Volume 672 Week 74 - Tuesday 17 May 2011 
Volume 672 Week 74 - Tuesday 17 May 2011 
[Volume:672;Page:18689] 
Tuesday 17 May 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2011—Challenges 
1. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What challenges does the Government face in putting together Budget 2011? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Many challenges not least the ongoing job of undoing the damage done by the previous Labour Government. More recently the February earthquake and lower-than-expected growth in the first part of the year have made the outlook more challenging. In the absence of decisions that will be outlined in the Budget we would have been expecting to return to surplus probably around 2016-17 and net debt to peak at 35 percent of GDP. 
Craig Foss 
: What is the Government’s approach to meeting these challenges? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are keen to lay out a credible path to surplus while meeting the very significant extra costs of rebuilding Canterbury. We want to get to surplus as soon as possible because it is only surpluses that give Governments policy choices and provide a buffer against further unexpected economic events. 
Craig Foss 
: What kinds of changes are included in the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has hinted at a number of those changes. We will take responsible steps to ensure that large-scale programmes such as KiwiSaver Working for Families and student loans are bettered targeted deliver better value for taxpayers and have growth that is controlled. The Government will also seek a greater level of savings from the public sector to help to fund improvements to critical front-line services. Some of these changes will be legislated for immediately after the Budget but none will take effect before the election. That will give voters the opportunity to make clear choices between what will be a responsible and balanced programme from the Government and some other kind of programme from the Labour Opposition. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree that increasing the private savings rate is a challenge for the Budget; if so does he agree with the warning from Standard and Poor’s analyst Kyran Curry that moves to strip KiwiSaver incentives without providing offsetting measures may take the country in the wrong direction? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. The Government has said for some time that the focus of this Budget is not just on private savings. It is on national savings because it is our overall and total liabilities to foreign lenders that make our country so vulnerable. As the member knows we have amongst the highest levels of debt to foreigners of any country in the whole world. So we are focusing on national savings and the member can wait for Thursday to see just where KiwiSaver fits in that picture. 
Craig Foss 
: How does the approach taken in Budget 2011 compare with the Government’s two previous Budgets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has been evident since 2008 that this economy needed to be rebalanced away from excessive consumption and housing speculation funded by debt and towards savings investment and exports. So Budget 2011 will be broadly similar to Budgets 2009 and 2010 because we are following the same plan. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister assure the House that all savings booked in the Budget will identify which vote and which line of that vote will be reduced? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will meet all the standards of transparency for savings that have been required. But I have to say the Government decision-making process will be much more transparent than that of the previous Government which got into the habit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have been aware that I was getting to my feet. That was a pretty straight question about whether votes would show savings. It is a technical question that is capable of having an answer and it did not deserve that last bit to be added. Had the question been a political question there would have been no problem but it was not. Under the circumstances I will invite the member to repeat his question and let us hear an answer without the unnecessary bit being added at the end. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can he assure the House that all savings booked in the Budget will identify which vote and which line of that vote will be reduced? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will meet all the usual high standards of transparency in the New Zealand fiscal system. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very straight albeit slightly technical question but that reply did not answer or even address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it did in so far as the Minister said the Budget would meet all the standards of transparency that Budgets are expected to meet. It is difficult for me to insist that the Minister give a more precise answer but a further question could follow to ask whether that means— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to the Minister’s reply does his reply relating to transparency mean that all savings booked in the Budget will identify which vote and which line of that vote will be reduced? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The reason I referred in answer to the question to the general standard of transparency in the Budget is simply that I have not tracked every single saving to every single vote. Some things may be going on within votes that represent savings in the Budget so I would not want to misrepresent that by saying every dollar is tracked in exactly that way but I think that it is most likely that that is the case. 
Tax System Changes—Impact on Operating Balance 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his pre-Budget statement: “The key sector which is not saving right now is the Government”; if so what steps has he taken to increase Government revenue? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. To the second part of the question I say that our two tax packages have been broadly fiscally neutral so they do not count as increasing or decreasing Government revenue. However we have done two important things to increase Government revenue without raising taxes per se. The first was to cancel tax cuts in 2010 and 2011 planned by both Labour and National. This cancellation reduces our deficit by $1 billion a year and will result in $4.6 billion less borrowing over the forecast period. The second thing we did was give the Inland Revenue Department $120 million to chase down tax evaders which will result in more compliance and therefore more tax paid. The Minister of Revenue will have more to say about this in the Budget. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the net effect of his tax shift has been to add about $3 billion to the deficit over 2 years what responsibility does he take for the record deficit? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is wrong in the assertion he makes. The tax package not only was fiscally neutral but actually added to revenue over time. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given the Prime Minister’s statement what is his estimation of the fiscal impact over 2 years of the tax shift in the last two Budgets? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have the exact number to hand but I can tell members that over the 4-year forecast period there will be an increase in net revenue of $1 billion. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not more fiscally responsible to consider some revenue-raising options in this Budget such as a temporary earthquake levy to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch—a levy that would raise about $5 billion over 5 years—to avoid all the risks associated with increased borrowing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The reason for that is it is the view of the Government that a levy would slow down economic growth. As we know from basic economics adding more pressure on to the private sector reduces people’s incentives to work. I also note that I have taken a quick look at the levy being proposed by the Greens. Interestingly enough only one-quarter of New Zealanders would pay it. I strongly suggest that that is not equitable when it comes to paying for the earthquake. All New Zealanders should share in that cost. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If it is the Prime Minister’s view that it is not equitable that a smaller number of people pay for the earthquake levy why is it equitable that most of the tax cuts were given to those with the highest incomes? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If that was the case it might not have been equitable but two-thirds of the tax cuts went to the bottom two threshold bands. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of many economic commentators that if there are big spending cuts in the Budget it could induce a double-dip recession as we saw following the 1991 Budget? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Far from it. In fact Treasury which has obviously played an integral part in putting together the Budget has indicated that the Budget is likely to see very strong growth in real wages for New Zealanders which never happened under a Labour Government; very strong job growth; and a much stronger economic outlook for New Zealand. In other words Treasury’s analysis of the Budget is that it is a winner. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he accept that the real problem with the Government not saving is that Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is now higher under his prime ministership than in any year under Helen Clark’s and does he have any plan to bring down Government expenditure to at least the level it was at under Helen Clark bad though that was? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As a starting point the reason Government spending as a percentage of GDP has risen is that GDP has shrunk because of the impacts of the earthquake—or has at least stayed constant; it was very very modest growth—yet the cost of the packages we inherited and the spending programme we inherited from Labour rose. That is exactly what happened when Roger Douglas was the Minister of Finance in New Zealand and he knows it. Government spending as a percentage of GDP went up year after year because that is what happens when an economy is going through a rebalancing phase. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he know that GDP per capita in New Zealand is now lower than in 2004 7 years before the earthquake—that is New Zealanders are now poorer than they were in 2004 under Helen Clark—and what is the Government doing to reverse this? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a snapshot in time. It is dependent on a number of factors. GDP per capita looks at the number of people in the country. There has been a substantial increase in the number of people living in New Zealand. Everyone acknowledges that in certain areas there have not been as big amounts of overtime and the like. I add that the member was not asking these questions when he was a Minister a month ago. 
John Boscawen 
: Can he confirm that the Government is borrowing more than $70 per week for every man woman and child in the country; if so does he consider this fiscally responsible? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I can confirm that it is fiscally responsible because as we will see on Thursday the Government has a very clear plan to get New Zealand back into surplus. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well the joke is on Labour members who last year started saying that they would reduce debt faster than National. This year they said it would be at about the same rate and now they do not have a clue what they are actually doing. But we will come back to that later. The reality is that we have had a global financial crisis and the Government is actually proud of the fact that it used its balance sheet and low levels of debt to get New Zealand through that recession. That is what the entire world was doing in 2009-10 and if we had not done that then more New Zealanders would have lost their jobs would have had an uncomfortable lifestyle and would have lost a lot of the support that they wanted. I am quite happy with what we have done but the time has come to get the books back in order. They will be back in order faster than people think. 
Economy—Transformation 
3. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “… we can use this time to transform the economy to make us stronger …”; if so does this transformation involve an economy that uses fewer natural resources and produces less pollution? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statement which was “We don’t tell New Zealanders we can stop the global recession because we can’t. What we do tell them is we can use this time to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.” To the second part of the member’s question I say that this Government thinks the country should be making the most of its natural resources but obviously that needs to be balanced against environmental considerations. I note that the  
Green Budget Paper 2011 
 actually takes a similar line arguing for more efficient use of natural resources to help grow the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the economy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is he adding around $800 million to the deficit to subsidise free allocation of units under the emissions trading scheme when a fair price on carbon would both help balance the Government’s books and create the right incentives for the economy to transform to a more sustainable footing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first point I make is that this Government does have a fair price on carbon. The second point I make is that New Zealand as a country signed up to an international agreement to maintain emissions at a 1990 level. What the Government did in putting together the emissions trading scheme was to reflect the fact that those property rights of those credits that are earned by foresters should stay with foresters. The reality is that where a company exceeds its 1990 levels then it pays itself for those emissions and those credits. It can either choose to reduce its bottom line or pass that on to the consumers of New Zealand. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the OECD which says that we should strengthen the price signals in the emissions trading scheme in order to protect our environment and the integrity of our “clean green” brand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think this Government has always taken a balanced view in terms of economic growth and caring for and maintaining the environment. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree I was asking an opinion question but it was about a specific report by the OECD and I do not know that the Prime Minister addressed that particular issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the member asked whether he agreed with something and I thought the Prime Minister gave the impression that he agreed pretty much with what the member was highlighting in his question. I might be wrong on that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Prime Minister read the latest OECD country report on New Zealand that highlights our inefficient use of natural resources like water and why will he not consider a resource charge on commercial water use to raise some revenue for the Government while giving a price signal regarding the efficient use of water? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: From memory I have read the OECD country report. The Government is taking steps towards a more efficient use of water. That was the aim of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and also the work of the Land and Water Forum. The Government has signalled that there is more work to be done there and the member makes a fair point. Water is a very critical resource for New Zealand we can grow our economy if we use it wisely and we will need to think about ways to ensure there is efficient use of water while maintaining both its quality and the river flows in general. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Government ignoring the advice of the OECD the IMF and the Savings Working Group all of which have found that New Zealand is an outlier in not having a comprehensive tax on capital gains the absence of which undermines Government revenue as well as the competitiveness of the productive sector because all the capital flows into the housing market? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first thing I will say is that this is probably not the week to be quoting the IMF. The second thing I will say is that if one looks at the Tax Working Group and its analysis of a capital gains tax one will see that the Tax Working Group went on to say that on balance the majority of the experts did not agree with the capital gains tax because of its inefficiency and its difficulty to apply. Once one takes the domestic family home out of a capital gains tax it becomes a more inefficient tax. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister may have misheard me. I said the Savings Working Group not the Tax Working Group. I acknowledge that the Tax Working Group did not come down on the side of a capital gains tax but the Savings Working Group did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is absolutely certain that that is what he said—I thought I heard what the Prime Minister answered. If the member wants to repeat his question— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is he ignoring the advice of the OECD the IMF and the Savings Working Group which have found that New Zealand is now an outlier in not having a comprehensive tax on capital gains the absence of which seriously undermines Government revenue and also directs capital into the non-productive sector the housing sector? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not think this is the week to be looking closely at the IMF and I prefer the advice of the Tax Working Group to that of the Savings Working Group. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Government risking a double-dip recession due to spending cuts and a credit downgrade due to record borrowing when raising some targeted revenue avoids both of these dire consequences and shifts the economy on to a more sustainable footing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The analysis from Treasury is that far from risking a double-dip recession the Government is putting the economy in a very strong position to grow both real after-tax wages and the employment levels in New Zealand to get the country back into surplus and to deliver an economic base from which New Zealanders can enjoy a brighter future. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the  
Green Budget Paper 2011 
 which lays out five costed initiatives that the Government can take to reduce Government debt and shift the economy to a more sustainable footing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just check whether this is a press release that the Green Party has made. No this is a— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: No it is a budget paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A budget paper. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection I am sorry. 
KiwiSaver—Prime Minister’s Statements 
4. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements on KiwiSaver? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did he promise New Zealanders in a television broadcast: “We’re backing a KiwiSaver scheme by putting in 2 percent and being matched by 2 percent from the Government and 2 percent from your employer. For every $1 you put in under our scheme $3 ends up in your account.” and will he honour that promise? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and if there are any changes to them New Zealanders will be able to vote on that—it is called election day. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: And they will. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Prime Minister say to Eric Hayward who states that National has changed the rules on us and has gone back on its word that it would not cut KiwiSaver entitlements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We will be making changes to KiwiSaver and announcing those changes on Thursday. New Zealanders will have a chance to vote on all of those changes and decide whether they want to endorse a National Government. If the member is seriously telling us that by the way a Government cannot have a new manifesto and take it to the people of New Zealand then Labour will be selling assets; Labour did that in the 1990s with Phil Goff. Labour would actually have a proper tax system as opposed to the one that Phil Goff is proposing. It would have rational economic policy like Phil Goff had between 1984 and 1990. Governments change their position; good Governments in transparent times take it to the people. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I thought it was a Budget on Thursday Mr Speaker not a manifesto. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not very satisfactory all round with the applause and then the Leader of the Opposition feeling that he needed to say something. Let us have just the supplementary question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Having now reversed the first reversal that he made to the level of contribution into KiwiSaver just 2 years ago does he understand that changing the rules every time the Government wants to cut spending simply erodes trust and confidence in KiwiSaver? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The No. 1 way to gain trust is to have a series of policies go out to the public and campaign on them. One cannot start claiming that this Government does not do that because we have kept our word. Where we want to have a new prescription for the economy we will campaign on it. The trouble for Labour is that it has nothing to campaign on. We do not know what its policies are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why was it his Government’s priority—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable Leader of the Opposition. That was unnecessary from the National back benches. I will not tolerate more of that today. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is it the Prime Minister’s priority to cut $500 a year from low and middle income earners who are saving through KiwiSaver ahead of taking back some of the enormous tax cuts that he gave to the highest income earners including people like himself who got more than $1000 a week in tax cuts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If one looks at the tax package that National delivered in 2010 one sees that two-thirds of all of those tax cuts went to the bottom two bands. I think the member should stop making personal statements about me that are not correct. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now it is the Labour front bench. When I have called their leader they will show some courtesy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the warning from the credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s that says that KiwiSaver cuts have the potential to push New Zealand further into debt not take it out of debt? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is not what Standard and Poor’s said. What Standard and Poor’s recognise is what the Government recognises—that is when the Government is borrowing to put money in people’s KiwiSaver accounts that is not real borrowing. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is it “borrowing” to put money into KiwiSaver but not “borrowing” to give $2.5 billion a year in tax cuts to the top 10 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is an outstanding question. For a start off National’s tax plan 2010—it does not matter how many times Labour members want to disagree with it; they are just making it up as they do with so much other stuff—was fiscally neutral. By the way the entire personal tax cuts right across the board for every New Zealander totalled $2.5 billion. As we see so often when Labour members cannot win the argument with facts they just make it up and they say it only inside the House not outside the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by his reply to the supplementary question last week that asked whether he was aware of Merrill Lynch’s collapse and takeover 3 weeks before he made his KiwiSaver commitment—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear the question despite the questioner being right next to me. The honourable member may start his question again. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by his reply to the supplementary question last week that asked whether he was aware of Merrill Lynch’s collapse and subsequent takeover 3 weeks before he made his KiwiSaver commitment when he said: “I was not aware of the takeover by the Bank of America by Merrill Lynch. That happened long after I left the company.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no responsibility for that and I left the company at the end of 2001. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister indicated that he had no responsibility. He does have responsibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is litigating the answer given. The Prime Minister has given an answer and the House has to accept that answer. I cannot second guess Ministers’ answers. Whether or not the member likes the answer it was an answer. It can be tested further either now or in the future but it was an answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that it is your view that there is some liberalness with answers when it comes to questions that are political. Can I ask you Mr Speaker since when has it not been the Prime Minister’s responsibility to answer questions about a question that he answered last week? It is absolutely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to get too technical on it today’s primary question asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by all his statements on KiwiSaver. The primary question had nothing to do with Merrill Lynch or whomever. As I heard the supplementary question I thought it was getting pretty wide of the mark. For me to try to insist that the Prime Minister answer any more than he has is I think unreasonable because the supplementary question asked was pretty wide of the mark. If the member wants to put down a primary question about that area then that is no problem at all as long as it is in an area that the Prime Minister does have responsibility for. That is my dilemma this time because that was well wide of the mark. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will make it clear again that when I asked the supplementary question I indicated that the Prime Minister had spoken of KiwiSaver in his answer. It was an answer to question No. 2 on Wednesday 11 May. It was entirely about KiwiSaver. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just mentioning a word in a question does not automatically bring it into line with the primary question. It was a big stretch but I did not rule the question out. There is a limit to how much I can ask a Minister to answer. In respect of that kind of supplementary question I believe the Prime Minister gave a pretty clear answer when he pointed out that he was not responsible—and he is not responsible—for Merrill Lynch. Whether there are any other avenues through which members can pursue these matters well certainly primary questions can pursue matters in greater detail but today I feel it would be totally unreasonable of me to pursue that one further. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for pursuing this but I would ask you to go back and listen to the tapes. Each time I attempted to ask that supplementary question it started: “Does he stand by his reply”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the member is making: if in the supplementary questions the Prime Minister had mentioned Merrill Lynch in his reply today then indeed that would have been a perfectly fair supplementary question. But given though the questions today I felt that the supplementary question was on the margins. I did not rule it out because I thought that would be unreasonable of me. But then I think it would be equally unreasonable of me to insist under those circumstances on any further answer from the Prime Minister today. I am sure that if the member wants to pursue the issue in the future he will think of a primary question that brings it within the Prime Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep this going but the primary question was about statements relating to KiwiSaver. This was a supplementary question to a question about KiwiSaver. It was something that the Prime Minister said in this House when being questioned about KiwiSaver. I do not think you can— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have been pretty reasonable. Had the Prime Minister mentioned Merrill Lynch today I would have had no problem whatsoever because the supplementary questions to today’s primary questions must relate to today’s primary questions. Merrill Lynch has nothing to do with statements the Prime Minister has made on KiwiSaver. That is the difficulty I have. Had he mentioned Merrill Lunch today there would have been no problem at all because Ministers can certainly be questioned on supplementary questions on anything they include in their answers during question time. But to try to make the link back today I think is asking me to be unreasonable and I do not believe that I can do that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the summary table from the Executive Summary of Budget 2010 which shows that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All members have those Budget documents. 
Earthquakes Canterbury—Home Heating for Affected Residents 
5. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: What reports has he received on progress made to provide winter heating for residents affected by the Canterbury earthquakes? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I have been informed this morning that 3935 priority claims for winter heating appliances were completed by close of play yesterday. Installation is now progressing at about 120 appliances per day. Well over 4000 priority claims should be completed by the end of this week. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How does the winter heating programme assist the most vulnerable residents? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The winter heating programme works with homes where the primary heat source has been taken out by actions of the earthquake or as a consequence of earthquake damage. Heating is restored through the provision of a heat pump or a solid-fuel burner. The programme is prioritised to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people first so there has been a concerted effort to identify cases involving illness old age pregnancy disability and other relevant factors. It takes about 2 weeks to get a heat pump once an assessment is made and about 8 weeks before a solid-fuel burner can be fitted. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What assurances can he give stressed and cold Canterbury families who are in the priority case list that they will have their promised heater installed—all of them—by the end of winter given that he made a commitment that all those on the priority list would have their heating installed and operational by the middle of May and reiterated that commitment to cross-party members as late as last Tuesday? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: None of those assertions is true. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister aware of priority cases such as the Hawker family in my electorate which includes a terminally ill woman and has been asking without success for a new woodburner or even a flue and can he confirm that the family is among more than 22000 households who have lodged a claim for heating assistance since September and that to date only 3935 have been assisted? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The total number was 19000-plus. Of those many have cash-settled. A number of others have been found not to have the same urgency of need. Approximately 9600 were then on that list less the number that I gave to the House before—3935. So progress is being made. As for the Hawker family if the member can give me more details I will make some inquiries. I note that the member managed to put those people on television and talk about them in his daily news brief but appears not to have talked to the Earthquake Commission to Fletcher’s or to my office. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that less than half of the heating appliances— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before we go into the detail of the document what is the source of the document? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The document is not available to all members. It is the Canterbury earthquake recovery cross-party forum weekly update dated 10 May 2011 supplied in person by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery last Tuesday. Is that enough detail? It states that less than half of the heat pumps that were promised to be installed—if I summarise—by the middle of May have not been installed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is necessary to clarify. The member stated “if I summarise”. I think that means he is interpreting the document. I can assure the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We can’t have this. If the member does not think the document should be tabled he has the right to deny leave. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we will put leave to table the document. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am putting leave to the House to ask whether members wish to have this document tabled. Is there any objection? Some members are telling me there is no objection and some are calling out that there is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with the leave that is being sought. I will take the call from the senior portion of the party. There is no objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Much as my colleagues want to have the document tabled I think there is a really important parliamentary principle here. There are two parts to it: one Mr Henare has rights as a backbench member; two you are not allowed to put the same question twice in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is absolutely correct. Any member has the right to object. Therefore to avoid confusion I will put the leave again. Leave is sought—[ 
Interruption 
] I will overturn my ruling that the document could be tabled. I will put it again. Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. I apologise to members and the Hon Trevor Mallard. He is absolutely correct. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for advice given that leave has been denied by a member contrary to his Minister. I am happy to hand this document across the Table to the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is definitely not a point of order. The member is stretching his good fortune now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course if the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery wanted to he could table— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order either and this nonsense will now cease. I have accepted—[ 
Interruption 
] We do not need further points of order right now from anyone. I accept that it was my—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and there will be no further comment. I accept that I was in error in not accepting the objection earlier. I accept in good grace that I was wrong. I have apologised for that and we will now move on. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s response to my question earlier he asserted that neither I nor my office had made approaches in respect of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and we will not waste more time of the House on matters that are not points of order—that is if members want to stay in the House. That applies to both sides of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise Mr Speaker. You might anticipate what the member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should resume his seat. He is now starting to argue with the rulings I have made and I will not tolerate that any further. I could hear exactly what the member was saying; he was starting to question what a Minister had said. He should not do that by way of point of order. That is not done by way of point of order. If someone has misled the House there are other ways of approaching that but not by way of point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It has long been the right of members to seek to table in this House representations that indicate that Ministers have not answered questions accurately. I think that is what the member was doing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. What might have been practice in the past is certainly not practice today. Question time is not about a member making a statement and a Minister making a statement in reply then members seeking to table documents especially documents from newspapers to try to prove whose point was the more correct. That is not what question time is about and we will not revert back to that kind of nonsense. I warn members that I am not to be trifled with any further on this matter or some members will be leaving the House. We are moving on to question No. 6 unless a totally different issue is emerging. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Brendon Burns 
: In the course of the Minister’s response to my question today he asserted that I had not made inquiries on behalf of my constituents. I have rung my office and confirmed that inquiries on behalf of my constituents the Hawker family in respect of their not having had appropriate heating were made yesterday immediately after the TV3 story appeared on Sunday evening. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not wishing to get into other matters I simply ask for a degree of consistency. You questioned my colleague about questioning a Minister and using question time as a form of debate. I simply ask for consistency. When I rose to take a point of order that member then took a further point of order to reinterpret what I had said. I simply point that out and ask for some consistency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to waste further time. If the member thinks I am being inconsistent that is his view but he may have noted that I sat the Hon Gerry Brownlee down once I heard what he was doing by way of his point of order while I was putting the leave. I sat him down. 
Cost of Living—Advice Received 
6. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What advice did he receive from the most recent food bank he visited about the current cost of living? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I receive advice about the current cost of living from a range of sources but primarily from Statistics New Zealand whose food price index last week showed that over the last 6 months food prices on average have gone up only 0.9 percent. In terms of advice about those presenting at food banks I receive information from the Minister of Social Development who visits food banks regularly and even worked in one very recently. She advises that people use food banks for a range of reasons with a major reason being a loss of employment. 
Hon Annette King 
: Which food bank did he visit recently if he did visit one; and what date was that visit? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not been to one recently. 
Hon Annette King 
: Have any organisers of food banks told him that the reason for the 30 percent increase in people in work receiving food parcels is that they are making poor life choices; or is it that the cost of living has risen faster than their wages? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot recall a direct conversation with a food bank organiser and therefore I cannot characterise either. I have met people who run social services and who run food banks but I am not sure I would say they are absolutely food bank organisers. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he now watched the  
Campbell Live 
 story that I raised in a question to him last week; or has he read the comments made about the rising cost of living and how it is affecting people like Anya who says they are getting more and more worried about how they can manage with the rising cost of living—she works part-time and her husband works full-time for $48000 a year; her wages cover childcare with about $30 a week to spare and she says it would take only a car repair bill or a dentist bill to cause real problems; and why has the tax switch not cushioned her family from the harsh financial pressures they face? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I have not seen the TV programme. I go back to the point I made earlier: Statistics New Zealand advises that the food price index has gone up 0.9 percent for the last 6 months. If one were to contrast that with Labour’s last 6 months in office one would see that it went up between 6 and 7 percent—I think they call that about eight or nine times more. Interestingly enough—and this is quite a fascinating fact for the House—over the last 6 months the price of vegetables has actually gone down 15 percent. One could argue there is no need to take GST off vegetables; it has already happened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Annette King. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s a laughing matter for the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise. The House will come to order. No members want an early shower. The House will come to order. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the tax switch has worked as he keeps asserting why are there a growing number of commentators including Fran O’Sullivan and Jon Johansson saying that it has not worked there was a billion dollar gamble and the Government’s economic management is failing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I take the advice of Treasury over Jon Johansson. 
Rugby World Cup—Protection of “Clean Green” Brand 
7. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What practical initiatives is the Government taking in preparation for Rugby World Cup 2011 to protect the environment and New Zealand’s important “clean green” brand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly we are putting in place new measures to manage freedom camping in partnership with councils. The package includes standardised signage a website for informing visitors where they can and cannot camp nationally as well as practical enforcement measures with a $200 instant fine. The second initiative is a Love NZ public-place recycling programme whereby more than 2000 new bins are to be installed around Rugby World Cup venues and popular visitor spots. This is aimed at recycling 10000 tonnes of glass plastic and aluminium containers that would otherwise go to landfills. Although both these initiatives have been spurred by the Rugby World Cup they are good sensible and practical long-term environmental programmes that will pay benefits for New Zealand. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What response has there been from councils particularly those in high-tourism areas and from the tourism industry to the proposed new freedom camping policy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been almost unanimous endorsement of the Government’s approach. Councils in Queenstown Coromandel Kaikoura Nelson and Marlborough have been particularly strong in their support but Local Government New Zealand has also endorsed the approach. There have also been very positive comments from the Tourism Industry Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Freedom Camping Forum. There is wide acknowledgment that there is a problem and that the Government’s response will let responsible freedom campers get out and enjoy New Zealand’s great outdoors while giving our councils the tools to be able to properly protect our environment. 
GDP Growth—Rate for Year Ended December 2010 
8. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the annual rate of GDP growth for the year ended December 2010 projected in Budget 2010 and what was the actual rate of growth for that period according to Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Three percent and 1.5 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it correct that his Budget 2010 projected that growth in the first three quarters of 2010 nearly all of which was before the first earthquake would be 0.8 percent 0.8 percent and 1.6 percent respectively whereas actual growth was 0.7 percent 0.2 percent and minus 0.2 percent which means that by the end of September 2010 economic output was $1.6 billion below the forecast he produced in May 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes growth was slower than expected and the reason for that was mainly that New Zealanders were saving more than was expected. That is now showing up in a fast-rising household savings rate. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it correct that in his 2010 Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update he projected real wages would fall by 0.9 percent in the year to March 2011 which is bad enough whereas the actual result was a fall in real wages of minus 1.2 percent according to Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that as a result of the tax cuts real after-tax wages have been rising consistently over the last couple of years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he offer any guarantee that the economic and fiscal projections he will present in the Budget on Thursday will be more accurate than those presented in the Budget last year; and is this why according to a new HorizonPoll 48.4 percent of people say the country is on the wrong track and most people disapprove of his Government’s handling of the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is a bit rich for the member to criticise the accuracy of forecasts and then quote the HorizonPoll as the reason why they are inaccurate. No I cannot give the member a guarantee. Around the world economists are having trouble in forecasting economic growth. The basic principles though of the Government’s plan remain unchanged. They are to rebalance this economy towards savings exports and investment and away from excessive housing speculation and excessive consumption fuelled by debt which is what happened under his Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand and Treasury figures to show the differences between Budget 2010 projections and actual— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document the member is seeking to table—I mean I am not aware of Statistics New Zealand and Treasury documents. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: This is a document that has been compiled in my office from those sources. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member should have made clear at the outset the source of the document. Leave is sought to table a document compiled in the member’s office. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Christchurch Schools and Students 
9. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent decisions have been made regarding schooling in Christchurch? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Good news! I am pleased to inform the House that full pre-earthquake operational funding for Christchurch schools is to be extended until the end of the year. This decision means that schools in Christchurch will continue to receive funding for the number of pupils they had before the February earthquake. In addition Christchurch’s schools will have access to their full staffing entitlement and teacher numbers will not be reduced during 2011. Double funding will also continue with schools around the country still being resourced for enrolling Christchurch students. The schools in the city are doing a fantastic job many of them in very difficult circumstances. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What other decisions have been made to support schooling in Christchurch? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We have put in a great deal of support for schooling in Christchurch. I recently announced that study centres have been established across the city. These will be staffed by trained and registered teachers and will focus on students in years 11 12 and 13 to give young people a place to go and do their homework study for tests or seek extra help from trained teachers. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has announced that for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement’s external assessment a separate derived grade process will be established. There will be a simplified process of collecting evidence for internal assessment and there will be a special credit inclusion appeal process. I am also pleased to inform the House that urgent repairs have allowed Heaton Normal Intermediate to return to its original site after double bunking for much of term 1. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will she consider extending the pre-earthquake operational funding and staffing levels until the end of 2012 given that the ministry will otherwise notify the affected schools of next year’s reduced staffing entitlements in October at a time when schools will need to be focused very much on the needs of their students living in very damaged homes and very damaged suburbs? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. We are putting in a great deal of support and there will be support available for schools as they work through that difficult process. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will the Minister ensure that Project Early a very successful programme modelled on the Incredible Years programme operating in the eastern suburbs since the 1990s is fully funded by the ministry in light of the Ministry of Social Development’s untimely advice just prior to the earthquake that its funding would be cut at the end of this year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am not aware of that programme. But I can say to the member that the education sector itself decided to focus on Incredible Years as part of the Positive Behaviour for Learning plan. If there is a need I am quite happy to receive some information from that member about it. 
Early Childhood Education Facilities—Weymouth Primary School Centre 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When was construction completed on the new early childhood education centre at Weymouth Primary School and why is the centre empty? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the building was completed on 21 January 2011 but that it has not yet been granted a code of compliance certificate by the council and cannot be opened until this occurs. The tendering and selection processes are proceeding as planned and I am advised that it is planned to open the centre for children in August. 
Sue Moroney 
: When was construction completed on the early childhood education facility at Homai Primary School and why is that centre also empty? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that I provided information to the member in response to a written question that construction had been completed on Homai Primary School. I do not have the details in front of me of whether the code of compliance has also been granted for that building. I suspect we are still awaiting it. 
Louisa Wall 
: What impact does the Minister think these delays will have on 3-year-old Genesis Tupai and 4-year-old Daisy Broughton who featured on  
Campbell Live 
 last night and who are currently not enrolled in any early childhood education because their families are waiting for the centre within their local community and within walking distance from their homes to open on the Weymouth Primary School site? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I think we are all very frustrated but the reality is that we cannot open that building until it has a code of compliance from the Auckland Council—until that comes through and until we have a provider. I understand it will be open for children in August of this year. 
Sue Moroney 
: What will the Minister do to stop these delays from continuing and how are these delays meeting her Government’s stated priority of increasing participation in South Auckland? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The council is responsible for the code of compliance. I share the frustrations of the community. We want those centres open as soon as possible. We have built them to meet their need and we will open them in August of this year. 
Primary Growth Partnership Funding—Manuka Honey Industry 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to support innovation in the manuka honey industry? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week I was pleased to confirm a successful bid by a manuka honey industry consortium for Primary Growth Partnership funding. The bid will see $1.7 million being invested in a research programme to increase the reliability of the supply and volume of medical-grade manuka honey. This is a major step forward in the sector’s goal of becoming a $1 billion industry and is yet another example of this Government’s commitment to boosting innovation. 
Colin King 
: What amount does this bid bring total Primary Growth Partnership funding for primary sector innovation to? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The success of this latest bid means that since its inception 20 months ago the Primary Growth Partnership has delivered $477 million to primary sector innovation. Collectively this represents the largest investment by the Government in primary sector innovation in decades and it shows just how serious this Government is about boosting economic growth through increased research and innovation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have been quite strict about the relevance of supplementary questions to primary questions. The primary question was about manuka honey. The fact that an innovation fund was mentioned in the primary reply does not widen the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does. If today a Minister included something in an answer Opposition members are perfectly entitled to question the Minister on what was included in the answer. What Ministers include in answers can be questioned. Earlier on today my problem was that the member was seeking to link back to an answer given last week to a rather different question. 
Justice Minister—Statement 
12. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement: “This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone … has access to justice”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Will shifting work from the efficient and highly regarded Waitakere Family Court to the already overloaded and inefficient Auckland Family Court improve access to justice; if so how? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes because matters requiring 1 day’s hearing or more in the Family Court in Waitakere currently have an average waiting time of 30 weeks. Centralising that work to the Auckland court has seen that waiting time reduced to 9 weeks. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does he agree with senior west Auckland lawyers acting for children who believe that his policy to improve access to justice will do the exact opposite of what is intended: services in Waitakere will be slashed urgent orders for at-risk children will be delayed and the safety of these children will be put in jeopardy? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. There will be no impact on children and vulnerable families. The process for dealing with urgent applications is robust at the Waitakere District Court and that will not change. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Why does he continue to stand by his justice policy in the face of criticism from the Deputy Mayor of Auckland Penny Hulse who when referring to the planned centralisation of Auckland’s courts has said that these “cut at any price” senseless initiatives will make our kids face further risk? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Because the deputy mayor could not be further from getting the matter right. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with Kim Workman from Rethinking Crime and Punishment that “We have reached a tipping point where the incarceration of Maori is causing social damage within their own communities.” and what initiatives is the Minister putting in place to ensure that Maori have access to justice? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: We have been dealing with this issue at tipping point as Kim Workman described it for quite some time. That is why it is so important that quality legal aid services are provided in a timely way to ensure access to justice for all people using the justice system including Maori. 
Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill 
Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill 
Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 Mai i te uranga o te ra ki te tonga o te ra ki nga iwi e toru me o ratou take Tiriti e tu nei ki mua i te W’are Paremata; no reira mai i te Waiapu ki Mohaka w’iti atu ki te awa o Waipa o nga uri katoa o enei iwi tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
From the direction where the sun rises and sets upon the three tribes and their Treaty settlements at present before Parliament I therefore extend salutations to all the descendants of these tribes from Waiapu to Mohaka and across to the Waipa River. Greetings to you and to us all collectively. 
] 
I intend to move at the appropriate time that these three bills be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 June 2011 on the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill and on or before 30 August 2011 on the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill and that for all three bills the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Today is a significant day for these three iwi. It provides an important opportunity to build for the future and move ahead. These bills represent a monumental milestone in their development. They are about mending a broken relationship and critically they are about agreeing to the signposts of a better future for all. The relationships that are core to the heart of Maniapoto Ngati Porou and Ngati Pahauwera are given meaning in the agreements set forth. They will enable the iwi to grow and their future descendants to be nurtured in their heritage and their history. They provide a living working partnership model for the benefit of their people their rohe and the Crown. I mihi to them all for the courage they have shown in forging a new era. 
The Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill formalises the enduring relationship of Maniapoto with the Waipa River. It is a relationship that is based on profound respect and gives rise to responsibilities to protect te mana o te wai and to exercise kaitiakitanga in accordance with the long-established tikanga of Maniapoto. To Maniapoto the Waipa is a taonga a sacred river where the tohi rituals were performed where the umbilical rites were observed and where the purification rituals were undertaken. Indeed for Maniapoto Waipa is the river who chants her farewell to the departed ones and the river whose murmuring waters bid welcome to newborns and to visitors from afar. 
Under this bill Maniapoto achieves co-management arrangements specific to the Waipa River and its catchment. The arrangements are extended to the headwaters of the Waipa River at Pekepeke Spring in the Rangitoto Ranges. The overarching intent is to restore and maintain the quality and integrity of the waters that flow into and form part of the Waipa River for present and future generations and the care and protection of the mana tuku iho o waiwaia. Waiwaia refers to the essence and well-being of the Waipa River. To Maniapoto waiwaia is the personification of the waters of the Waipa River and its enduring spiritual guardian. 
The Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill complements the Waikato River settlement with Waikato-Tainui and the Waikato River co-management deeds with Ngati Tuw’aretoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi. Together they establish a single unified co-governance framework for both the Waipa River and the Waikato River. For these reasons a shortened consideration of the bill is both feasible and desirable. 
I now turn to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill the second of the three bills having their first readings. The grievances of Ngati Porou are significant and longstanding. They emerge out of the Crown’s failure to honour its Treaty promise to respect Ngati Porou rangatiratanga over their own affairs from Potikirua in the north to the mouth of the Turanganui River in the south. The Crown imposed land tenure reform on Ngati Porou which deprived iwi members of collective control over their land and made it difficult to utilise their land for economic development. This has helped to make the East Coast one of the most socioeconomically deprived regions of New Zealand—a legacy that endures to this day. 
Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Porou—nor indeed any claimant group—for the loss their people have suffered the cultural redress in this bill seeks to recognise Ngati Porou’s longstanding cultural and spiritual association in the region. It is both innovative and strategic. It includes the vesting of sites of cultural and historical significance a strategic partnership over specific public conservation lands within the rohe a financial settlement of $110 million a commitment by the Crown and Ngati Porou to develop a relationship accord and much more. 
Finally I speak to the third bill having its first reading in the House today the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. Ngati Pahauwera is a confederation of hapu with historical interests in northern Hawke’s Bay. The claims of Ngati Pahauwera include the failure of the Crown to make sure that Ngati Pahauwera had sufficient lands for its future needs during the process of land alienation that began in the 1850s. By the middle of the 20th century Ngati Pahauwera was virtually landless and ever since they have suffered economic social and cultural impoverishment. During the New Zealand Wars the Crown provided only minimal assistance to help Ngati Pahauwera recover from a brutal attack on their pa and kainga even though the area had been left virtually defenceless because Ngati Pahauwera warriors were away with the Crown’s forces. 
The redress provided to Ngati Pahauwera can never compensate them for what has been lost. It is vital that the agreement reached with them which is embodied in this bill enhances the relationship between the Crown and Ngati Pahauwera into the future. The bill includes provisions that enable cultural redress to be provided for including the vesting of Te Heru o Tureia and 14 other cultural redress properties; the transfer of five former Wairoa District Council properties to Ngati Pahauwera; and redress in relation to licensed land within the Mohaka Forest. These are but a portion of the significant advances made today in their settlements. 
These bills signify the closing of one door and the opening of another leaving the door slightly ajar so that we may always remember the history that has brought us to this point. I celebrate the iwi who have done so much to create a new partnership arrangement and have invested in the potential and the challenge of leading themselves forward into the future which is well within their reach. I consider that the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee. I commend these bills to the House. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 E tika atu ki te mihi atu i a koutou e tae kaha ki te Whare Miere nei ki te tautokotia atu i te timata o te otinga o nga kereme. E mihi kau ana. Ki a koutou o te hau kainga te whanau whanui mihi kau ana ki te maunga o Hikurangi te awa o Waiapu me nga hapu katoa o te rohe o tatou mai i Tikirau e tae kaha atu ki Te Toka-a-Taiau. No reira tena tatou. Na te mea i roto i a aku e mai whatu ki te kore tae ake nga mea pakeke pera i a Tame Te Maro Takutu Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes a ratou ma. E whakaaro atu i roto i a aku mo to ratou kaha te tae ake o te ture nei i te wa nei. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
It is appropriate that I acknowledge you collectively who worked tirelessly to get here to the Beehive to support the start of a claims settlement process. I congratulate you. To those of you from home the extended family greetings are accorded to Hikurangi mountain Waiapu River and all the subtribes of our region from Tikirau stretching staunch-like to Te Toka-a-Taiau. So greetings to us. I am saddened by the absence of some of the elders of the ilk of Tame Te Maro Takuta Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes and others who did not make it here. I spare a thought for their efforts that made it possible for this legislation to get here today. So acknowledgments to us. 
] 
The Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill records the Crown’s acknowledgments of Treaty breaches and the apology offered by the Crown to Ngati Porou and it provides that the settlement of the Ngati Porou historical claims is final. It removes the jurisdiction of judicial bodies in respect of the historical claims of Ngati Porou or the redress provided under the deed of settlement or the Act but not their interpretation. It deals with related issues including consequential amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the removal of certain resumptive memorials and the modification of the rule against perpetuities. 
It is important to understand that the Ngati Porou settlement has been undertaken through a whole lot of effort. As with other settlements there are tensions at times but Ngati Porou have certainly done well to arrive here today. I will recognise my whanaunga Hekia Parata who is sitting over there next to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I recognise the Minister for the effort that he has put in. I want to thank myself and Michael Cullen for starting the process and I thank the Minister for finishing it. Thank you very much; I recognise the Minister for that. 
The bill sets out the cultural redress provided to Ngati Porou including the Crown’s acknowledgment of the cultural significance of certain conservation lands for Ngati Porou and provision for a relationship between Ngati Porou and the Department of Conservation. I will wax lyrical a bit on that because it needs to be recognised that this is not a new thing for Ngati Porou. In the sense of the return of the maunga Hikurangi they have done a great job of managing it. I think that sets a significant example for a whole lot of Treaty settlements and for people who tend to have doubts about the ability of iwi to make sure that the right thing is done. How they define “right” is in the sense of what has been proven and what they will do into the future. 
The commercial redress is certainly something that has to be considered and considered seriously because there have been a whole lot of machinations in relation to those boards and organisations—generally Pakeha; generally the Crown—that have really controlled or debased Ngati Porou in relation to those issues that could have created an economic baseline. Certainly through all of that they have still continued to do that. It is with relish that one can look back and reconsider things started a long time before Fonterra opened the dairy factories that were in Ngati Porou: things like those in the barge freight and transportation area. 
It is good that the Government is considering this and that we are running this bill the Nga Wai o Maniopoto (Waipa River) Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill together. The Labour Party will support these bills—the whole three of them—and certainly we have put a whole lot of effort into getting these three settlements finished. 
An important point is that the dissolution of Te Runanga o Ngati Porou dissolves a Maori trust board established by Te Runanga o Ngati Porou Act in 1987. That seems to have been a long time ago though maybe in this time it is just like yesterday. But Ngati Porou need to be commended. Certainly I look forward to the deliverables that are in here possibly being expanded even at this late time I say to the Minister. But I recognise the iwi’s strength and efforts in getting here through a whole lot of different pathways. That is certainly what today is about. 
E mihi kau ana i a koutou o Maniapoto e noho tata ki te awa o Waipa. E mihi kau ana ki te Kingi Tuheitia ki a koutou i mau kaha atu ki te tae i konei mo to koutou kereme.  
[ 
I acknowledge you of Ngati Maniapoto who live in close proximity to the Waipa River King Tuheitia you as a collective who were tireless in your efforts to get here over your Treaty claim. 
] 
The Waipa River bill again is an embellishment that certainly comes off the effort made by Tainui in relation to ensuring or developing co-management and co-governance which is something that this speaker himself knows was frowned upon at the beginning. I commend Mita Ririnui and all those people who organised it—and Michael Cullen again—and who tried to forge it within the mindsets of the people who generally have power that is distanced from Maori like the local authorities and the waterway authorities. I commend Waipa for that. The Tainui river settlement has been quite fundamental. Tainui’s wish is that the waters are cleaned up so that the elderly can bathe in them and the kids can eat the fish. At the end of the day there is already an example and the Maniapoto people need to be commended and recognised for the effort that they are putting in. It is not an easy thing to go into especially when one is trying to determine and ensure that one’s rangatiratanga is there and it is not an isolated issue. 
I think the great thing done by all of these iwi here today is that they have certainly shown a way forward for this country. We preach and teach about nationhood but if we intend to be serious about it then we certainly have to learn about how Maori can take things forward in a very positive manner. Those of Maniapoto again need to be commended. 
E mihi kau ana i a koutou mo Hera i a ratou e kore e tae ake engari tautokotia atu to koutou kaha mo to awa. No reira tena koutou. 
[ 
I congratulate you collectively and those like Hera who are no longer here and did not arrive. In respect of your river I endorse your endurance. Well done. 
] 
The co-management arrangement includes the establishment of joint management agreements with relevant local authorities the development of an upper Waipa River integrated management plan and recognition of the Maniapoto iwi environmental management plans. All of those things have been tested in other areas. Maniapoto have certainly spent a lot of time ensuring that it would be as such and that they would take it forward. 
I a koutou o Ngati Pahauwera e mihi kau ana tena koutou. E whakaaro mo te ahua o te whaea a Sophie mo tana pekepeke i a tau i a tau mo te kereme nei. E whakaaro atu mo Sophie me to koutou tangata a Tame e kare e hoki mai e hinga atu ra. Engari ahakoa kua rere atu ratou i konei ke koutou. No reira tena koutou i te awa o Mohaka nga whanau o Tureia te wahi o Raupunga me Mohaka e mihi kau ana.  
[ 
To you of Ngati Pahauwera I commend and salute you collectively. The state that Auntie Sophie used to get into a flap about year in and year out over this claim comes to mind. I think of her and your man Tame now both gone for ever. Their likes will never be seen here. Nevertheless while they are no longer here you as a collective are here indeed. Therefore I congratulate you the families of Tureia of Raupunga and Mohaka who live by the Mohaka River. 
]  
The Pahauwera is an interesting settlement. Ngati Pahauwera is a confederation of hapu with historical interests along the Mohaka River. They have stood the test of time. In the wars they were really banished from their lands. They were stripped of their economic base and they were stripped of their own authority. That was certainly in my mind one of the most forlorn parts of the old wars. That Ngati Pahauwera have responded and been able to defend their right in relation to the Mohaka River is something that has been worthwhile to watch over a period of time. The cultural redress is an important thing for Ngati Pahauwera. Te Heru o Tureia is a gift area. The cultural redress properties were important areas to Ngati Pahauwera which were put aside and taken away from them. The right of first refusal will be important for Ngati Pahauwera and certainly for the people from Raupunga and Mohaka. I hope that it is finalised and they finish building their marae because it has been a long time in coming. 
I say to all of the three claimants here today that Labour will support these bills. We look forward to a better expedient and quick journey towards the end. Kia ora. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I rise to speak to three bills that are being addressed in a novel manner this afternoon so that they can be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee as quickly as possible. That great chair of the committee the Hon Tau Henare is a tiger for punishment. He is keen to get on with the job as quickly as he can. 
The first bill is the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill which gives effect to a deed by the Crown and Maniapoto signed at Te Kuiti on 27 September 2010. I acknowledge their representatives who are here this afternoon and thank them for their commitment for their patience and for their hard work. The bill provides for Maniapoto to participate in the co-governance and co-management of the Waipa River and adds the Upper Waipa River to the arrangements put in place last year. 
This river is of deep cultural significance to Maniapoto. For the people of Maniapoto their relationship with the Waipa River gives rise to responsibilities to protect te mana o te wai and to exercise their kaitiakitanga in accordance with their long-established tikanga. The involvement of Maniapoto will be key in addressing environmental concerns and in achieving the long-term health of the river. In the area of the Upper Waipa River in particular the people of Maniapoto have a significant stake in the social economic and environmental well-being of the community by virtue of their numbers and the extent of Maori land - based economic development. 
This bill needs to proceed without delay to ensure that critical steps such as the initial review of the vision and strategy are comprehensive and so that there is a proper legal basis for factoring the Upper Waipa River into these very very important developments. There is a strong sense of shared aspiration among not only iwi but also the community at large to improve the health of the Waipa River and the Waikato River. This bill is the final ingredient to put in place the framework. It is an initiative whose time has come so that generations in the future can enjoy a healthy river that sustains abundant life and prosperous communities. 
I now turn to the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill. I too welcome the Ngati Porou representatives who have joined us today for this historic occasion. Treaty settlements involve commitment and courage. They often involve difficult trade-offs both personally and professionally by those who work on them. I pay tribute to the leadership pragmatism and hard work of the negotiating teams of the iwi who are with us today. It is through the diligent labour of these people that we have reached this point. I acknowledge those who are no longer with us particularly Koro Dewes who in a long and distinguished career helped to lay the foundation for this settlement through his work in establishing Te Runanga o Ngati Porou. I am so sorry that he did not live to see the introduction of this bill but I am heartened that he lived long enough to see this settlement through to its near completion. 
Ngati Porou has travelled a long road to have its claims addressed by the Crown. After many years of preparation formal negotiations began in 2008. The Crown recognised the mandate of Te Runanga o Ngati Porou in April that year. Negotiations with Te Haeata the negotiation subcommittee commenced in July 2008. A non-binding high-level agreement outlining key elements of financial and commercial redress was signed by the Crown and Ngati Porou on 23 October 2008. After a period of robust negotiations a deed of settlement was initialled in October 2010. I pause to acknowledge the work of my chief Crown negotiator Paul Swain an excellent fellow. I am so bipartisan that I can work with anyone. 
During November and December last year Te Runanga o Ngati Porou undertook a ratification process for the deed of settlement and the proposed post-governance entity. Of the registered adult members of Ngati Porou who voted 91 percent voted in favour of accepting the deed of settlement and 92.5 percent voted in favour of accepting the proposed governance arrangements. This is a great day for Ngati Porou and I acknowledge Mr Horomia and his help at the very initial stages of the negotiation. The real grunt work of course was done by me. 
Finally I turn to the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. I too welcome Ngati Pahauwera representatives who have joined us today. Many other members of Ngati Pahauwera in the Hawke’s Bay and around New Zealand will be watching this debate today and I acknowledge them. 
Ngati Pahauwera have also travelled a long road to have their claims addressed by the Crown. In 1994 the Maori Land Court made an order appointing eight people to represent this confederation in the prosecution and settlement of Treaty claims against the Crown. The tribunal reported on the historical claims in 1992—the very very important Mohaka River report—and 2004. In May 2008 terms of negotiation were signed for a combined negotiation of Ngati Pahauwera’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims and of their foreshore and seabed interests. An agreement in principle setting out the broad components of the Crown’s settlement offer was signed on 30 September 2008. Since then the trustees and the Crown have negotiated intensively. I pause here to acknowledge the contribution of my chief Crown negotiator former Labour MP Fran Wilde an excellent person—again proving my bipartisanship. 
A draft deed of settlement to settle the Treaty claims was ready for ratification on 4 November 2010 and on a wonderful day 17 December 2010 in the company of Mr Horomia we signed the deed of settlement at Mohaka. It was a wonderful occasion for all who attended. The deed of settlement signed then is conditional on the passage of this bill. 
I acknowledge all Ngati Pahauwera tupuna and I acknowledge all those who from the beginning have worked for the good of Ngati Pahauwera. The trustees of the development trust and their counsel have negotiated with great resolve and determination and the settlement package they have achieved is a very good one. Throughout this process they have been unfailingly polite and dignified; I have certainly enjoyed working with them. I acknowledge their patience when they were prepared to defer discussion of their foreshore and seabed interests while the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act was being reviewed. 
Settling this claim is an important further step in this country’s progress towards settling all historical Treaty claims. Settling the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty claims will be a first in the Hawke’s Bay region. The passage of this bill begins the last stage in a settlement that seeks to recognise what is important to the people of Ngati Pahauwera and to provide redress for breaches of the Treaty. 
These three settlements are among the many settlements this Government has been progressing towards its aspirational goal of settling all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014. I thank all parties for their cooperation in enabling these bills to proceed in this manner. I acknowledge—because authorship is important—that the original idea for this process came from the senior Opposition whip Mr Barker and I thank him for his suggestion. That is not to say that these bills will be rushed through the Maori Affairs Committee as some rather unkind people are saying. They will be dealt with individually and they will be dealt with carefully. This is a sensible way of progressing Treaty bills so that people can enjoy the fruits of their labour as soon as possible. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 A te Kaihautu o te Whare tena koe. Kati hei timatanga korero mihi atu ki nga huanga o roto i nga whare tatai i te tuauru Maniapoto a whakawhiti atu ki Te Tai Rawhiti Ngati Porou me ana toronga katoa a heke iho ki roto i te awa o Mohaka a Ngati Pahauwera tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Na runga i te hiahia i pupu ake i waenga tonu i a matou nga kanohi Maori ki tenei taha pena e taea te rauhi i enei pire kia wawe ai te taenga atu ki te komiti uiui. Kia kawa rawa atu enei pire e waiho ki konei kia tarewa i roto i tenei wahanga o te rerenga o nga pire me te matau ara noa atu te poti whakataetae e tu mai nei kei te paunga o tenei tau. Na koia ta matou e mihi ki a koutou i amene ai ki tena whakaaro na ko tona tikanga ka whakawateangia te huarahi kia whiriwhiria tonutia ai e te komiti uiui raro i te whakahaere a te Honore Tau Henare nga take a me nga wahanga iti e tika ana kia whakahangaitia pea. Na koia ta matou e tautoko i te Minita i tenei ahiahi. Na reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker of the House. To begin with I acknowledge the relatives from within the ancestral houses of Maniapoto to the west across to the ones of Ngati Porou on the East Coast and all its branches and down to the ones of Ngati Pahauwera by the Mohaka River. Hello there and greetings to you all. Because of a desire that welled up within us Maori members on this side we sought to have these bills made cognate so they would get to the select committee faster. These bills must be allowed traction and not be held up on this side of the process as we know full well that there is the matter of competing for votes at the end of the year to contend with as well. That is why we compliment you on allowing this to happen. Accordingly it clears the way for the select committee under the astute leadership of the Hon Tau Henare to consider matters about these bills including any clauses that might be deemed appropriate. That is why we were most supportive of the Minister this afternoon. So greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. 
] 
We join with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson. This exercise I understand is to be regarded as a “cognate” exercise as I am told is the expression. That is somewhat unusual but as I have said in Maori this is a busy year and the people who bring claims forward and wait for many years despite the best efforts of the current leader of the ACT Party to deprecate them are actually positive and busy people. If the business of the House can be ordered in such a way that we can facilitate the expeditious consideration of these bills then there is not a sliver of doubt in our minds that we should support the current Minister to effect that outcome. I only hope that his enthusiasm for bilateral ventures stretches beyond 26 November when we will treat him in a similarly charitable fashion. 
I must correct one element. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations described the current chair of the Maori Affairs Committee my kinsman Tau Henare with the adjective “great”. I want that word struck from the  
Hansard 
 record because it reflects an inaccuracy. 
I turn first to Ngati Maniapoto. Obviously our colleague Nanaia Mahuta will expand on what her Maori colleagues here are saying but it follows on from the tauira—the model really—that was laid down during the time of Dr Cullen and revived by the current Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Christopher Finlayson. It really broke the back of longstanding traditions in resource management. It has caused some consternation to certain elements of the House but we have seen no degradation in the quality of water we have seen no diminution in the property rights of farmers etc. and we have not seen a dilution of people’s rights to participate in statutory resource management. The fact that it should extend to as we say in Maori the whare tatai of Maniapoto just shows that this area of governance is improving and it is providing an opportunity for greater Maori input. 
Our wealth comes from our primary sector including our mineral sector—although I will get to that small point in a moment. Improvement in how we as Pakeha and Maori are able to participate in statutory resource management ensures that when those decisions are made there is a balance between ecology environment cultural heritage and rangatiratanga but also there is not ignorance about the importance of the economic utility of our resources. If we overlook that importance we are actually deprecating the opportunities that are available in a post-settlement phase for iwi hapu and whanau. There is no reason why this particular bill does not lay down the platform for the continuation of the Maniapoto claim. 
Ngati Pahauwera are not too far away from a part of Maoridom where one of our tupuna Te Wera Hauraki made certain forays into the broader country of Kahungunu a little further along from where Ngati Pahauwera are. I remember for many years going down there and visiting the marae with Rev. Maori Marsden while we discussed resource management issues. That is where we were first introduced to the drama that was confronting them about the Mohaka River. As is the case with other claims this is an example of where a proud group of people—a tribe a number of hapu—were left landless. Unfortunately not all land can be restored back to the descendants of the original owners but the fact that the current custodians of that legacy on the tangata whenua side are willing and courageous enough to step up to the plate and give their approval to this type of settlement bodes well for the future. 
It is a part of Aotearoa that is not spoken about in a particularly wide fashion but we salute the people of Ngati Pahauwera their river their remaining lands and the Maungaharuru ridge etc. We know how difficult it is for any small iwi to capture the attention of the bureaucracy and of politicians and also to find the energy to sustain the journey to effect a suitable settlement to the claim. So there is no doubt in our minds where we should stand and support whether it is through Dr Cullen the Hon Parekura Horomia or Christopher Finlayson. 
The most important thing is that from here it is the responsibility of the tangata whenua. They have to stand up and bear that legacy and ensure that it is actually improved generation after generation. That will not be an easy task and whatever we do to the bill in the settlement today we hope it simplifies that process. 
Ko Hikurangi te maunga ko Waiapu te awa ko Parekura te tangata. Ngati Porou tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Na wai ranei i teka me tu a Ngapuhi ki te korero mo nga whenua to koutou maunga a koutou tangata me nga awa katoa kei roto i Te Tai Rawhiti engari tenei ano te mihi atu ki a koutou. No roto i nga rangi pahure tata ake nei nui tonu nga korero i roto i te hui i tu mo to matou matua a Ta Ratima mo tenei kereme mo tenei nawe whenua. Nana ano i ki i te haerenga ake o Ta Apirana Ngata ki roto i Te Hiku o te Ika i te ururoa me te kanukanu o te ahua o te whenua nana ano i ki pena he toki ano taku tapahia me ahau te hiku o tenei ika kia tere atu ki te moana. Katahi a Ta ka mea mai ki ahau e hoa e koro e Shane ki te tu koe ki te mihi mo te kereme o Ngati Porou meinga atu ki a ratou nui tonu te mana o te Ropu Reipa i roto o Ngati Porou. Kati tena koutou. He rawe tenei ra. 
[ 
Hikurangi is the mountain Waiapu is the river and Parekura is the man. Greetings to you Ngati Porou greetings to you and greetings to you all. Who falsely assumed that someone of Ngapuhi descent should stand up and talk about lands your mountains your people and all the rivers of the East Coast? Nevertheless salutations once again. There was much talk at a symposium held recently for our uncle Sir Graham Latimer about this claim and objections about this land. He actually talked about the time when Sir Apirana Ngata came up to the Tail of the Fish and mentioned how the land looked shabby and was shark-like in appearance. It prompted me to exclaim that if I had an axe I would lop off the tail of this fish and set it adrift in the ocean. Then Sir Graham said to me “Hey mate hey old fella Shane should you get up to acknowledge Ngati Porou’s claim say to them that the Labour Party’s influence in Ngati Porou is right up there.” Enough said and congratulations. This is a wonderful day. 
] 
The Ngati Porou tribe are not strangers to the administration the bureaucracy or the antics of politicians or Governments. This is a very successful conclusion to a claim that has been afflicted by internal politics and I can say that because I am a member of the Ngapuhi nui tonu. No one is more afflicted than my own tribe. It is a part of Maoridom where we want to see the provincial economy recover. We want to see investments that recover the halcyon days when there were very prosperous strong and hardy landowning groups up the coast. If this small contribution through the historical Treaty settlement enables that to come to pass then every single Maori in the House should salute Ngati Porou on this significant day. 
We must acknowledge Hekia who currently has a difficult role dealing with her own relations in terms of why the exploration for oil and minerals is not such a bad idea. Although that is a difficult part I note that a protocol in this bill enables Ngati Porou to participate. 
Kia kaha kia manawa nui. Mai i Te Tai Hauauru ki Te Tai Rawhiti tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa.  
[ 
Be strong and stout of heart. Well done to you from the western shores to the eastern one and to us all. 
] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in favour of these three bills and this process with some humility as a Pakeha. I acknowledge that neither of our two Maori members of caucus whakapapa to these rohe but I acknowledge the importance of us as Pakeha standing up for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and taking our place in recognising the important processes in which we engage in this House and in this country. If Pakeha are silent and we do not acknowledge the Treaty process we are pretending that that process belongs to Maori. But we are the main beneficiaries of the Treaty so I want to speak to that issue as well. 
The Green Party is supporting the first readings of these three bills and we recognise and respect the blood sweat and tears associated with getting to this point of the three iwi involved. The Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill will hopefully allow Ngati Maniapoto to uphold their sacred relationship to the Waipa awa. Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au. We recognise their generosity. We recognise that co-governance or co-management is actually a generous compromise by mana whenua. It is a gift back to the nation saying that what was theirs in entirety and will always be theirs they will work through and share with us in terms of governance. I think the bills we have seen in this House previously around Waikato are very important in this regard and we will all be watching to see that they work in terms of the spirit of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So we must pay respects to those people to Ngati Maniapoto. 
I pay respects also to Ngati Porou. I lived in the Tai Rawhiti for 8 years and one cannot live in that area without recognising the energy and power of Ngati Porou but also the particular history the history of economic deprivation through Maori Land Court and land tenure machinations in the past. But in the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill there are some good opportunities and relationships that Ngati Porou will be able to take full advantage of. 
When I worked in the rohe for 8 years I was deeply affected by whanau living landless in broken houses. There was a lack of opportunity for rangatahi and whanau katoa. Members may have seen the movie  
Ngati 
. It tells a story about the previous vibrant economic sovereignty that has been undermined. We need to see the rebuilding of that sovereignty through bills like this particularly for the most poverty-stricken people in the most remote rural communities I saw. As an advocate for the poorest of the poor I am hopeful that this is a start towards those most vulnerable people being the beneficiaries of this mahi. 
Thirdly I turn to Ngati Pahauwera the Mohaka people. It is a terrible history of loss and of the way the Crown acted towards them. Lack of good faith in terms of the Mohaka River people is a story that all New Zealanders need to read. They need to understand what happened to them and what the journey has been to get to this point. Although I lived in Turanga I travelled through their rohe. I will never forget being on the hikoi—the takutai moana hikoi. As we went through Raupunga on the side of the road the kohanga reo stood with a sign towards us—all those little tamariki mokopuna standing there—saying “kia kaha kia kaha”. That was one of the most moving moments for us as part of the takutai moana hikoi: to see the people of Raupunga who actually stand up for what they believe in from the smallest to the kaumatua. So I acknowledge them. 
The Green Party recognises with a heavy heart the histories behind these settlement processes and we reject the concept of full and final even though we are supporting progress for these iwi. How can it be full and final settlement when every claim added together is less than the money used to bail out South Canterbury Finance? The degree of recompense the Crown actually gives compared with the losses needs to be analysed in the context of the instant bail-out provisions for failed financiers who took advantage of the Government guarantee. Is the poverty and loss of all these whanau over more than 150 years worth so little in comparison with the money the Crown is prepared to spend on businesses that have been greedy and at times misleading in their behaviour? And they had to ask only once! Although we celebrate the progress for these iwi we have concerns about the scale of redress. It is not full and it is not final no matter what political spin we place on it. 
I have to be brave and say that we place on record some concerns about other iwi who are impacted by the Crown picking winners during settlement processes. This is causing some pain and distress in Te Tai Rawhiti because the Crown has decided to work with large natural groupings and smaller iwi like Ruawaipu and Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti have been more than vocal in their claim of being marginalised. But the history of the Turanganui iwi and their relationships and boundaries is complex and it is not the Green Party’s business to address the issue of boundaries between tangata whenua. That is not our role in terms of the Treaty relationship in Aotearoa. But we can say that the Crown process can create new grievance as well as make agreement. We can say that dialogue for justice must continue and justice must also be seen to be done. 
We wish the Crown to recognise that history is not fixed. Dialogue and negotiation are a permanent feature of te Tiriti and settlements need to be negotiated with no absolute requirement that the iwi involved be silent in the future. Stories are still emerging about how land and resources were alienated and issues such as the takutai moana sadly have the potential to create new claims. The Government needs to accept that as in all significant relationships everything has to be open for discussion in an honest and realistic manner. The next generation of Ngati Maniapoto Ngati Porou and Ngati Pahauwera will have something to say to the Crown and they should be listened to. That something may be about fairness and justice because they will do the maths and see that South Canterbury Finance gets instant redress while their whanau do not. 
One of the things I would like to see alongside this bill—and I applaud the work of all the people involved—is a budget for Pakeha education. Having lived in the Tai Rawhiti I say that as long as Pakeha think the settlement process is for Maori in many cases they ignore it. We need them on board. We need my culture on board so that we do not undermine the very good work that people are doing to build a successful cultural and economic base for tangata whenua. We really need to get Pakeha educated because they do not attend claims processes and they do not read settlements. I can speak for my culture and say that very few of us embrace the work that people in this House are doing or understand what the Attorney-General is trying to lead. 
Unless we go out there and proactively explain to Pakeha they will be a barrier and racism will be an issue. I can speak on that issue because I lived in Gisborne and I did not hear very many Pakeha embracing the settlement process. We need to be brave enough as Pakeha to talk about that issue alongside the work of tangata whenua. It is our responsibility not that of Maori to educate our own and bring them on board. The Crown has a big role to play in that education because the Crown since 1840 has had a big role in creating the essential necessity for this process. 
Without having much more to say I acknowledge my ignorance about the detail and I acknowledge that I am speaking as a Pakeha but I say that it is vital that we front up to these settlement processes and that we are brave enough to name our concerns. I acknowledge all the people who travelled here today to participate in the process. It is just the first reading and I look forward to hearing more through the select committee process and in the second and third readings which it is likely we will be supporting. But I can never feel a great sense of celebration until everyone in Aotearoa stands up behind this process and acknowledges that it is important and is about all of us. 
We must celebrate the progress made with a level head and a willingness to acknowledge that the marginalised must be heard. It is not as tidy as saying a settlement is full and final. To say that the process is over and done with may be tidy but it is not honest. It is important that we are more truthful and say we are on a journey together in this nation. It is not a tidy journey but without that honesty about our history and about the grievances that we have the potential to create in this very Whare we will not make peace and justice in our time or for tamariki mokopuna. As a grandmother I am responsible for looking ahead as are so many of you to what our mokopuna will have to deal with. It is not full or final but let us absolutely acknowledge the progress made. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 E nga uri o ratou ma kua riro ki tua o te pae Ngati Porou Ngati Pahauwera Ngati Maniapoto haere mai nau mai ki te Whare Paremata. He Whare tenei kua rongo i nga nawe i nga hiahia o nga iwi o nga tau kua hipa. No koutou tenei ra. Koia nei te timatanga mai o te korero i nga pakitara o te Whare Paremata. I mua o te mutunga o tenei tau ka eke ki te puawaitanga. No reira tena koutou tena tatou katoa.  
[ 
To the descendants of those who have crossed beyond the horizon of Ngati Porou Ngati Pahauwera and Ngati Maniapoto welcome welcome and welcome to Parliament House. This House is one that has heard about the complaints and aspirations of tribes in years past. This is your day. It is the beginning of the talk that will emanate from the walls of Parliament House. By the end of this year the talk will come to fruition. So greetings to you and to us all 
.] 
I am very pleased and proud to stand and talk to the first readings of three separate bills: firstly the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill which is a companion to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill; secondly the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill of which the deed of settlement was signed on 17 December 2010; and thirdly the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill of which the deed of settlement was signed in December last year. This bill represents the settlement of all Ngati Porou historical Treaty of Waitangi claims and therefore is hugely significant—as they all are. I will make a few comments on each of the bills and hopefully I will have time to make a few comments on the importance of Treaty settlements. 
On the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill the Waipa River is a significant contributor to the waters of the lower Waikato River and to the social cultural environmental and economic well-being within its region. We recognise that the Waipa River is taonga to Maniapoto. Their relationship with the river lies at the heart of their spiritual and physical well-being and has been the prime influencer in the way we have interacted with them. The restoration and maintenance of the river as part of a larger catchment needs to be coordinated with the management restoration and protection of the Waikato River and Maniapoto involvement in co-governance and co-management of their river is key for the longer-term sustainability not only of their river but also of the larger Waikato as well. 
The bill gives effect to a deed entered into between the Crown and Maniapoto by which they agree to extend a co-governance framework over the whole of the Waipa River and provide for Maniapoto to participate in the framework that governs the river. It establishes co-management and related arrangements with Maniapoto in relation to their river. 
Although it is a great advantage to deal with the three bills within the one debate not one of the iwi sitting in the gallery this afternoon should take the briefness of the comments relating to each of their settlement bills as a sign in any way that we are skimming over the importance of their settlements. We are not. 
In respect of the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill I acknowledge my whanaunga and note that this is the first deed of settlement to be signed as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said on the eastern seaboard of the North Island. I say congratulations to the iwi. The first of a series of settlements is always the biggest and I hope that the whanaunga alongside you take this as a sign that they ought to move as well. As with other historical settlement bills the package includes a Crown apology as well as financial redress of $20 million and cultural redress involving 16 sites totalling around 1087 hectares. These claims relate mainly to the Crown’s failure to ensure the iwi retained sufficient lands for its future needs the Crown’s failure to provide adequate support during the New Zealand Wars the Crown’s failure to monitor the impact of further land purchases and the fact that by the middle of the 20th century Ngati Pahauwera was virtually landless which contributed to the decline of its economic social and spiritual well-being. This settlement will hopefully enable Ngati Pahauwera to build the partnership with the Crown that it has for so long sought and to flourish as a people. 
The Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill puts longstanding historic grievances to rest and will bring significant benefits not only to Ngati Porou and the East Coast region but also like all settlements to New Zealand. Ngati Porou is New Zealand’s second-largest iwi with 72000 members 58 hapu and 48 marae on the East Coast of the North Island. The takiwa covered by the bill is the area from Potikirua Point on the East Cape in the north to Te Toka-a-Taiau in the south at the mouth of the Turanga River which runs through the centre of Gisborne. The takiwa relates as I said earlier to a great number of hapu and marae. Ngati Porou has a proud history of working with the Crown to preserve the New Zealand way of life and I am very proud to be part of the National Party and to recall that I follow in the footsteps of a number of eminent Maori MPs not least of which of course was Ta Apirana Ngata who has left a huge legacy in this place. 
The bill records the acknowledgments and apology offered by the Crown to Ngati Porou and provides that the settlement of the Ngati Porou historical claims is final. It includes financial redress of $110 million it includes the return of sites of high cultural significance to Ngati Porou totalling approximately 5898 hectares and it provides for Ngati Porou input into the strategic governance of specific conservation sites in relationship agreements designed to facilitate good working relationships between specific Crown agencies and Ngati Porou. 
I will make some general remarks. The importance of what we do this afternoon will be illustrated by the fact that there is near universal agreement in this House for these three settlements. I am not sure whether ACT will vote for these settlements because its history to date has been not to vote for any of them. But we can put that to one side and rejoice in the fact that in the balance of the House which is the larger part of the House all members support these settlement bills—and why would they not? 
As parliamentarians we have done some of our best work in bringing settlements to this House. I have had the privilege of being here since 1996 working with Sir Doug Graham under the leadership of Jim Bolger and being part of a Government that set itself at the time a pretty cracking pace to try to settle historic grievances. What that Government did which was important in respect of all the settlements that have followed was set a framework within which these settlements—which are hugely complex and take much time and energy of both the Crown and iwi—can be brought to a conclusion. So when a bill arrives at its first reading like this one has today it in no way gives any indication of the huge commitment the longstanding dedication and the kaha really that is required particularly on the part of the iwi and of the Crown to bring the settlement to this point. 
I say to the three separate iwi sitting in the gallery that they give us the Crown a chance to make amends for the wrongs that have been done in the past. They give us the chance to set a pathway with themselves for the future that will be far far better. We are hopeful that the grievances that iwi have carried through the generations can be—not forgotten because they are never forgotten—put in their place allowing people to move on. 
I add my congratulations and my support to the speakers who have gone before and say how very pleased we are that we can do this this afternoon. I look forward to the ongoing debates on the three bills and more than anything I look forward to finally concluding these settlements. I think that Maori are on the verge of another huge development phase and the settlement of these claims will provide a very strong platform for that development to go forward. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 A tena tatou katoa. Tenei e tapiri atu aku nei mihi ki nga iwi e toru i tae a-tinana mai hei arahi i a ratou kereme ki tenei wahanga kia whakaturengia a ratou wawata i roto i enei kereme. No reira Ngati Pahauwera Ngati Porou Ngati Maniapoto hoki mai ki te kainga tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to us all. I add my acknowledgments to those expressed before me to the three tribes who have arrived here in person to guide their claims through this part of the process that will enshrine their aspirations in these claims into law. So welcome home Ngati Pahauwera Ngati Porou and Ngati Maniapoto and congratulations. 
] 
I too want to confirm my and Labour’s support for each of the individual settlement bills—the Nga Wai o Manaipoto (Waipa River) Bill the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill which have been brought to the House today. Some comment has been raised with regard to the recent innovation of clustering bills together and bringing them to the House. Although in some respects I acknowledge that this process enables a speedy progress and passage through the House I am unsure whether the innovation in the long term is a positive mechanism in the Treaty settlement process because as the Waitangi Tribunal is an important forum to have histories heard so too is this House of Parliament in terms of putting on the record the context within which Treaty settlements have occurred. It is only through the  
Hansard 
 debate and the debate of parliamentarians in this House that people will understand in retrospect what the particular policy of the day was and why things were done in a certain way. 
Those of us from iwi all know that many Treaty settlements have fallen far short of expectations out there amongst our iwi. I put that on the record for the single purpose of noting that although in a process-orientated manner we want to ensure that those Treaty settlements that are currently sitting before the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations receive full support to go through this House I certainly do not want to lose sight of some of the tensions out there amongst iwi when they observe this process. So with the forbearance of Ngati Pahauwera and Ngati Porou rather than skim over their two claims once lightly I will restrict my comments particularly to the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill with the view in mind of putting on the record some peculiarities that have emerged as a result of the political landscape and I think that the bill and the way in which the settlement has been approached will gain some clarity from my contribution. 
Some comment was made previously by members about the Waikato-Tainui settlement and the agreements reached there. People need to remember that the settlement initialled in August 2008 was somewhat different from the settlement re-initialled later with the National Government. I draw the attention of the House to that point only in so far as the statutory management framework over the Waikato River changed. Initially it was envisaged that there would be a number of statutory boards to manage the Waikato River but with the onset of the National Government’s wanting to streamline processes it basically truncated the statutory management regime. Waikato-Tainui certainly agreed to it but it will I think in the review process present some issues that may need to be considered some time down the track because this is how it affects Ngati Maniapoto. 
The bill that has been presented to the House proposes to put the same statutory regime that covers Waikato and the lower Waipa over the upper Waipa catchment. There is some fertile ground for members through the select committee process to question how that in effect will impact on decision making between the upper catchment and peculiarities around that with regard to the lower catchment. I certainly will focus my efforts on practical questions about the statutory management of the whole of the Waipa and the interests there. 
In setting up the Waikato River Authority Maniapoto is represented there and it is important to ensure that those iwi who are along the whole of the Waikato River have a say. Certainly there is agreement too that Maniapoto’s interests as reflected in the Waipa are very important because one cannot have a clean Waikato River with a dirty Waipa. So it is absolutely fundamental in terms of the contribution to the larger efforts within the Waikato River that Waipa is a significant significant factor that can aid or impede this process if all the issues are not dealt with methodically and systematically. I say “impede” because I draw the attention of the House to the issue of the upper catchment and the need to address quite seriously a clean-up fund in that area. That is a matter that I am sure the Minister and Maniapoto’s negotiators will continue to bring up but if we do not address the upper catchment and the issues around how we maintain a clean Waipa throughout the whole of the river system then we are not actually giving this our full attention and the attention it deserves. So that is probably the first issue. 
The second issue I want to raise is in regard to some of the practical aspects of co-management agreements. Parekura Horomia pointed to joint management agreements with relevant local authorities. We know that territorial authorities and regional councils are resourced to be able to put together joint management agreements to be able to draw on technical advice and to be able to give effect to their part of the picture. But when we are looking at a co-management co-governance opportunity not all iwi who want to go down this path are resourced to the same effect even in terms of human resource to be able to meet the same time frames as local authorities and things like that. In a very practical sense again this is an area where it may be worth the select committee asking further questions to ensure that what we think is being achieved certainly from the Government’s position and the Crown’s position is being effected. I think that is one area where we can see some of the difficulties. 
Also in terms of giving effect to the Waiwaia accord we know that the Government is proposing to merge some of the ministries. The assurance I will be seeking through the select committee process relates to whether it will affect some of those protocols between the Minister his ministry and the practical implementation. What we need to ensure if we are to give full effect to the Waiwaia accord is that those high-level agreements are reflected at the regional level with the regional managers of each of those ministries. Those are some of the questions that I will be looking to ask at the select committee to again affirm the commitment of the Crown with regard to this bill. 
There are a number of other aspects of the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill that I believe it is important to express in the House. Although we from a resource management point of view are quite happy to talk about integrated catchment management and ensuring that that can be given effect to actually for people who live along the Waipa River this waterway this river means so much more. It is really important in terms of capturing the essence of what this river means that we are able to achieve that in some small way in contributions of debate in the House. I hope that in the third reading my contribution might do better on that front. I want to acknowledge the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill team and the negotiators the staff their advisers and kaumatua who have all been a part of this lengthy process. As observers looking in we tend to hear the frustrations with Government processes and certainly with ministries but what I can clearly say and commit to is that this bill sits alongside the greater aim and that I say to the Minister is to ensure that the broader range of Maniapoto claims hopefully can at least be commenced before the election. What we know is that if the true potential of Maori and Maniapoto are to be reached as was referred to by the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu then it is absolutely important that the comprehensive claims in Maniapoto are looked at are sat down with and negotiated with to ensure that Maniapoto too can make its contribution to this nation to the economy and to the well-being of the people—certainly within the region and for this country. No reira kia koutou katoa tena koutou. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Tihei mauri ora! Whakataka te hau ki te uru whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia makinakina ki uta kia mataratara ki tai. E hi ake ana te atakura. He tio he huka he hauhunga. A tena koutou. Ki te Whare e tu nei tena koe. Ki Papatuanuku kei waho tena koe. Ki nga mate o tenei Whare haere haere haere. Ki nga mate o Ngati Pahauwera ko Tom Gemmell ratou ko Charlie Hirini ko George Hawkins haere haere haere. Ki nga rangatira o Ngati Pahauwera tena koutou. Ki a Toro Waaka tena koe Gerald Aranui ratou ko Charles Lambert Tania Hodges Tureiti Moxon Sissiel Henderson Kuki Green and others who are not here today 
  
tena koutou. Ki nga tangata o Ngati Pahauwera tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Behold the breath of life! Cease the winds from the west; cease the winds from the south. Let the breezes blow over the land; let the breezes blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air a touch of frost a promise of a glorious day. Greetings to you collectively. To the House I stand before greetings to you. To Papatuanuku out there greetings to you. To the dead from this House depart farewell go. To the dead of Ngati Pahauwera namely Tom Gemmell Charlie Hirini George Hawkins and others depart farewell go. Greetings to the chiefs of Ngati Pahauwera. Toro Waaka greetings to you and to Gerald Aranui Charles Lambert Tania Hodges Tureiti Moxon Sissiel Henderson Kuki Green and others who are not here today greetings to you collectively. To the people of Ngati Pahauwera greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all.  
] 
Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. It is a real privilege to be here today and to speak in the first reading of the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill which is one of Hawke’s Bay’s first major Treaty of Waitangi settlements. It is a real honour to have been able to be present at and to witness the 17 December signing of the agreement up at Mohaka. It is a real privilege because this is the start of Kahungunu of Ngati Pahauwera and of the wider iwi taking big steps forward in Hawke’s Bay becoming part of the powerhouse of the Hawke’s Bay economy and stepping up and becoming real contributors to the economy. I think it is a fantastic way forward. 
As the local MP it is a privilege to be part of these settlements. In the case of Pahauwera this is one of the most beautiful places in Aotearoa. The Mohaka River starts almost up in Georgina te Heuheu’s electorate at the juncture of the Taharua River and then flows its way down through the Hawke’s Bay and out to the coastline past Raupunga Willow Flat and a whole lot of settlements down there. One cannot miss it. The big boulders of the Mohaka River the beautiful river the way it flows down to the coast—it really is a rugged amazing part of New Zealand and one that I am particularly proud to represent and to speak on here today in this settlement. 
Ngati Pahauwera are a confederation of hapu with historical interests in northern Hawke’s Bay. Their core interests just so people are aware stretch from the Ohinepaka Stream to the Waikato River down to the Maungaharuru Range and north towards the Waiau River. It is a big part of Hawke’s Bay. 
When we look at the Treaty claim we see that the history behind Ngati Pahauwera in the northern Hawke’s Bay is really interesting. I refer to the issues they have had with land and the way that they have over time been dispossessed of big parts of their whenua. I do not want to get into that today. I am one who like many Maori in this country certainly wants to look forward to the settlement of these claims and put behind us those things that historically have led us to the situation that we face today. For me it is a settlement of past wrongs allowing us to move forward. I think that that is fantastic. 
The redress is significant. There is obviously a Crown apology for Ngati Pahauwera. There is cultural redress with the transfer of a range of titles back to Ngati Pahauwera some significant financial redress—a $20 million settlement—significant settlement of land in the Mohaka area particularly 13 Crown properties to be vested in Ngati Pahauwera and a range of other opportunities going forward. 
It is a great day to be here and a real privilege. As I said earlier in my speech it is a real privilege to have witnessed the settlement. In closing this speech I hark back to my whakatauki where I cited “Whakataka te Hau”. It is something to think back on. That whakatauki talks about a new beginning a new future ceasing the winds from the west and the south and the promise of a glorious new day. I think that is what we are seeing for Ngati Maniapoto Ngati Porou and Ngati Pahauwera today. It is a real privilege to be here. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Kia ora. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. ACT opposes these bills as they are a radical departure from the principle of one law for all. ACT believes in fair and final settlements for Treaty grievances which is why in the past we have sent Treaty settlement bills to select committees. However on this occasion ACT cannot in good conscience do the same with these bills. 
Let me first outline why ACT will oppose the Waipa River bill. Part 2 of the bill will extend a co-governance framework to parts of the Waikato River including the Waipa River. Co-governance is an affront to the principle of equality before the law something that ACT has championed for over a decade. The co-governance framework will provide legal mechanisms in order for Maniapoto to participate in the governance and management of the Waipa River. It will force local authorities to put in place joint management agreements that cover functions of the Resource Management Act. The activities of people who use the Waipa River are currently regulated by elected officials; if people object to the management of the river they have the simple option of voting the officials out of office. If this bill is passed users of the river will also be regulated by officials within Maniapoto officials who are not elected and not accountable to the users of the river. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. 
The bad news does not end with the Waipa River bill. The Government seems intent— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I never heard so much trite and boring old sameness— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. The member will sit down. It is a debatable point. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The Government seems intent on replicating the undemocratic model of co-governance in its other Treaty settlements. In Minister Finlayson’s own press release that announced the Ngati Porou deed of settlement last December he boasted that the settlement would provide “Ngati Porou with input into the strategic governance of specific conservation sites …”. Clause 46 of the bill forces resource consent authorities to provide Ngati Porou with a summary of applications for resource consent in the same way they would have to do for an affected person as defined under the Resource Management Act. 
Instead of consulting only iwi who are actually affected by the Resource Management Act activity authorities must now give certain iwi special consultation rights over and above the rights afforded to other New Zealanders. There is no way for the Government to deny that this bill forms a co-governance framework. Clauses 23 to 31 provide for—in the Government’s own words—“nga Whakahaere Takirua” which translates directly as dual authority. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. 
Of similar concern is the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. The agreement in principle states that cultural redress should include co-management regimes over parts of the Mohaka Waikari and Waihua Rivers. As with the Ngati Porou agreement clause 64 of this bill requires local authorities to forward applications for resource consents in each of the three rivers to iwi. Again instead of having a duty simply to consult all New Zealanders according to the same process authorities will be forced to consult iwi separately. 
The Ngati Pahauwera Development Trust must also be appointed as an advisory committee in relation to the fisheries activities of the Mohaka River. Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials they will now be regulated by unelected unaccountable officials who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. ACT first rose to speak against co-governance— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker has waxed lyrical about who has been elected and who is unelected but he has just come through the dire experience of his leader being elected when he was not even in the organisation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. What is your point of order? That is a debating matter. It is not a point of order. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Instead of fisheries activities being regulated by elected officials they will now be regulated by unelected unaccountable officials who are appointed simply because they are part of the right iwi. This is not democracy; this is not one law for all. 
ACT first rose to speak against co-governance in Treaty legislation when the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill was before the House last year. ACT said then that governance should be the preserve of elected representatives. Iwi representatives are not elected by the general public nor are they accountable to the public. ACT strongly opposes the recent trends towards co-governance arrangements in Treaty settlements. ACT has always called for fair and final Treaty settlements. If the bills before the House address simply the historical grievances as past settlements have done ACT would certainly support them going to a select committee. But we do not and will not support Parliament legislating for two standards of citizenship. Treaty settlement legislation should be about righting past wrongs. It should not become a rubber stamp to the carving-up of our nation’s rivers and conservation sites. ACT believes strongly in having one law for all and we will be voting against these bills. 
Let me also go on to record that when I rose to speak on these three bills I was greeted by a constant barrage of heckling and criticism. But I say to members in this House and to members in the gallery that no political party is more dedicated to righting wrongs and solving our social crises than the ACT Party. We have championed the rights of 16 and 17-year-old young Maori people to go out and get an apprenticeship and to earn $8 or $10 an hour. But when we asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment last week in question time she could not bring herself to acknowledge that it was better to have a young Maori— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear the member but if he is trifling with my previous rulings by raising a debating point I might require the member to leave the Chamber. I do not want these interruptions unless they are bona fide points. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I think there was total irrelevance when he started talking about $8 to $10 per hour. What relevance is that to this bill? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is a debating point. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I will conclude by saying to members and particularly to those in the gallery that no party in Parliament believes that it would do more with its policies to help young unemployed Maori than the ACT Party. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that I have been around just a wee bit longer than that member but I am pretty sure we are not allowed to bring the gallery into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: In actual fact members cannot address the gallery. I guess that members can refer in the context of the bill to who might be present but they are not allowed specifically to address people in the gallery. The point is well made because I think the member was getting pretty close to doing that. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Let me conclude by saying that the ACT Party more than any other political party in this Parliament wants to make a difference and wants to solve the country’s growing social problems. We had a situation last Thursday when the Minister for Social Development and Employment struggled absolutely struggled to stop herself from acknowledging that it is far better to have a young Maori apprentice earning $10 an hour than sitting at home on the unemployment benefit. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to see where the relevance of those statements are to the kaupapa before the House right at the moment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that various members have talked about the bill as making a way for prosperity for Maoridom and I think that in the context of that the member is making some points. I guess that it is up to members to make that judgment but I think he is in the same sort of territory albeit a bit looser that some previous members have been in. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I speak not just to the members in this House but also to the members of the New Zealand public. My message to the people of New Zealand is that we need to solve our social problems. We do not solve social problems by setting up an arrangement of co-governance; we should look at the issue and address the underlying cause. It is a pity that the Minister for Social Development and Employment could not bring herself to acknowledge that. It took three points of order to get her to acknowledge she would much rather have someone in an apprenticeship than on the unemployment benefit. 
I am very proud to be the parliamentary leader of the ACT Party. We oppose these bills but we certainly do not oppose policies that will actually address the underlying causes of problems in New Zealand. Thank you. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Kati ra tena tatou katoa kei nga maunga rangatira koutou ra kua takahia mai ra te huarahi kia tae mai ra koutou ki roto i te Whare nei; kia tutuki pai ai nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki o koutou kereme a me nga moemoea o ratou kua ngaro a-kanohi atu. Ahakoa tera kua tae a-wairua mai ratou ki waenganui i a koutou hei ata whakarongo ki nga tautohetohe kai roto i te Whare i te rangi nei. No reira hore taea e tenei ki te whakahua ko wai ko wai ko wai kua tae mai kei mahue ake wetahi ki waho. No reira kei nga maunga rangatira nga wai kua rere mai kua waipukehia te Whare nei. Tena koutou tena koutou hara mai hara mai hara mai.  
[ 
Well then greetings to us and to all lofty chiefs who walked the path that enabled you to arrive here in this House to ensure that aspects relating to your claims are settled well and that the aspirations of those who are no longer before us are fulfilled. Even though they are no longer here physically they have arrived spiritually to be amongst you and to listen carefully to the debates in the House today. It is impossible for this one to acknowledge each of you who have arrived here in case someone is left out. So I say to you lofty chiefs the waters that flow towards us have flooded this House. Greetings to you greetings to you and welcome welcome welcome. 
] 
I acknowledge the presence in the House today of the representatives of Ngati Maniapoto Ngati Porou and Ngati Pahaurewa who have come a great distance not just today but over a number of years to see this important occasion happen in the House today. I certainly acknowledge their presence. I also congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on grouping these bills and bringing them to the House all at one time. It is the first time this initiative has been tried in this House although many—none on this side of the House—were sceptical about that approach. I think their concerns can be allayed here today. I certainly congratulate the Minister on that initiative. If I have any criticism it is not of what he has achieved today but of the slow progress he has made in other claims currently before the Crown. 
Paul Quinn 
: What? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I think the gentleman across the House knows exactly which claim I am talking about. I certainly congratulate the Minister on the initiative. 
I think I am one of those in the House who can say I got up close and friendly with the claimants’ negotiators over a period of about 6 years in my time as Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I have heard all the issues. 
In particular I will touch on Ngati Maniapoto. You see the previous speakers have touched on a range of issues in all three bills but for me a particular part of the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill touches a soft spot. It is to do with the main provisions or the co-governance framework. I know that the previous speaker—the ACT member John Boscawen who claims to be a champion on Maori issues—has an issue with Maori being involved in co-governance arrangements. Well the world has changed I tell Mr Boscawen. He had better get used to it because from here on Maori will be wanting co-governance arrangements over all of their lands over all of their estates over all of their reserves and particularly over their waterways—their rivers their tributaries or the takutai moana around the coastline. This is the way the Government is going. It is following the progress that the previous Government made. I congratulate that side of the House on that. 
Co-governance arrangements reflect Maori ownership interests in particular areas. In this case for Ngati Maniapoto it reflects not only their ownership interest but their kaitiakitanga responsibilities over the Waipa River. As one of the earlier speakers my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta mentioned this is a continuation of the Waikato-Tainui settlement of the Waikato River. During our negotiation during our discussions with Maniapoto and with Waikato-Tainui there was an issue about water quality or the health of the Waikato River. It was the view of many at that time that the Waipa River was a major contributor to the pollution of the Waikato River. I did not get involved in that debate but certainly science indicated that that was the case. Some of the practices by users along the river contributed to that pollution. I am happy looking through these co-governance arrangements and what they actually mean that these problems over time may be alleviated if not completely eradicated. 
I am involved in a particular area where co-governance is a big issue over certain waterways in particular the Tauranga moana. The reason I was so interested in these arrangements is that they are probably the same sort of arrangement that other iwi are looking towards securing through the settlements process. The framework in particular for the Waipa River provides recognition of the specific and enduring relationship of Maniapoto with the Waipa River. That is an important issue: the development of objectives by Maniapoto for the Waipa River. I realise that the ACT member is totally opposed to that as only elected members should be involved in these types of arrangements. Well the Maniapoto representatives will be elected members elected by Maniapoto. I am sure he should have concerns about that but obviously he does. 
It also provides “legislative recognition of the vision and strategy extending over the whole of the Waipa River including the ability to amend the vision and strategy to achieve the overarching purpose of the deed insofar as the vision and strategy relates to the Upper Waipa River;”. That is an all-encompassing objective with which I am sure Ngati Maniapoto along with other river users will be able to find solutions as a result of their discussions. It also grants “functions and powers to the Waikato River Authority through legislation in respect of the Upper Waipa River; and clean-up arrangements for the Upper Waipa River … (from its source at Pekepeke Spring to its junction with the Puniu River)”. 
Ngati Maniapoto have a wide-ranging arrangement with the Crown. Those co-management arrangements at the next level down certainly will give all the hapu who have kaitiaki responsibilities over certain parts of the Waikato River the opportunity to ensure that the life-force or the mauri of the river is not only restored but maintained for eternity for future generations to enjoy the benefits of it as my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia mentioned. The kai in the river or the aquatic life is not of the best quality as we have known in previous years in the Waikato River and its tributaries. But certainly the clean-up programme for the Waipa River that has been agreed to in this case will improve the quality and standard of aquatic life and also encourage more use of the resource by future generations. 
I congratulate the representatives of Ngati Maniapoto who have come here today basically to observe the first reading of their settlement legislation. I also note that this in no way affects the historical Treaty claims of Ngati Maniapoto. I am sure the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has already made inroads into ensuring that those discussions follow close behind this settlement legislation. Once again I remind him that he needs to look seriously at other waterways in close vicinity of the Waikato River and the Waipa in terms of the co-governance arrangements. 
Moving on to Ngati Porou my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia touched on every possible aspect of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill that he possibly could have. I just make an observation and a comment having been involved in these negotiations that this is the most brilliant piece of negotiating I have ever seen. One had to be in the room to actually appreciate it. Something that started from nothing and ended up being greater than everything all in a few hours by one particular person needs to be mentioned. All the cynicism relating to Ngati Porou and the actual extent of their losses faded into insignificance as the negotiations proceeded. I say although he has already complimented himself that the former Minister of Maori Affairs played a magnificent role in achieving that outcome. 
By the time this legislation passes through the House the actual quantum figure—the interest on the quantum agreed to by the Crown and Ngati Porou—will have increased by $12 million. How is that for negotiating? That is brilliant. I congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on the part he played in the negotiations and in bringing the legislation to the House today. I do not see the particular person I was referring to in the House today but that is OK; we will get around to congratulating him at some stage. 
I read in the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill—I know I have very little time left—the historical account of Ngati Pahauwera. I have read many historical accounts and it is probably one of the most devastating I have read. The detail is unbelievable. When we see people rising out of the ashes to achieve this we have to congratulate them all. Tena koutou. Ka nui nga mihi. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Well done. There is much appreciation and thank you. 
] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
:  
Te mea tuatahi ki aku rangatira a tena koutou i o koutou haere mai i tenei ra a ki te whakarongo i nga rupahu ki nga awangawanga ki nga korero noa iho no reira ano te mihi ano te aroha ki a koutou katoa. Ngati Pahauwera Ngati Maniapoto tena koutou. Tena koutou i o koutou haere mai. 
[ 
Firstly greetings to you my chiefs for coming here today to listen to mistruths concerns and idle talk. So acknowledgments and kind regards to you all once again. Greetings to you Ngati Pahauwera and Ngati Maniapoto. Thank you for coming. 
]  
I will not take long with your issues because they are straightforward and it behoves the Maori Affairs Committee to get on with the job and make sure that you are all happy with the work we have done. It is with some trepidation— 
John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard fewer than 15 minutes ago from the Hon Tau Henare that it is against the rules of the House to address members of the gallery. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have already ruled on that matter. The member will resume his seat. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It just goes to show that the difference between me and that member is that I have respect for this House and I have respect for tikanga and kawa. What that member has is not anywhere near the respect that these people who have come here deserve. 
Before I was rudely interrupted I was going to say that it is with some trepidation that I stand to talk about the Ngati Porou settlement. Being a son of Ngapuhi married to a daughter of Porourangi and having children and mokopuna who tatai to both I do not want to offend any of the aforementioned. One thing I will say and this is for every submitter who will submit to our select committee is to make it clear that our select committee is not here to work out boundaries or work out whakapapa. That is the job of the experts. That is the job of other people in their daily work. If I have anything meaningful to say to Ngati Porou it is this: do not forget those people who have actually put their hands up and said “We don’t agree.” Do not forget them. Do not forget those who fought against the Crown and people know who I am talking about. Do not forget those who stood up and fought against the Crown but by virtue of a belief they were on the losing side. Do not forget them. 
Whenever I get to have a wee bit of a holiday in Ngati Porou territory— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Can’t fish! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —I am still looking for that elusive 29-pound snapper—I am reminded of the fact that Ngati Porou has a huge history and has what I consider to be a place in New Zealand society that warrants people like myself to doff their caps to certain outstanding events in this country’s history. It is with those words that I congratulate the team of Ngati Porou for not only signing on the dotted line with the last Government but also signing on the dotted line with this Government. I do not think I have ever heard of a Treaty settlement signed by two Governments and having the iwi pretty much happy with their work. 
Like I have said in this House time and time again it is an opportunity for the country to move to a better place when we sign and deal with these issues. I am very proud to be a New Zealander to be a Maori and to be of some help in where we are going as a nation. So I do not care whether ACT votes for or against these bills. I do not care whether ACT is here or not. Ngati Porou does not care whether ACT votes for or against their bill; Ngati Pahauwera does not care whether ACT votes for or against their bill; and I am pretty sure Ngati Maniapoto does not care whether ACT votes for or against their bill. What we do now stands us all in good stead for the future. My hope is that my boy who is at Toihoukura at the moment is looked after by Ngati Porou—I am sure he is. I have not heard that he is not. 
It is interesting to hear some people in the House talk about citizenship and the price of citizenship which the people of Ngati Porou know so well. It is funny that in the last couple of days and in this House not so long ago Maori have been accused of having a privileged life. Well if the life that some Maori are living is privileged then somebody has to go and look in the dictionary again to see what “privilege” really means. There are so many of our people who are still wasting away in prisons on the dole queues and here there and everywhere except the real good places. 
I can say without trepidation and without too much of a song and dance that if I was to be born again I would want to be born exactly where I am today. I would want to be who I am—a Maori and damned proud of it. I am proud that we are doing things like Treaty settlements acknowledging our past and trying in some way. It can be through the joint management of a river instead of throwing up our hands and thinking “Oh my God the world will end because there is a joint management arrangement between Tainui and the Government because Ngati Porou will have a say over the Waiapu and because Pahauwera will have a say over the Mohaka.” because the ceiling will not fall in. We should not listen to the diatribe that comes out of that member’s mouth and the diatribe that could lead to a worse place for this nation. I wish that ACT would stick with the economy and what it thinks it knows about the economy rather than the stuff that is citizenship. The people in the gallery and the people here are about citizenship. This is our country—not his not theirs but ours. Kia ora. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I join the other speakers in welcoming representatives of the three tribes to this House. Tena koutou rau rangatira ma nga manuhiri tuarangi nau mai haere mai. 
[ 
Greetings to you chiefs of a hundredfold and visitors from afar. Welcome welcome. 
]  
I think it falls to me as the final speaker in this debate to bring together the threads of the presentations we have heard today. I start by joining all the other speakers including the speaker from ACT John Boscawen—although I respect his passion perhaps one day I will be able to help him out on his misguided thoughts; none the less I respect his passion—in congratulating the three iwi on reaching this stage. This legislation represents the 14th deed of settlement this Government has completed in 2 years. Sadly I have to point out to my friends on the other side of the House that that is the number of settlements they achieved in 9 years. National has achieved 14 settlements in 2 years. That is a great record which I am proud of. To a very large degree it is the reason as I have said on previous occasions that I stand here. I am here to help move along the Treaty settlement process and to join this Government in endeavouring to finalise and bring to an end the Treaty settlement process by the goal year of 2014. Under the outstanding leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Chris Finlayson we are well on the way without doubt to achieving that goal. 
Comment has also been made about the fact we are dealing with three bills as one in this first reading debate in terms of the fact they are cognate bills. I assure everyone that that does not mean that one or other of the bills will be treated with any less respect or consideration. Once this first reading is completed each will take its own wairua into the select committee process. They will each be given full and respectful consideration separately by the Maori Affairs Committee and when they are reported back to the House each bill will be dealt with under its own Committee stage and second and third readings. The key issue is to get the process going to get the process on the way because for too long—for far too long—the iwi have had to wait to get these processes pushed through. I join with my relation Mita Ririnui in congratulating the Government on this process because it will enable the recipients of these settlements to get on with life and take hold of it. 
In that regard I reflect on the contribution of Shane Jones who said it was up to the iwi to take responsibility once the claims have been settled. Comment has been made in respect of the Waikato River and on how that settlement was renegotiated. What my colleague says is true but only to the extent that it is a workable settlement. In the case of the Waikato River I think Nanaia Mahuta said that there is no point in fixing the Waikato if we have not fixed the Waipa. That is the very reason that National on coming into Government had to go back to the drawing board with that settlement and with the good grace of Waikato we were able to renegotiate it. 
In that respect I will have a little dig at my friend and colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia. It is with some disappointment that I heard over the weekend that a settlement close to my heart—namely the Central North Island Iwi Collective adjudication process—has broken down which is sad because really there is nowhere to go with it now. If Mr Horomia had accepted the scheme of arrangement I put to him about 5 years ago he would be the chief by now. But he would not listen to me. I was trying to help him; I was trying to work with him. Anyway it is with some regret that I hear that the Central North Island Iwi Collective adjudication process is bogged down with nowhere to go. I am sure that under the guidance of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations we will find a way through. The real point is that in putting these settlements together we have to find workable solutions. 
By way of a couple of closing comments I have to say that I was surprised at the ACT member’s contribution to the debate. As he noted towards the end he acknowledged that his leader Don Brash—who was on TV last week I think—accepts that Treaty settlements have to be dealt with and that people have to get on with their lives. But I am not quite sure what he will settle with or what he will acknowledge. If as he says harm has been done and injustices have been done then what will he will settle with? I think that ACT members really need to go back. 
As I said I do not want to hold up the process any longer because it is important that these bills get to the select committee as expeditiously as possible. Again I thank the Hon Chris Finlayson’s office and his staff for their work in bringing these settlements to the House so that we can get on and settle another three. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committeeconsider the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 June 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committeeconsider the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committeeconsider the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Waiata 
Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. The bill is a central feature of a package of reforms intended to reduce costs delays and uncertainty and to promote investment. The bill will reform aquaculture legislation after a decade of roadblocks and missed opportunities. It will provide an efficient legislative framework to enable marine-based aquaculture to fulfil its economic potential. This will advance the Government’s economic growth agenda through increased export earnings and the creation of new jobs. At the same time the Government recognises that growth in aquaculture must be environmentally sustainable and balanced with other uses of our coastal space including commercial and recreational activities. 
There is growing worldwide demand for protein foods including those farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner. New Zealand’s aquaculture industry is well placed to meet that demand. New Zealand is a very small player on the global stage but has some considerable advantages: a robust resource management framework outstanding water quality strict food safety and biosecurity rules and strong research and development capability backed by Government funding. All these position New Zealand well to be a supplier of high-value high-demand products. 
The Primary Production Committee reported the bill back to the House on 9 May. It recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. I agree with the proposed amendments and consider that they will improve the workability of the new law. I thank the members of the committee and its chair Shane Ardern for their work. I also thank the many people and organisations who took the time to make submissions on what is a very complex bill and contributed to its development through earlier consultation processes. I am particularly proud of the Ministry of Fisheries and its staff for the way they have worked with the industry and with interested parties both inside and outside Parliament. 
The central change to the planning process removing the requirement for aquaculture management areas will streamline planning and processes and put aquaculture on an equal footing with other activities in the coastal marine area. Removing the requirement for aquaculture management areas does not mean at all uncontrolled growth. In fact councils will still be able and encouraged to concentrate aquaculture activity where it is appropriate and exclude it from areas where it is not appropriate. In all cases aquaculture applicants will still need to apply for resource consent through the Resource Management Act processes. 
Marine farming will continue to occupy only a small fraction of our coastal space. This bill will enable careful managed growth. Growth will also come from existing production which will be increased in value making better use of existing space from research and innovation. New space is only one part of the equation. Our encouragement of farming high-value finfish species as well as sessile shellfish species is part of that story. 
The proposed power enabling the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to amend aquaculture-related provisions in regional and coastal plans attracted comment from many submitters. The committee has recommended changes to clarify the scope of the proposed power and to more clearly establish the requirement for public and iwi consultation. I fully commend and fully support the committee’s recommendations. The undue adverse effects test which protects the interests of commercial customary and recreational fishers will also remain. The committee has recommended changes to clarify and improve the aquaculture decision and undue adverse effects test processes. Those changes will allow the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consult on preliminary decisions where he or she considers this is warranted. The proposed time frame within the judicial review of an aquaculture decision that may be sought is extended from the 15 days proposed in the original bill to 30 days. I agree that this is a sensible change. 
Aquaculture industry submissions raised a number of matters relating to the security of tenure. This is a complex issue and it involves balancing the industry’s desire for certainty—which is entirely understandable—with the need to ensure that the continued use of a public resource for aquaculture remains appropriate. The bill as introduced aimed to reduce the time and cost associated with the re-consenting process by limiting the range of information that applicants must provide. However it is unlikely that this in practice would achieve much at all and the Primary Production Committee has therefore come back and recommended the deletion of the relevant provision which I support. I consider that re-consenting would be better addressed on a comprehensive basis for all sectors not just marine farming and that will happen through the latter stages of phase two of the Resource Management Act reforms. 
I said when I introduced the bill that the Government was committed to ensuring that the Crown continues to uphold the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Act and this bill retains the core components of that settlement. 
The proposed changes to the Tasman and the Waikato regional coastal plans will enable the industry to diversify into higher-value species and will enable some expansion of existing farms in the Waikato. This will provide much-needed stimulus to investment and to growth. 
This bill addresses problems with the current law and streamlines processes. I am very pleased with the work of the select committee. Committee members picked up issues that I had overlooked and I appreciate their input. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 It is an honour to be the first speaker for the Opposition in the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). This is the third round of aquaculture amendment legislation in this House and it may not be the last round. 
I agree with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that the intent of the Primary Production Committee the Government and indeed the Opposition is to facilitate the growth of aquaculture across the country. In the early stages we saw growth particularly in the green-lipped mussel area and salmon farming was going quite well. We then went through a period where there was a rush for space. So we arrived at a situation in Tasman and Golden Bay in particular where there was a gold rush effectively for space on the understanding that it would be valuable in the future and that those who controlled the space would control the industry. A little like in respect of fishing quotas it was considered that the value would be in the space not necessarily in the production. That created a dilemma that the last Labour Government attempted to resolve. 
I was and intend to be after the next election the MP for West Coast - Tasman. I saw the ratepayers of the Tasman District paying a lot of money to try to resolve an issue that was effectively an industry battle. The previous Labour Government seeing this as a potential dilemma around the country introduced the previous aquaculture legislation. We did not get it quite right. It was a very complex task as the Minister rightly said about this legislation. We attempted to create aquaculture management areas that would have allowed and facilitated the passage and growth of aquaculture in those areas quite easily. The problem was that we had allocated responsibility to regional councils as the community organisations rightfully elected in most areas—except of course Canterbury—where local values local aspirations and local concerns for the environment would be considered along with applications for economic development in the form of aquaculture. We thought regional councils were the right place to park this responsibility. As it turned out they had neither the expertise nor the inclination—in hindsight of course—to progress the space. So we did not see a huge amount of growth in aquaculture. 
The lack of growth happened to coincide with a period of declining demand in the market and some in the industry would say that it actually allowed the industry time to mature and avoid the gold rush in production that we have seen in other primary industries which effectively led to the market collapse of prices. In some ways I guess the changes that we made did not quite work out the way we hoped but they have allowed time for the industry to mature. 
In making submissions on this bill the submitters I think came with the best of intent. They knew the pitfalls around space around environmental safeguards and the rest of it and I hope we have arrived at a better outcome. There are and were some concerns that Labour had when the bill was introduced—for example in respect of the Minister’s right to override coastal management plans. We have seen that with the National Government before when it overrode the Canterbury Regional Council. So we did not underestimate the potential for inappropriate interference by a Minister in respect of a coastal management plan that might have been hard won hard fought and negotiated with all local people. We have recommended some changes we looked at the issues and the select committee under Mr Shane Ardern’s chairmanship—and I think he always does a very very good job—made some adjustments to make sure that if the Minister does intervene it is for the good outcome of protecting environmental issues as well as facilitating economic growth. 
As I said I think this amendment is round three. But we were reminded through the submission process that in Tasman and Golden Bay there is an ongoing battle—in fact the ongoing battle—between industry players and that will go on for another 3 years. I am very very sad about that because it is a waste of money. If people in the fishing industry—fin fisherman quota owners or aquaculture developers—have as much money as that to throw around then they should give it back to the Government for health and education or they should pay some more tax. If they want to throw it around the courts rather than sit down and negotiate a sensible solution then I guess Parliament will continue to be frustrated by the actions of the fishing industry. 
The second concern we had was in respect of the undue adverse effects test which has been at the heart of the problem here. To go back to my reference to Tasman and Golden Bay and the crisis in the courts that led to our changes I say that those undue adverse effects remain because those who hold the quota believe they have absolute rights not only to the quota and its quantum but to all the water space in which they can catch their fish. I think that goes one step too far but they have lawyers who are happy to challenge that in court on a regular basis. 
When someone applies for space they will have to go through a Resource Management Act application and they will have to look at all the environmental outcomes of that application which relates to the progress we are making in this bill. At the same time the applicant can sit down and talk with other industry players—those who have quotas and those who have an interest; in Tasman and Golden Bay it relates to scallop fishermen who have scallop quota fin fish and applicants who are most likely to forward a proposal in respect of green-lipped mussel. Those applicants will work with the Resource Management Act process and hopefully arrive at an agreed solution—that is that they can mitigate any effects on the quota or on their rights that they can reduce the environmental impacts and that they can allow each other to operate side by side. I have absolutely no doubt that that can happen in every single case—absolutely no doubt. The issues of whether one gets to saturation point in say the Marlborough Sounds will be environmental issues dealt with under the Resource Management Act. But in respect of the undue adverse effects test fishing industry participants working alongside one another should be able to negotiate. It is pigheadedness it is arrogance and it is the worst of commercial behaviour that cannot allow them to see the vision and the wisdom of negotiating a sensible solution. I guess it comes down to corporate pride as well. The committee hopes that the changes we made to the undue adverse effect test will allow a fair process although I do not want to get bogged down in the detail. We stopped what we thought was the industry’s proposal to have domination by the big players and we wound that back a little bit. All the small quota holders owners and fishermen will have a fair say in any application. 
The undue adverse effects test has been at the heart of the hold-up in the whole of aquaculture development and will remain at the heart of the hold-up if the industry chooses to leave it that way. However the changes we have made will provide a sensible solution to allow coastal management plans developed by regional councils to give some guidelines to allow for individual applicants to apply for resource consent given the environmental guidelines and safeguards and to allow the applicant to work through the undue adverse effects test with other industry players. They can then say that they share the space that it is public domain and that all can benefit from it. 
If we get this bill right we will see sensible aquaculture development and growth in this country. We need those export earnings. Labour has been happy to work with the Government on the bill. The concerns we had at the time of the bill’s introduction have been addressed through the select committee process. Therefore Labour is happy to support the passage of the bill through the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I start by thanking the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Opposition spokesman for their complimentary remarks about the process that the Primary Production Committee went through. We had a very simple task in my view despite the complexity of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). We had to find a way forward to enable the growth of aquaculture in New Zealand. We had to create legislation that provided the framework for an enabling situation where the industry could start to grow. 
As part of the committee’s research we bid for and won a parliamentary trip to South Australia where we were able to examine what had happened there. What surprised me was that one-third of the South Australian economy is now provided by the export development and processing of aquaculture. That industry did not exist about 15 years ago. A large number of the people who have invested—in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars and certainly large sums in the case of individuals—are ex - New Zealanders. A large percentage of that intellectual property and that investment had been made by them. They had found the process in New Zealand frustrating and had moved to South Australia so they could make progress with the industry they love. 
The select committee received the bill on 16 November 2010. The closing date for submissions was 11 February 2011. We received and considered 120 submissions from a wide sector of the industry from some pan-industry groups and from individuals plus interested parties or stakeholders in the use of coastal and marine areas and waterways. Not everyone was happy with the notion of providing an opportunity for aquaculture to grow. Some people I suggest may have submitted that the industry is a blight on society and that we should stop it at all costs. The committee did not agree with that view but in considering it we certainly played a big role in considering the environmental and local government concerns in terms of finding a way forward. 
The aquaculture industry believes that it can grow—and I believe it is right—to at least a $1 billion industry by 2025. As the previous speaker Damien O’Connor said the country desperately needs growth in our export industries. If we look at what is happening internationally with a growing world population and the demand for high-quality protein foods around the world we see that a very well-managed and considered environmental production system is the space to be in. There are only three areas where New Zealand can produce those high-quality proteins: fish is one meat is another and dairy products are the third. 
I am sure that this legislation will bring about an opportunity for a large sector of the economy to grow. Hopefully the bill will remove some of the roadblocks that have stymied the industry so far. The previous speaker talked about the undue adverse effect test. That part of the bill was the most complex and probably we struggled with it the most. Trying to strike a balance between development and unforeseen consequences one might say in terms of what might happen or might not happen to the environment is always a judgment call. 
There will be those who argue of course that we went too far in enabling aquaculture to develop and others who say we did not go far enough. In that regard I think the select committee has put its best foot forward. I am very very confident that what we have achieved will allow for a far better framework for the industry to work within and for development to take place. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). As a member of the Primary Production Committee I thank the member who has just taken his seat Shane Ardern for the very professional way in which he chaired that committee. Certainly I believe that the select committee process on this legislation was able to make significant changes to it which really showed the value of the process. I note that not all select committees are fortunate enough to have a chair like Mr Ardern who can facilitate that process and ensure— 
Craig Foss 
: The FEC has one. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Finance and Expenditure Committee has one Mr Foss. That is good to know thank you. I really want to pay credit to Mr Ardern as a very very good chair of that select committee. I also thank the officials who worked on this. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s not what you said last week. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The member should not believe anything I say to him. I thank the officials who worked on this very technical legislation and also all the submitters who took the time to come before the committee and present their points of view. It is important to note that there certainly was not unanimous support for this legislation and that a large proportion of New Zealand society remains very concerned about what this might mean in the future for the waterways that New Zealanders enjoy and want to be able to continue to enjoy. I guess as my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to before sometimes we will have to wait and see where this legislation takes us. Certainly the previous Labour Government introduced legislation in order to try to better facilitate the development of aquaculture as a serious industry in New Zealand and we have no problem admitting that it did not work. The process that we set out did not result in any new space being created. The processes were obviously too complex and too costly and that is why we were more than happy to support this legislation and do what we can as an Opposition to facilitate the development of this very important industry. 
I will also note however that in 2008 we put legislation into the House to amend our own law which we had acknowledged was not working in the way we had intended or hoped. Perhaps that legislation could have been picked up and put through a lot sooner than this one has but that has been and gone and here we are with this legislation. I certainly hope it will have more success in furthering aquaculture developments than the previous legislation did. 
In saying that I think there remain a few areas in this bill where we do have some concerns. We hope that these will be able to be addressed in the Committee stage of the legislation. I think probably one area is the 20-year minimum for aquaculture consents. This basically says that the minimum consent period will be 20 years the maximum 35 years. We are told that that is intended to create a level of certainty for those who want to invest in the sector. If someone who wants to invest in aquaculture wants a shorter minimum period then they can apply for that but the council itself cannot do anything to request a shorter consent period. 
This seems to be very limiting on councils. We need to remember that councils in New Zealand are democratically elected to represent their communities. I sometimes get a little bit concerned when I hear people in speeches talking about councils as though they are just these undemocratic roadblocks to development. The fact is that they are elected by the people of their region to represent them and to make those decisions and I start to worry when we start tying up councils in red tape from Wellington in a one-size-fits-all type of approach which may not be appropriate. We can think of a number of scenarios where a local council representing the views of its constituents might have concerns over a 20-year time period for a consent in a particular area. It was an issue that was raised by some of the submitters and there did seem to be I have to say a level of distrust at the idea that we have to tell councils that it would be a 20-year minimum period and they should get no say in that despite the fact they are the ones elected to make those decisions. 
It will be interesting to see how that goes but I feel we could have shown a little bit more confidence in local government and our elected regional councils to make those decisions and to make them in the best interests of their communities. It seems to me that a one-size-fits-all 20-year minimum period is not the best way to do that. 
It could also have a number of unintended consequences because councils may indeed act far more conservatively when it comes to approving applications. If there is a 20-year minimum and they have concerns whereas with a 10-year minimum they might not have had concerns they may just decide that they will say no. That may be one of the unintended consequences which may stop again further aquacultural development. I hope this does not end up being a kind of false economy and that we do not end up with councils not feeling confident enough to allow projects to go ahead. Twenty years is a long time and it will restrict the ability of future councils to manage their coastal areas and that might not be something today’s councils will feel comfortable doing. 
I also note that there is a kind of conflict involved in putting in a 20-year minimum provision into these consents to create certainty but then giving a new regulatory power to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to just completely override regional coastal plans. Any good that is being done in terms of creating certainty with the 20-year minimums will be undone by an overarching sweeping power that the Minister will have to just override the regional coastal plan. That will create an enormous amount of uncertainty. I do not think we have heard a really good explanation or convincing argument as to why the Minister needs such sweeping and broad powers. 
To give an overview this provision gives the Minister broad powers to change introduce or remove provisions relevant to the management of aquaculture in a regional coastal plan without a requirement to consult the community affected although he or she is required to consult the relevant regional council. This comment has no bearing on the current Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture but I feel that that is an excessive power under this legislation. I would like to hear from someone the arguments as to why it is absolutely necessary. If it is to bypass the fact that there will be contentious issues over the use of aquaculture space those issues will not go away just because we give a Minister a sweeping power to ignore the community. In fact that could end up being counter-productive creating far more issues again putting councils in a position where they feel they have to pick between their community and these developments and end up being far more conservative in the exercise of that power. 
When Treasury is horribly opposed to something National is doing we probably need to take note. Treasury pointed out that that power exists within the Resource Management Act but there is a proper process attached to it. I was interested to hear the Minister saying that another tranche of reforms to the Resource Management Act is coming adding to these reforms because Treasury said this bill might undermine the work being done on those Resource Management Act reforms. Whether or not we agree with what the National Government has planned for the Resource Management Act Treasury has said it believes that what is happening here in this legislation is undermining the work being carried out on those reforms. 
If this power for Parliament to intervene in particular cases already exists in legislation that people are comfortable working with and whose processes they understand we have to ask why we have to go down this path. We have yet to hear that. I look forward to the next Government speaker explaining why we need such an unprecedented power because it is unprecedented and it creates a precedent and we should be aware of that. Perhaps it is the Government’s intention. Maybe this is the way it will go just allowing Ministers to completely undo everything that local councils and communities do. 
The key point is that this creates enormous additional uncertainty for people who want to invest in aquaculture. How will they know that everything they are basing their proposal on will not suddenly be whipped away by the Minister or overwritten? Given that this bill is meant to be about creating more certainty perhaps we will need to look at that in the Committee stage. 
I will not talk about the undue adverse effects test because other people have covered it and I am running out of time. The other thing I will touch on relates to some changes made under the emissions trading scheme to the way fisheries are dealt with. Again if we are taking aquaculture seriously it needs to be a whole-of-Government approach not just aquaculture legislation or whatever we do. Labour was very concerned when changes were made with compensation and assistance being put in to enable the fisheries sector to deal with the costs of an emissions trading scheme—and those measures were subsidies basically for the fuel—and the Government changed that to give it to the quota holders instead of the vessel operators. Rather than giving it to the people who would be going out and checking and collecting the Government gave that assistance to the quota holders. Most aquaculture stocks as far as I am aware are not in the quota management system. That means that unless an operator fishes a stock in the quota management system they now get no assistance under this National Government—and the Maori Party negotiated this—and its emissions trading scheme. They get no assistance with the cost of fuel and the emissions trading scheme charges. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has some major concerns about the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). We are supporters of aquaculture particularly in the appropriate places but we think opening up public space that is highly contested with a bill of this nature is a recipe for ongoing conflict. We are concerned about the years and years of work that has been done particularly in the area where I live in the Coromandel-Hauraki area where Environment Waikato and a stakeholders group worked in detail on a plan that has been overridden. That is our concern. We do not think that aquaculture should not be developed or that aquaculture does not have a lot to contribute but those people who have all been in touch with me are deeply concerned that their whole process was a waste of time and has been marginalised while powers are being given to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. 
Although we agree in principle with and support the aspiration declared in the commentary which is to “provide an efficient legislative and regulatory framework that would enable the sustainable development of aquaculture within the coastal marine area.” we do not think given the difficulties we have seen that this bill will achieve that aspiration. It makes sense to develop some enabling legislation that focuses on genuine sustainability and long-term strategy and action but this bill does not do that. 
The declared position of the Government and other supporters of the bill is that we need to facilitate aquaculture above other activities. It is being touted as the next billion-dollar industry which reminds me of investment in kiwifruit or goats or whatever is the great “gold rush” of the time without thinking of the long-term consequences of what is a very complex and contested space—that is the marine environment. We are yet to have an oceans policy and we are yet to have all kinds of policies in place that are needed before we start carving up and selling off these rights. 
The enthusiasm for allowing rapid development needs to be tempered by ecological and social constraints which this bill falls short of. If we do away with aquaculture management areas or some similar provision of designated space that will open up what many submitters at the Primary Production Committee referred to as a “gold rush”. The proposals on sequencing of applications by the amendments introduced in clause 35 do very little to change the “first in first served” default position which means there will be pressure on applicants to submit an adequate proposal rather than to devote time to preparing a more sustainable one. 
There were repeated references in the first reading debate and at the select committee and by the Government to our need for the aquaculture industry to be normalised within the Resource Management Act and treated more or less like any other activity. That denies the reality that issuing permits to use marine areas for aquaculture effectively denies public access in favour of allowing for exclusive use of what is currently public domain. Recreational boaties and fishers are particularly concerned by these proposed changes. I am very aware of this issue. I held two public meetings in the Hauraki area in the Coromandel and Thames. They were attended by recreational boaties and commercial fishers who raised major concerns about the issues. No other public events were held except for a very strange consultation process run by the Government. No one in our area knew the status of or outcome of the process. It was pushed through very rapidly and it did not connect to this bill in a clear way. It has resulted in concern and confusion right across our region about what this bill does particularly in the Waikato. 
Sandra Goudie 
: That’s crap. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: The local member says that that is rubbish but then she was not actually at the meeting and has not engaged publicly with the issue. No one has heard her talk about it so we do not really know what her view is whereas I have heard what the fishermen say about it. They are concerned about opening up this area not only for aquaculture as we know it which is a well-established industry that a lot of us support but also for cage fish farming in a way that is utterly risky economically and environmentally. 
The marine farming industry is effectively freeloading if it is allowed to generate substantial profit but pay no resource rental to the Crown for extracting nutrients impeding alternative public access or use and degrading landscape and seascape and amenity values. We have to ask who is really benefiting here and why this is going ahead because marine farmers do not pay rates. If this was land they would be paying rates for what they do to the environment. Lots of aquaculture is well managed but some of the proposals on the table—which can be opened up through this legislation without proper input from the public without regional decision-making and without the stakeholders who have worked on these issues for years—are of great concern and involve threats to the environment that we have not seen before in this country. I am talking about the sow crates of the sea. I am talking about the potential for cage fish farming which is not sustainable. There is a proposal to do that in the Hauraki Gulf right now. 
The mechanisms proposed for the issue of the permits are sufficiently complex and require the participation and agreement of so many different and conflicting interests that we doubt that the outcome will meet the practice in terms of anybody’s wants or needs. Although the proposal to allow for consideration of any undue adverse effects on fishing which is one of the key issues for the fishing community to be carried out in parallel with the Resource Management Act process seems reasonable in practice there will be enormous pressure on the Ministry of Fisheries to consent to the granting of a permit if the relevant regional council has indicated its approval. 
It is highly undesirable that consultation with affected parties be at the discretion of the ministry rather than mandated as proposed in new section 186D set out in clause 35. I refer to a very good submission from the Environmental Defence Society to the Primary Production Committee because it made some excellent points. One of them was referred to by I think the previous speaker Moana Mackey: “The Minister of Aquaculture’s powers to recommend regulations to amend regional coastal plans under clauses 65 and 96 should be removed.” The Green Party thinks they are unnecessary. It is interesting that Moana raised the issue of precedent. How many other Ministers will get powers and what powers? Will we give more power to Ministers to decide on mining on land for example? I am sure that would be equally as unwelcome as a gold rush in the marine environment. 
The submission continues: “The other functions the Minister of Aquaculture introduced by clause 65 of the Bill including suspending receipt of applications for coastal permits authorising aquaculture activities and making a direction to process and hear together applications for coastal permits … should be removed. These functions should [be] undertaken by the Minister for the Environment on advice from the Ministry for the Environment.” rather than the Minister having the say-so over these issues. 
The Environmental Defence Society also made some very good points with regard to the Tasman regional coastal plan and the Waikato regional coastal plan under clauses 100 and 101. We support those clauses being removed from this bill because we do not believe that they are in the long-term interests of the industry let alone the environment. We support the points made at the select committee about the undermining of the integrity of the Resource Management Act although I do not know why we would expect the Government to listen because it has already undermined the Act’s integrity on a lot of fronts and I imagine that will continue. 
The Government is undermining public confidence in the Resource Management Act. Undermining confidence in the Resource Management Act is a serious matter because no matter what powers we give to the Minister people will fight back about their space. A huge Auckland community as well as a huge Coromandel community use that space. The other key point on which we support the Environmental Defence Society is the issue of favouring one activity over another: “The provisions favour aquaculture against the myriad of other activities”. 
We have a lot of issues and we do not believe that the proposed changes are necessary. We believe that we have Resource Management Act processes that should be respected and we believe that we should actually consider all the work that has gone on in the past. 
Finally I will talk about the specific example I am familiar with which is that under the current opening up of places like the Hauraki Gulf Tikapa Moana there is a proposal to bring in a totally new sort of aquaculture: cage fishing farming of hapuku or kingfish. It is entirely unproven if we look at overseas examples. Are we going to import fishmeal? We were asked by people at public meetings where else this was going to come from. Are we going to import small coastal fish species out of other people’s catchments to feed bigger fish inside cages? The fishing community is concerned about disease and the environmental communities are concerned about pollution but in the end it is also an ethical and moral issue about other people’s fisheries. It is not going to make money—if that is what other members are interested in—if people have to pay more to bring in the fish to make the other fish get big and fat. 
If we want to export fish why do we not look after our fisheries allow our wild fish to be healthy and then export those fish? That is proven technology. Cage fish farming the sow crates of the sea is highly resisted by many people in the Coromandel area who support aquaculture. Like in the Tasman area a lot of people support aquaculture but they want fair planning and they do not want new forms of technology around fishing and cage fish farming to be in conflict. They are very concerned that it is not only uneconomic but also environmentally risky to bring in caged fish under a bill like this and to wipe out all the work that has been done in the district to try to make our aquaculture management areas properly planned. It has always been controversial. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Today is an auspicious day on which to speak to the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) for while we are debating this bill today which makes changes to the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 and the Resource Management Act 1991 over in New York in the United Nations headquarters some 1300 delegates are meeting to mark the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. It is with considerable pride that I rise to this bill mindful of the call of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for participants to raise their voices so that the world can hear about the threats and risks that indigenous communities face as well as about the unique expertise they can bring to issues such as aquaculture. 
I stand here also as a direct descendant of Ngati Koata Ngati Toa Ngati Kuia and Ngai Tahu proud that we have a Government that is committed to upholding the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 which provided for a full and final settlement of Maori commercial aquaculture interests since 21 September 1992. That Act was very important in terms of ensuring that iwi have access to coastal marine space to develop their marine farming interests. There are two particular sets of obligations to the settlement. The Act commits the Crown to providing the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Trust with the equivalent of 20 percent of existing aquaculture space in a coastal marine area issued on or after 21 September 1992. It requires 20 percent of all new aquaculture space identified in the coastal marine area to be transferred to iwi via the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Trust. 
The bill we are debating today enables the Crown’s settlement obligations to be delivered under the proposed new law. This can be done through the provision of either space in the coastal marine area or an agreed equivalent. So we are at a significant point in our journey. But how do we ensure that tangata whenua can indeed raise their voices as encouraged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations? The most distinctive feature of this work to date is the close engagement between the Ministers and iwi to ensure that the integrity of the settlement will be maintained. The Crown and iwi leaders established a group of technical advisers to develop and consult on options for a new settlement delivery mechanism. The technical group has reported to Ministers and iwi leaders and I want to point out a few more details about this innovative type of policy creation that has been a feature of the Maori Party’s influence on the Government. 
The role of the Iwi Leaders Forum has been a vital one to get the door open and to establish some foundation principles so that hapu and whanau have a strong platform from which to launch their input. The aquaculture Iwi Leadership Group has made it clear as in fact has every iwi leaders group during this term of Government that its members do not speak for or represent any other iwi apart from their own. Each and every one of the iwi leaders forum members is elected to their respective positions by their iwi and it is not for other outsiders to criticise those leaders. If there is criticism to be put let it be from the people at home. The key thing whether it be in New York or in Murihiku is for Maori to be at the front end of each issue and that is the assurance we have been able to provide through our position at the Government table. It is about being able to deliver. 
Delivery is about far more of course than the korero important though that is. It is about doing the mahi—in the case of this bill working out mechanisms for delivering the Crown’s obligations. The technical group members were chosen to do just that based on their expertise in aquaculture resource management policy development local government processes kaitiakitanga and iwi development. Because of this wide expertise the iwi leaders have been able to be quite innovative around the acquisition of space given the current restrictions. This is particularly important in terms of securing other space such as deep-sea aquaculture space because that is where the industry and technology are heading. I acknowledge the Minister for working with the Maori Party and for inviting iwi to discuss precisely how the Crown can deliver its obligations under the Maori commercial aquaculture claims settlement for new space. What iwi and hapu have told us repeatedly over the last decade is that the Labour Government rushed through the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act leaving a lot of loopholes that left Maori vulnerable. The bill closes some of those loopholes so it should be supported. 
The fundamental problem is that too few new players including Maori will be able to enter the aquaculture industry. There has been basically no existing space to allocate to Maori and it is too difficult to get new space as the process is too difficult and bureaucratic. We needed to think creatively and long term about how to ensure that marine-based aquaculture is able to fulfil its economic potential while also retaining the existing protections to ensure that the integrity of the settlement for iwi is kept. We also know that iwi leaders have expressed a preference for space which has been captured in the settlement. 
There is no time to waste. As we understand it the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and the Ministry of Fisheries are currently doing forecasting research on new aquaculture spaces to be made available to iwi. This is space based on 20 percent of the aquaculture industry. We also understand that space will be available regionally so that will require iwi to enter into regional arrangements amongst themselves. This will proceed over a 3-year period. Cash settlement will still be available instead of space if other iwi prefer that. These are all pragmatic realistic steps towards enacting the settlement by progressing an innovative and meaningful settlement mechanism. It reminds me again of the words of Ban Ki-moon who told the New York gathering that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples finally had the consensus that it deserves. Now we need to make the declaration’s principles a reality. One of the other concepts he talked about was the view that indigenous peoples have been living in a green economy for centuries. Ban Ki-moon suggested that when economists today look for new ways to achieve sustainable development they should look at the old practices in indigenous communities. I cannot help but think as we look face-on at the growth of the aquaculture industry in Aotearoa that we should look with renewed respect at the impact of iwi upon aquaculture. Perhaps we can all take a moment to learn from their example. 
We are happy to support this bill. We are pleased that the reform package aims to reduce costs delays and uncertainty; encourage investment; and ensure decisions on aquaculture fit within an integrated coastal management framework. Most of all we are so happy that the legislation has benefited from consultation with and input from iwi hapu and whanau. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). In doing so I will address a couple of questions that were raised by members on the other side of the House. One of the speakers asked why there needs to be ministerial power. The simple reason is that under the review of aquaculture by Sir Doug Kidd it was designated that there should be a Minister responsible for aquaculture and this Government is very keen to see aquaculture put on to a sound footing. Therefore a designated team was set up within the Ministry of Fisheries for aquaculture. I would have to say that as the Primary Production Committee went through this bill it was wonderful to have the expert guidance and focus of that particular team. What has come out in this bill is to the credit of the officials who advised us. 
It is a very very complex issue. Under the 2004 Aquaculture Reforms (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act we had a problematic situation where only one species could be farmed within an aquaculture management area. What we have learnt particularly in the Marlborough Sounds is that with good sound science we have opportunities where finfish can be farmed. Talking to Work and Income the other day I discovered we are at the maximum unemployment we have been at for some time. We see aquaculture within the Marlborough Sounds especially concerning finfish as providing in the short term another 300 jobs. This legislation will certainly put aquaculture on to a very sound footing and we look forward to that. 
It was interesting also that the industry came to the select committee and said we should take more leadership around legislating how the undue adverse effects would be managed. We pushed back at that and said we would not. But the industry was actually looking for central government leadership and we are very fortunate at this time to have a very able Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who is able to show appropriate leadership. In so doing we can be very proud of the efforts that the select committee has made on this bill and the fact that the Government has shown confidence in this industry. The industry has a fine purpose for the future and we believe it will reach $1 billion by the year 2025. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 There are a few minutes left before the dinner break. I have been listening very carefully to members on the other side speaking on this bill. We worked very hard in the Primary Production Committee and I acknowledge the chair. We do a good job in the Primary Production Committee. We work together in a bipartisan way and try to make the legislation that comes our way as acceptable as we possibly can. 
The Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) amends four current Acts: the Resource Management Act 1991 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act and the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004. 
The committee members had an opportunity to visit South Australia last year and as has been said before we had a good look at aquaculture in South Australia. In particular we wanted to know what it is that makes aquaculture in South Australia so successful as compared with New Zealand. I am quite sure that a number of the recommendations that we brought back at the time were helpful in bringing to this House a third amendment bill on aquaculture. We have made quite a few improvements to the current Acts but certainly there is a lot more to be done in the future. I do not believe that this bill going forward albeit we all support it will solve all the problems that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture claims it will solve. I would not be surprised if within a year or two we come back with another amendment. I think there are areas particularly the area of undue adverse effects where there has been a lot of submitters who— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: When we adjourned earlier on I was talking about aquaculture being an industry in which when compared with our other agricultural industries—dairy farming meat and others—we have not done very well in this country. However in Australia and in South Australia in particular aquaculture is doing very well. Hopefully though this bill which we on this side of the House are supporting will help to promote this industry which in the next 10 to 15 years we hope will be worth about $1 billion. I hope that this bill will go some way to help promote aquaculture. 
As we went through the submission process we saw that a whole lot of people were opposed to a number of issues in this bill. One issue with which those people had reservations was in relation to the regulatory power given to the Minister to change regional coastal plans without public input. We had a lot of submissions on that issue from customary fishers recreational fishers and the ordinary public who were not happy because they thought that this legislation gave too much power to the Minister. In fact some submitters even said that a Draconian and undemocratic power was being given to the Minister in giving him the power to change regional coastal plans without any public input. I think that the Minister and the Government should seriously note that this could be another problem going forward. If public input is not there then we could have the same problem as we had earlier. It also reflects on the Government just as it has in the case of Auckland City or Canterbury because it shows some kind of dictatorial attitude towards doing things without proper public input. 
Another key provision of this bill removes the requirement for aquaculture management areas to be in place before consents are given. A lot of submissions were opposed to that requirement in respect of aquaculture management areas. So I must say that we did have problems in relation to the requirement for the establishment of aquaculture management areas. Particularly at the regional council level we had a problem in respect of the establishment of aquaculture management areas. I am pleased that this bill allows us not to require aquaculture management areas prior to gaining consent for aquaculture. 
Another issue was in relation to the length of time given for coastal consents which is from 20 years to 35 years. The maximum limit given is 35 years but the minimum can be 20 years. That is appropriate for ensuring that we have a process that gives investors the opportunity to invest money with the hope of a good return over a long period. In terms of relicensing or re-consenting if you like the process in this bill is simplified and hopefully the requirement will require less information. Any entrepreneur or investor who wants to re-consent will after the first initial consent have to provide less information to make sure the consent is forthcoming. 
Another issue is with regard to the clause that regulates the powers for the Minister of Conservation to approve the use of an allocation tool by regional councils for managing high and competing demands. I think that it is important that the Minister of Conservation has been given that power. 
A lot of submitters were opposed to the powers given to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This bill gives very broad powers to change introduce or remove provisions relevant to the management of aquaculture in a regional coastal plan without the requirement to consult the community affected although the Minister is required to consult the relevant regional council. This particular clause was opposed 2:1 by submitters because they thought the powers given to the Minister to change the requirement provisions were too Draconian. A lot of people particularly environmentalists and customary and recreational fishers were all opposed to that particular power. 
A further issue in this bill relates to Maori aquaculture. This bill I am pleased to say retains the core component of the aquaculture settlement in respect of the Maori commercial aquaculture claims and the 20 percent allocation of new space. 
The final issue was the test for undue adverse effects as explained earlier by other speakers. This bill retains the Fisheries Act requirement to assess whether a proposed aquaculture activity will have any undue adverse effects on commercial customary and recreational fisheries. 
With those comments I suggest once again that Labour will support this bill. Apart from a couple of areas—the test for undue adverse effects and the lack of having a commitment for consulting the people affected—the bill is very good. Thank you very much. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 A previous Labour speaker Damien O’Connor—I think he is the spokesperson on aquaculture—pointed out that during the Labour administration there was not much growth in aquaculture in New Zealand. We can talk about spin though because actually there was no growth whatsoever—absolutely none. Zero. The speaker himself realised that this is the second or third time around on aquaculture industry legislation in New Zealand but not much growth came from the Minister of such matters under Labour—in fact there was zero growth. So it was an interesting angle of spin there I think. 
Just very quickly I say that other speakers have identified issues about why there has been no growth in aquaculture in New Zealand over the last 10 years or so. Interestingly as other members have said the Primary Production Committee operates very well. It is a bipartisan committee and as we can see from the commentary on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) its deliberation is all very good. 
But what we hear from a couple of speakers on the other side is that there are particular issues around changes in the Minister’s direction on coastal planning existing consents etc. That is interesting because these are main items in the bill: coastal planning and the allocation of tools to manage demand the operation of coastal permits the variation of coastal permits and the re-consenting of coastal permits for aquaculture. The full committee has presented this bill to the House and it has the endorsement of all parties across the House. OK other members might want something to talk about but if members read the commentary and go through some of the other papers about this bill they will see that those issues were not of enough concern for select committee members including members from the Labour Party to amend the original bill as intended across the committee. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) but we have some reservations. It was interesting to hear the member opposite Craig Foss because I was very closely involved with the Opotiki District Council at the time when it was trying to get consent to aquaculture space. There was a bit of a gold rush on actually during the 9 years we were in Government. It was unfettered access to the coastal margin and that caused us concern. The member may laugh about the lack of progress but I believe that this bill has just gone from one extreme to the other. We were deeply concerned. 
Some aspects of our Labour bill the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill are in this bill but the crossover and the pick-up as any Government is entitled to have given us concern. The industry is not happy with the process for determining whether an aquaculture project would have undue adverse effects. Representatives from the industry came to the Primary Production Committee. They proposed a mechanism whereby they would work collectively to look at undue adverse effects at any time. I suggested we put that test in during the consenting process but no this Government knew best. The industry thought it had come up with an idea. There is great collective intelligence there but the Government in its wisdom just rejected that request from the industry which of course it has the prerogative to do. 
I think that is very indicative of why we are in the House debating the role of consenting authorities under the Resource Management Act the Coastal Policy Statement coastal plans and the powers of consenting authorities. The legislation gives unfettered powers to the Minister yet again which is very similar to what we have seen in Canterbury with the Environment Canterbury intervention there and in Auckland as well. Again the Minister has powers to override regional coastal plans. Regional coastal plans are not an instrument developed overnight as you know Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. They are developed after some time and at times it is a lengthy process. But we now have a Minister with the powers to override those consenting authorities. The Government is quite wrong to say those powers are controlled; they are unfettered powers. It absolutely arrogantly undermines those who have participated in the development of a regional coastal plan. 
I say that as a previous Minister of Conservation I started to promulgate the Coastal Policy Statement. I have real concerns that the Minister Kate Wilkinson sat on that piece of work for 18 months and released the Coastal Policy Statement in this House only because she was put under pressure by Labour. Labour members started to ask the hard questions in the hard basket about what she was doing about the Coastal Policy Statement. That was a guiding document for regional councils and local authorities. The Minister herself delayed releasing that Coastal Policy Statement. So why would the industry have faith in this Government and the Minister who has the powers in this bill to completely override the regional planning in relation to coastal activities? I think it is a worry. 
We have gone from one extreme where there was a bit of a gold rush for coastal space and for aquaculture development to the other. Labour too wanted to see that $1 billion unlocked and that $1 billion of potential earnings from aquaculture flow back into the coffers of New Zealand. But it has not yet it still has not and now we have given the powers to one Minister to step in override regional councils and override other consenting authorities under the Resource Management Act. I think that this bill is a reflection on the Government which has put its own flavour on it as it can do. 
Giving the Minister that power has added uncertainty for investors in aquaculture space. The Minister lauds in the House the idea of giving confidence to the industry with this bill but now members of the industry themselves are saying they do not know and do not have confidence for investing in the long term in aquaculture and aquaculture development. I think the Government has gone completely to the other extreme. 
It also ties the hands of councils in the consent process by requiring them to grant consents for a minimum term of 20 years. When we look at developments in the coastal margin and we are looking at Petrobras and its issue about access to mineral exploration we see that there are some real problems. If a mineral exploration happens on Ngati Porou’s coastline and they are looking for consenting for aquaculture developments what happens to aquacultural products if there is an oil spill on those very fields of gold? This bill gives power for 20 years and I think we should be worried iwi should be worried and the Maori Party should be worried. The Maori Party is fighting the good fight about Ngati Porou Petrobras and mineral exploration. I would worry very much about the threat of contamination if there was an oil leak on the very aquacultural products we see as gold. 
I have enjoyed taking a call on this bill. We remain deeply concerned about lots of aspects of this bill but we feel too that there is great potential economically in aquacultural space. I have worked with Opotiki District Council and it is ready to unlock some wonderful potential over there on the coast in a community that is really struggling. We have some problems with this bill. I suppose the test will be when we see application after application and the use of ministerial powers in this space. Thank you. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3). I am pleased that both sides of the House seem to believe in this industry and to want it to become a billion-dollar industry by 2025. However on this side of the House we will try to actually make it happen. We are committed to streamlining consent processes and red tape—which of course only gets in the way—to help businesses grow boost our economy and create jobs. With those few words I commend this Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a second time. 
Local Government Borrowing Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Borrowing Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee with an instruction that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
This bill is to facilitate the establishment and operation of a new company the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency. The funding agency will assist local authorities to borrow funds at lower interest rates than they can achieve now. The establishment of an agency of this type was recommended by the Capital Market Development Taskforce and was one of the proposals arising from the Government’s Job Summit. The proposal has been developed by local government and has widespread support amongst local authorities. Let me take just a minute to acknowledge the work of our president Lawrence Yule Eugene Bowen and the other members of Local Government New Zealand. 
The Government’s role in this proposal is to assist local government to achieve its objectives. In addition to introducing this bill the Government proposes to take a 20-percent shareholding in the funding agency. 
For the funding agency to succeed it must obtain a high credit rating. The bill contains provisions designed to assist that. Clause 7 extends the exemption local authorities have from Part 5D of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 to the funding agency. Part 5D deals with the regulation of deposit takers. Similarly clause 8 applies the Securities Act 1978 to the funding agency as if it were a local authority. Local authorities now have some exemptions from the Securities Act in relation to requirements for prospectuses. 
Clause 9 authorises local authorities to guarantee the obligations of the funding agency. This is critical to its credit rating as it gives investors in the funding agency the certainty that if the agency defaults they can recover their money from the local authorities to which it is lent. Clause 9 also permits local authorities to lend money to the funding agency on favourable terms. Local authorities borrowing money from the funding agency will be required to reinvest some of their borrowing with the agency which will hold those funds in short-term investments. This will ensure that the agency has a high degree of liquidity at all times. 
Clause 10 requires participating local authorities to include in their financial strategy their policy on guaranteeing the obligations of the funding agency and on guaranteeing the obligations of other local authorities to the funding agency. The structure requires participating local authorities to guarantee each other’s debt to the funding agency. This clause requires local authorities that give such guarantees to be clear to their communities about the obligations that they are accepting. 
The funding agency may borrow in foreign currencies then convert that currency to New Zealand dollars before lending to local authorities. To maintain a high credit rating lenders to the borrowing agency need to be confident that they are not burying any exchange rate risks. Clause 11 achieves that by permitting local authority guarantees to be denominated in foreign currencies. 
Clause 12 contains technical provisions designed to ensure that transactions of the funding agency and commitments by local authorities to the funding agency can be enforced. Again these provisions assist in promoting the creditworthiness of the funding agency. 
Clause 14 exempts the funding agency from income tax and exempts any dividend income local authorities receive from the funding agency from income tax. As it stands local authorities are not taxed on financial transactions they undertake and this provision maintains that status for transactions undertaken on their behalf by the funding agency. 
Clause 15 provides authority for the Minister of Finance to lend money to the funding agency without further appropriation if it is necessary or expedient in the public interest and necessary to meet an exceptional and temporary liquidity shortfall affecting the funding agency. This authority expires after 10 years. Again the purpose of this provision is to give investors confidence in the creditworthiness of the funding agency for their investments. However clause 16 makes explicit that the Crown does not guarantee the debt of the funding agency just as the Crown does not guarantee the debt of any local authority. Clause 16 requires a statement to be included in all relevant documentation that the Crown does not guarantee the funding agency’s debts or arrangements. 
Clause 18 exempts the Auckland Council from the prohibition in the Local Government Act 2002 on local authorities borrowing in foreign currencies. To maintain a high credit rating the funding agency will have to spread its lending amongst a range of local authorities. Having a concentration of lending in any particular local authority would jeopardise its credit rating. Therefore the funding agency will not be able to meet all of the Auckland Council’s borrowing needs. Without an exemption the Auckland Council would end up with more limited access to foreign currency borrowing than other local authorities. All other local authorities will be able to fully access foreign currency markets through the funding agency but the funding agency will not be able to achieve this for the Auckland Council. The bill therefore proposes a specific exemption for the Auckland Council to borrow in foreign currencies. Clearly the Auckland Council is of a size to engage the necessary skills to manage the risks of borrowing in foreign currencies. 
It is encouraging to see local authorities taking a lead in this matter and the Government is happy to assist in that process. Just as Government agencies are focusing on delivering more for less local authorities also need to find ways of lowering their costs and this is one such way. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I speak in support of the Local Government Borrowing Bill at its first reading. Labour thinks this is an excellent bill and a sound sensible idea which we are happy to support. We look forward to debating it at the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
It makes eminent sense for the local government sector to come together to form a bond bank with the support of central government. It is estimated that this bank will save the New Zealand ratepayer something in the order of $25 million a year and that is not to be sneezed at. This is a very practical response to the problem that many councils around the country face which is the challenge particularly over the next 6 to 7 years of funding the infrastructure bulge if you like—the catch-up that many councils all around New Zealand are having to make to build infrastructure. So we support this bill. We support the idea because it makes total sense for the savings of Kiwi investors to be mobilised to invest in local government infrastructure. We believe that that is a much better option than the privatisation and public-private partnerships that this Government has been so keen to advance over the last couple of years. We prefer the option that community-owned infrastructure around New Zealand stays in public hands and community ownership and this bill to establish a bond bank or a local government funding agency is one way that that aim can be advanced. 
The concept of a local government bond bank was first proposed by the Capital Market Development Taskforce which was set up by the Labour Government in 2008 and reported back to the Government in 2009. Although the current Government has said it supports this recommendation I think it is odd that it has dragged its feet to the extent that we are only now seeing this bill come to the House. The idea of a bond bank for local government was raised at the so-called Job Summit and it has taken a full 2 years or more for this bill to see the light of day. 
The funding agency is a win-win for local government and for New Zealand investors the so-called mum and dad investors but it will also make a contribution to the deepening of New Zealand’s capital markets which I think is something we all agree is a great benefit. 
Labour members are particularly keen to support this bill because it provides an alternative to the agenda of privatisation and public-private partnerships that this Minister of Local Government has been so keen to advance. I ask members to cast their minds back 18 months when there was not the quiet unassuming lame duck Minister of Local Government that we see in the House tonight but the self-styled “Minister of Ratepayers”. He was more of a rooster than a lame duck. His feathers were shiny his best years were ahead of him and he was there to single-handedly reform the local government sector. He was going to rescue the ratepayer from spiralling costs skyrocketing rates and councils that were out of control. His agenda last year was called the transparency accountability and financial management agenda. He wanted to bring in mandatory referenda if the councils wanted to step outside the terms of their long-term plans. He wanted to restrict the councils to an arbitrary definition of core services. He wanted to privatise the water sector. He was going to clean out red tape and liberate the New Zealand ratepayer from the oppression of free-spending profligate local authorities. Well how far the mighty have fallen. This modest sensible and pragmatic bill that Labour is very happy to support tonight is a far far cry from the zealotry and extremism of Rodney Hide’s local government reform agenda. 
When Rodney Hide set out on this track only 18 short months ago he began to lay the groundwork to try to justify his cuts to local government his agenda to roll back the scope of local government and to open the door for privatisation. He tried in a number of speeches and public statements to paint a picture that the councils were out of control: they were doing all these terrible things that they should never have been doing they were spending ratepayers’ money with abandon and they simply would not have the financial resources to invest in the infrastructure that was needed. A couple of things happened. We saw Cabinet pull the rug out from under his feet and tell him that after all the damage he had caused in Auckland he was not to go anywhere near the reform agenda he was proposing. But just as important we saw coming out of the Office of the Auditor-General analysis and data that showed that in fact there is no financial crisis there is no debt crisis and there is no infrastructure crisis in local government in New Zealand. 
There is a challenge over the next 5 to 6 years. There is an infrastructure deficit that local councils are planning to meet and they are increasingly turning to debt as a sensible way to spread the intergenerational burden of assets that have a long life. According to the Auditor-General’s office the level of borrowings held by local authorities in the 2009-10 year was $673 million higher than in the previous year and the ratio of debt to total revenue increased by 8 percent over the 2009-10 year. One might think that was significant but the highest debt-to-revenue ratios were only for a couple of very high-growth local authorities—places like Queenstown and Tauranga—that are largely funding that infrastructure debt through development contributions. When we look at the big picture we can see that an analysis of the long-term plans between 2009 and 2019 shows an increase in debt. It is likely to go from $3.9 billion to about $11.2 billion at its peak in 2015-16. The Auditor-General’s office makes the comment that that is “not so large when considered in the context of local authorities’ overall balance sheets their annual revenues and expenses.” 
When the Local Government and Environment Committee asked the officials from the Department of Internal Affairs to do some comparative analysis of local government income over the next decade compared with central government income and in fact household income what emerged was that local government income was relatively static in a growing economy and was experiencing nothing like the increases in household income or central government income. The whole standard clichéd right-wing bogey that Rodney Hide was trotting out to try to justify an agenda of rolling back local government and opening the door to privatisation and public-private partnerships turned out to be just that—a bogey. Thankfully his agenda for local government never got to first base. All we saw in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2010 last year was a pretty watered-down diluted shadow of the original ideas that the Minister was touting at the beginning of last year. 
As I said Labour is very happy to support this bill. We think it is sensible and pragmatic. We look forward to debating it at the select committee. In light of the back-down that the Minister has had to make on the whole question of debt levels we hope that John Key’s Government will take a similar look at its own approach to privatisation of State assets and the disingenuous way that public debt has been misrepresented in the mainstream media to justify the sale of State assets. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Despite the schadenfreude of the previous speaker it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Local Government Borrowing Bill in its first reading. It is a very practical bill. It is a bill in the interests of hard-working Kiwis the length and breadth of New Zealand. In his work  
Essays of Elia 
 Charles Lamb observed: “The human species according to the best theory I can form of it is composed of two distinct races: the men who borrow and the men who lend.” Although that may be true of men and women today—although I suspect the borrowers far outnumber the lenders—it is not true of local councils. Not for them the luxury of heeding Shakespeare’s injunction “Neither a borrower or a lender be for loan oft loses both itself and friend.” Councils all over New Zealand must borrow. The purpose of this bill is to allow local authorities to borrow more cost-effectively. 
The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency will operate as a large-scale borrower that will be able to borrow on more favourable terms than a host of small-time borrowers could. The agency can then pass on these savings when re-lending to local councils. We understand that hard-working New Zealanders are finding it difficult to cope with ever-increasing council rates. It is estimated that the Local Government Funding Agency will help councils to operate in a more cost-effective manner. The agency will issue debt on behalf of all participating local councils. The credit rating scale and specialisation of the agency could as the previous speaker mentioned potentially save participating local councils collectively about $25 million a year. 
Other potential sequelae of the agency is aiding the development of a liquid market in standardised local authority bonds and once again the previous speaker—it is good to have support from the other side of the House—noted that this will benefit retail and wholesale investors. It will also be positive for the development of the New Zealand capital market. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am happy to take a brief call on the Local Government Borrowing Bill and to endorse the statements made earlier by my colleague Phil Twyford about the benefits of the bill. 
I point to a couple of practical things. If the earthquake in Christchurch highlighted anything it is the challenge that a lot of local authorities face when it comes to upgrading the core infrastructure that our families and local households depend on. Territorial authorities in a number of regions have significant investment challenges with regard to upgrading water and sewerage infrastructure. If this bill provides any opportunity it will do so by creating a scale with the Local Government Funding Agency being able to pull together a number of local authorities to participate in this bond bank. It will enable local authorities to plan forward on significant investments and infrastructure upgrades. It will—I say with some optimism—ensure that the local community can continue to invest in things that they can see feel and touch. There is quite a strong affinity for making investments like that in local communities. It will also enable councils to start to plan forward around the biggest pressure on them which is to try to keep rates under control. There is a whole manner of aspects to this solution and we can talk up their virtues. 
We are looking forward to supporting this bill at the first reading. We are looking forward to receiving submissions certainly from the local government sector. I recall attending a Society of Local Government Managers meeting in the previous term of Government. This was one of the very issues that local government managers were grappling with: pressures to constrain rates increases but also to ensure that the necessary investment in infrastructure could take place. At that time there was no illusion that the Government could be a key partner in a lot of this. 
I think in terms of the opportunity that the select committee process provides the submissions will provide a healthy informed debate to members of the select committee and to this House about how the bill can be given practical effect and implemented positively. I hope too that submissions will raise some of the issues on the level of assurance that people can have in their investments in this area. I have no doubt that they will. In terms of planning forward for local authorities I hope that the submissions are able to give us a clear and accurate picture of the landscape going forward in terms of necessary investments in infrastructure. 
When I considered taking a call on the bill it was not really with the view of using time unnecessarily so I will not do that. What I will do is ensure that to inform myself on these matters I look forward to the debate I can have with local authorities in my own electorate to see the types of opportunities that could lie ahead for Kiwi mums and dads. There is no doubt people are looking to this bill as one way of not going down a privatisation path but we will see. We will see when it comes to the detail of the implementation of this bill. 
I commend the Minister of Local Government for bringing the bill to the House. It is an issue that was foreshadowed in Labour’s previous term of Government and undoubtedly in this Minister’s term of Government. It is a step forward. Kia ora. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party like other parties supports the Local Government Borrowing Bill although with some misgivings. We will listen carefully in the select committee process and see whether our concerns can be addressed before we decide whether we will continue to support the bill. 
On first looking at the bill it certainly makes some sense to set up the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency which will be able to issue debt and raise finance on behalf of local governments. The agency will become a sort of large-scale borrower and hopefully get a high credit rating and thereby a lower interest rate so that local councils will be able to borrow more cost-effectively and the agency will be able to lend on more favourable terms than those that would normally apply. There is merit in that proposal. There is merit too in allowing councils to come together in this way cooperatively to fund large infrastructure projects. We are pleased that it is an opt-in arrangement. Councils are not forced to go to this agency to borrow money but they can do so if they wish. 
There are as the previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta said a lot of large infrastructure projects in local government that need funding not to mention the Christchurch earthquake rail projects etc. So spreading the risk over several generations makes a certain amount of sense. 
We have some concerns however about allowing the Auckland Council to borrow in foreign currency which it is currently prohibited from doing under the Local Government Act. We fear that there could be some unintended consequences because the effect of this bill could be to encourage even more borrowing amongst local councils. We need to remember the Asian financial crisis of 1998. One of the main reasons for it was that large entities and organisations in Asia borrowed offshore to finance their domestic activities and when exchange rates fell they were left insolvent. We are fearful that we could see similar things happening in New Zealand. If the Auckland Council is encouraged to borrow offshore while our currency is strong what happens if the currency falls? We hope that would not happen but that is the sort of risk that is attendant on encouraging the Auckland Council to borrow in foreign currency. 
We noticed that the Treasury impact statement referred to some risks of borrowing in foreign currencies but it did not spell out what those obvious risks are. They have never really been spelt out. We have considerable concerns about that. We will address those concerns in the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Another concern we have is about the briefing we were given by Cameron Partners investment bankers. They came along and gave us a presentation to try to encourage our support for this bill. When we looked at the fine print we noticed that it said at the end “In each case public consultation will be required for borrowing money.” but then there was a little asterisk that said “unless borrowing less than $20 million dollars.” So in other words we understand from that that any council would be able to borrow $19.9 million dollars without public consultation. That is a huge concern to us. This provision is not spelt out in the bill as far as we can see but it was admitted to in our briefing by Cameron Partners. This is something we will quiz very closely at the select committee. It would be completely unacceptable to allow councils to borrow up to $20 million without having to go through a public consultation. It would be a further erosion of the public consultation provisions of the Local Government Act. 
We note that the bill seems to be particularly set up to encourage the Auckland Council to borrow—not only in foreign currency. We have huge concerns about the Auckland super-city. As far as we can see it is not local government at all; it is a form of State government. It represents a third of New Zealand’s population—1.3 million people—and its councillors have constituencies that are larger than the constituencies of members in this Parliament. The Auckland Council is not a form of local government at all. In fact we have erased local government in the Auckland Council and instead we have a form of State government. 
We also managed cleverly under the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide to transfer almost all of the assets of Auckland into these council-controlled organisations or CCOs which are essentially corporations that are outside of the democratic control of the council. They now have the odd public meeting but basically they meet behind closed doors they function like corporate boards and the democratically elected councillors are not able to directly have a say in how the 80 percent of assets that have been hived off into these council-controlled organisations are run. 
I come back to the bill. It will allow those council-controlled organisations which meet behind closed doors to borrow—and to borrow in foreign currency. They will be able to borrow up to $20 million as far as we can see from our briefing paper without having to bother to inform the people of Auckland. 
Already the $28 billion of assets of Auckland have been hived off into the so-called super-city this State government that is the Auckland Council. The whole Auckland Council has been corporatised and basically siphoned off into corporations that are controlling and making the decisions about virtually all of the assets of Auckland. 
We have serious misgivings about the ability under this bill to allow the Auckland Council to borrow in foreign currency. It will not be the Auckland Council borrowing at all; it will effectively be these directors sitting on corporate boards and meeting in secret. They will be able to borrow without public consultation they will be able to borrow in foreign currencies and they will be encouraged by this bill to borrow in foreign currencies. We are worried that this bill could have unintended consequences. 
It reminds me somewhat of a bill that was before this House last week: the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. In this Chamber all of the National and Labour members voted for the Building Act 2004 which deregulated the entire building industry wiped away all the regulations and controls and gave it over to the market. Everyone supported it and said what a wonderful thing it would be but they did not realise the unintended consequences. They said it would save money and here we are nearly 20 years later with a $20 billion bill as a result of that original legislation. 
I worry that the Local Government Borrowing Bill could similarly have unintended consequences and that we could be standing up and asking why we encouraged our councils—and particularly the Auckland Council—to borrow in foreign currency. We could find ourselves—I hope we will not find ourselves—facing up to a series of crises like those that happened in Asia and in other places where the currency suddenly fell. The Auckland Council could easily become indebted and of course the Crown is not liable so it could be the citizens of Auckland who could find themselves up to their eyeballs in debt as a result of this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora tatou katoa. As others have said the purpose of the Local Government Borrowing Bill is to allow for more cost-effective borrowing by local authorities. It allows for the establishment of a bond bank or funding agency to allow local authorities to borrow money from overseas at a cheaper rate to fulfil their purpose. To cut to the chase that is pretty much what it is all about. But I would like to offer some other ideas that maybe need some consideration in order for the Maori Party to consider going with this bill into the future. 
It seems to us that there is something wrong with the picture. Just last week the Prime Minister announced that the Government intends to reduce the amount of money it has to borrow from overseas to put into KiwiSaver and increase the amount of genuine savings from the private sector—that is what he said. It was couched in the context that Budget 2011 will be responsible and measured. What are we to think then with this bill which is promoting a local government - owned bond bank and hoping to attract investment from overseas? The question would be whether that is responsible and whether it is measured. 
Another part of the purpose of allowing for the most cost-effective borrowing by local councils is the provision allowing for the Auckland Council to borrow in foreign currency. I was interested in the korero given by Sue Kedgley about some of the concerns—perhaps not all of the ones but certainly some—she set out. From what we can see the whole aim of the bill is to remove a range of regulatory impediments to permit the funding agency to borrow money and re-lend to local authorities as if the funding agency was a local authority. As Sue Kedgley outlined there are some concerns in respect of that. 
One of the things that has concerned us is Australian-owned trading banks using New Zealanders as a cash cow to line the pockets of Australian shareholders. This is where we would like to offer some ideas about Maori investment—indigenous investment if you like. Why do we not turn to our own natural partner indigenous people—Maori? We have always thought that Maori have a large collective asset-base and could set up their own bank. People like Mark Solomon have certainly promoted this idea and it is supported by groups such as the Iwi Leaders Forum. My colleague Dr Sharples recently held a Maori economic summit conference which revealed that the asset base of the 2010 Maori economy was estimated at $36.9 million. Would it not be something if the Maori economy could be used to recirculate profits and benefits into the communities that generate them rather than to have them siphoned off overseas like this bill suggests? 
The idea of a community development bank that would provide low-interest loans to families and small-business operators has always been a part of Maori Party policy. The community development bank would make small loans without collateral no charges and low interest but higher levels of support and controls. The community bank would lend to those at the lower end of the income and asset scale to help them improve their position. The bank would create access to credit on reasonable terms enabling the poor to build on their existing skills and to earn a better income. Ours is not the first plan for a Maori bank. Rua Kenana set one up and T W Ratana had a bank as well. In fact many Maori communities have relied on places like credit unions since the Post Office Bank and the big banks closed in rural areas. This policy also draws on ideas about collective economic development such as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in the Basque Country. The idea is that each lender is sure to repay their loan not because the bank will confiscate their property if they do not but because they know that other borrowers depend on them. 
Sadly however this bill is not about borrowing against the Maori economy or even providing tangata whenua with an opportunity to contribute. We suggest it is just another means of doing more of the same but by a different name—reverting to borrowing overseas without even considering the contradictions. We will not support the bill at its first reading but having said that we will be listening keenly to what Maori have to say at the select committee in order to guide us in our subsequent votes. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Local Government Borrowing Bill. As we have heard from the Minister of Local Government and subsequent speakers the intent of this bill is to allow for more cost-effective borrowing by local authorities. I stress the word “cost-effective”. I have looked at some of the projections around the expectation of growth in local authority debt. According to a Treasury estimate it is forecast to jump by two-thirds in the next 5 years reaching as much as $10 billion. Anything we can do as a Government to find more cost-effective ways for local authorities to borrow to invest in capital projects and key infrastructure is important. That is why this legislation is so important. Anything that will save the costs of ratepayers and remove some of that pressure is important. 
It is great to see that this is another initiative that came out of the National-led Government’s Job Summit. In those discussions a whole raft of ideas was bandied about and this is one of the better ones in terms of being able to look at how as a small country of 4.4 million people—as of this week—we can more effectively work together in a way that reduces some of our costs. 
In terms of looking at this bill I looked at the impact of borrowing on the three district councils in the Taupo electorate. One of the concerns that constituents come and see me about particularly our older citizens is the pressure of increasing rates when they have fixed incomes. I have looked at the three different councils in my electorate and have looked at their interest costs and their effective interest rates. One of the effective rates is 3.5 percent and another one is 6.98 percent so there is quite a variance even amongst three councils. If councils were able to consolidate and get some economies in terms of this borrowing from this bond bank we would see a lower rate across the board. 
One of the councils in particular has significant capital requirements for water and waste-water treatment plant upgrades in the next few years. In effect on a rateable property the interest cost alone is $294 a year. That is a significant cost for a ratepayer so I am particularly pleased with this legislation. It really focuses on a specific area where we can reduce the costs for ratepayers up and down the country with the creation of the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency. It will issue debt on behalf of local councils up and down the country. 
That is all I will say about this bill. I know that constituents in Taupo will be very pleased about the introduction of this bill under Minister Hide’s name because it will in effect assist with the burden of their local rates. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Perhaps I could begin by laying down a bit of groundwork in terms of context before I get to the Local Government Borrowing Bill because this bill does not just happen in a vacuum; it is part and parcel of a whole package that has had an impact on local government since the John Key - ACT Government came into power. Firstly the House will recall that in 2009 the Minister who introduced this bill the Hon Rodney Hide pranced around the whole Auckland region and around the country and said that the Government was going to ram through legislation to change the face of local government in the Auckland region. That is the same Minister of Local Government and the same Government that then talked about the savings that would be made by bringing together the eight local authorities in the Auckland region. Well none of that has happened. There are no savings—in fact in Auckland we are still trying to recover from the costs that have now been imposed on every ratepayer for the burden of that entity that this Government forced on the Auckland region. 
Secondly that same Minister aided and abetted by Mr John Key went around local government again and said that the Government wanted to bring in public-private partnerships and that the Government was looking at selling off local assets. Those assets were things that the public has contributed to over many many years. In 2009 the Government said that this was an idea that came out of the Job Summit but where are the jobs? After 2 years of sitting on that idea I have to agree that the bill is a welcome and fresh idea. The Government is now introducing the Local Government Borrowing Bill to make things easier or perhaps take advantage of economies of scale so that local authorities will be able to borrow for necessary infrastructure throughout this country of ours. 
I have to say that I am just a bit peeved that the Government is introducing this bill close to the election whereas all the time it did not give a damn about local government. It did not care one iota about the burdens that ratepayers the length and breadth of this country were experiencing. In fact the Government did not care about local government so much that it got rid of the Canterbury regional organisation. We do not know when that regional organisation will be brought into operation again. 
Although we support this idea at the higher level it is important that the bill goes out to the public for their submissions and that every local council every mayor every councillor and every local board throughout the country has a say in this. If every local council does not participate in the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency then we lose the benefit if any from the economies of scale that theoretically this agency will achieve. I think it is important for the local authorities the length and breadth of this country to be able to have a say on it. The good thing is that potentially we will not see local governments having to try to set up public-private partnerships which has the potential for those local authorities to lose the strategic assets that they have built up over the years through their own sweat energy and resources. However this Government is still talking about selling them the next time they have the opportunity to sit on the Government benches. 
I want to share that there are some concerns that the public should be asked to have a view on. By establishing the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency—and it is a private company—under the Companies Act 1993 the agency will also be subject to the provisions of another Act that treats this company as if it were a local authority which is the Securities Act 1978. I want to hear a view from the public or from local authorities about how they see the operations of such an agency operating. If it is to be treated like a local authority who appoints the directors of it—or will it be up to the local authority or the public? Will the public have an opportunity to choose the directors or the governance body of that company? If the funding agency is to take advantage of the economies of scale will it listen to the views of mayors and councillors? What happens to those councils that do not want to be a part of this funding agency? Will we lose out on their participation or on their potential contribution? Will the Government listen to and take seriously the views of the mayors or councils or can those parties expect to be treated with disdain as other councils and other mayors have been treated in the past under this Minister? 
As I said the agency is set up under the Companies Act but this bill also provides for the Securities Act. It treats this agency as if it were a local authority. The public want to know how they will participate. How will they hold the governance structure of the agency to account? Will the directors of the company be appointed by the Minister or will the public and their local councils have input in that? The claim that this idea came from the Job Summit simply reinforces what the Opposition has been saying all along. The Job Summit was just a John Key gimmick. There were no jobs created. We are still waiting on those jobs so that is further evidence that it was a gimmick. I suppose on balance although it did not achieve what Mr Key convinced the rest of New Zealand that it would do and that was to create jobs at least we have some idea. After 2 years I have to ask why the Government is dragging its feet on that particular idea if it was such a great one. 
I also say that earlier in this debate there was some confusion as to whether the ACT Party is part of the National Party or whether the National Party is part of the ACT Party because they did not seem to support each other in previous debates. But now we are hearing them sounding as if they are friends again. Are National and ACT joined together in supporting this bill? The public will want to know whether that relationship is a genuine one and whether it will endure beyond this election. I think listening to the debate earlier where National members were condemning the ACT Party and now they are being friends of the ACT Party we really have to wonder what sorts of games they are playing. Is this really genuine or are they now raising this legislation as a viable activity because we are close to an election? 
The final question that needs to be asked is whether it will be cost-effective for the community and the ratepayers. Although the intent of the bill is to bring about more cost-effective ways of borrowing money so that councils can build their infrastructure the question has to be asked whether those benefits then transfer back to the ratepayers and to the wider community. Under the present conditions that have been imposed upon this country by the lack of action and planning of this particular Government ratepayers are hurting. Ratepayers will want to know whether this agency will bring about lower rates and enable the general public to enjoy the benefits of public infrastructure without having to put out further money for rates increases as we have seen under the watch of this John Key - Mr Hide Government. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Local Government Borrowing Bill at its first reading. This bill is all about local councils coordinating their borrowing needs to obtain economies of scale so that local government borrowing can be more cost-effective. New Zealanders are very aware of the capital demands on local government and finding a more efficient cheaper way to manage borrowing will have benefits for ratepayers. Councils are keen to realise in the form of cheaper borrowing rates the benefit of the very low credit risk they are able to offer. However it has proved difficult for the numerous local authorities to coordinate effectively. The market for local authority debt is fragmented with over 80 issuers and several hundred—mainly small—issues of debt. Coordination will improve the overall market for local authorities make it more efficient for both users and investors and improve the New Zealand capital market generally. 
The bill facilitates the operation of the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency and that funding agency will issue debt on behalf of all participating local authorities. The agency because it merely coordinates the councils and does what they could do individually will have the same regulatory environment as all local authorities. It will enable local authorities to combine their resources and purchasing power to achieve the necessary economies of scale and will provide for more cost-effective borrowing than is possible at present. The agency is expected to achieve a credit rating scale and specialisation that will yield significant savings for local authorities. 
The forecast borrowing needs of local authorities is large. Total borrowings could exceed $10 billion within 5 years from a current level of about $6 billion. It is estimated that through the Local Government Funding Agency reductions in cost could be between 50 and 70 basis points which would reduce the interest bill that local authorities pay by up to $25 million annually thus reducing the cost to local ratepayers. Spread across the country that may not appear to be a huge sum but the savings are equivalent to over 13 percent of the average annual rates increase observed in the past decade. Cheaper finance will benefit local authorities by enabling them to spend more on other priorities and less on servicing debt. It will also decrease the pressure for rate rises. 
Another benefit of the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency is that it will develop a deeper and more liquid market in standardised local authority bonds. That will benefit both wholesale and retail investors. 
At least nine of the large local authorities are committed to supporting the agency. Together those local authorities represent 54 percent of the rate income of New Zealand local government in 2009. However a much wider group of local authorities are interested in the concept and have given it broad support. 
The bill also exempts the Auckland Council from the current prohibition on local authorities borrowing in foreign currencies. The Auckland Council is five times larger than any other council and has a borrowing programme of sufficient size to justify offshore placements and the freedom to borrow in foreign currencies. This bill will bring savings to Auckland. 
The bill has the ability to cut costs for local authorities and ratepayers. It is about doing business smarter and it is a real positive. I commend the bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the first reading of the Local Government Borrowing Bill. This is an omnibus bill. At the end of the Committee of the whole House stage Parts 1 and 2 are to be divided into separate bills. Part 1 establishes the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited and Part 2 expressly recognises the unique size and nature of the Auckland Council and the size of its consolidated borrowings and future debt-funding requirements. The bill specifically allows the Auckland Council to borrow offshore in foreign currencies. 
Labour supports this bill because mobilising the savings of Kiwi investors is a good idea rather than privatisation. I must commend the Hon Rodney Hide who is the Minister responsible for this bill. It is regrettable and sad that the Minister will not be able to continue with his work thanks to Dr Don “Dear John” Brash the new leader of the ACT Party. 
The purpose of this bill is to allow for more cost-effective borrowing by local authorities. The primary method of achieving that purpose is by facilitating the operation of the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Ltd. Before we deliberate on the details of this bill it is necessary to look at the 2007 inquiry into the funding mechanisms available to local authorities. The inquiry recommended that local government look favourably at making more use of debt to finance long-term assets. This should include the issuance of bonds including infrastructure bonds on the capital markets not just shorter-term borrowing from commercial banks. 
Generally there are two main sources of debt financing for local authorities: they can borrow from commercial banks and they can issue bonds. Under a 1998 amendment to the Securities Act local authorities are no longer exempt from obligations on bond issuers including the publication of a prospectus that all elected members must sign. That amendment made the issuing of bonds more costly and politically difficult for local authorities. One councillor could for example prevent borrowing on the market regardless of the majority view. That is the first problem. The second problem was very obvious: although borrowing from commercial banks has been popular that source of debt was often overpriced. 
In April 2008 the Labour Government passed the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Act. The Act addressed the Securities Act compliance issues raised by the Local Government Rates Inquiry. It allows local authorities to meet reduced disclosure requirements when offering debt securities to the public. Essentially it reinstates the exemption that was in place prior to 1998. Local authorities have to produce an investment statement with a certificate of compliance signed by two councillors rather than an investment statement and a prospectus signed off by all councillors of the local authority. The Auckland City Council was the only local authority to issue debt securities without an exemption being in place. 
The purpose of this bill is to provide more cost-effective borrowing by local authorities and reduced compliance costs. The bill is to achieve this by facilitating the operation of the Local Government Funding Agency which will issue debt securities on behalf of all participating local authorities. 
A number of commentators have reported on the projected debt levels of local authorities throughout the country over the next 5 years. The regulatory impact statement issued by Treasury reported that there are nearly 80 separate borrowing entities each with a limited number of debt providers resulting in a wide array of terms and costs between local authorities for borrowings. Under current legislation local authorities are restricted from borrowing in foreign currency and face compliance costs if they raise funds through the issuing of retail bonds. 
Another option for obtaining debt funding provided by this bill is by consolidating borrowings of local authorities through issuing generic bonds to retail and wholesale investors and on-lending funds raised to participating authorities. 
I note media reports that the proposed funding agency will probably achieve a top triple A credit rating in local currency terms. The funding agency is a win-win for local authorities and for mum and dad investors looking for new and safer ways to save. Mum and dad investors know that the investment is good for the community. It will mean Kiwis retain ownership and control of assets they have built up over decades. The use of the bonds will avoid privatisation of assets that are often monopolies. The funding agency will give communities a real stake in local authorities again. 
I also welcome Treasury’s report in the regulatory impact statement that the agency by way of selling debt securities via a central agency would generate savings in interest of between 50 and 70 basis points or around $25 million a year based on the current cost of borrowing for individual councils. This $25 million a year is a significant achievement in this regard but is a drop of water compared with the $300 million a week the National-ACT Government is borrowing. Borrowing the language of another “Dear John” the honourable John Boscawen the Government is borrowing $65 or so every day on behalf of every mum dad and kid in this country. I sincerely hope that the mandate this National-ACT Government obtained at the general election in 2008 will not be the one it believes it can use again and again to do nothing but borrow more. 
This coming Thursday is the Budget day. We are only 2 days away from the third of the three Budgets from this Government. It promised to turbocharge the economy but it has not even started its engine. No wonder a new HorizonPoll on Monday showed that 48 percent of New Zealanders believe that the economy is on the wrong track and 44 percent disapprove of the National Government’s handling of our economy. Thank you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Local Government Borrowing Bill. This is all about lowering borrowing costs for councils and it is all about the cooperative approach for that purpose. Estimates are that the provisions outlined in this bill could save local councils around $25 million a year. I will say that again: $25 million. Perhaps that is a small amount in the context of the Government’s overall Budget but it is a significant amount of money none the less. If we have the opportunity to save it we should we could—it will be good. 
This is just the latest in a string of initiatives by this Government that will see costs to taxpayers and to ratepayers lowered through a cooperative approach. Whether it be the merging of Government departments where it makes sense or providing a way for councils to save costs through cooperative borrowing this is another initiative of the Minister of Local Government that does so much credit to his position and the way he has approached his tasks. Speaking of a cooperative approach I say that something I immediately noticed about this bill is that it came from the National-led Government’s Job Summit. Very early in the term of this Government the Prime Minister took the initiative of inviting over 200 participants to a job summit to work on ideas in a cooperative way—a cooperative way. 
Phil Twyford 
: How many? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well $25 million worth I say to Mr Twyford—$25 million worth. That might not be very important to members of the Opposition but it certainly is to the people who would benefit from it. At the time we heard endless criticism from members on the other side of the House who claimed that it achieved nothing while putting forward no more constructive ideas than simply to spend more borrow more and not worry about the consequences. All one can say to that is “Ha!”. They could not be further from the truth. Here we have yet another initiative.  
So what does it do? Under this bill cost-effective borrowing will be achieved through the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency. The agency will operate as a large-scale borrower borrowing on behalf of councils and then re-lending to them. As is typical of the approach of this National-led Government this bill merely creates the opportunity for councils to make significant savings on their borrowing. It does not mandate councils to borrow in a particular way. It does not compel or introduce compulsory aspects. What it does is recognise the contribution that local councils make to the overall economy and assist them in making economies. The Government will provide the opportunity and if the cooperation from councils is there if they take up this opportunity in sufficient numbers the savings will be significant too. If any council for some reason does not wish to borrow through the agency then that is its choice. We are not here to tell councils that they must borrow in a certain way. We are not here to tell councils or individuals how they should conduct their business. Some may have longstanding arrangements that are beneficial to them but it is anticipated that for the vast majority of councils the savings possible under this new model of council borrowing will be well worth the switch. They will be led by their wallets. Let us remember that this is actually not about councils so much as it is about ratepayers. Those are the people who will be the beneficiaries. Ultimately there is no such thing as council money just as— 
Phil Twyford 
: Speak from the heart! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Wait for it I say to Mr Twyford. From the heart I say that members on the other side of the House eventually have to realise that there is no such thing as Government money; it all belongs to individuals. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Say that again. They need to know. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Let us help members on the other side of the House. There is no such thing as Government money. We are here talking about ratepayers’ money or taxpayers’ money and it is a good thing that councils will have the option of taking part in this scheme which keeps their rate increase down. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Stalinist minds— 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I just missed that quote from my colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson Attorney-General but it is something about the Stalinist attitude of the other side. Indeed but I would encourage all councils to take serious consideration of this opportunity and I hope that many will take it up. In fact we had a most interesting mineral symposium for the West Coast in the Parliament Buildings tonight. It really was very very good. Forty people came up from the West Coast including three local district mayors and regional council representatives. These are small councils with a small rate base; this is exactly the sort of thing that can help them. They are still here in the House and I would like to acknowledge the presence in the House of Pat McManus Mayor of Buller; Tony Kokshoorn famous Mayor of Grey District; and Maureen Pugh the Mayor of Westland. I say to them that they can be sure that I will be encouraging them along with all the other mayors in my electorate to take this opportunity to make these significant savings provided by a far-sighted local government Minister working in conjunction with a far-sighted Government. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Borrowing Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 118 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government and Environment Committeeconsider the Local Government Borrowing Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 12 May. 
Part 2 Repeals and related amendments ( 
continued 
)  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to continue my call on this part of the bill. We were discussing issues around the archiving of TVNZ works under this part which inserts new section 57A. One of the points I want to make is that TVNZ and its predecessor have a very proud history of making good-quality public service broadcasting content. In fact I started my career as a young New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation reporter in the mid-1970s working on programmes like  
Town and Around 
 which was the regional television current affairs programme for Wellington and the wider region. Other members of the Committee may recall a similar version called  
The South Tonight 
 and in the Auckland region it was called  
Top Half 
. Those programmes sparked the careers of a number of illustrious broadcasters. That was the environment we were working in. 
But the question I want to ask the Minister of Broadcasting tonight is what access New Zealanders will have should they wish to watch any of those past archived programmes and others. I think of programmes like  
Country Calendar 
 which endures to this day. In fact it is about the only TVNZ programme that has survived from that era through to the present day with a number of permutations but still very popular. I still well remember probably its best-known episode—a spoof programme done around 1 April featuring turkeys in gumboots. This was not a visit by the National caucus to rural New Zealand. This was a programme around a spoof that supposedly this turkey farm had put all of its stock in gumboots. That is the sort of programme people still enjoy but those programmes need a vehicle. They need a channel that will screen them. Of course we have seen under this Minister of Broadcasting the loss already of TVNZ 6 to become a commercial music channel. Some of us with an interest in the broadcasting sphere thought that maybe that is the cost of being in a recession. Maybe that might be what we have to give away to maintain a non-commercial TVNZ channel and maybe TVNZ 7 might still have a future. But a month ago the Minister announced that TVNZ 7 would go off air next year and that the funding for that channel would not be renewed in any shape or form and there are even questions around whether TVNZ was asked for that funding or was trying to find that funding itself. 
We are now providing under new section 57A that archived works will be available for public viewing but I would like to ask the Minister what medium or channel TVNZ would use to put on air archived content. Those programmes have their place. People I know watch things like past British sitcoms. It is a very small stream of audience but still it is a popular subset. Of course those programmes are available only on the Sky network. What we are talking about is past New Zealand content content that has been funded by us as taxpayers by us as shareholders in TVNZ when it became a more commercially oriented company. Given that the main premise of this bill is that TVNZ shall have a focus only on commercial function—that is to make a profit—where will the public viewing of New Zealand content provided for under this bill be screened? My suspicion and belief is that although this part of the bill is making this content available for public viewing in fact it will not be for what we might consider public viewing—that is viewing available to all New Zealanders. It may be available to people who have Sky subscriptions and that leaves 2 million New Zealanders even with the predominance of Sky who would not be able to see the very content that this part of the bill suggests they will be able to see. 
The two channels that were available to show New Zealanders that sort of content are going off air or have already gone off air under this Minister. I think that is extraordinarily unfortunate. Those channels were to provide the platforms for TVNZ to have a presence in the digital age which is another essential element of this bill. We saw the creation of the FreeView platform to provide an alternative to subscription television. People had a choice. In fact we are getting shrinking choices under this bill. Even under this part which suggests there may be more capacity for New Zealanders to see some of their own content created in the past and put in the vaults out at Avalon that content will not I believe be able to be seen by at least half of the New Zealand population because the platforms they would have been able to see them on are being whittled away by this Government. 
I would like to note that in an interview the Minister gave to  
Morning Report 
 about a month ago as he was explaining the demise of TVNZ 7 he mentioned how everybody would be getting quality programming from many different sources including the internet in the future which of course is true. But we have to ask where the role for public service broadcasting is in that and whether there will be under TVNZ—an important question for the Minister—a capacity to show on the internet at least some of this archived content. Will New Zealanders be able to see that or as I suspect will we have to pay for that privilege whether via the internet or via Sky because TVNZ is simply told that its only function is to make a good dividend for the Government? The idea that the internet creates content is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Internet providers or those who use the internet tend to take content mash it up and do their own things with it. It is not actually a vehicle for creating content; it is a vehicle for relaying content most particularly. As mentioned this bill supposedly will allow New Zealanders to see their archived works in a public viewing sense but nothing in this bill spells out where that actually will be provided for. 
I also draw attention to some of the leading broadcasting academics who have written to the Minister and to the Government over the axing of TVNZ 7 which of course they saw would have been one of the prime vehicles—in fact the remaining prime vehicle—for the public viewing of archived works. But of course from next year from about this time next year under this Government there will be no TVNZ 7; there will be no channel to allow New Zealanders other than those taking out a Sky subscription to see the content they have paid for. Those academics have noted that every other OECD country bar Mexico has a public service broadcasting television channel—at least one. We like to regard ourselves as a First World nation and one of the measures of that is having—members opposite can believe it or not—a State channel at least one that has a requirement to provide a sometimes non-commercial sometimes lightly commercial and sometimes commercial channel but at least one that has the mandate to regard itself as providing more than a dividend stream to the Government. But here we are in this part of the bill looking at screening supposedly some of the very content New Zealanders have a right to see which is some of the content Maori Television is picking up in a very clever low-budget way and showing us. They are programmes like Maori Television’s version of  
It’s in the Bag 
. We can see the Maori equivalent now on Maori Television— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Sam wants the money. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is fine because I am not going to give him the bag. It would be unfair. But the point is that Maori Television is providing that kind of programming and we will not be able to see the original should we wish on our State-owned channel because it will not be there. We will be able to go and watch it on Sky maybe via the Heartland channel— 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I too like the previous speaker Brendon Burns will focus in the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill on new section 57A which is all about making archived works available for public viewing. It is supremely ironic that for many years there have been negotiations to allow the creation of the wonderful wonderful library of archival material made over many years while TVNZ was a public service television broadcaster. For years there have been negotiations about how we could make that archival material available on television. An agreement was negotiated to allow archival programmes to be screened for public viewing. The irony is as the previous speaker pointed out that this wonderful treasure of archival material made by public service television will not be able to be screened on TVNZ on free-to-air television because this bill will turn TVNZ into a commercial broadcaster stripped of any public service interests or obligations. It will exist to chase ratings and to return a dividend to the Government. 
This totally commercially focused new entity that Television New Zealand will be once this legislation is passed will not screen archival material because that material will not rate like some blockbuster imported American programme. As the previous speaker said we will not see that material. Having spent all this time negotiating for the wonderful collection of archival works to be screened they will not be screened or made available for public viewing. It will not be available on free-to-air television once TVNZ 7 has also gone next year. 
Ironically the only place we might be able to see this archival footage is on pay television on Sky television. It is extraordinary and ironic that Television New Zealand a publicly owned broadcaster told us recently in the Commerce Committee that its main area of growth was in developing material and channels for pay television. A free-to-air broadcaster which TVNZ still is at this moment sees as its main raison d’être the making of channels and programmes for pay television—for Sky television. Quite clearly as I have mentioned before in this debate the agenda is to move away from free-to-air television in New Zealand—just as we are now moving in this bill away from public service television—to pay television and commercial television. It is ironic that this will happen. 
It is interesting that Brendon Burns said that he worked in regional television for TVNZ. I did not know that. I too worked in regional television in TVNZ when it was a genuinely public service organisation. When I worked for TVNZ for 2 or 3 years on  
Eyewitness News 
 etc.— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Did you? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —yes—there was a significant current affairs department there was regional television and there was a whole documentary department. Documentaries were screened every week and watched by a very large segment of the population. Some of the highest-rating programmes were documentaries. When we look 20 years later at what Television New Zealand is today we ask where the documentaries are. Where are the New Zealand - made documentaries? Where is the current affairs television—the in-depth current affairs television? 
Unfortunately Television New Zealand is but a shadow now of its former self. In this bill it is stripped of all its public service obligations. Under this bill it is a nakedly commercial organisation. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to take another call in the Committee stage of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill and to talk to the section with regard to archived works. I will revisit what I see as being the critical issue in this bill—that is the issue of the public good. We have talked about that in relation to a number of issues a number of subjects throughout the discussion. 
As we know this bill has two main intentions. The first which Labour fundamentally opposes is to remove the charter and replace it with a minimalist statement of functions. The second is to create the scheme that has been talked about tonight so that those publicly funded works—those very important publicly funded works; the works that are part of our cultural heritage and the identity of who we are as a nation—that were made before 1989 and that are now held in the TVNZ archive can be made available for rescreening. That scheme was called the archived works scheme. I say—and it is important that I do get the chance to say this in this debate—that that scheme has some merit. There was a very interesting discussion in the select committee about this issue. In fact much of the discussion concerned how to make the scheme possibly work. Unfortunately the other major part of the bill which is the removal of the charter was just unacceptable—absolutely unacceptable—and it meant that Labour could not support the bill. 
I will talk a little bit about the archived works scheme and what it represented because it is worthy of some discussion particularly giving credit to the number of submitters and the discussion had with them and the notice the select committee took. The select committee did a lot of work on this issue and I acknowledge the work the officials put into this bill. 
The archived works scheme was described as proposing and enabling a rescreening of those works that to date had been unavailable for reuse because of the need to negotiate with the multiple contract holders. It is important to take this seriously because it was about seeking to find a balance between the public-good objective—I will say that again: the public-good objective—of releasing those works for current and future generations to see and acknowledging the rights of those who were contracted to work on those programmes. 
There were 48 submissions; 16 of them were essentially pro forma submissions but there were a number of important submissions from different agencies. Those agencies took this issue quite seriously and as a result of that discussion the select committee made a number of changes to the bill in its report back to the House. I will briefly touch on them in order to give weight to the work the select committee did. In those changes the committee recommended that the definition of “archived work” be changed to make it clear that it would apply only to works made on or before 27 May 1989 for which TVNZ owned the whole copyright. The select committee also recommended that not only must archived works be screened free to the viewer—I will repeat that: free to the viewer—but they must not be screened between the hours of 6 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. on any day of the week on Television One and TV2. That provision was essentially about making sure that profit was not being gained from that screening. 
The rights of persons with an interest in archived work were to cease. The select committee recommended it be made clear that the cessation of rights of persons with an interest in archived work would apply only to the contractual rights in copyright under the Copyright Act 1994 and that oral and performers’ rights would remain unaffected. The select committee also recommended that the fund must contain a sum determined— 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Mr Chair thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. I will follow the lead of a number of speakers before me and concentrate on new section 57A which relates to the rescreening of archived material. 
There is a wealth of archived material in the Avalon Studios vault; I have been there myself. I think it is a good thing that New Zealanders will have the opportunity to see some of the material that has been locked away in that vault for some time and also that there will be a framework set up to ensure that those who may have claim to royalties should their work be rescreened will be able to do that. 
As my colleague Clare Curran said the legislation is very specific as to what is considered archived material. It includes programmes or series that were produced before 27 May 1989. We agree that these shows should be screened again. I have a vague memory of some of them such as  
Close to Home 
.  
Mortimer’s Patch  
is something I do not really recall— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: But you remember the McDonald’s. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Yes; I was too busy with the McDonald’s. Something that probably the member for Maungakiekie would remember better is  
Gloss 
—I am sure he was a big fan of  
Gloss 
 at the time.  
Hudson and Halls  
was maybe a show he enjoyed but I am sure judging by some of his contributions in the Committee he was more a fan of Billy T. James. 
As we have said it is fantastic to see some of this material rescreened for nostalgia opportunities. It is an opportunity for younger New Zealanders to see some of what has shaped New Zealand in terms of what is on our screens. It is an opportunity for us to see that and have a sense of identity. 
But as our previous speakers have asked what will be done with this content? What exactly will be done with this content and who will be able to access it? The commentary on the bill sets out very clearly that programming can be rescreened by a provider of another delivery platform that has an agreement with TVNZ for the supply of that content. It goes on to state that the committee recommends a new section “to make it clear that an archived work screened under this section must be screened free of charge to the viewer. We believe that archived programmes constitute a public good so the viewer should bear no cost.” 
But at the moment what situation do we have? This content is being played on the Sky platform via TVNZ Heartland. That is pay-per-view television so if people want to see some of this material that has been produced via the public broadcaster TVNZ which has been funded by New Zealand taxpayers over decades people will have to fork out for it. As the Minister said if that is in the public interest which public is it? It is the paying public. 
I have done a bit of research. The TVNZ Heartland platform is available on a basic Sky package which costs $47.66 a month. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: $47.66 a month. If people want to watch this stuff using the current way to watch it via Sky they will have to fork out $50 a month. That is hardly in the public interest of all New Zealanders. 
How is it in the public interest under the current model? Under this Sky platform the programming is supposed to be 100 percent local content. That is fine. It is supposed to be a celebration of New Zealanders and to show some of New Zealand’s finest shows but it is only available to Sky subscribers. Not even FreeView subscribers have the ability to tune into TVNZ Heartland. If this is the model we will see in the future for TVNZ content—content that has been built up over decades content that is very important in terms of educating future generations of New Zealanders about how New Zealand has progressed—and if the only way we will get it is via a pay-per-view television platform then I think that it is a very sad day for New Zealand broadcasting indeed. 
As I said it is not available to all New Zealanders and it costs $50 a month. Currently TVNZ has this archive and what will be done with it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are well off-track. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I think this is a fantastic opportunity to open up the archive as I said before. We can take a look at the past and see how our nation has grown through some of these programmes. Some of them are high-quality; some of them will be of questionable quality. 
I am glad that this legislation does not include news content. It applies basically only to content that has come through productions. It is good that those who have worked on it those who have come up with the ideas will have fair compensation for it. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 
A party vote. was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I return to the core of what the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill is about which is the public good. Before this debate is out I would be very keen for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Broadcasting to respond to the question that has been put to him on a number of occasions as to why if this bill is aimed at providing archived works to the whole of New Zealand the 83000 households that do not receive Sky will not be able to access them. I ask the Minister to actually respond to that question before this debate is out. 
As of 30 June 2010 Sky had a total of 802397 subscribers. At that time the number of households in New Zealand was 1632200. That meant that 83000 of those households did not get Sky which is equivalent to around 2 million New Zealanders. That is very important because it is about equity the public good and who gets to see these important archived works that are the substance of this bill and are the essence of what makes us New Zealanders: our past and how we have developed. 
The claim that it is in the public interest that they be seen again has been made a mockery of since TVNZ Heartland was launched which is now exclusively for Sky to screen heritage programming. As a number of speakers tonight and previously have mentioned those heritage programmes were all made by paid license fees so in fact the public has already paid for the production of those programmes through fees and taxes. Now the public has to pay Sky for the privilege of watching them again and the Sky shareholders get to reap the rewards. 
I know that a number of my colleagues have mentioned some of those programmes and I will mention them again. One of the people in those programmes is very dear to my heart and I have launched a bit of a campaign to attract him to come back home from over the Ditch. It is John Clarke—or Mr John Clarke as he is described on Twitter where we have the occasional conversation—aka Fred Dagg. He is a cultural icon in New Zealand and he has become a cultural icon in Australia. It is a damn shame that he did not stay in New Zealand— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: “If it weren’t for your gumboots”. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: If it were not for our gumboots where would we be? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Sing it. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I will not be singing in this House. I pay special tribute to Fred Dagg. A few members on this side of the House would put their hands up if they were asked whether they modelled themselves on him. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Who are the Bruces? 
CLARE CURRAN 
: There are also the Trevs. We have at least one of those on this side of the House although he claims he is not one of those Trevs. 
Then there is Lynn of Tawa David McPhail and Jon Gadsby and Billy T James who brought Maori comedy to the fore in the early 1980s. There was our first enduring situation comedy  
Gliding On 
. Then there were those iconic programmes some of which have been mentioned like  
Pukemanu 
— 
Hon Rick Barker 
:  
Close to Home 
. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: — 
Close to Home Gloss 
 and  
Shortland Street 
. I cannot say I spend a lot of time watching  
Shortland Street 
 as I do not get much time to do that but there are many other award-winning efforts. Where are they now? Where are those sorts of programmes now? Where is the will to make those sorts of programmes in this country? I am interested to hear a bit more from the Minister about that. 
The point is that that was critical television during an important time in our heritage and it should be an important time now. Instead there is very little likelihood of those sorts of programmes being made in this country again. 
Removing the important TVNZ charter is the reason why Labour opposes this bill. It was extraordinary that the Minister of Broadcasting got up in this Committee and talked about the bill making an honest broadcaster out of TVNZ. Somebody said to me today that that is like taking the same moral grounding as a pimp welcoming the legalisation of prostitution. 
If the Minister of Broadcasting is interested in being honest then I ask whether he can show us where in National’s manifesto for 2008 there was any indication that the charter and TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 would be scrapped. Could he explain why he continues to refuse to release the documents outlining TVNZ’s proposals for investment in TVNZ 7 and the TVNZ business plans for 2010 and 2011? If he is interested in being honest then what has he got to hide? And why at the 2010 Screen Production and Development Association conference did he indicate that he wanted to retain TVNZ 7? What happened? 
Hon Members 
: Got rolled. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Well what else are we meant to think? As I said in my second reading speech on this bill there is significant weakness here. 
Can the Minister tell us whether he genuinely agrees with his Cabinet colleagues who oppose the continuation of the funding for TVNZ 7? I ask why he continues to ignore the concerns of the 61 academic researchers who took the unprecedented step of writing an open letter calling for a public debate on public broadcasting issues—a really important debate. Why did he try to mislead the public in the ambiguity of the findings of the officials’ watered-down report on broadcasting competition and why did he and his Government ditch the digital review in 2009? 
I wonder why he does not open up these issues for a proper debate where all of the arguments the evidence the public interest and the public good could be given proper consideration. Surely a Government that is too scared to look at the evidence can hardly claim to be interested in honesty. 
I think the Minister said that the only alternative to scrapping the charter was to fully fund TVNZ at a rate of $300 million a year. That is absolute rubbish and he knows that. Under his watch we have seen TVNZ 6 close down. We know that TVNZ 7 is facing closure. But if one does the calculations one sees it would cost only 1c per person per day to save those channels. I think it has been calculated as costing less than a cup of coffee per person per year. TVNZ Heartland again has appeared exclusively on Sky. 
Some really important quite significant and quite disturbing issues have been raised during this debate. The Minister has suggested that the Opposition missed the announcement on the radio spectrum licence fee deferrals in 2009 but when that decision was announced it came in the context of several smaller broadcasters that were finding times tough in the recession. What was not apparent until very recently was the scale of the MediaWorks deal. If the Government was being open and honest as it claims it has been throughout this debate then why did it not reveal the real reasons behind the deferral decisions? It was only when those recent Official Information Act documents were made available that it became apparent that the Government had bent over backwards to ignore the advice of its own advisers in Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 What an intellectually loose if not somewhat poisonous contribution from Labour’s soon-to-be-sacked broadcasting spokesperson. It was intellectually loose on a number of fronts. 
I checked her figures closely. She repeated a couple of times that 83000 households in New Zealand were without Sky TV. Well I think Ms Curran needs to check her facts. Then we had a long rambling discourse going through the history of New Zealand television. You know if we take 1.6 million households and we subtract the just over 800000 households that have Sky we do not get 83000. I am very surprised because that member reads laboriously and continuously from prepared notes but she does not have the wherewithal and the wit to pick up the most basic error. If she does not know the most basic fundamentals of the numbers in this whole equation how can we rely on anything else she said? 
She went on to make out that the National Government was not honest on issues of broadcasting yet she was fundamentally misleading the House—misleading the House—by trying to make out that this archiving scheme would result in all those archived works being shown on pay TV— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought I heard the Minister say—I could not hear it clearly because of the catcalling from the other side—that the member was deliberately misleading the House. It is wrong to say that and to accuse a member of that. If the Minister did say that then I think he should withdraw it. If he did not I accept the clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. The word “misleading” was certainly used but I do not think “misleading the House” was. But I just caution the Minister. The Minister is to be very careful with the use of that word. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well just like that member got the figures badly wrong about the number of houses with and without Sky TV she also got it really badly wrong in that she does not understand the fundamentals of this Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. That is the truth of it. She is telling the public and apparently this is not deliberate that this bill will free up archived works to be shown only on pay TV. Anyone who has read the bill—and I do not know whether this member has read the bill—will know that it is freeing up works that can be shown only on free-to-air television. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How many households don’t have Sky? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: They can try and shout down the argument but I have the microphone. 
The other thing that is really interesting is that that member over there Clare Curran basically harangued us for doing away with TVNZ 7. I can tell members why I think she is very soon to be sacked. Phil Goff was on the radio yesterday and just like he had to sack Brendon Burns I think when he hears how his spokesperson has gone on tonight he will have to have a word with her. Phil Goff was asked yesterday how Labour felt about this bill and whether it would support it. Phil got the first bit right; he said that Labour would not support it. He was then asked whether Labour would put more money into TVNZ and whether it would save TVNZ 7. He said: “Well you know look I can’t make a whole series of promises at this time until I’ve seen the whole picture. I mean we’ve got to focus on helping people struggling with the cost of living we’ve got to get rid of that deficit and then we’ve got a series of things that we would want to do and that may include TVNZ.” 
Well is that not the point? Basically $79 million over 6 years went into that channel. The Labour Government had no idea how it was going to continue to fund it. It had made no allowance for it. It had said it would be self-funding. In the end it is not. We are left with one heck of a problem which we have solved. What would Labour members do? Would they bring it back? Will Clare Curran be stupid enough to contradict Phil Goff tonight and get up and promise that Labour would fund TVNZ 7? I challenge her to do that but I bet she will not. She would be hauled into Phil Goff’s office tomorrow if she did and told: “Sorry darling you have just added another cost another unfunded promise on to the list of what will be a very heavy load strung around our neck at the next election.” 
Fundamentally this bill brings honesty. Here is another thing Phil Goff said yesterday: “You know if we’re totally honest you have got to say it is hard to see much on TV1 that is public service.” So Phil Goff actually gets it. But of course because ideologically he is stuck in a time warp in the wrong party he has to go along with this Labour Party charade that the TVNZ charter actually did something. [ 
Interruption 
] 
We can tell by the cackle and the shouting from those members that they know they have lost this argument intellectually. They know the charter never did anything they know fundamentally they would not bring it back and they know they would not fund TVNZ 7 because they know they could not afford to. They have no intention of doing that. They had the chance to push through a regulatory review but they left it to us. They deferred it they deferred it and they deferred it because they knew that at the end of the day it was not publicly palatable. No one wanted that review. When we took power we were up front and honest about it. All they can do is criticise us for doing something they never had the guts to do themselves. So that spokesperson is totally out of step with her leader. 
This is a great bill. If Labour members had any sense they would vote for it. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 When the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill comes into force—I think that is the terminology—and receives the Royal assent New Zealand will lose our public service broadcasting channel. We will be the only country in the Western world with the exception of Mexico that does not have a mainstream public service television channel. TVNZ will exist for the sole purpose of returning a profit and a dividend to the Government. We have to ask what the point is in a State-owned broadcaster that has no public service functions or responsibilities. What is the point? We predict that once this bill comes into effect we will see less and less New Zealand content on television because TVNZ will exist to chase ratings to make money and to return a profit. It will be indistinguishable from any other commercial broadcaster. It will not make New Zealand programmes. Why not? For the simple reason that it is much cheaper to import foreign programmes so there will be less and less New Zealand content. 
In fact we will probably see so few New Zealand programmes on TVNZ that people will be forced to look to the archives to try to get some New Zealand content. All of the discussion about the wonderful programmes that were made by TVNZ that are lodged in the archive at Avalon made me realise that a number of programmes that I made will be in the archives at Avalon: three television documentaries that I made will be lodged there in the archives and the whole series of  
That’s Fairly Interesting 
—a programme about quirky events that were happening in New Zealand at the time. Those are historical programmes that people would love to see. There is no equivalent to those programmes now being made by TVNZ so people will be very keen to look at those archival New Zealand programmes because we will see fewer and fewer New Zealand programmes on air. 
The irony is that those wonderful archival programmes will not be screened on TVNZ whatever the Minister says because the sole mandate of TVNZ is to chase ratings—not to show programmes for the public interest but only for the commercial interest. It will only be showing programmes that the sales department approves because they attract advertising and those wonderful archival materials and programmes that we have been talking about tonight will not be screened on TVNZ because they will not attract the advertisers so the sales department will not be interested. 
So we will join the shameful ranks with Mexico of countries having no public service broadcasting. Once this has gone through the Government will turn its mind towards weakening and undermining our other public service broadcaster Radio New Zealand. The intention of the Minister is to starve Radio New Zealand of funding weaken the organisation put it on the back foot and force it to commercialise. The agenda is absolutely clear and absolutely blatant because this Government and this Minister do not understand the importance or value of public service television or even of free-to-air television. It understands only commercial television. It understands supporting its friends and its mates in commercial broadcasting and in Sky television. 
I believe that in time we may very well see in New Zealand only paid television—within a short period of time—and we may find only one or perhaps two television channels foreign-owned channels owned by people like Rupert Murdoch and no public service broadcasting. This will have a significant impact on the identity of New Zealand on who we are because we will end up watching the equivalent of Fox Television. That is what will be available in New Zealand and that will have an impact on our identity as a nation as well as on the quality of our television. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was very interested to hear comments from the Minister of Broadcasting because a number of us actually chipped at him to provide us with the number of households that do not have access to Sky television at this stage. It will be very useful if he makes a further contribution to this debate for him to actually provide us with a number. Would the Minister like to contribute the number now while I am speaking? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You know the answer. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He thinks that I know the answer—the answer that he would give? I know the answer that my colleague gave and until the Minister provides us with an alternative to it I do not think we have another number on the table. 
I refer to a submission that I quoted from in the second reading on this bill. It is the submission that came to the Commerce Committee from New Zealand directors and editors—the Screen Directors Guild of New Zealand. They also made this point: “We are missing out as a nation if the only values we embrace are short-term commercial values. Many of the intangibles that we value and that make New Zealand special do not have an immediate short-term benefit but this does not mean they are not worthwhile.” I think those words are definitely the words we should bear in mind when we are considering the ramifications of this legislation. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.