of different reasons. Some of those are to do with the way in which the cinema industry generally is actually struggling because people despite anything to do with parallel importing are no longer going to the movies in the way that they did. But I back what Clare Curran has said. This is actually about part of New Zealand’s culture and about ensuring that those independent cinemas can continue to have their place. So I do support the bill in its current form but I do recognise that it is not the long-term solution. There is absolutely no doubt that as a Parliament we will have to accept at some point that this legislation will expire and that the time will come in which there will not be this kind of grace period. But the fact is that the cinema industry does need this and the independent cinemas do need the extension that we have now got.The second point that I want to make is actually around the broader issue of copyright as it is discussed in this bill. It is quite clear to me that the issues of copyright have got away from this Government and that the review that was promised should have happened. The situation I do not want to see New Zealand get into is one where ourcopyright law ends up being dictated by somebody else. That is the danger that we run if we do not look at our own copyright law in the next year at the latest because the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement currently does contain language around copyright. There is no doubt that even if it does not emerge out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Trans-Pacific Partnership takes longer to complete than is hoped by the proponents of it it will include some references to copyright or later agreements that New Zealand signs internationally will start to impact on our copyright law. If we take seriously our role as a Parliament and representing the Sovereign in this country then we should be in control of an area like copyright. We should bring New Zealanders along with us in terms of what they want to see a regime contain.The kind of legislation we have here is sort of incremental—“We need to change a bit here and a bit there and extend this exclusion out.” That is actually not the way to run copyright law in New Zealand so I would encourage the Government to get on with the job in that regard. I know that there is a wide variety of views in this Parliament and across New Zealand around what the future is for copyright but let us make a New Zealand solution to that not take one that is imposed on us.Jonathan Young: Well it’s international.GRANT ROBERTSON: Jonathan Young says it is international. He is right; it is in an international context. But do we want the decisions about that being taken by negotiators in a room somewhere around the world or do we want those decisions to be driven by us and what is in the interests of New Zealanders? I would suggest that the latter is what we should be doing and that is what the Government should take heed of.I am not going to take up the full part of the rest of this call. I just want to note that as the cinema industry does evolve over the next few years we should make sure that the Government and others are alongside it so that we do not end up back here in 2016. I do not think there is an appetite in this Committee to see this extended any longer but I do support the bill so that those independent cinemas can continue to provide the service they provide. I hope this Parliament recognises that we hope that cinemas in New Zealand in the future will not just be those provided by the large international chains but will still represent the communities that they serve.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I also rise to speak in support of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill picking up from where my colleague Grant Robertson left off. I cannot claim to have been kicked out of a cinema for rollingjaffas down the aisle in quite the same way that he can and so perhaps I lose some streetcred for that but I did spend the past Sunday morning in one of the cinemas that my colleague Clare Curran mentioned earlier on in the debate the Rialto.Grant Robertson: Slacker!Dr DAVID CLARK: See it is confession time now. My colleague draws attention to it. Rialto Cinemas in Dunedin was the venue. I was there for a kindergarten fund-raiser along with a young relative of mine and many many other young relatives of other folk connected to this kindergarten. I think it is an interesting example because this is precisely the kind of event that is potentially affected by this legislation.The issue we are discussing here is whether the cinemas—thearthouse cinemas the small rural cinemas and also the cinemas in the regions—are able and ready to adapt to a more free-market environment. We were told in the submissions to the Commerce Committee that some cinemas had not yet made the expensive conversion to digital that they needed more time and that this protection mechanism would enable more of these cinemas to be able to continue to contribute to their communities in the way that they do through providing a venue for entertainment and also providing a venue where things like that very fund-raiser happen.The movie I saw incidentally was calledPlanes a variant on theCars theme. I will not be rushing back.Grant Robertson: Tolstoy?Dr DAVID CLARK: Tolstoy no—no it was not. I will not be rushing back but I did leave with a warm sense that I had contributed to that kindergarten fund-raiser and that I had been a part of a community event—something that it is harder to argue is the case when one sits at home watching a DVD of the same movie currently 9 months later but according to this legislation in future 5 months later. It is certainly these popular movies that we are told are most likely to be affected by this change in the legislation.If we look at the legislation it is a very simple bill. Seldom do we have such simple bills in the House that are not members’ bills. In fact some might wonder why we are spending quite so much parliamentary time debating this bill which we primarily all agree on when it might have been rolled into an omnibus bill or similar. In any case the entire bill is contained on pages 1 and 2 of the bill because there are only two pages as my colleague points out. The guts of it is in clause 4 which flows over from page 1 to page 2 and amends the current legislation by replacing section 35(3)(a) and (b) of the Copyright Act with “(a) imports a copy of the film into New Zealand within 5 months of the date that the film is first made available to the public; and (b) knows or has reason to believe that the film is imported into New Zealand within 5 months of that date;”. It is looking at the people who might be affected by it. That changes from the previous 9-month rule. Then finally it talks about the date upon which the legislation expires and changes that from 31 October 2013 to 31 October 2016. That is all this bill contains. That is all this bill contains apart from an attractive title and some brief explanations for those at home who might be looking at this piece of paper.This is one of the simpler bills we have to deal with. But the principle is sound and the debates were robust in the select committee as we have heard. The National Party has come out in favour of market protections and the Green Party has come out in favour of the constructive destruction of the market. It is fair to say that we had a fair bit of debate before we ended in those positions. Labour too agreed that it would support this measure but only on the basis that this is the very last time that this measure will not be applied further and that this is the once and for all extension—that cinemas must adapt and must adopt the new technologies or move on.There are of course other ways to fix this problem which have not been touched on in this debate. One of them would be to make sure that ordinary citizens had enough money in their pockets to afford the price of cinema tickets. It is interesting that we have not discussed that along the way. It is true particularly in the regions where many of these theatres are that people are feeling squeezed in the small towns in this country. The kind of two-speed economy that has developed in this country has an effect where pressure is put on cinemas that might otherwise not exist. We could suggest to the Government that perhaps by doing simple things like raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour something that would actually get people over the line to be able to afford food for their families albeit not particularly glamorous at that rate would be a sensible way of tackling this problem or making sure that median wages are rising rather than falling as they have been under this Government or making sure that housing is affordable so that people are not paying extraordinary mortgages or making sure that power is affordable so that people are not faced with power bills at the end of the month that they cannot pay.Of course Labour has policies to address these issues. I mention in passing the NZ Power proposal that Labour has brought to the table. When in Government we will stop the increases in price rises—the out-of-control increases in price rises—in the electricitysector by making sure that we buy the power at a reasonable rate at the cost of production plus a fair return and then make sure it is distributed through a fair market system at the retail level. That solution would make sure that people had more money in their pockets to afford to go to the cinema—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Come back to the bill.Dr DAVID CLARK: —which is precisely the point I was making. Otherwise we might find ourselves extending that clause 4 again in this Parliament because people would not have the money to go to the cinema and we would fear a complete collapse of our cinema system. I am simply suggesting that there are other ways of addressing this issue. Through adequate wages through addressing the power issues and through addressing unaffordable housing we could perhaps come to a more sensible solution to this problem. In any case we will be supporting this bill because we think that in the meantime this transition period for cinemas is a reasonable thing to request. It is fair. They are providing a service to those small communities. While we are running this two-speed economy under the National Government we will let this go but Labour will fix the causes of the problem and then New Zealand will be better as a whole. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is my pleasure to take the final call I think on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill to consolidate the thoughts of my colleagues on this bill. I will start with the bill because that is what you probably want me to do. As my colleague David Clark mentioned it is a very thin bill and the main part of it is in clause 4 which amends section 35 of the parent legislation. For those at home who might be watching because they are very interested in this debate the bill does change the amount of time after which a film can be first made available from 9 months to 5 months and it also makes sure that the legislation which expires on 31 October 2013 is extended to 31 October 2016. So that is in essence what is within this bill.It is a bill that has finely balanced support from the Labour Party members because although we disagree with some of the arguments made by the Government and the industry we have some concerns around the viability of smaller independent cinemas in areas outside of the main centres and also in rural areas. My colleague Clare Curran was earlier on rattling off a number of cinemas in areas around the country and she failed to mention one that is in my electorate which is the Light House Cinema atPāuatahanui. It is a lovely spot. If Mr Macindoe would like to visit some time I would quite happily take him to the movies.Tim Macindoe: I’d love to. If you’re paying I’ll be there.KRIS FAAFOI: You can take that up if you like. But the cinema is in a rural area of my electorate and it is one of these—Tim Macindoe: I haven’t seenMr Pip yet. Is it on?KRIS FAAFOI: I am not sure whetherMr Pip is on there. It is one of those independent cinemas that probably show morearthouse movies but from time to time it shows popular movies that we would see in some of the bigger chains like—does Hoyts still exist; it has been a long time since I have been to the movies—or the Reading Cinemas that you might see in central Wellington. It is what you would call a “destination cinema”; you go there because it is a bit different. There was concern from a number of these independent cinemas around the country and that is why we on this side of the Chamber—I think Clare Curran used the word “grudgingly”—have agreed to support this legislation to ensure that there is a period of grace for those smaller independent cinemas to be able to make the transition to using more digital technology and also be able to change their business model. I think that is also the case for some of the larger cinema operators.As I think Grant Robertson mentioned we do have some concerns that although this bill does address some issues around this industry does it really take a bigger-picture look at the copyright issues that we are faced with because of the rapid development of technology that we have at the moment? The Government did I think commit to a review of copyright and instead of doing that and following through with it it has decided to I guess you could say meet the requests of the larger cinema operators just to push the extension date out to 31 October 2016 and make sure that there is still a grace period even though it is changing from 9 months to 5 months. We do as I say have finely balanced support for this bill on those two points but it is very very guarded because we do think that it is the last chance for the cinema industry to make the changes it needs to make to the business model and to make sure that it is adapting to the digital technology that currently exists.We also had some concerns around this because of the way that the cinema industry is operating. We thought there was a degree of protectionism here because it wants a delay in the release on DVD of some movies. We believe that that was causing some cinemas to charge what we call—I think David Clark was talking about it—unreasonable prices to go to the movies. That was making it much more costly for Kiwi families to have an outing to the cinema and if the public was not able to legally obtain the material after it had been released elsewhere in the world they would get hold of it in some other illegal manner through the internet. That was another concern that we had on this side of the Chamber.We think that the time frame given to cinemas to change which at the moment is to the end of October 2016 is a little lenient. We believe that maybe to 2015 is plenty of time for them to make the innovative changes that they need to make in terms of technology. We hope that maybe some cinema operators will not take the full 3 years and may be able to make the transition to fully digital and also change their business models well before that. But as we say we think that 2 years is certainly enough time for them to change their ways.This bill and the need for more urgency around it have come about because of the changing technology. Back in the days when we watched our first movies—Grant Robertson has talked about being kicked out of a cinema for rollingjaffas and I understand that David Clark’s first movie was the second in theStar WarsseriesThe Empire Strikes Back and he has spoken about that at length in his contributions—when a movie was released it took years to get to New Zealand. But with the way that the internet operates at the moment you can almost instantly get a movie when it is released somewhere else. That makes it a bit of a farce we believe on this side of the Chamber that there is a delay in movies being shown at cinemas when they are released somewhere else in the world for I guess you could say their world premieres. We do not believe that the movie industry here has adapted enough to be able to move fast enough. It still needs protection for that first 5 months in this bill—it was that first 9 months in the previous Act—before those movies can be shown or sold on DVD here in New Zealand. Times have changed and that is why we believe that this legislation should change to meet the technology changes and the rapid increases in technology.As I say we do give this finely balanced support qualified support. We want to make sure that the big chains more or less move faster to adapt to the changes in technology and as I say—I will make this point again—to make sure that they change their technology and change their business model to one that works more fairly for consumers. But our support for this legislation is to protect the smaller operators in rural areas like the Light House Cinema inPāuatahanui Porirua and those outside the main areas. It is those cinema operators that stand to lose either quite a lot of money or their whole operation because they simply would not have the time or the wherewithal to beable to respond to the changes in the legislation. So we do support the bill in a qualified way. We understand that this will keep some of those smaller independent operators above water.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill(No 2)In CommitteeHon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Local Government): I seek leave for there to be a single debate on all clauses of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) with each question to be put separately at the conclusion of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.Clauses 1 to 5Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you for the opportunity to address this bill and before I do can I just congratulate those members of the House who have had changes to their roles. All the best for the future. Mr Galloway it is good to have a chance—Iain Lees-Galloway: Lees-Galloway.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —Mr Lees-Galloway I am sorry—to be in the whip’s chair which is always a challenge but all the best.I just wanted to make a few comments about the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) firstly to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work that it has done on the bill and particularly Nicky Wagner as the chair. Obviously the bill has been non-controversial and has made great progress through the select committee stage. Can I thank those members throughout the Chamber. When one looks at the select committee’s report-back paper it is a fairly brief one. The comments at the end saying that the committee has no matters to bring to the attention of the House is an interesting point. Actually members of the public often will not appreciate that within the House some 60 to 65 percent of the legislation that passes through the House is legislation that the two main parties support. We do not want people to know that too much. I mean there is no news in that but this is an example of that occurring today.It is a good bill—it is a good bill. It provides for local boards to delegate their powers. It moves on from some regulations that were put in place back in 2010 when the amalgamated Auckland Council came together. There were provisional regulations put in place then that expire on 31 October this year. So this simple bill just quite simply puts the ability to delegate powers from local boards into legislation and is carrying that on in perpetuity.So it is a good bill. It is short and concise. I think it goes to the heart of how well local boards are working in Auckland. There was some concern when the Auckland Council came together about how it would work how it would land but I think that atthis point in time there are not many in this House who would actually go back to the old council model. I think there is good—Phil Twyford: Andrew Williams.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Andrew Williams perhaps. I see that even New Zealand First members are shaking their heads down there now.Tracey Martin: Exceptional—local boards are exceptional.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Oh local boards are exceptional. We look forward to hearing about that.Phil Twyford: Eugenie Sage might.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Eugenie Sage might? Well we will let Eugenie have her own words on this particular bill.I want to commend the bill. It is good progress. I think this is a good advance. Local boards are a key part of the Auckland community now and having the ability for them to delegate powers is an essential law which we deliver tonight. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): This Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) which the Minister of Local Government has accurately described as a sort of non-controversial bill is about the delegation of powers by local boards to council staff to get things done. It is as we have said in earlier debates basically the result of incompetence by the Government putting in provisions. The delegation of powers should never have been in legislation that had a sunset clause.We are debating this now only because the Government messed up the drafting of that transitional legislation for the Auckland super-city but it is a very timely opportunity to reflect on the National Party’s roll call of shame when it comes to Auckland—the roll call of shame. There is a long list—a long list—of Roman generals sent by the National Party to quell the natives north of the Bombay Hills and that is what I want to make some comment on because it relates very closely to the democracy that is at the heart of this bill. It started with the “little general” from Epsom Rodney Hide who was delegated by the John Key Government to set up the Auckland super-city and to destroy everything that had stood there before inTāmaki-makau-rau to destroy the eight existing territorial authorities and replace them with this great shining shrine of the Auckland super-city. That was Rodney Hide’s mission and he set about constructing a super-city in Auckland with a heavily corporatised structure so that it could be sold off in the future.That was Rodney Hide’s great legacy. He rode roughshod in spite of the important democratic provisions that ended up in the legislation encapsulated in the local boards that we are debating tonight. He rode roughshod over Auckland—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Look the history lesson is fine but it has got to be pertinent to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2).PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Chairperson for reminding me of that. The next person who played an important role in the establishment of these local boards was John Banks a current member of this House who ran for the mayoralty and was thrashed by Len Brown—absolutely thrashed—because Len Brown stood up for local boards. He believes in democracy unlike the National Party and unlike John Banks. Len Brown stood up for the power of local boards and John Banks was thrashed.The next Roman general who was sent to subdue the natives in Auckland was Murray McCully who tried to humiliate Len Brown over the Rugby World Cup. He went to Auckland and he tried to sheet home to Len Brown all of the blame for the transport fiasco—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am trying to get in the theme and the spirit of the member—[Interruption]—the vibe. But as I said history is fine. Can wetalk about the bill? Can you relate what you are saying to the bill? We have had enough of the history lesson.PHIL TWYFORD: I am going to bring it all the way back to Nick Smith who is an important character—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh no no the bill.PHIL TWYFORD: Well this bill is about democracy in Auckland. It is about the right of local grassroots communities to have a say in the running of the affairs of their cities. That is what this bill is about. If there is one Minister in this Government who shows no sympathy and no understanding for the aspirations that Aucklanders have for a say in the running of their city it is Nick Smith. He turned up in Auckland went rampaging around Auckland earlier this year accusing the mayor Len Brown of killing the dreams of Aucklanders because their planning regulations were somehow at fault for the housing affordability—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am going to terminate this speech because I have asked the member—[Interruption]—I am on my feet—to relate what he was doing to the bill. He has had three warnings so I am just terminating it. He can seek another call later but right now that is the end of that call.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I rise to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) which actually reinforces local democracy inside of Auckland.Maggie Barry: Says the double-dipper!TRACEY MARTIN: Oh how very interesting the comment shouted across the floor is—the fact that I work twice as hard as that member is probably a poor sign. But let us come back to the bill in question and what it does. It reinforces the non-hierarchical co-governance model that is Auckland City. Without it then God save the people of Auckland would be all I would say.The local boards are the ones that for the last 3 years have fought to make the city the success that it is and to maintain the voice of the communities at that level. Many of the local boards have kept some of their delegations particularly around land use and the use of the parks and reserves to make sure that Auckland City could not take away the local voice on what happens inside their parks reserves and sports fields.The local boards have again and again and again gone into the governing body and reinforced that this is a city of many communities with many diverse needs the Rodney Local Board probably more often than many. The Waiheke Local Board has been there quite a lot as well. But the Rodney Local Board which covers 46 percent of the land mass of Auckland with a rural voice has needed these delegations and has needed this opportunity and the city has needed those local boards.I do not want to take up a lot of time because this bill is necessary. Not only is it necessary but it is absolutely vital that when considering any other amalgamation inside this country local boards are part of that decision making and rural areas are given the ability to stay outside of any amalgamated city; if not they must be given a strong strong voice at any governing body level through that representation at a local board level. I commend the Minister of Local Government for extending these delegations and I wish all the local boards of Auckland well with the new members who are successful in the coming local body elections.Su’aWILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): We find ourselves again at this juncture where the Opposition is having to clean up the Government’s mess a mess that it created when it rushed into the reform of the Auckland region without giving due consideration. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) also highlights that the Government got it wrong. The Government got it wrong and I want to follow the theme that my colleague Phil Twyford began. He talked about a littlegeneral and you will recall this House debating that particular bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and how the people of Auckland were retaliating against the bullying tactics of this particular Government and how Mr Hide who was the Minister of Local Government who ushered that bill through the House in those early stages rushed as it was did not care about the impact that it would have on the people. In fact I recall that some of the submitters on that particular part of that bill in those early stages referred to Mr Hide as this “Dark Knight” who was turning up to—and these are their own words—rape and pillage the Auckland region by destroying local democracy.So I am pleased that we are able to help the Government fix up the mess that it created by continuing the powers that local boards ought to have in carrying out their particular work. The local board that services my community theMāngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board is a champion of a local board except for one member on there and that member is a former National Party chair of that particular electorate but she will not be standing and therefore I am pleased to note that she is gone. But she is also one of the members who as I understand it when the local board was talking about supporting the living wage did not support the decision of theMāngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board.It might be funny when we say that this is the Government’s mess and it would be funny if it did not cost money. I recall in those earlier debates that this was the Government that kept harping on about the rates increases and that the structure it had would deal with the rates increases. In fact I recall Mr Hide saying you know that Aucklanders would not have to pay for rates increases and he kept on complaining about too many workers servicing the Auckland region. And there were people in the Auckland region who believed that rhetoric but I think more and more people now recognise that they were duped by that Minister and they were duped by this particular Government. It was difficult for people to believe then because there was a bit of emotion around the whole reform that the Government introduced. But now they see that Mr Hide was saying that there would be no rates increases and that somehow this structure which would service 1.5 million Aucklanders would not impact on the ratepayers generally. But look what we did not understand at that time was that Mr Hide and his National Government lumped upon all the local boards throughout Auckland a huge bill of $200 million - plus even though Mr Hide went out and about and said that the merger would cost only $90 million. We now know that it was in the vicinity of $200 million or more.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Come back to the bill.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Well yes Mr Chairperson I am. The point I am making here is that there were many promises made to the people of the Auckland region—promises that today local board members of the 21 local boards as well as the councillors have to try to fix. That is the purpose that we are here for. We are trying to fix the mess that this Government has made. So absolutely we want to extend the powers to the local board to be able to get on with the work that it has been elected to carry out.I want to talk more about the local board inMāngere andŌtāhuhu. We have got seven members in there. It is the local board that represents both the region ofMāngere as well asŌtāhuhu. I suspect that another mess that we are going to have to clean up at some stage is the fact that theMāngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board is a bit lopsided. It has six representatives fromMāngere and one representative fromŌtāhuhu. I suspect also that when you look at theŌtara-Papatoetoe Local Board again you would see a bit of lopsidedness there. Papatoetoe has four members on it whereasŌtara has three. These are all significant communities—all significant communities. Again that is another mess that we are probably going to have to pick up.I note that the other night theMāngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board complained about the fact that there is insufficient quality staff supporting them. That reminded me again that when this Government was ushering this particular bill through the House Mr Hide I recollect complained that there were too many staff members servicing the Auckland region in the vicinity of about 10000 people and his plan was: “Let’s get rid of some of those staff.” And they got rid of about 2000 staff members. Members of the Committee may recall thatThe Aucklander newspaper conducted an investigation at the time of what this would mean. What the newspaper found out was that Auckland ratepayers were going to be billed $2 million a month to outsource planning work to private consultants. Not only that but the newspaper also found out that the value of contracts let in the planning department was in the vicinity of $8.75 million. A lot of the ratepayers from Auckland do not know about that and I think it is our duty to help them understand that despite the rhetoric of this Government that this structure was going to save ratepayers money what it actually did was it lumped millions and millions of dollars on the shoulders of ratepayers in Auckland. That is the mess that the Auckland Council people like Len Brown and people like PennyHulse the deputy mayor are trying to fix at the moment.Here is the thing with the local boards. When this Government brought in this particular structure it did away with existing councils—Manukau for one. It was envisioned at that time that we would not lose our culture and we would not lose significant asset holdings of the council. We were told that that was not going to happen. Well what has happened now is exactly what we envisioned would happen. We have lost the culture of people and community that Manukau built up over the years. We have lost our shareholdings in the airport that we once prided ourselves on. In fact we have lost the ability to provide free swimming pools to elders as a result of the structure that this Government imposed on Auckland ratepayers.So absolutely we are trying to clean up the mess that this Government created. We are starting off with agreeing to this technical bill in that we are saying that yes we will support this bill to ensure that local board members are able to carry out their functions and service the community that has elected them on there.I note that the voting papers came out on Friday. I have not received mine yet. Hopefully I will get them soon. But I am looking forward to electing all seven members of a particular ticket that is running in our electorate. I will not say who the Labour Party members are. They know who they are. There are other tickets running along there. I am hopeful that when people read the brochure that is sent out with their voting papers they will be able to identify the seven members there. The point when it all comes down to it is that the theme that Phil Twyford started our response with is absolutely correct: that is how the people of Auckland felt. When they said that Rodney Hide was the “Dark Knight” and a dark horse what they did not envision was that the next general to roll up would be John Banks. But he rolled up and flew inin a helicopter. Then he could not decide whose helicopter it was.DENISE ROCHE (Green): Kia ora. The Greens will be supporting this bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) but I am going to take a short call to talk about local boards and their delegations. Like previous speakers we actually think that this legislation should have come to the House a lot sooner not on the eve of the elections. However it is a good time to reflect on how the super-city structure has been operating and how local boards have been operating as well.In preparation for the Committee stage of this bill I have been looking at the functions of the local boards and refamiliarising myself with the delegations. The role of the local boards is to enable democratic local decision-making in the super-city area the Auckland Council area. That is an area that encompasses about 1.4 million peopleand there are 21 local boards that are tasked with the job of protecting and enabling local decision-making. That is a total of 149 local board members.When the super-city was created in 2009 through the legislation that came from the National Government there was a lot of panic I would have to say in my community. There was a lot of fear that we would lose our decision making and that we would be unable to make any progress with what is a very large bureaucratic machine that runs our city. I have to say that the local boards have protected some of that decision making. They have not been able to protect as much of the decision making as previous community boards and previous councils did and that I guess was the whole point of the amalgamation.But the biggest area where local boards have had trouble and where general citizens residents and ratepayers of Auckland have had difficulty is in trying to find out what happens with the council-controlled organisations. I am not the only person who has issues with the council-controlled organisations and in particular the seven big ones that were set up through the legislation that set up the amalgamated city. Those council-controlled organisations are not democratically elected and frequently are not accountable. I guess that what happened with Ports of Auckland and the dispute there over the last year is an example of the worst sort of lack of accountability. Ports of Auckland is owned by the citizens of Auckland and governed by a board of directors. That board of directors is accountable to a council-controlled organisation that was set up through the amalgamation of the super-city and that council-controlled organisation is Auckland Council Investments Ltd. None of the councillors no local board members and no elected official was able to get a straight answer about the cost of the industrial action that occurred during the dispute at the Auckland ports. My point is that democracy was on the line and democracy has been on the line as a result of the amalgamation. The people who are holding the line are the local boards and the local board members.There has recently been an analysis of how the super-city is working. In fact the Auckland University of Technology School of Social Sciences and Public Policy recently has released its research on what it calls the super-city project. It released it in August. The mark that it gave to the super-city or Auckland Council was a B. One of the comments it made was that the structure of local boards and the council—the council if you will remember is the governing body on one side and local boards on another—is not particularly well understood. I guess that is something we have to continue to work on.It will be interesting to see what the voting return will be for the elections coming up because even in the last elections for the council which were the first elections for local board members the return rate was about 51 percent. Only 51 percent of Auckland ratepayers actually voted for their councillors their local board members so only 51 percent voted for their elected representatives.In smaller areas—and I think it is true with the Rodney local board area as well; it is certainly true with Waiheke—the voter turnout was a lot higher. On Waiheke Island where we managed to keep our own local board there was about a 64 percent voter turnout but we still have about a third of the people not participating in the democratic process. When people do not participate in the democratic process they leave the decision making up to decision makers who have not been elected by a true majority. In these coming elections we are seeing more of an interest and certainly on Waiheke the election of the local board members is almost a blood sport—that was my experience.Carol Beaumont: What happened to peace and love on Waiheke?DENISE ROCHE: We take our local democracy incredibly seriously. Some of the delegations that the local boards have been able to exercise over the last 3 years havenot just included developing local board plans negotiating local board agreements and negotiating service levels but been around advocacy on regulatory matters as well. I have to say that the majority of members on our local board on Waiheke have been absolutely appalling and have not been advocating for our community and yet it says specifically in the delegations and in the purpose of local boards in the governance statement for Auckland Council that that is a role for local boards—that they advocate. That is what they are supposed to be doing.So these elections on Waiheke are seeing quite a lot of discussion about that role. We have had people saying that local boards are powerless that local boards cannot make decisions and that they are unable to properly represent their communities to the council because they are limited in what the delegations say and that is simply not the case. I know for a fact that the only local board member in this House Tracey Martin has worked very hard and that her local board has worked very hard to advocate to Auckland Council on behalf of the people of Rodney because it is a co-governance arrangement. We will be supporting this bill through to its final reading. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) which as my colleagues have already raised is a technical bill that will enable local boards to delegate responsibilities duties or powers that are already conferred upon them by the Local Government Act. So essentially it allows them to keep doing what they were doing but I think it is important to be clear that what they have been doing has not always been a clearly defined role. In fact local boards very early on under the new super-city structure very much had to carve out the roles that they would play. It was very ill-defined as set out in the primary legislation or as not set out in the primary legislation as the case may be.I want to pay tribute to local board members who have done a fantastic job over the past wee while the past few years of interpreting their role defining their role and doing as much as they could to give local voice local say in the areas they were serving where actually in many ways the super-city legislation gave them very few powers. So they have had to do a lot of work interfacing with council-controlled organisations and the council in order to define their role as place makers.As a resident in central Auckland obviously I sit under the area of theWaitematā Local Board which in particular I want to say has really been an exemplary board in terms of defining its role and working alongside the council-controlled organisations and the local council. In particular it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the role of Shale Chambers on that board as chair and some of his team members like Jesse Chalmers who is leaving the board and is moving on but there is also Christopher DempseyPippaCoom and TriciaReade.Carol Beaumont: Great board.JACINDA ARDERN: They are particularly unified in the—did I sayPippaCoom? I hope I did. They are particularly unified as a team because they shared a vision as City Vision candidates. But some of the work that they did in particular gives the Committee an indication of where the board has delegated some of its voice back out to the community. In particular they are things like the Ponsonby Roadmasterplan where the board took the initiative to create a reference group to work alongside the community and business and other representative groups to come up with amasterplan to consult the community on and it is a particularly innovative plan. It really challenges some of the views that have been held in the past by council-controlled organisations like Auckland Transport around the greater use of cycle lanes and around how you integrate that in very busy thoroughfares like Ponsonby Road and how you encourage the greater use of public transport and other modes of transport. That is a way that this local boardhas chosen to use its duties and the powers conferred on it by Auckland Council to actually empower members of the local community and it has been very successful at that.There have been other examples where I have witnessed for instance the board having to grapple with the very contentious issue of parking. In areas like SaintMarys Bay and Freemans Bay you get overflow from the city where people seek to park there particularly because we have had an improvement of a lot of theoverbridges into the city—this being another initiative of the local board. That means that commuters can park in the suburbs and quickly commute down into the city. We are being a victim of the local board’s own success. To deal with that the local board has taken the initiative to work with the council-controlled organisation and work with Auckland Transport to try to come up with something that works for the residents where they get first dibs on their local parking. But how you manage that in a way that is cost-effective is very hard and so I commend the local board for what it has done there.Use of public space is another area where at first there was a view that local boards would be able to determine only things like what the playground equipment would look like. They have managed to go well beyond what the primary legislation originally set out for them and to do things like in my local area where I live where the local board has proposed an upgrade of Myers Park. It has been a thorn in the side of residents that we have a beautiful public space in the centre of Auckland City that has become a space that is simply not viewed as a safe space by public residents. It is an inner-city park there has not always been good lighting it is surrounded by quite mature vegetation and it has been used by the homeless and others as a place to sleep in the evenings and so people have sometimes avoided that area. The local board has gone through multiple public consultations on a plan to upgrade that space and again the consultation has been fantastic and the local interaction. It has not been consultation that has been conducted out of Auckland Council; it has been right there in the inner city and that has been absolutely fantastic.Some of the other innovative things that local boards have been able to do through these powers of delegation through the proper interaction between the board and the council-controlled organisations but even through central government agencies like the New Zealand Transport Agency have been like those in Auckland Central where there are spaces like the Campbell Free Kindergarten. Almost anyone who has driven through Auckland may at some point have driven past this. When you come to Victoria Park Market and you have got the Birdcage there on the right-hand side on the left you have an extraordinarily old kindergarten that sits on the edge of Victoria Park. That was a historic building that essentially was sitting right next to a massive piece of transport infrastructure which was the area where the New Zealand Transport Agency was building the tunnel.The local board did something very very innovative. It came together with the New Zealand Transport Agency and said: “Look we’ve got a space that needs to be upgraded and that we could use as a public space.” The New Zealand Transport Agency needed an extra storage facility for some of the equipment working around the tunnel. They collaborated upgraded the space and now we have a fantastic community facility that is absolutely brilliant.But it is not just that. Local boards are required to constantly input into what the council is doing. We cannot underestimate how much work is required in that regard. I counted in the last year alone to July 2013 that theWaitematā Local Board consulted on 25 different plans or things like alcohol plans—absolutely any and every initiative you can think of it was inputting back to council on. So that is an example of where we have that ongoing two-way relationship.Where it has been absolutely critical has been areas like the Auckland Unitary Plan obviously the biggest guiding document for Auckland City but also for controversial issues like the local alcohol plans where we really require local input in order to guide what local residents want to happen in their area. We do run the risk if we do not have that local voice of having for instance one community making a decision about having a one-way-door policy that ends at a certain time—it might be earlier than say what is going to happen on K Road—and then we will suddenly get the flow-on effect of everyone coming into the city as a result of those differing plans. Having a local board able to tap into what is going on in those other areas listening to your community voice listening to business associations and constructing something that works for everyone is absolutely fantastic.Not always is it the local board guiding some of the activity in the local area. Sometimes it is the community like in my area where the K Road safety group has formed itself because of ongoing safety issues. In that instance the local board has actively said: “Look we’ll come on board and help work with you to ensure that we make the most of the council facilities that we have access to as a delegated local board area.” But also it is willing to champion to local council when it makes the wrong call on something because of course the council does still have those powers around planning decisions. A critical example for instance in Arch Hill at the moment is the fact thatBunnings warehouse has come and got planning consent from the council in order to build a massiveBunnings structure in the middle of a residential area—in the middle of an area where the council has otherwise indicated that this is prime residential property. We should have mixed-zone areas we should be building four storeys up and then what does it go and do? It grants planning consent forBunnings to stick a massive warehouse in Arch Hill. It is an absolute disgrace. So in that situation we have had the local board come on board and say: “We are not in favour of this. We will represent the local community to the council. We do not have delegated authority but we do have a voice that can express.”For me these are great examples of what local boards can do. That is a reason why people must vote. These are all of the issues that they have a voice on on the community’s behalf.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). I am sure others have mentioned this but really it is a very technical and short bill that Labour supports. It was reported back unchanged from the Local Government and Environment Committee and basically amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act to enable local boards to delegate responsibilities duties or powers conferred on them. In the bill the substantive bit is really the bit that says what they can delegate and the bit that says what they cannot delegate. The fact of the matter is that the reason we are here is the process used to get this legislation in the first place which rushed the legislation through under urgency. Many of us will always remember those debates that set up the so-called Auckland super-city and this is part of that.As others have mentioned tonight one of the issues around local boards was actually the absence of a clear outline of their responsibilities established in the Act itself. All Auckland-based MPs have seen a lot of work going on by our local boards and as others have said the boards have made a good fist of it. Most of them I think irrespective of their political persuasion have made a good fist of the job and tried hard to represent local communities. I am going to talk about my own board which has done some very very good things.I suppose one of the issues is that ultimately the local boards in most communities I think have still not been completely understood as to what their powers are and are not.There are still people who call them community boards for example. There is still a lot of confusion in that the governing body Auckland Council is called the council when in fact it is the governing body. Auckland Council is in fact made up of two parts: the governing body and the local boards. The local boards are a vital part of the decision-making process. There are still people in my area who fondly recall the One Tree Hill Borough Council or the Mount Wellington Borough Council or the Onehunga Borough Council. That is because people value the democracy that they had. They elected their councillors they elected their mayors and they did all of the things that they did whereas now you have got local boards that actually on the whole represent areas larger than many districts and cities in New Zealand. So there is still a need to work on what their role is and to clarify that.Auckland University of Technology has done a reportSuper City? State of Auckland that does talk about that and talks about the need for greater clarity around the role of the council both in terms of the governing body and the local boards. I think that that is a vital conversation that we need to have to strengthen the governance arrangements in Auckland our largest city. Another of the significant findings of that report is that there are too fewMāori Pacific and ethnic people and younger adults holding elected positions on the council. Also my colleague Denise Roche talked about the council-controlled organisations and specifically mentioned the need to have more women involved in the council-controlled organisations. So there are some issues there that the Auckland University of Technology has picked up.I want to talk about my own local board. It has done I think a very very good job. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has two subdivisions. The Maungakiekie part is currently represented by three community independents. They have actually been elected unopposed so they are obviously well regarded in the local community: Simon Randall Bridget Graham and Brett Clark. And there is theTāmaki subdivision which is actually a Labour team—a very good team yes—Josephine Bartley ChrisMakoare Leila Boyle and AlanVerrall. Three of those people are standing for election again just to remind voters because of course voting in the local government elections is very very important. So AlanVerrall ChrisMakoare and Josephine Bartley are all standing for re-election.Getting back to what this local board has done the major thing that the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has done is that it has delivered on the Onehunga foreshore project. It actually controls the funding of a substantial restoration of the Onehunga foreshore something that the community has fought for over many many years. It is delivering a music and arts centre in Glenn Innes. It has done a huge amount to fund community events. One thing I particularly want to look at is its focus on housing a big issue in the area. It has developed—PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): The theme that underlies this whole debate on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) is democracy and a number of colleagues have referred to the debates that took place during the passage of the super-city legislation. We debated long and hard the pros and cons of the royal commission model and the model that was then proposed and adopted by the National Government and Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government.Jacinda Ardern spoke very eloquently about the local board structure in the Auckland super-city and about how there is little real power virtually no regulatory power whatsoever and limited budgets and she spoke about how many of the local boards have eked out a role for themselves. I think it is fair to say that the model that was adopted essentially sees the local boards as an advocacy platform. They are a kind of public engagement mechanism if you like for the super-city. There is not much in the way of control of resources and assets. There is not much in the way of rule orregulation making. I think that has always been the Achilles heel of the structure—that it centralises so much power in the governing body of Auckland Council.The flip side to that is that the governing body and the mayor have a powerful mandate clear accountability and a great deal of ability to lead and provide leadership. We have seen that in the debate about Auckland’s transport agenda where Len Brown has led very very strongly on building a world-class transport system for Auckland. We have seen successive Ministers of Transport—Steven Joyce Gerry Brownlee—stand as human roadblocks in the way of the aspirations of the people of Auckland for a modern public transport system.The local boards have no mandate and no power to articulate those aspirations and it is really left to the governing body and the mayor to do so. I think it is all credit to Len Brown that he has successfully rolled over Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce—Grant Robertson: That is quite something.PHIL TWYFORD: —on the issue of the City Rail Link. He has rolled them over on the question of the City Rail Link and has won that battle. So Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee were just the latest of the generals sent by Wellington to subdue the natives.The last issue on this general theme of democracy around the local boards is that I think it is fair to say that both of the council organisations—the governing body and the local boards—have stood up for their communities. They have stood up and articulated the aspirations for their communities. I think that is a triumph for the democratic spirit.The last of the generals sent from Wellington to quell the Aucklanders was Maurice Williamson who thought that he could—in the flush from his celebrity status in the gay marriage debate and from his non-appearance on theEllenDeGeneres Show—try his luck in Auckland. It was up to David Farrar to tell him that he was 25 points behind in the opinion polls. It was only a few days later that Maurice Williamson withdrew with his tail between his legs.So along with the story of these local boards I think it is really a victory for the democratic spirit and the ability of good people in their communities to make the best of a heavily centralised governance model to make these local boards work to stand up for their communities to use the boards as a platform to make proposals to engage with the local alcohol plans and the liquor licensing units that Jacinda Ardern talked about and to participate in the debate around the Auckland Unitary Plan as they have done. I think all these things are a credit to the people who put themselves up for election to serve their communities through these local boards. And in spite of the efforts of a roll-call of National Ministers who have set out to constrain Auckland democracy one after the other they have been sent packing.I think it is true that Aucklanders have made the super-city work in spite of the best efforts of many Government Ministers and mayoral candidates. I think that is something we should be very grateful for. It is appropriate to remember this at the time of the local government elections.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Local Government): I feel duty-bound to respond to a number of the claims that have been made by the Opposition this evening. I commenced the debate in good spirit and I intend to finish it in that spirit but really in that regard I cannot leave unanswered some of the statements that have been made. I just want to start with Mr Twyford who finished by rolling out the rhetoric that in spite of the efforts of a roll-call of National Ministers to effect democracy in Auckland—Phil Twyford: You’re the only one who’s a democrat Chris.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Ha ha! Then in the same breath Mr Twyford said that the Mayor Len Brown has led a very strong fight to build a world-class transport system. Well that is a fantastic effort. But let us think about that for a minute. How has Len Brown been able to do that? It is because we have one mayor and one council forAuckland and a mayor who has a clear vision for the city and a clear set of priorities that he and his council can drive through. And how was that delivered? It was delivered simply by the fact that people like Rodney Hide who has been criticised in this Chamber quite loudly tonight actually had the temerity to go up and deliver a super-city which has now got a clear vision and a set of priorities and which Mr Twyford supported tonight through his comments on building a world-leading transport system. So thank you for that Mr Twyford and thanks for your support.But let us be clear about something something that has not been debated tonight. Who voted against the super-city? Oh that is right—the Labour Party the Greens and New Zealand First. So it is kind of funny where we have got to now where they are supporting a central vision and a wonderful world-leading transport system—fantastic—but in the same breath they voted against the very system that allowed that to happen in the first place. So I just wanted to make that point.I also want to reply toSu’a WilliamSio’s comments about the costs and how Rodney Hide rolled out additional costs in bringing it all together. What we need to also understand is the savings that this amalgamation has delivered. In this first year alone it was $81 million. Over 10 years—Andrew Williams: Haven’t made any savings. They haven’t made any savings.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: You do not like it Mr Williams but there is $1.7 billion worth of savings over 10 years. That is the effort and that has delivered lower rates overall across Auckland. So it is important that people know that.The other thing I want to follow up on is a few comments also bySu’a William Sio who said that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) cleans up the Government’s mess. Well let us be clear: when we put the amalgamated Auckland City together no one thought that we would get a perfect solution on day one. We put this regulation-making power in place to actually allow local boards to be trialled. Actually that is a pretty sensible move. What has happened 3 years down the track? Are we changing those regulations 3 years down the track? Not one iota. So actually we got it right. We got it right.Actually if we had got it wrong and if it had not worked perfectly we would be changing that law now. Everybody in the Chamber agrees that actually the regulations now going into law were the right thing to do. So I am actually pretty proud of what we have achieved. I am proud of what Rodney Hide achieved. I am proud of what the National Government has achieved in putting this together and delivering a local voice.The last comment I want to make is in response to Tracey Martin because she made a very good point about local boards. Actually I look forward to the support of Phil Twyford and the Labour Party and of New Zealand First and the Greens for the legislation—the Local Government Amendment Bill—that will come into the House at the end of the year which allows local boards to be set up throughout the rest of the country. We are providing that democratic opportunity and those amalgamation opportunities throughout the rest of the country. So I look forward to your support and I look forward to your support of those local boards and of that provision and that option as we go down the track.I want to finish by acknowledging some of the electioneering that went on in the Labour Party speeches—[Interruption] I am not going to mention any members. That is not my role as the Minister of Local Government. I want to wish all members and all candidates the best of luck as we roll into this election. I want to ask all New Zealanders to step up and vote and to be part of the democratic process. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 agreed to.Clause 5 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisions and provisions relating to Arts CouncilGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I was hoping that the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage might take the first call in this Committee stage debate to explain why the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill has sat on the Order Paper for so long. Just to refresh the memory of colleagues the Government Administration Committee was taking submissions on this bill in October 2010. It was so long ago that France was the Rugby World Cup champion—that is how long ago it was. It was so long ago that Mr Finlayson did not have that sheen of grey that sits across his hair tonight as we sit here. It was so long ago but it was so urgent to bring this bill forward to this House. Yet here we are in 2013 and finally the Minister has got around to the Committee stage of this bill.Chris Auchinvole: Good things take time.GRANT ROBERTSON: Well on this side of the Chamber we say that that is typical of the lazy approach of this Minister to the arts.This is the Minister who wants to claim credit for what he calls the golden age of arts in New Zealand. There he was the other night fiendishly writing away on Twitter telling us that EleanorCatton’s success in her short-listing for the Man Booker Prize was all Chris Finlayson’s work. It was all Chris Finlayson’s work. He was proud of that. He then took some advice and heard thatLorde’s music was also something that he should say he could take credit for. It was slightly outside his usual tastes which range somewhere between Mozart and Neil Diamond—he is not sure where. So he took credit for both of those artistic successes for New Zealand. But this bill—Hon Judith Collins: I suppose that member took credit for DavidCunliffe’s CV did he?GRANT ROBERTSON: What was that sorry?Hon Judith Collins: I suppose that member took credit for DavidCunliffe’s CV.GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh there is Judith Collins once again bringing us back to the big issues of the day—the big issues of the day from Judith Collins.The truth is that this is the best that this Minister can do when it comes to bringing a bill to this House about how to encourage and support the creative sector in New Zealand. The best the Minister can do is sit around for 3 years come back to this House and create a committee—because that is what the bill does. That is essentially Chris Finlayson’s vision for how to turbocharge the creative sector in New Zealand: create a committee of 13 people. That is all that Chris Finlayson is bringing to the Committee tonight. We would have thought perhaps on this side of the Chamber—and perhaps the Minister will take a call and tell us exactly what it is that has happened over the last few years that has meant that this bill has been delayed. He has obviously been anguishing in his mind about whether it should be 13 members or 12. Presumably he has chosen 13 because it is him and his 12 disciples. That is presumably why the Minister has chosen the number 13.I actually note that clause 11 in Part 1 of the bill allows the Minister to appoint the board. That is not unheard of in these kinds of organisations but what has subtly beentaken out of the 1994 Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act which we are repealing here is section 9(5) which allows for public submissions on who might be on the board. That has subtly been removed to ensure that Mr Finlayson is the person who will control absolutely who is on this new board that is being created.It has been so long since the House had the opportunity to discuss this legislation that it is worth traversing exactly what it does. It creates a new committee for the Arts Council of 13 members and it disestablishes at the same time Te Waka Toi and the Pacific Arts Committee.On this side of the Chamber we have gone through this bill again and we have talked again to people in the sector and the reality is that this is a missed opportunity by the Government to actually do something about making sure that Creative New Zealand and the Arts Council which governs Creative New Zealand are actually in touch with what is happening in the arts community in New Zealand. Unfortunately that opportunity has been lost. We continue to wait for the really strong justification from this Minister for why he is disestablishing those bodies and for him to be able to show to this Committee that this new 13-person committee will actually be able to fairly represent the diverse interests of the arts communities in New Zealand. For instance will it be able to represent the diverse Pasifika cultures by moving from the Pacific Arts Committee down to a—Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I was very disappointed that on this most auspicious day when Jacinda Ardern was appointed the arts spokesperson for the Labour Party she did not take the first call. I can understand why Mr Robertson is bitter and upset about the fact that having been rolled for deputy leader and leader he has now been rolled as arts spokesperson but I was hoping that Miss Ardern would make a contribution on this most important of bills the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. The Arts Council makes a tremendous contribution to the arts in New Zealand and indeed has done so since it was created by a National Government because the golden years of the arts always occur under a National Government. It has made a significant contribution across a wide range of art forms—for example fiction and I am sure that if David Cunliffe was minded to he could submit his CV for the Prime Minister’s Awards for Literary Achievement for fiction. There is a lot more to be said on that front in due course.But let me just say something because the heart of the debate and I am sure Mr Robertson would eventually have got on to it—Grant Robertson: Would have if only I’d been allowed to.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —had he had a third call. The heart of the debate really focuses on clauses 10 and 11. Mr Robertson seems to have a concern about the fact that the Arts Board and Te Waka Toi are to be replaced by this new more streamlined structure. Unlike Mr Robertson I can advise the Committee that I have direct experience of this body having served on the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand from 1995 to 2001. In what was truly a golden period I was chair of the Arts Board from 1998 to 2001. The Arts Council was responsible for determining strategy and policy and the Arts Board would deliver on that strategy.There was only one problem with this beautiful structure and that is that it was bonkers because the Arts Board itself was having to do a lot of the policy work. This funder-provider split may work well with widgets or in the health industry but it does not work particularly well with the arts. So what we are doing is streamlining the functions so that there will be one body comprising 13 members not 27 governors as currently exists under the existing legislation with all the administrative burdens that that imposes. There will be one body and that will be created under what is now clause 10.It is very important as there have been some very legitimate concerns raised about the future of Te Waka Toi that one focuses—and I suggest Mr Robertson pick up his bill and look very closely as I go through it—on clause 10(4). What that provides is that for the first time at least four members of the council are indeed to be “persons who in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the Minister ofMāori Affairs are qualified for appointment having regard to their knowledge” of matters like tikangaMāori. So that is the first point. For the first time there will be four designated members to sit at the council table and they must have those qualifications.But it does not necessarily follow from that that Te Waka Toi will vanish. I invite Mr Robertson to focus on clause 11 because that provides that the four members of the Arts Council who fulfil the qualifications that I have just spoken of are to form a committee of the Arts Council and—Grant Robertson: Right—with no power Chris.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well go to subclause 2 Mr Robertson. It is important in the Committee stage not to have some lightweight rant but to focus on the work.Grant Robertson: To “give advice”—give advice.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Wrong. Look at subclause 2. The functions of the committee are “to give advice … and any other functions that the Arts Council delegates to the committee.”Grant Robertson: Oh that will do it. That will do it!Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Why does he not read the bill because he would see that Te Waka Toi or the successor body could be given a great deal of things to do—Grant Robertson: They’re subservient Chris. That’s what you want. You want them to be subservient.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and it is not a question of being subservient but a question of making sure there are much more direct linkages between the committee established under clause 11 and the committee established under clause 10. I say this to Mr Robertson for two reasons: one a simple reading of the statute which I am disappointed he has not undertaken and two from the experience that I have had as chair of the Arts Board of Creative New Zealand.Then I come to clause 10(5) which provides that for the first time two persons by reason of their knowledge of the arts and of the traditions and cultures of Pacific Island peoples are to serve on the Arts Council. The Pacific committee in my time as chair of the Arts Board was a subcommittee of the Arts Board. It had very little funding. It was disconnected from the Arts Council. Now what we have is a much more streamlined body but one where there is an ability of those who have a particular knowledge of tikangaMāori or of Pacific cultures to make a contribution to that important strategic body that is the Arts Council.So the heart of the debate on Part 1 is not all the nonsense that Mr Robertson was talking about but is really focusing laser-like on clauses 10 and 11. That is what I invite members to do because it is all very well to stand up and give one of those raves that he is accustomed to giving as the now associate spokesperson on the arts. As I say I was very disappointed that he did not yield to the new spokesperson but that is part of the ongoing divisions of the Labour Party I guess.Jacinda Ardern: He just doesn’t share or play well with others does he? He does not play well with others.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: He does not. He is not a sharing caring person. That is what distinguishes Mr Robertson from me. But you see it is clauses 10 and 11 that are what one has to focus on so I will sit down now so that the newlyminted rising star of the Labour Party the person who has gone from rising star to elder stateswoman with no intervening period Jacinda Ardern can stand up and tell us her views on clauses 10 and 11.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. After that contribution from the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage I do hope that any Arts Council of New Zealand has funding to provide the Minister with the ability to makeStorytime for Radio New Zealand National because he has an innate ability to tell a story—nobody can doubt that. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support—I beg your pardon against. The Minister’s story was so good that it almost put me off. But there we go; I caught myself in time. New Zealand First will be opposing this Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill.The purpose of the bill as the Minister just eloquently told us is to streamline the governance structure of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa otherwise known as Creative New Zealand so we all know that. The Minister just informed us of that. It is to take four governing bodies and reduce these down to one it is to take a total of 27 appointed members down to 13 and the new entity will be called the Arts Council.New Zealand First acknowledges that there is provision inside the bill for the allocation of four seats for specialists in the area of tikangaMāori andMāori arts. The Minister again just eloquently covered that. There are two seats for those with the knowledge of the traditions cultures and arts of the Pacific. However we share the concerns of the Labour Party and the Green Party that this could result in the loss of a distinctiveMāori and Pasifika identity especially with the removal of community input at a local level through other amendments inside this bill. We do not believe that the focus—the “laser-like focus”—is actually on clause 10 and clause 11; it is the loss of community consultation that this bill brings forth that is the major concern.We made mention—as has already been mentioned by Grant Robertson—that when this bill was introduced back in June 2010 New Zealand First was not available for its first reading nor was it available for the Government Administration Committee submissions. So during the period between the second reading and the Committee stage we like our Labour Party colleagues went out and took the opportunity to talk to our arts communities to actually talk to the people on the ground who had been working inside the current statute area.So we spoke to ourMāori communities to our Pasifika communities and to all other members of our communities that actually input into the arts around New Zealand. We have confidence—we do have confidence—that anyMāori and Pasifika appointees would continue to consult with their broader communities through hui and fono but we now need to recognise that with the removal of the community voice entirely from the bill these communities are not sure themselves that they will be appropriately heard. If some of the savings around having fewer entities and fewer people had been funnelled into this facility or any facility to consult then there would have been greater consultation not only for these communities but for others.On 17 July I wrote to the Minister seeking his support for my Supplementary Order Paper 35 which would require any new Arts Council to prepare a 5-year strategic plan after full consultation with our communities. On 27 July last year we were disappointed to receive the Minister’s response where he declined to support the Supplementary Order Paper and declined to support the public involvement that would have eventuated from this Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister’s response reinforced his belief that strategic planning is not valuable. I quote from the Minister’s second reading speech: “The bill also removes the requirement for the Arts Council to provide a strategic plan every 3 years—a pointless exercise if ever there was one. This requirement isconsidered to be an unnecessary duplication of the obligation to provide a statement of intent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. I remember from my time in Creative New Zealand that no sooner had one completed one strategic plan the whole exercise had to be started again. It was an utter waste of time.”I guess no one should be surprised that a Minister in this National Government expresses an opinion that having to consult with the New Zealand public was and is “an utter waste of time.” I mean after all this is only their money. This is only the money of the New Zealand taxpayer. This Government appears to forget at every turn that the Government itself has no money; all money belongs to the public of New Zealand. The Opposition at least does not believe it an utter waste of time to consult with the public on how their money is spent. If the Minister finds it tedious to consult every 3 years he had ample opportunity to extend that period. Supplementary Order Paper 35 gave him the opportunity to extend it to 5 years.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Going back to where I was before I was rudely interrupted by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Minister has some issues I might say with the fact that the Labour Party has chosen to take the arts so seriously that it has our fantastic spokesperson in Jacinda Ardern and two associate spokespeople me and Darien Fenton. I have to tell the Minister that we took this decision carefully because we needed three spokespeople to match his three different personalities. So that was why we did it—just so—Jacinda Ardern: It’s not quite enough.GRANT ROBERTSON: We know we cannot quite cover all of them but that is why we have done that.When I was speaking earlier on I was speaking about the change that has happened as the Minister notes under clause 10 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I was talking at that point about the Pacific Arts Committee. The Minister got up and said: “Isn’t it fantastic there is now going to be two people on the Arts Council who are going to be representing the Pasifika communities?”. What he fails to tell the Committee is that currently the Pacific Arts Committee has seven people on it—it has seven people on it. That enables the Pacific Arts Committee to reflect the diverse nature of the Pasifika community in New Zealand. So we now move to a situation where there will be two people who will be put in the position of having to do that. In its submission to the Government Administration Committee—which was a very long time ago so the Minister may not recall this—the Human Rights Commission actually raised this as a concern. It said that it was concerned that there would be a loss of effective advice from the broad range of people who are part of the Pacific Arts Committee.Clause 10(5) which the Minister is terribly proud of has been changed in a useful way by the select committee to acknowledge the importance of having people who understand not only Pacific arts but the traditions and cultures of the Pasifika community. So that change was made by the committee. What I would be suggesting to the Minister is that he does run the risk with these changes of losing that representation of the diverse range of Pacific cultures.The same applies too to Te Waka Toi because yes it is true that there are now going to be four people on the Arts Council who need a knowledge of Te AoMāori and tikangaMāori but the reality is that Te Waka Toi currently has seven members on it. So it also has seven members who will now be reduced down to four within this wider organisation. Again the Human Rights Commission said speaking specifically to clause 10 that it was concerned about the “loss of the distinctive identities and practices of Te Waka Toi …”. That was the same concern that we got when we spoke to community arts organisations around New Zealand.The reality is that there may well be some structural changes to Creative New Zealand and to the Arts Council that would be useful but what we have failed to be convinced by is the Government which has taken 3 years to get this bill back into the House actually coming forward to say: “This is how we are going to make sure thatMāori arts and Pacific arts in New Zealand continue to be promoted.”There were suggestions made during the select committee process by the Human Rights Commission and by other groups about how it would be possible within the structure that the Minister is proposing for there to be that specific recognition of the diversity in identities and unfortunately that has not been taken up by the Minister. So we do not believe that clause 10 of the bill does continue to provide the kind of recognition of New Zealand’s diversity that we would like to see.The Minister has justified a lot of this change as reducing bureaucracy. Well if the Minister wanted to do one thing to reduce bureaucracy within the arts sector he could take a look at the application forms that are required by Creative New Zealand—35-odd pages of repetitious content required every year by arts practitioners right around the country. Or if he wanted to talk about reducing bureaucracy and improving the operations of Creative New Zealand he could actually start thinking about how we could get funding into the regions. If we actually look at the submissions that came in on this bill in 2010 we see that a number of them came from regional arts organisations that were calling out for an Arts Council that had some representation from the provinces and the regions. That is not guaranteed within this bill.Those regional and community arts organisations were essentially saying that “Creative New Zealand is not listening to us any more. It’s not in touch with our communities.” So if the Minister really wanted to reduce bureaucracy and get money out to the regions so that arts could flourish he would have more regional funding rather than centralising it in the way that he has. Instead the best he can do is come to us with his committee of 13 and say that that is the way we should turbo-charge the arts in New Zealand.I would love to be standing here today debating a bill that had a vision for the future of arts in New Zealand. We would be able to support a bill like that. But unfortunately this bill does not provide that. It merely limits the participation of communities likeMāori and Pasifika.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koutou katoa. I enjoyed being part of the debate on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill at the beginning. Then Holly Walker took over so I missed the select committee process. I am really sorry that I was not present for the submissions to the Government Administration Committee but now I am back because Holly Walker cannot decide whether she should have her baby now or wait for us to win the America’s Cup. She seems to be in a state of limbo along with the rest of the country.I am now back on to this bill. The Green Party is opposing it not because we are against reviews—I think possibly it is high time there was a review of the Arts Council—but because we also have reservations about the nature of the streamlining and the logic behind that streamlining. Initially when we looked at it we could see the logic of it but our test was when we went out to communities and had a talk to a range of people—not arts bureaucrats but people who are practising artists. I think that the arts bureaucrats know a lot and they have a lot of experience in dealing with these things but artists are the ones who have to use the facilities in order to create a genuinely vibrant and creative community whether that is in a rural or an urban area.What is important to us is what they are saying about the end of Te Waka Toi and the issues around Pacific representation so we thought long and hard about this. We wantedto be able to support the bill but when we had that feedback and listened to what people were saying we were unable to do so.If you look at both Te Waka Toi and the Pacific communities—this is an old question that is not often resolved in any country and it goes back and forth and back and forth—does one group better represent the marginalised majority if they are at the table or is it better for them to have a separate identity and a separate ability to lobby to have their own money and to stand their own ground? That is not a simple issue and there is debate both ways but in the end the artists from Te Waka Toi and Pasifika communities said to us that they still want to have that distinctive and unique identity of practice which Grant Robertson just described in a quote from the Human Rights Commission. In the end that has to be their call. If that is what they still want that is what they need.If you are talking about Te Tiriti o Waitangi andMāori art if those people still believe that the best way to acknowledge the Treaty is to have a separate Te Waka Toi committee—which has served them well in the past—then their voices should be heard in this debate. That is what we are prepared to speak up for.The voices from Pasifika communities were actually stronger. They were even more concerned.Māori art has definitely always been the centrepiece of art in this country for hundreds of years and it is definitely still widely acknowledged but Pasifika groups still feel that they are not heard. It is really interesting that if we think about the number of Pacific cultures in the changing demographic of Aotearoa it is not just two different ones. It is not just about Samoan or Tongan. It is not about assuming that all Pacific Islanders can represent each other. It is about recognising the diversity of Pacific groups that have enriched our culture as we are part of the Pacific and them feeling that they are still on a journey towards being strong enough to want their own representation. If that is going to strengthen their position and that is what they want I think we should recognise it. I think that is an important part of it.We are also concerned about community arts development and the regional arts issues that were touched on by Grant Robertson. We do not think that it is—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in Part 2. We are on Part 1.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Thank you very much Mr Chair. In terms of Part 1 we are very concerned that clause 10 and clause 11 do not solve the problem that this bill is purported to solve. It has been set up to make sure that we have a better system but we are not convinced that those two committees being dissolved will make for a better system so we are going to continue to strongly argue throughout this process that ifMāori want Te Waka Toi and if Pasifika people want a separate committee that is legitimate.In my life I have had quite a lot to do with the arts and particularly with the theatre and with creative arts in various forms and it is not a happy day and we are not in a golden age when we start to look at issues like the loss of Creative New Zealand funding. Creative New Zealand does need to be streamlined in the sense of where it prioritises and where it puts its money. It is tragic for those of us who grew up with Downstage theatre to see the cuts that took place so that that theatre was operating only part-time and so that it actually became a slow death which in the minds of many people Creative New Zealand facilitated.That kind of issue suggests that Creative New Zealand and the Arts Council do have work to do. If we lose culture if we lose theatre and if we lose unique cultural arts championed byMāori and Pacific artists we are worse off as a country. I think that is why this issue is so passionate and why people on both sides of the Chamber care about it. It is an important issue and Part 1 is an attempt to deal with it but we do not think that it does.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I thought I would take a brief call because of that disappointing contribution from Ms Delahunty which inevitably led into a discussion about Downstage theatre. Everyone in this Chamber is sad that Downstage has unfortunately closed its doors but the reality of the matter and it goes back to when I was chair of the Arts Board is that it had had problems for many years. In fact it was placed on notice in about 1999. It should be put on record that the Arts Council worked very hard with Downstage for over a decade to try to help it through its problems but at the end of the day the problems affecting Downstage were such that there was a certain inevitability to its closing. I would think that before Ms Delahunty gets up here and blames the Arts Council for the demise of Downstage she should perhaps get her facts right because as so often happens with that member she got that completely wrong.I should also say this about clause 11—Dr Rajen Prasad: Nasty man.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No I am simply—There is this rather tiresome and asinine refrain that one gets from the Labour Party whenever one engages in substantive debate that it is nasty. Can those members not come up with a better cliché than that please. But can I come to clause 11—Grant Robertson: How about “vile”? How does “vile” sit with the member?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: “Vile”? I think “vile” is good. Let us go with “vile” for a few weeks. But let us come to clause 11(3) of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill because that empowers the Arts Council to appoint other committees. So it is entirely possible that there could be an Asian committee appointed. There could be a Pacific committee appointed. That is a question for the Arts Council and I would not be in the least bit surprised if there was a Pacific committee appointed with the two members on the Arts Council also to serve on that.I am actually very satisfied that the structure we have in place with the kinds of people whom I have been appointing in my usual bipartisan manner—I refer to Winnie Laban the former member for Mana—Grant Robertson: Yes her committee has been disestablished. That is right.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well no she is serving on the Arts Council. She is an exceptional person. That is why I was so upset when Mr Goff made a misogynistic statement about her a couple of weeks ago in this place. She is an outstanding New Zealander. I have a very high opinion of her. It was a source of great joy when I stood against her in Mana and lost to her. She is doing an excellent job on the Arts Council. That is why I think there are good people who can serve—Grant Robertson: Three-time loser.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well at least I did not get third in the party vote in Wellington Central. That was the amazing thing. In 2011 he got third in the party vote in Wellington Central. I do not want to be accused of being vile so I will not go on about that but the reality of the matter is that if I stood in Wellington Central I would whip him. [Interruption] Please let us get back to the issues and the issues are not my thumping Mr Robertson in Wellington Central or reducing him to being third in the party vote in Wellington Central again but saying that there is a capacity under this legislation to appoint further committees. So there is plenty of scope for diversity while at the same time addressing the essential point of streamlining the legislation.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I have got many questions for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the first of which I would like him to address at the end of my speech. It is how he would be any different from Paul Foster-Bell standing in Wellington Central in terms of his ability to take on Grant Robertson.We have had this incredible suggestion for some time now from the Minister that we have somehow moved into this “golden age for the arts” under his leadership. The question I have for the Minister is how many members of the arts community have taken on this mantra which he has proclaimed from his lofty office that we are in the golden age for the arts? How many have accepted thathashtag on Twitter other than comedians of course who found it extremely witty or perhaps writers of fiction who used it as a motif for the tired and the delusional? I have heard “golden age for the arts” quoted twice—once by Minister Finlayson and once by Paul Foster-Bell at a debate at Weir House last week. I have yet to see the evidence of the golden age for the arts.In fact I think what we are seeing is a sad state of affairs where Minister Finlayson has yet to acknowledge that the golden age for the arts was indeed under Helen Clark and that he has been living bitterly in the shadow of that period for some time. He has tried to battle his way and carve out his own legacy. He has tried by focusing on the thing he loves—himself. He still thinks that CNZ stands for Chris rather than for Creative New Zealand. As a result of the fact that he cannot battle his way out from under the shadow of Helen Clark’s legacy in the arts he lashes out angrily at Opposition members and just cannot cope with the fact that we have chosen to give the arts the rightful place it deserves and to acknowledge that in arts culture and heritage there is a range of issues. We want to give these areas due credit in time and we are unashamed about the fact that we have three members who are willing to take on that challenge—absolutely unashamed.When it comes to the golden age for the arts I do think that perhaps it is time to acknowledge that in fact we are in an ice age for the arts. Perhaps Minister Finlayson thinks it is golden but in fact it is a lemon snow cone. When it comes to the Arts Council we are I think seeing the equivalent of the super-city approach being applied to it. I am loath to liken Chris Finlayson to Rodney Hide but the idea that you replace four bodies with a single board—you call it efficient you call it empowering to people and you say you are reducing bureaucracy but how does simply lessening the number of people likeMāori and Pasifika individuals who represent important groups in and of itself reduce bureaucracy? If the Minister stood up and referred to what my colleague Grant Robertson talked about including the mountains of bureaucracy that we have to acknowledge arts organisations do have to battle through every time they make a funding application that would be something but all that Minister Finlayson referred to was simply lessening the number of people.I want to come specifically to concerns that were raised by submitters and in fact to concerns that were not raised by submitters. We have to acknowledge that when it comes to issues like this you will not always get people giving their frank views transparently at a select committee out of concern over what might happen to their own individual funding. I do not blame them for that. When you have a Minister who makes references using words like “laser-like” to clauses in a bill and who calls Dame Anne Salmond names you would be a little bit worried about the form of retaliation that you might get from a Minister like that. We may not have even got to the bottom of people’s concerns about this bill the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill at the Government Administration Committee.Speaking specifically to what is happening to for instance Te Waka Toi and its reduction in representation the Minister tried to claim that it would still have the ability to have input. A committee of the Arts Council could for instance be renamed. He flippantly said in his second reading speech that he believed that we could just rename a committee of the Arts Council “Te Waka Toi” and still have the same thing. We will not. We absolutely will not have that because clause 11 in Part 1 specifically states that although the Arts Council can establish a committee itself which it could obviouslymake up from members it would then choose the functions are very specific. They are set out in clause 11(2) which states: “The functions of that committee are—(a) to give advice to the Arts Council on matters relevant to the functions of the Council in relation toMāori arts; and (b) any other functions that the Arts Council delegates to the committee.”My question to the Minister is very specific. Advice is what a committee is legislated to provide. Could the Arts Council delegate to a committee powers around funding? Is it possible for the Arts Council to delegate to a committee the ability to make funding decisions? If the council can do that why was it not put specifically in the primary legislation? Why did the Minister not stipulate that? Then we would know that we could establish a replica body that is in line with Te Waka Toi. If it is not stipulated specifically is that because the Minister does not want a committee to make funding decisions? I think we need some clear ministerial guidance from the Minister as to whether he wants a committee of the Arts Council to make funding decisions. If he does not now is his opportunity to state that. If he does not mind then I would implore any future Arts Council to take heed of the fact that the Minister has no issue with that happening and then perhaps he may well be correct that it has the power to set up an equivalent of what we currently have. Then I would question what in fact would be any different from what we have now. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister in that regard.I want to come back to another element of Part 1 and that is clause 8 “Restriction on Ministerial direction”. The reason that I want to ask a question here is because what has become very clear under this Minister since he has been in charge of arts culture and heritage is that he has some very specific areas of interest. The arts community is under no illusion that there are only particular areas that the Minister has any interest in being a patron of or has shown any interest in attending or engaging with. I do not say that because he has implied it or been subtle about it; he has actually said it. He has actually told people: “Don’t bother inviting me. I will not come.” At least he has been clear. We know that he is a great supporter of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and I believe that he has an interest in the Royal New Zealand Ballet but beyond that it gets a little patchier in terms of his engagement.The reason that I am raising this is because the Minister heralded the fact that under these changes there would be no requirement for the Arts Council to set out a strategic 3-year plan that would be published and shared. The fear that I have is that that therefore means that we could have an Arts Council that is very much dictated by the whims of the Minister. He may claim that clause 8 stops that from happening. Clause 8 says: “The Minister may not give a direction to the Arts Council in relation to cultural matters.” Why does it not stipulate that he cannot give a direction in relation to funding matters? I would be really interested to hear from the Minister in that regard because I would say that there is probably a bit of a concern amongst the arts community given his very specific areas of interest. I recall that during the review of the structure of the orchestras in New Zealand he may have made a statement that over his dead body would funding for those organisations be touched. Well why are there no restrictions on ministerial directions to the Arts Council more broadly when it comes to funding? Is it over his dead body for every single sector of the arts community or just the ones he really really likes?Dr Rajen Prasad: His body’s not dead.JACINDA ARDERN: I try not to talk about corpses too often in my contributions in the Chamber even in reference to Minister Finlayson. So I would like some specific feedback from the Minister in regard to funding also.I want to be clear that although I have referred to Te Waka Toi I do not want to forget of course that the same fate has been met by the South Pacific Arts Committee.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): That was a very disappointing inaugural contribution from the new Labour arts spokesperson Jacinda Ardern. It makes me hope that one day the associate spokesperson Darien Fenton will be the Holy Spirit of this rather sad triumvirate because she is apparently the third person. But quite apart from the fact that Ms Ardern does not seem to realise that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Royal New Zealand Ballet are actually not funded through the Arts Council that they are direct-line funded why personalise it on me? I think it is important when one is debating these sorts of things in the Committee stage to get away from personalities and focus on the words of the bill the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill.I say this to Ms Ardern because she obviously has a few problems with reading a bill. If we go to clause 11(2)(b) one sees the functions of any committee established as a committee of the Arts Council may do: “any other functions that the Arts Council delegates to the committee.”Grant Robertson: So that means funding?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Indeed it could be. So take this hypothetical. Mr Robertson one must learn to listen as well as to ask questions. I am trying to answer your questions so please do me the courtesy of listening—for the first time in his life. What I would say is this: there could be a range of bodies that at the present time may be funded by Te Waka Toi—take for example TeMatatini as an organisation or there may be a range of project funding applications that come through twice a year when the Arts Council does its funding rounds. It could well be that the Arts Council determines that it will continue to fund the performing bodies the theatres TeMatatini or whatever—although TeMatatini is in fact direct-line funded I am using that simply as a hypothetical example—but may give to Te Waka Toi or the new body that follows it the responsibility of determining funding applications for project funding.So what we are trying to do in this legislation is not be unduly prescriptive but provide general powers particularly marrying them up with what is contained in the Crown Entities Act and thus enable the Arts Council to exercise its functions for the best purposes and in the interest of the arts. So that is really what it is about—not being too prescriptive. But certainly the answer to MsArdern’s question is yes of course any body established under clause 10(4) may be able to fund.The way that Labour is speaking tonight and to a lesser extent the other parties that have made contributions you would think there had been a tsunami of concerned submissions. But one should look to the commentary—Chris Auchinvole: How many were there Minister?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I say to Mr Auchinvole as a result of that very incisive contribution from him that actually the Government Administration Committee received and considered 15 submissions from interested groups and individuals. And guess what? It heard three submissions. So after all the noise—after all the noise—what did Horace say? “The mountains labour and a ridiculous mouse is born.” That basically is what we have had from Labour tonight—all the noise in the world but a ridiculous mouse is born because there were only three submissions.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a brief call on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. But first I simply say that I am not an expert in this area at all—before the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage starts to pillory me as he often does. But if he does he will get it back double I promise him.Hon Members: Oh!Dr RAJEN PRASAD: If he does that is a promise Minister. But I am prepared to wear my colours on my sleeve. I know very little about the various art forms the performing arts etc. I do know what I like and sometimes I cannot even explain why but at least I like it and I appreciate it and I go to see it or buy it etc. I do not know a great deal about the arts. I am happy to bow to the superior knowledge of the Minister and of my two colleagues here as well who have spoken eloquently about what is wrong with this bill.But what I do know something about is what is happening to New Zealand society—Hon Judith Collins: Oh God.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I do and if the member opposite does not appreciate that I am surprised. I want to make most of my comments on clause 10. I do know that our society is diversifying. It is diversifying at a rate of knots. It started quite early but since the mid-1980s this has grown to the enormous proportions at the moment where it touches every aspect of our lives particularly in the larger cities. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. The various forms of the arts are very critical to our vibrant communities our ethnic communities etc. This is not a small community now. It numbers half a million people so it is a sizable community in New Zealand. What they have brought with them is a whole range of different art forms.The concern I have is that there is nothing in clause 10 that addresses their representation in the new structure—the so-called streamlined structure that the Minister is organising here. That is a source of disappointment and I do not know what the explanation is. Maybe what is contained in Part 2 actually addresses that but I do not think it does it well enough. Why is it that no attention has been paid and no appreciation given under clause 10 to the experts in our new communities—not just Chinese and Indian but many others as well—and their inclusion as members of the Arts Council? To do so would have even this late in the piece demonstrated an appreciation that our ethnic communities and the diversity that is now New Zealand and its pluralism actually do also come out through the various art forms. It is there for us to see. So it is a source of disappointment that that representation has not been included.A former colleague of mine Dr Ashraf Choudhary when he was in the House did purport to provide advice to the Minister by issuing a press statement in 2010 about this particular matter and that at least there was a need to pay attention to this because it was an omission. Melissa Lee retorted that this bill is not about ethnicity. It is not about ethnicity—that was the retort. Well actually it is about New Zealand’s diversity. That diversity comes through and is celebrated every day in our communities through the various art forms of our respective ethnic communities. It is a disappointment I say to the Minister that this is missing. Maybe the Minister would like to take a call and explain why that has happened.Grant Robertson: Don’t encourage him.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well if the Minister can give a straight answer without kind of having a go at anybody on this side—Grant Robertson: No not possible.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: No it is not possible. I do notice that the Minister cannot take lots of criticism—only he gives a hang of a lot of criticism. So there is that. It is a personality flaw I am sure. But sometimes the arts can provide a cure for those particular flaws. Maybe the Minister might take—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes65New Zealand National 59;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 364 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes64New Zealand National 59;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions1Independent: Horan.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 35 in the name of Tracey Martin to insert new clause 9A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes64New Zealand National 59;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions1Independent: Horan.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes65New Zealand National 59;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Community arts providersGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much Mr Chair for this contribution that I get to make at this time. We come to Part 2 of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill which is around the question of community arts providers. Mr Finlayson took some pleasure in quoting some of the submissions. Well I would like to quote one of them back to him. It comes from what I imagine is now the defunct Taieri Community Arts Council given that it made its submission in 2010 3 years ago and it said it was in the process of winding up—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Marine Legislation Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills; the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill without amendment; the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment; and progress on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.