Volume 654 Week 11 - Thursday 7 May 2009 
Volume 654 Week 11 - Thursday 7 May 2009 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Thursday 7 May 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Election Petition 
Selwyn 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I present the determination of the High Court in the matter of an election petition relating to the Selwyn electoral district. The determination set out at paragraph 128 of the decision reads as follows: “Pursuant to section 243 Electoral Act 1993 we determine and certify to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the first respondent Amy Adams was duly elected as the member of Parliament for the Selwyn electorate at the general election in 2008.” Copies of the determination are available from the Bills Office and the full text of the decision will be published on the “Judicial Decisions of Public Interest” web page. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to bills currently on the Order Paper. However it is anticipated that on Wednesday urgency will be accorded to the introduction and passing of bills pertaining and relating to Auckland governance and some other first readings. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Given that the two bills in question concerning Auckland governance will be introduced under urgency I wonder whether the Leader of the House could undertake to make those bills available to the Opposition by Monday at the latest as there will not be the normal 3-day consideration. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As soon as those bills are available we will make a decision about their release. The member will be aware that when bills are introduced under urgency they are not tabled prior to that time. However in order to ensure that there is as much good process as possible certainly the bill that is to go through all stages will be available to parties prior to the urgency motion. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday a point of order was raised about Ministers tabling papers in the House. Papers may be presented to the House or tabled in the House by leave. Presentation and tabling by leave are two distinct procedures. 
The presentation of a paper to the House takes place off the floor of the House. Standing Order 362 allows the Speaker and Ministers to present a paper by delivering it to the Clerk on any working day but prior to 1 p.m. on a sitting day. A Minister may not present a paper under Standing Order 362 while the House is sitting. 
During the course of a sitting any member including a Minister may seek leave to table a document. Only the Speaker under Standing Order 362(1) and a Minister who is presenting papers relating to the Budget following the delivery of the Budget or who has introduced an Appropriation Bill under Standing Order 366 may present a paper in the House without leave. Standing Order 368 in allowing a document to be tabled by leave of the House makes no distinction between members and Ministers. Both must seek leave to do so. However unlike members this is not the only option available to Ministers. A Minister may also under Standing Order 362 present a paper off the floor of the House by delivering it to the Clerk. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for your considered ruling. It is clearly an area where there has been some greyness in the past and this ruling has clarified it. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 6 to Minister 5 May 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 349 I seek leave to make a correction to an answer I gave to question No. 6 on Tuesday 5 May. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In researching the response to an oral question today I discovered that I had inadvertently used a wrong figure on Tuesday in question time in response to supplementary questioning referring to the Waterview Connection business case. The correct figure for the project financing costs is $550 million not the $200 million figure I used on Tuesday. This correction does not change the total cost—as identified in the business case and referred to in Parliament—of $2.77 billion. I apologise to the House for the error. 
Points of Order 
Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It concerns two unrelated matters. The first is that some weeks ago I raised by way of a point of order concerns about the amplification system in the Chamber. You undertook to obtain a report and presumably to advise the House in due course. To my knowledge that advice has not yet been forthcoming. The second matter was that last Thursday during the course of the third reading debate on a bill whose name temporarily escapes me I raised a point of order regarding the scope of third reading debates with one of your Assistant Speakers. The Assistant Speaker undertook to obtain a ruling and to come back to the House on that matter. I just wonder whether you could update me on progress in respect of both of those issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. On the first issue I say that I have not yet satisfied myself in following up on that inquiry. The matter has been investigated and I have a report on it. I am following up on the matter and I will come back to the honourable member once I have that information. With respect to the second matter I am aware of that situation having arisen and I will follow it up for the honourable member. 
Questions to Ministers 
Water Services Council—Privatisation 
1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he guarantee that sections 130(3) and 136(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 which prohibit the privatisation of council water services will remain in force as long as he is Prime Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Privatisation of council water services is not being considered by the Government in Auckland or anywhere else. I cannot give a guarantee on the sections of the Act because they do not do exactly what the member describes. Officials will be considering those sections along with many other legislative provisions in the light of whether they assist or inhibit investment in infrastructure. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Prime Minister therefore confirm that his promise not to privatise publicly owned assets during this term of Parliament is going to be broken or is it going to be kept—that is will he ensure in respect of the restructuring of Auckland local governance that water assets cannot be privatised as a result of that restructuring? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can confirm the Government’s view that those assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Has any decision been made on who will be given the responsibility for dealing with Auckland’s regional stormwater and is it likely that it will end up as an additional responsibility for Watercare Services Ltd and will not be privatised? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The royal commission made some comments on that issue and there have been a number of studies over the years about how Auckland water should be organised. The Government is taking both of those into account. In the end the disposition of water assets in Auckland will be decided by Auckland. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Prime Minister give the same commitment that he has given in relation to New Zealand Superannuation that if there are any changes—any privatisation of water assets—he will resign as Prime Minister; that is a complete promise from the Prime Minister that water assets in Auckland will not be privatised while he is Prime Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can only confirm what I said in answer to an earlier question. Water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring. In the end as with every other local body in New Zealand the decisions about local body assets are made by the elected representatives of the people who live in that local body area. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker; kia ora tatou. What responsibilities do councils have to work with iwi Maori particularly where iwi believe that they have an ownership right over land that was confiscated under the Public Works Act and from which water is taken to serve communities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Councils have a general responsibility to take into account the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land water significant sites wahi tapu or valued flora and fauna and we expect councils to take that responsibility seriously. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How confident is the Prime Minister that Watercare Services Ltd a publicly owned entity that will be responsible for Auckland’s water and waste water under the new Auckland Council will not be involved in any price gouging? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That would be a matter for the owners of Watercare Services who are the elected representatives of the people of Auckland. There has been some argument that various water providers in Auckland are involved in price gouging now and I am sure it will be discussed extensively as to whether the restructuring will improve things. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can the Prime Minister say that it is up to Aucklanders to decide whether the privatisation of water services will proceed when it would be possible for such privatisation to proceed only if his Government were to change the law around the Local Government Act removing the protection that currently exists in the Act to stop the privatisation of water services; that is it is not up to just the people of Auckland; it is up to this Parliament and his Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not exactly sure what the member means by the privatisation of water services or of the way the section of the Act to which he is referring protects it. Some councils already have water services delivered under concession. The section he is referring to simply puts a limit on the length of the concession at 15 years. So it is not saying that councils should not have concessions; it is just saying that they cannot be longer than 15 years. If that is the way the law is then Auckland local bodies will have to work with it unless it changes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is difficult to raise this and I certainly do not want to accuse the Minister in any way of misleading the House but I think he may have misread the Act in terms of what those— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Whether a Minister’s answer is to the member’s satisfaction is not a point of order. She can ask further supplementary questions to elucidate that matter but she cannot use the point of order process in that way. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports on the views of iwi Maori about the privatisation of water that have emerged from the ongoing dialogue between the Crown and Maori leaders in relation to water management? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is an ongoing dialogue between the Government and the iwi leaders’ group and also through Government officials and iwi officials but there has been no discussion about water privatisation between politicians and iwi leaders or among officials. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Minister implement the royal commission’s recommendations for block tariffs for water which guarantee that even large families have enough truly cheap water to live on while making sure that those who waste water—with very large swimming pools for example—pay for the privilege; that is we guarantee water to those who need it while having a steep price tariff for those who waste it so there is an incentive to use water wisely? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not the Government’s intention to become involved with the pricing of water. That will be carried out by whatever entity is in charge of water in Auckland and that entity will be accountable to the elected representatives of the Auckland people. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister disagree with the interpretation that section 133 of the Local Government Act requires councils to retain their water services and not sell them; and that section 136(2) even limits the matters that can be contracted out to purely engineering operational matters? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that question strays into the problem of asking for a legal opinion which one certainly cannot do by way of question in the House. The way that question was phrased was exactly asking for a legal opinion of the Prime Minister. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I think the question was referring to the Minister’s earlier answer. The Minister himself moved into this field of interpreting what these sections might mean; it seems to me that if the Minister’s answers are engaged in interpreting those situations it is reasonable for the questions to also engage into asking for the Minister’s understanding of those sections. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It could well be that the Minister has had advice in this area and there might be a way of rephrasing the question to get it completely within the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to do that. This is not the loss of a supplementary question; just repeat the question. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister received any advice as to whether section 133 of the Local Government Act requires councils to retain their water services and not sell them and any advice as to whether section 136(2) limits the matters that can be contracted out to purely operational engineering matters? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has not received any detailed advice on that matter. The relevant sections do not prevent the use of concession agreements. They simply set out some of the limitations on what those agreements might be. 
Ministers—Community Consultation 
2.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he satisfied that all his Ministers are consulting appropriately with the community; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister is satisfied that Ministers are consulting communities where appropriate. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did the Prime Minister give an undertaking to Grey Power that if the organisation had problems meeting with Ministers he or his deputy would arrange the meetings; if so why was such an assurance necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Not being party to the discussion even on behalf of the Prime Minister I cannot give that answer but I can tell the member that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have met with that organisation a number of times already. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the latest Grey Power lobby report which outlines its members’ impromptu meeting with Dr Nick Smith after unsuccessfully trying to get an official meeting with him and which describes Dr Smith’s reaction to seeing them as: “His face reddened and with his head down … he took to his heals and was last seen hurrying away in the distance.”; and does this behaviour meet the standard he expects from his Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Do members wish to hear the answer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Knowing a number of the members of the Grey Power executive including one who is a constituent of mine I can say that they are sometimes prone to colourful descriptions of their interactions with politicians. But I can assure the member that Grey Power has ready access to the Government and that it has used that access influentially. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is Paula Bennett an example of a Minister who needs the Deputy Prime Minister’s assistance to arrange a meeting with Grey Power after it had contacted her twice by email only for her to break her promise to follow up its request for a meeting; if so did the Prime Minister’s deputy give Ms Bennett a tutorial on how to meaningfully consult important lobby groups? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The most enjoyable part of the Grey Power discussions is its references to the previous Government. I understand that Ms Bennett like many Ministers has met with Grey Power which found the meeting quite satisfactory. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the Prime Minister ask his deputy to provide Ms Bennett with a quick lesson on how to treat members of the public with respect and courtesy after her dismissive behaviour towards Grey Power at a recent meeting which it described as leaving “a sour taste in our mouths as we … had received the old-fashioned ‘brush off’ and had wasted our time meeting with her.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister asks his deputy to carry out a number of tasks but Grey Power like other groups will find that National Ministers will be straightforward with it about what can and cannot be done—unlike former Labour Ministers who always agreed with Grey Power in the room but never did anything once they had left. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the most recent Grey Power report of its meeting with Paula Bennett where it states that “she was either not interested in the elderly or did not know what we were talking about” and that “she should shape up to her obligations rather than be so dismissive.”; if so what action will he take to ensure that she does not behave like that in the future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I simply do not agree with that report. I advise the member that National Ministers in a time of fiscal constraint are straightforward with lobby groups—unlike former Labour Ministers who promised the world always agreed with lobby groups and did nothing. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the following quote from the Grey Power report describing its meeting with Paula Bennett meet the Prime Minister’s expectations of appropriate ministerial behaviour—[ 
Interruption 
] Gerry Brownlee should listen to this: “It appears she thinks that a loud laugh will solve all questions put to her and this meeting was a complete waste of her time. Well it certainly was a waste of ours.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government and its Ministers have met with Grey Power on a number of occasions in the short time since National became the Government. I expect we will continue our open and robust relationship with lobby groups—unlike former Labour Ministers who either agreed with everything Grey Power said or threatened to take its money away if it disagreed with the Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table the Grey Power lobby report which contains every comment I have read in this House today and which does not match up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat right now. That last bit was unnecessary to the description of the document to be tabled. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Crown Accounts—9 Months Ended 31 March 2009 
3.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What did the Crown accounts for the 9 months to 31 March 2009 issued yesterday by Treasury show? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Crown’s operating balance before gains and losses for the 9 months to 31 March 2009 was a deficit of $233 million. This compares with a forecast surplus of $1.9 billion in the pre-election update last October which is a turn-round of minus $2.1 billion. Including losses from Government investment funds the operating deficit for those 9 months was $7.7 billion. That is $11.2 billion worse than the pre-election forecast released by the previous Government. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What were the main factors in this deterioration? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The turn-round in the Government’s operating balance including losses from Government funds in the last 6 months has been $11 billion. The main factors were that tax revenue is around $2 billion lower than the forecast made before the election and $700 million lower than the forecast made in December. Investment losses from the superannuation fund the Earthquake Commission and the Accident Compensation Corporation have totalled $5.7 billion in those 9 months and increases in liabilities of the accident compensation scheme and the Government Superannuation Fund add up to $4.4 billion. This is why the Government needs to take decisive action to get its books in order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: With net debt at only 3 percent of GDP and gross debt levelling off after the last 3 months is it not true that he is trying to scare New Zealanders into accepting his “black banker’s Budget” rather than putting Kiwi jobs first? Is he aware that the latest UMR Insight poll says that a majority of decent hard-working New Zealanders are most concerned about their job security and why is he not doing more to protect it given that unemployment has such a serious impact on the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Opposition finance spokesman might be the only person in New Zealand who believes the recession is over but it is not. He might pay some attention to the unemployment figures released today which show that far too many New Zealanders are losing their jobs but it is a bit better than expected and that is partly because of the Government’s stimulus package. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Has the Minister seen reports claiming that the state of the Government’s books is deteriorating while at the same time claiming that the Government’s overall debt position seems to be stabilising? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have seen one report from the Opposition finance spokesman making those claims yesterday. In fact if the Government’s books are deteriorating the Government’s overall debt position cannot be stabilising because we are out borrowing money all the time to fill the gap between expenditure and revenue. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: One element that proves the Minister wrong is a recent report that shows the New Zealand Superannuation Fund value has increased— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I am not insisting on members starting questions with a question word. This is not  
W3 
. But I think we do need to hear a question reasonably soon after a member starts asking one. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister seen reports that the value of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund increased by $1.75 billion between March and April this year and does he agree with New Zealand Superannuation Fund chief executive Adrian Orr that now is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be buying; if so why would he consider suspending contributions at precisely the worst possible time? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This Government takes a long-term view about the sustainability of New Zealand’s financial position. As I have pointed out many times the Government has to weigh up the benefits of contributing to the superannuation fund with the reality of the fact that it would have to borrow the money. We know that borrowing does not bother Opposition members because they want us to borrow to do everything that they want. But we want to be responsible about it. 
Unemployment—Government Policies 
4.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received about the impact of his Government’s policies on unemployment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand reported this morning that New Zealand’s unemployment rate for the March quarter as measured by the household labour force survey was 5 percent up from 4.7 percent in December. This rate is somewhat below market forecasts of around 5.3 percent and puts New Zealand’s unemployment rate in the bottom third of the OECD. Of course the Government is concerned about anyone losing their jobs; that is why we will do anything we can to help people to keep secure the jobs they have or to get new ones if they lose them. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What does the Minister say to the 35700 more New Zealanders who in the last quarter either have lost their jobs or could not find work or to the more than 55000 others whom the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research predicts will be thrown on the scrap heap this year? Does he agree with the institute and the Manufacturers and Exporters Association that his tax cuts and the 9-day working fortnight scheme are unlikely to make a significant difference and that the money would be better spent on job-rich investments that boost skills and productivity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I say to them that the most important thing we can do is take steps that will build the confidence for business to invest and actually create new jobs. The best hope for people who have lost their jobs is the hope of new jobs. I also tell them that the Government has been borrowing money and injecting it into the economy to protect all of us from the sharpest edges of recession with one of the more significant fiscal stimulus measures in the OECD. 
Amy Adams 
: What steps has the Government taken to help businesses through the recession and to protect jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has put in place a wide range of measures to assist New Zealand businesses. First of all we are getting the Government’s own house in order by dumping some of Labour’s silly and expensive ideas such as the $1 million we saved by canning a programme to teach kids how to pat dogs. We have also implemented a $480 million package to assist small and medium sized businesses brought forward $500 million of spending on infrastructure projects and delivered tax cuts on 1 April to 1.5 million New Zealanders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Having signalled the failure of the Minister’s planned tax cuts and accepted that the 9-day working fortnight has been ridiculously overhyped by his spin machine what exactly is left of the Government’s recession-fighting jobs stimulus; and does the Minister still claim that that stimulus equals 5 percent of GDP if there are no tax cuts—or was all that stimulus just generated by Labour’s last Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Opposition members need to get their lines sorted out. They have been telling us that we should copy the Australian fiscal stimulus when Australia’s unemployment rate is close to 6 percent—whereas our fiscal stimulus has kept our unemployment rate down to 5 percent. So which one is it: copy Australia’s plan and force the unemployment rate up or stick to our plan and keep the unemployment rate lower? 
Parole—Proportion of Sentence Served 
5.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree that it is desirable to introduce the provision requiring prisoners to serve two-thirds of their sentence before being eligible for parole as opposed to the current one-third; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: It is not desirable in the short term because the first priority of this Government regarding parole eligibility is to pass the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which targets the worst repeat violent offenders. I am advised that the latest data indicate that prisoners serving determinate sentences are already serving 70 to 75 percent of their sentences on average. 
David Garrett 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from his colleague the Minister of Corrections or her department on when there will be sufficient resources in terms of both prison beds and human resources to allow for the requirement that two-thirds of a sentence be served before a prisoner is eligible for parole? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The two-thirds parole policy has to be seen in the context of the previous administration’s agenda to reduce the prison population. Labour wanted to increase the minimum non-parole period to two-thirds of a sentence only if it were coupled with a Sentencing Council which through the provision of sentencing guidelines would have reduced average sentences by 25 percent. 
Hon Annette King 
: Not necessarily; it might have made them standard across New Zealand actually. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: This Government considers that parole policy should put public safety first and that is our primary consideration—unlike the previous Minister of Justice who was interjecting; her primary concern was to pass the disgusting Electoral Finance Act in order to snuff out the freedom of expression of New Zealanders. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why does the Minister not implement the provision in the Labour Government’s Parole Amendment Act 2007 that would require offenders to serve at least two-thirds of their sentences before parole which as he knows he could do through Order in Council? Why does he instead continue with the Government’s Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which various experts including the New Zealand Law Society—and I assume the Minister is still a member of it—slammed in the select committee yesterday calling it “a blunt instrument which could be counter-productive create unintended consequences and possibly increase serious crime as has happened under similar laws”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes the Minister is still a member of the Law Society and yes there have been a lot of submissions on that bill—over 1000—and the final shape of the bill will be determined after the select committee process. But I would also say in answer to the first part of the member’s question that as I said in answer to the primary question the concern of this Government is to deal with the worst violent offenders and then we will go from there. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why does the Minister not implement the provision in the Parole Amendment Act 2007 for parole on serving two-thirds of a sentence when he claims to be part of a Government that puts victims first and when experts such as Victim Support—a venerable organisation—came out strongly in support of Labour’s provision for parole on serving two-thirds of a sentence saying: “Victim Support welcomes the change of non-parole period to become two-thirds of a long-term sentence. This amendment will provide a greater level of comfort and certainty for victims and is closer to truth in sentencing.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Let us try again—it is almost like a litany. The Government’s priority is the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The previous Government of which that member was a Minister wanted to increase non-parole periods to two-thirds of a sentence only if it was coupled with a Sentencing Council which by providing sentencing guidelines would have reduced average sentences by 25 percent. It was an unconstitutional Sentencing Council and it has been dispatched to the trash heap just like his Government. Labour members spent 9 years being— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will take his seat. The Minister had given quite a lengthy answer and that last addition was totally gratuitous. I do not appreciate the House being treated in that manner. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You stood up to sit the Minister down which was completely appropriate. At the same time there was orchestrated applause from the Government benches at the back and that was a direct challenge to your authority when you are on your feet. You should not put up with it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is an extraordinary contribution from the Hon David Parker. The backbench of the Government as you know holds you in very high regard Mr Speaker. It should be no surprise that those members cheered when you got to your feet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not take it as being insulting but I think it is something we have to watch. Where an answer is quite long we do not need a gratuitous attack on the other side of the House. Where a question is highly politically loaded every member knows that there will be a political answer but I think the Minister had given quite a lengthy answer and we did not need a gratuitous attack at the end. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems somewhat inconsistent to me that we have a complete prohibition on needless applause from people sitting in the gallery yet the Speaker is willing to put up with it from members of the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s concern but I do not think members will carry on doing it. They saw my concern at what happened and I trust members will respect that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respectfully submit to you that exactly the opposite happened; it happened on a second occasion while you were ruling. You say that you now trust members to behave themselves but you had not made it clear that that behaviour was unacceptable. You are neutral and members on both sides—especially members in a group like that—cannot comment on your rulings in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. I made it very clear that I was concerned about the behaviour in the House; members saw that. I do not think we need to take this matter any further. 
Waterview Connection—Source of Costings 
6.  
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Where did he source the figure of $200 million for finance costs from when discussing the costs of the Waterview project on Tuesday? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am not sure of the source but as I stated earlier this afternoon in the House I inadvertently used the wrong figure on Tuesday for financing cost during the construction period. The financing cost of completing the Waterview Connection by building the twin two-lane tunnels is projected to be $550 million. The total figure quoted in the business case for the twin two-lane tunnels is $2.77 billion which is made up of $1.98 billion for construction on State Highway 20 $240 million for additional required work on State Highway 16 and $550 million for financing costs during the construction period. These are real costs on the basis that the project is to be financed outside of the National Land Transport Fund which is the basis on which the previous Government was hoping to proceed—hence the business case it ordered. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the Minister accept that getting the figures right is very important for New Zealand’s biggest roading project which is what Waterview is; if so why does he continue to inflate the cost of the project by including the cost of the State Highway 16 work when those improvements are needed for the western ring route anyway? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Those figures I just mentioned were the exact figures quoted in the business case. I point out that they were included because those works will be required when the State Highway 20 project is completed. There are also the finance costs; if a project is financed outside of the National Land Transport Fund there will be a real cost to the Government that impacts in real terms on the Government accounts. It is therefore only reality to include those costs in the business case. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why have the financing costs of the Waterview Connection been included in the estimated cost of the project? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The financing costs were included in the business case released last December because of the unprecedented scale of the project and the then Government’s attempt to find a way of funding the project outside of the National Land Transport Fund. What I have not heard from Labour—which members should remember was planning to reduce the overall capital spend on building State highways anyway—is an explanation as to how it would have paid for its proposed tunnels. Would it have been done by incurring more Crown debt tolls a 35-year property tax or another regional fuel tax of 20c per litre on top of the 9.5c per litre regional fuel tax that it had already agreed to and on top of the 4.5c per litre national fuel tax for the next 3 years that it had agreed to which would have led to petrol prices in Auckland being 34c per litre higher? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why is he refusing to meet representatives of the local community board to discuss the costs and viability of the Waterview project? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not refusing to meet members of the community; I have just said to them that I am happy to meet them once the Government has released its view on whether the project as proposed by the previous Government should proceed. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the Minister agree with Labour that the deep twin-lane tunnels for the Waterview project are the best option for the community and represent value for money because they complete the western ring route? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member needs to understand just how much money he is talking about: $2.77 billion for two twin-lane tunnels that would not be expandable to three lanes at any stage in the future. If we actually proceeded with a three-lane tunnel which is what is likely to be needed in time the cost would be $3.16 billion. By way of comparison the cost of running the Counties Manukau District Health Board annually I understand is around $1 billion. So the sums of money I say to Mr Hughes are huge and they have to be balanced against some form of reality. 
Climate Change Policy—Australian Scheme 
7.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What implications are there for New Zealand’s policy on climate change from the changes announced by Australia this week in respect of its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The National Party campaigned last year on a policy of aligning New Zealand’s response to climate change more closely with Australia’s policy. Monday’s announcements by its Government to delay the entry of its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by a year to 2011 and to provide for a A$10 cap on carbon prices for the first year do need to be considered as part of the mix of where New Zealand goes to from here. 
Craig Foss 
: What processes does the Government have to further the discussions initiated by Prime Minister John Key and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to explore harmonising the New Zealand and Australian responses to climate change? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Following the Prime Ministers’ summit in early March I travelled to Canberra and met with my counterpart Senator Penny Wong. We set up an officials process and agreed on the terms of reference for exploring harmonisation. That work is progressing well and this week I have had further discussions by phone with Senator Wong. I want to emphasise that those discussions are at an early stage. Senator Wong and I agreed that it would be useful for the special select committee on climate change in New Zealand to be briefed by Australian officials on the details of the Australian scheme and that is scheduled to occur by teleconference next Monday. 
Craig Foss 
: What are the implications for New Zealand of the announcement that Australia is prepared to commit to a tougher 2020 target of a 25 percent reduction in emissions if other countries make strong commitments? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government in New Zealand views this as a positive development. We are committed— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: They talk about my hair! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where has Mary gone? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is interesting that Opposition members are interested in hairstyles when we are talking about an important issue like climate change. Quite clearly they do not consider it to be very significant. This Government has agreed to a global level of 450 parts per million and that is what we think is going to be required to avoid dangerous climate change. New Zealand’s position on the issue of a 2020 target will be finalised after we get the sensitive data on forestry that will come from the satellite information next month. 
Craig Foss 
: What other developments have occurred internationally on climate change that might influence the success of the United Nations negotiations in Copenhagen? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am encouraged by today’s reports that China is ready to do business with developed countries to reach an agreement on a successor to the Kyoto treaty in response to the change in the United States’ position that has been outlined by the new Obama administration. That is a positive development as China and the United States make up more than 40 percent of global emissions and the engagement by both is critical to nailing a successful successor agreement to Kyoto at Copenhagen at the end of this year. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister not embarrassed to be responsible for an emissions trading policy that has created so much uncertainty as to be labelled this week as an “investment blight” costing New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars worth of job-rich investment in forestry home renovation clean energy and biotechnology; and is not his policy fiasco further proof that National just does not give a damn about protecting New Zealand jobs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The only thing that has caused me embarrassment has been in the last week furnishing the most recent climate change data as required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That data for 2007 showed that New Zealand had its worst record of deforestation with a very substantial increase in that. We had the worst year of deforestation since records in New Zealand began in 1945. Further if members opposite are serious about climate change being addressed and an emissions trading scheme being put together I invite them to engage constructively in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee where we will need to amend the emissions trading scheme. As Mr Parker well knows mistakes were made in the rush to pass the legislation on it and amendments are required to make it workable. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Given the fact that the Australian Government made big changes to its own emissions trading scheme on Monday without even telling the Minister or his colleagues that it was going to do so given the evidence of his own blue-green colleague Guy Salmon at the select committee today that harmonisation with Australia would deliver very few benefits for New Zealand and given that ACT has stopped going to the select committee that it demanded be set up on this subject is it not time to just get on and implement the emissions trading scheme without any further delay or excuse? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I would make is that the member is incorrect. The Australian Government did notify my office in advance of the changes it was proposing to make to the emissions trading scheme. What is lacking from members opposite is an understanding of how critical an emissions trading scheme is to the New Zealand economy. Members on this side of the House make no apologies for wanting to have a workable climate change policy that recognises that the economy is in recession. As we know today unemployment figures are rising. The Government wants to take a balanced approach that ensures that New Zealand addresses both its climate change and economic responsibilities. 
Action Plan for New Zealand Women—Review 
8.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What plans does she have to renew the Action Plan for New Zealand Women when it comes up for review this year? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is visiting regions around the country seeking women’s input on the progress of New Zealand women. I am waiting to hear the results before I make any decisions. 
Sue Moroney 
: When did the Minister acquire both the wisdom and the arrogance to decide all by herself what the priorities are for New Zealand women and why will she not consult New Zealand women as the previous Government did when it established this action plan for women which she has no intention of renewing? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I advise the member not to bring predetermined questions to the House. I have just told the House that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is visiting the regions and seeking women’s input into the progress of women before I make any decisions. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the achievement of the milestones set out by the previous Government in its Action Plan for New Zealand Women? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: In the previous Labour Government’s action plan a target was set of ensuring that 50 percent of State sector board members are women by 2010—that is next year. What has been achieved is closer to 42 percent. Even with the capable Ministry of Women’s Affairs and a very passionate Minister a miracle will be called for to close the 8 percent gap in 1 year. In fact what is worse is that for the last 9 years there was no strategy in place to reach the 50 percent target. What happened the last time a strategy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat immediately. Some of these answers are ridiculously long and there is no excuse for it whatsoever. [ 
Interruption 
] And there will be silence while I am on my feet. There is no excuse for ridiculously long answers. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does the Minister know that an official from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs reported to the Business and Professional Women’s annual conference at the weekend that the Government does not favour action plans and that instead the Minister has decided what the priorities are for New Zealand women? When will the Minister come clean—as New Zealanders prepare to celebrate Mother’s Day on Sunday—and admit that she is scrapping the Action Plan for New Zealand Women because she knows that the National Government has no intention of improving paid parental leave addressing the gender pay gap or reducing violence against women? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I doubt very much that that member would have had time to listen to what everybody at that conference said because I know that she gatecrashed the conference trying to coerce people into signing her petition. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether it is necessary to submit this to you but I submit that this is a very clear case where the question was not addressed nor was it attempted to be addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to be honest with the honourable member that I did not understand the question myself. It went on far too long as well; I just pulled the Minister up for her answer being far too long and the member followed with a question that was far too long and convoluted. I could not understand whether it was answered or not. I apologise to the member but I had that difficulty. We will not pursue that matter any further. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker; I hope I will be careful. Is it in order for you to suggest that the questioner rephrase her question in a more succinct way so that we can attempt to get an answer to it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She has the opportunity for further supplementary questions; I hope she will take that opportunity. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: When will the Minister abolish her department; if not could she outline what benefits the department delivers? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I would have loved to outline the benefits but the Speaker has just pulled me up for giving long answers and it would take about a whole day. There is much to do in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and I am all for women and for championing them. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think it is in order to answer a question by saying that it would take too long to answer it. I think mentioning just one benefit would have sufficed for addressing that question. If we can get away with saying a question would take too long to answer it would be impossible to get a question addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I recollect correctly the honourable member’s question had two parts. One part was answered perfectly appropriately and that is all the Standing Orders require. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table National’s Mother’s Day gift to New Zealand women. It is its website page detailing its policy on women—there is none. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a web page. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Trade—Hong Kong Negotiations and ASEAN Free-trade Agreement 
9.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What announcements have recently been made on improving New Zealand’s trade opportunities? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I recently announced that we have resumed trade negotiations with Hong Kong and those negotiations are in fact taking place right now. Those negotiations along with the recently signed free-trade agreement with the Association of South-east Asian Nations are a means to insure ourselves against the growth of protectionism in certain markets and also clearly to create new business opportunities that will give New Zealand exporters a competitive advantage. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What are the potential benefits of a successful free-trade agreement with Hong Kong? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The Hong Kong market is a significant market for New Zealand. It is one of our top 20 export markets. It is our fourth-largest source of foreign investment. It is also an important conduit for trade with China and has been for many years. An agreement would align if you like the customs territory of Hong Kong with that of China though I hope we will be able to go rather further than that in the negotiations particularly in respect of services. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister propose to mitigate the negative effects his Government’s backward position on climate change is having on our relationships with trading partners particularly in the European Union which has placed a very high priority on tackling climate change and in the United States where legislation before Congress would authorise trade retaliation against nations refusing to price carbon? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I think the member is getting rather ahead of the facts here. Not a single Minister or official that I am aware of has raised that possibility with either me or any senior New Zealand officials. The member is simply speculating on what might happen in the future. I will again be meeting with Mariann Fischer Boel the European Union Agriculture Commissioner in Austria next week. I would be astonished if she raises that with me. I will also be going to Washington DC to meet with the new US Trade Representative Ron Kirk and I would be simply flabbergasted should he raise that issue with me. I think the member needs to obtain a rather clearer understanding of the facts. 
SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
10.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he as part of the Government’s review of the potential future role of the New Zealand Special Air Service in Afghanistan seek a legal opinion from relevant Government departments on whether any such deployment would be consistent with international law and in particular the Charter of the United Nations; if so will he seek leave to table any such advice before the House in advance of any Government decision? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: There is no such review as the member described. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: How can the Minister then assure this House and the country that our defence forces are acting lawfully overseas if he does not have the assurance of such a legal opinion? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand Government always ensures that its New Zealand Defence Force deployments are made pursuant to the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and the New Zealand Defence Force always acts in accordance with the requirements of international law. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm the Prime Minister’s statement that any deployment by the SAS into Afghanistan would occur only if New Zealand were confident there was an exit strategy for the coalition forces; if so does the Minister have that confidence? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would not seek to confirm or otherwise that member’s representation of the Prime Minister’s comments. The Government does not discuss SAS deployments in detail for security reasons and that is exactly the response that that party gave when it was in Government. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Costings 
11.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: How much will the Government’s super-city proposal cost to implement and to run annually? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The Government is proposing one mayor and 20 councillors. At present there are seven mayors one chair and 108 councillors. That alone will be a considerable saving. Implementation costs will be minuscule compared with the present costs of running the various Auckland councils whose combined operating budgets are $2000 million for the financial year. The future operating costs of the council will be up to Auckland. As Minister I am committed to making the operating costs of councils transparent and giving Aucklanders—and indeed all New Zealanders—a real say about the cost of local government. 
Phil Twyford 
: How can the Minister reconcile his statement in the House yesterday that the Government has costed its super-city proposals with the statement in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today that a spokesperson for Mr Hide said that the cost of creating the Auckland council and 20 to 30 local boards under it was unknown? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Because I answered the member’s question yesterday accurately. The member asked me yesterday whether I had “costed the Government’s super-city proposal outlined in  
Making Auckland Greater: The Government’s decisions on Auckland Governance 
; if not why not?” My answer was that we had costed it. The member did not ask me what the cost was. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is the reason the Minister will not release the costing that he is worried that if Aucklanders really knew how much it will cost his plan would lose the little support that it has? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No not at all. In fact I am interested that the member is so concerned about the costs because I would have much preferred it if the previous Government had set out in the terms of reference the member’s concerns about the cost of the transition and concerns about the cost of running Auckland after the change. That was never set out in the terms of reference that the previous Government set up and spent $4 million on researching. 
Phil Twyford 
: What is the cost of the Government’s super-city proposal to implement and run annually? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry; I did not actually hear the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question because there was a lot of noise. I ask members to please show a little more respect to the member who is asking the question. 
Phil Twyford 
: How much will the Government’s super-city proposal cost to implement and run annually? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The first thing is that this is a different question from the one that the member asked yesterday. I think he wants to be very clear about saying that I did not answer a question in a particular way when he keeps shifting the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You’re running scared! Come on! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Is that not great—running scared from that member’s party when Mr Phil Twyford was not even allowed to put his name forward in Mt Albert. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have just witnessed a little show there where a member very simply put a question: “What is the cost …”—that is all that the question was. The Minister started to waste a lot of time by explaining how he was going to answer it and how it would be different from yesterday’s answer then once he was asked to answer the question he started to bring extraneous material in. All that we want is an answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The senior Labour whip was sitting very close by. The Hon David Cunliffe by interjection across the House accused the Minister of running scared. Naturally the Minister responded to such an interjection. I could have risen to my feet and told the Hon David Cunliffe to withdraw but I let the House run on for a moment to let off a bit of steam. But that is what provoked the answer from the Minister. If members do not want that kind of reaction from Ministers then they should not make that kind of interjection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your recollection of my comments was indeed correct. Let me rephrase if I may the point of order made by my colleague the chief Labour whip. The Minister did not respond to yesterday’s question other than to say that he had a costing. That was later contradicted by a staff member. The member could not have put it more simply in his final supplementary question: “What was that costing?”. The Minister made no attempt to address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that the Minister was on his way to answering the question. I invite him to do so. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let me make quite clear why we have this difficulty. The member asked me a question yesterday and let me read it out because I think it is important: “Has he costed the Government’s super-city proposal outlined in  
Making Auckland Greater: The Government’s decisions on Auckland Governance 
; if not why not?”. I answered that we had. I had a great deal of trouble understanding what the question was; I said that at the time. I am happy to answer that question because it seems to be about the cost of the proposal. What the member has asked today is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the member has made in good faith. To sort this matter out I invite the member Phil Twyford to repeat his question. I believe that it was a reasonably straightforward question. Let us have it answered. 
Phil Twyford 
: How much will the Government’s super-city proposal cost to implement to establish and to run annually? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us have just one question please. 
Phil Twyford 
: How much will the Government’s super-city proposal cost to implement? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The implementation costs will be miniscule compared with the Auckland Council’s combined operating costs of about $2 billion a year. This is about getting good governance and I wish that Mr Phil Twyford could deliver proper questions in the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is unnecessary. The question on notice today was “How much will the Government’s super-city proposal cost to implement and to run annually?”. The Minister pointed out why the cost of running it annually is not a matter the Minister can answer. But the fundamental question has been repeated. It is how much the proposal will cost to implement. If there is no estimate of that that is a fair answer but I believe that the House deserves an answer to the question. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: And I have given an answer Mr Speaker; I will repeat it if you like. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made it clear that to say the cost is miniscule is not a satisfactory answer to a question that was on notice. The Minister has had 2 hours for the officials to advise what the estimated cost of implementation is. It may be that it is not possible to have an accurate estimate and that would be a perfectly reasonable answer. But the question was on notice. It was not just a supplementary question—it was on notice. Officials have had time to provide the Minister with information. The matter is of public interest and I believe that the House deserves an answer. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at the question that was set down. There is an increasing problem. Given that you are being very strict about the sort of answer you want I think it is only reasonable that the questions should be quite precise. This question asks how much the Government’s super-city proposal will cost. Firstly where does the term “super-city” come from? Secondly—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: —it relates to a “proposal cost to implement”; to implement something is a one-off cost. Then the member wants to know the cost with regard to it being “run annually”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need this help. I invite the— 
Hon Members 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need more help. I explained in my ruling a moment ago that the second part of the question on notice as the Minister explained in his original answer was not something the Minister can estimate. That was absolutely fair and reasonable. I accept that “super-city” may not be the preferred terminology of the Government but authentication of the Minister’s having used that language himself was provided as part of the authentication process. So that matter was dealt with as part of the authentication process. All I am asking the Minister to do because the question was on notice and because the matter is a matter of public interest is to answer the question. If there is no estimate then that is a perfectly fair answer but to simply say the cost is minuscule compared with something else means that the Minister must have some information on the estimated cost and I believe that the House deserves to hear it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there are two other factors—and they are partially in support of your request but I think they also work somewhat against it. The Minister indicated both yesterday and again today that the proposal had been costed so I think that for you to say that he could answer by saying that it had not been costed or that the costings were not available is not an option because he would be breaching what he told the House less than 5 minutes ago and yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have invited the honourable Minister to answer the question. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Government actually does not have the cost of implementation but it is minuscule compared with the cost of $2 billion— 
Hon Members 
: How do you know if you haven’t got it? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Of course it is going to be—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is answering a question. I have insisted on an answer and it is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s on his way to the Privileges Committee. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Ha ha! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will hear the answer. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: It is minuscule compared with the $2 billion operating costs compared with the more than $1 billion that is spent on capital in a year and also in particular compared with the royal commission’s concern about the cost of not reforming Auckland governance. I invite members opposite before they get overly excited to refer to the question on notice that Mr Phil Twyford asked yesterday. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had I think three times today the deliberate mispronunciation of a member’s name by that Minister. He knows how to pronounce the member’s name and he should do it properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We all make mistakes from time to time with each others’ names including me as Speaker and I apologise for that when I have done it. The member is indicating it was a mistake. If it was a mistake then I just ask the member to try to get Phil Twyford’s name correct in the future. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to return to the point the Minister of Local Government made to the House before when he said he had costed the proposal. He then criticised— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member will sit down. The member has been a Minister; he is an experienced member of this House. Matters to do with the quality of an answer are not matters that the Speaker can deal with as a point of order. I required the Minister to provide an answer which the Minister did. It is rather unusual for a Speaker to do that; I think the honourable member will acknowledge that. But I cannot get involved in debate about the quality of an answer. Whether or not the Minister’s answer was accurate is not a matter of order in this House. It is not a matter that can be dealt with through points of order and the shadow Leader of the House should know that. 
Phil Twyford 
: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that the Government had costed its super-city proposal when it has not? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The answer yesterday was accurate. What the member failed to do yesterday was to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about today? Costings are changing overnight. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: With the greatest respect to the Hon Trevor Mallard the question today is a different question. The question yesterday was about what the proposal cost. The answer if the member had gone on to ask what the cost was would have been that the proposal cost $4 million for the royal commission and that the proposal the Government provided in response cost nothing because the proposal was provided for within existing departmental baselines. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am loath to raise another point of order but I believe that the Minister is crossing a very dangerous boundary here in trifling with your earlier rulings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. As Speaker I am perfectly capable of making that assessment myself. The Minister gave a perfectly proper answer to that final question. He pointed out that the wording of the question yesterday was different from today’s question and he answered it accordingly. If members want to get the answers they expect they need to be more careful about the wording of questions. 
Broadcasting Digital—Regulatory Review 
12.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What advice has he received from officials on the regulatory review of digital broadcasting? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 After the election the Government asked officials to prepare a report that outlined the competition issues in broadcasting based on work done up to that point on the regulatory review. Officials concluded that the current broadcasting environment appears workably competitive and that there are no compelling indications of future issues. It also noted that there is currently no strong case for the introduction of specific new regulations for the broadcasting sector. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What action has the Minister taken in light of that advice? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Government subsequently stopped further work on the regulatory review saving up to $300000 of public money in the process. We are now focusing our efforts on a forward-thinking programme of action in broadcasting. This includes an emphasis on contestable funding for public broadcasting achieving the transition to digital switchover and incorporating elements of the digital broadcasting review that align with this Government’s priorities. These include progressing work on post-digital switchover spectrum allocation regional television broadcasting and options for sensory-impaired viewers. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister confirm that in fact the Ministry of Culture and Heritage as part of that review favoured amending the Telecommunications Act to include broadcasting so as to “proactively manage risks relating to anti-competitive behaviour by Sky.”? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I note that that member has now been the Opposition spokesman on broadcasting for 6 months and that is the very first question he has asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will resume his seat. There was not even the slightest attempt to address the question asked; it was simply a direct attack on the questioner. That is not acceptable under the Standing Orders of this Parliament and the Minister should know that. I now ask the Minister to at least address the question. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I was just getting round to that. Basically there was a range of advice there. We looked at it and he is taking that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: —advice out of context. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to resume his seat. I say to the Minister that he may not be a senior Minister but he will obey the Standing Orders. When I call a point of order for him to carry on is totally intolerable. I will not tolerate that. I have called a point of order here. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The point of order is a relatively simple one. The Minister commented on your ruling in his reply. That is forbidden as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is and I noted it. I invite the Minister to answer the question succinctly. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I would just like to say that I could not actually hear your call for a point of order. I apologise but I could not hear it with the acoustics quite honestly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the apology. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: A range of advice was given in that briefing. The member knows there is a context to that advice. He has picked out one small bit but the broad thrust of the report is that there is no need to continue with the review and that member knows it. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table the report of officials entitled  
Television Broadcasting Competition Issues 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table a paper by Peter Thompson from Unitec’s department of communications studies entitled  
National’s Broadcasting Policy: Expedient Fictions Inconvenient Truths 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What other work is the Government progressing in broadcasting? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Government plans to introduce legislation to enact the revised Radio New Zealand charter and will shortly introduce legislation to repeal the Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) charter which will release TVNZ from the unworkable dual mandate the previous Government shackled it with. Recently publicly funded TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 were released to the Sky platform opening up that content to a further 700000 households. This Government believes in value for money and it makes sense that if the public is paying for content then the pool of viewers should be as large as possible. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 arising out of an answer that was given earlier by the Minister for Climate Change Issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the House need a little more guidance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A personal explanation is about a matter pertaining to a member. Giving a personal explanation about a Minister’s answer is right outside the scope. On the basis of what we have heard we could not grant leave for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee. The member would need to be a little clearer as to the personal explanation he seeks to make. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 One of the answers given by the Minister related to the position of Opposition members on the select committee and I believe it has the potential to mislead the House concerning their conduct and particularly in my own case I would like to be able to clarify it for the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat for a moment. It is a difficult one because members can seek to make a personal explanation only on their own behalf not on behalf of other members. I guess it is up to the House whether the House is prepared to allow leave for such a personal explanation. I put it to the House. Leave is sought for that personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection but I do ask the member to make sure it is a personal explanation. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 In answer to questions today the Minister for Climate Change Issues responded on one point that he hoped that Opposition members would be constructive in assisting to confront the very complex questions arising out of the climate change legislation because of the importance that they had for the country. My concern is that I wrote to the Minister some 6 weeks ago— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite evident that this is not an explanation about a matter that is of particular concern or relevance to that member from everything he is prefacing it with. I think it would be quite appropriate for the privilege that the House has extended to be terminated by you in this case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That is a discretion that you have Mr Speaker but you cannot do it on the basis of a point of order. A personal explanation cannot be interrupted by a point of order. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: With all due respect to the efforts of the Hon Trevor Mallard to cast himself as some sort of kaumatua to the House the Speaker has absolute discretion as to how the Standing Orders are implemented in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any more on this. I believe I did have the authority to hear the point of order raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I do have a concern. Leave to make personal explanations is a very important privilege conferred by the House and it should be used only where the matter is one that impacts on the member personally and he or she needs to give an explanation because the matter is causing very significant issues for the member concerned. So far from what the member has said to the House we have not heard anything that makes this statement come close to being a personal explanation. I will allow the member to make it clear very quickly how this is a personal explanation otherwise I will terminate it. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 My concern is that the impression given by the Minister was that perhaps that cooperation had not been forthcoming. I wrote to the Minister some 6 weeks ago— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat and so will the Hon Dr Nick Smith. There is no need to take this matter further. This is not in my view a personal explanation and I terminate it. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the answer from the Minister of Women’s Affairs that made the accusation that I had gatecrashed a conference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation on that matter. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] There will be silence in the House. I am on my feet. All members will be quiet. I have sought leave on behalf of the member for her to make a personal explanation on that matter but I could not determine whether the House was granting leave. Is the House prepared to grant leave for the personal explanation that has been sought? No the House has not granted leave for that purpose. That is the privilege of the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes it is a point of order. It is highly unusual when a Minister has made an accusation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat immediately. She cannot do that. The matter has been dealt with by the House. When the House deals with a matter that is it. I will not have the time of the House wasted. The matter has been dealt with. I warn both members that I will not tolerate that. I have ruled in the case of Mr Chauvel and in the case of—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will sit down. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think he was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And there will be silence. I warn the honourable member Sue Moroney that the House has dealt with her point of order and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you whether according to past practice the fact that a member has been denied leave to make a personal explanation is a factor that you would take into account when a question of privilege is being considered by you for reference to the Privileges Committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot make such a comment. Every matter of privilege is dealt with absolutely on its own merits and according to the Standing Orders of the House. I will remind members that it is not something that makes me particularly pleased when leave is sought to make a personal explanation and it is denied. But the honourable member will recollect that he himself has denied members the opportunity to make personal explanations. The matter has been dealt with. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table evidence of my registration at the Business and Professional Women’s Conference held in Masterton during the past weekend. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that evidence. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my letter to the Minister for Climate Change Issues offering to extend cooperation in order to get the emissions trading scheme legislation passed on an expeditious basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ministers must take the first available opportunity to correct answers that are incorrect. It is now clear from the evidence that I understand has been tabled that Pansy Wong was incorrect in her answer and she must take this opportunity to correct it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whether Ministers take opportunities to correct answers is a matter for Ministers. 
Maori Trustee Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move that the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear the Minister who is taking the call. The Speaker is on his feet and the Hon Annette King the Hon David Cunliffe and the Hon Trevor Mallard are all carrying on a discussion. That is not acceptable. I could not hear the Hon Dr Pita Sharples take his call. I call him now. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare e huihuinga i tenei rangi. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. And greetings to us assembled here in this House this day. 
] 
I move that the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is an extremely significant day in the life of this Parliament. It is a time to honour all those who have placed the issue of the Maori Trustee firmly on the political agenda for decades long before we came to this House. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot even hear myself! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now look I say that senior members the Hon Maurice Williamson and the Hon Tau Henare were both interjecting when the Hon Pita Sharples their own ministerial colleague raised the point of order— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Disgraceful—Shh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —and the Hon Parekura Horomia also. I do not know what members had for lunch today but could they please— 
Hon Member 
: Tories! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the honourable member let us just settle things down and actually treat this House—I ask members to treat this House—with some respect. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I move that the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my co-leader the Minister of Maori Affairs but he was probably about 15 to 30 seconds into his speech while all that discussion was going on. Unfortunately most of the members missed out on an awesome beginning to the speech of my leader. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will reset the clock. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Thank you very much. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: A kia ora tatau e huihui mai nei i roto i tenei Whare. Tena tatau. 
[ 
And greetings to us assembled here in this House. Greetings to us. 
] 
I move yet again  
That the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is an extremely significant day in the life of this Parliament. It is a time to honour all those who have placed the issue of the Maori Trustee firmly on the political agenda for decades long before we came to this House. I acknowledge the challenges of the Henare and Wright review in 1989 of the Charters Sykes and Nikora review of 1991— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot tell whether it is about Auckland things or what is happening down in that corner of the Chamber but we are trying to focus on the Minister of Maori Affairs and National members appear to be having a sub-caucus meeting down there. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. Yes conversations will be held in the lobbies not within the House. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I acknowledge the challenges of the Henare and Wright review in 1989 of the Charters Sykes and Nikora review of 1991 and of the Maori Affairs Committee report of 2001. I think today of all the calls from beneficial owners who have been moved to place their submissions before Parliament seeking to reform the role of the Maori Trustee. That has been a long time coming since the establishment of the function in 1921. Moving to more recent times I want to recognise the work of the previous Minister for his role in the preliminary stages of this bill—tena koe Parekura. 
But this bill is significant for one reason: this bill represents the first bill presented by an independent Maori Party. It makes for fascinating analysis to consider the passage of history that is marked this week in Parliament. Five years ago yesterday Parliament passed the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and today the Minister of Maori Affairs from the party that arose out of opposition to that bill now stands to deliver on legislation. 
This is a significant bill. It establishes the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation an aspiration that many people have had before this bill took shape. The bill changes the way that payments on money held in trust in the common fund administered by the Maori Trustee are determined. The bill is supported by funding increases for services to the Maori Trustee which are already in place. These are all achievements that we are proud to deliver on. Delivering on expectations is a commitment that we take very seriously and we realise that these expectations of course have a very long whakapapa to them. 
During the bill’s second reading members of this House spoke of the importance of the role of the Maori Trustee. One of the legacies of the long sad history of past Government Maori land policies is the ongoing need for a Maori Trustee. We are very aware of the levels of concern that tangata whenua have expressed over the years about the different roles the Maori Trustee has been required to play in the management and at times the acquisition of Maori land. We acknowledge too that there are still some situations in which the beneficial owners have had considerable difficulty in being able to exercise due care and regard for the protection of their whenua. Some Maori land is so fragmented that the separate blocks are not economic. Land may be isolated with no road access. The owners may have had to move away from it long ago in search of work and a roof over their heads. None the less this land continues to have huge cultural and spiritual significance to whanau and to wider groupings. Toi te kupu toi te mana toi te whenua—these three: language prestige and land are the foundations of te Ao Maori of our past our present and our future. 
The responsibility of the Maori Trustee brings with it then the investment that tangata whenua place in preserving the important connections between people and the land—between the tangata and the whenua. There are some cases where the current owners may not be known or may not be able to be found. Many of our people have lost their knowledge of their connection to the land of their ancestors. The demands of the modern world may have driven them to cities in New Zealand and overseas. So I stand here today pleased to support the role of the Maori Trustee in ensuring that those sacred bonds are upheld. The Crown will fund the stand-alone Maori Trustee for a range of functions. Those include finding the owners of the land held in trust and where practicable helping owners to move towards managing their own land. 
One of the themes that emerged from the Maori economic workshop that I held in January was the real potential for Maori and for New Zealand if Maori assets were better utilised. This is one of the areas that were identified for further work following the Prime Minister’s summit on employment. Making sure that the Maori Trustee is a strong and viable organisation is one aspect of that approach. 
In 2007 the Maori Trustee acted as trustee or agent for over 188000 owners and over 111000 hectares of Maori land. Following the conclusion of the review of the Maori Trustee funding for the Maori Trustee was increased last year. This was the beginning of the end of a long and complex process that began nearly two decades ago and has included looking at many options for the Maori Trustee. Today it is up to all of us in this House to finally bring this process to an end. 
This bill will make the Maori Trustee a stand-alone organisation able to focus firmly on providing high-quality services to Maori. The bill will put in place reporting arrangements for public funding. This will involve including the Maori Trustee as an organisation on schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989. These arrangements reflect the Maori Trustee’s independence while providing transparency and accountability for public money. 
As part of the shift to becoming a stand-alone organisation the Maori Trustee will need to be appointed in a new way. At present acting as the Maori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kokiri. Under the bill the Maori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs—and I am very aware of the serious responsibility this places upon me and of my responsibilities to beneficial owners. In order to provide continuity for the new organisation the bill provides that the current Maori Trustee will become the new Maori Trustee for a term of up to 5 years. Employees of the Maori Trust Office will also be transferred to the new organisation. I believe this provides certainty for staff and continuity for clients. 
The bill removes the potential for a differential between what the Maori Trustee earns from money held in trust in the common fund and what the Maori Trustee is required to pay beneficial owners. Under the new system account holders will get in returns what the Maori Trustee receives from the investment of the common fund less a management fee where applicable. That is a key part of the bill. It means that the return received by the owners of Maori land that is administered by the Maori Trustee will better reflect the returns received by the Maori Trustee. The Maori Trustee will also be required to report to account holders on these matters. The Maori Trust Office Regulations 1954 will be amended to be consistent with the changes set out in this bill. 
I want to place it on the public record that the reforms set out in this bill were widely supported during consultation in 2007. The bill was also unanimously supported by select committees. The bill implements much-needed and long-awaited changes to the Maori Trustee Act 1953. Once again I would like to thank all the many people and committees who have contributed to this exercise so we could reach this stage. The bill has attracted much debate throughout all of its stages and most of it has been very supportive complimentary and helpful. 
Today we will pass this bill and we will have a stand-alone Maori Trustee. It is therefore with much pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 E tika ana i runga i te tu nei ki te mihi kau ana ki a koe e te Minita Maori. Tena koe. Tena koe mo to kaha ki te mau ake i te tino take nei i tenei wa. No reira tena koe. 
[ 
It is apt as I rise to take this call that I acknowledge you the Minister of Maori Affairs. Greetings to you. Congratulations on your efforts to date in bringing this very important matter before us. Well done. 
] 
Labour certainly supports the introduction of the changes to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation and we understand the importance of amending provisions relating to the Maori Trustee’s organisational form and financial accountability. At present the Maori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kokiri but that is soon to change. The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill will establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation separate from Te Puni Kokiri. This will underline the independence that the people have sought for the Maori Trustee for generations. It is to ensure that the Maori Trustee is able to carry out the exact fiduciary responsibilities of the position. 
The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Maori Trustee in schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting and other accountability provisions for the Maori Trustee in respect of funding provided by the Crown while maintaining the Maori Trustee’s independence. For years the Crown has financed certain activities and there will be a clear differentiation now about where that ends and where the private aspects of the Maori Trustee start. The reporting requirements will include preparing an annual report with a statement of service performance. The bill provides that the Maori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs—which I support totally—for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments will enable the new stand-alone Maori Trustee to employ his or her own staff and to appoint a deputy Maori Trustee. 
In the sense of forward thinking this bill is about modernising and moving forward an important organisation that manages a very very sizable amount of Maori assets. The bill makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined. The bill provides that the Maori Trustee must pay the amount earned by the trustee in interest less a management fee; that provision is quite specific. The Maori Trustee will be required to review on a quarterly basis the amounts paid in the light of appropriate market rates given the nature of the common fund and the conditions under which the trustee operates. Together these changes underline the Maori Trustee’s role and independence and enhance the trustee’s accountability for public funding while protecting and furthering the interests of the trustee’s beneficiaries. 
The real question asks whether this bill goes far enough. There are issues relevant to Te Ture Whenua legislation—the second part of which I tried to bring alongside this bill—and I again encourage the Minister of Maori Affairs to re-look at that and see what relevance it has in relation to his wish to build economic surety for our people. 
There was a good turnout at the consultations we held all around the country. There have been several consultations with Maori in relation to this bill on the proposal for the stand-alone Maori Trustee. Wider discussion emerged at hui about the possibility of the Maori Trustee taking more of a leadership role to promote Maori development. I know there is the opinion that Maori can be left alone to do their own thing and that needs to be encouraged. But there are some fundamentals within what the Maori Trustee works with in relation to succession planning through all that multiplicity of assets. A whole lot of assets are not succeeded to—firstly because people do not care to claim them. It can also be because the assets are too small or because the people have moved off somewhere and are hard to find. My learned colleague Tau Henare suggested the other evening that we got Baycorp and the Inland Revenue Department to find out where those owners were; I am not too sure about that. 
More seriously it is really really important to understand the differentiation between a customary asset which is perceived as an equitable asset and those freehold titles of Pakeha and other people. At the end of the day the accumulated strength in the sense of small shareholdings coming together is offset—and penalised at times because Maori have to pay market rates on the land. They pay the maximum for the valuation which is really geared around the saleability of property but the majority of those lands are never sold—never sold. That is an unfairness. I listened to Mr Hide formulating new ideas on the super-city council this afternoon but this is a very very serious problem for Maori because the productivity of those lands is huge in areas like Gisborne Hawke’s Bay Wairarapa Bay of Plenty— 
Hon John Carter 
: Northland. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —and Northland. They really add to the export numbers yet they are penalised for being that valuable asset. I say to Mr Hide that I hope the super-city council will take a better look at that issue and be fairer. I applaud the super-city move and if we get the three Maori seats and his sort of advice to make sure that that asset is recognised that is a good start. 
Hon Member 
: Only three? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If there are more seats then we will be more appreciative. Both the National Party and its new ally the Maori Party need to put into action the call from our people to encourage the Maori Trustee to take more of a leadership role in Maori development. Maori are feeling the sharp edges of a recession and some of us cannot chortle about those of our people who struggle—those on a lower income or with assets not well used. I want to say again that the valuation on those lands managed by the Maori Trustee is geared against saleability and that the majority of those lands will never be sold. Maybe it has come into the minds of Maori to sell something to get something else. Valuations have gone up on other properties which are sold now at ridiculous prices but our people get penalised. As I have said now more than ever Maori need support. 
You know at the end of the day this bill is very important to Maori and I commend all the officials from Te Puni Kokiri and the Maori Trust Office. I commend the Maori Affairs Committee and I commend the Minister of Maori Affairs for having the courage to take this through. I further commend him to be seriously forward-looking and make sure he has a look at the second part that we were working on; I would be more than happy to help him do that. 
The main change to the bill concerns the termination of the appointment of the Maori Trustee. As was said formerly he was previously appointed by the chief executive officer of Te Puni Kokiri; the Minister of Maori Affairs now has that responsibility. And the operation of the Maori Trustee’s account is a very very important part. When there are accumulated funds and nobody knows where to send them someone has to use a clear forward-thinking mindset to get a solution generated; whether it is for those beneficiaries in iwi clusters or in rohe clusters someone needs to make a move. The funds should not be left in the account just for someone to guess what should be done with them. 
Section 19 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 provided that the Maori Trustee’s account had to be operated only by cheques or other instruments signed by authorised officers. Section 21 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 stated that the Maori Trustee gave authority to officers to sign cheques or other instruments. So all the issues such as that one have needed to be modernised and moved forward. As for money held in the common fund and invested in the fund the select committee has recommended that the term “distributable income” replace the term “interest” in clause 11 of the bill. The Maori Trustee Act 1953 had required that interest earned from the investment of money in the common fund was paid into the general purposes fund. 
I certainly pay due respect to all of those staff members and the people who have given loyally to the Maori Trust Office—the management and those of our people who have passed on. That office is one of the most tangible things that we still maintain and have control of like our language. The land is our land generally—the lot that was not flogged—and we can do something about the stuff we have now. There is modernisation in the sense of ensuring that we lift the asset value to its capacity but the main thing about the usage is that we can trim the operation down ensure that owners are found and ensure the assets are utilised. I will not say “better” utilised because a lot of Maori assets are well maintained and well managed at the moment. The myth that everything is in scrub and bracken is starting to fade away. Our people are capable and our people want to compete in this modern world but—bear with me—I say again that it is important that the differentiations here need to be managed. But this is a good bill; I commend the Minister of Maori Affairs again and the officials. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I too congratulate the Hon Pita Sharples the Hon Parekura Horomia the officials from Te Puni Kokiri and the Maori Affairs Committee of the last Parliament. The committee was chaired by Dave Hereora and two former members of that committee Pita Paraone and Mahara Okeroa are no longer here. I congratulate them on their work in the select committee part of the process of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. Once a bill has been introduced select committees are the engine room of Parliament. Select committee members get to hear the submissions and all the talk by the officials. So I congratulate the members who sat on the Maori Affairs Committee in the last Parliament. 
I want to say to two Henares who have been part of the last 50-odd years of reviewing the Maori Trust Office—my cousin Denese Henare and my uncle Bob Henare—that it was a job well done. Bob Henare was an unsung hero and sadly is not with us any more. More important his real name was Mita Robert Hoturoa Henare. He was the first Maori to be the general manager—as we said in those old days—of a Government department outside of the Department of Maori Affairs. He was in fact general manager of the New Zealand Railways Corporation. 
To get back to the bill I say that when it is passed the Maori Trustee will become a stand-alone organisation. It will have better accountability in terms of the beneficiaries for whom it is looking after interest. It will be more transparent than it has been and that has to be good for any organisation whether or not it is a Maori organisation. The bill is the beginning of a forward-looking Maori Trustee. It tidies up a few things and will not be a panacea for all of Maoridom’s woes. With all due respect to those who have shareholdings in Maori land interests I make the point that a lot of us do not have any. A lot of Maoridom like myself who live and breathe the urban lifestyle are not beneficial owners of any pieces of Maori land. I make this point too: I am not crying over it. 
Hon David Parker 
: The politics of envy! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no. There is no envy in those politics I say to my friend. Only somebody who was born and bred in the streets of Otara and now happily lives in west Auckland knows that it is no good being envious of somebody who has something that he or she does not have. 
We must now concentrate on getting the benefits that have accrued over the many years of the Maori Trust Office to those who rightfully own them. I say to the House that if we dare move to that old worn-out idea of a Maori bank then we are in trouble especially if we propose to use the money that is in the Maori Trust Office or the money that has accrued to the Maori Trustee. I am still of the belief that that money belongs to those beneficiaries and/or their families. So before we go down the track of thinking that it is amazing what we could do with this $35 million clump of money let us go down the track of trying everything to find those beneficiaries and their families. Although my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia the previous Minister of Maori Affairs pooh-poohs my idea of using Baycorp and the Inland Revenue Department— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: So do the Tories. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No they do not. We have not tried Baycorp or the Inland Revenue Department. It is no good to pooh-pooh the idea if over the last 40 years we have not tried it. Let us have another look at it. Currently all we do is expect the Maori Trust Office to come up with a thick book that is full of names which we then drop on the local runanga office expecting those people whose names are in the book to walk in off the streets and say: “Well my name’s Harry Walker and I’m here for my five grand.” It does not work like that; it will never work like that. As long as we continue this outdated outmoded way of trying to hunt people down in order to give them a benefit—to give them what they deserve—we will never win. 
I think the passing of this bill is just a precursor to some exciting stuff down the road. It is an opportunity for the Maori Party and the Minister of Maori Affairs to lay claim once and for all to a real bright future. We are here to help him on that journey—not just some of us but all of us. 
I want to take a little time to talk about the gestation of this bill because I think I need to put it into perspective. We cannot all just stand up here and lay platitudes at the feet of the present Minister of Maori Affairs the previous Minister of Maori Affairs and the previous previous previous Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Three times removed! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes—the Minister of Maori Affairs thrice removed. 
This bill originally appeared in this House with another part and that was where the Minister or the Government would take part of the spoils of the beneficiaries—albeit the interest on the spoils—and put it into a development fund. The idea may have been laudable but the problem was that it did not carry the country with it. The problem was that there was not a full round of consultation. I think that that part of the original bill the rest of which became the bill we are passing today was a ruse for the Minister to get his hands on the $35 million. As I said it was a laudable idea but it is maybe not the right time. 
Again I say that the passing of this bill is just a precursor to something that may be very very exciting. There may be something we can do to give back to the beneficiaries what they truly deserve and what they can rightly call their own—that is in any business parlance a dividend that they should get back as I suppose recompense for all the years their land interests have been used. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak in the third reading debate of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill and to reiterate the comments of my colleague and previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia that we support the bill. 
I want to pick up where Mr Henare left off when he was explaining some of the background in terms of Labour’s work on this legislation. It was always with a view in mind that we had two bills introduced in tandem with the broader objective of trying to improve and accelerate Maori development. That is a very important point. Mr Henare himself gave recognition that this bill is not the panacea for all the woes that exist within Maoridom and I reiterate that. The context of trying to move the Maori Trustee office as a stand-alone entity should exist within an environment that is more conducive to accelerating Maori development. There are no two ways about that. People who have been following this debate could be forgiven for thinking that there was some confusion in the Committee stage about the broad parameters of our debate because certainly Labour members were continually putting forward a futuristic context for how the Maori Trustee office could contribute to Maori development and we were pilloried by the Government for that very perspective. But we still hold true to that. 
The intent of introducing this legislation was to enable the Maori Trustee office to be a stand-alone entity—which was a very good move—to increase transparency and accountability for the distribution of retained earnings and to look at how management fees were being apportioned. Those were all fine things to be achieved—including the provision for a deputy trustee—all good moves within this bill. But—and this is a very important but—it should be viewed within the context of other connecting bits of work to help improve and accelerate Maori development aspirations. Parekura Horomia as the previous Minister of this portfolio well identified that as a natural consequence of dealing with the issue of trying to find shareholders the solution may in part lie in reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. It may in part lie with the Maori Trustee’s office itself improving its opportunity to identify shareholders who have continued to remain unidentified. A part solution was raised by Tau Henare. He suggested we should look at Baycorp’s register to identify some of these unidentified shareholders. But I suggest to the Minister that an iwi register could be just as useful. Some of the reasons why many of these owners are not identified is that they have to succeed to their land and there is a cost to go through in that process. Is it worth it for them to go through that whole process? So we have to make those connections again. Some of the solution could perhaps lie in reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to see how it could better remove some of the impediments. 
I also want to draw on some of the issues that were raised throughout the debate about the retained earnings of the Maori Trustee. Again a lot of criticism came towards Labour for proposing that rather than just letting that sum sit there in abeyance not being utilised at all we should use it to accelerate Maori development. Let us utilise it to accelerate Maori development aspiration pretty much in the same way that support was given to establishing the Kohanga Reo Trust and the Poutama Maori Business Trust and we have now seen through the passage of time they have had made a significant contribution in their respective areas to advance the aspirations of Maori to lift their opportunities and to support that broader ambition that we certainly have on this side of the House to improve Maori development. It is a good ambition and it requires a number of strategies to achieve that outcome. Again I support all the endorsements that have been reiterated in the House for the hard work and effort of officials of the clerk of the Maori Affairs Committee and of the two Ministers involved in stewarding this bill from its inception to its final passage. Again I urge all members in this House to view this as just one small step in a number of steps that have to be undertaken with a degree of urgency if we are really to arrest some of the difficulties that exist amongst many of our communities in developing unproductive land and being able to lift and support our governance structures governance training and governance responsibilities of those structures in our communities enabling greater partnering opportunities with the Maori Trustee office and other iwi entities and the like of being able to look at some of the impediments on unproductive Maori land. 
I raised through the Committee stage the fine work that the Minister of Maori Affairs’ ministry is undertaking around the issues of valuation and the rating of Maori land which I hope will help inform better the current Minister of Local Government because there are inequities in that process. Sadly I was not in the portfolio long enough to try to deal with that. The Minister already knows some of that history but commencing this very important work within Te Puni Kokiri with a clear framework that identifies the impediments to developing some of the lands that we are talking about I think will make a useful contribution to ongoing policy development in local government. I hope the Minister of Local Government takes account of some of those inequities because on the issue of governance he has no regard at all for the contribution that Maori can make at a governance level to the quality of decision making on councils. 
The real challenge is that local government is an area that affects the everyday lives of people. Maori make a significant contribution to the quality of life in many communities. Maori want to ensure that they retain the opportunity to have a role at the decision-making table. Auckland is a good test case but more important councils recognise that it is probably better to have unproductive lands many of which are in Maori shareholding utilised rather than not. That is why if we look at some of the best practice that exists in councils policies in the area of rating of Maori land have looked to strategies more conducive to development rather than to constrictive strategies which get low land shareholding. So there are a number of solutions that lie within the wider ambit of the portfolio of the Minister of Maori Affairs. I certainly would endorse any of the work that he undertakes in that regard because it is all very important. 
I would like to touch on the Supplementary Order Paper that was introduced as a result of the contribution that I made at the Committee stage. That was around the issue of clarity in terms of delegations between the Maori Trustee and the deputy trustee certainly in the situation where—for the unlikely or unfortunate reason—the Maori Trustee may be suspended so that there is some continuity in terms of the role with the office. I acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper and think that that is a fine amendment to stop political interference in some of the important functions that are undertaken by the role of the Maori Trustee. 
Finally I reiterate and endorse the comments of my colleague Parekura Horomia on this issue which he knows a lot about—I think he could have spoken for another 10 minutes. I commend to this House the ambitious aspiration that we have that the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill and a future bill that supports Maori development can be something that we all find a common ground on and debate robustly in this House in the future. Kia ora koutou. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am taking a call to speak briefly on the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. The Green Party is voting for this bill. We support proper clarification of the role of the Maori Trustee and recognise the fraught historical and contemporary issues that tangata whenua have experienced around structures created by a colonising Government. We hope this bill will be a positive part of the jigsaw of justice as opposed to a confusing status quo. 
As a Pakeha on the outside of this issue but with a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi I am supporting my colleague Metiria Turei’s view on the development of this bill. I would like to say one thing inspired by mana whenua. Concepts and structures such as trustee incorporation land court and beneficiary have been used to disenfranchise tangata whenua since the 1800s. The assumption is that Western instruments can liberate indigenous people from their oppression but in effect they have operated to destroy collectivity and haputanga to benefit the few and alienate the resources. As Moana Jackson and others have said the name of names is the mother of all things. So with some apprehension we vote yes to this bill. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Firstly I take the opportunity in this call to express my condolences and the condolences of the 2008 fraternity and the whole of the National Party to the Parata family. As members probably know Hekia’s mother has passed away. Her tangi is taking place as we speak and her burial will be on Saturday. So I think it is appropriate and important that we acknowledge that sad occasion. 
I like some of the previous speakers congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on expediting the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill on showing his stewardship in his new role and on the leadership he is bringing to his portfolio. Although I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the previous Minister my friend and colleague Parekura Horomia I say that sadly he was unable to expedite the passage of this bill at the same pace that the new Minister has. 
I will just explain the sort of pressure that my friend and colleague the previous Minister worked under. In preparing for this debate I thought it appropriate that I go back to the first reading debate and Committee stage of this bill to make sure that I was fully informed as to how it came to this stage. It was interesting for me to note that this bill was introduced by Dr Cullen. He overrode the then Minister of Maori Affairs took the floor and introduced and moved this bill. I felt sorry for my friend and colleague because he worked under the enormous shadow of Dr Cullen as we saw again and again with for example the foreshore and seabed legislation. Even the negotiations with Maori over the emissions trading scheme were led by Dr Cullen. That was the big burden that my friend and colleague Parekura Horomia had to work under. It is great that he can now come before us released of that burden and be able to show his true leadership. He is able to contribute much more and represent Maori in greater capacity. 
The second point I make in terms of doing my research for this third reading where I canvassed the summary and the issues as to how we got here is that as both the previous speakers for the Opposition have alluded to this bill was part of a much larger piece of work—a much larger bill. As part of that bill the working title Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand was introduced. The problem was that when the bill went to the Maori Affairs Committee Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand was exposed as being a little piggy bank. The sort of moneys that had accumulated in the Maori Trustee were going to be taken and used. I think we heard the phrase “party hacks” bandied around a couple of days ago. Well there was no doubt in my mind that the Government of the day had every intention of creating this little piggy bank under the name and guise of Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand and putting a whole lot of party hacks on its board—and I can think of some of them: Wayne Butson and Gregory Fortuin. Gregory Fortuin is on the boards of the Families Commission Crown Forestry Rental Trust and New Zealand Post. I tell members that every time I see this guy Gregory Fortuin he is mana-munching around the marae and the hui trying to get to the front row. He never speaks but he loves getting on to the front row and doing a bit of mana-munching. 
The important thing about this bill is that it is focused on the Maori Trustee and its operation. It is not focused on creating piggy banks for our friends lackeys and hacks. The first principle to remember is that this is someone else’s money. It is not a slush fund. The Maori Trustee has accumulated earnings and accumulated cash that belong to specific beneficiaries. Under any public trust law—or any law of any land—money belongs to the beneficiaries. Because of the outstanding contributions of the Maori Party members and the National Party members on the select committee the committee was able to pull back the purpose of the bill to the true fundamentals: to drag the Maori Trustee into the modern 21st century. 
That was the fundamental purpose of this bill and that is what the select committee said. It said that we should just focus on modernising the Maori Trustee and that we should give it the capability of electronic transfers so that it does not have only the ability to sign handwritten cheques. The Maori Trustee was almost using a quill and blotting paper as that was how it used to operate. But the select committee focused on modernising the bill and dragging its operations into the 21st century. That was first principles that is what the select committee did and that is what this Government will do in passing this bill. That is what the Minister wants: he wants to modernise the Maori Trustee so that it can focus on things like finding beneficiaries administrating getting better money and getting better returns for the people. 
I agree with the previous speakers from the Opposition benches that Maori economic development is important. Aspirations are important; we are at one on that. We talked about it throughout this debate on this bill and through the first reading—not that I was here but I read about it—the Committee stage and the second reading. It is important. We will deal with that with the passage of time under the great stewardship and leadership of the current Minister of Maori Affairs who will take us forward and bring growth to Maori. 
For this bill we need to focus only on the issues. As a consequence the bill is in two parts. The first part deals with the operational framework to take the Maori Trustee into the modern 21st century. There are clauses around independence disclosures and reporting. My friend and colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia has canvassed a lot of those issues. But he forgot the second part of the bill which allows for the transitional arrangements. 
It is with great pleasure that I offer my full support and join with my National colleagues—and hopefully our Labour friends on the Opposition benches—in pushing through the Minister’s first bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Otira kai te Minita tena koe. Kia piki te ora ki to hoa rangatira. Kai te tautoko ake i ena whakaaro ki tera o wa tatau kuia e takoto mai ra i tona marae tona atamira hoki. Me te mihi ano ra ki tona whanau ki a Hekia ma a Herewini ma otira tona whanau nui tonu. Tenei matau kai tenei taha o te Whare e tautoko ake ana i ena whakaaro. 
[ 
Greetings indeed to you the Minister. May your good lady’s health continue to improve. I endorse those tributes to that particular kuia of ours lying in state on her courtyard and her stage. Condolences to her family—Hekia Herewini and others—and indeed to her extended family at large. We on this side of the House endorse the tributes expressed. 
] 
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of a very very dear lady from Ngati Porou the mother of Hekia Parata. She is currently lying in state at her marae in Ruatoria. I thank the previous speaker Paul Quinn for raising the matter. Certainly we on this side of the House acknowledge her passing. 
I also congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on supporting the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill and bringing it through the Committee stage to the third reading. The Committee stage was very interesting. Every speaker who stood in this House highlighted the need for change and identified particular benefits within the bill which will ensure that the Maori Trust Office is a stand-alone organisation headed by the Maori Trustee. The bill includes all the technical amendments that are required to ensure robust transparent and accountable financial management systems. Also Part 2 ensures that any staff of the Maori Trust Office do not undergo any negativity because of the change. In fact from what I can understand from the legislation the proposal and the staff of the Maori Trust Office there is no concern in that particular area. 
Also during the Committee stage interestingly enough the former Minister of Maori Affairs thrice removed raised a number of issues for the current Minister of Maori Affairs. Those issues were also put before the previous Minister of Maori Affairs my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia who introduced this bill to the House. Amongst those challenges was one to go out and find who the undeclared beneficiaries of Maori Trustee assets are. It is not a simple straightforward undertaking. Tau Henare said we could get Bay Collection Agency to do it or we could borrow Inland Revenue Department staff who seem to be able to find anyone anywhere at any time. It does not work in this case because simply the issues of unidentified beneficiaries that the Maori Trust Office has to deal with are intergenerational. They have been around for decades. 
Unlike the Hon Tau Henare I do not have a grandfather father uncle or auntie who was a former employee of the Maori Trust Office or the Department of Maori Affairs. Like Paul Quinn over there my father uncles and aunties were farmers. They were people who toiled the land. They were out on the land every day. They entrusted their undeclared estates to the Maori Trustee Office with absolute comfort. Well that was about 100 years ago and times change. The needs of Maori people change. My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta highlighted what those changes need to be in terms of our taking a huge step forward. As Tau Henare said this bill is not the panacea for Maori woes; in fact it is nothing more than a band-aid. It is a band-aid for a hakihaki that has been bleeding for a very very long time. It brings us into the 21st century. 
Maori around the country who were part of the consultation round acknowledged the need for change. They acknowledged the need for change and for a higher level of transparency in terms of their being able to monitor the use of these assets. Some of them are undeclared in terms of who the rightful beneficiaries are; some beneficiaries know that their assets are there but they choose to leave them there and I can name a number of people in that situation. Several members of my family are in that situation. 
My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta alluded to the need to take a step forward from where we are now in terms of the Maori Trust Office. I know that my whanaunga from Ngati Awa—actually he is my tuakana—in his contribution to the House said that we did not want to set up a fund where everybody has his or her nose in the trough. Well what a sad way to feel about Maori development; it is a very sad way to feel about Maori development. That may have happened in the time that he recalls but I can tell him that under the previous Minister of Maori Affairs it did not happen and under the current Minister of Maori Affairs it does not happen. The worn-out track that certain people from certain communities trod over a number of years to the office of the Minister of Maori Affairs with their hands out and their briefcases open was shut long ago. Now when those people enter the office of the Minister of Maori Affairs the simple question is “What have you got?”. They are asked what their contribution is and what the benefits for Maori people across the country are. Those people did not get any time with the previous Minister of Maori Affairs and they do not get any time with the current Minister of Maori Affairs unless they are very clear about what their contributions are. I do not want to name those people; obviously some people here know who they are but let us not go down that track. 
I am glad to hear that the Minister of Maori Affairs is 100 percent in support of this bill. I am very glad to hear that and I hope that in the near future he will bring off the shelf and give priority to the proposal to establish a Maori economic development arm of the Maori Trustee Office. Equally important I hope he adopts the same attitude that he has adopted this afternoon in this House when it comes to Treaty settlements. The Minister of Maori Affairs is in a very strong position to make sure that all the hurdles and encumbrances currently affecting the passage of settlement legislation through this House are removed. He has the opportunity to make a valuable contribution by ensuring that years and years of negotiations and resource commitment are not wasted. As my colleague Nanaia Mahuta said this bill when enacted should complement a lot of positive activities that are currently in place for Maori. As a former Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I find that approach to be—and declare it to be—a very high priority. 
She also mentioned that over a number of years—and it had been mentioned by speakers during the Committee stage—very strong Maori organisations had been established using funds from the Maori Trust Office. That did not appear to be a concern at the time because Maori around the country knew that it was time to make a move and time to take a step forward. Our Maori language being used on our marae in our homes and kura kaupapa and right through the education system started there. Let us not forget that. Let us not call these funds a slush fund when our people—everybody—made such a sacrifice to make sure that the kohanga reo movement the Poutama Maori Business Trust and all the other initiatives were a huge success. But let us not stop there; let us keep going. 
As Tau Henare said we can see whether we can find out who these beneficiaries are and after a period of time maybe we can tell ourselves: “Well let us use the fund to promote Maori economic development.” The problem with Tau’s statement is that we have been trying to find these people for 100 years. When is enough enough? When can we sit down and say to ourselves: “Let us trust ourselves. Let us trust our people. Let us make the move. Let us take the risk and go forward—no more looking back no more putting down our people no more ngau tuara and all that stuff. Let us throw it out; we don’t need it.”? I say to the Minister of Maori Affairs that we on this side of the House have made a commitment to work with him on these particular matters in order to go forward. That commitment stands but I will say it again: we have very very high expectations and standards which is what our people out there expect from us. 
That is my contribution to the debate on the third reading of the bill. I must say that I do support it—I do not want anyone saying that I did not say that! Once again I thank the members of the 2008 Maori Affairs Committee: the then chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee David Hereora who is no longer in this House; the Hon Mahara Okeroa who is no longer in this House; Pita Paraone who is no longer in this House; the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu; and the Hon Tau Henare. I thank all the officials who guided us through this very difficult legislation. I also thank all of those who came to the committee with their submissions to express their views for and against certain aspects of the bill. In closing I say that there is no doubt that this bill has been thoroughly examined. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will begin by adding my message of condolence to the Parata whanau at this time. 
I am absolutely delighted that the whip saw fit to allocate me a call on the third reading of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. I guess it is through opportunities like this that new MPs like me can come to understand and contribute to the debates on such a wide policy range. I am certain that a great many members—and we have heard from many of them—are far more qualified than I am to comment on the merits of this legislation. Nevertheless I will do my best to make a contribution to the discourse with Hipkins-like enthusiasm. 
The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill had its genesis in the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill and it had two intentions: firstly the establishment of the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation and secondly to propose arrangements of the statutory corporation to further Maori economic development. As has been elucidated to some degree by my colleague Mr Quinn that part of the initial bill was a bit contentious and in fact created quite some debate when the larger bill had its first reading. I think at that time my colleague the Hon Tau Henare said that perhaps the bill should be called the “Maori Trustee Theft Bill” so it was clearly quite contentious legislation. Wisely the select committee having considered the submissions decided to split the bill into two. 
This bill deals with the first intention of the bill which is the establishment of the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. I note that the select committee in its very carefully considered deliberations decided that the changes to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation were important enough that that split occur and that the bill should actually be passed before the close of the forty-eighth Parliament. So it seems that this bill is yet another example of the bit of a tangle the previous administration got into when it was far more interested in policies that ensured its continued survival on the Treasury benches than on focusing on the issues at hand and the passage of legislation. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is taking appropriate legislation from the obscurity of the Order Paper where it has been languishing and ensuring its speedy passage through the House and into law. 
I think it is appropriate to focus for a moment on the second objective of that initial bill and why this Government and its confidence and supply partners are extremely concerned about ensuring that aspirations for Maori are met particularly their economic development aspirations because they are so important to the social and cultural strength of any people—but certainly Maoridom. There were certainly sufficiently challenging elements to that part of the legislation for it to be put to one side but I look forward to this Government and its confidence and supply partners coming up with much more appropriate policies and legislation that will enable innovation economic growth and prosperity for tangata whenua. 
The issue of Maori economic development is as important now as it has ever been as we stare down the barrel of recession—the depth and length of which we cannot really determine yet and which to a considerable degree is somewhat beyond the control of small economies like ours. We know that the tax-and-spend policies of the previous Labour administration which it believed somehow contributed to strong economic performance over the past few years but actually acted as a handbrake when better policies would have led to stronger growth and a greater resilience to the downturn were thankfully ended. They were thankfully ended by not only the general electorate but the Maori electorate who saw through those policies and elected parties to govern so that they could cushion the country through the harshest edges of recession. High tax and public spending will not end this recession. Education innovation entrepreneurship risk taking and increasing exports are the key to improving our position relative to other OECD countries. Rising unemployment is probably the most tangible and concerning element of recession. Previous recessions have identified that Maori are as vulnerable or more so as the rest of the population when considering the average rates of unemployment. Maori economic development initiatives must continue to be encouraged as evidenced by the Maori development workshops that have already been held earlier this year and mentioned by the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. I look forward to the Government and the Maori Party continuing to explore ways in which this can be achieved. 
The Maori Trustee I understand is also responsible for the administration of the Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship which was created by the Maori Soldiers Trust Act in 1957. I am advised that the scholarship funding comes from the Hereheretau Station in Wairoa which is a major asset of the Maori Soldiers Trust so I certainly commend the work of the trust office and the opportunities given to Maori students through that scholarship. 
During the Committee stage my colleague Aaron Gilmore talked about the issue of distributable income and those who are and are not entitled to income. In particular he referred to the unclaimed moneys in some of the families from his area in Te Wai Pounamu who were entitled to in some cases considerable amounts of money as I understand it thanks to the amendments being made to clauses 11 and 11A. The entitlement to those unclaimed moneys will rise by the fact that all of the income from the investment of money in the common fund will be paid into the common fund and the distributable income will be paid out of the common fund rather than the interest earned being paid into the general purposes fund. Mr Gilmore was strongly in favour of some of the families he described in respect of that clause. I support that view and look forward to that being the case. 
One of the other significant things the bill does is to effectively write off the Maori Trustee’s accumulated debt to the Crown therefore ruling out the need for section 41 and making the Maori Trust Office effectively Crown funded. That is not to indicate that the autonomy of the Maori Trust Office should be compromised in any way. The whole purpose of this bill is to crystallise the independence of the Maori Trustee as in fact any trustee would. The basic principles of trust law in this country revolve around that independence. The legislation will more accurately bring the Maori Trustee into line with common principles as set out by the trustee’s Act and its subsequent amendments. 
I am very delighted to have been given the opportunity to take this call and spend a few minutes sharing my learnings of the day. I am proud to support this bill as my Government will and I look forward to its passage through the House so that the general level of accountability for the office of the Maori Trustee is approved. The Maori Trustee will be free from political pressure as a stand-alone organisation and it will add to the communication between the trustee and its beneficiaries. I support this bill. I look forward to its passage through the House. I hope I have not kept Mita awake for too long. I will be very happy to support this bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 As I rise to speak on the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill I would like to recognise and pay tribute to Hekia Parata and her mother who very sadly has passed away. Hekia of course is my bench mate in Parliament. I do know that Hekia’s mother was extremely proud of her and if her mother was anything like Hekia she would have been a very strong and capable woman. This is a great loss not only to her family but to all of us. 
In rising to speak on this bill I give a word of caution to my very good friend Paul Quinn who spoke with great eloquence earlier in this debate. I want to caution you about the savaging you keep on giving the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia on these issues. I think you should leave the previous Minister of Maori Affairs alone. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Would you please keep the Chair out of the discussion. “You” refers to the Chair. 
TODD McCLAY 
: My apologies Mr Assistant Speaker. I think when Paul is speaking in this House it would be best for him not to savage the previous Minister of Maori Affairs in such a way. The previous Minister is committed to this bill and he speaks with great support for the Maori people. It strikes me when listening to him that he has an open mind. Perhaps he has an open mind when it comes to issues about Maori people in New Zealand. In fact his mind is so open on this issue that Paul suggested to me he could feel the draught from here. 
I commend the current Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples for the fast pace and big progress he has made in delivering this bill before the House. He is a Minister who is all about delivery. I liken him using a rugby analogy to a winger who has a bill under his arm and is charging down the sideline when the members of the previous Government are still hanging around the halfway line arguing with the referee and complaining amongst themselves as to why someone else has the ball—in this case the bill—and is running off to score a try. 
Tau Henare another former Minister of Maori Affairs spoke earlier. Indeed it is my impression having observed this bill in other discussions in Parliament over the last 6 months that the new Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples is probably even better as a Minister than Tau Henare was when he was the Minister of Maori Affairs. I know that members opposite will find this hard to believe but he has been doing a very good job. Tau Henare was an excellent Minister none the less. 
In coming to the bill directly I say it is very important legislation. I had the opportunity to speak on this bill in the Committee stage. When I went back to my office and was able to look at my speech and read it I realised that I might have made an error during my discussion in the Committee stage. I referred to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I think I might have questioned whether she was a good person. I have had a chance to reflect on that very clearly and I know that she supports this bill. I want to say how much I enjoyed the discussions I had with her during the campaign last year in Matamata and upon reflection I can say she is not only an honourable person but a very good person. I want to set the record straight on that. Of course at the time it was not clear whether she was supporting the bill but her smile at me now suggests that she will be doing so and therefore I set the record straight. 
What does this bill do? We have heard other speakers talk about that at great length but I repeat that it establishes the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. Finally after so long all the fighting the quibbling and the discussions that went on under the last Government in relation to the organisation around the Maori Trustee will be set aside. The good news for the Maori Trustee is that not only will it be easier for the Maori Trustee to do his or her work but the Maori Trustee will be able to focus on the very important job of going out there and finding the people for whom he or she is entrusted with funds and with land and of trying to deliver some of the funds back to those people. 
The bill also looks at the Minister’s authority when appointing a trustee and also—this is important—when the Minister decides to take away the appointment of a trustee. I note—and in the debate others have spoken of this—that the Minister must observe the rules of natural justice. When one considers the rules of natural justice I suggest one realises that when the previous Government put that provision in place—before it was unable to deliver this bill to Parliament and pass it into law—it did not have the current Minister in mind. He is a man whom I do not think we need to remind about natural justice. But perhaps in the future one day 15 years from now this issue will come up. Let us suppose that one of the members opposite becomes the Minister of Maori Affairs again. It might possibly be the Hon Parekura Horomia if he is still here as the Labour Party rejuvenates itself. Well on looking at this bill I see that the reference to the Minister observing the rules of natural justice is important. It suggests that politics will be left out of that; politics will be set aside. That will be a good 15 years from now and observing the rules of natural justice would be a great thing. 
Paul Quinn 
: He will be Prime Minister. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Does the member think the Hon Parekura Horomia will be Prime Minister? He would be a very good Prime Minister. I think members on the Labour side of the House will have a discussion on that. If they gave Government MPs a vote on which of the members opposite should become a future Prime Minister I think that Parekura would get a lot of votes from members on this side of the House. 
I go on to say that the bill also replaces the term “interest” with that of “distributable income” which is very important because the issue is not just about interest. Funds come from a number of places and I have seen a number of very wide descriptions. The sad news I suppose is that if we had left the word “interest” in the bill—so that when the bill is adopted it became part of the law—today under the new Government the return from that interest would be about 2.5 percent per year. That would concern a lot of people who have money invested as opposed to those who are borrowing and who would like that because under the previous Government the interest rate was probably about 10 percent. The return from interest would have been much greater then of course than it is now and many people for whom interest is paid on the funds held by the trustee are not benefiting from those funds at all. There is a very long list of people out there who are yet to be found and who might benefit from the funds held there. There is a structured income from the investment of the money in the common fund and that forms part of the common fund rather than being transferred to the existing general purpose fund. That is important became it means that the money will be held there in trust and cannot be diverted and used for other things. 
I think I mentioned the word “diversion” and I have a $35 million question: what did the previous Government want to do with the $35 million that was set up there under the Maori Trustee for it to use? As I searched through documents earlier I came across a number of statements from extremely honourable members of this House—members who are doing a great job not only on behalf of the Maori community but on behalf of all of New Zealand and all New Zealanders—that said a Labour Government proposal to take $35 million from the Maori Trustee to build a Maori economic development agency was just another way for Labour MPs to write cheques to buy back the Maori vote. That was one statement. Who said that? It was a man who has spoken very ably in this House and who knows a lot about these very important issues: my good friend Tau Henare. Mr Henare went on to say that proposal was a blatant bid by the Labour Party to try to get Maori back on board and that Labour was stealing Maori money to do it. Mr Henare said that was unfair and desperate. Well I ask members opposite how unfair and desperate that is. 
I have only a few moments left and as this is an important bill I want to tell members a little about the research we were able to do before coming to the House today. I was able to get a list of people in my area of New Zealand the Bay of Plenty and particularly in the Rotorua electorate or Waiariki area. I have the number of people who are on the list of those who are owed money. I call on the new trustee when this bill becomes law to redouble his efforts and do everything possible to go out and try to find these people—not just to put out messages in a newspaper or on the Internet site but to actually look for an effective way to find them. There are 28 pages of names of people—1400 people—in the Waiariki area who are owed money and very large substantial amounts of money and at the end of this debate I think it is important that we look at helping the Maori Trustee. I support this bill and in a moment I will seek leave to table those names so that the House has the very best opportunity it can have to help the trustee in his work. 
The Minister has done a great piece of work; I commend him for it. I am very happy to stand up and to support this bill in its third reading. This will be a celebration. From 2007 to 2008 there was a change of Government and a Minister running down the sidelines with a bill. Today he will score a try and that will be good for the Maori Trustee and for Maori people in New Zealand. Thank you. 
I seek leave to table the document in front of me which is a list of unclaimed moneys held by the Maori Trustee for the Waiariki area. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the tabling of the document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. Hoi ano tautoko tuatahi au i te korero e pa ana ki to tatou kuia te whaea o Hekia. Me ki atu ki a ia kua ngaro atu ki tena tua o te arai. Me te mea ano me mihi au ki tetahi o wa tatou whanau e Parekura mohio ana koe ki te whanau Kingi. Kei roto i a matou i Ngati Kahu. I te mea kua mate tetahi o wa matou tamaiti tamariki o Te Wharekura o Rangi Aniwaniwa i nanahi ra. Takoto mai ana ki roto o Peria. Hoi ano ratou ki a ratou te hunga kua mate tatou ano ki a tatou e nohonoho nei hakoa ko tehea te taha o te Whare tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
And greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker and to us all throughout the House. Firstly I also endorse the tributes to our kuia Hekia’s mother by saying that she is lost from view on that side of the divide. I also acknowledge the loss incurred by one of our families. Parekura you might recall the Kingi family who live with us of Ngati Kahu. One of our young children of Te Wharekura o Rangi Aniwaniwa passed away yesterday and lies in state at Peria. Nevertheless the dead remain there with the dead while we the living seated about remain here. Regardless of which side of the House we are located I acknowledge you and all of us. Greetings. 
] 
This week is a very significant week in the history of Aotearoa because it is the 5th birthday of the arrival on the steps of this very Parliament of te hikoi takutai moana—the foreshore and seabed march of 2004—when 40000 Maori gathered in Parliament grounds after marching from Te Rerenga Wairua crossing tribal boundaries gathering strength every day and uniting tribes in a way that had not been seen for decades. It was a week when Maoridom signalled its refusal to be cowed by the threat to steal its foreshore and seabed; when Maoridom finally realised the 70 years of loyalty that it had given blindly and willingly was being thrown back in its face; and when Maori chose to turn their backs on the Labour Party and turn instead to one another for support and to the newly formed Maori Party for the independence that they had craved for generations. The Maori Party now graces this House as the very first independent Maori political party to be seated in the New Zealand House of Representatives. The Maori Party is proud to stand alongside the Hon Dr Pita Sharples who is the first Maori member of Parliament in the history of this country to present a bill to the House as Minister of Maori Affairs representing the only independent Maori political force ever to make it into Parliament. 
This is a historic occasion. For all of these reasons and more I am proud to stand here today and to pledge the Maori Party’s support for the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. To see how far we have come in such a short time I decided to look through  
Hansard 
 to see what the Maori Party’s other co-leader the Hon Tariana Turia was doing during those traumatic times surrounding the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. The debate was led by Michael Cullen Don Brash and Winston Peters followed by Parekura Horomia Jeanette Fitzsimons Metiria Turei and Richard Prebble. I see that the Hon Tariana Turia then sought leave to speak but her request was denied by the ACT Party because she had recently been dumped by Labour for refusing to bow to the dictates of the party hierarchy. The debate continued with Peter Dunne after which Tariana Turia rose again and was denied leave again. So the debate continued with Nanaia Mahuta after which John Tamihere sought leave for Tariana Turia to speak—a call denied for a third time just like in the Bible. 
I tender the thanks of the Maori Party to Mita Ririnui for his gracious and unselfish action—he rose to speak and offered to stand aside so that Tariana Turia could be heard. Tariana’s words rang out with a truth that time itself cannot silence. She said: “What has been taken away is not just tupuna rights which Maori may have been able to establish. What is also under compromise is the right to justice in the hands of the court. We will not sit down and accept a compromise of basic rights a denial of our tikanga a belittling of our status as indigenous peoples … We will not be relegated to second-class citizens in our own land. We are tangata whenua and we are proud of it. It is that pride and determination that will drive us in the next hikoi to the ballot box. We can determine our own future and we will.” If I might add— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to raise it because clearly this is a well-prepared speech that the member has worked on for some time. The problem I have is that it does not yet appear to address the third reading of this bill. I think we are getting a very interesting treatise on Maori representation in New Zealand— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And rights. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —and rights—and the history of members in this Parliament on other issues and other bills. I think this phase of the bill is meant to bring together the debates on this legislation but it is meant to focus on the legislation before the House or at least give fairly regular passing reference to it. We have not had that yet. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Speaker’s rulings 116/7 and 117/3 advise that members should “confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee.” and I invite the member to address the bill in its general principles. The member may of course draw on other elements to expand on the points that he is making. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe. Tena tatou ano. In reference to the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill I say that I have gone back over this time to remind us all of the massive changes to this Parliament over those 5 short years and to remind us that today is indeed a day when Maori can all be proud of the standing of the independent Maori voice in Parliament that is the Maori Party. 
The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill affects Maori in many ways. It will have an immediate impact on those who have land administered by the Maori Trustee it delivers on a positive future for landowners while respecting the legacy of those who have gone before and it realises a deeply held desire by Maori people generally and by the Maori Party in particular to have the Maori Trustee become a stand-alone body. Throughout the debate on this bill many speakers have referred to the influence of paternalistic bureaucracy a concern raised time and time again by the beneficial owners about the independence of the Maori Trustee from the Crown. We congratulate the Minister on recognising the desire of those beneficial owners of Maori land to be consulted on how the Maori Trustee can best meet their needs and we recognise in this bill the foundation for ensuring that the Maori Trustee can meet its obligations to those beneficial owners. 
This bill will enable the transfer of staff from the existing structure to the new stand-alone entity so that no time is lost in retraining and it also puts a greater focus on transparency so that beneficial owners of Maori land can have a greater understanding of exactly how the Maori Trustee meets its responsibilities. The bill also puts to rest a rather clumsy and unseemly attempt by the previous Government to try to justify the taking of $35 million which should rightfully go back to the beneficial owners and giving it to another organisation whose trustees would have been chosen by the Minister of Maori Affairs himself. This bill provides for the appointment of a deputy Maori Trustee to ensure the new organisation keeps functioning effectively in the absence of the trustee and it provides sound principles on how the new stand-alone Maori Trustee organisation will be founded and run. 
The Maori Party supports the passing of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. We have every confidence that the Minister of Maori Affairs will ensure appropriate consultation in the appointment of the Maori Trustee and we extend our best wishes to the group for a successful future. In closing let me not let this moment pass without offering my congratulations to the Hon Dr Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia for the leadership they have provided to the Maori Party and indeed the Maori people as we again pay tribute to the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill—the very first bill introduced by a Minister of Maori Affairs from a party chosen by representative of and accountable to the Maori people themselves. This is a huge moment in our history as a nation. Five years ago this week the Hon Tariana Turia said: “We can determine our own future and we will.” Today we add the final words to that prophecy: “Indeed we are.” Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a third time. 
Regulatory Improvement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I move  
That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Today we take an important step towards making it easier to do business in New Zealand by removing red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. This step illustrates this Government’s commitment to making continual improvements in the quality of New Zealand’s regulation in order to assist the efficiency and the growth of New Zealand businesses. Today I present to the House the Regulatory Improvement Bill. We have reinstated this bill which was introduced by the previous Government because we agree that the changes will help business. 
Today marks what I intend will become an annual event in this House. The yearly regulatory reform omnibus bill will be a vehicle to improve regulatory frameworks and reduce the compliance burden on businesses in a timely fashion. This Government has a focus on new regulation that would impose compliance costs on businesses because we recognise the pressures that businesses are currently under because of the global financial crisis. Our aim is to get better policy and better results for New Zealand. When it comes to existing regulations on which this bill is focused that means first systematically reviewing regulation that has a significant impact on productivity and second identifying and regularly repealing unnecessary or unnecessarily costly regulations. It is crucial that we ensure that the Government’s regulation is necessary that it is cost-effective and proportionate to risk that our regulatory frameworks as a whole are of high quality and that key interested parties are engaged in the process of continual regulatory improvement. 
The current bill addresses certain low-hanging fruit reforms that have been identified in the last few years. The provisions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review which was undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007 and let me thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel for that work and for working across the House in terms of getting a better outcome. The review identified a number of issues that required amendments to legislation. The changes proposed in this bill cover a diverse range of policy areas and legislation but they are all aimed at the same objective—namely improving regulatory frameworks and reducing the compliance burden on business. Those objectives are the unifying theme of the clauses in the Regulatory Improvement Bill which I am introducing to the House today. 
I am advised that the Quality Regulation Review took 15 months to complete and involved a wide range of Government agencies as well as more than 200 businesses. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the businesses and their membership organisations that contributed their time energy and ideas to the review and again to thank the previous Minister of Commerce for her work. I am confident that these businesses will enjoy some clear benefits arising from this bill. It goes some way to address the concerns they raised with us. Engagement with business is the only way to understand the real impacts of the decisions we make as parliamentarians and I intend to continue the momentum begun in the development of this bill. 
Overall these changes address regulatory duplications gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. Collectively they created unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business. Fixing them is a small step toward seeing a more prosperous and more successful nation driven by the initiative and hard work of individuals. These changes individually are small fixes but for businesses these small changes do count and this Government is committed to do all that it can to address the barriers big or small that hold back New Zealand businesses from reaching their full potential and greatest growth. 
Too often much-needed changes to legislation are not made because it is difficult for small changes to get space on a busy legislative agenda. This bill represents a first instance of a relatively easy mechanism to fast track such improvements. This bill does exactly that; it provides an efficient and effective legislative vehicle to make the amendments and it consolidates several small gains into an omnibus bill which can deliver the accumulated benefits these changes represent. The bill comprises 22 changes to various Acts and all the changes are designed to make it easier to do business. The changes demonstrate that this Government is a Government of regulatory reform: we see the problems and we want to fix them. 
Some of the changes are aimed at speeding up administrative processes. These include the proposed amendments to delegation processes in the quota management system and aspects of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act amendments to some public notification procedures under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and improvements to access to information for emergency services. Other clauses aim to provide certainty around existing provisions. Those include the removal of duplicate penalties regimes for commercial fishers greater certainty around the process for tendering for concessions on conservation land clarity around governance arrangements in the gas industry and allowing for provisional test certificates under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
Several clauses have the effect of reducing current administrative and reporting requirements. Included in these provisions is an amendment that allows business concessions on conservation land to be granted without public notice for 10 years at a time instead of just 5 years. That will save approximately $1000 for the application. The Minister will still notify concessions that will have significant effects. Similarly changes to the Companies Act will mean that some private firms will no longer have to appoint auditors and thus that Act will be brought in line with the provisions of the Financial Reporting Act. 
The other largest group of changes in this bill will reduce the number of inspections to which firms are subject by enabling inspectors authorised under one Act such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to undertake inspections related to other Acts such as the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Biosecurity Act during one visit to the firm instead of separate visits—often actually now done by the same inspector—for each Act. 
The Regulatory Improvement Bill is just one of the essential measures needed to implement improvements to regulation in New Zealand. Many more measures will be needed and are on the way. In recent years there has been an avalanche of new rules and regulations. New Zealand is over-regulated: red tape is tying up businesses in knots—in particular those involved in building construction and property. This omnibus bill represents a fresh approach which ensures that New Zealand’s regulatory environment will continually evolve to meet the needs of a dynamic economy trying to grow its way out of a recession. In introducing this bill I recognise that the legislative changes proposed are limited and will not provide an immediate silver bullet to improve overall business investment or productivity. I believe though that we can do even better to reduce the red tape and regulatory interventions that are hindering businesses. That is the reason I intend that a regulatory reform omnibus bill will become a feature of New Zealand’s legislative programme each year. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be speaking on the first reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Obviously given that it was a bill generated under a Labour-led Government I am very pleased to finally see it dealt with in the House. I thank the Minister for his very kind words and I do appreciate them. I felt that when I was Minister I was able to work with him in his capacity as an Opposition member of Parliament but as one who had introduced a member’s bill—that was his passion—the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. Even though we did not necessarily think that that was the right approach in that bill we were working with him to try to gain the results that we were both trying to achieve. I think we are on a similar track and I acknowledge his role here in this Parliament as the first Minister for Regulatory Reform. I think that is certainly a great acknowledgment of his commitment in this area. 
The Regulatory Improvement Bill itself is a demonstration of the Labour-led Government’s commitment to making continuous improvement in the quality of New Zealand’s regulatory frameworks in order to assist the efficiency and growth of New Zealand businesses. This was a really important process for us. I am really pleased the Minister has said that such a bill will become part of the normal proceedings of Parliament and I will talk about that in a minute too. It is really important that we have a regular opportunity as a Parliament to tidy up those issues that are not perhaps insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill but not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. Although it is fair to say that the amendments contained in the Regulatory Improvement Bill are not particularly dramatic the bill itself is another deliverable of the Quality Regulation Review. 
I want to backtrack a minute to February 2006 when the then Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark said: “We will also be taking a fresh look at regulatory frameworks. Feedback from business suggests that higher quality regulation would lead to more growth and investment—and we want to engage with business on how to achieve that.” This is precisely what the Quality Regulation Review was all about. So the previous Government started from scratch and essentially we built a process that enabled us to engage directly with business because we felt that it was business that could give us the best quality information— 
Nathan Guy 
: Didn’t you sack the board? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —about what it was that was standing in the way of business growth rather than coming up with a particular proposal— 
Nathan Guy 
: Didn’t you sack all the board when that came out of the recommendations? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I know that the member wants to make this point. Perhaps I need to respond to the interjection. The previous Labour Government established the position of Minister for Small Business. The former National Government did not have one. The Labour-led Government established a Small Business Advisory Group which did not exist under the former National Government. 
Nathan Guy 
: You sacked them all. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: We did not sack them all; we replaced every single member of it after one group had been operating for 3 years. They had been in for 3 years. 
Nathan Guy 
: So you sacked them? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did not. I do not know why that member keeps saying that. Does the member object to the second Small Business Advisory Group—the people who replaced the first group? I think there is one member from his patch on the group now so perhaps the member might like to have a rethink. As I understand it the Small Business Advisory Group has had its number of meetings cut under this new National Government. So it is very interesting indeed that the member wants to interject in that regard. 
I released the final report on the review in September 2007 after over a year of engagement with business. The report identified a number of areas that required amendments to legislation and the changes covered a diverse range of policy areas and legislation. But they all essentially had the same objective which was to improve regulatory frameworks and reduce compliance costs for business. Those objectives are the unifying theme of the clauses in the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Overall these changes address regulatory duplications gaps administrative errors inconsistencies etc. Individually as the Minister has said these changes are small fixes but for business these small things matter most of all. It is not just one thing that annoys small business; it is the accumulation of a lot of things that upsets small business. That is a lesson I learnt by going out and talking directly to small businesses and working through these issues with them. 
When Labour was in Government it was committed to doing all it could to address the barriers big or small that hold back New Zealand businesses from reaching their fullest potential and their greatest growth. That is why for example Labour brought in the research and development tax credit—something that this Government has irresponsibly scrapped in my view. Too often much-needed changes to legislation are not made because it is difficult for small changes to get space on a business legislative agenda. In my former roles as the Minister of Commerce and the Minister for Small Business I combined those roles to champion the idea of a relatively easy mechanism to fast track these improvements even to the extent that I made a personal submission as a member of this Parliament to the Standing Orders Committee to get the Standing Orders changed so that we would be able to have this bill as an omnibus bill. 
Members will be very familiar with the Standing Orders as has been obvious since Gerry Brownlee took over as Leader of the House. There is a section that deals with the prohibitions on omnibus bills. Standing Order 258 limits the types of omnibus bills. Law reform or other omnibus bills have to go through the Business Committee. The Business Committee has already signed off as a matter of practice on a Business Law Reform Bill every year but unfortunately again the types of changes that are made in Government department areas do not obviously fall within the criteria required for a Business Law Reform bill. So the idea of having a Regulatory Improvement Bill every year in the Standing Orders seems to me to be the best way to get around that. 
In the meantime I was successful in gaining a ruling from the Clerk’s Office that improving regulatory frameworks and reducing compliance costs for business were sufficient unifying criteria as I mentioned before. So in order to have this bill introduced an amendment to the Standing Orders was not required but I still think it would be worthwhile for the House to think about whether we should formalise a Business Law Reform Bill and a Regulatory Improvement Bill in the Standing Orders. Then there would be no debate about whether we have this approach to dealing with these issues in the future. 
The Minister went through a range of different Acts that are being amended by this bill. But I want to make this point and it was a lesson I learnt very quickly when I travelled from one end of the country to the other talking to small business. My point is that Government Ministers tend to see individual departments. They see for example the Department of Labour the Ministry of Economic Development the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry for the Environment. Businesses do not see individual departments. They see the Government and they are asking why the Government is asking them for the same information they gave it yesterday. They do not understand why the Government structures itself in such an inefficient way in terms of responding to the needs of business. I coined a phrase that became my personal driver for the Quality Regulation Review. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: It’s all about you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well thank you for that. That is lovely. I came up with a phrase that was trying to articulate what we were trying to achieve and that was: “Why cannot the many arms of Government extend a single hand to business?”. That became my driver. One of the amendments in the bill specifically responds to that call. Why cannot the many arms of Government extend a single hand to business? That is what we ought to be doing. 
The Regulatory Improvement Bill is an important measure in its own right regardless of its content and I believe we should acknowledge the hundreds of submissions from businesses large and small as well as from all of those really busy men and women out there in business who participated in all of the meetings with myself and with my officials at the time. I commend to the House an omnibus bill of this nature becoming a feature of New Zealand’s legislative programme and part of the Standing Orders of this House. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise today to speak in the first reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. It is a bill I enthusiastically support as I stand on behalf of the National members of Parliament. I thank the Hon Rodney Hide the first Minister for Regulatory Reform for introducing the bill. I also acknowledge the work that was undertaken prior to the formation of this Government to get some of the groundwork done on working out what was needed in order to bring this bill to fruition. 
This bill is all about cutting red tape. One of the major gripes I heard during the election campaign was about the excessive red tape that people in businesses have to negotiate. This bill contains 22 amendments to legislation and the broad objectives are “improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business.” Although I acknowledge the work undertaken by the previous Government I have to say that after 9 long years the voters were not prepared to let it finish the job. That is because they did not trust the previous Government to finish the job. 
I want to make some comments in relation to the comments made by the Hon Rodney Hide today. As he has already said this bill is about “systematically reviewing regulation”. It is about responding to the message that businesses have been giving us systematically—over many many years—about regulations that are unnecessarily bureaucratic and costly. The Hon Rodney Hide described the reforms as low-hanging fruit. Nevertheless it is a good start and it shows the resolve of this Government and its partners to reduce the compliance burden on business. At this time of economic uncertainty this has never been more important. It has never been more important to send a clear message to businesses that we are on their side we know how important they are to New Zealand and we are prepared to do the hard work to find ways of assisting them in their business lives. 
The mandate was delivered to the National Party and to its partners in this new Government on 8 November 2008. That mandate is now being seen in the lead that the Hon Rodney Hide has taken as the Minister for Regulatory Reform in bringing this bill to the House. I am also heartened to hear the Minister’s comments that regulatory reform in an omnibus type bill such as this will be a feature of this Government. On 4 February 2009 there was another statement from the Prime Minister. It was not the Rt Hon Helen Clark’s statement back in 2006 but another statement on 4 February given by the Prime Minister the Hon John Key entitled “Jobs and Growth”. He outlined in that speech a very important part of the jobs and growth package and the important reform that is necessary. I quote: “In particular I have given Rodney Hide as the Minister for Regulatory Reform the mission of finding and cutting additional red tape that is holding back business development reducing investment and depriving New Zealanders of jobs.” In saying that the Prime Minister has certainly made it clear that this bill is a very important part of our jobs and growth package. 
I acknowledge some points made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel who raised the fact that this legislation has been the result of 2 years of work. But I remind members opposite that they were in Government for 9 long years. She made some comments about the Small Business Advisory Group holding fewer meetings. I am sure that even though there may be fewer meetings there will be less need for talk under this Government because it will be observing and participating and there will be much more action. This National Government is a Government of action not inaction. This Government is well supported in its partnerships and this Government will see that things get done to make the environment much better for businesses. 
The amendments within the bill address regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainties for business. I can just imagine that businesses around New Zealand on hearing that this bill has been introduced to Parliament have been saying that at last they see evidence that they have been listened to. The amendments also target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks. Cutting undue regulation will help remove barriers to economic growth and will help business to do business. This Government is committed to removing barriers; this is an important step to make it easier for businesses to do their job. 
I will briefly run through the Acts that are to be amended. It is quite a varied list: the Companies Act 1993 the Conservation Act 1987 the Designs Act 1953 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Gas Act 1992 the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. The Reserves Act 1977 and the Weights and Measures Act 1987 complete the list of Acts that will be amended under this bill. 
I will spend a little time on the regulatory improvement aspects as covered in the explanatory note of the bill because by concentrating on just a couple of the Acts we can see some very good examples of how businesses in New Zealand will be better off. The first one I will concentrate on is the Fisheries Act 1996. Currently commercial fishers are required to balance their catch with an annual catch entitlement which is part of the quota management system. If at the end of the fishing year they have not acquired enough annual catch entitlement to balance against their catch they incur a debt in the form of an invoice for annual deemed values. The majority of fishers manage to balance their catch within the required time frames but some do not. For various administrative reasons which are deemed to be of a minor nature those annual catch entitlement transfers fail to take place. Such failures only surface after the annual catch entitlement register is closed and the fishers are therefore precluded from making additional annual catch entitlement transfers to rectify the errors. The fishers then incur an annual deemed value debt even though they intended to comply—that is the very important point in this case. In this situation most fishers have to pay the debt to prevent their commercial fishing permit from being suspended. 
There are currently no provisions within the Fisheries Act to allow that situation to be rectified. This bill will rectify that problem. An objective of the bill is “To ensure that the catch balancing regime is fair efficient and effective.” The changes proposed would remove the perception that the Government is revenue-gathering by taking advantage of those minor administrative errors and would introduce an element of fairness to situations where invoices for debts have been issued although the sustainability of a stock has not been threatened. It would also mitigate the burdens of firms that arise out of legislation. The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council and Commercial Fisheries Services Ltd have both indicated their support for this proposal. As members can see this is a very good example of how something relatively minor can be fixed within a bill such as this. 
There are other very good examples. In fact the Companies Act 1993 is an example where requiring companies to have their financial statements audited would impose an unnecessary cost as there is no rationale to have entities’ filing and auditing requirements out of alignment. This issue will be addressed in this bill. 
The consultation required for the bill to continue has been undertaken. I am sure that when this bill reaches the select committee we will hear further support and encouragement and also perhaps suggestions as to improvements in the ways the amended bills can assist business. I conclude my contribution to this debate by saying that this bill is all about helping business to do business and I wholeheartedly support that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill and I endorse some of the comments made by earlier speakers. There is always a need for housekeeping in Government. As life becomes increasingly sophisticated there is increasing sophistication in regulation in order to regulate the increasingly sophisticated ways in which we go about the business of our lives and commerce. That sophistication and complexity means that on occasions we have regulations that are inconsistent with each other. In a perfect world of course those inconsistencies would never arise but they do in the real world. 
Simon Bridges 
: What about just legislative laziness? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well I will come to that. That interjection was from Simon Bridges from the National Party and I will divert to that issue since he has raised it. 
Yes we do see some legislative laziness already from the National-led Government. National should probably put most of the blame for that on its coalition partner Mr Rodney Hide who is responsible for this very bill. It seems somewhat ironic that year after year we have been lectured by Rodney Hide on the need to know the true cost of regulatory change before imposing it when on the issue of the biggest regulatory change that this country is going through at the moment—that is regulatory changes to the system of governance in Auckland—that most basic rubric of his most closely held principles is being ignored. I know some of us doubt the number of principles that really are held by Mr Hide but I thought that if one principle was close to his heart it was the need to properly cost regulatory change. Yet in this House this week we had a question asked yesterday of Mr Hide about whether there had been any costing of the changes that have been rushed through by the National - ACT - Maori Party Government to the system of governance that was recommended by the royal commission. The royal commission as part of its very lengthy and thorough process properly costed the consequences of the changes that it proposed. The National Government very quickly came up with some proposed changes to those but it has not costed them. 
Notwithstanding the fact that National has not costed those changes it will rush them through under urgency next week. So we have changes with billion-dollar consequences over time to Auckland and National has not costed them. The culprit has left the Chamber. People used to say “The President has left the White House.” Well the culprit has left the Chamber. He knows that that is true. He was called into order by the Speaker today because he tried to hide from the House the reality that was eventually proven under the questioning of Phil Twyford although yesterday Mr Hide had twisted the meaning of a question as if it was about the process costs of the reforms rather than the actual cost of the reforms.  
Grant Robertson 
: Dancing on the head of a pin. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well that pin became very uncomfortable for him today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Something was pricked. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes that is right. A bit of hot air was expelled after that particular attempt to hide the truth from the public. The truth was exposed for what it is. 
It is somewhat ironic that the perk-buster the person who stood for regulatory rigour is this same day bringing forward a bill that represents improvements to regulatory form but of course this bill is not Rodney Hide’s bill. It was prepared by the previous Labour-led Government under the ministerial guidance of Lianne Dalziel. The current Minister’s only contribution to regulatory reform is to make matters worse by proceeding with changes to Auckland governance that even now have not been costed. You know we have the legislation on that coming forward next week under urgency. When the Government sits under urgency it does not have to give advance notice or copies of legislation to the Opposition or the media. The normal checks and balances that we have when we are considering legislation are absent when we sit under urgency. 
Against that background one would think that the regulatory reform man the man whose rubric of his stance on things is to properly cost them would in that situation go even further towards having decent information for the public and for this Parliament on the economic consequences of the changes to the regulatory structure and local governance structure in Auckland as a consequence of the Government’s rushed changes to those proposed by the royal commission. Let us not forget the royal commission had the involvement of a judge and other very experienced panel members who brought to bear their expertise and they had the assistance of the relevant Government departments to properly cost those things. That has all been thrown out by the National Government. It has come up with alternatives to the commission’s proposals that are not only less democratic but also probably cost more. We do not know that; we do not know how much extra they will cost. We know that many millions of dollars of costs will be borne by Aucklanders but we still have not seen the figures. 
I turn to some of the improvements that are made by this bill. Omnibus bills are restricted in this House because there is a constitutional risk that we can put into an omnibus bill things that fundamentally change lots of different areas of legislation and they do not get the proper scrutiny that they need if they are all hidden in one omnibus bill. That is why we are pretty restrictive of the circumstances in which we allow omnibus bills to come forward here. The common theme here is that the changes do not deal with significant issues of legislative principle; they deal with regulatory compliance costs. Each of the changes made under this bill improves regulatory processes and therefore reduces compliance costs without making changes to the fundamental underlying principles of the relevant Acts. 
One of the changes is to the rules relating to overseas companies. Some years ago the rules were changed and there was a new rule that said that companies with overseas ownership were no longer required to file audited financial statements to the Registrar of Companies. Previously they did have to file those statements and the change was made to say they did not have to do so yet at the moment we have the nonsense that the very same companies that do not have to file audited statements have to appoint an auditor. That is obviously inconsistent. If a company does not have to file audited financial statements then why should it have to appoint an auditor? This legislation fixes that up by making it possible for an overseas company to pass a resolution that it does not appoint an auditor. The same situation applies to New Zealand companies. There is not a special rule for overseas companies; it is the same rule for New Zealand companies and overseas companies. Accordingly that rule is being changed. 
Some other changes are being made to the Designs Act. At the moment one can have a registered design. The Designs Act gives people some form of right to protect their design. If people have a novel design and they register it under that Act no one can come along and as of right copy that design and then flog it off to somebody else. It is the output of the designer and for a limited period of years there is protection for the designer under that Act. At the moment the designer or the holder of those rights under the Act can lose those rights if they lapse because the designer did not pay a renewal fee. That seems to be a pretty harsh penalty. If designers forget to pay a $100 fee they lose the rights to their design for ever. That is too tough and it needs to be fixed. The relevant authorities need to be given discretion to reinstate those design rights upon payment of the fees—with penalties probably for late payment. But upon payment of those fees and penalties the rights of the designer ought to be reinstated. That is another thing that this bill does. 
There are various changes to the Fisheries Act and to the Gas Act. There are overlapping ways in which the sellers of gas have to report liquefied natural gas under the Gas Act and another Act. That inconsistency is being resolved. Improvements are being made to processes under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. There are some pretty arcane procedures there that should be applied to things that are high-risk but ought to not be applied to things that are low-risk. This legislation attempts to make some changes in order to make that legislation more practical. 
That is why the Labour Party will be supporting this legislation. Thank you. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I shall say for the benefit of the  
Hansard 
 record that I have just given the sign for “kia ora” which I learnt from the New Zealand Sign Language website this afternoon. 
I begin my expressing the sympathy of the Green Party to Hekia Parata and her whanau. 
So far my speeches in this House have often focused on the need for a Green New Deal; for a range of actions by the Government to help people cope with the effects of recession but also to address the urgent challenges of climate change and other environmental problems that cannot wait. If it is possible to do both simultaneously then why on earth would we not? But the Green Party has some other priority areas for action. Today in relation to this bill I will touch on a couple of these matters. I speak on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei who cannot be in the House today. The need to protect our natural environment in the interests of our kids and the need for healthy politics including the Green Party’s charter principle of appropriate decision-making are also foremost in our minds. 
The Regulatory Improvement Bill is designed to improve regulations and the compliance burden on businesses in a range of areas. That is a process we heartily endorse and I should say for the record that the Green Party will also support the omnibus bill process. However despite the claims made by the Government that this bill contains only minor and uncontroversial changes we disagree. In particular we are opposed to the changes to the Conservation Act the Reserves Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Therefore with regret we will be opposing the bill. 
The Government says that the measures contained in the bill—and Jo Goodhew has already mentioned some of these—address regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. That is clearly a laudable aim. But unfortunately although many of the measures contained in the bill—indeed most—meet this prescription others do not and they would have been much more appropriately dealt with in separate legislation. Even though there is an intent to break the bill into separate pieces at a later stage of its process that is not an appropriate way of managing the substantive change proposed. 
Firstly we have concerns about the implications of some of the proposed changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Some of these changes do meet the criteria the Government has set out while others do not. For example the proposed changes to delegations do not meet those criteria. Our co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has been closely involved in this area of law and we will be considering the submissions made on this aspect of the bill with keen interest should it proceed. 
This speech however focuses on our concerns about the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and parallel measures proposed for the Reserves Act. Conservation law is an area where conservative—with a small “c”—approaches to change are most needed yet the changes proposed in this bill do not fit the “technical and uncontroversial” test at all but rather have been incorporated into this bill for entirely opportunistic reasons. The amendments to the Conservation Act are designed to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of the concession provisions by amending the current provisions to allow concessions to be granted for a term of up to 10 years instead of for the current limit of 5 years and by introducing a discretion not to publicly notify the intent to issue such concessions. We are opposed to these proposed changes. Conservation land is extremely important to our tourism industry and will become increasingly so. It is also very fragile land and many areas have very important values. Although the recreational and tourism use of conservation land is an important purpose in the Act and in New Zealand culture the protection of that land and its fundamental intrinsic conservation values is the highest priority. 
Extending the maximum period of a concession reduces the ability of the Department of Conservation to oversee review and manage any detrimental impacts of the concession. We note that the Minister will have the ability to seek a mid-term review of a concession. However that will most likely require some external organisation making complaints and following up a long and bureaucratic process to seek the Minister’s agreement to require such a review. Retaining the 5-year maximum term ensures that every concession is reviewed within a realistic time frame allowing for better-quality assessment of the impacts of the operation on the habitat without ministerial intervention. The reality is that if a concession application is for a 10-year duration it will be very difficult for the department and for conservation boards—and I should inform the House that I have previously served on the West Coast - Tai Poutini Conservation Board—to make decisions about conditions with any degree of certainty as to likely impacts. The consequence will inevitably be heightened risk to conservation and recreation values. 
Some increased pressure effectively will also come on to conservators and boards to consider further applications or to vary conservation management strategies or national park management plans as potential competitors are excluded by longer-term monopolistic licences. If an operator cannot undertake the activity for 10 years pressure will be put on to create a new opportunity. As public conservation land and amenities face increasing pressure from concession activities the inevitable consequence is loss of wildness and erosion of the important values and features that led to this land’s inclusion in the conservation estate in the first place. The current 5-year maximum term provides greater protection of the conservation estate and the public interest in it. 
In addition there is a high level of discretion as to whether a concession application is publicly notified. The risk of the public being shut out of the decision-making process is heightened as the bill’s provisions make the public’s involvement in decision making more contingent and would reduce the frequency with which the public may have the opportunity to express a view. This is an inappropriate decision-making process. As the land in question is public land the public interest should have a greater level of protection. The precautionary principle should be applied in the case of granting concessions. By extending the time frame and increasing the discretion around public notification it will be more and more difficult to identify and remedy the impacts of concessions. 
I note that the longer maximum durations for concessions proposed by the bill set out to reduce the administrative costs faced by concession applicants and holders. Members need to note that the department’s cost is in no way reduced as all costs are recovered from applicants. So the benefits are all accrued by concessionaires with less cost and exclusion of competition while the costs for the New Zealanders who own this conservation land are increased risk to conservation and recreation values less public involvement in decision making and potentially the loss of better ideas—those potential concessions that are locked out of the concessions process by the longer-term licences. 
We note that these proposals arise out of the 2004 concession review project and that a number of environmental non-governmental organisations were consulted. Of course that does not mean they supported the outcomes and should this bill advance the Green Party will be paying close attention to the views that non-governmental organisations wish to express. 
These provisions in relation to the Conservation Act represent just a fraction of the recommendations of that review and they have been advanced at this time for opportunistic reasons. We are concerned that changes to the concession process are being made in a piecemeal fashion. The conservation estate is too important for this kind of law-making process. Parliament should instead be seeing all of the proposed changes together and making decisions on the integrated package. These provisions have been inappropriate inclusions within this bill and carry substantial risks that they have not been appropriately canvassed—and they will not be appropriately canvassed by the process proposed for this bill. For these reasons the Green Party will oppose the bill but offers to work with the Government and other parties to find a formulation for the bill that would really be uncontroversial and attract the support of all members of this House. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand today to support the first reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. First of all I would like to acknowledge Lianne Dalziel who started work on this bill a couple of years ago. It is unfortunate that she got the wheels spinning but could not get the rubber to hit the road. That is what this John Key - led Government is about—the rubber hitting the road. It is about actually getting things done actually delivering what he believes we should deliver. We can say as much as we like about putting processes in place but unless we actually manage to deliver legislation it does not mean a lot. I am pleased to stand here and support this bill. 
I am also pleased to acknowledge and support Rodney Hide the first Minister in this Parliament to be a Minister for Regulatory Reform. I think that says a lot about the commitment we have to reducing regulation in New Zealand. In fact there is a global trend at the moment to try to reduce regulation. I remember standing about a year ago to talk about regulations and particularly regulations for businesses. I remember quoting something along the lines that since 1999 more than 500 new regulations had been put in place but I am sure it is more than that. I think I am being conservative. I am sure the number is more than 500. That is a lot of new regulations being put in place. 
Regulations are constraints and regulations are costly to small business. Trevor Mallard may yawn but many businesses in his area of the Hutt are affected by regulations. He himself has been to see them and he knows how tied up they are by regulations by the reporting required by them and he knows the costs that those businesses incur as a result. Especially in our present economic environment businesses need to focus on their businesses not to spend time on form-filling and especially not duplicate form-filling which is what they are doing now. 
That is why this bill is very good. It is an omnibus bill that changes many different types of regulations. 
Simon Bridges 
: A quiet achiever. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: A quiet achiever it is. Overall these initiatives address regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for businesses. This is what this legislation is about. It will help businesses in New Zealand to keep focused on what they need to be doing and that is to be focused on their businesses. 
There is one provision in particular that I would like to talk to and it relates to the Companies Act of 1993. I want to tell members why this provision helps the position and what we have done to get to this stage—to identify the problem and to know we have got it right. In 2006 the requirement for two classes of companies to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies was removed from the Financial Reporting Act 1993. The two classes of companies are first companies 25 percent or more of which is overseas-owned provided that they do not exceed at least two of the following three criteria: annual revenue of $20 million total assets of $10 million and 50 full-time equivalent employees; and second New Zealand - incorporated companies that are subsidiaries of a New Zealand - incorporated company that is an immediate subsidiary of an overseas-incorporated company. Those are the types of companies that this provision addresses. 
The intention was to remove the requirement for those companies to have their financial statements audited. It is not clear whether that has been achieved as the Companies Act 1993 requires such companies to appoint an auditor. Requiring those companies to have their financial statements audited would impose an unnecessary cost as there is no rationale to have entities’ filing and auditing requirements out of alignment. To ensure that the policy intent of the audit and filing requirements in the Financial Reporting Act 1993 and the Companies Act 1993 can be implemented in a manner that eliminates unnecessary compliance costs the preferred option is to amend the Companies Act 1993 to make it clear that the two classes of company are not required to appoint an auditor or to have their financial statements audited. The two classes of companies will benefit from no longer being required to incur the cost of having their financial statements audited and that makes total sense when we align the two pieces of legislation. 
We consulted a number of lawyers and accountants who had requested that this amendment be made; they were consulted on it. So we have identified the problem and we have found a solution. There is duplication. There is no need for that duplication. If companies do not need to have audited accounts they certainly do not need to appoint an auditor. So the problem has been addressed. The sector was consulted; it came back and said it agreed with the provision and that is why we know we have this little provision absolutely right. That is the process we went through with all the other provisions in this bill to ensure that they were relevant to what each sector needs and relevant to the environment that companies are actually in. 
Many companies fall under this provision. I have not consulted them or asked them but I would imagine that a company like Rio Tinto Alcan would fall under it. It trades in US dollars it has contracts in the US and it is overseas-owned. Therefore it would fall under this provision which will save it money save it time and save it from having to jump over some hurdles that it does not have to jump over in order to do business in New Zealand. So that provision is one provision that is very good. 
Another relates to the Conservation Act 1987. Changes to the concessions provisions of that Act will reduce cost and the administrative burden at a saving of about $1000 per application. That might not seem much to many people but it is actually a lot of money when it is accumulated. The provision will allow permits to be granted for a term not exceeding 10 years instead of the current limit of 5 years. It will introduce discretion to not publicly notify the intent to issue licences up to a maximum of 10 years. 
Those changes are in the area of conservation. As members can see the areas are very varied. Next I could talk about changes to the Reserves Act 1977 the Designs Act 1953 or the Fisheries Act 1996. This is a very diverse bill. 
The provisions relating to the Designs Act allow for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design where the lapse was because of an unintended failure to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. In relation to the Fisheries Act 1996 we are removing penalty regimes applicable under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 for non-payment of cost recovery levies as the Fisheries Act 1996 already contains an adequate penalty regime. Once again that is ironing out duplication of regulations that is not needed—going out and consulting the sector and actually doing something about the problem. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 is in the bill as well. The aim of the changes to that Act is to ensure that its policy intent can be more efficiently and effectively achieved with minimum compliance costs. 
As members can see the theme is exactly what it should be: to address regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business. The bill keeps within the scope of the Quality Regulation Review. Its provisions target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks. The great thing about the intent of the bill is that this process will happen every year now. We will go through regulations and pick out parts that are duplicated; we will identify them put together an omnibus bill and move forward with it and in that way we will ensure that slowly and over time we take out the inconsistencies. We are focused on doing that for the businesses of New Zealand. Thank you. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to be speaking on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I am very excited about it in fact. We have had some valuable contributions today from a number of speakers. I pay tribute firstly to the Hon Rodney Hide. I agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel: let us do something that we do not do enough— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the debate is interrupted. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.