Volume 667 Week 56 - Tuesday 12 October 2010 
Volume 667 Week 56 - Tuesday 12 October 2010 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Tuesday 12 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
David Garrett ACT 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from David Garrett resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on Thursday 23 September 2010. 
List Member Vacancy 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Hilary Jane Calvert has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of David Arthur Garrett. I understand that Hilary Calvert is present and wishes to take the oath. 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Hilary Calvert who then took her seat in the House. 
Voting 
Correction—Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote on the question for the first reading of the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 64 and Noes 54. The correct result is Ayes 62 and Noes 54. The record will be corrected. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Hilary Calvert to make her maiden statement following consideration of members’ notice of motion No. 1. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Access Under Customary Title 
1. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will he support my proposed amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to include a specific prohibition on customary title holders charging for public access to New Zealand beaches such as is provided for in the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The bill as drafted does not allow customary title holders to charge for access in the marine and coastal area; I refer the honourable member to clauses 27 60 and 63. However it has been suggested that the bill could be made more readily understandable by inserting a direct statement that charging for public access is not allowed. I am certainly willing to consider that and I would welcome receiving the member’s proposed amendment. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does he consider a couple having their wedding photos taken on a beach to be a simple issue of access for which customary title holders should be prohibited from charging; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Under the bill as drafted it is not possible to charge for public access. A customary title holder will have the right to permit or decline activities that require resource consent—that is activities that have a significant environmental impact. I would not have thought that taking wedding photos was likely to require resource consent. 
Hilary Calvert 
: What redress does he think there should be for wedding couples should local iwi demand payment for photos on the beach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I have said there is no right to charge for public access. I think the example the honourable member has alluded to may have actually happened under the existing law not under what is proposed in the bill. Of course the bill has not been enacted. We currently have laws in place that prevent people from restricting New Zealanders’ lawful freedom of movement and freedom from intimidation and this legislation will not change that position. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he recall his statement in the House at the first reading of the bill on 15 September 2010 about the rights associated with customary marine title that those rights do not include charging for access and what does he believe is the motivation for certain parties to continue to talk about charging for public access when such a concept does not even exist in the bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I remember the statement and I stand by it. The bill does not permit charging for public access. I can only assume that the motivation is the desire for absolute clarity or because of some confusion. As I said I am happy to consider any matter that satisfies the legitimate concerns of those parties. 
Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that by early 2010 New Zealand will be coming out of the recession “reasonably aggressively”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by the full quote from March 2009 which for the benefit of the member is: “… I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” Those statements have proved to be entirely correct. We were starting to come out of the recession by the end of 2009; 2010 will be positive; 2011 will see considerable improvement; and in terms of aggressive growth the House should note that the New Zealand economy has grown more in the last 9 months than it did in the full 4-year period prior to that from September 2005 to September 2009. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the Prime Minister’s prediction and statement were as he said entirely correct how does he explain Treasury’s comments last week that the recovery was not going according to plan that there has been a slow-down in the economy and in fact that economic growth is failing to keep up with population growth? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Notwithstanding that the quote was made 18 months ago and in the world economy things move around by the week let alone 18 months why do we not quote Alan Bollard who just today said that the economic recovery is proving “brittle uncertain and full of surprises” but that we have now emerged from a long recession and have experienced some quarters of “significant growth”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the Prime Minister claims that his statement was entirely correct how does he explain the  
Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion 
 that came out in September from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which showed that business confidence fell from positive 26 to negative nine? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is quite a lot of volatility in the  
Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion 
 and that is for a variety of reasons; one has to accept that globally in May August and June we saw a number of different things occur internationally. But I would note in relation to the  
Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion  
that the BNZ’s commentary stated that it was disappointing but not deathly and it is picking growth of 0.6 and 0.5 for the third quarter and fourth quarter respectively. 
Chris Tremain 
: In what condition was the economy his Government inherited in late 2008? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I could sum that up in one word but I will choose not to do that. Let us just cast our mind back to the economic conditions of the 2008 September quarter just before the election. The economy was in its third consecutive quarter of recession having shrunk 1.5 percent in 9 months; inflation was running at 5.1 percent; real after-tax wages had dropped by 0.8 percent over the preceding year; real exports had declined 2 percent over the preceding year; the tradable part of the economy had been in recession for 4 years; and the current account deficit had blown out to 8.6 percent. Labour’s farewell gift to the nation was an economy in a disastrous state. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does the Prime Minister pretend that things are getting better for the average New Zealand household when his own Statistics New Zealand department last week pointed out that for the first time in its record-taking the median wage of New Zealanders had actually fallen by $9 a week? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: One could quote all the things that Statistics New Zealand has said and it has said that this is not statistically significant. I would also say that the New Zealand Income Survey is a compositional number that includes all income of people aged 15 and above which includes investments. So for a start if interest rates are lower income is less. But the best measure of changes in earnings from year to year is the quarterly employment survey which is the same rate that is used to calculate the floor of New Zealand superannuation and it shows that real after-tax earnings have been growing under National after 5 years of no growth under the other lot who were hopeless. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the growth in the number of unemployed people—up from 6.1 percent to 6.8 percent—respond to his comment last week that “My sense is they’ll be feeling a bit better now that summer has come.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well they will be feeling better because one always feels better when the weather is a bit better but also they will be feeling a lot better because the tax cuts are in their pockets. I shall quote Chris Carter; I remember his saying that Mr Goff had campaigned on getting rid of the increase in GST to 15 percent and in the end he did nothing. That is why Chris Carter actually speaks for the Labour Party caucus. 
Chris Tremain 
: How does inflation now compare with the inflation his Government inherited in late 2008? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is a lot lower but let us choose just one area to give a sense of what has been happening with price increases. Let us go back to September 2008 and let us pick say fresh fruit and vegetables which under Labour went up 14 percent in a year. Under Labour bread went up 18 percent in a year milk went up 12 percent cheese went up a whopping 42 percent eggs went up 13 percent petrol went up 29 percent electricity went up 7 percent and gas went up 14 percent. No wonder Labour was booted out. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many additional jobs have the Prime Minister’s job initiatives such as the Job Summit and the cycleway—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. With the level of interjection I am struggling to hear the question and I am sure the Prime Minister will want to hear it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: He might not Mr Speaker. I repeat the question: how many additional jobs have the Prime Minister’s job initiatives created in New Zealand over the last year how does that figure compare with the quarter of a million additional jobs created by Australia this year and has he narrowed the gap? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have to hand information on how many jobs have been created but I can say that in my view the Job Summit did a good thing in getting employers employees the Government and unions all on one page to deal with the worst financial crisis. And I can say this: there are 17 people who have got a new job; that is right they are the people on Chris Carter’s list to get rid of Phil Goff. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A very specific question was asked—how many additional jobs had been created compared with the quarter of a million extra jobs in Australia and whether the gap had been narrowed. There was no effort made to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I heard correctly—and I stress that with the level of noise in the House I may not have heard correctly—the Prime Minister said he did not have that exact figure. Of course when a primary question is so vague as to ask whether the Prime Minister in this case stands by a statement made quite some time ago it is hard to expect him to have that detail of information. I think it would be a bit unreasonable for me to expect that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the wage gap with Australia widened or narrowed this year; if so by how much? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It narrowed on the data series we have always used to measure it. 
Universities—Increase in Student Places 
3. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What actions has the Government taken to increase student places at universities? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to report to the House that the Government will invest a further $55 million to fund almost 3000 more university undergraduate places over the next 2 years in response to higher demand for undergraduate places. That increase in places will help the wider economy as we ramp up the number of graduates which we are doing over time and we are expecting at least 20 percent more graduates in 2013 than in recent times. The number of full-time places funded at universities next year will be the highest ever at about 119000. That is over 7000 more than 3 years ago and it has all been achieved within existing appropriations. 
Allan Peachey 
: How does this increase fit into the wider value-for-money push in tertiary spending? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The extra funding comes from changes announced last week to lift the performance and accountability of the industry training sector as well as to reprioritise underspending in that area. This shift in funding is part of the Government’s push to get higher productivity out of the $4 billion we spend annually on tertiary education. It also reflects the nature of the economic cycle as New Zealand recovers from recession. There remains strong demand for full-time training places and currently there is less demand for industry-based training. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that the funding cut from industry training would have supported 55000 industry trainees and is robbing Peter to pay Paul the best we will get from this National Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can confirm a number of things about the industry training budget including the fact that it has nearly trebled over the last 10 years. As a result the Tertiary Education Commission has done exactly the right thing—it has looked for value for money in that appropriation and it has made some changes to operational policies in order to maximise the number of credits achieved in industry training. I struggle with the member’s concept because he seems to be saying we should never shift any appropriations from one thing to another and we should just blindly keep spending—which I struggle with hugely. 
Transport Funding—Effect of Local Body Elections 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What impact if any will the outcome of the local government elections have on his priorities for transport funding? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I do not see any significant change being made because the Government is already investing in all modes of transport so that people can get around our major cities more effectively. This includes spending on roading infrastructure and rail infrastructure larger subsidies for buses rail and ferries and so on. The Government will work in partnership with the new councils on what comes next and will contribute its fair share to the continuing goal of improving commuter transport. Mayors and councillors will need to work out how much ratepayers are prepared to contribute towards accelerating new projects and to consider not just the capital costs but of course the operating costs. I am very pleased to see that the newly elected councils share this Government’s vision for investing in improved road and rail services. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Now that Auckland has spoken very clearly with one voice about its preference for new rail projects over new motorways will he respond positively to this one voice by shifting funding from motorways into rail? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure whether that is exactly what they said. Nevertheless they are of course very keen to see transport be improved in Auckland. The Government is currently investing about $5 billion in transport in Auckland with $3.4 billion on roading and about $1.6 billion on rail. Roughly about 32 percent of our investment is being made on rail currently and of course although rail is growing it represents about 2 percent of passenger trips to and from work each day in Auckland currently so there has to be some proportion in the amount given to it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he consider reprioritising his transport funding by moving money from his “Holiday Highway” into a rail central business district loop given that the costs are about the same and given that a large majority of Aucklanders clearly want rail more than they want his new motorway? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There are a couple of points there. Firstly the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway is in fact a multi-regional project between Northland and Auckland; it is not just an Auckland project. Secondly I again point out to the member that we are spending big sums in the rail area and I think that that is appropriate. But I should point out to him—as I have I think once in the past—just to keep a matter of proportion that that particular road from Puhoi to Warkworth currently carries more people per day than are carried on the whole of the Auckland commuter rail network. That just gives some form of proportion on that project. Of course we also have very large amounts of freight carried on that highway as well. So the issue is all about making investments right across the transport network and each investment has to be considered on its merits. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is he pouring $1.7 billion into the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” when only 8.4 percent of Aucklanders picked it as being the most important transport priority in a recent  
Herald 
-DigiPoll poll whereas about 50 percent of Aucklanders picked rail projects as being the most important transport priority in the same poll? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I point out that that project and other projects are funded from the National Land Transport Fund not the “Central Auckland Land Transport Fund” or the “Auckland Land Transport Fund”. That is very important because by the same argument one could ask why we spend money on for example roading projects in Christchurch or perhaps near Wellington or in other parts of the country because Aucklanders want it all to be spent there. Again the important thing is to invest right across our transport sector. The Government is investing huge sums of money in rail not just in Auckland but also in Wellington and in the turn-round plan for KiwiRail. I think we have to work on developing all modes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is he taking taxes from Aucklanders and spending them on motorway projects that Aucklanders do not prioritise rather than spending those taxes on the transport projects particularly rail that Aucklanders have said over and over again that they see as the main priorities for their city in order to reduce congestion in Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The other thing I should point out is that the National Land Transport Fund and the road taxes and road-user charges that are used to create that fund are hypothecated for road users. That was set up by the previous Government which that member was a part of. So that funding is for the benefit of road users— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said I was a part of the previous Government but that is simply not true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are other ways of raising that. If the member wishes to make a personal explanation he can do that but he cannot question whether the Minister is right or wrong. He cannot question the Minister’s answer by way of a point of order. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he effectively telling Aucklanders who voted in overwhelming numbers for the rapid expansion of rail throughout their region that their votes are worth less than the large financial donations from the Road Transport Forum? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I completely reject the grubby assertion made by the member in relation to that matter. I say again that we are investing very very strongly in both rail and roads: $3.4 billion in highways in Auckland and $1.6 billion in rail transport. Of course we are prepared to look at further projects over time but it is important not just to ensure that the current projects are completed—and there is a considerable period of time before they are—but also to make sure the operating costs of those projects are met. Frankly that has not been done yet and we will need Auckland to work with the Government to ensure that we meet the operating costs of that investment which is already in place. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the fact that 12 members of the new 20-member Auckland Council yesterday pledged support for the central business district tunnel loop mean he is now prepared to get beyond his dismissive comments of the past when he was supporting John Banks for the mayoralty and agree that Aucklanders want to have improved public transport such as the loop and the line to the airport in Albany? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I struggle with that member’s comments as they come from the party that was going to sock Auckland with a large regional fuel tax to pay for those projects whereas this Government has invested very large amounts in the electrification of rail and the electric trains in Auckland. The electrification of rail and the electric trains were appropriated for by this Government last year. The important thing is that yes there will be further projects over time. The main thing is that we understand the cost of those projects and make the decisions in an appropriate time frame. I am looking forward to having those discussions with the new mayor and the Auckland Council. 
Broadcasting Diplomatic Incident—Apology to Indian Government 
5. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the New Zealand High Commissioner’s apology to the Indian Government for Paul Henry’s on-air comments: “It doesn’t matter that the words don’t come out of my mouth. They’ve come out of the mouth of the High Commissioner but they have been the instructions of the New Zealand Government.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because at the time I made that statement last Friday I assumed that that had been the case for both the apology to the Government of India and an apology directly to the Chief Minister of Delhi. Subsequently I have been advised that although my foreign policy adviser had spoken to the high commissioner and directed that an apology be delivered to the Chief Minister this occurred after the separate apology to the Government of India had already been delivered. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Why was he all but silent on this issue until after the Indian Ministry of External Affairs had issued a media statement and delivered a strongly worded démarche to the high commissioner on 7 October? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I would not say that I was silent on the issue. I was questioned extensively on Monday at my press conference. At the time I did not refer to Phil Goff’s comments which were that it was Paul Henry being Paul Henry. But had I known that Mr Goff had said that 5 hours after he had a chance to consider it I probably would have repeated those comments as well. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What advice did he receive from the Minister of Foreign Affairs about how his Government should respond to this rapidly escalating diplomatic incident? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I did not receive any but my office and my foreign policy adviser would have been closely working with their counterparts in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How has he enhanced our relationship with India and the progress of the complex free-trade agreement with India through his appalling lack of judgment and leadership over Paul Henry’s repeated slights? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I know this will come as a tremendous surprise to the member but I am not responsible for what comes out of Paul Henry’s mouth or Michael Laws or any of the other shock jocks who work in the broadcasting world. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that in hindsight he might have defended the Governor-General during his interview on Television One last week? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said yesterday one can always reflect on these things in hindsight. The comments I made about 8 hours after the incident at my post-Cabinet press conference were that the comments were plain wrong and that the Governor-General was doing a tremendous job. I did not choose to quote Phil Goff when he said that Paul Henry was just being Paul Henry because I assumed Mr Goff would have thought about his own comments a little more. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a commendably direct question about the Prime Minister’s action at the time of the interview. The Prime Minister gave a long diatribe about what he did afterwards but he did not refer to the fact that he did not pull Paul Henry up to defend the Governor-General during the interview. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now getting into the substance of an issue. I listened to the question very carefully. Although it was a brief question it really asked the Prime Minister on reflection how he felt about the way he handled the issue. The Prime Minister gave his view of the way he handled the issue. The type of question that seeks an opinion will never get an exact answer. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave of the House to table the statement from India’s Ministry of External Affairs released on 7 October 2010 entitled “India denounces racist remarks against Delhi Chief Minister”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Housing Affordable—Gateway Housing Assistance 
6. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What announcement has he recently made that supports the Government’s aim of improving the provision of affordable housing in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the launch of the Gateway Housing Assistance initiative. This programme will make it easier for first-home buyers and those on lower incomes to build or purchase their own homes by allowing purchasers to defer payment on the land for up to 10 years. So this allows people on lower incomes to concentrate on building their homes before they assume the additional burden of paying for the land. It is a neat two-step process: pay for the building then pay for the land 10 years later. It is just another addition to the tool kit for first-home buyers. But the most important thing the Government can do for first-home buyers is to manage the economy well keeping down interest rates well below what they were at the time of Labour’s tenure when they were 10 and 11 percent so that people can afford to pay their mortgages. 
Hekia Parata 
: What other programmes support the provision of affordable housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have also raised the cap on Welcome Home Loans from $280000 to $350000. We have seen 3000 New Zealanders become homeowners under that fund since we became the Government. Last year the Housing Innovation Fund saw 169 new houses built—many of them for first-home buyers—with $20 million of the taxpayers’ money met by $40 million of the community’s money which is great: we are seeing $2 for every $1 we put up. But I have to say that managing the economy well and keeping interest rates down below 10 and 11 percent which they were under Labour means that people can afford to pay their fortnightly mortgage. That is the most important thing we can do: manage the economy well and cut red tape for building and resource consenting. 
Rahui Katene 
: What priority is he according the issue of affordable housing in rural communities and how can iwi Maori be involved in this issue? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We were very conscious when we raised the amount of money in the Housing Innovation Fund to $20 million—it was $12 million under the previous Government—that we would set aside $4 million $5 million or $6 million each year for Maori housing particularly in rural areas. Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks Inc. Te Rarawa Ngati Awa and Ngati Hine Health Trust last year received $5.5 million. They built with that money 44 kaumatua and affordable houses across the regions which is wonderful. Maori iwi groups are applying again this year. We hope to see another 40 or 50 houses being built particularly on Maori rural land. My message for iwi leaders is to work in partnership with Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Department of Building and Housing. We want to engage with them. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why when back in 2008 the previous Labour Government had already identified 1500 sites on Crown land for affordable homes in Auckland alone has it taken him 2 years to come up with 30 sites across the whole country? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well members who have been here longer than 3 years will recall that Labour identified a fair bit of land. It included the Auckland Zoo and many many public parks across Auckland. We decided this. We consulted we went out there and discussed it amongst ourselves and we decided that we would not close down the Auckland Zoo so those bits of land were not set aside. More than simply identifying land we are just delighted to hand over the keys to some actual property. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does he appreciate that his Government’s decision to raise GST has already increased the cost of building a new home; that his decision to charge interest on the Crown land will add by his own calculations at least $36000 to the cost of a new home; and that cost of living increases across the board have already made it harder for families to get into and to sustain housing and does he realise that housing affordability will never be addressed as long as his Government continues to give with one hand and take with the other? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not consider many of those statements made by the Opposition member to be factual. What everyone in this House knows is factual is that when the previous Government was managing the economy interest rates for mortgage payers were up at around 10 and 11 percent whereas this Government is looking to manage the economy to keep interest rates down at a decent level. The most important thing we can do for first-home buyers is to manage the economy so that interest rates for mortgage payers are kept at a reasonable level not at 10 or 11 percent as they were under the previous Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you—not necessarily directly now but as you review questions today—to reflect on that answer and review the beginning which attacked the credibility of a member for the use of some facts that I am informed came from that Minister’s website. The point is that if someone is doubting a member’s word on a matter of fact then it is quite a serious matter and it used not to be allowed in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s point of order. I invite him to also check the  
Hansard  
of his colleague’s question. I think he will find that the question was actually of the kind that lends itself to a very wide range of answers. It was a total opinion question. It asked the Minister’s opinion about something and contained some facts. With supplementary questions I think Ministers are entitled to question the validity of facts and assertions inserted into supplementary questions. After all they are not meant to contain assertions beyond what is absolutely minimal to state the question. I listened very carefully to that question. I thought to myself as I heard it: “Here is a go.”—the Minister really has licence to go anywhere with that kind of question. I invite both members to look at the question asked and see why the Minister was given such licence with that kind of question to give the kind of answer that he did. 
Unemployment—Reports 
7. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports if any has she received on unemployment in New Zealand? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This Government has made unemployment its No. 1 priority during the course of the recession so the Minister receives a large number of reports on the issue. Just this morning I received the monthly benefit figures for September which show that 5890 people had cancelled benefits because they had found work. 
Hon Annette King 
: When the Minister’s colleague the Minister of Finance said at the end of September that “There’s no doubt that unemployment has peaked” had the Minister informed him that the number of people on the unemployment benefit had just gone up by 2 percent that month from the very figures that the Acting Minister has just tried to use to a total of 65281; if not why not? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not in a position to advise exactly what the Minister told the Minister of Finance but I am sure that in their conversations they reflected upon the point that when that member was the Minister of Employment there were 165000 registered unemployed in this country. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Minister agree with KPMG’s  
Mood of the Market 
 report which said almost one in five Auckland firms expected to lay off staff over this year; if so how does the Minister reconcile that with the comments of the Minister of Finance when he said “There’s no doubt that unemployment has peaked”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am uncertain whether the Minister has been briefed on that report but I do know it is correct that the trend is certainly supportive of the comments that the finance Minister has made when we consider that this Government inherited an economy that was in free fall in the midst of the worst economic recession for several generations. 
Hekia Parata 
: Can the Minister explain the situation with regard to youth unemployment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am pleased to be able to report that the September figures show a positive sign for young people who are looking for work. The number of young people as a proportion of total unemployment benefit recipients decreased from 32.7 percent a year ago to 30.4 percent last month. However we anticipate the usual seasonal increases will occur as students finish their exams. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister confirm that the National Government inherited 22000 people on the unemployment benefit and that now 65000 people are on the unemployment benefit; and how many of the 170000 jobs that are to be created over the next 4 years as promised by Gerry Brownlee have been created so far? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can certainly confirm the current number of unemployed people. As that member will realise this Government inherited an economy that was in free fall in the midst of the worst economic recession for quite some years. That recession will only get worse given that Labour promised $500 million in back-pay to disability workers and promised another $230 million of payment in other parts of the health service but does not appreciate the fact that eventually all that money needs to be paid back. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a graph from the Parliamentary Library that shows that at the change of Government the number of people on the unemployment benefit was 22000 and that as of September the number is now 65281. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement that the National Government has helped many many many unemployed young people; if so how does she reconcile that statement with the findings of the New Zealand Institute’s  
NZahead 
 project that show that “the impact of the Youth Opportunities package would affect at most 12 percent” and that “these figures do not go far towards addressing the more than 68200” unemployed youth? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is very easy to stand behind the comments that the Minister has made because the facts of the answer to the supplementary question from Mrs Parata demonstrate what the Government’s policies are achieving. We have put a lot of emphasis into this area and the Minister is doing a very good job of dealing with the No. 1 priority during these tough economic times. 
Fonterra—Capital Restructuring Plan 
8. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: How is the Government working with Fonterra to progress its capital restructuring plans? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Fonterra’s achieving a successful capital restructuring is vital to the New Zealand economy. That is why officials led by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are working closely and cooperatively with Fonterra as it develops its capital restructuring plan in detail. This is to ensure that the Government’s public policy requirements are addressed and that officials are in a position to design and implement an appropriate regulatory regime. 
Shane Ardern 
: When does the Government expect to be in a position to implement a new regulatory regime? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Fonterra aims to launch its new capital structure by November 2011. The Government is working hard to ensure that a new regulatory regime can be developed and implemented in time for this. However it is important to note that a November 2011 time frame is very ambitious. Any slippage in the joint process will mean that that timetable will be hard to meet. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will the capital restructuring allow foreign investment in Fonterra and will the National-ACT Government intervene to stop the sale of the dairy industry to foreign buyers? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Although trading amongst farmers is finally being developed by Fonterra it is difficult to answer that question in detail but I do not expect it to allow foreign investment in Fonterra in any way at all. 
Recession—Minister’s Statement 
9. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement in January this year that “as New Zealand emerges from recession the Government’s focus has firmly shifted towards significantly lifting our economic performance”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes that is certainly the case. The accumulating evidence is that this economy needs significant structural renovation and that is what this Government is setting out to achieve. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister accept Statistics New Zealand data that shows that New Zealanders on the median wage are worse off by at least $9 a week while at the same time prices have increased by almost 2 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No that is not what those numbers tell him and in any case—and this has been discussed in the House for quite some time recently—real wages are rising. If the Labour Party believes that the increase in GST is the wrong policy then it should campaign to axe the tax as Mr Goff promised some time ago and to take back the income tax cuts that New Zealanders are now enjoying. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did he claim to the House on 19 August that incomes had increased by 8.7 percent when Statistics New Zealand data clearly shows that median incomes are going backwards for the first time since 1998? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is trying to be tricky with different statistical series. The fact is that the debate in the House has used the underlying wage numbers which all Governments have employed for calculating national superannuation—that is the average after-tax ordinary time weekly wage. But if the member does not like the policy of having the increase in GST and the cut in income tax he can campaign to roll back both the GST increase and the income tax cuts and so far he has not done that. 
Craig Foss 
: What steps has the Government taken to lift New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have had to take a large number of steps because the previous Government did so much damage to the basic settings of this economy. We have reformed the tax system and across-the-board income tax cuts were put in place just a couple of weeks ago. We have helped to reduce inflation and keep interest rates low. We have increased real take-home pay and we have taken steps to get Government debt under control. We have reprioritised $4 billion of low-quality back-office Government spending and put it into the front-line areas of education health and law and order. We have introduced national standards in schools and we have cut red tape in a whole range of areas including making it easier for businesses to hire new workers. We have invested billions in infrastructure such as broadband the electricity grid roads and schools. This has helped to support thousands of jobs during the recession. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that he has said that the Government inherited an economy that was “in good shape” and that he has taken all those steps why does the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research quarterly business activity data show that manufacturing is crashing and that the GDP statistics are extremely weak and why has Fitch Ratings noted that household savings are falling further; and if all this is true exactly what part of his rebalanced recovery is still on track? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All of it is. If there is any reason why the recovery is slowing it is that households are adjusting more quickly than we expected—that is they are being more careful with their spending they are increasing their savings and they are paying off their debts. That is an adjustment that needs to occur in New Zealand and if it means in the shorter term lower business confidence it will mean in the longer term a better balanced economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with Statistics New Zealand that the 1.7 percent decline in the median wage “continues a decline in annual wage growth over the past 15 months”; if so how can his Government claim to be catching up with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Everyone knows that there has been a decline in wage growth. Wage increases have been relatively small whether they are in the private sector or in the public sector and that reflects the community’s broad understanding of the recession we are in. Of course it will require significant growth to close the gap with Australia and the Government is taking a 3 to 5 year view about the structural changes that are required to undo the damage his Government did and to lift our growth rates. We intend to persist with that programme regardless of how the economy performs quarter to quarter. 
Energy Efficiency—AA EnergyWise Rally 
10. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What is the purpose of the AA EnergyWise Rally organised by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The AA EnergyWise Rally is a biennial event designed to raise consumer awareness of fuel-efficient vehicles and fuel-saving driving techniques. Choosing a fuel-efficient vehicle and driving smoothly reduces fuel bills saves money and is environmentally friendly. The rally started in Auckland yesterday and those taking part will travel 1780 kilometres around the North Island. Forty-nine cars from 10 manufacturers have entered this rally. 
Melissa Lee 
: What awards are available to be won as part of the rally? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Certainly not one for speed I can assure members. The supreme award in the rally is for the vehicle that costs the least to complete the 1780 kilometre route including fuel and road-user charges. There are also awards for the most efficient hybrid diesel and petrol vehicles along with the most efficient driver and the most environmentally friendly car. This is just another part of the Government’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions in New Zealand. 
Broadcasting Diplomatic Incident—Resignation Agreement 
11. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Has TVNZ made any agreement to make a payment to Paul Henry on his resignation? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am not aware of any of the terms under which Mr Henry was employed. Furthermore it would be inappropriate for me to seek that information from Television New Zealand (TVNZ) as I would be contravening the Television New Zealand Act and the Crown Entities Act. If TVNZ were to reveal this information to me it might be in danger of contravening the Privacy Act and the Employment Relations Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member I say that I struggled to hear the last part of that answer. I believe it was a serious question and the level of interjection was just too high. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is he saying he does not know or is he saying he will not tell the House? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I think I was pretty clear: I do not know. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister accept that TVNZ’s dividend to the Government and its value are his responsibility and can he guarantee that these have not been reduced in any way by any payment to Mr Henry over and above the statutory minimum requirements? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has he told TVNZ not to make a payment over and above the statutory minimum requirements; if not why not? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No I have not. I refer that member to the precedent set by his colleague Trevor Mallard in 2008 when Ralph Craven departed as Transpower boss. Trevor Mallard said at that stage that Ministers were not responsible for the work of chief executives and staff or employment matters and that they were operational and a matter for the chairman. So I tell the member to go and talk to Trevor Mallard; he knows the rules on this. We are following the same form. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a big difference between being responsible and knowing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member knows he cannot litigate an answer that is available— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well he cannot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. It is up to the person questioning the Minister. If he does not like the answer he has further supplementary questions to dig in to that answer. It is not up to another member to by way of point of order interfere with it. The questioner has the opportunity if the answer does not seem appropriate or of the quality the questioner expects to dig into it with the next supplementary question. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I object to that member saying that I am telling lies. I am quoting directly— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Admittedly there was some interjection when there should not have been when a point of order was being heard. I confess that I did not hear the member assert that the Minister was— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I make it very clear that I did and I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was quite out of order so I now ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to stand and withdraw and apologise. If he is admitting he said it I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I so do. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is required to say: “I withdraw and apologise.” not: “I so do.” or whatever phrase the member used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the member made. I took what the member said to be a genuine following of my instructions. What troubles me at times is when members get up and say: “I withdraw and apologise.” as if they do not mean it at all. I thought the member indicated in the way he said it that he actually meant it. I let the issue pass; it was my judgment to let it pass. I apologise to the House if I erred there. I do not want to go back and take time to correct it now because it was my judgment at that time that the member apologised. But I stress to the House that it should not be taken as a precedent. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would be the circumstances under which a payment by TVNZ to a resigning presenter would not be acceptable and is there conduct that would be serious enough to cause that Minister to intervene offer an opinion or even pray tell ask the chief executive officer for any information? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: When we talk about what the circumstances would be we are dealing in a hypothetical area and I am not prepared to comment on that. But I note that when Steve Maharey was the Minister of Broadcasting and Ian Fraser left Television New Zealand he was loathe to make any comment at all for exactly the same reasons that I have cited. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister under what circumstances he would for instance be prepared to intervene in what circumstances he would be prepared to offer an opinion or in what circumstances he might even ask a question of his chief executive officer to be informed of the information. None of that was addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member listens to what the Minister said he said that they are hypothetical questions that the member is asking. He is not prepared to answer— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hear no evil see no evil. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! He said that he is not prepared to answer such a question; he can look only at an individual circumstance on its own merits. He cited previous Ministers who have taken a similar approach. I believe that that is answering the member’s question. As he said he is not prepared to answer such a hypothetical question. 
Nobel Peace Prize Winner—Congratulations 
12. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he follow the example of world leaders Barack Obama and Angela Merkel and congratulate the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes the Nobel Peace Prize is a prestigious award and I congratulate those who are honoured with receiving this award. 
Keith Locke 
: Will his Government be making any official representations to the Chinese Government in this particular case for the release of this brave human rights campaigner? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: New Zealand officials have previously raised the case with Chinese authorities. We have different views from those of China on some human rights issues. We have a good and robust relationship with China and we are able to raise those issues constructively. Those concerns are raised on a regular basis in China including during the most recent high-level visit by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was a forward-looking one. It was about whether the Prime Minister would be raising this particular case. The Prime Minister quite rightly gave an answer about what has happened in the past which was useful but we are interested in whether he will be raising the issue in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Prime Minister said that it is regularly raised. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: No he discussed what had happened in the past. He did not address the question as to whether he would raise it in the future—and that was the specific very focused question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members have to be reasonable and not be too pedantic. I may not have picked up the gist of the Prime Minister’s answer accurately and I apologise if that is the case but I thought that the Prime Minister told the House that the matter was raised regularly. And if it is being raised regularly and nothing happens then it is likely to be raised again—that seemed to be the purport of his answer. I may have got that wrong but the Prime Minister does not appear to be indicating that I have. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it could be clarified quite easily if the Prime Minister would just say that the Government will be raising this issue in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need to get as pedantic as that. As I indicated my interpretation of the Prime Minister’s answer was that the matter had been raised on a regular basis and likely would be again and the Prime Minister seemed to concur with my interpretation which means that the member’s question has been answered—in that if nothing happens it probably will be raised in the future. It is not possible with hypothetical questions to get too specific. I think the Prime Minister gave a reasonable answer. The member ought to be happy that it seems it has been raised and will be raised. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to get too picky but you referred to a hypothetical question. This was a very direct question not a hypothetical one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members have to be reasonable. I have been pretty tough on Ministers answering questions when I believed that the question involved information about which there should be an answer. But on this occasion the Prime Minister indicated that the matter is being raised and has been raised regularly and there was no indication that it would not be raised again if nothing happened. The Prime Minister nodded to the House as I indicated my interpretation of his answer. Therefore I believe that the member has an answer to his question—if nothing changes it is likely that it will be raised in the future. To try to get too picky over answers makes it too difficult altogether. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Early Childhood Education Spending—Task Force 
Information Unauthorised Disclosure—Investigations by State Services Commissioner 
IHC Subsidiary Companies—Statutory Management 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Sue Moroney seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the establishment of a task force to review the effectiveness of early childhood education spending. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member in her application questions statements made by the Minister in making her announcement. These are matters that will undoubtedly unfold as the independent task force goes about its work. The setting up of such a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. The time to consider the work of the task force will be when it reports. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over the other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the findings of the State Services Commissioner on two investigations into the possible unauthorised disclosure of information. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not consider it to be a matter of sufficient importance to require the House to set aside its pre-arranged business. The test is a high one. These may be sensitive matters but they lack the exceptional policy substance necessary to justify the urgent attention of the House. There are other parliamentary opportunities in which they can be examined and that application is therefore also declined. 
I have received a further letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that the Government has put two subsidiaries of the IHC into statutory management. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However there must be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. The statutory management is intended to preserve the provision of services by the companies pending the resolution of litigation and subsequent negotiations. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. That application is therefore also declined. 
Motions 
Food Standards—Folic Acid in Bread 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That this House disallow the New Zealand (Mandatory Fortification of Bread with Folic Acid) Amendment Food Standard 2009 
. It was after a lot of soul-searching and consultation with my colleagues that we decided to take the unusual step of bringing a Regulations Review Committee report to this House and using a motion to disallow a mandatory standard. 
I would like to give a brief background. In May 2004 the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand to investigate the mandatory folic acid fortification of bread to prevent neural tube defects. Under a Labour Government it took 3 years to complete consultation including two rounds of extensive public consultation. On 18 September 2007—as I said 3 years later—the Hon Annette King the Minister for Food Safety issued the 2007 food standard. 
In 2008 there was a change of Government and the Hon Kate Wilkinson was appointed as the Minister for Food Safety. She made public statements that she did not support mandatory fortification but that due to trans-Tasman food standards her hands were tied and she was unable to make any changes. Following a discussion with her Australian counterpart the Minister was advised that Australia was comfortable with New Zealand taking its own course on the matter so on 22 July 2009 the New Zealand Food Safety Authority issued a paper under the Minister’s direction. Submissions responding to that discussion paper were due back a mere 3 weeks later. 
One week after that the Minister was briefed on the outcome of the consultation period and I add here that the overview of the submissions noted that 61 preferred the status quo option 42 preferred the option the Minister went with which was revocation and 19 preferred an option of delaying the commencement of mandatory fortification. Six days later Minister Wilkinson issued the 2009 amendment food standard. Members will note that the process took just over 1 month from start to finish. 
On 11 February 2010 the Regulations Review Committee received a complaint from the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders. In August of the same year the Regulations Review Committee reported back to this House. Labour members on that committee took the unusual step of putting in a minority report marking and recording our concerns about the consultation process followed by the Minister for Food Safety. Submitters to the Regulations Review Committee made the point that that select committee is the last bastion of protection for groups who want to challenge a regulation made by a Government. 
I firmly believe that genuine consultation should be just that and on an issue as serious and important as this I do not see how it is appropriate to follow a process that took merely 1 month during which time submitters were forced to rush. Officials told the Regulations Review Committee that they were under enormous pressure that they could have done a better job if they had had more time and that they had to take extreme measures in order to report back within the Minister’s time frame. I do not believe that any member of this House should say that that is an adequate process to be followed or that it represents genuine consultation. 
I acknowledge the officials because they did the best they could in extremely difficult circumstances. We have taken the unusual step of bringing this issue to the House because we believe that a line has been stepped over and that the concept of genuine consultation is under threat in this House. 
There are many reasons why this regulation should be disallowed and I say up front that I have always been naturally wary of issues such as mandatory fortification. It is not something that I am particularly comfortable with off the bat but I strongly believe that these decisions should be evidence-based. After being challenged to review the research on folate fortification by someone who had had a stillborn child due to folate deficiency I became convinced that it is the right thing to do. 
I know that this issue inflames passions and opinions and I respect everyone’s views but I was disappointed at the one-sided nature of the debate. Medical professionals including the Paediatric Society and families living with the reality of neural tube defects tried to inject some balance but they were drowned out by those with more political clout and more money. Folate is a naturally occurring B vitamin also known as folic acid or vitamin B9. It helps our bodies make new cells and it helps prevent anaemia. Although it is particularly important for pregnant women in fact everyone needs it. This is not something that men should be scared about having in their diet—well not if they want their cells to divide. 
The campaign to fortify bread has been going for more than 20 years and it has significant research evidence backing it with 57 countries already having mandatory folate fortification. Wheat naturally contains folate but it is stripped out when we unnaturally process it into flour. Rather than mass medication as it has been labelled by opponents fortification merely replenishes a natural nutrient that has been lost during processing. In that respect this debate is different from other arguments about mandatory fortification and I ask members to remember that consumers would still have been able to purchase non-fortified organic bread. 
A diet low in folate during conception and early pregnancy means an unborn child’s nervous system may not develop the most common outcome being spina bifida. Opponents argue that pregnant women can simply be educated to take supplements but most pregnancies are not planned and many women do not realise they are pregnant until the crucial period of organ development has already taken place. That explains why research shows educational campaigns have little effect. 
Statistics have shown a drop in the number of infants born with spina bifida but the reason for that drop is that almost all women now have mid-pregnancy ultrasounds which can diagnose spina bifida and the majority of those women choose termination of pregnancy. 
Opponents mischievously claim that women must eat 11 slices of bread a day to get any benefit. That would be true only if we ate nothing but bread. Folate is found in breakfast cereals orange juice green vegetables eggs fruit and yoghurt yet most women still consume only about 200 micrograms of folate a day well below the recommended minimum 400 micrograms. Folic acid fortification of bread would likely add a maximum 140 micrograms which is still below recommendations for some but enough to minimise the likelihood of a baby being born with a congenital abnormality. 
Concerns about the health impacts of folate are not borne out by the evidence. The World Health Organization said our planned levels of fortification had shown no evidence of negative health effects and all recent studies regarding cancer risks did not look at flour fortification but at high-dose folate supplements which is what the Minister is telling women they should take instead of mandatory fortification. 
Even the Prime Minister’s much touted Chief Science Adviser—who was appointed apparently to ensure that good science is paramount in Government decisions—said there would be about a two-third reduction in neural tube defects without significantly elevating folate levels beyond the norm in anybody. He condemned the scaremongering by various interest groups and the media saying that there was no risk to human health and that “there is some laboratory evidence that chronic use in doses 20 to 50 times what we’re talking about might do harm.” 
The latest UK research has also shown no risk to health with any delays in legislation occurring because of decisions about whether to fortify just bread or all flour. Claims that studies show that folic acid causes prostate cancer in humans are also not true. The study referred to involved dosing rats with extreme levels of folic acid—levels humans would never consume. 
In terms of cost fortification in the United States added 25c to the cost of bread per person per year which is minimal when we consider the enormous lifetime cost of care for children with these conditions—$400000 per child per year. But the most compelling arguments come from the Coalition of Parents of Children with Spina Bifida. It has long been my experience that parents of children with any kind of medical condition quickly become some of the most informed and up-to-date experts on the topic. The coalition points out that opposition to fortification in New Zealand is about money not food safety. It says that the bakers’ association which led the opposition has agreed to fortification many times during face-to-face meetings over 10 years as has the National Party. The coalition’s plea to Government is this: “We don’t have the Bakers budget of thousands of dollars to fight this. We do know this programme is soundly based on quality research full consultation international support and many hours of taxpayer and volunteer dollars over the past 20 years.” 
The Labour members of the Regulations Review Committee believe that the coalition’s voice deserves to be heard. We believe that the coalition deserved a genuine process not a rubber-stamping exercise at the select committee. I see Minister Wilkinson frowning at me; she could have turned up to the select committee to defend the decision that she made but she chose not to. This is one of the reasons that we have had to bring this issue to the House. We did not want to do that; this is an unusual step. 
The Regulations Review Committee members work very well together. It is a consensus committee and it is unfortunate that on this one issue we were unable to come to an agreement that the process followed here was horribly inadequate. It was insulting—the Minister can laugh but it was insulting to all those who live with this issue every single day of their lives. The Minister could have done better; she could simply have extended the consultation period and had proper consultation. She had a number of possibilities available to her but she chose none of those possibilities. It is a shameful and sorry day for this House. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I first thank the member for providing a timely reminder as to why New Zealanders kicked the previous administration off the Treasury benches. New Zealanders overwhelmingly opposed Labour’s plan to force them to eat bread fortified with folic acid. They simply did not want it. Mandatory fortification would completely remove consumer choice. It was abundantly clear that this issue was of significant concern to the public. There had been no attempt to forge a voluntary system or focus a campaign on getting young women to eat a healthier diet. We know that folate is important for pregnancy but rather than look at a targeted method Labour wanted to blanket the entire population the vast majority of which does not need it. 
Responding to the public outcry this Government decided to reopen the issue for debate. Numerous issues needed to be worked through including ensuring that our obligations and responsibilities under the food treaty with Australia were met. We met those obligations and then called for public submissions on the matter. The process was completely transparent fair and correct. In fact the process was endorsed by the Hon Phil Goff when he said: “The public is rightly concerned. … Let’s get a review let’s get the information out into the public let’s make an informed decision about it and let’s do it without waiting till they bring it in. … It needs action now. You know if I didn’t know any better I’d say ‘Well what the hell are we doing?’ ”. That was from the Hon Phil Goff. 
The evidence concerning health and safety is well known and the material was freely available. Officials personally contacted a number of key stakeholders to ensure that they were all well aware of the consultation and the associated time frames. The consultation was also advertised in the major daily newspapers. The nature and quality of the submissions is evidence that submitters had every opportunity to make a submission. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority received roughly three times the number of submissions usually received for a routine consultation. A longer consultation period would not have resulted in a different response. 
After carefully considering the submissions it was decided—and the public agreed—that the best way forward was to defer the implementation date to May 2012. In the meantime work on a voluntary standard that would allow some bread to be fortified was instigated. Voluntary fortification has proved successful overseas including in Ireland and should always have been the first step in this debate. 
Progress has been made on voluntary fortification with the establishment of a working group made up of representatives of the baking and retail industries health professionals and academics. At a meeting last month the three main bread manufacturers noted that they are now fortifying a range of both premium and budget brand breads. 
Market research shows that women predominantly eat grain breads and it is those breads that are largely being fortified. The Baking Industry Association has also been encouraging 2000 small bakeries around the country to add folic acid to their breads. The information it sent out has been translated into different languages such as Cambodian and Mandarin to ensure that the message can be received by bakers who speak English as a second language. 
Promoting and implementing voluntary fortification is a pragmatic and sensible approach. It allows for consumer choice while also targeting the folic acid supplement section of the population who most needs it. 
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority has commissioned two pieces of research to help inform the decision on the future of the folic acid standard before the amendment expires in May 2012. This research includes work to be undertaken by Otago University to provide a comparison of the concentration of folate in red blood cells before and after the voluntary fortification initiative started. The second piece of research will be undertaken by Research New Zealand. It will look at women’s awareness and understanding of folic acid in food and its relationship to health. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: This has all been done. This is just delay tactics like blood alcohol. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Actually we are doing what Mr Goff recommended. A disallowance of the 2009 amendment standard would render all the work being undertaken redundant and is in direct contrast to the wishes of New Zealanders creating more frustration and uncertainty. We do not support the motion to disallow this standard. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting the motion to disallow the standard. We were not part of the Regulations Review Committee and we share the concern that the Labour Party mentioned that there was a very short 1-month consultation period. Nevertheless we think that the Government acted wisely when it followed Ireland and the United Kingdom who put on hold their mandatory folate fortification plans. Instead the Government has initiated a two-year review before moving to mandatory fortification. We think that that was a very wise decision and we wholeheartedly support the Government in it. 
The reason for this is that in our view if we are to think about introducing mandatory fortification—a compulsory measure that would affect virtually every New Zealander—rather than a voluntary measure which would allow consumers to have a choice a much higher test would need to be met. The Government would need to be absolutely certain that requiring a synthetic additive to be added to almost every loaf of bread in New Zealand would be effective that nobody would get too high a dose of folic acid that there would not be any harmful side effects in the long term and that there is no better way to achieve the desired outcome. In our view the mandatory fortification of virtually all bread with folic acid would fail to meet all of those criteria. Namely it is unlikely to be effective; it would result in some sectors of the population receiving too high a dose; there is—and I will expand on this—significant scientific concern about the long-term effects of mandatory fortification and as well as Moana Mackey I have also done an examination of the scientific research; and there are better ways of achieving the desired outcome. 
I look first at whether mandatory fortification would be effective. Would adding folic acid to bread achieve the objective of reducing the incidence of spina bifida in the population? The Government’s own advice from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and from the Minister for Food Safety estimates that in order for that to be effective women would need to eat approximately 11 slices of bread every day to get the necessary supplementation if they were not eating a diet rich in folate. The problem is that the people whom we are targeting are the very people who do not eat a diet rich in folate. The advice went on to say— 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s targeting every woman. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is interesting that the member said she wanted to have a reasoned debate and she understood that there are different points of view on this issue yet here she is shouting about it. Let us just have a reasonable debate because there are very different points of view. The Food Safety Authority went on to say that as well as consuming up to 11 slices of bread women would also need to take folic acid supplementation at the same time. This begs the question of how many young women particularly the young women whom we would be targeting are likely to consume approximately 11 slices of bread every day. I would suggest few if any. The other question is why a Government would want to encourage women or anyone to eat 11 slices of bread a day since this would contribute to obesity rates and consequent health problems such as type 2 diabetes. Why would the Government propose a public health measure that would contribute to significant public health problems especially when it is allegedly committed to reducing the incidence of obesity and type 2 diabetes? 
The second issue is whether the Government could be certain that nobody would get too high a dose of folic acid if there was mandatory fortification. The answer is that it could not be certain because the Government has been given advice by the Food Safety Authority that some children will regularly consume excessive amounts of folic acid if we go ahead with mandatory fortification. It said: “We continue to have concerns that 13.8% of New Zealand males aged 5-8 years and 8.2% of New Zealand females aged 5-8 years are going to exceed the upper level of intake …”. It points out that mandatory fortification with folic acid in America resulted in 43 percent of children under 5 years of age having too much folic acid. We know that our young children would have too high a dose of folic acid according to the Food Safety Authority. Should this matter? Does this matter? Many will say: “So what?”. Well it matters a lot because we have considerable conflicting research about the benefits and harms of folic acid. Sure there is evidence—and we do not dispute it—that folic acid can protect against some cancers and against spina bifida. But at the same time it can accelerate the risk of developing cancers—in particular colon cancer—and the growth of pre-cancerous tumours and cells which are of course common in our population. In other words high intakes of folic acid can be beneficial to some and detrimental to others at the same time. 
I can recite many professors if the member would like me to do that but I will quote just one Professor Joel Mason. He said folic acid is a two-edged sword and that “… We’re presented with this horrible dilemma that on the one hand taking ample quantities of folic in the diet is helpful. On the other hand it might be accelerating the risk of developing certain cancers in certain people.” It is because of this that Professor David Smith said as a high folic acid intake may be harmful to some people and cause the growth of pre-cancerous tumours and cells “Nations considering fortification should be cautious”—I repeat: “Nations considering fortification should be cautious”—and they should undertake further research before developing strategies for the population as a whole. In fact he is also quoted as saying “Fortifying all flour with folic acid is potentially a national health disaster” and he has argued that if the Americans had known in 1996 what we know now then they would never have introduced it. 
We cannot dispute this. There is evidence that folic acid can cause pre-cancerous tumours to grow and there is also evidence that it can be beneficial to some people. So I ask why a responsible Government faced with evidence that high intakes of folic acid can cause pre-cancerous tumours to grow would introduce it on a mandatory basis in all breads so that every New Zealander would be consuming it and some would be consuming potentially dangerously high levels of it. Some researchers are worried about epidemiological research that shows that at the same time as Canada and America introduced mandatory fortification there was also an increase in the rates of colon cancer. Everyone acknowledges that this does not prove a link but it does invite caution. That is one of the reasons why both Ireland and the United Kingdom have put mandatory fortification on hold while they look at the emerging issues of cancer risk. These are conservative bodies. Similarly a group of Irish experts said we should defer making a decision on mandatory fortification because they are aware of new studies that suggest a link between high intakes of folic acid and the risk of cancer. 
Ireland found that voluntary fortification there increased folate levels in its population by 30 percent and that there is no need for mandatory fortification if there is a successful roll-out of voluntary fortification. I am aware that 34 brands of bread have been fortified with folic acid. Other researchers say that if half of all women who are planning a pregnancy took folic acid supplements at the correct time then the reduction in the incidence of neural tube defects would be equivalent to that achieved by mandatory fortification. But I think there was concern about whether bakers would follow through on their promise to introduce the voluntary fortification of bread. They have introduced it to 34 breads. Frankly I am concerned that many of the breads they are introducing it to are wholemeal breads when its introduction should be focused on white breads. The member for Labour pointed out that one of the problems is that wholemeal breads have folic acid in them naturally but it is stripped out of white flour during processing. Surely then that is the problem. We should try to stop the processing that strips out folic acid and give people wholemeal bread. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Today our caucus held a baby shower for one of our staff members who is expecting her first baby in less than a month’s time. We have another staff member due to give birth to her second child in February and we have another staff member who delights us all by occasionally bringing her 5-month-old wonder Kori-Lee into our offices. I am not laying down these facts as a parliamentary challenge to see which party has the most fertile office but more to remind ourselves how absolutely blessed we are with the arrival of any new baby when that baby comes into our lives. I hasten to suggest that if one were to ask any of the members of our party what featured amongst their most significant moments in life it would be the birth of their children. So we come to this debate absolutely clear about the wonder of whakapapa the miracle of conception and the joy of welcoming a newborn into our midst. 
We understand that the proposal to establish mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid comes from much the same thinking as investing in folate as an incentive to protect and preserve the health and well-being of women who are in their early stages of pregnancy and their developing babies. We recognise the motivation in the motion put forward by Moana Mackey to disallow the New Zealand (Mandatory Fortification of Bread with Folic Acid) Amendment Food Standard 2009. I place on record the complexity associated with this issue and the considerable thought it has provoked. The Maori Party supports any move that can be taken to encourage pregnant women to either take or abstain from whatever substances will assist in protecting the unborn child whether that be folic acid—the synthetic form of folate—natural folate as in leafy vegetables citrus fruits wholegrain bread or yeast or indeed being smoke-free or alcohol-free. But we note the view of Consumer New Zealand that mandatory fortification would not fully address the health issue as there would still be the need to promote a diet high in folate-rich foods. Women planning a pregnancy would still need to take a folic acid supplement. Consumer New Zealand suggested and it was reiterated by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority that pregnant women should increase the folate in their diet by eating fruit and vegetables and wholegrain breads and cereals. The authority also confirmed that folic acid as a supplement is readily available and affordable and sold over the counter as a medicine at pharmacies. 
But another statement from Consumer New Zealand raised the antenna for us and that was its concern at the move to mandatory fortification because it might result in limited consumer choice and nutrient imbalances and excesses in children and the elderly. Consumer New Zealand supported the suspension of plans to compel bakers to add folic acid to bread but emphasised instead that the Government should publicly fund an awareness campaign stressing the importance of folate supplements. This is where the Maori Party states our preference. There appear to be a number of issues that our members have found hard to resolve. I want to share some of the questions with the House to explain our discussions on this issue. If the target is pregnant women and unborn babies then what will be the impacts for all other sectors of the population from increased levels of folate? What is the reliability of the information that suggests that folic acid fortification is associated in time with an additional risk of colon cancer? 
We have come across some studies in the US and Canada and Chile that suggest there is a causal relationship albeit a weak one between folate enrichment and colorectal cancer. However the point for us is that it raises the question. As lawmakers we must debate the ethics and morality behind every issue that comes before this House. We cannot afford to look at the issue without considering all the impacts and implications for people. 
We appreciate the views of Dietitians New Zealand which does not support mandatory fortification with folic acid until more research is done. It recommended that further good-quality baseline data should be collected prior to major fortification to determine the benefits or potential harm for a population-wide intervention. It also argued that the mandatory fortification programme in America has actually reduced the amount of pregnant women taking the folic acid supplements which are still needed to ensure sufficient amounts are reached during pregnancy. We have heard very clearly that folate has been proven to prevent neural tube defects and that as a consequence the Ministry of Health has recommended that extra folate is crucial a month before conception and 12 weeks after conception. We have also heard that approximately one-third of women do consume the recommended amount. 
There are some real concerns for us around unplanned pregnancies or women who simply do not realise they are pregnant until well after the time they have started taking the supplement. As New Zealand has high rates of youth pregnancies this group is at high risk as they may be low in both iron and folate. During the course of our research we contacted Te Hotu Manawa Maori which raised some of the issues specific to Maori in relation to this issue. The fact is that so many of our women may have low iron low baseline folate intake and potentially low vitamin C intake and if that is associated with oral contraceptives all of those will increase the risk of low serum folate levels and neural tube defects. 
So the overriding question for us is how we can assure this group that it will be aware and able to access the foods that are fortified. What sort of information do we need to promote to this group the value of consuming green leafy vegetables such as asparagus broccoli and spinach or to increase their intake of mushrooms potatoes legumes and seeds? How do we encourage this group to eat breads cereals and in some cases pasta or dairy products which will increase their folate intake? We absolutely agree with Te Hotu Manawa Maori that gaining knowledge of and education on the importance of folate for everyone and specifically for women of childbearing age is something that all of us can do and we would particularly encourage the Minister of Health to look further at promoting this possibility. 
Finally I raise a question about the way in which this debate has been discussed with particular reference to the focus on the risk of having a child with spina bifida. I will share the views of Ruth Jones from Kanohi ki te Kanohi Ltd who has issued the challenge that an assumption is made by those without disabilities that people with spina bifida and related conditions are seriously disabled. I will share some of her statements with the House as I believe they remind us of some of the issues we should consider. She said: “I am aware that when we talk about ‘reducing these birth defects’ we are actually talking about a distinct population group within the disability community and the assumption is made by those without disabilities that people with spina bifida and related conditions are ‘seriously disabling’. … The conditions that are disabling are not the impairment but society’s response to us. Therefore mandatory fortification of bread for me means that again a whole population group gets ignored misrepresented and marginalised.” 
There are so many issues associated with the proposal to introduce a synthetic form of folate into bread as a universal intervention to prevent folate deficiency. For a start it would be great to hear that the Government is reviewing my bill to take GST off healthy foods which would support a move to increase the consumption of folate an essential B vitamin found naturally in leafy vegetables and citrus fruits. We believe that the vitamins and supplements that help to make pregnant women ready for baby should be freely available for whanau in order for them to make good choices. If we are serious about building capacity and caring for future generations then we need an approach that combines the provision of these supplements with an effective education campaign. We do not support the member’s motion. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will begin by associating myself with what has been said already by Moana Mackey on the merits of the issue. New Zealand tried the voluntary fortification of commercially produced bread. It was a failure. Bread producers just ignored the voluntary standard and nothing happened. It was right to do what Annette King did in September 2007 which was to join the Australians and move towards mandatory fortification. 
The decision of the Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson to delay mandatory fortification will lead to the birth of many more children with birth defects in this country. Bowing to the commercial interests of big producers will have that cost in human terms. For that reason it was a cruel decision and certainly one that is not consistent with the Minister’s statutory duty to uphold and protect the public health. 
It was also a flawed decision as the view of Labour members recorded in the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the amendment to food standards shows. In particular the consultation process adopted by the Minister was seriously flawed. It was far too short and its results were treated without any real regard. The facts are these. A discussion paper was issued on 22 July 2009. Submissions were required some 3 weeks later on 12 August 2009. It has been suggested that the consultation period was limited by the looming deadline for mandatory fortification which was September 2009 but there is simply no reason that the Minister could not have just extended that deadline to allow for a more realistic time frame for submissions to be made. But she did not so submitters had just 3 weeks to respond to the discussion paper. Worse than that was the way in which submissions were treated so much so that the inevitable conclusion must be on an objective review of the evidence that the outcome of the entire exercise was predetermined. 
The discussion paper set out three options regarding the 2007 food standard: maintain it revoke it or delay its implementation. Of the 123 submissions received after the 3-week consultation period fully 61 sought to retain the status quo but those submissions were simply disregarded by the Minister. 
If we look objectively at the process that I have just described we see that no scrutiny committee doing its job properly could uphold it. But the Regulations Review Committee dividing between its National and its Labour members unusually on this occasion did uphold that process and the majority—the four members of the committee who appeared at the time of the vote from National—voted to uphold the process. This goes to the nub of the issue that I will deal with in my speech as chair of the Regulations Review Committee. The issue is the effectiveness of the committee as it is currently constituted. 
Originally when the committee was set up at the beginning of this Parliament it had three National members three Labour members and one Maori Party member. The seventh member of the committee was Rahui Katene from whom we have just heard. That is the right way to constitute a scrutiny committee under an MMP Parliament. There ought to be an equal number of members from the two major parties and then there ought to be a third party member who can bring some independence to the process of the deliberations of the committee. It also helps that by convention we have an Opposition chair of the Regulations Review Committee. This means that the committee can work in a non-partisan way. It can look at the questions of procedure before it and try to bring some independence to the scrutiny with which the committee is charged. But earlier this year Rahui Katene announced that she was too busy to continue to attend meetings of the committee. That is fair enough— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Bit uncharitable. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am not trying to make a partisan point here I say to Mr Hide. I understand that it is hard for smaller parties to stretch their resources across the committee commitments that are expected of them. So it is not a problem in itself that the member announced she was too busy to keep coming to the committee; the problem is that she did not resign. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member on his feet. I accept the point he is making but I ask you this. We are not allowed to refer to a member’s presence in the House or more particularly the member’s absence from the House. I believe that the same rule applies to a select committee. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Speaking to the point of order I am not in any way referring to the absence or presence of a member in the House or at a committee meeting. I am describing objective facts about the decision of the member to no longer come to the committee. I am sure that it is not an announcement that member would dispute. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I would like to say that I am entirely fresh with all the Speakers’ rulings on this matter but I will say this. It is not always an absolute rule that one must not refer to the absence of a member. It is an open rule and a general one but I took it from the member’s speech that it was in no particular way a direct criticism of the member concerned. People in this job are very busy and everyone here in this House knows that members cannot do every job that is before them. For someone to say that he or she is too busy to do that is in my opinion perfectly acceptable. It is much better than the alternative which is for a member to continue to say he or she will do the job but not do it because of a shortage of time. I did not see it as being a personal reflection on Rahui Katene. It certainly was not the tenor of the speech. From that point of view I have no objection to the member continuing. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: After Rahui Katene announced she was to withdraw from the business of the committee she did not resign from the committee but instead arranged with the National whip to be permanently replaced by a National member a different member on different occasions on the committee. The problem from the point of view of the independence of the scrutiny committee is that it now has a permanent majority of National members. For that reason the laughable consultation process to which I have referred was approved by the Regulations Review Committee with Labour members dissenting as I say in a very unusual move. The decision of Ms Katene to withdraw from the committee and allow herself to be permanently replaced has ramifications beyond this debate today beyond the issue of whether the Minister and her consultation process should have passed muster in the committee. 
We undertake routine scrutiny of every regulation that is promulgated by the Government. Every piece of delegated legislation that becomes part of the law of this land comes before the Regulations Review Committee for scrutiny. The Canterbury emergency orders are all coming to the committee for scrutiny by special arrangement of this House so that the public can be assured that the House will give proper scrutiny to those extraordinary orders. 
My plea to the Maori Party is to take responsibility for membership of the Regulations Review Committee seriously. I would love to see— 
Rahui Katene 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fail to see how this line fits with the debate. I think the member is straying too far away from the subject of the debate and he needs to bring his remarks back to the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will allow the member to continue because he is describing for me anyway the process by which the committee came to its decision and the workings of the committee which is part of the reason why we are today having a debate on a disallowance motion. I will allow the member to continue. 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker said quite correctly in his last statement that the Maori Party did not take its responsibilities in this House seriously. I think that reflects badly on the workings of this House and that party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that his point of order fails on two counts. Firstly a member cannot take offence on behalf of another member just as a member cannot take offence on behalf of another party and secondly taking something seriously or not seriously is I would suggest an entirely debatable point. If the member feels offended by that I look forward to him not making similar allegations himself in the future. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I would love to see Rahui Katene back on the Regulations Review Committee. 
Hon Member 
: Get out of the gutter. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am not sure whether that was Amy Adams or another member asking me to get out of the gutter but I hope that she and other members of the Regulations Review Committee would acknowledge my attempts to chair that committee in an objective fashion. If not then I will redouble my efforts. 
The speech we heard from Rahui Katene today was superb. It dealt with the issues that ought to have been dealt with in the committee. If the member had been present in the committee for the hearing the debate and the discussion the committee would have benefited greatly from her presence. But unfortunately she abrogated her responsibility as a member of the committee and gave to the National whip the right to appoint her replacement on every occasion. That means that we do not have an independent scrutiny committee in this Parliament. The Regulations Review Committee plays an important role in our constitutional arrangements and its members some of whom are present in the House generally do an incredibly diligent job in trying to exercise seriously the responsibilities that they have. 
The fact remains that it is hard for a Government backbencher to resist the will of the executive. That is why the committee was set up in the way it was at the beginning of this Parliament with no Government majority and with an independent chair. Only by restoring the independence of the committee can the House be truly assured that the committee will do its job properly particularly with the pressing public importance of the Canterbury orders coming before it. 
I will conclude on this note: if we do not see that proper balance in the committee restored by either the Maori Party doing the right thing or the Business Committee taking charge of the issue then I certainly cannot guarantee that this will be the last debate of its kind during the life of this Parliament. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 In light of the discussion about the points of order I too will return to a discussion of the process that the Regulations Review Committee of which I am the deputy chair undertook when considering this complaint. A few months ago the committee considered the complaint that had been lodged by the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders about the New Zealand (Mandatory Fortification of Bread with Folic Acid) Amendment Food Standard 2009. We heard evidence relating to the complaint from members of the organisation and from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. All submitters were well prepared and presented their evidence and appeals with clarity and conviction. I acknowledge them all and thank them for the care and sincerity they demonstrated. 
There is no question that the fortification of bread with folic acid has some health benefits for some women of childbearing age and their progeny who may be at risk of being born with a rare genetic disorder. That is why many countries have successfully introduced voluntary fortification of bread and it is why the New Zealand Government indicated last year that work would be undertaken on a voluntary standard that would allow some bread to be fortified. 
It was important for members of the Regulations Review Committee to restrict their focus during the hearing of the complaint and consideration of evidence to matters of process and not to stray into matters of policy in accordance with the purpose of our committee. The focus of the Regulations Review Committee is technical scrutiny not scrutiny of policy. Our role was therefore to consider the complaint against the grounds set out in the Standing Orders focusing on the technical aspects of the delegated legislation that were pertinent to the complaint. 
As a result of consideration of the issues raised in the complaint we concluded and reported to the House in August of this year that the 2009 amendment food standard is in accordance with the general objects and intentions of the Food Act 1981 does not appear to make unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Food Act and most important in the context of this debate was made in compliance with particular notice and consultation procedures prescribed by the Food Act. I provide those details to the House because they underline the point made earlier by the Minister for Food Safety that the consultation process that was undertaken in New Zealand leading to the adoption of the New Zealand (Mandatory Fortification of Bread with Folic Acid) Amendment Food Standard 2009 was comprehensive and robust. 
In seeking to have the standard disallowed by way of the motion that we are debating this afternoon Moana Mackey is urging the House to revert to a position adopted by the previous Labour Government that attracted widespread opposition throughout New Zealand. Notwithstanding the earnest representations of the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders which we all understand and respect when the previous Government announced its plans for mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid there was strong evidence of stern resistance to the measure from New Zealanders. Labour intended to remove consumer choice. 
There was significant media coverage of the issue then and again when the new Government responded to that widespread public opposition by commencing an investigation of this country’s options given that the standard was a feature of our joint food treaty with Australia. The Government made a decision to ask New Zealanders whether they wanted mandatory fortification of their bread with folic acid. That was done by way of a discussion document being issued and public submissions being invited. Thanks to significant media interest and coverage members of the public were well aware of the issues under consideration and of their opportunity to influence the Government’s response. And they did so. 
Moana Mackey 
: They had 1 month! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Contrary to what members opposite are asserting we were told at our inquiry that the level of responses at that time was entirely normal and as would be expected in the circumstances. 
Moana Mackey 
: How do you know? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: We were told that fact I say to Ms Mackey during the inquiry. It was a thorough and appropriate process. 
Those submissions resulted in an overwhelming indication from the public of New Zealand that they wanted to be able to choose whether they eat bread that is fortified with folic acid. Men in particular were concerned about some significant adverse health effects that they could experience from being subjected to the additive. Sue Kedgley earlier referred to those issues. Elderly New Zealanders were also strongly opposed to the measure. There is no evidence that anything has changed since they made their submissions. 
Although consumer choice was an important aspect it should be noted that it was not the only factor that the Government took into account. The Government’s statement on regulation sets out the expectation that voluntary measures should be used in preference to regulatory measures where possible. The Regulations Review Committee—far from being a rubber stamp and an insulting process as Moana Mackey suggested when she concluded her speech earlier—undertook its work thoroughly and the chairperson Mr Chauvel indicated earlier that we always do so. I acknowledge that he is a fair even-handed chairman and he does the job extraordinarily well. 
The committee undertook its work thoroughly and on the evidence found that the process followed was not only adequate but also thorough. It is for that reason that this resolution will and should be voted down this afternoon. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin by commending the Labour members on the Regulations Review Committee—Charles Chauvel Moana Mackey and Jacinda Ardern—and thanking them for the way they have considered the complaints that came before them a little while ago. I also commend the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders and particularly John Forman who brought the complaint to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee. I understand that Mr Forman is listening to the debate and I think he should give himself a big pat on the back for the work that he did in ensuring that this very important issue received some attention from Parliament even though the issue will be unable to be progressed. Mr Forman has done his work on behalf of other people. Too few New Zealanders do that so he should be commended by the whole of Parliament. I also acknowledge and thank Moana Mackey for moving this motion to disallow the food standard. 
We have heard from numerous members of the House already. Members of the National Party a member of the Green Party and in fact a member of the Maori Party repeated the basis of the campaign in opposition to the addition of folate to our bread but unfortunately the information that they have given to the House is incorrect. The campaign in opposition to the addition of folate was based on lies. It was a deliberate campaign; it was an orchestrated campaign; it was a totally unscientific campaign. It was a campaign driven by a small number of people in New Zealand but because an orchestration of lies was conducted as part of the campaign a number of the public were understandably disturbed by it. In that situation it seems to me that politicians of courage principle and integrity would stand up to people who were lying would stand up on behalf of the truth and would make some effort to explain it. That is not what is happening because the Minister for Food Safety is a weak Minister. She was prepared to do as she was told by the Prime Minister and to make an untidy situation just go away rather than stand up for truth and for healthier babies being born in New Zealand. To me doing that would not have been a big ask; any politician of courage and integrity would do that. The Minister proved that she had neither courage nor integrity. I think what has occurred represents a great loss of opportunity for our country. 
I want to get to the nub of the issue of why it was proposed to put folate back into bread. Actually it is already in there but during the manufacture of bread it is lost as part of the processing. So if we want to get to a wholly natural state as Sue Kedgley indicated then we would take this measure because we would be putting folate back that is taken out during the process of making bread. What happens if a pregnant woman does not have enough vitamin B9 in her diet during the term of her pregnancy? One of the things that happens is that the foetus might not be carried to full term and often quite late in the pregnancy the woman miscarries. It is a pretty hard thing for a woman and her partner to go through a miscarriage at any time in a pregnancy but that is particularly so in the case of a late one resulting from neural tube defects caused by the lack of folate in a woman’s diet. There is one cause with one remedy but the National Government said no. So National says it does not matter whether a pregnant woman has a miscarriage of a baby that she wanted to have. It is not worried about trying to prevent that. I think that is wrong; it is the wrong decision to make. 
The parents may choose to have a pregnancy terminated because of the impairment of a baby—and that is not an easy decision for them to make either—or the baby could be born with spina bifida. I make it crystal clear that this debate is not about reducing the value of the citizenship and worth of any person in New Zealand who has spina bifida. That is not what this debate is about. This debate is about ensuring that when we as a Parliament have an opportunity to reduce impairment reduce ill health then we should take it. It does not mean that anyone who has spina bifida is any less worthy a person than anyone without it. In the same way we would no longer encourage women to take thalidomide; we would not do that any more. That says nothing to reduce the value of people who were born impaired as a result of their mothers taking thalidomide. We just would not continue to take it in pregnancy knowing the effect that it has. 
I referred earlier on to the misinformation that drove the orchestrated campaign on behalf of the bakers against the addition of vitamin B to our bread. The United States the land of the free the land of consumer choice and the leading light for non-intervention has had mandatory folate addition to bread for years because it knows health outcomes are better as a result of doing that. But let me get back to the misinformation. The member from Hamilton and also some other members referred to consumer choice. They said consumers need to have the ability to choose whether they want to eat bread with folate added in case they might not like it or something— 
Moana Mackey 
: They don’t want their cells to divide! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: They do not want their cells to divide! For some reason we are suddenly obsessed with consumer choice. I tell Mr Macindoe that some women do not know they are pregnant. This will be gobsmacking news to the member I am sure. If women do not know they are pregnant for a month or two months or three months it is too late for them to take up their consumer choice option of adding folate to their diet. It is too late by then. Hundreds of women in New Zealand do not know they are pregnant until it is too late for that additional folate to make a difference to the neural tube situation of the foetus they are carrying. That is why consumer choice is a load of hogwash in this debate. The member should know better than to say what he did. 
The other term that we heard was “mass medication”; “mass medication” is giving a vitamin to people who might not need it. What a terrible thing it is to consider doing that when the reason for it concerns the health and well-being of unborn babies. I personally think it is worth taking the risk of possibly having a little too much vitamin B9 in one’s diet for the sake of the health of babies who have no choice at all about what their mother eats when we have the ability to change their future. 
Some members repeated the absolute nonsense that women would have to eat 11 slices of bread every day for the whole of their pregnancy in order for the added folate to make a difference. For that rubbish to be perpetuated in a grown-up adult Parliament is a disgrace. They would need to eat 11 slices of bread only if they ate nothing else. That might be the case for some people. I personally do not know anyone who eats only bread but that might be the situation for some people. It is rubbish to say that that would have to be the case in order to meet the level of vitamin B9 required to make a difference to the health of a woman’s unborn child—it is just rubbish. 
A previous speaker also talked about the United Kingdom and said we should follow its example by introducing the voluntary addition of folate to bread. Our bakers refused to do that; they said they wanted it to be mandatory. They did not want to go along with a voluntary code because they were nervous about the nonsense that was spoken on their behalf during the debate on this issue. They thought then that people would not buy bread with added folate so the whole purpose of adding it would be defeated. But in the United Kingdom that was not the subject of the debate; the debate there was about the point in the processing of food at which to add the folate: to flour or to bread. 
This motion should be supported. It should be supported on behalf of the hundreds and hundreds of unborn children for whom we have the ability to make a difference to the quality of their health and their lives. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the previous speaker and previous Minister of Health the Hon Ruth Dyson on bringing such a reasoned approach and sensible and empirically driven points to the House today. I also congratulate my Labour colleagues who made one more attempt to bring this disallowance motion to the House and Moana Mackay on moving the motion in the House today. 
This is a very very sad day and many parents of New Zealand are very very saddened by the National Government’s political decision on this disallowance motion. 
I congratulate the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders which is concerned with children born with terrible disorders—sometimes overwhelming disorders—with which they have to live their lives. That organisation brings to the House and to members of Parliament research that develops methods of prevention treatment and cure for those families who are living with genetic and other rare disorders. I congratulate the organisation on taking this issue of folate to the Regulations Review Committee and making another attempt to convince the National-led Government that its process here is having an impact on up to 30 babies every year who are born with neural tube defects. Government members over there do not care and I am amazed because Professor Fiona Stanley the Australian of the Year said that this is the one preventable rare disorder where we do not have to resort to termination of pregnancy and which we can prevent by simply adding back to bread folate that has been milled out in the manufacturing process. 
Annette King picked up this issue when she was the Minister of Health. At that time we had cross-party support. The Greens had a reserved position because they wanted the option of non-fortified bread but it was actually Dr Paul Hutchison of National who wrote several opinion pieces and convinced the then Opposition spokesperson for health that fortification of bread with folate was something that National should support. But since agreeing to the food standard promulgated by Minister Annette King in 2007 the current Minister for Food Safety in New Zealand Minister Kate Wilkinson has changed her mind. She instructed the select committee that was set up to act against the Labour members to get this issue off the Order Paper quickly and get it out of the way quickly as it was an embarrassment to the New Zealand Government. 
We are the one country that has reneged on our international agreement; even Iraq Iran and Yemen last year fortified bread. Look at New Zealand. We are still delaying the fortification of bread with folate and have as the resulting impact up to 30 babies every year born with neural tube defects. I was a midwife who assisted with over 5000 deliveries. I think those in the House who are speaking after hearing evidence have no idea what it is like for sufferers of neural tube defects and their families. 
If we apply a very pure economic model of avoided costs for urology neurology orthotics and special education services—let alone taking into consideration the suffering of individuals with neural tube defects and their families who are responsible for raising those children in New Zealand today at a time of cost-cutting by the National Government of disability services—we see that the health costs alone are an argument for putting back the mandatory fortification of folate into our flour. This delay is unacceptable. 
We certainly support this disallowance motion in the House today. I remind members who said that the Regulations Review Committee was purely about process that politicians were voted to come into the House to make bold decisions and not to hide behind process. Politicians on that select committee had yet another opportunity to make a brave decision to help up to 30 babies born in New Zealand every year with neural tube defects. Those in Government did not take that opportunity and they hide behind process today. I congratulate Labour members on their strong stance on this disallowance motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 77 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Maiden Statements 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 Today I stand before the House honoured to take my place as a member of Parliament for ACT New Zealand. I pay tribute to those whose hard work and dedication to the ACT Party and its principles over many years have brought me here today. I thank the electors who made the choice to vote for the ACT Party. I hope I can live up to their expectations. I also thank the people of Epsom who made strategic decisions that have supported the ACT Party in Parliament. 
Mahatma Gandhi in  
Young India 
 in 1925 described the first of seven social sins as politics without principles. As the members who have shared and continue to share the privilege of being part of the government of New Zealand have done before me I come before you with my own politics informed by my own principles. There is no government independent of the people; good government is the voice of the people. It has three roles: protection of its citizens provision of communal services and giving a hand up to those who have fallen through the cracks. It cannot replace our hopes and dreams our strengths and abilities. 
We are a country of immigrants or people whose ancestors were immigrants. We and our ancestors came to New Zealand to make a better life for ourselves and our families. I have come to this House to pay respect to this background we all share and to be part of making New Zealand a better place for all New Zealanders and for the generations to come. 
I am here today because of the support of my husband my children and my wider family and friends. I cannot thank them enough. I am very happy that my husband and children are here with me today and I am sad that neither of my parents has lived to see this day. 
For all of us our values and beliefs come first from the experiences we have as children at home. In my family we were brought up to work hard look after ourselves and help others when we could. When I was born I was the youngest of four children and by the time I was 10 I was the youngest of six children. During my childhood my parents added two brothers to my family. These two brothers were some of the extra people my parents looked after in our home over the years. 
My father was a third-generation lawyer in Otago. I have followed in his footsteps and my oldest daughter has now taken up the mantle. Having the privilege of practising as a lawyer has helped me to understand the vital role the laws of our country play in the well-being of our citizens and the development of a civil society. 
I served as a trustee of the Otago Central Rail Trail Charitable Trust from its beginning until earlier this year. When we first began as trustees the farmers were concerned about townies coming and upsetting stock. The Hon Warren Cooper had suggested to the owners on either side of the trail that maybe the best thing was to merge the railway land with the contiguous farms. Communities along the track were shrinking. The Department of Conservation was lukewarm but was prepared to go with the rail trail if there was enough community interest to support it. Now 15 years on the communities along the trail are revitalised. Farmers can now get a latte at a local caff. Communities along the trail are growing rural people are employed and everyone is learning new skills for new opportunities to live and work in their local area. I am proud to have been able to contribute to this wonderful asset. 
As I thought about what I hope to bring to Parliament I thought about how these experiences have helped me form my political principles. It is my belief that the people are strong when the Government stays in its place. My family has taught me that a strong family unit with people helping and supporting each other is by far the best basis for a good society. The more the Government interferes in a family the less functional the family tends to become. The Government it turns out cannot provide a stable happy family life for any of us; only we the people can do that. 
These days children are not able to be offered a new family to grow up in as two of my brothers were. Instead we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping children with their family of origin the State intervening constantly in their situation often with little useful effect. And the State having intervened cannot even keep the children safe. 
My parents also taught me that we are all responsible for the choices we make. When we teach our children to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own actions we help lay the foundation for them to live a good and fulfilling life. We encourage the idea that we are masters of our own destiny. We allow ourselves to dream and to believe that we can make a difference in our own lives. We become whomever we choose instead of victims of a world that does things to us. 
My work as a lawyer underpins my belief that the Government should provide fair laws and universal laws. The picture of justice is the picture of a blind woman depicting the fundamental principle that justice is blind. These laws should support property rights be clear be predictable and be the least they can be to achieve the objective for which they are made. 
For an example of how not to draft good laws we need look no further than the bill that is intended to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Every law has a purpose and it seems that the purpose of this law is to serve as an example to us all of how not to draft legislation. I was pleased today to hear the Attorney-General say that he was able to look at amendments which will improve the bill hugely. That the bill has proceeded this far must be worrying to all New Zealanders who have any understanding of what it proposes. As a rule of thumb if one cannot explain it on one page and make it open for informed debate one should not make a new law about it. 
My work with the Otago Central Rail Trail helped me understand that people will contribute much more when they are truly part of a project. If it had been left to the Government alone that rail trail would not be here today. Now the Government is so pleased with the idea of rail trails that it is supporting many more kilometres of trails around New Zealand. The most successful of these will always be the ones that are supported at grassroots level. 
The Otago Central Rail Trail has progressed as a partnership between the community and the Government. In my experience the success of such partnerships stems from a community retaining a real and close relationship to the project. If a Government agency takes something over people become much less interested in making further contributions. The stark reality is that when the Government takes a dollar from us and spends it New Zealanders are likely to receive 60c in value but if a community project gets a dollar from the Government and uses it as a base for inputs from the community we will receive something like $10 in value. This alone is good reason not to siphon more money through the Government than is absolutely necessary. 
Wealth without work is the second of Mahatma Gandhi’s seven social sins. As a lawyer I have seen the effect that not having a job has on families. There is an economic effect which can be moderated but the only way for people of working age to feel good about themselves is by making a contribution to their own journey through life and for true fulfilment making a contribution to the journey of others. This does not have to be as part of the paid workforce but we all need to feel we are making a contribution. 
Wealth without work is a corrosive concept and it becomes even more damaging if it comes about through Government-sanctioned ideas of entitlement. It is the role of the Government to remove barriers to work rather than to promise jobs for all. As soon as the Government takes over responsibility for our economic welfare we lose all interest in helping as individuals. This is hardly surprising as once we have paid taxes on everything we earn and everything we spend at a high rate we feel that we are already doing our bit. Instead of feeling that we should help our fellow citizens we feel that we are already helping hugely through our taxes and we have little left to spare once the Government has repatriated whatever it chooses of our money. 
Something the media has not found out about me is that I was a Scottish country dancer. Also I am the owner of a rather large dog which I walk regularly. Neither of these activities is something the State should take an interest in. I do not expect subsidies for myself and others who share in my interests nor do I wish to provide through my taxes a subsidy to others who have their own interests and hobbies. 
The Government has no role in my choices in general—that is unless I or my dog or my dancing cause problems to other citizens. Any harm I cause to others is of concern to the State. For us all to make our own choices relies on the State to protect us from each other to provide a framework for the proper interaction between us and to sanction those who would reduce our freedoms by doing us harm or threatening our peace. 
The Government is the guardian of taxpayers’ money and this money is taken on the basis that it will be used wisely and equitably. The Government has always struggled with providing services equally to all citizens. The catchcry of the Inland Revenue Department has been “It’s our job to be fair.” “It’s our job to be fair” should underpin all Government services not just the ones that take our money from us. It would be easier to achieve this aim if bureaucracy was kept to a minimum between the people and the people with the purse strings. 
If we are not getting a fair deal in Government services throughout New Zealand it ought to be very transparent as to whom we should be taking to task. The services funded by the Government should be transparent and accountable. A particular challenge for the provision of health services in New Zealand is to maximise value for money in the products and services provided and to provide equitable access to healthcare. 
In the South Island there is a move to have neurosurgery provided from Christchurch. This is likely to be more expensive for the Government and to provide a compromised service to taxpayers in Otago and Southland and this is before we take into account the human costs of transport and time away from work. There are also significant emotional effects on patients and their families from healthcare at a distance. It is not just the cost to the Government for the provision of care; it is also the cost to citizens and their families. 
A Government getting the best value from taxpayers’ money and providing equitable services would keep neurological services in Dunedin. We can increase the likelihood of better value for our health dollar by tweaking the health system and having the Government directly buying the services it requires from whoever provides the best value for money whether public or private. But we could do even better. If each of us had our own health policy we would give responsibility back to New Zealanders so they are able to choose to get their health care provided by whomever they wish and however they wish. 
Education is another example of a State-funded service where we could increase the chance of achieving value for money and a more responsive provision of service. A scholarship for each child would allow a choice of school for each parent giving parents the chance to help shape the education of their children. 
The Government has stewardship of our money only on the basis that first it takes only what it needs to protect us and to provide for the services for which it has a mandate; second that the best possible use is made of every dollar spent; and third that the spending is fair to all New Zealanders. I see my job in this House as being to support the Government in these endeavours and to work towards freedom and responsibility for the people lower taxes and a more equitable use of our taxpayer-provided resources. I stand with my ACT Party colleagues in support of less tax and less Government. 
Finally I note that there may be those in this House who imagine that I and my ACT Party colleagues will be easy to oust at the next election. I live in a house that belonged to my parents and my great aunt before me. I have lived in this house almost all my life. I will not be easily moved from either of these houses. Thank you. 
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This is the second reading and report back of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill which has come back from the Health Committee and I acknowledge the contribution from members on all sides of the House towards the bill. The bill proposes legislative amendments necessary to support the improvements following the recommendations of the ministerial review group earlier last year. It would be fair to say that this is not a major restructuring of the health service; it is really about trying to get the health structure working more effectively. The proposed changes represent a major drive to better value for money in our public health service to enable greater national and regional cooperation in the sector and to reduce duplication and bureaucracy. The changes enable us to improve efficiency and move resources to improve front-line services. 
The main provisions of the bill are a new objective for district health boards to seek most effective and efficient delivery which is a way of ensuring that we move beyond the silo mentality that is such a fixture of so much of anything that central government does in order to ensure that we meet our local regional and national health needs. It has new functions for district health boards to collaborate to work together to ensure the most effective and efficient delivery of services to meet those different levels of community needs. 
As the House will be aware the Government has also established a shared service organisation Health Benefits Ltd to harness the power of bulk purchasing procurement and supply chain management in order to free up cash that could be used elsewhere in the public health service. Fundamental to that is the ability to ensure that the major participants in the public health service the district health boards assist in that cooperative approach and that where there are roadblocks to that happening there should be ministerial direction that is transparent to enhance the Government’s ability on behalf of taxpayers in order to ensure greater system collaboration and the use of shared services. 
It also provides for a new planning framework. The bill amends the current requirements that district health boards have a reporting structure that involves statements of intent annual plans district annual plans and so much that is duplicated and not really read by participants. We need to not only streamline that reporting process but also take into account the fact that we are moving towards a more regional cooperative approach in the way district health boards work and that needs to be facilitated in the whole reporting infrastructure. It needs to be slimmed down the duplication removed and made much clearer. 
There is very strong consensus across the health service for the establishment of a Health Quality and Safety Commission to advise the Government on health epidemiology and quality assurance matters to determine quality and safety indicators and to promote better support and better quality in health and safety. We know that if we can improve the quality of the care that people in our public hospitals receive like making sure they get the right medication making sure they are seen at the right time and making sure the tests arrive in the right format not only does that mean that people are treated better recover better and get home sooner but also that we save money that can be used elsewhere in the public health service. A very significant role of the Health Quality and Safety Commission will be to work with the sector to provide better-quality services right across aged care primary care and our public hospitals. 
The bill also provides the power to appoint elected district health board members to other district health boards which is consistent with trying to use the very best people we have in the public health service to meet our objectives. 
The bill was introduced in May. As I did earlier I thank the select committee and I commend it for its work and its valuable recommendations. Thirteen individuals and organisations also made submissions. The committee recommended a number of amendments which I will go through. The committee recommends and the Government agrees that the bill should be amended to clarify the commencement date. That change means that parts of the bill will not be brought into force by Order in Council but will come into force 6 months after the date it receives the Royal assent. The change responds to the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee. 
Secondly in recognition of the readiness of district health boards the Ministry of Health and the National Health Board to implement changes to the district health board planning framework the Health Committee has recommended a change to the start date for the streamlined planning requirements bringing those forward a year and the Government supports that recommendation. 
The committee has also recommended that we provide further clarification on the application of the Crown Entities Act to the new direction powers for shared services and the all-of-district health board direction powers. That recommendation makes a lot of sense and the Government is supporting it too. Fourthly the committee members made a number of recommendations relating to the objectives and functions of the Health Quality and Safety Commission and the Government thinks they are also very sensible. Namely the recommendations were that the commission should take on the objectives and functions previously performed by the National Health Epidemiology and Quality Assurance Advisory Committee which was previously known as the Quality Improvement Committee or QIC and that where it is appropriate the commission should be required to work with the Ministry the Health and Disability Commissioner providers health professionals and consumers and that the wording in the bill be amended so that the description of the commission’s functions is consistent throughout the bill. 
A number of public submissions on the mortality review committees expressed support for the transfer of responsibility for the appointment of those committees from the Minister to the commission. The committee recommends and the Government supports the amendment that the details of the objectives powers and functions of the mortality review committees remain the same. The Health Committee also recommended a number of minor amendments to the bill to correct terminology and grammatical errors remove unnecessary wording and ensure consistency. 
Finally many submitters to the bill wanted to understand more about how and when district health boards would be required to consult the public. The Government is keen to promote public participation in district health board decision-making where it is effective and as such the Government is proposing a set of planning regulations that district health boards will be required to comply with under the Act. Those regulations will describe the details of the plans that they will be required to prepare and contribute to. They will include a requirement to consult with the public where the Minister considers that district health boards are proposing changes to service eligibility access or the way services are provided that will have a significant impact on recipients of services their caregivers or providers. That is quite a step forward from where we are at the moment. 
The Government supports the amendments recommended by the Health Committee. It is important to understand that the bill is not about major restructuring of our district health boards or the public health service; it is about the Government’s desire to make sure the system we have currently works as effectively and efficiently as it can in the interests of New Zealand patients and the public health service as a whole. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow the Minister of Health Tony Ryall in this debate and I add my commendation to the chair of the Health Committee Paul Hutchison. Dr Hutchison tries very hard after he has worked out how to turn on his computer to ensure that we have a constructive working relationship within the committee and I pay genuine tribute to him for that because that was certainly the case in respect of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. As the Minister has indicated the purpose of the bill is primarily twofold. The first primary purpose is to set up the Health Quality and Safety Commission and the second is to ensure that the district health boards work better together. That is the summary of the many points made within this legislation. The boards will have a mandate for collective purchasing and will be required to develop plans in unison. I certainly hope they are able to get their district annual plans presented to the public on time in future. 
I was gobsmacked to see that several of our district health boards have just gone through an election for members of their district health boards without making publicly available their district annual plans. That is an outrage. It is totally unacceptable that New Zealanders have to vote for a representative for their local district health board without knowing what the district annual plan for that very health board says. I hope that the requirement for district health boards to plan together—and I agree with the provision and think it is sensible—does not further restrict their ability to make public the district annual plans in a timely way. That problem has certainly been the case this year and it has caused a lot of concern for people. 
Right from the beginning of this process we supported the introduction of the bill and its referral to the select committee for two reasons. The first reason is that the primary purpose is that which I have just outlined the establishment of the Health Quality and Safety Commission which sounds good in theory and we hope is good in practice. The second reason relates to the mandate for better collaboration between district health boards which is something that no sensible person would argue against. So we supported the primary purpose but we also wanted to make sure that members of the public particularly those who are intricately involved in working within our health system had an opportunity to make a submission. Members of the public often see things from a different perspective from those of us in Parliament. 
One of my great interests at the select committee and through listening to the submissions was to consider what people thought were the cost benefits of this legislation. The Minister is very good at saying how many millions of dollars will be saved by various initiatives. In fact he does it a little too often for his own good because he has been caught out on many occasions exaggerating the amount of saving. In recent times he has got to the point of saying there will be savings when clearly there are costs associated with the new bodies that are being set up so I was very interested in what submitters had to say about costs and savings. 
My concern about the exaggeration of benefits was borne out by the concerns of some people and others referred to the establishment in the last 18 months alone of new bureaucracies such as the National Health Board. I understand that Murray Horn who made an earlier report on our health system is getting around $1500 a day which is quite a lot of money to be paid to do something that was already being done by the chief executive of the Ministry of Health prior to the establishment of the National Health Board. It is even more frustrating and puzzling to see somebody being paid that sort of money to do a job that was already being done when we see people up and down the country particularly elderly people having their meagre couple of hours of home support cut right back to nothing. It really does not seem to me to be a logical or a fair choice to have a new bureaucracy established in the National Health Board undermining the Ministry of Health and the independence of Public Service advice. 
The people running the National Health Board are being paid huge amounts of money and they have stolen a whole lot of the previous Ministry of Health people and called them consultants so they are getting paid far more to do the job they used to do as Ministry of Health officials. At the same time we are seeing cuts to home support Meals on Wheels and to the support that I think our elderly particularly are entitled to in order to make sure they have quality of life. That concern was repeated in the submissions about whether the cost-benefit analysis had been rigorous or political and I consider that there is a large amount of political spin in whatever has been coming from Tony Ryall in that regard. 
I move on to an area the Minister briefly alluded to but which I feel warrants a bigger debate at this stage and it certainly will be raised again in the Committee of the whole House. It concerns a blatant move to remove the community voice as part of our health decision-making process. New section 38 removes the need for district health boards to consult on strategic plans. The whole point of having a district health board is that it is representative and connected to its community has expertise in health governance and because of its understanding of its community can use the strengths of its community to further promote better health outcomes within that community. But that voice has now formally been cut out. It is not just a consequence it is not just a by-product and it is not an unintended outcome of this legislation; it is a deliberate considered move that the Minister of Health signed off on. Tony Ryall said that section 38 should remove the voice of the community in district health boards’ strategic plans and preparation. I think that that is wrong. I do not think that the community should have its voice cut out in that way. The Minister made some vague reference to making sure that people will have an opportunity to contribute and to bringing in some regulations. But it is very hard to see how regulations can be consistent with primary legislation—which they are required to be—when the primary legislation specifically removes the role of the community in the strategic planning process. 
How can we have primary legislation that says the community will not have its voice? That is what Tony Ryall has said—that the community will not have its voice heard in district health boards’ strategic plans. But then in the regulations he has said we will have some process by which the community can contribute. I do not think that that would be acceptable in the regulations review consideration. We cannot have regulations that are at odds with the primary legislation. If the Minister had a commitment to making sure that the voice of local people was genuinely heard he would change section 38 and ensure that the processes we have now could be continued. 
A number of organisations raised considerable concern about this breach of democracy in this legislation. I know that the New Zealand Public Service Association raised concern in its submission as did the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the Women’s Health Action Trust to name just three. It does not seem consistent with the spin that the Minister puts on his health announcements that there will not be major restructuring and that the purpose of the district health boards having elected and appointed representatives is ensuring the voice of communities is heard in making decisions about health that have an impact on those people. I think that that is all untrue. I think that it is just spin from the Minister and this clause proves that. It is a deliberate and considered decision to take local voices out of health decisions. I will be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage of this bill in order to rectify that. 
I challenge the Minister to table the regulations that he referred to during his second reading speech because I predict that National will—like sheep jumping over a cliff—vote against my Supplementary Order Paper on the basis of what Tony Ryall has said but I bet that not one single National member has seen the proposed regulations. I would bet good money on the fact that not one single National member has seen those regulations and it is just not credible for us to take the Minister at his word with regulations that will be at odds with the primary legislation unless we have seen them. 
I conclude Mr Assistant Speaker by just acknowledging you and Southland and I thank you very much for giving us back the shield at the weekend. We deserved it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. One of the most profoundly important things about it is that 13 out of 13 of the submitters supported its intent. When those submissions cover such a spectrum—from the Council of Trade Unions to the Public Service Association the New Zealand Medical Association and the Nurses’ Organisation—it certainly says something. 
I think it is timely to thank the members on the Health Committee for very constructive collaboration during the hearing of submissions. I also thank the officials for their very helpful advice. 
I note that in the first reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Bill 2000 Annette King said that district health boards would be expected to work together and enter into cooperation and collaborative arrangements to ensure service delivery to their populations. Sadly that has failed to happen over the last 9 years; we do not see good collaboration between the various district health boards. Sadly also Annette King missed out of her speech the fact that district health boards should have ensured efficient and effective service delivery. Instead over 9 years we have seen a burgeoning bureaucracy poor productivity in the health sector disempowered clinicians and a huge amount of money put into health with very little to show for it in terms of increased elective surgery. This bill is all about redressing that. It is about making the current system work better without revolution or major restructuring. That is why it is supported by all submitters and I sincerely hope that it is supported by all other parties in the House as it was in its first reading. 
In essence the changes are about having more effective coordination on a local regional and national level. It is about freeing up back-office bureaucracy so that services can be put to the front line and resources can be used more effectively. It is also very importantly about empowering clinicians and clinical networks so that they can once again take charge of running our health system after a long period when they have felt in many respects very helpless. 
One of the interesting things about this bill in terms of its support from all submitters—and hopefully from all political parties on this occasion—is that over the last 25 years and over the electoral cycle we have seen huge turmoil and restructuring in the health system. Way back in 1987 Helen Clark organised the Hospital and Related Services Taskforce report which was known as the Gibbs report and there was a realisation that we must have better monitoring and measuring. At the time there was no measuring of outputs or outcomes or of quality of service but there was an attempt to put that into place. It was the beginning of things happening. Sadly by 1989 things had become so dysfunctional that the Auckland District Health Board was actually disbanded by Helen Clark—and her own husband was a member of the board. 
The 1990s saw some radical changes not all of which were good. But by the end of the 1990s the Health Funding Authority which was run extremely skilfully by Dr Graham Scott had become a very effective efficient contracting agency. It was very sad in some respects that once again in 1999 with the change of Government there were radical changes and restructuring that led to massive bureaucracy the fragmentation into 21 district health boards and the disempowering of clinicians. This bill sets out to redress those problems. 
It is a huge worry that we have seen Murray Horn identify it as impossible to increase spending on health by 8 percent a year over and above inflation. It is just impossible for New Zealand to be able to sustain that spending. We have to drive efficiencies into the system. 
The Health Quality and Safety Commission is a very very welcome change and it is being ably led by Professor Alan Merry. As far back as 2002 Peter Davis pointed out that something like 12.9 percent of people admitted to New Zealand hospitals suffered an unintentional injury caused in the management of their conditions. That has huge repercussions both in terms of personal harm and the cost savings that could be attributed. In the order of $500 million a year to $800 million a year has been estimated as possible savings if the quality measures can be brought in successfully. 
During the Committee stage we will have the opportunity to debate issues that have been brought up by the New Zealand Medical Association such as an overarching health strategy clinical leadership and public consultation which I believe the Minister of Health very ably addressed in his earlier speech. 
It is vitally important that this bill is supported by all parties in this Parliament as it was by all of the submitters. I very much look forward to the Committee stage. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I start by allaying Dr Hutchison’s fears about the Opposition’s support. Let me be quite clear that we will support the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill through to the Committee of the whole House although we look forward to that opportunity to offer some amendments to the bill. As has been described by speakers so far the bill sets out to establish the Health Quality and Safety Commission to introduce a mandate for collective purchasing across district health boards and to arbitrate when district health boards have conflicts over shared services. This is in an effort to share procurement opportunities in order to reduce costs and bureaucracy in the health system. These are all noble objectives which the Opposition supports but let us dispel a few myths. 
Collaboration in the health system is not a new thing as the previous speaker Dr Paul Hutchison would have us believe. In my own part of the world in Palmerston North the MidCentral District Health Board and the Whanganui District Health Board have been working together for some time. They currently have an alliance in place whereby they are looking to share more and more services. That sharing of services and that collaborative approach came into effect long before the election of the current Government. The same can be said of the entire lower North Island region in fact. The boards in the whole region—the Hutt Valley District Health Board the Capital and Coast District Health Board the Wairarapa District Health Board and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board as well as the Whanganui District Health Board and the MidCentral District Health Board—have been working together on a regional basis and collaborating in that way. Yes both sides of the House support this approach and yes previous Governments have supported it. It is not a new thing. It is not some wondrous new invention created by the current National Government. 
Let us also talk about the concern many people have and this Government seems to have with cost blowouts in the health sector. First of all I would like to draw to the attention of the House exactly where New Zealand ranks internationally in total health costs per capita both public and private spending. The OECD estimated that in 2008 New Zealand spent—and this is in US dollar purchasing-power parity terms—US$2683 per person. That compares to Australia at US$3353 Canada at US$3867 the UK at US$2990 and the US at US$7538. New Zealand ranks extremely well against other countries we like to compare ourselves with. So when we are talking about exactly what health care costs in New Zealand let us be honest. 
It is important that we try to find more efficiency reduce bureaucracy and make our dollar stretch that much further but let us start off with an honest conversation about what is actually happening in this country. Yes there has been growth both per capita and as a proportion of GDP over the last decade as there has been in all other Western countries; everybody is facing this challenge but growth in spending in New Zealand has been fairly steady. Dr Hutchison mentioned a rate of over 8 percent but if we look at the OECD figures we see that we have never reached over 8 percent. The most recent was about 6 percent and it has not been steady at 6 percent over each year either; it has been a lot less than that. So although we support this bill there are some underlying myths espoused by the Government as to why this is so important and it is important that we explore some of those. 
New Zealand does very well because of the structure we have in place. We have a publicly funded health system and we can have single purchasers and collaboration between providers. That helps them to reduce costs. A very good structure that is a very good example of this is of course Pharmac. We get fantastic reductions in comparison to say the US system because we have a collaborative approach to purchasing. It is good news to hear from the Minister that he does not want to see a massive upheaval in the health system and the Opposition will be listening very carefully to make sure the Minister sticks to his word on that. We have had a lot of upheaval over the years and we need a stable system. Upheaval by stealth will be uncovered by the Opposition and we will hold the Government accountable if it attempts to do that. We have a good system and we need to maintain it. 
The real cost savings in our health system are to be found in a proper realistic and substantial approach to public health. Unfortunately this Government seems to have eschewed public health and put it to one side. It is fantastic that we are debating a health bill in the House; however there is another one that has been languishing on the Order Paper for ages which is the Public Health Bill. When this term of Parliament started that bill was quite close to the top of the Order Paper but it has been buried further and further down. Public health is not a priority issue for this Government probably because there are not too many sound bites in it. It is a little bit hard to sell; I do not think Crosby/Textor has come up with any good sound bites for public health. But that is where the real savings in health care are to be found: in a proper long-term approach to diabetes cardiovascular disease and mental health; and in reducing smoking alcohol and drug-related diseases. It is a focus on well-being. It is a focus on keeping our people well and keeping them out of hospital not waiting until they end up in hospital and all the costs that are associated with that. But that approach is too big for this Government. That is too forward-thinking and too far off in the future. The Government is not worried about the well-being of our country in 20 years’ time; it is worried about next year’s election—let us be honest. 
The other thing that we could be doing to improve the health and well-being of our nation is to reduce income disparity. There is an absolutely clear link between income disparity low socio-economic status and poor health outcomes. What has this Government done? It has increased those disparities by giving tax cuts to the very well-off those who need them the least and increasing GST which affects those who have the least the most thereby increasing those disparities and giving our nation a larger health bill in the long run further down the track. 
The Health Committee’s report notes that some members i.e. the Opposition members have some concerns about the removal of the requirement for district health boards to consult with the public. We have nothing to fear from consultation with the public in this country. We have a very strong Parliament we have very strong public institutions and we have very strong district health boards that are able to progress their policy initiatives their strategies and their plans and are able to roll those out. There is nothing to fear; there is nothing to slow us down from having proper public consultation. Public consultation will achieve better policy making and better strategies that will respond to what our local communities need. This was brought up time and time again by a number of the submitters and Woman’s Health Action summed it up quite well. It said: “Consultation with communities should not be viewed as a nicety but rather as a fundamental part of the public health and disability system that ensures health and disability services are appropriate for and responsive to those who need them.” I could not agree more. 
The erosion of that consultation process erodes the ability of not only the public at large but also non-governmental organisations and the clinicians. We hear so much from the Government about its concern that clinical leadership has been eroded from the health system; those clinicians are having their say eroded as well by this removal of the requirement for the district health boards to consult with the public. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation brought up the issue of nursing leadership down in the Southern District Health Board. It said that since the amalgamation occurred between the two district health boards down there it had seen an erosion of nursing leadership. 
We will support the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. We support its aims and objectives and we look forward to the Committee of the whole House but let us have an honest debate about public health care in New Zealand. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I begin as others have done by thanking the officials who assisted the Health Committee in our consideration of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. I thank the submitters who I think it would be fair to say put in 13 splendid submissions and I thank my colleagues from the select committee. I share Ruth Dyson’s praise for the role that Paul Hutchison as chair played. I also want to single out given the circumstances this afternoon one of our colleagues from the Health Committee the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban and say to Winnie a big fa‘afetai lava to thank her for everything that she has done and give her best wishes for her future. 
The Green Party supported this bill at first reading and will continue to support it. In particular we support the underlying intent of the bill but we do so with some reservations. Enhancing quality and safety through the creation of the Health Quality and Safety Commission is a good idea and enhancing the effectiveness of the New Zealand health care system through greater collaboration is also an important idea that everybody shares. In relation to the Health Quality and Safety Commission if I could begin there I had the good fortune to represent district health boards on the Quality Improvement Committee so I was part of the development of a number of these quality improvement projects and I certainly welcome this exciting development—a great enhancement of this area of work. 
There are two reservations I want to voice in this debate. The first of those picks up on a point made by the IHC in its submission to the select committee. One of the things that has happened in the field of disability in particular in the field of intellectual disability is that we have focused on what the goal of disability support services might be. A groundbreaking report from the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability called  
To Have an ‘Ordinary’ Life  
set out a goal for intellectual disability support services of ordinariness—ordinariness is the goal of those services. IHC was saying to us that a residential service that has the intent of providing an ordinary living situation for people with intellectual disability is a very different kind of service from a clinical service intended to repair illness. So I think it will indeed be a challenge for the new commission to think through what quality and safety means for a service that has such a different goal from that of the clinical services that will make up the bulk of its work. That is one reservation. 
The second reservation is a more deep-seated one and will be the subject of an amendment from the Green Party in the Committee stage: it concerns the intent set out in clause 13 of the bill for the Health Quality and Safety Commission to become self-funding. We believe that that is fundamentally wrong and that although the argument for self-funding which is that this will increase the relevance of the commission’s work and buy-in to that work from the health sector is an admirable argument and one that we would support the danger is also great. The danger is that if the commission is set up to become self-funding it will pervert and change the actions both of the commission and of service providers so that the commission will focus on those projects that lend themselves most readily to generating income and providers will tend to pick up those projects that are free or do not incur a cost. Neither of those behaviours is necessarily what we want so the Green Party will move an amendment to remedy that situation. 
I come to collaboration. I enjoyed Paul Hutchison’s journey through the changes in the health sector over the last several decades. I had the dubious pleasure of living through most of them while in positions in the health sector and that history shows us several things. First of all for me it reinforces the adage that structure should follow function. In the health sector we have seen a lot of structural change that has not been driven by that principle but is instead the result of ideological change or ideological belief. I think it would be disappointing if we were to see more of that kind of change in the sector. So what kind of function or service do we require in the New Zealand health sector? I suggest that public health services which Iain Lees-Galloway has talked about and primary health services lend themselves to highly localised structures whereas other services such as tertiary and quaternary services the most specialised services lend themselves to much bigger units of organisation. I have previously in the House set out my view that that suggests that what we need for structure is an intelligent network of locally organised structures that are able to aggregate where function determines that that is a sensible thing to do. I think we are moving towards it. 
I do not agree with Paul Hutchison’s view that collaboration has not been occurring in the sector. It has been occurring. There have been important gains. But it has been limited by a few things. It has been limited by what I call asymmetry of need where smaller district health boards have required collaboration and larger district health boards in general have not. It has been limited by an interpretation of the principal Act that suggests that each district health board should act only in its own interest and so there has not been a driver that it is in the interest of the overall New Zealand public. 
We support the idea of greater collaboration that can be directed by the Minister which is in this bill. We think that is the appropriate way to go. But we share the concern set out by Labour members about the other thing this bill does which was not signalled in the first reading debate: it diminishes the requirement for consultation imposed on district health boards. Certainly we will be talking with our Labour colleagues about the Supplementary Order Paper they intend to put forward and we intend to work for a change to the legislation in the Committee stage. There are a couple of reasons really. One is that the approach outlined by the Minister of Health in this debate of setting out the requirements for consultation through regulation is bad law. It is bad law. The consultation requirement ought to be set out in the Act itself and the interpretation of the Act should guide the proportionality of the consultation that then occurs because this is what the Government members say. They say that if we have the consultation requirements spelt out in the Act then district health boards will be forced into consultation that is out of proportion to the issue involved. In fact that is not the case. The Court of Appeal has already set out the law that applies here and it imposes precisely the kind of proportionality we would want to see. So there is no good reason for not including it in the Act and we will be working for that in the bill. 
In summary the Green Party will support this bill until its Committee stage but we will be working for some significant changes to the bill in the Committee stage. We hope that it will be possible to eventually pass a bill unanimously in the House. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to face the challenge of providing high-quality health care and disability support services that are affordable. The goal of the legislation is therefore pretty straightforward. The bill amends the Act. It encourages or forces district health boards to work together with the ambition of creating and achieving cost efficiencies. It allows the Minister of Health to step in and sort out conflicts between district health boards to enable those powers to have wider application particularly where there are disputes between district health boards about how national regional and local requirements are best provided for. 
In the aftermath of other recent legislation suggesting that there be extraordinary and exceptional powers for Ministers such as the case of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act or the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill I have to say that we looked into these new amendments to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act very deeply. We welcome the move from the Health Committee to clarify the directive powers of the Minister and to amend the respective sections to clarify that the Minister has the same directive power that he or she has under the Crown Entities Act 2004 which is essentially that the Minister cannot become involved in operational matters. 
But there is another section of the bill that we want to give particular priority to and that is the district health board public consultation requirements. The select committee’s view was that the bill would likely weaken the consultation element of the Act being amended. Presently the Act requires the same standard of consultation as in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The bill will require consultation but the standard of consultation is not defined. That weakness as the committee reported it worried us and it worried Women’s Health Action. Women’s Health Action told the select committee that it held “serious concerns about the fate of public consultation in the proposed changes to the Principal Act outlined in [this] Bill … Women’s Health Action strongly recommends that consideration be given to strengthening consultation requirements in the Bill.” The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions also shared those concerns. In its submission it noted: “The CTU recommends that the consultation requirements on DHB annual plans are retained and that there are provisions in the Bill to ensure that the Ministerial power of direction is used sparingly.” 
The bill as originally drafted determined that “The Minister may give a direction to all DHBs to comply with stated requirements for the purpose of supporting government policy on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the health and disability system.” Before giving any direction the Minister must consult all district health boards and any persons who may represent the interests of people likely to be substantially affected but only if the Minister considers it necessary in the circumstances. So we come to the crunch issue that the bill could if the Minister so desired be implemented in such a way that serves to undermine a district health board’s consultation with its community. There is no specific clause to require district health boards or the Health Quality and Safety Commission to consult with mana whenua. 
Another aspect of that issue relates to consultation with disabled people and their families. The submission from IHC provided a very strong statement about the relationship between the models proposed in the bill and the model that might work for disabled people. It stated: “IHC is concerned that the proposals for change contained within the Bill infer that the same approach will benefit both the health and disability sectors on an equal basis. IHC cautions against this approach. Given the social model of disability and the aspirations for disabled people to live an ‘ordinary life’ we believe that the medical context and models proposed within the Bill may not be appropriate for disabled people.” 
The Maori Party supports the proper recognition of disabled people and their families in the context of whanau ora. We believe that disabled people have the right to participate in decision making to be protected by law and to have control of their lives. The IHC’s submission is a reflection of the disability sector’s view that if the model does not fit this bill may not benefit the sector as much as it could. We note that although some select committee members have concerns about the whole aspect of consultation they were satisfied that new section 92(1)(g) inserted by clause 16(1) would impose sufficient procedural requirements for consultation. I have to say that we will be watching this issue very closely. 
A key development in this bill that we are very interested in is the establishment of the Health Quality and Safety Commission. We support the intention of the select committee to elevate the status of this commission by including specific information in the bill that itemises key functions. These key functions include providing advice to the Minister on health epidemiology quality assurance mortality how to improve quality and safety determining quality and safety indicators providing public reports on quality and safety promoting and supporting better quality and safety and disseminating information about quality and safety. 
We note the strong support from both the Council of Trade Unions and the Medical Association for this commission and it is an area that we in the Maori Party also support. We have canvassed strongly on this issue in our policy manifesto  
He Aha Te Mea Nui? He Tangata He Tangata He Tangata 
. We have promoted the policy line that the community must receive accurate information about the performance of hospitals public health organisations and district health boards including having adverse events reported publicly within 3 months. 
I remember a  
Lancet 
 article a few years ago in 2006 of a study of a sample of 6579 patients who had been admitted to 13 hospitals in New Zealand. That study concluded that Maori patients had a higher risk of preventable adverse events in hospital than patients of non-Maori non-Pacific origin. In fact the study concluded that Maori were more likely to receive suboptimal care. They received poor-quality practice that harmed patients. That could and should have been prevented. Our biggest concern with this report was the impact that such information has on Maori confidence in the public health system. On that basis we argued that adequate information about health status must be a priority that the health system should attend to. 
We will be supporting this bill but I alert the Minister to what will be a key focus for us—how this bill affects the appointment of Maori representation in regionalisation. Our policy is that we support the separation of the funder and provider roles of the district health boards. We also entered into Government with the position that we sought to review the duplication of corporate and administrative functions between hospitals public health organisations and district health boards and to see whether any savings were available if duplications were removed. Efficiency effectiveness quality and accountability all matter to Maori and to the Maori Party. But most of all I return to our key policy mantra: he aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata. Our longstanding concern will remain with the people. 
Debate interrupted. 
Valedictory Statement 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 E muamua ona ou ta le vai afei ma ou fa‘atulou i le paia lasilasi ua fa‘atasi mai. Tulou ou ponao‘o Samoa i le afio o Tupu ma E‘e. Tulou ou Faleupolu. Tulou auauna a le Atua. Ou te fa‘atalofa atu i le Paia ma le Mamalu o le aso. E nga iwi o te motu te tangata whenua. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Taloha ni. Malo e lelei. Fakalofa lahi atu. Ni sa bula vinaka. Mauri. Kia orana koutou katoa. 
Talofa lava Mr Speaker and warm Pacific greetings to all my parliamentary colleagues honoured guests members of the diplomatic corps and Pacific Island communities friends and family. Tonight will be the last time that I stand to speak in the New Zealand House of Representatives. Thank you all for coming to listen to my final remarks. 
In February 2000 I started my maiden speech to Parliament by honouring three women: my leader my mentor and my mother. I vividly remember my mother sitting in the Speaker’s gallery during my maiden statement. Mum was in a wheelchair supported by bottled oxygen. She had been released from hospital for the evening following major heart surgery. She was determined to be with me that night. My mother remained my most loyal supporter until she passed away in December. Her courage strength and determination have been my greatest inspiration. Tonight I honour her. 
My parents Ta‘atofa Kenneth Poutoa Laban and Emi Asi Tunupopo Patu came to New Zealand in 1954 as Pacific Island immigrants. My brother Ken and I were born in Wellington. Like many Pacific Islanders my parents left their homes families and country to come to New Zealand and provide their children with education and opportunity. Theirs was the immigrants’ dream—a dream that is shared by all who have come to this land. My parents wanted our family to be part of this nation to participate as equals in this society and they took great pleasure in seeing their children and grandchildren realise their dreams. 
I was honoured to be the first Pacific Island woman elected to this Parliament and later to become a Minister of the Crown. I have often shared our family’s story when I have spoken at citizenship ceremonies in Porirua City and up the Kapiti coast. It gives great hope and encouragement to new immigrants to know that their children can aspire to high public office and I look forward to another child of immigrants being elected as the next MP for Mana. 
I entered Parliament in November 1999 as a Labour list member—the last cab off the rank. That was a nervous time. Parekura Horomia had just scraped in by 500 votes on election night. If Derek Fox’s recount had been successful Parekura would have lost his seat. He would have got in off the list and I would have missed out. However Parekura has always come to the party. He increased his election night majority and I was in. Kia ora brother; thanks. 
Sonya Davies asked me to stand for Parliament in her Pencarrow seat when she retired. I was not ready then; lucky for you Trevor. At that time I was also unhappy with the direction and policies of the Labour Party. I was ready a decade later. 
The event that led me to enter Parliament was the closure of Kempsons factory in Wainuiomata. I had received a telephone call on Friday morning from an uncle who worked at Kempsons. He was distressed and he asked me to come to the factory. What I saw was a group of workers many of them Pacific Islanders who had just been told not to come to work on Monday. They had all been given notice—no redundancy no holiday pay nothing. Many of the men were in tears. They were bewildered and confused. Some had worked for Kempsons for 20 or more years and they had been hard-working and loyal. They had expected that they would be looked after but when the business was sold offshore the Wainuiomata plant was closed down. The Employment Contracts Act offered the workers no protection. 
The Kempsons factory closure and the impact of the unfair employment contracts legislation on workers in my community was my motivation for entering Parliament. So it was with great satisfaction and one of my highlights in the House that I moved the closure motion that led to the axing of the Employment Contracts Act and the enactment of the Employment Relations Act. What followed was a long period of peaceful industrial relations based on good-faith bargaining and greater fairness and equity in the workplaces of New Zealand. It is sad to see that the wheel has turned and that punitive industrial legislation has been enacted and more is before the House. 
Parliament is one of the few places in this country where the great issues of the day can be debated and important legislation can be passed. However too often it is the trivial matters of Parliament that grab the headlines or sound bites. I have really enjoyed debates that are about values and beliefs. In my view good legislation should be based on sound values and clearly stated beliefs. 
Sometimes bad politics can stop good law. I was particularly disappointed when a member’s bill that I had brought to the House was defeated. The bill would have given the families of people suffering from mental illness greater input into treatment and care options. This was good law. I had gained wide cross-party support in the House but the bill was defeated at the last minute because of political imperatives. That upset me. But it is important to keep things in perspective in Parliament. 
When I entered Parliament I said that I would pursue a permanent interest in advocating and promoting the interests of women Pacific people Maori the elderly ethnic minorities and all New Zealanders who are struggling to live a life of dignity. I have always kept those interests in mind. 
It has been said that a test of a people is how it behaves towards the old. The care of the elderly and frail in our society has been a matter of increasing concern for me. I want all elderly to live out their last years with respect and dignity. 
Reports from the Health and Disability Commissioner into home-based care of the elderly and the Auditor-General’s report into the effectiveness of arrangements to monitor the quality and safety of rest homes in New Zealand have found significant problems and there have been a number of reports in the media of disturbing failures in rest-home care. I asked for the Health Committee to undertake an inquiry into the quality of rest homes and home-based care services. Three times my request was turned down so Labour with the support of the Greens joined forces with Grey Power to investigate the quality of our country’s rest homes and home-based support services. 
In the last few months Sue Kedgley and I have travelled the country meeting with thousands of elderly people and their families and carers listening to their concerns. It was very touching when listening to many elderly people tell their stories. One couple in Christchurch both in their 90s told us of how they looked after each other in their own home. They were disappointed that their home care had been cut from 3 hours to 1½ hours a week. They said they could manage to shower each other but they did need some help to keep the house clean. 
Elderly New Zealanders do not ask for much. We need to ensure that they have the support they need to live independently. One of my last tasks in Parliament was to sign off the report into aged care; it will be released on Friday. The report has a range of important recommendations and is a call to action to ensure that every elderly person in New Zealand is treated with dignity and respect. I look forward to the recommendations of this report gaining support from all sides of the House. 
The defining conflict in the 20th century was the conflict between communism and capitalism. The defining conflict of the 21st century may well be the conflict between the Islamic world and the West—between Islam and Christianity. Interfaith dialogue is an important way of building relationships across the boundaries of civilisations and working to reduce the level of suspicion and fear between religious faiths. Our experience at home in New Zealand and in our own region leads us to believe that at the global level it is possible to build a world that respects and accommodates difference and promotes development peace and security. 
Phil Goff made me Opposition spokesperson on interfaith issues which demonstrated Labour’s commitment to promoting and acknowledging the importance of interfaith dialogue. The Labour Party is often referred to as a “broad church” and our members have a range of views on interfaith dialogue. The St Bede’s College old boy Clayton Cosgrove told me that he had regular interfaith dialogue with the local Catholic priest in his Waimakariri electorate. 
We are all products of our culture history and heritage. Our commonalities are far stronger than our differences. In New Zealand the issues of Muslims are similar to those faced by those people of Jewish Christian Buddhist and other faiths. One thing that is important to all humanity to people of all faiths is finding a way to limit harmful extremism and intolerance. New Zealand is a small nation but we have been leaders on issues of international importance: votes for women nuclear-free legislation and the stand against apartheid. New Zealand and New Zealanders are at their best when we stand against injustice. We need to make a stand to protect the rights of all religious groups in our society. 
In my maiden speech I said that our nation needs a new politics of honesty hope and healing; a politics that brings our communities and nation together so that all New Zealanders can fully participate and live a life of dignity. At times during the last decade I have seen glimpses of the hope and healing that good politics can bring but last week we all saw the division and indignity that came when the New Zealand identity of the Governor-General—another child of immigrants—was questioned. 
What do we need to do to ensure that all New Zealanders can fully participate and live a life of dignity? Looking to our own cultures and faiths is a useful point of departure. I start from the proposition that New Zealand is a Pacific nation. Whatever our origins we have all travelled through the Pacific to arrive in this land. 
New Zealand society is increasingly multicultural. Difference and pluralism is becoming central to our New Zealand identity. The New Zealand I was born into in the 1950s was a homogenous monolingual monocultural bland colourless society. The New Zealand of the 21st century is a heterogeneous multilingual multicultural vivid and colourful society. We have some very important choices facing us as a society and as a nation. We can choose to celebrate difference diversity and pluralism and deal with the excitement and tension that go with that choice or we can try to ignore difference and diversity and say that we are all the same. 
As a woman of the Pacific and a proud New Zealander I will advocate for celebrating difference diversity pluralism and inclusion every time because they are the keys to retaining our cultural and spiritual values. As a Samoan I know that my community is based on families and extended families—aiga and aigapotopoto. Our community in turn is based on the Samoan values of alofa fa‘aaloalo and agaga—love respect reciprocity and spirituality. These values are demonstrated through tautua or service—service to family service to church service to community and service to our nation. These values have guided me in my time in Parliament. 
All New Zealanders have similar stories including Sir Anand Satyanand and Paul Henry. Through telling our stories and through listening to the stories of other New Zealanders we get to understand each other and to celebrate the richness and increasing diversity of our multicultural nation. 
That diversity is to be found in the Mana electorate which has the cultural mix that all New Zealand will have in 50 years’ time. It has been a great honour to serve the people of Porirua City and the Kapiti coast as their member of Parliament since 2002. Jobs health housing education income support transport and immigration have been the major issues that occupied me and my electorate staff in Porirua City and up the Kapiti coast. The Mana electorate office has been the place of last resort for many constituents. 
It has often been said that all politics are local. The people of Mana have grounded me. Their realities have informed my work in Parliament. In October 2007 the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill which I sponsored was passed into law. It was simple legislation that dealt with management issues relating to the Pauatahanui burial ground to ensure that it is looked after in perpetuity. The bill had the support of the local iwi; Ngati Toa; the Stace family who had gifted the land; and the Pauatahanui citizens who have cared for the many heritage roses in the grounds which date back over 150 years when the first cuttings were brought there by early settlers. Sometimes a small success can be quite profound. It is very satisfying to walk amongst the roses in a graveyard on a summer’s day in Pauatahanui and know that this Parliament gave unanimous support to protect that historic site for ever. 
We have had many other successes in Mana over the last few years: the rebuild of Porirua College; the Porirua housing renewal scheme; the Kapiti Health Centre; 24-hour accident and emergency services at Kenepuru Hospital; the purchase of Porirua and Waitangirua farms for the conservation estate; the Mackays Crossing overbridge; the median barrier strip on Centennial Highway; progress on the Transmission Gully route; improved early childhood education services particularly for Pacific children; business growth; and reduced unemployment. Sadly the tide has turned and we are seeing some of the gains of the last decade fading but surely the tide will turn again. 
Over the last few days and weeks I have been quietly ticking tasks off my to-do list as I exit Parliament. A big tick was the selection of a Labour candidate to replace me in Mana. Kris Fa’afoi won a very hard contest from four quality candidates for the forthcoming by-election. Kris is a young man with much to offer the people of Mana. I wish you good luck Kris. 
As I leave Parliament I will not be looking back. I did my best for more than a decade; now it is the time to move on. My new role of assistant vice-chancellor (Pasifika) at Victoria University is an exciting opportunity to promote Victoria as the university of choice for Pacific students and staff in New Zealand and the Pacific region. I am very excited and am looking forward to starting work at Victoria University in November. 
During my time in Parliament I have made many friends and have worked with many wonderful people on all sides of the House. My colleagues’ support for me—all of you—during the good times and the difficult times has been a great source of comfort and encouragement and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. I acknowledge with love and thanks the unseen workers of Parliament: the staff of the Clerk’s Office and the Speaker’s office the Parliamentary Service caterers cooks cleaners ushers security the VIP drivers the report writers the Hansard staff and all those who work in Parliament. 
I offer a special thankyou to my loyal parliamentary and electorate staff: Tauiliili Nari Shane John Debs Edward Moana and also to Fillipo Jeremy and my former ministerial staff. You have all served me wonderfully well. 
To Phil Goff Annette King and Andrew Little the leaders and president of the New Zealand Labour Party thank you so much for your support. Thank you to my colleagues in the Labour caucus. A special thanks to my “little brother” Darren for looking after me and negotiating this time for me to say goodbye. Warm thanks to the Mana Labour electorate committee and to all the Labour Party members union affiliates and supporters for your loyalty and hard work. 
I have kept my family out of the public gaze and political arena—apart from my brother Ken who can be seen regularly on Sky Sport. My greatest support has come from my family. Fa‘afetai tele lava to the family in Samoa and New Zealand. Finally the love of my life my husband Peter—a Cantabrian—alofa atu. 
Peter has chosen the song to conclude my speech: “Le manu tangi e” a Samoan farewell and lament. It was composed by my uncle Siaki Laban and will be sung by my niece Marlena Devoe. 
Fa’afetai tele lava mo lou alofa ma lou agalelei. Tofa soifua! 
Samoan song 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. This bill is all about increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our public health system and it has been supported widely. I thank the submitters for their thoughtful work and everyone who was involved with the select committee process on this bill. Health costs are rising everywhere in the world so in the face of a global recession and for the long term we need to get more bang for our buck in health care. With an ageing population and increased demand for new health technologies and services the New Zealand public health system faces enormous fiscal challenges. 
When the National Government came to power it commissioned an expert ministerial review group to make recommendations on how we could run our health system more efficiently and more effectively. The expert group developed a set of over 170 recommendations and this bill progresses some of them. The bill is designed to drive better value for money out of the public health sector with the intention of providing a framework to foster economies of scale through national and regional cooperation in the sector and to reduce duplication and bureaucracy. It also provides a greater focus on patient safety and supports health professionals in their call for an independent clinician-led agency to drive quality improvement across the health service. 
The Health Quality and Safety Commission will be established as a stand-alone Crown entity and will bring a focus on quality and safety not previously achieved. All New Zealanders are keen to see improved quality and safety in health care. Adverse health events—that is when things go wrong—are tragic for individuals and families but also they are very expensive. It is estimated that avoidable adverse events cost the public health service between $500 million and $600 million every year. Obviously we will never be able to be 100 percent error free but even a 20 percent reduction in errors could save us over $100 million a year. That money could be reinvested in front-line health services. 
The bill drives improved efficiency by encouraging the provision of shared administration support and procurement services across the public health system. Our goal is to improve health outcomes and cost-effectiveness by increased system collaboration across the district health boards and for the planning and accountability of each district health board to take into account national regional and local requirements. In the past one of the obstacles to increased collaboration was the wording of the current New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act but this new bill provides a mechanism to fix it. In addition to help facilitate collaboration at a local level the bill enables the appointment of elected members to more than one district health board. It is hoped that that change will bring boards closer together and improve working relationships teamwork and cooperation. To cover all eventualities the bill also amends regulation-making powers relating to the arbitration and mediation to manage any disputes between district health boards. 
This bill is part of the National Government’s move to dramatically improve health services in New Zealand. It is part of a drive to cut bureaucratic costs in health and to invest in front-line staffing. We have already increased the number of doctors and nurses working in the system. We have dramatically increased the number of people getting elective surgery. We have cut emergency department waiting times and time spent waiting for cancer radiation treatment. We have also ensured that all cancer patients can be treated in New Zealand rather than being sent to Australia as happened under the previous Labour Government. 
This is a good bill. It will increase efficiency and effectiveness. I commend the bill to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I will first take up some of the quotes that the previous speaker Nicky Wagner used. I think I heard—people will correct me if I did not hear it—the phrase: “we need to get the best bang for our buck”. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What does that mean? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly—the member asks what that means. I think that is the whole principle here. Maurice Williamson does not know what it means and he is supposed to be a Minister in the National Government. This bang for our buck is actually about redistribution which is what happens in the policies of the National Government. 
Let us look at the bang for the buck that we are seeing currently. We have seen cuts to accident compensation to victims of sexual assault to people who have been injured at work and are not getting back to work and to people in this country who are hearing impaired. Under this “bang for our buck” we see a complete redistribution of that money to—guess what—tax cuts. We see those tax cuts go very very disproportionately to people on high incomes. So when Maurice Williamson asks what bang for our buck means I actually congratulate him. Maybe he is not up with the play of this pretty sinister stuff that this Government is doing. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I’m not; I never have been. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He said he is not up with the play. I appreciate that. I know that he has been quite a rebel at times and I am saying to Maurice Williamson that he should be a rebel again. He should say that this is not bang for our buck. 
We are seeing members stand in this House and say that this is the best bang we can get for our buck. We know that that is not what is happening. Do we commend efficiency in the health system? Of course we do. In fact that was the way the Labour Government was going. This bill has two purposes: one is to establish the Health Quality and Safety Commission and the second is a mandate for collective purchasing across the whole of the district health boards. Of course we in Labour support efficiency with purchasing and with the delivery of services. But if it is at the cost of local people of consultation and of people having a say in their health services then we have serious concerns. Labour voted for the bill to go to the Health Committee and we are not opposing it at this stage but we are putting on record as did the Green Party that we will put amendments forward to this bill to ensure democracy and to ensure that local communities are having a say in health delivery in their regions their communities and their cities. 
I heard Nicky Wagner say that under National we are seeing much more happening that we see more bang for our buck and that we see health services the public health system and hospitals delivering far more on time services. Well that is not the experience that we have had. That is not the experience we are having when day after day we question the Minister on the health cuts under this Government. If we look throughout the country we see older people with their $5 a day meals cut. We have seen their home help which might be just a couple of hours a week to ensure that they can stay at home cut. We have seen those services cut not just in Southland; when we were visiting our providers in Waitakere just a couple of weeks ago we saw the same thing happening there. So when I hear members on the opposite side of the House say that this bill is all about bangs for the bucks I share with Maurice Williamson in asking what it is all about. That was the question that that Minister asked and it is a question that we share in asking on this side of the House. 
We have no problem with raising quality or with raising purchasing powers but as my colleagues have said before me we do have a problem with setting up another bureaucracy with taking democracy out of consultation and with communities not knowing whether health services will be delivered. Why do I say that? It is because I know how we got a full-service hospital in Waitakere. We got it under a Labour Government and we got it from a community that lobbied for it a community that went through rounds of consultation and said “This is what we want in our community.” This Government is not doing that. The Government that was going to get rid of red tape and bureaucracy is introducing additional tiers and layers. Although we want money to be saved we do not want those savings to be spent inappropriately; we would rather see them going into health services. 
I think it is pretty rich for members to come into the House and say that we are getting far more bang for our bucks when we are seeing cuts being made throughout the country. Tony Ryall calls it streamlining. That is the new term for cuts. We call it a cut in services and delivery. Because of funding cuts older people have had their home support cut by district health boards; but the Government calls it streamlining. It could equally be said that the Government calls it bangs for its bucks. We do not think that cutting services for older people in New Zealand is getting more bangs for one’s bucks. We have had many calls to our offices from people who despite what Nicky Wagner said are not being seen. They are not getting fast service or their operations on time to say nothing of the escalating cost of doctors’ visits. We do not see that as more bang for our bucks. 
We see a Government that is possibly—and we would not say this categorically but it was raised by many submitters—setting up something that is quite risky. In their submission to the Health Committee senior doctors called the restructuring proposal for the Southern District Health Board risky and erratic. The Nurses Organisation said that it believed that these proposals were removing nursing leadership from the region. We in Labour do not think that cutting services particularly services to older people in our communities is a good bang for the buck. 
Of course we support this bill as it is. We supported its referral to the Health Committee. The Labour and Green members on the committee listened to what the submitters said. We will be putting forward a number of amendments to ensure that should this bill come into effect it will be democratic it will not be another level of bureaucracy it will meet the needs of the community and it will ensure that local communities have a say. Can we ensure that health services will not be cut for older people and that people will get the medical and surgical care they deserve and need? No we cannot ensure that but we certainly can assure the public that in the Committee stage of this bill Labour will be putting up amendments that ensure the local voice will be heard and that the people who know about the health services—because they are living them and breathing them—are part of the consultation process. 
I hope that Government members listen to that and that when we look at bang for the health buck we look at the big picture and we ensure that New Zealanders receive the health care they need deserve and invest in that care is put into health and that health care delivers. Thank you very much. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Last year during the financial review by the Health Committee of the Counties Manukau District Health Board for the 2008-09 financial year a single comment was made by the chief medical officer about doctor productivity that I think summed up the tangle that the New Zealand public health system had got itself into at that time. He pointed out that an analysis had been done of doctor productivity and the measurement of patient contact time by their specialists. In 2000 I think it was the specialists at Middlemore Hospital spent about two-thirds or 67 percent of the working week in front of a patient. By the end of 2008-09 that proportion had fallen to below half of their working week: to about 47 percent. I have no doubt that some of that was necessary and well intentioned but at a time when doctors at Middlemore Hospital were already spending one-third of their time away from patients and when there was a massive injection of cash that led to about 900 more Ministry of Health staff and about 3000 district health board staff in departments like funding planning information technology and data gathering—some of which should have meant less paperwork for doctors—despite all of that doctor contact time with patients went down massively. 
Billions of dollars were poured into Vote Health but services in real terms were static and in many areas were dropping. Doctors nurses and allied health professionals were becoming increasingly frustrated at the red tape that prevented them from doing better. They told me that they were feeling increasingly marginalised from the decision-making process in their public hospitals and that they really wanted to improve the quantity and quality of the care they were providing to their patients but they were being prevented from doing so. 
Yes it is about more bang for the buck. I make no apology for the comment made by my colleague. Whatever we call it—perhaps value for money—it is the responsibility of any Government to make sure that resources are spent in the right places. This Government has pushed resources from the back office to the front line. The Opposition might scoff at what that means but the results have been by any measure astounding. 
Surgery is something that I know pretty well and it has been static at about 125000 surgeries per year for the last 10 years. In the first year under the National Government the number of surgeries went up by nearly 13000. That is on a very small increase in the baseline relative to what had been the case in previous years. There have been very good improvements in the timeliness of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment. The number of publicly funded chemotherapy clinics is up by a quarter or 25 percent. Emergency departments are seeing their patients faster. Before this Government came into power 80 percent of patients were getting out of there within 6 hours; it is now 87 percent and climbing. That is because doctors nurses and our allied health professionals are now feeling more re-engaged more involved and more listened to when it comes to decision making in their district health boards. So we are already on that journey and the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill continues that process. 
I want to talk about planning issues because I have to laugh at the concerns about what changes will be made to the public consultation and planning process. I do not know whether anybody has been to one of those planning meetings but I used to go to them in the Otago area. I cannot remember a public meeting on the annual plan for the Otago District Health Board that had more than about 12 people at it. The fact is that it was more about process than it was about outcomes. One could pick up one of those plans and read it and be none the wiser about which district health board it was for because they were so generic 
I think these are really good improvements that will improve the quality of the planning and hopefully make the plans much more meaningful to the individual communities that boards are meant to represent. This is a good bill. I think there are still a few things we need to talk about in the Committee stage but I look forward to the bill’s progress and I commend it to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 It is indeed an honour to speak on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. With the sad departure of our colleague and friend the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban I am now on the Health Committee so it is good to be thrown in at the deep end I guess. Be warned I say to members an old cynic is coming to the Health Committee. I have been around for a wee while and I smile when I read some of the notes on the bill and hear some of the speeches because I can remember Jenny Shipley as the Minister of Health making statements on the efficiency of having many Crown health enterprises and competition in health. Even in Christchurch two Crown health enterprises were set up on the basis that the competition would deliver efficiency better outputs and more money to the front line. At the same time the National Government brought in charging for hospital beds so that if someone ended up in hospital that person paid about $100 per night. That was abhorrent and it contributed to the defeat of the National Government and its silly ways in 1999. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: 9 years later! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It was 9 long years of that National Government— Mr Williamson is dead right. He can remember all those things because at that time the policy said that if we had many many competitors and participants and a split of funders and providers plus everyone else and if we had them all fighting and scrapping then we would see efficiency. Well when Labour came into Government we realised that that simply was not working. We put billions of dollars into the health system and we brought some alignment. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And we put up nurses’ pay. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: We put up nurses’ pay. We had a huge amount to do to retain people in this country. We realised that there had to be better alignment and that there had to be strategic thinking in health. This bill talks along those lines but I have not seen strategic thinking coming from National or from many of the champions of business that National members go on about and use as exemplars in terms of business management. Well I welcome any move towards strategic thinking but unfortunately Tony Ryall has moved away from that. In respect of strategic thinking we said that primary health care is the smartest way to spend money in this country. I know there are members opposite who understand health and who know this is true. Getting in at the front line early on reducing the cost of seeing general practitioners and getting medical help when needed reduces the cost over time. 
But since National came into power we have seen an absolute determination to focus on measurements not on long-term strategic goals in public health mental health or areas where money spent can reduce our long-term costs. What has the Minister done? He has measured hip replacements—and the odd knee but knee operations are a bit more complex. The measurement of the success of the health system has been on elective surgery once again. That is destined to fail because it is short term populist and political. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Shorter waiting times. No! How terrible! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The member opposite says that elective surgery waiting times are really important as is the number of people waiting for hip surgery and we know that those things improve the quality of life for all of those people. But although those people might wait 1 month less for a hip replacement they now understand full well the wisdom of investing in primary health care for their grandchildren and making sure that their sons daughters and grandchildren can take their children to the doctor when they need to. They understand the wisdom of that investment but that is not where the Government has gone. 
I have looked through the notes on the bill and I applaud some of the things that have happened. If we end up in the area of procurement with a model like Pharmac then I will commend the Government. Pharmac is a highly successful model but I have fears about it. John Key was talking with the Americans about free-trade deals and all the rest of it and he came back to this country and said the issue of Pharmac and pharmaceuticals might have to be opened up again. He said that having coming back from the US on one of his earlier trips. I do not know what has caused a change of mind since then or whether it was due to the collective wisdom of many of the people in his caucus who know that Pharmac is brilliant but we do not want to muck around with a model that is successful. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Only the visionary person who first set up Pharmac. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Even Maurice Williamson understands that right wing though he is and erratic though he is. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who was the visionary who set up Pharmac? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Williamson understands and I commend the Minister for understanding that Pharmac is brilliant. Please do not play around with it. But he knows full well that his Prime Minister— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They’ve already undermined it with Herceptin. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Well that is right. There was an intervention but we will not go there; let us just move on. 
The best thing I can see in this bill is the move to national procurement and some centralised purchasing of the core materials and goods that are necessary for all district health boards. That is likely to save us a whole lot of money and give us some strength when we negotiate with many providers of highly technical things in health who often have the whip hand. We no longer accept the word of the general practitioner or the specialist. People now go online and find out what is available throughout the world so we are forced—and there is nothing wrong with it—to try to provide the very best we can for New Zealanders up and down this country in terms of apparatus equipment and health care. That is the way it should be. There is a price associated with it and health is a bottomless pit—we know that. There will be demands so the question is where we draw the line and for what reasons. The problem at the moment is that the National Government is drawing the line and making measurements in relation to elective surgery: waiting times for elective surgery outputs or throughputs or what do they call them now? They have probably changed the terms. I get confused myself; I think we might have changed the terminology once or twice ourselves I have to confess. But the bottom line is that outputs from the health system are measured and they are now focused on elective surgery. We are trying to measure and improve the overall health of society. 
The US is often held up by National as being a wonderful place with the best of management and systems. 
Chris Tremain 
: When was the last time we did that? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Well the member opposite probably has not been around long enough to hear some of the speeches in this House about the wonderful management in the US. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Give us one National MP who has held up the United States as wonderful. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Williamson knows— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Give us one example of any National MP who has held up the United States—just one. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Lockwood Smith the Speaker has done that. I do not like to speak of the Speaker in his absence but I know that he has been to the United States and thinks that there are some wonderful examples of management there right through Government and industry. I am not trying to discredit that view; it may or may not be true. But the US spends almost twice as much as we do on health and its overall health status is no better than ours. 
We should guard jealously our hands-on system of management and consultation with the community allowing the community to make judgments on important issues for their region in terms of health care. Unfortunately this bill takes away the obligation to consult with local communities. My community down on the West Coast is totally different from that of South Auckland. I would not like to be making judgments on the priorities for health care in South Auckland because I do not know what they should be whereas that community does. This bill takes away from the district health board which is mandated to care for people in its region and provide all their health care the obligation to consult the community. I am scared that people sitting on their chuffs here in Wellington under the Minister’s direction will make decisions on what is the best health-care for South Auckland North Auckland or Northland. It is not the right way to do it. 
So although the consolidation of procurement may be a good thing consolidation in some areas of health care decision-making is not all good. Although we support the bill in general terms we do not think the savings the Minister claims will be made will eventuate. We hope that improvements are made as I say in the area of procurement but we will be monitoring this very very closely to make sure the district health boards are indeed answerable to their communities. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. This bill proposes legislative changes that are a result of the earlier ministerial review group report which I must admit is a landmark document and congratulations need to go to Murray Horn and his team. They put a huge amount of work into that report. They travelled up and down the country looking at the sector and interviewing people who worked within the sector and made over 170 recommendations. It was a comprehensive review and I think it is a landmark document. 
The ministerial review group found a number of problems that had a common theme. The problems were that we have an ageing population with more long-term health problems and greater health care will be required in the future. There were issues with the health workforce with high dependency on overseas-born and trained staff in a world of growing health workforce shortages. We cannot compete internationally with salaries; we have to compete with the way in which we treat our staff and what we can offer them in their working conditions. The group found that the hospital services in some areas were quite vulnerable to staff shortages particularly in some of the smaller district health boards. There were mixed health indicators when compared with other OECD countries and waiting times and volumes of elective surgery were of concern to the public at large. There were concerns about preventable errors and the quality of care. The group was concerned about the financial viability of the public health system. Despite the billions of dollars that have been poured into it district health boards were still running at a deficit. 
The ministerial review group made a number of recommendations: it wanted to look at new models of patient care—more important at stronger clinical management—and I am pleased to say that that has become a cornerstone policy. I think that the work done as a result of the report and that is strongly supported by the Minister is now translating into efficiencies and a better working environment for clinicians in the public health sector. The group wanted a sharper focus on patient safety and quality of care to ensure better results for patients and of course on identifying services that were really needed and looking at duplication. A change of culture is needed but a change of culture is something we cannot legislate for. Clinical leadership as I have said has been the cornerstone policy which has translated into new ways of working. 
I will make a point here about the six health targets that the Minister of Health has brought in. A previous speaker commented that we are measuring outcomes. Well yes it is good to have targets because it focuses the mind but also the achievement of those targets does not happen just overnight; it involves clinicians working together to make efficiencies to achieve those targets. 
The targets of elective surgery have been phenomenally successful in the last couple of years. In relation to cancer treatment waiting times not a month or week went by in the last term of Parliament when there was not some blowout in radiotherapy oncology waiting times. Patients were either waiting or being shipped off to Australia and it was totally unsatisfactory. 
Emergency departments are considered to be the barometer or the shop window of a public hospital and when emergency department waiting times blow out we know something is going wrong in the system somewhere. So the target of 95 percent of patients being processed within 6 hours really has made a big difference. Many district health boards are achieving that target and we can see that fact in the quarterly league tables published in the national papers. There have been some comments about publishing those types of tables and that it is not a good thing to do. But in actual fact we heard a comment from Dave Gellar a clinician in his own right who advises the Minister of Health. He said that clinicians actually welcomed those tables. They wanted to have benchmarks and the tables mean that they can compare themselves with colleagues in other district health boards. It can be seen that initially there were patchy performances with some district health boards doing well on some targets and others not. But over time the game has been lifted and that is because the data is being presented in a uniform way. 
This bill is not about a major restructure; it is about making things work more efficiently. We have had a system of 21 district health boards doing work in 21 different ways which is basically reinventing the wheel in 21 different ways. One provision of the bill is to provide shared administrative support and procurement of services across the public health system including additional powers such as ministerial direction to enhance services and ministerial ability to require greater system collaboration and the use of shared services. The Minister of Health has already made some changes in the way to improve the health sector. 
The Clinical Training Agency was established to help to unify workforce planning. We have a crisis in the workforce. In the last term of Government there were 40 or 50 health work reports one after the other all saying that there was a problem but there was not much happening about it. Well the Clinical Training Agency headed by Professor Des Gorman is making changes and already those changes are impacting on the health workforce in this country. 
This bill is about getting our district health boards working more efficiently and about reducing the number of committees. It is about reducing bureaucracy and about getting better value for money; I make no apology for that. It will ensure greater national and regional cooperation in the sector and that can only be good for the patients who are at the centre of the health system. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill be now read a second time 
. E rere e. E rere ki raro i te maru o toku ariki maunga a Tongariro. E rere ki te whenua karekare o toku waka a  
Te Arawa 
. E rere ki te whanui o toku papa ki Raukawa. E toku tupuna awa e Waikato e. E rere e. 
[ 
Flow on 
. 
 Flow below the shadow of my priestly mountain 
 Tongariro. 
 Flow to the  
agitated 
 lands of my canoe 
 
Te Arawa 
. 
 Flow to the vastness  
of my father at Raukawa.  
Oh 
 
 my ancestral river 
 
 Waikato flow 
.] 
The Waikato River is a distinctive feature of the landscape of Aotearoa. The Waikato River is of great cultural historical traditional and spiritual significance to all of the w’anau hapu and iwi who derive their strength from its source to the ocean and along its tributaries. In Whanganui we often refer to our river as Te Awa Tupua. The metaphor of tupuna awa is a double one reminding us that the river is our ancestor and like an ancestor it provides a common link amongst the people. This is what we celebrate and we identify with when we come to this Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. We celebrate w’akapapa that links diverse peoples together ancestral ties strengthened over successive generations and the history associated and linked together through the flow of the great Waikato River. The Te Arawa River Iwi Raukawa and Ngati Tuwharetoa each connect particularly with the upper Waikato River. They affirm their own unique connection to the river while also acknowledging that they have in common their own distinctive traditions and tribal identities. 
This bill establishes participation by each iwi in a co-governance framework for the Waikato River and its catchment as well as establishing co-management and related arrangements with each iwi. I am so proud of the investment that the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa Te Arawa and Waikato have made in developing the co-management approach. The co-governance framework in this bill complements arrangements agreed between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui in a deed of settlement signed last year and given effect through the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act passed by this House in May of this year. In carving out the co-management space this bill establishes the precedent for future natural resource co-management between Maori and the Crown that can only bode well for us looking ahead to the future. Co-management is about a form of rangatiratanga respecting the unique autonomy and decision-making authority of each of the iwi while also supporting a focus on kota’itanga requiring the three iwi to work together to achieve a negotiated and mutually acceptable outcome. The bill also encourages dialogue between the other iwi groups who oppose the bill which is also a good thing. 
This bill then gives effect to deeds entered into between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi by which the Crown and each iwi have agreed to a co-governance framework for the Waikato River. The bill delivers a framework of co-management arrangements for the overarching purpose of restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the river for present and future generations. I want to mihi to all of the iwi involved for their determination that they should best advance a vision and a strategy for the Waikato River through the establishment of a single co-governance entity known as the Waikato River Authority. The authority will set the primary objectives for protecting the river. Of course the waters of this river although revered for their spiritual and cultural significance are also associated with significant primary industry electricity generation water supply recreation and aquatic habitats. There is in essence a great deal to be considered when one thinks about the future prosperity of the Waikato River. 
The Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill contains three parts. Part 1 sets out the overarching purpose of the Act guiding principles of interpretation how the Act applies to each of the three iwi and general interpretation. It also provides that the Crown is bound by the Act. Part 2 provides for recognition of the vision and strategy for the Waikato River establishes and grants functions and powers to the Waikato River Authority and provides for an upper Waikato River integrated management plan. Part 3 provides for upper Waikato River co-management arrangements for each iwi including iwi environmental plans joint management agreements regulations and accords. 
I acknowledge and thank the Maori Affairs Committee for considering and reporting on this bill in the short amount of time that was given to it. In doing so I want to note that so often the success of Treaty settlements proceeding through the House reflects upon the ideal processes of parliamentary cooperation. The role of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is pivotal to progress in advancing Treaty legalisation and I stand here to formally recognise the unique contribution that Minister Finlayson has brought to this portfolio. But the cooperation of other related Ministers particularly the Minister of Finance the willing participation of select committee members and the active involvement of all members of this House in the debate are also key ingredients towards enabling iwi to achieve the aspirations they set in the settlements arena. 
The fundamental importance of collaboration and cooperation cannot be understated. It is important to achieve as much coordination as possible and the implementation of the co-governance framework for the Waikato River contained in this bill and in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. The timely consideration of this bill by the Maori Affairs Committee has made that coordination possible. 
I acknowledge too that a couple of weeks ago in Te Kuiti the Minister signed a deed with Maniapoto over the Waipa River which is the main tributary of the Waikato River. This will ensure there is a full alignment of aspirations and endeavours focused holistically on the whole river system. 
The Maori Affairs Committee received 18 submissions on the bill and heard oral presentations from 14 submitters. Half the submissions were made by iwi representatives and overall submitters were mostly supportive of the bill. Support came from representatives of local authorities Federated Farmers and others. The committee has recommended a small number of minor technical amendments which will help to improve the bill. 
In its commentary the committee noted the relationship between the bill and the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. The committee noted that significant parts of this bill replicate parts of that Act and considered that it may be appropriate for the bill to acknowledge the relationship between the two pieces of legislation in order to promote their effective implementation with clarity and consistency. I believe this is a very helpful suggestion that iwi are comfortable with. Therefore at the Committee of the whole House stage Minister Finlayson is intending to present a Government Supplementary Order Paper for consideration which will make an explicit link between these pieces of legislation. 
Finally I acknowledge the foresight and pragmatism of Te Arawa River Iwi Raukawa and Ngati Tuwharetoa. The values and relationships associated with the Waikato River and the people and communities associated with the Waikato River are integral not only to the well-being of the river but also to the well-being of those communities. By entering into their own arrangements with the Crown for the co-governance of the Waikato River Te Arawa River Iwi Raukawa and Ngati Tuwharetoa have added significant impetus to bringing the community together to build a future where generations to come will benefit from a healthy Waikato River. 
I commend this bill to the House and it should proceed through the House without delay. Tena koe. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill in its second reading. Labour supports this bill. It was clear from our position on the Maori Affairs Committee and in the first reading of the bill that we were going to support it partly because negotiations had originally been led by Dr Michael Cullen. The agreement was signed by Labour on 4 September 2008 and the deed of settlement was signed by the National Government on 17 December 2009 so we have an interest in supporting this bill. 
I will traverse some of the material that emerged from the select committee’s report in respect of the bill and perhaps highlight a couple of issues in particular that will be taken up in more detail when we get to the Committee stage. The select committee recommended that the bill be passed with a number of amendments. These amendments deal with joint management agreements the Te Arawa lakes the upper Waipa River the Waikato River Authority membership regulations and by-laws and the relationship to the raupatu claims and the legislation surrounding them. 
I would like to mention a couple of things in particular but first of all I say that the amendments that the Maori Affairs Committee has put forward enhance the bill. As I said in my first reading speech I think the place the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations took the essential agreement signed by the previous Labour Government in 2008 is a good place. I commend him for that. The particular bit that I wish to address myself to is the nature of the Waikato River Authority and its membership. When Labour was in Government the original deed established a number of statutory boards but the Hon Chris Finlayson has since renegotiated the deed to replace the statutory boards with one single co-governance entity—namely the Waikato River Authority. I think that is a good change. It is a good change in that it appears that all of the iwi are in agreement with that structure and it seems that it might be more workable than the previous design. 
The fact that the legislation says that the membership can be examined during the review process at a later date is also helpful. As we are dealing in this bill with a co-management agreement—which is as the Minister Tariana Turia said in her speech a moment ago a precedent for other such arrangements—it is suitable that a review be built into this structure at this stage so that any changes or anything that needs to be adjusted because of the movement of relationships the addition of people or the re-examination of issues and contributions can be built into the structure of the Waikato River Authority as it proceeds with its work. 
Submissions actually recommended that the membership of the Waikato River Authority be increased from 10 to 12 members so that Ngati Koroki Kahukura could be represented in the authority membership. The Maori Affairs Committee believed that a way should be found for Ngati Koroki Kahukura to achieve their aspirations but it maintained that the authority should remain at 10 which would be a workable number. Therefore in the end it recommended no amendment to the membership of the authority. For the reasons that I have just given—namely that a review process is built into this structure—that is an acceptable place for the Maori Affairs Committee to land; clearly everybody was in agreement with that in the end. 
I would like to make a couple of points about joint management agreements. We refer to it as a co-management approach which to me is very significant. Minister Turia said a moment ago that this legislation conveys some respect for the autonomy of each of the three iwi. In this sense this bill is not simply about cleaning up an ailing river; it is much more than that. One could see it as that if one wanted to be minimalist about it; indeed the Waikato River is ailing for a number of reasons that I do not have time to traverse tonight. The restoration of this great river to health which will be important right across the regions that it passes through will be the responsibility of the Waikato River Authority. 
However the bill is not simply about cleaning up a river; it gives life to the Treaty of Waitangi. It begins to address some issues—not only in substance but in structure—that I think are important for the future of this country. It outlines the vision and strategy for the river as it says. To have a vision and a strategy for a river may sound odd to the uninitiated but it has very practical implications. As well as the practical implications of restoring the river to health it has significant relationship implications as well. It is the relationship implications of this bill that I think make it very significant legislation. It goes some way to experimenting with a new structure and a new process which may well as Minister Turia said set a precedent. That is a good thing. If we are to enact in real time and in a real way the Treaty of Waitangi in the 21st century then I suggest that this bill is one very good way of going about that. Having a built-in review also allows for correction if the process seems not to work if additional members are required or if something else needs to be assessed through a review of the Waikato River Authority and its membership. 
It gives me great heart that this legislation addresses not only the physical environment that is so important to all of us but also relationships as they might be played out in the 21st century under the Treaty of Waitangi. Thank you. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I always enjoy the intelligent contributions of the previous speaker Maryan Street. I greatly appreciated that contribution. It makes a refreshing change from the mindless negativism one often gets from that side of the House. 
I was very pleased that Mrs Turia was able to take the first call on the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. I think she is a great New Zealander and a wonderful colleague and I know how much this issue means to her. A few weeks ago she Mrs te Heuheu and I were in Taumarunui to farewell that great New Zealander Sir Archie Taiaroa. Sir Archie worked so long and hard on these issues for the Whanganui River. I promise Mrs Turia and I certainly express the hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to reach a Treaty settlement over that river. After all Whanganui iwi have been fighting their cause for over 100 years. 
But let us look at the Waikato River. Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa each have their own unique relationship with the river and their own established tikanga in relation to it. For Ngati Tuwharetoa their relationship with the Waikato River is inextricably linked with the relationship between the river and Lake Taupo. For the northern hapu their relationship with the river is both significant and enduring. Raukawa some of whose members I welcome here tonight have many rich associations with the Waikato River. The river runs through the centre of their rohe and many sites within and alongside the river are important to them. There are waka landing sites food and material gathering sites and blessing and sacred sites associated with the Waikato River. Te Arawa River Iwi can point to many kainga cultivations and burial caves along the banks of the Waikato River. The river provided many benefits to their people and it was often used to transport produce that was traded with other iwi and with early settlers. For each of these iwi the river remains a source of spiritual cultural social and physical sustenance and in turn they embrace a deep sense of respect for the river which shows itself in an intergenerational responsibility to care for that river. 
The Crown has responsibilities on behalf of the regional community and the nation as a whole. The river and its catchment provide New Zealanders obviously with a source of energy fertile lands for primary industry and a place for recreational activities enjoyed by many people. There are important values and relationships between the river and many people and communities that must be respected. 
Ultimately we will all be judged as an enlightened nation and our economy will prosper by the way in which we manage and respect our environment especially our waterways and by the inclusive nature of our society and its institutional arrangements—and that is what Ms Street was referring to. It is of considerable moment therefore that we now stand at the dawn of a new era of co-governance in respect of the river that will secure the long-term sustainability and the health of the river for both present and future generations. 
Under the new framework existing relationships will be strengthened and new relationships will be forged leading to greater understanding and a greater focus on shared aspirations for the river. We can all look confidently to a time when a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities which in turn share in a common endeavour to restore and protect the Waikato River and all it embraces for generations to come. 
A few weeks ago in Te Kuiti—and I know that Nanaia Mahuta was there as well—I signed a deed with Maniapoto over the Waipa River. The Waipa is the main tributary of the Waikato River. This deed will ensure there is a full alignment of aspirations and endeavour focused holistically on the whole river system. So I too acknowledge and thank the Maori Affairs Committee for considering and reporting on this bill and for doing so without delay so we can get on with putting these remaining elements of the new framework in place. 
The co-governance framework in this bill complements arrangements agreed on between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui and given effect through the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act which was passed by this House earlier this year. It is important to achieve coordination in the implementation of the co-governance framework and the timely consideration of this bill by the Maori Affairs Committee makes that coordination possible. I thank the committee and its outstanding chair Mr Henare. In its commentary the committee noted the relationship between the bill and the 2010 Waikato Act— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll give you your taonga later on. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I thank the member so much. The committee noted that significant parts of the bill replicate parts of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and considered that it may be appropriate for the bill to include an acknowledgment of the relationship between the two pieces of legislation in order to promote their effective implementation with clarity and consistency. I think that is a very helpful suggestion and we are all comfortable with it as indeed are the iwi. At the Committee of the whole House stage I will present a Government Supplementary Order Paper for consideration to make the link between those two pieces of legislation. 
I very much support the motion that this bill be read a second time. The bill is an important element in the new framework for the Waikato River and it should proceed through the House without undue delay. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I begin by saying something publicly that I have said privately to the Hon Tariana Turia and that is to apologise to her and to the Maori Party—and indeed to iwi—for the way I presented ACT’s opposition to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. This the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa Iwi Waikato River Bill is its sister bill. We were opposed to the former bill and had concerns about the legal interpretation of spiritual concepts in that bill. I am afraid that I put our opposition in a way that I agree was derogatory towards people with spiritual values and for which I sincerely apologise. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The season for apologies. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: There is certainly no excuse for that offence but I was trying to make a legal point I say to Mr Henare and I am afraid it was too easy to misinterpret it. I apologise for that. 
It will not come as any surprise to the House that the ACT Party opposes this bill. We have had some experience of major reforms in local government in Auckland but—I say this to the House and to the people of New Zealand—I believe that what this bill proposes is actually a deeper and more fundamental change to local government in New Zealand than what we are doing in Auckland. This bill establishes a co-governance model for the river and the catchment which is a very valuable resource stretching across a large area of New Zealand including private property. 
At present regional and local councils have enormous power over private property rights. They can make decisions that mean life or death to a business a farm or an operation in economic and social terms. We allow that in a democracy because in order to have that power one has to stand and be elected by the community and if one’s decisions prove disagreeable to that community then one can be voted out. I think that is not a bad principle. We accept that it means minorities miss out. Mr Clayton Cosgrove is fond of pointing out that ACT is a minority party. We know what it is to be a minority. I think that the Labour Party with its current support also knows what it feels like to be in the minority. So we understand that the majority can override the wishes of a minority and that is why it is always important to exercise that judgment with some considerable understanding. It is something that we do not always get right and again it is something that I have quite often got wrong but we try to do better. But I do not believe that is a reason to overturn the governance structure. 
Let me explain what this bill does because it is dramatic. It sets up what we call the Waikato River Authority which overrides the regional council and all the district councils. It is made up of people appointed by the Government and people appointed by the local iwi. There is no mechanism if you will for the general population of the Waikato to have a say about who those representatives will be. That group is charged with coming up with what will be called the vision and strategy for the Waikato River and therefore for its catchment. That strategy trumps everything. It trumps anything that central government does. For example if members look at clause 12(1) they will see that it overrides a national policy statement. So central government decides something and the strategy overrides it. Mrs te Heuheu shakes her head. I ask her to look at clause 12(1) which states: “The vision and strategy prevails over any inconsistent provision in—(a) a national policy statement issued under section 52 of the Resource Management Act …”. So I am sorry but unless English is no longer English that is exactly what the vision and strategy do. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh cut it out Rodney. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well it is not cutting it out; it is explaining what this does I say to Mr Horomia. The vision and strategy which are decided by unelected people override a national policy statement. Clause 12(1)(b) provides that they override a New Zealand coastal policy statement. Clause 13(3) states: “The Council must—(a) review the Waikato Regional Policy Statement to see whether it is consistent with the vision and strategy; and (b) if the policy statement is inconsistent with the vision and strategy initiate an amendment to it to make it consistent …”. There we have it. The Waikato Regional Authority can have its policy statement the Waikato River Authority can come up with its own—which is decided by the iwi and Government bureaucrats or appointees—and then suddenly that drives what is in the Waikato Regional Authority’s policy statement for the catchment of the river. Therefore the elected members of the regional authority are overridden. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What about the mess they made of the river? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I tell Mrs Turia that this Government took a lot of heat—and the Maori Party did not support it—when we overrode democracy in Environment Canterbury. We overrode it temporarily because of the mess that was being made. Tariana Turia is asking about the mess that is being made in the Waikato so let us override democracy not for 4 years but for ever. Tariana Turia says yes and I agree with her; that is what it does. It overrides democracy for the management of the catchment of the Waikato River and the river itself for ever. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What’s the overriding purpose of the bill? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: That is interesting. The bill states that its purpose is to improve the river. We agree with that I say to Mr Davis. But does he agree with overriding democracy to improve a river? I understood that the Labour Party was complaining about democracy. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about in Canterbury? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I agree with the member that this Parliament overrode the democratic principles in Canterbury. It did it for 4 years. What the Labour Party is voting for is to do it for ever. That is what the National Government is doing. I do not know how Mr David Bennett will get on in Hamilton. I do not know how the National Party will get on in the Waikato when—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Horomia to sit down; there is a bit more to go. I know it is a long way up for him. 
Clause 13(4) states: “Every local authority must—(a) review its regional or district plan to see whether it gives effect to the vision and strategy; and (b) if the regional or district plan does not give effect to the vision and strategy initiate an amendment to it to ensure that it does so …”. So what is happening is that the iwi and the Government-appointed bureaucrats are driving the regional council and the district councils according to their plans. That means no democracy and no say by the locals. This Parliament is handing it across. This Parliament is making a mistake. Only the ACT Party—and I say this in a loving way to the Maori Party—stands against this. This Parliament and the people of New Zealand will rue the day. Thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare. E mihi kau ana i a ratou katoa o Raukawa ratou o Te Arawa mai i Maketu tae atu ki Tongariro. E mihi kau ana ki te rangatira te Heuheu me ratou ma o Tuwharetoa. Na te mea i roto i a koe e mihi kau ana ki a koutou o tera taha nga kanohi Maori. E rekareka atu i tae atu tatou i te wa nei ki te whakawhitiwhiti atu tenei mahi roroa atu. E mohio atu tatou mai ra ano e tuku atu nga tupuna ki a tatou te tikanga o te awa te tikanga o te whenua me te tikanga o te ao katoa. Na te pai o te take nei kei te whakawhitiwhiti atu nga iwi e tae pai atu i te otinga mo tenei mahi roaroa atu.  
E tautokotia atu nga korero a Tariana mo te ahua o te awa nei. E mihi kau ana ki a ratou e kore i konei pera i a Atawhai pera i a Jim nga tangata e whai atu a muri a tenei take. E tae atu tatou ki wetahi o nga roia i korero atu mo te awa i reira ke a Archie ma. No reira e mihi kau ana ki a ratou. Kare hoki te mahi nei he mahi hou. Kare hoki atu te mahi nei mo te tau anake. E roaroa atu te pirangi a wetahi o tatou hei whakatikatika. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker of the House. I acknowledge all those of Raukawa and of Te Arawa from Maketu to Tongariro the chief te Heuheu and those of Tuwharetoa. Because you were involved I also acknowledge the Maori members on that side of the House. I am delighted that we have now come to the time that this longstanding process is dealt with. We know that historically the ancestors handed the traditions of the river land and of the entire world down to us. And because this matter is a good one the people are consulting with each other to ensure that this lengthy process is settled amicably.  
I support Tariana’s remarks about the nature of this river. I pay tribute to those who are no longer here like Atawhai and like Jim—people who worked on this matter in the past but have since died. We include some old soldiers who talked about the river—Archie and others were there. So I acknowledge them. This process is not a new one; it is not for just a year. Some of us have wanted it resolved a very long time ago. So greetings to us. 
] 
The member who just spoke Rodney Hide preaches one thing in one city and town for one lot of people then goes on and paraphrases ridiculously about something that more than just modernising allows us to manage ourselves as a nation going forward into the future. I am proud that it is Maori people from Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa who have the gumption to ensure that co-management becomes a reality. 
Here is a member who preaches zero tolerance and sticks up for all his buddies. Here is a member who goes down to my Pakeha relations in Canterbury the Rutherfords and makes sure they have plenty of water for their land and thinks nothing about it. Then when Maori try to ensure that the river—something that they have travelled on that they have wandered on—is looked after the member starts all his mumbo-jumbo and tries to scratch that redneck itch. That is outrageous I say to Mr Hide. It might be a long way up for me to climb but it is a long way down for you to slide in that sense. It is disgraceful. 
I want to tell you about the river. Mihi atu ki te Kingi Tuheitia. [ 
I acknowledge King Tuheitia. 
] I want to tell you about the importance of the river. It was the democracy and the practices of this country for generations that polluted the river and made it so unsafe to swim in made the dam water stink and made it undrinkable. It was your democracy that did that. It was the organisations that allowed Maori to come to them to talk to them or advise them when it suited them. That is what the councils generally did. The voting system in respect of those structures ensures at times that people who have an attachment to the river be it culturally socially or economically are marginalised because of our systems. What is so wrong about subsets in the legislation of local authorities being made to stand up and to ensure that they cater for everyone? 
Maori did not dream this up just this year. They have been trying to do this for years and years. My tupuna in November 1858 went to Pukawa to talk with the Tuwharetoa people the Raukawa people the Te Arawa people and other tribes in this country to talk about the waterways and how they were being treated. That is a long long time ago I say to Mr Hide. 
I am pleased that the present Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Christopher Finlayson has followed on from what previous Ministers in this Parliament—namely Michael Cullen and me—signed up to 2 years ago in agreeing to try to organise a structure to consolidate the vision and the strategy. It has certainly come a long way forward. 
This bill gives effect to the deeds agreed between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi by which all parties agreed to a co-governance framework for the Waikato River. That is fantastic governance. That is commitment by people who sometimes do not agree amongst themselves. They put aside a whole lot of differences to ensure that there is a commonality—that is the river and what it meant to them traditionally and means to them in modern times. That is something to be saluted. Mr Hide stands up and tries to say that it is ramrodding it is divisive and it is nasty legislation. He will not concede. He will wait until the next time he stands up in the House to cry huffy-puffy to Tariana and say “I apologise.” You should apologise right now Mr Hide. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was ignoring this to help the flow of the member’s speech but he was demanding that you apologise; I think he means me. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes I did try to intervene. The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member should apologise to Maoridom and to the rest of the people who care about the river. He should apologise to this fine Minister Christopher Finlayson who has enough gumption even though he is a Pakeha to carry on and do the right thing by Maori. He has done well but his co-partner is messing around trying to ensure that there are ructions around this bill. Shame on that member! 
I tell Mr Hide that local authorities have not necessarily ensured that Maori issues have been taken care of and he knows that. I am glad that Mr Len Brown became the Mayor of Auckland because it may bring some sense to it. He has made an effort to understand Maori issues. Mr Hide says that this bill will put asunder all local authority legislation and that it does not respect the law but I say he ain’t respecting the lore. Why not give it a shot? Raiha Mahuta said in the early 1980s that the river was polluted and she talked about native trees growing on the side of the river a long long time ago because her people had talked to her of it a long long time ago. The simple statement that was coined was that the fish should be replenished that they should be healthy enough to be eaten again that our elders should be able to bathe in the water and that the water should be clean. What is so bad about that? 
That member is huffing puffing and blowing about this bill being disrespectful to local authority legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker knows coming from an area where the river supplies water for dairy farms water for agriculture and water to bathe in that it is polluted. It is a mess. I tell Mr Hide that the thing to be remembered is clearly Maori want to clean up the river. The aspects of environmental adjustment are upon us. We continue to say that we are clean and green. 
This is an important bill. It is a wonderful bill. It shows that Maori as I said before even though they differ can come together. Strangely the churches never used to agree and they would not come together. Strangely the councils do not agree but this agreement should be supported by the councils. I say do not scratch the itch do not demean this great legislation. Get on board row one’s waka down it and get a good feeling out of it. That is what this partnership is about. It is about ensuring that Maori get what is rightfully theirs. It is about ensuring that other people can share in and care for the river and that future progress is not stormed upon by unnecessary platitudes from people like that member. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I stand to speak in support of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Awawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. I think it is instructive in terms of understanding the significance of this bill to look at the vision and strategy that are to be implemented which are contained within schedule 1. The ACT Party has quite rightly pointed out that it is the vision and strategy that will gain legal force assuming that the bill passes through the House. I think the rabble-rousing that the ACT Party has engaged in around the vision and strategy shows something of its values because when we look at the vision and strategy we see they are things that we think as New Zealanders are tremendously important. 
For example the strategy states that in order to realise the vision certain objectives will be pursued. Those objectives include the “recognition and avoidance of adverse cumulative effects and potential cumulative effects of activities undertaken both on the Waikato River and within its catchment on the health and well-being of the Waikato River”. It is not understood by people who do not follow river ecology closely that what happens in the catchment of the river is actually much more important than what happens in the river itself. Most of the pollution that ends up in the mighty Waikato River is a result of activities undertaken within the catchment. More than three-quarters of all the nitrogen that ends up in the river comes from intensive agricultural practices undertaken in the catchment of the river and the vast bulk of these agricultural practices are permitted activities. There is no control over these kinds of activities. 
So when we say we want to give power to the co-governance body to implement the vision and strategy it seems to me that that is a wonderful thing to do—to give power to local tangata whenua to have some say over the activities that are resulting in the destruction and pollution of this river. When we look at the contaminants that end up in the Waikato River we find they are the nitrogen and the phosphorous that come directly from intensive agricultural practices. The point source discharges such as the sewage treatment plants in Hamilton and other places are a very small part of the overall pollution that goes into the river. So I say to the river iwi that they have an enormous challenge ahead of them. It is absolutely true that the regional council has failed in its duty to protect the river and it has been left to a minority within the Waikato region not only tangata whenua but also greenies and environmentalists to speak up for the river because the river has been polluted over many many decades. 
It is also important to look at other aspects of the wonderful vision and strategy that is in schedule 1. Clause 3 states: “In order to realise the vision the following objectives will be pursued:”. It talks about the recognition that the Waikato River is degraded and should not be required to absorb further degradation as a result of human activities. It also talks about “(i) the protection and enhancement of significant sites fisheries flora and fauna: (j) the recognition that the strategic importance of the Waikato River to New Zealand’s social cultural environmental and economic well-being requires the restoration and protection of the health and well-being of the Waikato River: (k) the restoration of water quality within the Waikato River so that it is safe for people to swim in and take food from over its entire length:”. By the time the Waikato River reaches the river mouth visibility within the river is less than 1 metre. When it leaves Lake Taupo visibility is more than 14 metres. That loss of visibility happens between the top and the bottom of that river system because of the massive contamination that goes into it and overwhelmingly that contamination comes from intensive agricultural activities. That is realised by anyone who cares to look at the science on the issues rather than at the rhetoric that comes from Federated Farmers and others who are merely advocating for intensive corporate agriculture. 
The iwi have a tremendous challenge in terms of being on the co-governance body that is to try to implement that vision. I point to one of the real problems that we have which is that most of the activities that are polluting the river are not activities that require resource consent but are permitted activities. Most of the agricultural farming activities that contribute the vast bulk of the pollution do not require resource consent. If we want to clean up the Waikato River we must make intensive agriculture a consentable activity. Only when we make intensive farming require a consent can we clean up the Waikato River. That is something that is quite radical in New Zealand at the moment because a very powerful lobby says we cannot possibly require intensive agriculture to be a consentable activity. But in fact if we do not make intensive agriculture an activity that requires a consent to control and reduce the nitrogen phosphorous sediment and faecal loads that currently go into the Waikato River we will never clean it up. 
Some people say dairy shed effluent is a consentable activity but in fact dairy shed effluent is a tiny part of the pollution that goes into the river. The vast bulk of the nitrogen that ends up in the river system comes from the fields where the cows are grazing. Each cow produces as much faeces and urine as 14 people. We have a million cows or more standing on fields in this river catchment producing the same faecal load that we would have if 14 million people were standing in that catchment and doing their business on the ground. That is the equivalent of the intensity of the dairy farming within that catchment. It is that massive faecal nitrogen phosphorous and sediment load that is contaminating the Waikato River. Until we make those kinds of intensive agricultural activities ones that require consent and can be controlled we will not clean up the river system. That is a tremendous challenge and nobody in this Chamber should underestimate—of course most members do not even understand this—how great the challenge is and what a fantastically huge job it will be to clean up the Waikato River. We have been fighting an incredibly powerful lobby in New Zealand that does not want to clean up the river. The Greens constantly find themselves in battle against Federated Farmers and the intensive agricultural industry which do not want to clean up that river system. 
It is fantastic that we have this vision and strategy for the Waikato River. It is also fantastic that the river iwi are to be involved in some of the decision making and governance around this river system because the iwi and hapu on this river system are tremendous allies of this mighty river. They are allies who will stand up to help clean up the river and this vision statement is a fantastic statement about what the river system should be like. But my warning if you like to the iwi and hapu who are embarking on this journey is that if they cannot get control over the activities that actually produce the pollution—the intensive agricultural activities that produce the nitrogen the phosphorous the faeces and the sediment that end up in their mighty river—then we will fail in our job to clean up the river. 
So this bill is just a start. It is great that this vision statement will go straight into the regional plan because the regional council has not done its job properly. It should have adopted a vision statement like this many decades ago and thank goodness that the iwi have managed to get this vision statement put into the regional plan through this legislation so that we will have a standard against which to judge the management of the river and so that we can improve its management. This is necessary not only for Maori but for Pakeha as well so that their children may be allowed to swim safely in this river and be able to fish in it for tuna and for whitebait because this river system is part of our natural heritage. We spend a fortune on our cultural heritage which is fair enough but rivers like this one are our living natural heritage. The Green Party will support this bill tonight. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Just when we thought it was the season for apologies and just when we thought it was going to be a night of back-slapping and congratulations for each other we had the Hon Rodney Hide stand up and bring us back to reality. The reality for some people is that they cannot really get the idea of partnership and they cannot really get their heads around what is good for everyone. He went on about the undemocratic situation in respect of the unelected people this bill refers to but on the other hand he stands in the House as Minister of Local Government and supports council-controlled organisations in the super-city which are unelected— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh no—no! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I do not mind their being unelected because they do a pretty good job and we know that they will do a pretty good job. They are in charge of billions of dollars of assets. But when it comes to Maori—and this is not just Maori on their own; this is Maori in a partnership—such people say no they are not going to have a bar of that; they will have the other fullas. It interests me that Rodney Hide as the Minister of Local Government can get up and say what he says but it is the local government people around the motu and around the Waikato River in particular who have got up and said that they have their heads around it and that they are working with iwi. They can work with iwi they were re-elected on the weekend—at least some of them were; poor old Bob Simcock was not but never mind—and they can get their heads around the new framework that the original bill and this bill puts into place. 
I say first and foremost to that dynamic Minister we have the Hon Christopher Finlayson what a good job he has done not only in this respect but in the other Treaty bills he has brought to the House which our Maori Affairs Committee has been lucky enough to be part of. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: You’re a great chair. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I thank the member very much. I am sure we all know how significant the Waikato River is and not only to Waikato and the other iwi—Raukawa Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa—who live along the river. In fact I think that the Waikato River—and I am trying to be diplomatic here—the Whanganui River as well the Waiapu and those great rivers in the north although I cannot name any at the moment are akin to the Mississippi and akin to other rivers around the world. I agree 100 percent with the Hon Maryan Street when she says that it is not just about a dirty river and it is not just about the degradation of the river; it is about trying to establish a new framework and a new way of dealing with a very very old problem. The framework we have in front of us is about partnership; it is about getting local government local communities local iwi and Government working together. 
I will read just a couple of paragraphs out of the Maori Affairs Committee’s report on the bill in regard to the Waikato River Authority membership: “We heard submissions that the membership of the Waikato River Authority should be increased from 10 to 12 to give Ngati Koroki Kahukura representation. It was proposed that an additional Crown member could be nominated by the Federated Farmers of New Zealand. As we did when considering the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act we gave serious thought to Ngati Koroki Kahukura’s need for recognition as a river iwi and to be heard in respect of their Tupuna Awa. We believe that a way should be found for them to achieve their aspirations. 
We remain convinced that to be most effective the maximum size of the Waikato River Authority should remain at 10. We note that the membership can be re-examined during the review process for the authority at a later date. In the meantime we understand that the iwi is currently negotiating with the Crown for the settlement of its non-raupatu historical Treaty claims and we encourage both parties to use this process to address the iwi’s concerns. 
We recommend no amendment.” 
One of the hardest things we had to think about and deliberate on was the make-up of the Waikato River Authority—whether we had too many from one group and not enough from another group. It was always going to be a very very hard decision but in the end I think that what we did and what we came up with was in fact the scenario that would achieve what we as a Government and local iwi wanted to achieve. I cannot wait until the third reading and we can get on to do what this bill sets out to do. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I congratulate Tau Henare on his excellent leadership of the Maori Affairs Committee to get the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill to this second reading and also the many members of this House who have worked together to provide the solution we see in front of us today. The Labour members in the previous Government kicked it off and under the leadership of the current Minister we have been able to refine the solution and make it workable so that it will achieve the enduring goals that it is all about. I acknowledge representatives of the many iwi who are here tonight and who have made the journey here for the second reading; it is a pleasure to see them here and I thank them for their support. We look forward to working with them in the future too to address those challenges that the Green Party said would become a reality over time—and they will be. That is something we have to work through together in the region. 
To the negotiation team up in the gallery I say that it is also good to see them as well. They have put a lot of time and effort into this so I say well done. We also acknowledge up there as well Ngati Maniapoto who settled recently so they are the next step in the jigsaw of passing this bill—or the final settlement in regard to the river. 
But I will talk about just a few concepts that have been raised by two speakers in relation to this bill tonight; those speakers were from ACT and the Green Party. The first thing I say—as a Waikato dairy farmer a Pakeha and somebody who lives and works in that region—is that together we are a region that is a little bit different from the rest of New Zealand. In our part of this country the relationship between iwi and the wider community is very strong and will develop into something a lot stronger in the future. It is a little bit different from the demographics I guess of some other parts of New Zealand. The ownership of assets in that region is quite strongly held by Maori as well and Maori have a vested interest not only in the land as its productive capital but also in the future of things such as the river and its integrity and cleanliness. 
We have a unique and dynamic situation and we need to trust each other and work together to make that a possibility. It is easy to look upon that region and the people in it and say they cannot work together and that it is one against the other but it is not. The Waikato region and the Waikato people see themselves as unified and they see this as a common purpose that they want to deliver on. That is the first thing. 
The second thing we need to look at is the nature of agriculture in that region. I think the Green Party mentioned some important points there; probably they went to the extreme of it. The nature of it is that we have to look at what we do and how we produce our goods and services. Basically agriculture will move from a low-cost production system in New Zealand to an environmentally friendly production system. We will want to get clean green production. That is where we will get the premium on our products for two reasons: one is that consumers will become more discerning over time and the second is that we just do not have a whole lot of land in New Zealand where we can do more bulk commodity production. We are moving into a different field of agriculture. I think this river settlement should be looked at as something that will be of economic gain to that region in say 50 or 100 years’ time. If we get the river in a state where people are proud of it and are aware that it is their river that will be a great selling point for us as an agricultural community in that area. To Mr Hide I say that I understand his argument but the reality is that a bigger economic picture is upon us which we can take advantage of. 
This bill will deliver some large economic gains to the region over time. It will take some compromise and it will take some hard work to make it a reality but it will lead to a situation where the people of that region work together for their full economic benefit in the future. This bill will lead to a lot of change but change that will deliver very fruitful results for that region going forward. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tenei e tapiri atu i era o aku nei whakaaro ki nga iwi mai i Te Hukahuka a Taheke o Taupo-nui-a-Tia tae atu ki Arapuni ara Karapiro. Tenei e mihi ana ki a ratou katoa Ngati Tuwharetoa Te Arawa Waka Raukawa a tenei ano te mihi atu ki a koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you.  
I add my sentiments here to the people from the Huka Falls of Lake Taupo including L 
ake Arapuni and Lake Karapiro.  
I acknowledge them all 
; 
 Ngati Tuwharetoa the Canoe of Te Arawa Raukawa greetings once again 
.] 
It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in favour of the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. This is the second reading so it is an opportunity to highlight some of the issues that the Maori Affairs Committee considered. I am heartened to be able to again highlight that this particular bill builds on the Waikato River settlement and I am especially heartened to hear that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that makes that explicit within the bill. I think it is a very good amendment and it is very helpful in understanding the whole intent of how this and the previous Waikato River bill stitch together to ensure that the ambition of achieving a clean Waikato River will be an enduring solution going forward. 
I listened very carefully to the presentations made in the House and I will at some point go through each of the points that were raised because they are of some interest to me personally. 
Firstly in order for this settlement to be enduring it is absolutely critical that central and local government continue to be long-term interested and committed partners in ensuring that the successful implementation of this bill and the Waikato River bill continues. We cannot afford for any Government to abrogate its responsibility of ensuring successful implementation by saying that now the river authority is there it can do it all and by stepping away from the process. I propose that it is absolutely critical that this Government and future Governments remain committed partners in achieving the successful implementation. 
In the local government elections and especially for Environment Waikato the Rates Control Team ticket actually won a great proportion of the seats on this new regional council. There will have to be a period of re-educating those new councillors about the aspirations of the river settlement. Their ambition will be not to spend any more than absolutely necessary on this settlement but for the settlement to be successful it will require commitment from Environment Waikato which may mean that ratepayers will have to continue to be engaged in contributing towards the successful implementation of what this bill and the river settlement bill are all about. That is the type of leadership that will require the Minister in charge and the Minister of Local Government to give greater direction and leadership on achieving that aspiration. I was concerned to hear the contribution of the current Minister of Local Government. He seems to be shying away from his leadership as Minister in committing to bills like this. This bill sets a framework that I believe many other iwi will follow. If he continues to be the Minister of Local Government it is absolutely necessary that he supports the direction and intent of the Waikato River settlement and this bill because it sets the type of ground that certainly Whanganui iwi and other river iwi might consider. 
More particular to the terms of this bill I pick up very briefly the issue that was raised by Tau Henare in terms of the Waikato River Authority membership. There is a saying back home that goes “Taupiri is our mountain Waikato is our river Waikato river of a hundred taniwha”—at each bend a taniwha. In the previous settlement under Labour a number of statutory boards were proposed and the reason for that was that Waikato-Tainui was not about to presume to dictate to other iwi in the upper catchment what should be happening in their rohe. With the current Government proposing a streamlined process iwi in the upper catchment saw an opportunity to consolidate their interests. However let the House be reminded that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Successful implementation will mean that there may be a few wobbly bits at the front end in trying to smooth out how the river authority operates and in balancing interests in the upper catchment vis-à-vis priorities set in the lower catchment. As politicians we need to be mindful that if there are a few wobbly bits at the front end it is to be expected. We must remain engaged and continue to work with upper catchment iwi and lower catchment iwi to ensure the successful implementation of this settlement for the Waikato River. 
Secondly on the membership of the authority I believe that for Ngati Koroki Kahukura it is absolutely imperative to work out the interests from Arapuni to Karapiro. The intention of the river settlement is that the river be treated as an indivisible entity and where interests are not quite resolved I believe that it would be prudent and of sound judgment to ensure that there is no gap in the picture. For that pragmatic reason I urge urgency in trying to resolve some of this alongside the people of Raukawa and Ngati Koroki Kahukura. 
Thirdly on the issue of the upper Waipa River I am pleased that Minister Turia and Minister Finlayson mentioned the signing of the Maniapoto deed of settlement because without a clean Waipa there is no hope of trying to do anything on the Waikato River. In fact the presentation that Russel Norman for the Greens gave about non - point source runoff absolutely applies to the Waipa River. So it is of concern that for the upper catchment of the Waipa River there is no consideration whatsoever of a clean-up fund in their agreement. I am hopeful and remain optimistic that the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will understand the pressures going forward to try to get urgency in relation to cleaning up the Waipa so that the real ambition for Waikato can be realised. 
Indeed there are very strong whakapapa connections between Raukawa and Maniapoto but the bill itself should not rewrite the nature of that history. In explaining that I just want to say that for my part in good honesty to my own representation to say that Raukawa exercises equal influence on the Waipa akin to that of Maniapoto in current day terms is to misrepresent and misunderstand first the whakapapa link but second what the reality is on the ground. Again I see that the Maori Affairs Committee has stayed away from trying to determine that in the legislation. I think that is absolutely right but I want it noted in  
Hansard 
 that the bill should not be justification for rewriting history. Very practical considerations will have to be made and negotiated directly between Maniapoto and Raukawa. I am pleased to see that the intent of this bill will elevate an opportunity for those iwi to be involved in co-management and co-governance arrangements. The ability for joint-management agreements to be implemented is I think a positive thing and can only serve to support and strengthen iwi participation at the front end of planning policy and decision-making processes culminating in better resource consenting. 
Fourthly I want to comment briefly on Russel Norman’s contribution. If his proposition was that there should be greater regulation in terms of the farming industry then I would have to offset that comment with some practicalities. Raukawa Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa are all involved in farming activities. I think they would want to see themselves as leaders in this industry promoting best practice. Yes I recognise that partial regulation may help achieve urgency in relation to better farming practices and introducing technology but I do not want there to be any misrepresentation of the interests of iwi in the upper catchment who are doing well in the farming sector and contributing and want to do more. They may well be the leaders as a result of decisions made in this space and I would absolutely promote and support that. 
Finally I am pleased to see greater progress being made on river settlements per se and a clear direction of intent from the Minister that something will be done in Whanganui. It should not have had to take as long as this for something to happen. I know that it is through no fault of the Minister but his ambition to see Whanganui iwi reaching a settlement will I think be well supported on this side of the House. No reira kia koutou katoa. Tena koutou. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Tena koutou nga iwi rangatira o te Awa o Waikato. Tena koutou i nga ahuatanga o te wa. No reira e te Ariki Tumu te Heuheu e Te Arawa Raukawa ma tena koutou katoa. No reira e te Whare Miere tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to the leaders of the Waikato River in respect of the circumstances of the day. Greetings to you Paramount Chief Tumu te Heuheu and to Te Arawa Raukawa and the others greetings to you all. So greetings to you all the House. 
] 
As the member of Parliament for the Taupo electorate I am thrilled to see representatives here from Tuwharetoa Ngati Raukawa and Te Arawa. The settlement of the upper Waikato claim is significant to the communities that I work hard to represent. The Government is delivering on promises to complete final durable settlements of all remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi grievances by 2014. Just this Monday I met with a group in Cambridge who asked that very question: when would the settlements all be completed? I assured them that our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson is making fantastic progress with these settlements. It is important to note that the settlements recognise the wrongs of the past but more important they allow iwi to realise their economic potential. The settlements provide an economic boost to the communities in which the iwi reside which in turn is an investment in the wider communities thereby creating jobs and wealth in our communities. 
The Waikato River connects my constituents from Taupo Atiamuri Whakamaru Mangakino Arapuni and Karapiro and that is why I am thrilled to stand and support this bill. As other speakers have said this bill gives effect to the co-governance and co-management arrangements agreed with each iwi and more important creates the Waikato River clean-up fund—$210 million that will be distributed over a 30-year period. The bill comes into force once the scoping study on the clean-up priorities has been completed. 
The Waikato River supplies 13 percent of New Zealand’s electricity generation. Just last week I was at the Mighty River Power annual general meeting at Karapiro and the point I want to make is that it was interesting to see the wide variety of groups attending that meeting. I think it gives a sense of the number of organisations to which the Waikato River is critical. Iwi were there as were Federated Farmers a range of tourism business operators neighbouring landowners and sports clubs as of course we have the World Rowing Championships soon; you name it they were there because the Waikato River has such critical importance to the whole of the Waikato region. 
As we have heard other speakers say the Waikato River is degraded and badly polluted. Over 80 point-source discharges go directly into the river. The Green member Dr Russel Norman talked a lot about pollution but unfortunately he did not talk a lot about some of the work that is already under way with the clean-up and I want to mention just a couple of examples. 
But first I will come back to the comments made by Nanaia Mahuta about iwi farming businesses leading the way in New Zealand. I was pleased to be at the Ahuwhenua Trophy - Bank of New Zealand Maori Excellence in Farming competition when the Waipapa Trust took out the award. The trust is in this area and I pay tribute to the excellence of the farming businesses that Tuwharetoa undertake. 
I come back to the issue of pollution. I was at a recent lakes and waterways meeting that the Lake Taupo Protection Trust presented at and they talked about what they have done to date in relation to the reduction of nitrogen which of course is a critical part of reducing the pollution into Lake Taupo that has a downstream impact. Also another business in Tokoroa in my electorate Blue Pacific Minerals recently opened a larger premise. One of the minerals it extracts in my electorate is being used in the clean-up projects on the rivers in Rotorua. I am convinced that work that has been done in our communities will also assist in the clean-up of our rivers. Obviously we are doing work in Lake Taupo and the focus now has to go on to the Waikato River. It is critical to our local economy. It has been in the past and it will be in the future. I met recently with the South Waikato District Council Mayor Neil Sinclair who has recently been re-elected—and congratulations to him—about the economic development opportunities arising in the district. Many of those have an involvement with and touch in some way the Waikato River so it is important that all of those factors are taken into consideration. 
This Government is providing clear direction and certainty around co-governance and co-management of the Waikato River. We are providing more than words for the concept of partnership that is inherent in the Treaty of Waitangi. I was in Te Kuiti with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for the signing with Ngati Maniapoto. For me that was a historic moment as I was the witnessing signature on those documents. It was a proud day indeed. Our Government has signed eight deeds of settlement and that is a result I am proud of just as this is a bill I am proud of. Kia ora. Ka mutu. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tuatahi maku hei tapirihia oku mihi ki wera o nga rangatira mai i Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa Te Arawa i tatu mai ki raro i te tuanui o tenei Whare hei whakarongo ki wenei whaikorero e pa ana ki tenei pire. Na reira tena ra koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker. First I add my acknowledgments to those leaders from Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa who have arrived here beneath the roof of this House to listen to these speeches about this bill. So greetings to you 
.]  
It is a pleasure to contribute to the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. The Waikato River begins at Te Waiheke o Huka or Huka Falls where there is a point that Ngati Tuwharetoa know as Te Toka a Tia. The river flows north through the Waikato to Te Puaha o Waikato or the mouth of the Waikato River. This bill relates to the upper reaches of the Waikato from Karapiro. The iwi that this bill relates to are Ngati Tuwharetoa who are represented by the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board; Raukawa meaning those individuals who descend from Raukawa Marae in the Waikato area; and Te Arawa River Iwi in particular Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa Ngati Kearoa Ngati Tuara and Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao. 
It is appropriate to acknowledge that this bill is the sister legislation to the previous Act the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 especially because that Act established the co-governance arrangements of the river and has the overriding purpose of restoring the health and well-being of the Waikato River. It established the Waikato River Authority which has membership comprised of one member each from the Waikato Raupatu River Trust Te Arawa River Iwi Trust the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board the Raukawa Settlement Trust and the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board as well as members appointed by the Minister for the Environment in consultation with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Local Government: one on the recommendation of the council another recommended by the territorial authorities and three members appointed by the Minister for the Environment in consultation with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Maori Affairs. Altogether there are 10 members on that board: five iwi representatives and five appointed by the Minister. 
The Waikato River Authority is the organisation charged with fulfilling the purpose of this bill as well as that of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act. That purpose is described succinctly in Part 1 of the bill. It is “to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for present and future generations.” That is an admirable overarching purpose and it will ensure that future generations of Maori alongside their non-Maori neighbours will be able to play swim gather food and enjoy a healthy river that is free as far as is possible from the devastating effects of 150 years or so of the dumping of domestic commercial and agricultural wastes such as herbicides pesticides and fertiliser. 
Because of the similarities of this bill to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act I will raise a few points that were made in the third reading of that legislation by the ACT Party. I have to acknowledge that the Hon Rodney Hide apologised for the comments he made in the third reading of that legislation. He has taken a bit of wind out of my sails but I will still say what I have to say. In that bill he said that this House was legislating hocus-pocus based on Maori beliefs. I found that offensive. I wondered whether I should let it go tonight as he has apologised but the reality is that other members of the community in New Zealand will share his views and will not believe that his apology is justified. I raise it also because for ever and a day in  
Hansard 
 it will be recorded that Rodney Hide of the ACT Party believes that this type of legislation is hocus-pocus and that we are legislating hocus-pocus. I found it offensive at the time and I am glad for the opportunity to rebut it now. 
At the time David Garrett quoted the deed of settlement which said— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Yes David who? He quoted the legislation as saying: “The river is a metaphysical being with its own mauri.” He then said: “The concept of mauri—life-force—will in our view have little significance to most Maori who according to census figures are mostly Christian.” I am pretty tolerant of most opinions but there is one thing that gets under my skin and that is when somebody of another ethnicity tries to tell Maori what we must be thinking or feeling based on his or her own narrow perspective of the world. 
One of the great things about being a New Zealander who is able to straddle both the Maori world and the Pakeha world is that I can see that two opposing world views can exist quite happily. It is not confusing for me. Just as an example in English we might say: “I am travelling up north.” The literal translation of that sentence in Maori would be: “I am travelling down north.” The fact is that it does not have to be explained. To me that is just the way it is. The opposing perspectives can quite happily be accommodated by somebody with an open mind who is grounded in what it means to walk along two paths in 21st century New Zealand. If someone is unable to walk comfortably along those dual or multicultural paths that is fine and I accept their position just as long as they do not fall back on their own ignorance to belittle another cultural perspective. 
The ACT Party also lamented that the Crown is giving half of the control of the Waikato River and its surrounding land to five iwi. My question is: so what? ACT’s attitude smacks of the colonial view that the natives are getting uppity. Maori are simply having a say in the management and governance of a resource that was unjustifiably taken out of their control and it is about time we have the sort of legislation that enables Maori to have a say in the way their resources are used. 
Those five iwi along with the other members of the Waikato River Authority are committed to restoring the well-being and health of the Waikato River for this and future generations. That cannot be a bad thing except if one belongs to a particular group that has for 150 years or so become accustomed to the unbridled power that 100 per cent control gave it. Now we are suffering from the effects and the mess that that unbridled power has produced. 
I welcome the fact that this bill transfers governance of the Waikato River away from a system that favoured the interests of a few to a system that shares the power and benefits the river for future generations of Maori Pakeha and all the other ethnicities that have made Aotearoa their home. The Hon Rodney Hide told us when we debated the last Waikato River Settlement Bill: “Well I have to say that it is a very very sad day for the people of Waikato and the people of New Zealand … What we will now have is the Waikato River Authority and it will be made up of people who are not elected from that community.” Again I say that ACT members fall back on their own cultural norms to justify their angst at their ilk losing their grip on power. The iwi representatives may not be elected in a way that satisfies Mr Hide and company but those iwi members will be selected in a manner appropriate to the iwi they represent and that is what is important. It is important that the Waikato River Authority is there to ensure the well-being and the health of the Waikato River so that all New Zealanders may enjoy the benefits that that river can give to us.  
Other members have spoken about some of the issues that the Maori Affairs Committee came across such as the fact that Ngati Koroki Kahukura wanted to have representation on the Waikato River Authority and they submitted that Federated Farmers also have a member so as to take the total membership up to 12. As a committee we believe that the most effective membership of that river authority will be 10 members.  
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I have the privilege as the last speaker to bring closure to the second reading debate of a bill that unsurprisingly I fully support. I thought that in closing I might perhaps respond to some of the comments made by the leader of the ACT Party in particular in respect of democracy and having the power removed from local authorities. He focused on the fact that this particular bill was undemocratic. In so doing he made the observation that unfortunately minorities have to accept that they miss out and that that is the way the cookie crumbles. 
Well I would like to share a bit of history with the leader of the ACT Party. I will take him back to 16 July 1787 and to what some might consider to be the guardian of world democracy—that is the United States of America. If the member studies his history book he will find that on that date the founding fathers of the United States of America signed an agreement to constitute the Senate as part of the Congress of the United States of America. The Senate document stipulates that there can be only two members from every state. The simple fact of the matter is that if that document had not been signed and executed then we would not have the United States as we know it today. In trying to create the United States the founding fathers could not get past the fact that unless there were some protections against the large states of New York Massachusetts and so on the smaller states were not prepared to cede their sovereignty—at which point in time they still held. So the compromise was that they created the United States Senate and that every state was entitled to two senators only. The protection it provides is that ultimately to get anything agreed and where in particular the smaller states disagree there has to be at least a two-thirds majority of 60 votes. So there is the example within what some people say is the greatest democracy in the world—that in fact minorities do not have to suck the kumara to use an expression. The reality is that this particular legislation ultimately recognises property rights from way back. 
In talking about local authorities and the fact that they may be hamstrung I will share with the House at a very high level—because I think it is appropriate—the contributions made to the Maori Affairs Committee process by those local authorities. As has been mentioned there were 18 submissions: approximately 50 percent were from iwi groups and 50 percent were from other constituted bodies. I will run quickly through a summary. The South Waikato District Council supports the bill. The Taupo District Council in its submission supported the bill. The Waikato Regional Council supports the purpose of the bill “to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for present and future generations.” New Zealand Eel Ltd made a submission and agreed with the measures proposed in the bill. The Eel Enhancement Company Ltd supported the initiatives arising from the bill. Federated Farmers supported the measures as set out in the bill as did the Seafood Industry Council. 
The fact of the matter is that the interested parties that this bill directly affects all support the intention of this particular bill. They are the democratically elected representatives of the people and the populace whom our friend Mr Hide said he was speaking on behalf of. I say to him that he should read the submissions. They all support the bill. With those few words it gives me great pleasure to conclude the debate on the second reading of this wonderful bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill clarifies the primary Act to reflect the intent of Parliament when it was passed in 2004. As enacted the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act provides for a 10-year storage limit on gametes and embryos including a mechanism to approve extensions. Though the common understanding was that this storage period would operate from the date of enactment in 2004 a recent legal opinion interpreted the storage period as beginning on the date of storage even if storage occurred before the Act. In short although most couples with stored gametes thought they had at least until 2014 to decide what to do with them some of that matter stored prior to the Act may be already past their storage limit. This means that the current law would require these stored gametes and embryos to be discarded immediately contrary to the intent of Parliament. This amendment bill corrects that error. 
I am grateful to the Health Committee for its prompt and valuable contribution to the development of this bill. I would also like to express my thanks to all the submitters on the bill. Those who have particular expertise in this field have helped with thoughtful input and have made the bill stronger. 
The bill clarifies a number of other matters relating to storage including a new 6-month grace period after the storage period expires which gives the fertility clinic that is storing gametes or embryos a reasonable time to dispose of them. The bill elucidates the powers and duties of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology when approving changing or cancelling storage extensions. The bill also clarifies how the 10-year storage limit is calculated when gametes or embryos have been stored outside New Zealand. Finally the bill ensures that the principal Act’s enforcement provisions are available where any storage contravenes the storage provisions of the Act. Making these rules as clear as possible is most important for the participants in what is a very emotive and emotional process where expectations are critical. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to join the Minister of Justice in supporting what feels like the rapid progress of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill through its third and final reading. 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s right. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I beg the Minister’s pardon? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I said that’s right. We’ve got to get on to it. People are waiting. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: We do have to get on to it. People are waiting. In fact I imagine lots of people are listening to their wireless right now hoping that we will get through all 12 speeches in the third reading before the House rises today. So I look forward to the Acting Leader of the House the Hon Simon Power moving that the House sits after 10 p.m. in order to get this third reading finalised. That would show a genuine commitment. I look forward to that and say we will support a resolution to do that if it is so moved. 
As the Minister mentioned this bill arises not as a result of Parliament making an error—well certainly not intentionally or through rushed legislation—but as a result of a legal opinion that said the law could be interpreted in a different way from what Parliament had intended. Therefore it was certainly the will—I think I recall this correctly—and the entire unanimous view of Parliament that the possible confusion about the storage period for sperm eggs and embryos meant that the issue had to be clarified immediately. So this bill was referred to the Health Committee as an amendment bill. The select committee was very anxious not to extend the scope of debate. We wanted to limit it specifically to just this amendment to ensure that people’s expectations did not start to be raised about any other alterations that Parliament might be considering because frankly we were not doing so. The only reason that we had the bill before the select committee and the only reason that Parliament had voted to refer it to the select committee was that there was the possibility of a fertility clinic storing gametes or embryos beyond the time that was legally allowed if this legal opinion was to be interpreted by the courts. That was the last thing that any one of us would want to have happen to a family who is in this situation. 
During the select committee process it was interesting to learn a little more about in vitro fertilisation from families who were involved even though we did limit our discussion quite specifically to the point of the bill which is the storage period. But 2 percent of the babies who are born in New Zealand now are conceived with some sort of reproductive help generally through an in vitro fertilisation clinic. That is quite a rapid increase from the time of the first baby who was born in New Zealand after in vitro fertilisation. It is important to make the law really clear but also to have the ethical considerations relating to in vitro fertilisation robustly debated and agreed on as well. So the second part of the bill was the changes to the powers and the duties of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. There was some debate and some confusion about whether the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology could give advice to the ethics committee on the matters that needed to be taken into account when the ethics committee applied for approval for a longer storage period for eggs sperm and embryos. Our select committee worked very hard to make sure that the rules on what advice could be given and on what basis and to whom it could be given were made really clear and I hope that the final outcome achieves that goal. 
I also make note of the work of the officials and the other members of the select committee. It is becoming a bit of a habit to commend the members of the committee but they deserve it. This is the second time that I have had cause to do that today. I think that in a number of areas we occasionally have political commentary—just occasionally—but generally we work in a respectful way. I think that is really important for all members of Parliament. We treat our submitters in a respectful way and that is across the three parties represented on the committee. Even when it is clear that we do not agree with submitters they are still treated with respect and I think that is a very important thing for select committees to do if we want to encourage participation in the democratic process. We took the issues on this bill very seriously as we do on bills like this because we knew that this is not just a technical issue and it is certainly not a political issue; it is a very emotive and emotional issue for the families who are involved. It added a burden of responsibility for us to make sure that nobody is under any misunderstanding about the length of time that sperm eggs and embryos can be stored. The point of this bill was to make sure that that time was made absolutely crystal clear. 
I commend the Minister of Justice for his early contribution right at the very start of this debate. I have a quote from him. He stated: “This Government believes it would be unfair to require fertility clinics to destroy the sperm eggs or embryos that have been stored for more than 10 years when they have acted in good faith and reasonably believed they could be stored until 2014.” Had the Minister not taken this initiative I think we would have had a lot of distress amongst fertility clinics and certainly amongst families in New Zealand. None of us wanted that to occur. So the Minister took a very good initiative. There will be no need for further debate on this issue I hope. In future though issues that are broader than this amendment bill will come before the House again. This is a rapidly growing area of technology and more and more families are now taking advantage of it. It was certainly tempting for the select committee and the submitters to broaden the scope of their contribution to the bill. I commend all of us for putting a leash on our own interest in this area and maintaining the rigour that we determined right at the very start of our select committee process which was to quite strongly enforce the narrowness of our debate. 
Since 1984 when the first in vitro fertilisation baby was born in New Zealand this technology has leapt ahead in leaps and bounds. We have had a considerable amount of our parliamentary time taken up by debating it. We have had leaders in that debate—people like Di Yates my colleague from Hamilton who ensured that we had international expertise. We obtained advice from other countries that had already been through the legislative process. We looked at all the potential pitfalls and tried to avoid them as much as possible. But the legislation that we are amending has been in place only since 2004 so this is a relatively recent issue for the New Zealand Parliament to be debating. I hope that we have set a good standard for the debate. I hope that the select committee is looked on in future as having given this bill the attention that it requires. I certainly support the bill’s rapid progress through the remainder of its third reading. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I note that time is running out and that the Deputy Speaker will be leaving the Chair shortly. As pointed out by the Hon Ruth Dyson the Health Committee worked extremely well together and collaboratively on this very technical bill. It is a bill that came about after media inquiries alerted the Minister of Justice that clinics acting in good faith could be illegally storing gametes. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.