Volume 647 Week 77 - Wednesday 18 June 2008 
Volume 647 Week 77 - Wednesday 18 June 2008 
[Volume:647;Page:16667] 
Wednesday 18 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Indonesia—Legislative Agency House of Representatives 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the House of Representatives from the Republic of Indonesia led by Mr F X Soekarno chair of the Legislative Agency is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to welcome them. 
Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Bishop Suter Art Gallery Governance Restructuring Bill be read a second time and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
Questions to Ministers 
Sovereign Credit Rating—Reports 
1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on New Zealand’s sovereign credit rating? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that Moody’s Investors Service reaffirmed New Zealand’s AAA credit rating and highlighted its view that the New Zealand Government’s management of the finances of the Crown is a significant factor underpinning that assessment. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did Moody’s offer any investors any other advice on possible changes to New Zealand’s investment climate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes the report goes on to note that the National Party is likely to be more favourable to selling off State assets. I think National needs to front up on whether it is telling the public one thing and international credit-rating agencies another when it comes to asset sales. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the conclusions he has just quoted from the rating agency directly contradict one of his main arguments against tax cuts where he has repeatedly said in the past that multibillion dollar tax cuts would increase debt and jeopardise our credit rating; if that was the case why did he go ahead with multibillion dollar tax cuts that increased debt but apparently did not jeopardise our credit rating? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is because Moody’s has consistently praised the Government during very strong growth years for running large surpluses and knows that we are running down some of the cash surpluses we acquired during periods of good times. Had we in fact spent the money in the good years we would not have the money left to carry us through the bad years—like this year. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister explain to the House and to the people of New Zealand how it was for 9 long years that economic conditions were such that we could not have decent tax cuts only tax hikes and then suddenly 2 weeks out from a desperate election that Labour faces economic conditions align and we can have a tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the tax cuts were passed on 23 May. The 2 weeks have long since passed at this point in time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it possible to effect tax cuts by way of State asset sales and how long would such a policy last? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed and of course in 1998-99 the then Government engaged in a major asset sale programme around Auckland airport and Contact Energy. As a result of course we also had tax cuts at that time. The trouble is that by selling State assets one also reduces one’s long-term revenue and when the proceeds of the sale run out we have something of a problem. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the direct costs incurred in selling State assets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. One of the main reasons to oppose State asset sales is strategic. It is important to realise just how expensive the process can be. I was able to reveal at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that when last in Government Mr English spent over $47 million in 1 year on consultants to help him sell State assets. 
Corrections Justice and Police Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Ministers of Corrections Justice and Police; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because they are hard-working and conscientious Ministers. 
John Key 
: How can New Zealanders have confidence in this Government’s law and order policies when Graeme Burton a paroled killer was allowed to go on a murderous rampage resulting in the death of Karl Kuchenbecker and when the coroner has stated that Mr Kuchenbecker’s death might have been prevented if the actions procedures and processes of the Parole Board the Department of Corrections and the police had been different? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The coroner’s report identified factors that the Government had already identified and addressed and on that basis the coroner made no further recommendations for change. I also note that back in 1998 Graeme Burton escaped from Paremoremo under Nick Smith’s watch. 
John Key 
: How can New Zealanders trust the Government’s parole policies when on its watch William Bell was able to kill three people at the Panmure RSA while out on parole when Graeme Burton was able to kill Karl Kuchenbecker while out on parole and when—despite the comments the Prime Minister just made about having made changes—in the last few months a convicted paedophile and a convicted rapist have been able to commit vicious sex crimes while out on parole? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The sentencing legislation the parole legislation and the bail legislation have all been tightened by the Labour Government. I note that under the parole legislation we have passed people now serve on average 72 percent of their prison sentence. Under the last National Government they served 52 percent. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the head of the Department of Corrections who said after the incident with Graeme Burton and the death of Karl Kuchenbecker: “There is no blood on my hands.” despite the fact that the report by the chief coroner actually gives quite a different outlook? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said all the issues the coroner identified were identified by the Government changes were made and that is why the coroner said he has no extra recommendations to make—because the Government has dealt with the shortcomings of the system. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister support National’s policy where we are proposing to put $35 million into army-style correction camps for young people? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: We have many initiatives dealing with youth offending and I am pleased to say that as a result of the very strong focus on youth gang activity in Counties-Manukau— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s getting worse. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Far from getting worse as Mr Smith asserts actually the police say there is less criminal activity and fewer serious offences now from those with youth gang affiliations. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that the National Party does not like the facts but those they are. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there has been substantial success in both Rotorua and Hamilton as a result of the upgraded services of the Maori wardens an organisation that New Zealand First found the funds for in the last Budget? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am pleased to say that there was significantly more support—with support from support parties—for the Maori wardens in the last Budget. Maori wardens are now receiving training at the Police College in Porirua. They are doing a fantastic job and we are now trialling whether we can extend that sort of work to Pacific communities with Pacific wardens. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement a few moments ago that she seriously believes the issue of youth gangs is improving in South Auckland not getting worse? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the police that there is less criminal activity and fewer serious offences in Counties-Manukau now from those with youth gang affiliations. The Leader of the Opposition might not like it—he may like to run around with his slogans but that does not make them true; they patently are not. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the last time that National trialled boot camps in New Zealand the reoffending rate was 95 percent—the highest rate of reoffending for any form of dealing with young criminals—and that the police complained that the only thing they achieved out of them was fitter criminals? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure that is correct. Of course the Leader of the Opposition wants to think that he is doing something when in fact he comes up with failed solutions time and time again. 
John Key 
: Did the Prime Minister read the  
New Zealand Herald  
on Monday 9 June the day after Navtej Singh was killed and if she did not would she like me to read for her where it stated: “Last night neighbours of the store were reluctant to speak for fear of retribution from gangs which they say are rife in the area. Teenagers hanging around the shop told the  
Herald  
they weren’t surprised when they heard about the shooting. ‘It was just another day’ said one. ‘There’s always street gangs hanging around here. There’s always fights in this street.’ ”; and does the Prime Minister know that those youth gangs went back and actually tagged Navtej Singh’s store? So if she thinks the situation is improving maybe she needs to get down to South Auckland and have a look. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is an old saying that one swallow does not make a spring. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to respond to me today on the letter that has gone to the Opposition today where the Government seeks the support of the National Party for increasing the maximum penalty from 5 to 10 years for participation in an organised criminal group. That will also make it possible for the police to get the interception warrants they need for investigations under section 98. The Government is also asking for National’s support relating to aggravating and mitigating factors like gang membership being taken into account in sentencing. If the National Party is going to be more than just talk I look to its response today to the Minister of Justice confirming its support for that bill. 
Gangs—Police Progress 
3.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she believe that police are winning the battle against criminal gangs; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that the police are taking ongoing and consistent action with criminal gangs. There have been some recent significant achievements but there is certainly no room for complacency. 
Ron Mark 
: Has she read the report in this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
entitled “Gang wrecks Treaty vote” and does she find it acceptable that gang intimidation has spread from the streets of our towns and cities to our marae with gangs now intimidating tribal members into voting against Treaty settlements? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not find it acceptable to have gang influence in any part of our lives when gangs are involved in criminal activity—whether it is on a marae on the street or in the home. I do not believe that many New Zealanders would find it acceptable. 
Chester Borrows 
: If the Minister has her head around the gang situation in New Zealand why can she not tell us how many gang fortifications the police have removed in the past few years or is it the truth that the police have not removed any and that is why they have removed that reference from their statement of intent? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have those figures with me but I certainly have my head around crime and gangs in New Zealand and it is not a lot of hot air which we often hear and which we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition. He is all crocodile tears but no action and we look forward to seeing him putting his vote where his mouth is. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister concerned about recent reports on Radio New Zealand National that claim large-scale infiltration of gang influence in most Government departments from Immigration New Zealand down to the Ministry of Social Development; and will investigations into Government agencies be part of the Minister’s organised crime strategy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The New Zealand Police and the organised crime unit will investigate criminal activity and gang activity wherever it happens but I have no evidence that the gangs have infiltrated all departments or many departments in New Zealand. But I can assure the member that the police will investigate and have the ability to investigate gangs wherever they are. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister concerned that a UK-produced TV documentary showcasing the disgusting criminal behaviour of New Zealand gangs is being shown throughout the world but not in New Zealand whose treasured international reputation as a safe and free society is being tarnished by the actions of these lawless thugs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can have no control over where a company that makes a documentary shows that documentary. What I can say to the member is that we should be congratulating the New Zealand Police and celebrating the work it is doing with gangs in New Zealand. I will give just one example—the “Killer Bees” operation in South Auckland. As the member knows after a 6-month investigation the police had made almost 60 arrests of those gang members and they have taken them off to court for the punishment they will receive. So I say to the member that we should look at the good things the police are doing. A documentary made by some company that is shown overseas does not portray New Zealand as it is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister confident that the police have the resources and the capacity to get on top of the use and spread of the drug P which has become the significant province of Chinese triads working alongside Maori gangs in Auckland in particular? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question in that one of the problems the police face is the international nature of the precursors for making the drug P. Having good international contacts and relationships is part of stemming the tide of those precursors. As the member will probably know we already have police officers in countries like China working alongside their agencies in an effort to reduce the flow of those precursors for this dreadful drug. I also say to the member that the police have put a lot of emphasis on catching those who distribute and manufacture P. He will notice that in 1999 around nine clan-labs were busted by the police. If the member looks at the situation today he will find that that figure is now 200 so a lot of effort and work has gone in. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that the police believe they would have another tool against P labs if property managers were registered; and having missed the opportunity presented by the Real Estate Agents Bill is that an issue the Government will address? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that that is a little wide of the topic. I think the member might want to direct that question to the Minister who has charge of that bill. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question was addressed to the Minister of Police and it began with “Is she aware that the police are asking for this to be done?”. It does fall within her ministerial responsibility surely. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The police have never raised that issue with me as Minister of Police. I do not know whether they have raised the issue with the select committee but they certainly have not raised it with me. If they did I would obviously look at it but it has not been raised with me by the police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Minister referred to gang fortresses what was she talking about given that in 1990 a former Minister of Police promised to bulldoze them down the day after the election—that of course was John Banks in the National Party? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The person who mentioned fortification was actually the National Opposition spokesperson on police. I think he was trying to make some sort of political point but I think the member has put it into perspective. 
John Key 
: I seek to table from the Statistics New Zealand website the police statistics showing that for youth crime among 14 to 16-year-olds the apprehensions from 1999 to 2007 despite what the Prime Minister has been saying— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Election Spending— 
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the  
We’re making a difference for everyone 
 pamphlet that “The secretary of the Labour Party has decided that this particular booklet … will be apportioned against Labour party expenses.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister make that statement in the House when in fact the secretary of the Labour Party had written to the Electoral Commission only 2 days earlier to deny that the pamphlet was even an election advertisement let alone that it would count as a Labour Party expense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am not responsible for what the secretary of the Labour Party says but I repeated in this House the comments he had made. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us who was right then: was it she when she stood up in this House and said that OK fair cop the Labour Party will count the booklet as a Labour Party election expense or was it the Labour Party’s financial agent who wrote to the Electoral Commission to say that Labour had done nothing wrong and in fact to demand that a correction be made on the commission’s website? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The premise of the question is wrong. It was not me who said it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that this situation does seem oddly familiar given that before the last election the Labour Party secretary—the same one—said he would count the cost of the pledge card as an election expense but then once the election was over he told the Electoral Commission that it would not be counted as an election expense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What is vaguely familiar is the whining and whingeing from the National Party because it cannot spend the millions of dollars that it had planned to spend on its election campaign right up to 3 months before the election pretending that it did not count as election advertising. Its billboards would have been right around New Zealand. National is not able to do that. What we get now is its whingeing and snivelling about it. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the House believe anything this Minister says about the Labour Government’s attitude to the Electoral Finance Act when the House is being told one thing in public but behind closed doors the Labour Party’s agents are doing exactly the opposite? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no responsibility in this Parliament for the Labour Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister has no responsibility in this Parliament for the Labour Party why did she get up and say that the particular booklet in question will be apportioned against Labour Party expenses—on what basis did she say that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In response to a question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister read the pamphlet  
We’re making a difference for everyone 
; if so can she confirm that it highlights the fact that the Government is increasing spending on health and education cutting taxes boosting New Zealand superannuation and increasing Working for Families payments and can she also confirm that it can be interpreted as an election platform for Labour only if it is assumed that National will cut those precise elements of spending? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have read the pamphlet and I absolutely concur with the Minister of Finance’s assessment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that her statements about whether something will be counted as a Labour Party expense are just as credible as the statement she made that “The public of New Zealand can be assured that the Labour Party … will abide by the Electoral Finance Act.”; and is she aware of the evidence to the opposite: that Labour shows the least understanding of the Electoral Finance Act that it is the first party to be found to have breached the Act that it has not correctly authorised a number of publications and that now she is saying one thing in public about its compliance while the Labour Party is saying the total opposite behind closed doors? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not agree with a single comment the member has just made. 
Volunteers—Contribution 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What reports has she received on the contribution to New Zealand made by volunteers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 This week is Volunteer Awareness Week a time to acknowledge the vital contribution made by volunteers towards the well-being of fellow New Zealanders. A report published yesterday estimated that 1.2 million people volunteered in the previous 12 months. That is around a third of all New Zealanders over the age of 10. Almost 80 percent of those people who volunteered also donated money or goods. I would like to commend all those New Zealanders for their dedication and their generosity. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What progress has been made in the implementing of the Government’s volunteering policy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Since we launched our volunteering policy in 2002 we have seen the profile of volunteering within Government grow and produce positive results. That includes announcing changes that will make volunteer expense reimbursements tax-exempt with no limits; $6.5 million over 4 years to assist sport and recreational organisations with recruitment training and retaining volunteers; and information resources to encourage good volunteer management. I seek the leave of the House to table  
Government Support for Volunteering 2002-2008 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Changes 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What changes if any are being considered to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to gain the support of other parties in the Parliament? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The bill has been reported back to the House in very good shape and talks with other parties are continuing. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister tell Parliament yesterday that the Government was discussing the emissions trading scheme’s effect on households with support parties when the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne subsequently said in a press release: “As a confidence and supply partner of Labour United Future is disappointed the Government has failed to talk to us about this important issue”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Because as I said yesterday we are having conversations with support parties on these very issues. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister confirm that I raised on 11 December 2007 the issue of compensation to households for the impact of the emissions trading regime and that since that date neither his office nor his representatives have initiated discussions with United Future on that point? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Regarding the issue as to compensation and efficiency I would say that good ideas like that have many parents. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did the Minister or did he not have discussions with United Future about affordability issues for households as he told Parliament yesterday? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I did not specifically mention Mr Dunne yesterday. In respect of the issues that need to be addressed in the House I say the list is far shorter than it would have otherwise been because support parties have achieved much of what they wanted to achieve in the legislation. For example coal-seam methane is now included because of the Greens and the prospect of offset planting being allowed in respect of deforestation is in there which was very important for New Zealand First. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the Green Party’s minority report that the bill as reported back from the select committee has “major flaws”; if so is he prepared to make the considerable changes to the bill advocated in the Green Party’s minority report? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not agree with everything the Greens say in respect of the bill and I do not think they realistically expect I would. I think in terms of positioning it is true that whatever we do the Greens will say it is not enough. None the less I believe that the bill is in good shape and the fundamentals of it are sound. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister read the report from the select committee and in particular the minority report from the National Party; and does he have any idea now what those proposals might be in respect of an emissions trading scheme that the National Party says it supports—does he have any idea now what the policy contains as an alternative? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: My opinion is the same as that of a business commentator I heard on the radio yesterday who said that in respect of the six so-called principles that National had previously articulated four of them are actually dealt with in the report back and the other two did not seem insurmountable other than the call for delay. That seems to be the only policy that National has here—one of delay. There is no principle behind it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the Maori Party that the bill is “fundamentally flawed” “delivers little for the environment” “rips off taxpayers” and will “[hit] poor families hardest”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware that some parties think we have the balance wrong in terms of sharing the burden of costs between taxpayer and emitters and although I disagree with their conclusion I can see why they could argue that proposition. I remain though absolutely clear that in terms of the efficacy of the scheme the fundamentals are right. It includes all sectors and all gases and creates a marginal price signal that encourages a reduction in emissions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister expect New Zealand First to support this legislation when the party stated in its 2005 policy “We should not be proceeding faster than our”— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for the enlightened policies of New Zealand First—that is the first thing. Second the Minister has no responsibility to answer a question that is being put by Nick Smith as to New Zealand First’s policy. That is outside the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Dr Smith was very cautious about the way in which he asked his question. He has actually taken his lead in formulating this question from your response to Winston Peters’ points of order yesterday about these very issues. He was simply asking the Minister responsible for a bill how he is going to surmount some of the clearly stated and publicly proposed positions from New Zealand First in order to get support for this bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is quite clear that Ministers are not responsible for parties’ policies; that is quite clear in the House. In terms of the way in which the question is framed I am sure the Minister will ensure that his answer is within ministerial responsibility. I call the Hon David Parker. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was interrupted by Winston Peters in the middle of my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Your question was going on? I thought you had completed it. Please continue. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I am sure the House will enjoy it. How can the Minister expect New Zealand First to support this legislation when that party’s policy in 2005 stated: “We should not be proceeding faster than our major trading partners.” and “This Government keeps rushing on Kyoto when caution is called for.” and when the key plank of its environment policy was “an extra 10 million trees per year will be planted” yet the bill’s forestry provisions have contributed to the loss of 10 million trees over the past 3 years and the bill creates perverse incentives to get rid of and clear young trees? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would not purport to reply for other parties but I would observe that things have moved on in the last 3 years including an emissions trading scheme being in place throughout the whole of Europe and also Scandinavia an emissions trading scheme being proposed in Australia an emissions trading scheme being proposed in various states in the United States including California and the United States’ agreement to a comparable effort with that of other developed countries under a UN instrument after 2012. In respect of the forestry point perhaps the parties that are making these assessments are aware of the Government’s ambition to increase forestry by 250000 hectares by 2020. 
Agriculture Industry—Memorandum of Understanding 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Was the 2003 memorandum of understanding between the Crown and the agriculture industry which the Government has stated prevents it from bringing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme until 2013 formally reviewed in June last year as required by clause 12.2; if not when will it be reviewed? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 In May of last year I instructed my Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials to canvass a range of future options available for renewing the memorandum of understanding with the agricultural sector. However I have asked that these discussions are set within the wider framework of the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action. The consortium partners have reaffirmed their commitment to further research and have received matched funding through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology to support a $25 million research programme through to 2012. It has been agreed with industry that it is appropriate that the formal review of the memorandum of understanding will be completed once the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill has been considered by Parliament and it is clear what the wider regulatory framework will be within which any future agreement will operate. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When the agriculture sector last year reported a change to the memorandum of understanding target from a 20 percent reduction to just 10 percent was that change agreed in writing by all parties as required under clause 12.3 or is it that the consortium sets its own targets as his spokesperson told the media last week? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The 2003 agreement with the pastoral industry that the Government would not impose a price measure on the sector before 2013 if an agreed investment programme on greenhouse gas research was carried out was never conditional on any level of emissions reduction being achieved. The 20 percent target was originally nominated by the agricultural sector itself as an aspirational and ambitious target in the contextual and background section of the memorandum of understanding. The 20 percent was always something to aim for not a binding condition of the agreement and the memorandum of understanding makes that clear. The recent revision of the industry’s target has been largely driven by the fact that the Australian vaccine for reducing methane gas emissions which was looking promising has created animal welfare issues and therefore the scientists have gone back to the drawing board. This is a complex and complicated area and the agricultural sector is participating and cooperating in trying to solve it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that as with the target the memorandum of understanding does not actually contain a clause agreeing to exempt agriculture from the emissions trading scheme prior to 2013 as the Government has claimed in official reports but that that was a political decision that is no longer based on evidence and that even the National Party now accepts that some agricultural emissions should be in the emissions trading scheme earlier? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have to remind the member that the agricultural sector is not getting let off lightly under this regime because the clock is ticking. The agricultural sector is actually required to meet obligations in excess of 90 percent of the 2005 emissions so it is in its interests that action is taken before 2013. The Government is working with the agricultural sector to see what can be done in that regard and I have to say that not only is it putting its money where its mouth is but it is being cooperative in working through solutions. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he agree that article 1.2 of the memorandum of understanding which states “there are currently no proven practical and cost-effective farm practices and technologies to reduce agricultural emissions” is no longer accurate given advances in nitrogen inhibitors stand-off pads herd homes better soil management reduced fertiliser use natural soil conditioners high-sugar grasses and bio-digesters for stock effluent—some of which have other benefits as well including cleaner waterways and lower costs for farmers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes there are mitigating technologies that the industry is aware of as is the Government and these issues are being worked through. But I have to remind the member that the agricultural sector is a major user of liquid fuels on farms it is a major user of energy on farms and it will be exposed to all of those extra costs as well as the 90-plus percent of the 2005 benchmark emissions that it will have to meet by 2013 and it will be in its interests to do so sooner rather than later. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that the agricultural sector is not on target to meet its part of the deal under that agreement which I think referred to the targets; if so can the Minister give any reason whatsoever not to terminate the agreement under article 12.5 and require the agricultural sector to meet some obligation for at least its readily reducible nitrous oxide emissions earlier than 2013 given that such a price signal will continue to drive research into emissions reduction anyway? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I have said the industry is being cooperative and meetings are being held as we speak with the agricultural ministry on steps that can be taken. But I think everyone who knows anything about this issue including my colleague the Minister for Climate Change Issues recognises that these are complex areas. I have to remind the member who is asking the question that at the same time as she is seeking to impose extra costs on the agricultural sector she herself and other members of her party are talking about reducing food costs for the rest of the world as well as for New Zealand and I find that somewhat ironic. 
Hon David Carter 
: What does the Minister think he will achieve with an emissions trading scheme that crudely imposes average costs on farmers regardless of individual farm management practices and that will potentially see production moving offshore to less carbon-efficient farming systems? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Under the proposals being put forward the area of responsibility for emissions is up for discussion and negotiation with the industry—that is the reality of it. The only thing that I find crude is the lack of responsibility of the National Party to front up and support a proper emissions trading scheme and its failure to give support to the responsible members of this House who are prepared to do that. I lay a guarantee that after we have taken the hard decisions the National Party—at any time in the future—will not change one single thing and that will actually make it harder rather than lighter on the agriculture sector. 
Hon David Parker 
: Further to the previous question can the Minister confirm that the legislation has been amended at select committee to enable individual farmers who think they can do better than average to opt in in order to encourage emission reductions? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I am aware of that. I have been aware all along that it has been the intention for these matters to be negotiable with the industry as we go forward. I think the National Party has spent more time grandstanding on this issue rather than on trying to understand it. 
Electricity—Emissions 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he stand by his reported statement in the  
Press 
 on 11 June 2008 that “CO2 emissions from the electricity sector had fallen since about 2000.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Data released just yesterday shows that the Government has New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions from electricity production going down. As I have often said we need to build 175 megawatts of additional renewable generation each year to achieve our 90 percent target by 2025. This year we are completing 300 megawatts with another 130 megawatts under construction. Of course this year’s drought will produce a blip in emissions as I have said previously. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister of Energy continue to stand by his statement when figures produced by his own ministry show that emissions from electricity generation have risen from 4900 kilotonnes of carbon in the year 2000 to 6600 kilotonnes in 2007 which is a 34 percent increase; and why is he saying that the Ministry of Economic Development has got it wrong? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In fact the highest figure for emissions was actually in 2005 when it was 8415 kilotonnes. The reality is that emissions are tracking sustainably down. I quote from the  
New Zealand Energy Quarterly 
 which was released yesterday for the March quarter; it shows emissions dropping from 2.3 million tonnes in the quarter to June 2006 to 1.8 million tonnes in the quarter to March 2008—that is total figures. Per unit of electricity generation it dropped from 0.22 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour to 0.18 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour. 
Su’a William Sio 
: How will the Labour-led Government’s target of reaching 90 percent renewable energy be achieved? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This target will be achieved through the incentives for renewable energy put in place by the emissions trading scheme which National opposes and by the 10-year restriction on thermal baseload generation which National also opposes. I understand that National believes that a 90 percent renewable target is desirable; the problem is that it does not support the measures needed to achieve that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister ever spoken to Simon Upton on this matter or to anybody who was in the National Party at the time it signed up to the Kyoto Protocol; and does he have any idea what National had in its mind when it signed up? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We didn’t ratify it! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I just heard Dr Lockwood Smith say that they did not ratify it. I thought there was National Party support for the Government’s having ratified it. I thought that was clear policy but if that is to be relitigated National members are showing their true colours. The reality is that it was the National Government that signed the Kyoto Protocol. It was right to do so. We were right to ratify it as were other developed countries. It is the best hope the world has of reducing emissions currently. The member makes a very good point because the reality is that now that it is settled across Parliament that we should be in Kyoto what we as a Parliament are doing is trying to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost. The cost does not arise from the emissions trading scheme it arises from the obligation to reduce emissions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm the Ministry of Economic Development figures that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2000 were 4900 kilotonnes and in 2007 were 6600 kilotonnes—an increase of 34 percent; and is he now asking the House to accept his argument that the increases are starting to decrease? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I can confirm that— 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well I have not hidden it. In my answer to the primary question I said they were even higher in 2005 when it was 8.4 million tonnes or 8415 kilotonnes. Since then they have been on a sustainable downward path although we will have a blip this year because of the drought but that should not be a surprise to Mr Brownlee. The key to getting them down sustainably even further is by building more renewables. That is why the Government has a 90 percent renewable target and that is why we are building renewables. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister had a conversation with Dr Nick Smith who as a former Minister for the Environment spent his time going around the country shutting everything down— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes he did; and Rawhiti 2B is a good example but he was stopped in his tracks that day was he not; and he spent all his time as a Minister shutting everything down and arguing environmentalism and now all of a sudden has changed his mind; and has the Minister spoken to him about that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I can confirm is that the only National Party policy in respect of electricity seems to be this call to reform the Resource Management Act. That Act which was passed by the National Government has not been an impediment to the renewables that we are building. We are constructing 300 megawatts this year. That was all consented to under the Resource Management Act. We also have another 130 megawatts under construction. That was consented to under the Act; in fact I do not think that even one was notified. In addition we have increased transmission expenditure to over $300 million per annum climbing to $500 million and all of that has been consented to under the Act. So the Resource Management Act is just being used as an excuse. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree that the Government’s claims about sustainability and carbon neutrality are just spin in the face of its record—given that 75 percent of all new electricity generation commissioned since 2000 has been 75 percent thermal? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I do not think the Government can be accused of being all spin on these issues. It is true the United Nations chose to focus on New Zealand because it does see us as a source of hope in the world on these issues rather than a source of despair— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: They may laugh but we have our electricity emissions under control we have our transport emissions projected to be stable and we will get a decline in them. That is a significant achievement given increases in GDP and population. Of course we have deforestation emissions under control through and only because of the emissions trading scheme. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the Resource Management Act is not a problem for those wanting to build renewable generation when his own Government’s record is that 75 percent of new generation built in the last 8 years has been thermal and that the 500-odd megawatts of new renewables he talks about which is just a faceplate measurement will be less than 40 percent efficient? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As to the last point again the member is just wrong. Geothermal has the highest load factor of all and that is our major contribution to new generation: both this year and the 130 megawatts I mentioned we have already started for next year is all geothermal. That operates at close to 100 percent operating factors. In terms of the Resource Management Act I note that all of the generation as I previously said that is being built has been consented under the Resource Management Act. Further the only one I am aware of that was turned down was Dobson and that was not turned down under the Resource Management Act. It was turned down under the Conservation Act and has been replaced by the Arnold River scheme which has lower environmental impact and it looks very likely that that will be consented under the Resource Management Act albeit note that I am not trying to put pressure on the decision maker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that it took 6 years to re-consent the Waitaki scheme and it took 7 years to re-consent Contact Energy’s Wairakei geothermal scheme and if those two points can be confirmed does he still want to say that the Resource Management Act is not a problem? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I can confirm is that I am a lawyer and I used to do quite a bit of Resource Management Act work. If I were the client I would be concerned if it took 6 or 7 years and it was adverse to my interests. But of course the reason why we do not hear great complaints about it is as the member ought to know when we are re-consenting a Resource Management Act consent during the period of that process the pre-existing consent continues in force. 
Kaikoura Ranges—Protection 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What new measures have been taken to improve the protection of the Kaikoura Ranges? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Recently I had the pleasure of opening the breathtaking Ka Whata Tu o Rakihouia Conservation Park in the Kaikoura Ranges. The park covers 88000 hectares and has the wide support of iwi the community and interest groups. This park forms part of the Labour Government’s plan for the future which aims to protect New Zealand’s unique biodiversity while increasing public opportunities for getting out and enjoying our heritage. 
Moana Mackey 
: What are the biodiversity gains associated with this park? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The natural treasures protected in the park include the rare Hutton’s shearwater the New Zealand falcon the black-eyed gecko and plants that occur only in the South Marlborough region including rock daisies and various broom species. This is now one of the very few places in New Zealand where ecosystems are protected from the mountain tops to the sea. 
Immigration Service—Policy Compliance 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has he read the letter tabled in the House yesterday from an unnamed immigration officer which states that “New Zealand’s immigration policies are just being flouted to the detriment of the integrity security and fabric of New Zealand.”; if so what other evidence has he seen that immigration policy is not being followed? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I have read the anonymous letter tabled in the House yesterday which is not evidence as the member characterises it; rather it is a series of anonymous allegations that are being looked into seriously. As the member knows I also saw the Oughton report after it was released publicly and it raised wider issues. That is why after I saw it I went to the Minister of State Services and asked for the State Services Commission to widen its inquiries. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How much evidence do we need of serious problems within the Immigration Service when an unnamed immigration officer has made such damning claims the Public Service Association is aware of at least two other immigration officers who have said the same thing and a former senior official in the Manukau office has gone on record about pressure from senior management to process claims contrary to policy? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is as it should be and it is being addressed through a State Services Commission inquiry through an Auditor-General’s inquiry through a review of the Pacific branch and through a police inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm the claim made by a current immigration officer that managers send threatening emails to staff pressuring them to cut corners in order to meet higher work targets and can the Minister assure the House that his department will conduct an immediate thorough search of emails to investigate that allegation? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I cannot confirm that. I note that yesterday when Dr Smith tabled the letter in the House—and I have read the letter—he referred to the immigration officer as “he” which leads me to believe that perhaps Dr Smith has other information that he could provide to the Auditor-General to the police inquiry and to the State Services Commission and I invite him to do so. If he has other information in respect of emails or other sources I invite him to actually do the appropriate thing the honourable thing and his duty as a member of Parliament and provide those to the relevant authorities. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can the public have confidence in the Immigration Service when an immigration officer claims that “numerous applicants who have presented blatantly false information or applicants from high risk countries … have all been issued with permits. These are people who should have been investigated declined and removed from New Zealand.”; and given that those actions cannot be taken by the Auditor-General what is the Minister going to do about it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I make two points to the member. I am advised that approximately 7 percent at least of temporary permits are declined each year and that is in contradiction to the anonymous claims that he promotes. And I take issue with his point in respect of the Auditor-General. My advice is that the Auditor-General can make any inquiries he so wishes—unfettered. It is normally appropriate to have an inquiry to establish the veracity of claims before one takes action—one does that once the veracity or otherwise of claims is established. That might be something that Dr Smith and the blunderbuss sitting beside him would like to reflect on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why is the Immigration Service processing some applications for temporary work permits and for permanent residence in New Zealand without asking the applicants for any supporting evidence whatsoever to prove who they are their qualifications and whether they have a job offer or even to show that they come from the country they claim to come from? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is not the advice I have. If the member has such advice and such information he should refer it to the appropriate authorities. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Madam Speaker I am going to seek leave to table a document. I wish to point out if you would allow me that the original of this document included a handwritten note. In the document that I am going to seek leave to table that note has been replaced by those words being retyped in order to protect the identity of the person—the immigration official—who wrote them. I seek leave to table a computer printout from the Immigration Service application management system computer record that confirms the approval of a work permit for someone for whom no supporting evidence at all was provided and in fact a residence application— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Treaty Settlements—Ratchet Clauses 
11.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What are the implications for Ngai Tahu and Tainui of their ratchet clause relativity mechanism being expressed in 1994 dollar terms? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The expression of the clause in 1994 dollar terms provides the basis for establishing the level of Crown expenditure on the settlement of historical Treaty claims at which the relativity clauses will be triggered. It means that adding up the nominal or current dollar figures of new settlements until they reach $1 billion cannot be used to calculate when the mechanism is triggered. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: So what would the $700 million allocated towards Treaty settlements to date be converted to when expressed in the 1994 dollar terms? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have that number in front of me. One would of course have to start off with each successive settlement being deflated by the CPI to that point and then adding up the total to arrive at the 1994 dollar terms. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Was the process of converting settlements back to the 1994 dollar terms explained to iwi when negotiating settlements; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The settlements with both Ngai Tahu and Waikato-Tainui are absolutely explicit in that fashion. I do not believe that any group that subsequently engaged in negotiation with the Crown under either the previous or the current Government would have been unaware of those clauses. They were completely within the public arena and the attempt now by some to be arguing that all historic settlements already achieved should now be reopened rests upon no basis in fact at all. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Was the process explained to all other iwi since the Tainui and Ngai Tahu claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not believe the people who have been negotiating on behalf of iwi who often include quite highly paid lawyers have been ignorant of the basis of Treaty settlements since the mid-1990s and the inclusion of the ratchet clause. Indeed there are still people who believe there is a thing called a billion-dollar fiscal cap which was actually abolished in the mid-1990s. The billion dollar figure is now only relevant as the point at which in 1994 dollars the ratchet clauses with Tainui and with Ngai Tahu are triggered. That can be expected to occur probably within the next 2 or 3 years given the current pace of settlements. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am aware that what Dr Cullen said was quite correct but my last question was really referring to the settlements relating back to the 1994 dollar terms. I asked whether the other iwi knew about that and that question was not answered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought it was addressed but the Minister may like to go over it again. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My view very strongly would be that if any iwi for some extraordinary reason were not aware their complaint would be with the lawyers who represented them and I suggest they approach the Law Society on that behalf and lay complaints. 
Early Childhood Education Regulations—Release 
12.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When will the new regulations making up the early childhood education regulatory system be released? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is my intention to announce the new criteria for all early childhood education services including limited attendance services in July and for the criteria to come into force in December this year. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why is the Minister setting rules for gym creches or “limited attendance centres” as he calls them that mean that mothers can put their children in them only for up to 2 hours a day and 6 hours a week which will effectively limit the amount of exercise that a mum can do? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am putting those rules in place and the Government is putting those rules in place because we want kids to be safe. The member surely must know that any young child who is being supervised by an adult needs to be in a safe situation especially where heavy equipment is nearby and where water is nearby in the case of a pool. Does the member not believe in the safety of children? 
Paula Bennett 
: But why is it 6 hours a week when by the time a parent gets to the centre drops his or her child off gets changed does an hour’s exercise has a shower and gets changed again that is effectively about 2 hours; why is the Minister saying that parents can go only three times a week and making unnecessary red tape for parents who know what is best for their children? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do not know how familiar— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could not hear the end of that question. I think the member referred to being last in the gym and I wanted to hear that intensely but I did not hear it because there was too much noise going on in the back here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think most people got the sense of the question that was being asked. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not sure how familiar the member is with gyms but I am a very regular gym-goer myself and I think that it very unusual for people to do more than 6 hours a week in the gym. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. How many early childhood education centres in gyms and fitness facilities have met the current requirements and become licensed? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member Paula Bennett who asked the original question has made all sorts of hysterical claims in the media about early childhood education regulations and then she accused me of trying to close down Sunday schools. Actually 29 existing centres in gyms and creches have chosen to become fully licensed because those centres saw it as a new opportunity. If those centres were prepared to become fully licensed I am sure that those that will be affected by the lighter regulatory impact will have no difficulty at all in complying with it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister undertaken any surveys of how many people take 1 hour to drop their child at a creche in a gym then take the hour to have a shower—and possibly to have a shave as well in some people’s cases—get dressed and pick the child up; if people are taking 1 hour to do that what will the Minister do about increasing productivity in this country given that appalling record which apparently is common amongst National Party - voting parents? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I guess the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to use humour to make a point. The bottom line is that I have put a lighter regulatory impact on centres in gyms and on creches where children are there for a shorter time. We want children who are in a centre for a longer time to be safe we want them to have correct facilities there and we want them to have a learning experience. Surely every member of this House would want that. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why over-regulate at all when parents actually know what is best for their children and are able to make those sorts of decisions themselves and when the Minister himself says in his criteria that parents will be able to resume responsibility for the children at short notice; why is it limited to 6 hours a week—why not 7; why not 8—and why put those sorts of limits on parents making decisions for their own children? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As the member was outlining her question I was thinking of a report I received this week as Minister of Education about an unlicensed centre in Christchurch not attached to a fitness centre where children were not being supervised adequately and where a child had to have part of a finger amputated because the children were not being supervised and kept in a safe place. That was a very practical example of a case I received in my briefing notes this week. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister not accept that by over-regulating and making restrictive rules around gym creches they will be out-priced so that parents will be unable to use the services and they will continue to close down as they have done and the effect will be that parents are unable to exercise at all? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Actually I am making a lighter regulatory impact on creches at fitness centres pools and gyms. No matter how many times the member repeats the question she fails to grasp that it is a lighter regulatory impact but that it also ensures that children are safe. 
General Debate 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It is Gifted Awareness Week and what I would like to cover today is the misinformation and prejudice we often have and that I certainly had about the gifted. I was sad to hear that the Minister of Education himself has this misinformation and prejudice about the difficulties and the facts of gifted education in New Zealand. 
Let me just explain that gifted children occur across all races in New Zealand and across all socio-economic groups. Typically siblings are gifted so if a parent has a gifted child he or she often has two or three gifted children. Sadly these children are not catered for in mainstream education as the Minister says. I heard of one child who will be expelled from preschool this week. These kids are not adequately looked after within our mainstream education. We feel a prejudice against them because we wonder why those parents should be bothered or worried that their child is gifted; we worry about those who are not. Well I can tell the House that it is heartbreaking to see the parents of gifted children struggling to keep them at school and manage them at home. Oftentimes gifted children also have disabilities like Asperger’s syndrome autism dysgraphia or dyslexia so they have that added complication. 
Gifted education centres operate within schools in New Zealand and the Minister said that that was a great thing because we value giftedness. But members should picture this: we make parents pay for the teachers in those centres. Parents who have paid through their taxes for their children’s education cannot get their gifted kids looked after; they themselves have to pay the teachers’ salaries. And the House should get this: the parents have to pay the rental on the classrooms back to the Ministry of Education. Those parents have to pay twice over. The Minister of Education got up in the House yesterday and said “Oh yes but we gave the centre at the Owairaka District School $78000.” But that sum was given over 3 years. And by the way a good third of that sum was paid for in fees because the teachers took the trouble to teach other teachers about having a gifted child in the class. So the subsidy was only $26000. 
It is Gifted Awareness Week. It is a challenge for parents for teachers and indeed for this country to make the most of gifted children. These are our leaders of tomorrow but sadly those in mainstream education often run off the rails are neglected and indeed end up in our borstals—or what we used to call borstals—and jails. They are the future leaders of New Zealand. Here is what we should be doing. We should be fully funding these students and if parents find that their children are best helped at a gifted education centre that is where the money should go. We should think of how much it harms the education of these children that their parents who pay taxes have to struggle—often they are just working average parents—to pay to send them to a gifted education centre. Yet the schools that are not providing for such children still get money for them as though they were educating them fully. It is well past the time that we funded students to go to the schools of their parents’ choice and stopped making parents pay twice. That is particularly devastating to the parents of gifted children. 
When I saw the parents of these gifted children I was amazed. Again it was a prejudice that I had because I imagined those parents would be like parents in Epsom who drive up in their BMWs and their Audis and are lawyers etc. But no they were hard-working Kiwis who had the challenge of having children who were gifted—the challenge of managing them at home and managing them at school—and who often had a disability. We should do better for these children for their sake but more particularly for our country’s sake. Thank you. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Desperate decaying Governments do desperate decaying things when they are trying to cover up for failure on their part. Today in question time the Prime Minister produced a letter she had written to my office pleading with the National Party to support a new piece of legislation that would help with the problems occurring in South Auckland and with regard to gangs in relation to our criminal justice system. She asked whether I could write back to her by 27 June 2008—just 9 days after the sending of the letter—to confirm whether National would give that support. The fact that the Government could introduce that bill in its own right without us makes that unnecessary. Well the Prime Minister will not have to wait for long because I tell her the answer is yes we will be supporting it. Yes we will be supporting it because it is our policy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You don’t have any policy. 
JOHN KEY 
: By the way I tell Mr Goff it is a very tiny part of our policy because it is only a couple of lines long. 
But here is the interesting bit. Why is the Labour Government a desperate decaying Government? It is because the Government passed that measure through Cabinet not yesterday or a few Mondays ago but on 9 July 2007. The Government has taken a year to drag it out of Cabinet; Mr Goff is very embarrassed by that. And we would have thought the Government would have the decency to get out the twink because at the top is written: “The Minister of Justice: the Hon Mark Burton”. Well no he is not the Minister of Justice actually; he has gone from Cabinet. You see the members on that side of the House are in damage control and they are so desperate to look as though they have answers that they are trolling through the Cabinet papers to find stuff they thought they might possibly do. They have done lots of reviews and had lots of suggestions but they have put nothing in action—and that is the truth of it. We have a terrible situation out there; we have communities in crisis. They are looking to the Government for action but the action has not come. It did not come in 2000 or 2001. It has not come for 9 years and I can tell members of this House that people have given up on Labour. They have given up on Labour. 
On 8 June a man was shot dead in his shop—Navtej Singh was shot dead while doing his job. That is what he was doing. And he was not shot dead in the sense of being murdered; he was executed. He was executed for doing his job—because he had given those people what they wanted—in a cold-blooded gutless act. That is what actually happened to Navtej Singh and now we have a situation where a community is devastated. But he is just one of three people in 9 days who have died in Counties-Manukau in three separate incidents. Navtej Singh is not a statistic; he was a person. He was a father he was a husband he was a son—and he deserved better than to be shot. He deserved to be given protection by a Government that could have done more than just have reviews and interdepartmental working-groups and that put together action plans without ever putting those actions into place in the community. 
The tragedy for Navtej Singh is that he was a man in this regard. He believed in everything the National Party believes in. He used to get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to go and work in his first job. He worked till late at night in the liquor store he owned. He was a family man and a father of three. He was a loving man. He cared about his parents. He believed in New Zealand. He came to New Zealand to make a better life for himself and to play a part in this country. He was honest he was law-abiding he was hard-working and he did not get protection. 
Today I asked the Prime Minister a pretty simple question about whether she was prepared to back some other parts of National’s policy that she will no doubt be writing to me about next week. That was in relation to army-style camps for young people because we are right when we say those camps are needed. The Chief Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft describes the sorts of people who could go on those camps as being “unexploded human time bombs” and he says there are 1000 of them out there. Well the Prime Minister told us today—with a straight face I might add—that things are not getting worse when it comes to youth crime in South Auckland. That is rubbish. The statistics do not back that up; neither do the people in the community who say that this is just business as normal. People are hanging around. People are terrified. The situation is a disgrace. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 When I attended the Sikh temple in Takanini with John Key on Sunday I thought that it was an exercise of bipartisan concern by members across the floor of the House for the family of— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am reluctant to do this but I seek leave to table what the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft did say which is the complete reverse of what was said by Mr Key. I have the document right here and I want to table it now.  
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I thought that visit was a genuine effort by members across the House to show our sympathy for a family that had been deprived of a son a husband and a father. I spoke in that light and I thought that Mr Key also attempted to do that. It was what the National Party did subsequently that absolutely outraged members of the Sikh community. I have their statement here. They said that National members in their haste to make a political issue out of this tragedy seemed right from the first day to be more interested in having their views aired in the media than in consoling the grieving family at yesterday’s meeting. I resent that sort of mean-minded narrow political capital - making and so did the 2000 people who were at the Sikh temple on Sunday. 
There is an old saying that the first casualty of war is the truth. Well it seems from Mr Key’s speech that the first casualty of law and order debates is the truth as well. Let us look at some of the truth of this situation. When I first became the Minister of Justice in 1999 I got papers from the previous National Government that showed that it was going to cut police numbers by 500. In three consecutive Budgets the National Government cut police funding. National Party members opposite were responsible for $100 million of wasted funding on the INCIS computer system; $100 million went down the drain. And National’s answer to protecting our society was to cut police numbers by 500. 
Well I am proud of the fact that this Government has increased police numbers by nearly 2000 since that time—1000 in this parliamentary term. I am proud of the fact that it was this Government after the National Government had spent 9 years doing nothing to toughen the laws on violent crime that brought in the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act and that said to people who commit aggravated robbery and murder—like the murder of Navtej Singh—that the starting point for their sentences would now be 17 years not 10 years which was where it had been left by National over the preceding decade. So we have tougher laws and we know we have tougher laws because the number of people in our prisons today is 71 percent higher than the number when we took office—71 percent. There are four new prisons—2300 more prison beds have been added—because the laws of this country are tougher on serious offenders today than they ever were under the National Government. Those members opposite pretend to be lions in Opposition and are lambs in Government. They did nothing. 
When I look at the statistics I find that the Parole Board is now knocking back 72 percent of those who come before it. I ask Mr Brownlee what the figure was under National. It was 52 percent. The enforcement of parole is much tougher now. When I came in I took over from Tony Ryall who did not have the strength to put tougher provisions into the bail law. We toughened the bail law and that bail law now results in at-risk people being put in prison. That is why the number of people on remand in our prisons has increased faster than the number of sentenced inmates; that is why the number is so high today. 
So I do not want Mr Key to come in here and say things that are not true in relation to who toughened the laws in this country. We did it. We put the police on the ground. We put the laws in place. I make no apology for the tougher stand that we took. But being tough by itself is not enough. We know that we have to address the causes of that crime. We have the strong suspicion that the man who pulled the trigger and committed that senseless act in that liquor store must have been on methamphetamine. That behaviour is a classic symptom of a person on that drug. That is why we made that drug a class A drug. The manufacture of a class A drug as Chester Borrows knows now attracts a sentence of life imprisonment. It was this Government that took the hard steps that the National Government had failed to take in its 9 years in office. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 That was an incredibly insensitive speech to give on the day that the coroner’s report on the death of Karl Kuchenbecker was released to the public. If anyone has glanced at that report then he or she would know that the claims just made by the Hon Phil Goff are utterly unsustainable. They are utterly unsustainable. There have been four murders—four violent execution-style murders—in 2 weeks yet he stands in here and says that everything is great under Labour. Well if it is all so good under Labour then why has it all gone so bad? Why do we have communities up and down this country living in siege and in fear of going out into the very streets that are their neighbourhood? 
The sad thing is that the Government knowing that it has been caught short has tried all sorts of things in the last few days to justify its position. First there was the disgraceful comment from the Hon David Cunliffe that poor old Navtej Singh who had to lie there shot for quite some time before he got any assistance would have died anyway. We would like to know on what basis Mr Cunliffe made that statement. It typifies the attitude of this Government—it has happened so it pretends there are no consequences whatsoever. Then the Government started the argument that perhaps the police should be armed. But we know that the Government has not even been able to get a simple Taser trial to the point where the police are comfortable about introducing that weapon which is much less effective than a hand-held gun or rifle. 
Then the Prime Minister said that maybe the problem was the alcohol laws. She said that maybe we have all become far too liberal that there are too many outlets and too many 24-hour sale places and that perhaps that is the problem. Well this Government has been in place for 9 years so why has it not done something about that situation if that is a genuine belief held by those members? Why did they continue to block for month after month the initiative from their own member George Hawkins? Suddenly this week when it all blows up it is all fine. They tell George to get his legislation in there on the Order Paper so that they can point to it as they go around the countryside pleading their pathetic case to the voters who frankly are not listening. Mr Goff’s speech was a disgrace. To say after 9 years that it is much better now than it was before almost denies the fact that Labour has been in Government for all that period of time. 
I congratulate John Key on taking the strong stances he has taken. I think New Zealanders recognise that he has taken these strong stances. When he spoke about the underclass and the consequences of having an underclass 18 months ago there was a resonance. When he spoke earlier this year about the need for a change to the way in which we deal with youth crime and youth justice there was a resonance. Throughout the country very very few people would argue that the military-style boot camps we intend making available as a sentencing option for the Youth Court are not of great value. I ask anyone in this House whether they saw the  
20/20  
programme last Sunday night which showed some young kids who had decided to put themselves through that particular course. It struck me then that those young people were giving up some of their liberty voluntarily in order to instil in their lives the opportunity and the discipline that will give them the greatest liberty of all—individual self-reliance. We want more young people who are in danger to be given that opportunity. 
John Key has gone out and said that the next National Government will fight a war against drugs and against drug dealers drug peddlers and anyone else who wants to associate themselves with that culture. I do not understand why after 9 years of understanding that this was a growing problem the Government has done nothing until today when the Prime Minister decided with some desperation to dust off legislation that was clearly rejected 12 months ago flick it across to the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to please finally support it. Well I tell members to think about this. Firstly it was armed police then it was alcohol prior to that it was said that nothing could be done because the guy was going to die anyway and now it is the Government getting in a law in a hurry that deals more quickly with criminal association. This is an utterly pathetic response from a Government that is totally washed up. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 As a start I will pick up on a point made by Gerry Brownlee and talk about the boot camps he referred to. This House and the public deserve the very best that we can provide in debate. They deserve analysis and they deserve strong arguments backed up by facts sense and logic. I want to start with boot camps. I think that the Opposition in the form of its policy on boot camps falls well well short. 
Phil Goff mentioned earlier that when he looked at the research and analysis on boot camps he found that instead of being the great panacea they are held up to be by the National Party they had the highest reoffending rate of all—95 percent. If the members opposite shake their heads at that I want those who are old enough to remember to go back and think about borstals. We had borstals in this country and borstals were found to be simply training schools for young people to go on in the university of crime. At the time we had compulsory military training. I asked some friends who were in the police force and they said they were very pleased that CMT had been finished because when the bad people went away they came back not changed in personality but certainly changed in their physical strength and discipline. CMT made the criminals harder tougher faster and vastly more difficult for the police to deal with. 
The National Party seems to have the grandiose idea as one or two other people do that because people who are in the military are generally good people—well organised disciplined and admirable citizens—we just have to put people into the army and that will happen to them too. Well I say there is a fault in that logic. It does not automatically follow that that is the case. 
The second thing I say about this debate is that people have been misquoted such as when referring to Judge Becroft. I have here a report that mentions Judge Becroft. As Principal Youth Court Judge Judge Becroft said in 2008 that the literature notes that all interventions that focus on getting tough with offenders almost always fail. That is what Judge Becroft said. Those are his words. Members of Parliament come into this House and claim he said something different. Well they do no service to this Parliament by saying things that are not true and they do a great disservice to the judiciary by saying that things a judge says are not true. The National Party’s record on this debate is very poor to say the least. 
The other point I would like to pick up on is the point made by Phil Goff. Phil Goff said the National Party talks tough now but he asked what its record is. The record of the National Party is that it cut money to the police and it cut police numbers. That is the truth of it. In the 9 years the National Government was in office did it do anything to toughen sentences? No it did not. Did it do anything to look after victims of crime? No it did not. Did it do anything about parole? No it did not. On each of those things Labour took action. Let us look at the facts. The facts are that under Labour an offender will get a minimum of 17 years for a crime he or she would have got 10 years for under a National regime 
. 
 That is the truth of it. 
Can we believe the National members’ comments today about any of their policies? Their leader is slippery on almost every subject. The public should have no more confidence in John Key’s promises in this area than they should have in his words on Iraq for example. Did he say we would go to Iraq? Yes he did. What happened when it became unpopular? He was opposed to it. He saw climate change as a hoax then suddenly he became a climate change believer. On every subject one can name—the Springbok Tour or whatever—John Key changes. He is slippery. He has been identified as being as slippery as a snake in wet grass. 
Not only does National have slippery policy statements but it also has policies that have no foundation at all. If National members think it would be an advancement for New Zealand if they brought in a policy that will ensure that 95 percent of all those who go through it will reoffend I say they are mistaken and the public would be mistaken to believe them. Under the National Party the clearance rates for crime very rarely got anywhere near 40 percent. Under Labour which has increased the number of police—approximately 2000 extra police have been put on the beat by Labour rather than cut as was the case with National—the clearance rates have risen to well over 40 percent. As Kate Wilkinson knows this means there has been a huge increase in the amount of information and the number of prosecutions being laid before our courts. Labour is tough on crime. It does more than use tough words. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I wish to talk today primarily about the good people of South Auckland. The vast majority of people who live and work in South Auckland—and that includes me—do our very best to be good law-abiding New Zealanders. In fact the good people of Manurewa and Randwick Park who have been absolutely assaulted by the events in the last few days are crying out for people to remember that they are human they go to work they take their children to school and they have to live in an area where most people are fantastic New Zealanders or people who are wishing to be New Zealanders. But those good people have been held hostage by groups of street gangs who have been allowed to run riot. And who is to blame? 
David Cunliffe told people assembled at the Mahatma Gandhi Centre on 14 June that Pacific and Maori youth were the problem. He labelled all Pacific and Maori youth as the problem and that is not something he should be proud of. There are Pacific and Maori people living in Randwick Park who are as frightened as every other person who lives in Randwick Park and who is not part of a street gang. It is all very well for Labour members to make those sorts of observations—which David Cunliffe made to an audience he thought would think was the answer—but that is not the answer. There are multiple answers. 
For a start I heard one of the previous speakers talk about tougher laws. We know we need tougher laws but we also need tougher police. I have seen the police hierarchy become politically correct and I wonder why. I take it back to the time when Helen Clark became the Prime Minister and there was a shooting in Waitara. Steven Wallace was killed by a police officer defending himself and others and what happened? The Prime Minister Helen Clark came out and abused the police. She called them racist. She attacked them. Senior Constable Abbott’s name was right through the newspapers. He was prosecuted he was absolutely denigrated out there and he incurred costs. What happened? Where was the Government? Was it supporting him? No it was not; it was blaming the police. Since then we have seen a hierarchy in the police working absolutely towards keeping this Government happy. 
Jill Pettis 
: Provide the evidence of what you’ve just said. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I say to Labour members over there who scream and shout as they always do when they do not like what they hear that we need things like Tasers. Give the police Tasers! I am so sick of hearing the Minister of Police and Howard Broad say they are waiting to see what happens. I will tell them what happens: people are dying. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Is that your policy? Tell us what is the policy. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I say to Mrs Chadwick that people are dying while she is sitting around and waiting for a review. We have had so many reviews from this Government. We have had review after review after review. I went to see Mrs Singh. I sat on the floor in the garage with her family. I can tell Mrs Chadwick that those people are hurting. They are hurting. They live right behind where the attack happened and they are so hurting. And what did the taggers do—the people this Government wants to make excuses for? They went and retagged the place to show how proud they were. They are the sort of scum that this Government has let out on the streets and has kept there. 
What National wants to do there is get them while they are young. We need to get them into a Fresh Start camp where they see there is a life other than the one they have now and where they learn some self respect because how can we possibly expect these people to respect others if they have no respect for themselves? 
The good people of South Auckland are sick of being told that they live in a bad area. They do not. They have good people there; they live in a good area. They have some bad people who have been allowed to stay there—bad people who should never have been allowed there and who should be locked up. Those are the people they have there. But in every instance that people try to do something about the situation that sort of member over there always wants to talk about civil liberties. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about jobs. Yesterday I was horrified to read in the newspaper that just a couple of weeks after Sealord’s in Nelson—the mussel factory there—announced that it was going to axe over 300 jobs two South Island seafood companies may be granted permits to bring in migrant workers. I would like to call on the Government to seriously consider ensuring that the Immigration Service does not grant those permits. It is unthinkable that at a time when over 300 jobs have been lost in exactly the same industry—seafood processing—the Government should consider allowing permits to be granted to bring in workers from apparently Asia and South America to do the same jobs in the same district. 
The two factories that have applied for the permits are Talley’s Fisheries in Motueka and Aotearoa Seafoods in Kaikoura. This is the same “top of the south” district where the mussel processing jobs have been lost. On top of that I understand that Talley’s Fisheries intends to pay those migrant workers the minimum wage of $12 an hour or just above that—a princely sum—whereas the workers at the Sealord’s plant who are going to lose their jobs or have lost them already are actually paid thank goodness a lot more than that. They have been loyal workers they are skilled workers and they have been paid properly for the work they do. The jobs that are being lost are apparently to be replaced elsewhere if Talley’s Fisheries gets its way by workers from overseas who will be working for the minimum wage. I believe and fear that this is simply a tactic to force down wages and keep unionised workers out of certain workplaces. Labour must not allow its immigration schemes to be used in this way. 
The Green Party is more than happy to support schemes that bring in migrant labour where there is genuinely no local workforce available for those jobs. But it is simply not acceptable to see a Government scheme propping up employers who are using migrant workers’ wages and conditions to undercut those of other workers in this country who are doing the same work. This is a case of companies attempting to exploit foreign workers and use them as a blunt tool to bring down wages in the top of the South Island. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take this situation seriously and not allow that to go through. 
We also have a lot of other lay-offs in the news; the list is getting longer and longer by the week I am sorry to say. The  
Press  
on 12 June stated it was expecting 50000 more unemployed people by 2011. When the Reserve Bank recently decided to keep the official cash rate at its current level it made predictions of unemployment rising to 6 percent over the next few years. Of course like everyone else in this House I hope these predictions do not come true but it is a reality we have to face at a time of overseas conditions that we cannot control including the growing impacts of climate change and peak oil and an incipient global recession. We cannot ignore how that is impacting and will continue to impact on our economy. 
Our regions are suffering from the Government’s failure to promote a diverse economy. For example Dannevirke alone has suffered job losses at the Oringi meatworks the Norsewear clothing plant and back in 2006 the Feltex Carpets plant. Now as industrial dairy moves in and a drought hits the region the number of sheep on our southern Hawke’s Bay farms has actually gone down. That results in a flow-through to the local economy which does not have the diversity it once had with a manufacturing base that enabled it to survive bad news from the agricultural side. In this country we need to promote more diverse local economies rather than to have each town put its hope entirely on one industry. The current bubble is industrial dairy. Do we have any economic plan for what happens when that particular bubble pops after dairy has steamrolled over and irrigated under all our farms and forests? 
Laila Harré from the National Distribution Union formerly a member of this House says of the Government’s apparent belief that the only manufacturing worth nurturing is innovative high-end and technologically cutting edge that Labour has lost the plot. “Who says that New Zealanders are brainier than the rest of the world? In order to keep the brainy jobs going we need the brawny jobs.” she says. We cannot afford to lose our manufacturing base in this country. It is not enough to believe in the knowledge economy; we need to preserve and expand our ability to make what we need here. 
Finally I would just like to mention the National Party. I was at a breakfast forum a few weeks ago where Kate Wilkinson spoke on behalf of her party about KiwiSaver and other matters. I would like to say that workers and ordinary people around this country are desperate to know what in fact National’s industrial relations policy is not just those of us who are here in this House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 This Labour-led Government took office in 1999 in the wake of a referendum that said that National had failed the people of New Zealand. The referendum calling for tougher sentences was passed against a backdrop of 9 long years of a National Government and I think that people ought to remember the fact that that referendum was the direct result of National’s record not of this Government’s record. We were the ones who listened to the referendum because we were in Government when it was received and we acted on it. It was no wonder that the people of New Zealand voted so overwhelmingly against National’s record on law and order because when we got the briefing papers coming into Parliament we found out that National was going to cut the police numbers. That was what it was planning to do. It was going to reduce the number of police in this country as a direct result of its policies. I want to know why it is that National members have not been up front with the people of New Zealand and explained to them why they were going to cut police numbers. National was going to make the situation in New Zealand far worse than it had ever been in the past and it already had a bad track record of 9 long years in Government. 
Labour listened to the underlying message of that referendum which basically said to get tough on the worst crimes. That is what the people of New Zealand said about those crimes that offend in an aggravated way. These are crimes such as home invasion or the offending in the Norm Withers story. His mother was in a desperate situation which was the result of her being attacked in his shop. There was a dreadful picture of her face on the front page of the newspaper and that stayed with a lot of people over a long period of time. Norm was the face behind that petition with his mother as he traipsed from one end of the country to the other looking for support for the referendum which as we all know was supported overwhelmingly. 
Under a Labour Government the minimum parole period was lifted to 17 years for aggravated offences. When it is a home invasion with people going into someone’s home to offend then the clock starts ticking at 17 years not 10 years as it had been previously. Nobody can look at this side of the House and say that we have not honoured the intention of that referendum which was to ensure that the worst crimes were punished appropriately and we have certainly moved on that issue. But we said that work had to be done at the other end as well because if we focus just on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff instead of building a really strong fence at the top then we are prepared to accept that this level of crime is acceptable. We are not prepared to accept that. We said that we would be tough on crime but also that we would be equally tough on the causes of crime. The work needs to be put in at the front end. 
The kind of work we have done as a Government in communities makes a real difference. It is not about sending young kids to boot camps. I will just go back a little in history because I myself thought that it was quite a good idea a few years ago. The reason I thought it was a good idea was that I had been out to visit the Limited Service Volunteers programme as an Opposition member of Parliament and I thought that it was a very good idea to go out there and look at this programme. When I went out there I was awestruck by it. It was the most amazing programme. I thought that this would be great for young offenders because it would really get them on the straight and narrow and would really help them come to grips with their circumstances and change their evil ways. I wrote to the people who were running the Limited Service Volunteers and asked why we could not extend this programme to include people who are offenders because it was only for people who were volunteers and who had been unemployed for 6 months or more. The message I got back was that we would destroy this programme if we made it compulsory and that it works because it is voluntary. Those running the programme said that it works because the kids who go there although they might be going off the rails have not gone off the deep end and that the programme was not mixing the wrong people with the wrong people who then just simply reinforce the problems with each other. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is interesting to note that the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel started talking about youth justice programmes because in South Auckland at the moment there is a man called Steve Boxer. He runs a very successful youth justice programme along the lines of a military-style programme. Only 2 weeks ago he was in the newspaper saying that his programme would fall over because it is underfunded by the Government and that the Government refuses to give it the money it needs—in the very area that we have been learning about this week down in South Auckland. 
What has become very plain over the last few days is that violent crime is out of control around the country and in South Auckland and the Prime Minister does not know it. Members will recall that yesterday when John Key asked questions around violent crime statistics for South Auckland the Prime Minister put it all down to the reporting of family violence. That is it. She said that it all has to do with TV ads; there is no increase in violent crime. What did we hear today from the Prime Minister? When John Key talked about the murder of Navtej Singh what did she say? She said that one swallow does not make a spring. Well for goodness’ sake! I ask how abhorrent that is to anybody who has paid any attention to this incident because Mr Singh is not just one victim; he is the fifth shop owner in the South Auckland area who has been murdered since this Government has been in power—the fifth. And she says that one swallow does not make a spring. 
You know I spent Friday and Saturday in South Auckland. I went to five different meetings with the Indian community talking about the threat to retailers and about the way they are responding to it. I also went to the Singh family home and I spoke to members of the family. I also spoke to members of another family whose son had been badly beaten. What became abundantly clear was that robberies are occurring in South Auckland on a daily basis at knifepoint or with baseball bats. People are being beaten property is being stolen and it is going unreported. It is going unreported because the victims do not believe that the police have the ability or in some cases the willingness to be able to respond. 
I would bet anyone that all the South Auckland Labour MPs have had the same message and I believe that they have the integrity to tell the Prime Minister what they are hearing. What I do not believe the Prime Minister has is the integrity to listen to her own members. Hence the stuff-up that has occurred this week where we have the Prime Minister saying that there is no complaint going before the Independent Police Conduct Authority and we have George Hawkins saying that he is assisting the people to put together a complaint that is to go before the Independent Police Conduct Authority. 
I want to make another point on the back of what Mrs Collins said and it is this. The police received a hell of a lot of criticism about the way they went in on the night with regard to the death of Mr Singh and I ask exactly what happened there. The police have become tentative in respect of their response and tentative on the back of the sort of criticism they received from the Alliance in league with Labour at the time of the Steven Wallace shooting. They have had a lack of resources since that time and they lack an ability to respond. I would put damned good money on it that the reason why the police were tentative last week if that was the case was not because they were afraid of being shot—and they have been accused of cowardice; I do not believe it was that—but because they were afraid of shooting somebody because of the criticism they would receive in that situation. 
I will finish off with one point that the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel has made. She has said in respect of sex crimes that Labour has taken its eye off the ball in putting action into the action plan on sex crimes—and it has. The Minister of Police admitted too that Labour had missed the boat in the battle on P. When she says that in acknowledging that the pushers the manufacturers of P in this country are the gangs she says that Labour has taken its foot off this road with regard to the gangs too and it should have been moving on that. Hence today we had a letter come before our party leader asking us whether we will support this and it was signed by the Minister of Justice. Who? It was Mark Burton signed on 9 July last year. No one in Labour gave a stuff. What happened to the ministerial working group that was supposed to be working on crime? It did not meet for 3 years. Its members were supposed to be working on initiatives to combat crime—they never met for 3 years. Time and time again we hear the rhetoric and they never ever front up. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 That last speech from Chester Borrows was absolutely appalling. We all know that over— 
Chester Borrows 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take issue with the previous member for Whanganui who has asserted across the House that I tell lies. I take offence at that and I ask that she be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member on my right that “lie” is a mode of expression that has been ruled out of order on many occasions. There are many other ways of making the point that a member believes something to be incorrect. The member will stand and withdraw. 
Jill Pettis 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might be better if the member was also asked to resume the seat that she is rightfully allocated in the House which is at the rear of the House. For her to move forward like this particularly with her capacity to interject I think is a rather awkward thing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but the member is fulfilling the obligations of a whip. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As I said before the previous speech was appalling and although I would not use the term “telling lies” I would say that there was gross exaggeration and certainly a lot of confusion in the speech. I think that the member should take some advice from Kate Wilkinson because Kate Wilkinson is the one person in the National Party who tells it the way it is. She is the one person who talks about National’s policy and she is the one person who tells it the way it is. If the member took a little leaf out of her book then things might be a little bit clearer. 
The last 2 weeks have been very sad—they have been tragic. I express my sympathy in this House to the families and friends and to all the communities affected by these tragedies. For them life will never ever be the same and I know that this issue is something that affects all New Zealanders. Any one violent episode in New Zealand is one too many. 
Our crime statistics are down and our resolution rates of crime are increasing but the sad fact is that violent crime is on the rise globally. Every country in the world is grappling with this issue. My relatives have just come back from South Africa. Although I would in no way downplay the tragedy of the recent mindless acts of violence in New Zealand I just want to take a minute to compare New Zealand with South Africa where there are gated communities and so much violence at such a high level that it is not even reported. No one walks on the streets alone and fears in those communities are rife. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: So what? This is New Zealand not South Africa. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I will respond to that member but I would say first that New Zealand is a small nation. Every senseless act of violence whether it be against an adult a business member or a child is reported. It is reported and it is felt by the community and it is felt by all New Zealanders. We feel the tragedy the anger and the outrage. It is our problem in New Zealand because we are a small community. 
But what I think is most offensive is the dog-whistle politics that we hear from the National Party—that it thinks to capitalise on this grief and this anxiety and to wind it up and blame the Government and say it is the Government’s fault. The Government is absolutely prepared to play its role in our communities with all of our agencies and with all New Zealanders to do as much as it can to fix this problem. We have already been bringing the police together with other agencies. That has been happening for many many years. We have many initiatives to bust the P labs to shut down gangs and to bring in tougher sentences. We are starting work on initiatives to support families. We have Working for Families 4 weeks’ holiday job opportunities and income-related rents. All of those things give families some support. 
I ask this House what our society would be like if the previous National Government were still in power. What would our crime statistics be like with market rents? What would they be like with a minimum wage of $7 an hour? I ask National members what our communities would be like without job opportunities without apprenticeships and with rocketing health costs. I ask what our communities would be like then. I would ask National members that question. 
The people who create these crimes are scumbags and what they do is really really low. They are horrible horrible people. The one thing that Judith Collins said that I agreed with was that the majority of people in our communities are good people. Yes we have scumbags—horrible people who do horrible things—but that is a problem of our communities and our nation and it is a problem we have to solve together. 
I know what it would be like under a National Government. When National was last in Government it cut the police budget by $31 million and it had planned to make cuts of another $24 million in 2001 if it had still been in power. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a comment from the Minister of Police who said: “Current efforts to reduce the availability of methamphetamine and prevent the diversion of pseudoephedrine into the manufacturing of …”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. Objection has been taken. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Ni hao Mr Assistant Speaker. Navtej Singh Madam Yin Ping Yang and Ms Joanne Wang are all victims of the violent crimes in the last 9 days that have shocked our nation. We must send a message to the killers and criminals out there that their actions will not be tolerated. The New Zealand Indian Central Association challenged parliamentarians to set aside time this week to acknowledge these tragedies and to make a commitment to return safer communities to our people our country. Our leader John Key has made it clear that community safety is his priority. 
Families in the Indian and Chinese communities still have confidence in the police to apprehend criminals. They will continue to look to the police for action and so they should. The police force is our front line against crime. The police should be empowered and supported to protect our people. However apprehension of the killers and criminals will not bring back any of the victims to their families. To their families they are more than just names and nothing can replace their loss. Time will only dull the pain somewhat. 
Navtej Singh got up in the morning to go to work from 4 a.m. until 8 a.m. at the post office before returning to the liquor store in which he had a share. He bought into the business only earlier on this year after working and saving hard for years. This big handsome guy cared for his family and cried over his girls who are aged 5 years 3 years and 7 months. Now Harjinder Kaur is left with their children and with elderly parents on both sides of the family to care for. Thousands came to Navtej Singh’s funeral and prayer farewell seeking answers to his senseless killing for a few bottles of beer. 
Madam Yang lost her husband some 20 years ago in China. She came to New Zealand 18 years ago to be with her five children. She enjoyed good health. Her exercise included morning walks and growing Chinese vegetables. On the morning of the fatal day she was talking to and joking with her daughter and daughter-in-law. They came home to find her in a horrible state. In the short time between her regaining consciousness and death she spoke constantly of fear. What a way for an 80-year-old elder to finish her life’s journey. Her dying wish was for the killer to be caught. 
Ms Joanne Wang was described as caring and hard-working. Bakery shops require hard work. One can imagine her anger as she gave chase when her bag was snatched. Why should the lazy criminals get away with that? She paid with her life while her 8-year-old son watched. 
Asian women are being educated constantly about what we should do or should not do to avoid bag snatching. It is time the criminals needed to get the message. It is their conduct that needs to be changed and not tolerated. Denial of the fact that we have problems with violent crime is a barrier to coming up with solutions. 
Prime Minister Helen Clark is out of touch with communities and her own Ministers. At the prayer farewell for Navtej Singh the Hon Phil Goff told the family that the Hon George Hawkins would be assisting the members of the Sikh community to lodge a complaint against the police. The Prime Minister’s denial of that in Parliament yesterday is a sign that she is not communicating with her Ministers. 
I ask whether the Prime Minister is also aware that at a meeting called by the New Zealand Indian Central Association on 14 June which Chester Borrows and I attended the Minister of Health David Cunliffe said he had been given a medical briefing that the ambulance staff’s delay in attending to Navtej Singh made no difference to his condition. In the meanwhile many of us are prepared to wait for a proper inquiry before making any such assertions. Is the Prime Minister also aware that David Cunliffe told the same gathering that Pacific and Maori youth are the problem? Yet in the last 8 years her Government has lectured anyone who has dared to label communities in such a fashion. In fact one of the Indian Central Association executive members stood up and said that if he had made that statement then he would be in big trouble. 
Can the members of the Prime Minister’s Government really work together to provide leadership in law and order when they do not even talk to each other any more? After 9 long years of empty words slogans promises and the patronising of ethnic and New Zealand communities I say it is time for this Government to go because it cannot do the job. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The previous speaker commented quite appropriately about the tragedies that have happened in South Auckland over the last 9 days and her speech was going very well until she departed into some sort of rhetoric-based attack on the Prime Minister. It is interesting that 9 days ago the National Party published its law and order policy and what does it say that would have helped to prevent the tragedies in South Auckland? It says not a thing. 
The policy document I have here is dated 9 June 2008 and it is headed: “Enhancing police tools”. It states that National will introduce Tasers but it adds that it will do so only if the Taser trial is deemed to be a success. So National wants a bob each way on that one as well. 
Chester Borrows 
: How would you do it? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Here is one for Chester Borrows. On 9 June his leader said that National will require DNA samples to be taken from people arrested for crimes that are punishable by imprisonment. What does Chester Borrows say? He says: “We would require DNA from everybody arrested.” So National has not resolved that problem yet either. What is Chester going to do about that? Will he be speaking to his leader to get this thing sorted out? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The member’s full name is Chester Borrows. Will he speak to his leader and ask him to sort that dispute out? Two policies were released on 9 June and there is dispute over both of them. 
So what is the third policy? It states that National would allow police to issue on-the-spot protection orders to protect families. What are the police able to do now? They can issue on-the-spot protection orders to protect families. That is not a new policy: it is Government policy. So those are three points in chronological order—two strikes of confusion and one policy that the Labour Government already has. 
National’s policy also states that National will strengthen bail laws by overturning the 2007 amendments to the Bail Act. What did those amendments state? The only significant change in the amendment Act was section 4 which substituted section 8 of the principal Act with a new section. The amendment added new subsection (4) which states: “When considering an application for bail the court must take into account any views of a victim of an offence of a kind referred to in section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002”. So National wants to take out of the Bail Act the reference to the victims’ views at the time a bail application is considered. That is “sitting on the fence” and it would weaken the Bail Act which was strengthened in 2007 by this Government. 
The policy document goes on to talk about clamping down on gangs and putting victims first. But in this debate we have heard an extensive criticism of the police. One member of the National Party has called them “dispirited and weak”. Chester Borrows made criticism and I think Pansy Wong made criticism. We know when the police became dispirited if that is the case. What is the National Party’s policy on the police? It is nothing at all according to the 9 June statement. There is not a mention— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You wait! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Oh yes you wait; you wait and copy what we are going to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: That will be your policy. I am saying “you” in a rhetorical way. I am not referring to you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
So National says to the public: “You wait. We’ll see what Labour does and we’ll copy that.” which is what National has done so far in its policy document of 9 June. That occasion was a sad irony. 
So why are the police in the condition that the National Party describes? Well I do not think they are. We have a very efficient and effective police force that we are proud of. In 1998 however the National Government cut the police budget in the sum of $31 million. In 1999 Bill English as Treasurer admitted that National was proposing to cut another $24 million from the 2000-01 Police vote reducing it to $860 million. 
What is the police budget now? Under Labour the budget is $1 billion. We are putting oomph into the police we are putting pressure where it counts and we are equipping our police force. That will get our communities into the condition we all want them to be in. We are doing that by increasing police numbers. Not only did the National Government cut the police budget but it slashed the number of police. It wanted to reduce it by up to 540 jobs. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should read the Martin review. 
What has Labour done? We have almost reached our target of 1000 new cops by 2009. We have got the police numbers up. We have a police force with enlarged numbers. Under Labour the police graph has gone up as against the decreasing graph of police numbers we would see under National. Police numbers would go down. Why? Because National seeks to cut costs to support its tax cuts argument. 
Let us look at the impact this is having on crime. When National was in power from 1990 to 1999 it never got the resolution of crime rate higher than 40 percent—it averaged just 36 percent over that time. Under Labour the resolution rate has always been above 40 percent. Today it is 45 percent. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. I would like to thank sincerely the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their prompt handling of this bill. I particularly commend the chair Moana Mackey and other members as well as the staff of that select committee. I have had it reported to me both from Auckland Tennis and otherwise that their attention to this bill was excellent and I think the outcome is great. I would also like to thank other members of the House across the parties for their support of the bill. 
The bill is about amending the Auckland Domain Act 1987 to allow the proposed redevelopment of tennis and recreational facilities on the edge of the Auckland Domain in the Auckland Central electorate. It has been owned of course by the Auckland City Council since 1893 and is held in trust by the council on behalf of the people of Auckland for their recreation and enjoyment. The council is able to lease parts of the Auckland Domain to organisations—for example Auckland Tennis which previously was the Stanley Street Tennis Centre. It has occupied part of the domain since 1922. 
We know that across the world tennis has the third-highest annual spectator count of any sport just behind soccer and Formula One motor racing. Of these three major global sports events tennis is the only one that hosts major events every year at elite level. Auckland Tennis hosts two major international events each year the ASB Classic Women’s International tournament and the Heineken Open Men’s International tournament. These events are important in promoting tennis in New Zealand to an international audience as well as in promoting New Zealand more generally. It puts us on the map as a participant in international sporting events providing very high-class competition and spectator experiences as well as being very popular with participants. 
To remain in this lucrative and important circuit and to retain both these events we need to meet those circuit standards which are assessed and reported on every year. The standards include player facilities media facilities and spectator facilities. These facilities have been built and upgraded at the expense of tennis supporters in Auckland and more broadly and the stadium’s facilities to host tournaments are really important and need to be constantly upgraded. The only stadium in New Zealand that can host these tournaments is the ASB Tennis Centre which is at Auckland Tennis facilities in the Auckland Domain. The last major upgrade of this centre was about 20 years ago and in order to make sure that Auckland retains its role for New Zealand in hosting these events on the world tennis circuit the site needs to be redeveloped to meet the increasing standards expected by players by spectators by sponsors by media and by corporate supporters as well as meeting the needs of the international circuit. 
Auckland Tennis is proposing to lease part of the site to a third-party developer Next Generation Clubs Australia to upgrade the current facilities. Next Generation Clubs Australia is making a significant investment and needs better security over the investment that it is making. No taxpayer or ratepayer money has gone into the capital development of the stadium nor will it. It is entirely developed through the efforts of Auckland Tennis its volunteers and clubs. Tennis is one of the biggest sports in New Zealand in terms of participation and I would like to assure the House that its facilities are used very broadly for youth girls’ and boys’ tennis for Maori tennis and for tennis across Auckland and across New Zealand. It is our elite centre. 
Auckland City Council and Auckland Tennis have consulted the interested people in relation to this bill and I congratulate Graham Pearce and his team from Auckland Tennis on the work they have done with Auckland City Council. But much more broadly they have consulted other lessees Ngati Whatua o Orakei the tangata whenua Transit New Zealand in relation to roading all relevant Government departments and many other groups with an interest in matters relating to the Auckland Domain particularly community groups. In order for the proposed redevelopment to go ahead provisions of the Auckland Domain Act need to be amended as they have been for other major facilities including the redevelopment of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
This bill intends to extend the available lease term from 21 years to 50 years to make the redevelopment financially viable for the developer. It will allow Auckland Tennis to sublease part of the land to the developer on the same conditions that Auckland Tennis has in its primary lease. There will never be any suggestion that this lease can be privatised or alienated. There will be no transfer of ownership of domain land to Auckland Tennis or to third parties nor will there be any change in the area of land that Auckland Tennis is currently occupying. The continued public access to the domain and to tennis facilities will be maintained when the bill is passed and I am assured by Auckland Tennis that it will make these facilities much more broadly available. 
I am concerned as MP for Auckland Central that the intensification particularly of apartment dwellings in the central business district means that we have gone from a very small population there to one that I estimate is probably now over 30000 people. This is up from a bit under 2000 people in 1996 when I became the member of Parliament for Auckland Central. I have been arguing for open space for facilities particularly community facilities. Obviously this major international tennis tournament also needs provision and I am assured by Auckland Tennis that it can find ways to make its facilities more broadly available. 
All affected parties were consulted before the bill was introduced. Auckland City Council has also undertaken that it will conduct public consultation processes regarding the issue of the new lease and the sublease in respect of the site if the bill is successful. I am assured directly from Ngati Whatua that it is satisfied with the development—in fact it is quite excited about it. It is interested in the development of tennis in Auckland. Other lessees on the domain including the Friends of the Domain will be consulted as this process is conducted. 
I am very happy to say that I think this bill has met the test that Parliament sets. The redevelopment will mean that members of the public will have access to world-class tennis and recreation facilities and this major development will be yet another step in building top-class facilities for New Zealand across a range of sports and other activities. The city has to keep pace with this growth and we have seen particularly over the last 10 years a massive investment in the central business district’s infrastructure which of course is to the benefit of the whole of New Zealand. As I keep explaining across New Zealand if our children and grandchildren do not have these opportunities in New Zealand they will leave. Auckland is the only international-level city that can provide them. 
I am very proud that we are able to pass this legislation today. I think it is really important that as our cities change and as we intensify they have all of the infrastructure including public open spaces and community facilities. I will be keeping a very close eye on Auckland City and on the Auckland region as this opportunity and other opportunities develop. The redevelopment of tennis and recreational facilities in the Auckland Domain will ensure that they meet international expectations. We can continue to see this fabulous set of tournaments going ahead. Auckland will remain a part of the prestigious annual circuit for international tennis competitions and I hope and believe that this will open up other opportunities. Again I want to thank the select committee and members of the House. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill goes beyond the issues that are directly in front of it. It speaks of Auckland’s role as a leading Pacific Rim city. Auckland is the only city in New Zealand that can have a genuinely global presence. There are 1.4 million people living there and it is the principal entry point into this country for virtually all tourists. If Auckland does not succeed at that level of being a leading Pacific Rim city then frankly our nation will not succeed either. The issue is quite stark when we look at it in that light. Are we prepared to take the steps as a Parliament and as a nation that will enable us to stay in the game if you like—to keep international competitions and to give New Zealand the profile and standing that we as a nation expect of ourselves? Think of the alternative. The alternative is that Auckland just slips off the radar of international concern. When people talk about places to visit interesting things to see they simply will not mention Auckland or for that matter New Zealand. The challenge is becoming sharper as the years go by. 
As the Minister has correctly said there are a relatively small number of genuinely global sports. Obviously soccer is one along with tennis golf rugby and motor racing. Auckland is fortunate to be able to host two leading contests: the ASB Classic Women’s International which is a World Tennis Association event and the Heineken Open Men’s International which is an Association of Tennis Professionals event. We got those events decades ago when New Zealand had a substantially higher profile internationally than it has today. 
Twenty or 30 years ago New Zealand had more than 2 percent of global trade. Today it is 0.3 percent. That is because a whole group of other nations have been growing and growing rapidly particularly in our region. Only about 30 cities hold these Association of Tennis Professionals contests. One can imagine how keenly they are contested for. If we started with a clean sheet of paper would we really be in the running to get these contests? I suggest it would be quite a challenge to do so and that is why it is so important while we have these contests to do everything we can as a city as a nation and as a Parliament to retain that competitive edge. The truth is there are dozens of cities—particularly in Asia and in the Middle East—that would spend literally millions of dollars of public money if they felt they could gain these contests. There is also considerable attraction in these contests because of course they precede by literally days or a matter of a couple of weeks the Australian Open. So it is a very good primer for tennis players going to those contests to train up and get themselves ready. Contests in other parts of the world would not have quite such an attractive sense. 
We need to capitalise on the advantages that we have by simply having the contests because of our proximity to the Australian Open. But that means we have to do things differently. That in particular means renewing the facilities in the Auckland Domain. They were fine facilities 20 years ago but when one looks at the pictures on the television of the sorts of venues where the other 30 contests are held one sees that it is absolutely obvious that we have to improve the facilities. Global competitions require global facilities. One has only to ask the people involved in the Rugby World Cup 2011 about that particular challenge. I might add to the Government in probably its last few months that it needs to get its skates on to help Auckland and Eden Park get that stadium moving because it is only in fact— 
Dail Jones 
: What about North Harbour? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I think that time has gone. It is now Eden Park. The Rugby World Cup is only 3 years away and New Zealand is not China. We cannot build stadiums in 6 months. 
National is very enthusiastic to support this legislation. Yes we have some questions around issues with the domain and so forth but we are well satisfied with the briefings from Auckland Tennis on those issues. It seems to us and indeed as I understand it every party in the House that it is imperative that we act to retain New Zealand’s competitive advantage and to get a contemporary quality facility which will in fact be largely funded from outside New Zealand. I guess that tells one a bit of a story does it not? New Zealand with 4 million people and Auckland City with 1.4 million people now have to basically look outside for this kind of capital to build these kinds of facilities. So as legislators we are prepared to assist and that means extending the lease period from 21 years to 50 years. If we would spend tens of millions of dollars on a new facility which there has to be some level of commercial return on then clearly we have to have a proper and more appropriate lease than 21 years. 
The Auckland Domain is actually something of a relic when one thinks about it. Auckland Tennis has been on that site for nearly 100 years. The prospect of it going from that site is simply not thinkable and no one would really suggest that it is yet we have locked ourselves into 21-year leases which presumably just get rolled over every 21 years or so. It would be far better to have a 50-year lease which would enable the proper level of capital commitment with outside partners—based in Melbourne in fact—to build the quality of facilities that world tennis will demand. This is not something on which we are in a strong negotiating position as a nation. We have to be competitive and as legislators and as members representing metropolitan Auckland if we do not do these things for our city we will have failed. I know there are members in the House today who might say “Well it looks like you’re doing something for Auckland.” But I can say to those members that the whole country benefits. Everyone in this nation benefits when we hold international competitions because of the flow-on effects. We are all diminished if we lose these competitions. 
I am pleased to see today that not only are we doing the second reading but we are going to be doing the third reading to be able to get momentum and movement during the life of this Parliament. It is I think a good thing that the parties have come together to enable that to happen because that can only happen with the consensus across the House on the important things to do. From time to time it behoves this Parliament across the political boundaries and across the party divides to actually recognise the wider New Zealand interest and lift ourselves in order to be able to do the best for our country. This is one of those occasions. 
This issue goes beyond tennis. It really goes to the point of whether we are really prepared to stand up and do the things that will lift our nation build progress and keep us a leading nation within the Pacific Rim. If we fail in that—and there is a risk of that if we do not do the right things—then we will have doomed future generations of New Zealanders to poverty and obscurity and all of us wish a great deal better for our nation and for our future generations than that. Passing this bill is its own little symbol of pulling together as a nation and indeed making sure that we are seen as a globally competitive nation able to hold globally competitive events. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It gives New Zealand First great pleasure to support this bill the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. As a member who returned to this House earlier this year it took me a few moments to get to grips with where this place was located because I have always called it Stanley Street. That is where tennis is played. I had a look through this bill again and again to see whether the place was actually called Stanley Street. In fact nowhere is Stanley Street mentioned. So I was a bit confused and I had to make certain from the Minister that it is really Stanley Street—and I will be referring to it as Stanley Street. 
Auckland was recently listed as the fourth-best city in the world in which to live and it well and truly deserves that recognition. One of the best things about being an Aucklander and living in Auckland especially during the summer is occasionally being able to spend one’s summer holidays as an Aucklander in Auckland. There are so many things to do. One can walk the harbour bridge one can go out on the harbour one can go to Rangitoto Island and of course one goes to Stanley Street for the tennis. As an Aucklander one always knows that when tennis is on at Stanley Street on about Wednesday or Thursday if has been dry it is bound to rain. It always rains at Stanley Street. The number of days it does not rain at Stanley Street at least for a day or so or half a day would be few—it is very very unusual. 
I have been going to Stanley Street for the tennis since the 1960s. I went to tennis there when there were grass courts. We had to pay and I can remember a wonderful game when Ken Rosewall and John Newcombe were playing doubles against a couple of New Zealand players. What a wonderful exhibition of tennis that was! We saw Newcombe go down to love-40 and come back to win his serve comfortably. It was quite extraordinary. The things that tennis has brought to Auckland and of course to New Zealand and what we have at Stanley Street are there for the benefit of all New Zealand. 
Over the years things have changed a number of times. I remember the days when we could sit virtually on the edge and watch Onny Parun and Brian Fairlie have a crack at each other on grass and watch Parun come back from 2 sets down to win 3 sets to 2 as he did so many times. Then came the move to hard courts and Rebound Ace. Stanley Street is really up to date. It made the significant change to go to Rebound Ace only a short while ago in order to link up with the Australian Open. 
Of course this is yet another step forward to making sure that the wonderful work done by Auckland Tennis Inc. is aided even further. As we know Auckland Tennis Inc. has ensured that the prize money available this coming year will at least equate to the prize money in Melbourne and we might get a few more top players coming to Auckland both for women’s tennis which is played in the first week and for men’s tennis which is played in the second week. That is quite a change from the days when Maria Bueno would play mixed doubles with men and the tournament was a male and female affair where people saw the top men and women playing at the same time. It has become more segregated and there is a lot more money involved but the enjoyment is still there. 
Everyone in Auckland should always take advantage of being able to go to Stanley Street. We saw a great turn-out for the women’s tennis there last year with the wonderful young player Marina Erakovic and with the top American player as well. This type of development will ensure the future of New Zealand tennis. One hopes that we might get some great players once again especially amongst the men and I am sure that people are doing the best they can to promote New Zealand tennis. However the standard is so enormously high and intense in the world today that it seems to be becoming more and more difficult to do so. But young Gareth Jones and others might produce doubles partners and we might see improvements as far as doubles is concerned. 
So New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports this development and looks forward—and I look forward in particular—to enjoying the new facilities with even more strawberries and cream as soon as possible in the forthcoming summers. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Was that not a wonderful wander down memory lane with the genial old-timer the tennis spokesperson for New Zealand First Dail Jones? He reflected back on the good old days when the Auckland tennis centre was known as Stanley Street. It is a very New Zealand First view of the world to look back turn the clock back and recount those great old days on the grass courts. But we in the National Party are very much taking a 21st century view of the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. We are looking at this bill which we are supporting as my colleague Wayne Mapp said as part of providing the vital infrastructure needed for sport in Auckland going into the 21st century. Dr Mapp was absolutely right: if New Zealand is to attract top-class events to New Zealand in the years to come we have to have the facilities to host them. 
As Dr Mapp said tennis is one of the top three worldwide spectator sports in terms of international reach and commercial appeal. It is the only one of those sports that we host here at the top level. There is of course also motor racing and soccer but tennis is where we are still on the international circuit. We have only one real international city in New Zealand and that is Auckland with a population of 1.4 billion. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Manukau! 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It is a fact I am afraid. If we are to attract the top-class events we need to get people in through the gateway of this country. We have to have the infrastructure there. There is a lot of competition for these tennis tournaments. When we look at the expansion through Asia and Eastern Europe and at the money that people have in those parts of the world to put into infrastructure we see that we have to be competitive. There is no question that Stanley Street as Dail Jones calls it has done great service to New Zealand tennis and New Zealand sport. But the fact is that it has a capacity of only about 3000 people. The old Redwood and Yock Stands have done great service but frankly they are not up to the demands of international sport and the demands of an international audience today. The time has come to make sure that that great facility can be redeveloped so that it is fit for sport in the 21st century. 
The purpose of this bill was well outlined by the member for Auckland Central and I commend her for bringing it to this House—I do not think it will help her a heck of a lot but it is a good final contribution for her to make as the member for Auckland Central. As she explained the bill will enable the domain lease held by Auckland Tennis to be— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Arrogance tends to bite one in the backside. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Sorry what was that Mr Duynhoven? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Arrogance tends to bite one in the backside. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As she said the bill extends the lease from 21 to 50 years. That is just as well because frankly by the time the new partner gets to build the new Auckland tennis centre under the constrictions of the Resource Management Act a good chunk of those 50 years will be needed in order to have this first-class facility actually pushed through. 
The point is that Auckland Tennis needs to have this facility if we are to continue to host these tournaments in New Zealand. We stage two international tournaments a year. We have the men’s tournament the Heineken Open which attracts a world-class field. Just to delve back a little into history I say that this tournament has hosted the recent winner of the French Open Rafael Nadal and going back 30 years it hosted Bjorn Borg before he became an international name—I am sure that Dail Jones was courtside there to watch that victory. The Heineken Open has been an iconic tournament but it faces competition because the Australian Open starts just a couple of weeks later. Warm-up tournaments for that event are held in both Perth and Sydney and a lot of top players are starting to bypass Auckland and go straight to Sydney to prepare for the Australian Open. If we want to attract people on the basis of more than loyalty we have to show that we can host a top-class tournament in Auckland. 
In having a facility like this there are wider benefits than just those for tennis. When people come to New Zealand they do not come just to watch the tennis. They will spend money throughout the country stay in hotels throughout the country and to go back and tell people what a great time they had in New Zealand. The benefits are even wider than that. The benefits are that the Heineken Open is an ATP tour event. As such it is shown right around the world on ESPN and on CNN. It brings New Zealand some of the worldwide recognition that we need if we are to continue to be significant as a Pacific Rim nation. 
We also of course have the ASB Classic the women’s tournament that Dail Jones alluded to in his history discourse and spoke eloquently on. That is a major tournament as well. The status of that tournament has just been upgraded. The prize money on offer will be much higher and that also means that that tournament has the possibility of attracting a top 10 women’s player to play at it. So that tournament is becoming bigger. 
There is no question that when people go and watch sport now they are demanding to watch it in the surroundings of first-class facilities. I can tell members that sitting in the stands at the Auckland tennis centre can be an unsheltered and at times a bit of a sore experience. I am sure that the development that will now take place there will mean that people will think that going to the tennis is a first-class comfortable experience. Not only will we have great action out on the court but people will be surrounded by the sorts of surroundings that we get when we go to the tennis in Australia. 
I turn to the former Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. Members should note that Labour has officially done away with that portfolio. I am not sure what that says about what Labour thinks about Auckland issues. It could actually be that Labour has seen what is happening to its party vote support in Auckland and decided to give it away altogether. This debate would have been a great opportunity for an update to be given by the former Auckland issues Minister on the state of Eden Park. We are talking about sports infrastructure and we have 3 years until we are to— 
Jacqui Dean 
: What about Eden Park? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Yes what about Eden Park? We are hosting the Rugby World Cup here in 2011 and we have to know that that park will be ready to deal with the international visitors that will be coming here. 
One might ask what relevance that has to Auckland Tennis. Well the point is that we have to make sure we have a string of first-class sporting venues throughout the country and of course in our main international city. If we look at Eden Park we see that we no longer have a facility in Auckland where New Zealand Cricket is prepared to host test matches so that has been lost from Auckland. We are using a rugby ground for one-day internationals there and we are using a rugby ground in Wellington for one-day international cricket games. So we have to look at the issue of sporting infrastructure. As Wayne Mapp said people are going to come to New Zealand for a variety of reasons. But there is no question that when we can host big-time sports events like an international tennis tournament or if we can host the Rugby World Cup that will be one of our gateways to raising our international profile and making sure that people come here have a good time and go back home and tell people to visit this country. It is a shame that the former Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues did not tell us what is happening regarding Eden Park because frankly that is a matter of great concern. We have the Rugby World Cup here in just 3 years. Is the stadium built? Is it going to be built? Is all the finance in place? The public need to know—it is about time they were told about that. 
But the other interesting thing about this bill is that I can tell that Steve Maharey was not involved in it because it is all about using private money to provide the infrastructure that a city needs. I commend the Minister Judith Tizard because you know she has deep socialist roots. It must have hurt her to be involved in bringing a bill to the House that will turn a project over to the private sector. That is what this bill will do. We have to face it: we cannot build the infrastructure we need in this country without the involvement of the private sector. Labour has had 9 years to get some of these projects together—9 years—but the only thing we will get from it in terms of private sector involvement by the end of those 9 years will be the tennis stadium. Well a tennis stadium will be great and National wholeheartedly supports that but we would have liked to see more be done. We would have liked to see much more private involvement. 
Harry Duynhoven over there is being very quiet but I think that he agrees really with me on that. I think he would agree really because there is a lot about our economic views that I think Harry Duynhoven really secretly agrees with. And that goes even for some of those socialists over there—even Dave Hereora. He might not understand the whole thing but he is being pushed along to embrace this thing about private infrastructure—private involvement to provide the infrastructure a country needs. 
In closing I tell the House that National supports this bill. We think it will be really important to have that sporting infrastructure—to attract the facilities we need in New Zealand. The tennis stadium will be a great redevelopment and a great addition to Auckland and it will benefit the whole country through the exposure it gives to New Zealand. Thank you. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I will take a brief call to reassert our continued support for this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. I do not have the historical connection with the sport that Mr Dail Jones and others may have with tennis never having been one of my things but I am passionate about the Auckland Domain where I have spent a lot of time in years gone by. 
One of my main concerns with this bill as an Auckland MP was about any threat of encroachment on to the public spaces at the domain. I have a real concern about another Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill that is about to come to this House because part of that bill is aimed at taking out over 1100 square metres of Albert Park—somewhere else where I have spend a lot of time in my earlier days. I think that we cannot afford in Auckland to lose any more of our open green space for any purpose. We need to keep those spaces for the future of the people of our city. The open spaces in Albert Park and the domain are very precious. But my understanding of this bill is that the development does not encroach on to the domain so we are fine with it as far as that goes. 
The other concern I had with this bill was in relation to consultation with local iwi. Obviously this is an area of great significance for local iwi and we were worried that in the initial phases consultation either had not taken place at all or was not adequate. I understand from a brief conversation I have just had that there has at least been some consultation now. That concern hopefully will be met adequately so our support continues. Thank you. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Like many others I would like to take the opportunity to meander through a bit of tennis having been a small-town champion myself in Hawke’s Bay and with a love for the game. I have done a bit of research and it might interest members to know that the modern game of lawn tennis takes its origins from late 19th century England and in particular from Major Walter Clopton Wingfield. It was not long before the finest of indigenous talents had picked up the ball and shown the world what we were made of. We think of such stars on the courts as Ruia Morrison-Davy the first Maori and the first New Zealand woman to make it to Wimbledon; Kelly Evernden who represented New Zealand at Davis Cup level; Tutere Durie who is competing at the World Junior Tennis Asia/Oceania competition in China; Kataraina Hunia who spent 5 months training in Barcelona; Barrett Franks of Ngapuhi fame I tell Mr Harawira who played in the world junior tennis finals in the Czech Republic; Ngati Raukawa player Tracey O’Connor; Ngati Maniapoto player Luci Barlow;  
CODE 
 star and Olympic competitor Rewa Hudson; and Ngati Porou champion Mose Harvey who in winning the world super seniors 70 plus was the first New Zealander to win a world title in tennis. 
The Tainui tennis champ Leanne Baker perhaps best epitomises the lengths to which tangata whenua will go to in advancing this sport. Two months ago Baker battling a broken toe fought on through a 3-hour match to win the United States international tennis tournament in Mazatlán Mexico. There is a whakatauaki a proverb that encourages this never-give-up attitude which Leanne must know well and it is one that people in here could follow. It says: “Kaua ma te waewae tutuki e hokia engari ma te upoko pakaru.” which translates as “Do not give up and turn back because you stub your toe—only if you split your skull”. There is some good advice there. This incredible international hall of fame may seem a long way away from the days of Major Walter Clopton Wingfield but it illustrates that even Maori are out there excelling in the elite sports in almost every field we take on. 
I wanted to set out this context in some depth as way of background to this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. But of course when we are talking background we could go back even further. Maori participation in tennis dates back to the 1890s. In fact as a descendant of Ngati Kahungunu I am proud to reveal that the earliest photograph of Maori playing tennis dates back to 1899 and depicts Maori shearers playing on the courts of Elms Hill Station in Hawke’s Bay. In the same year Sir Maui Pomare won the inter-varsity tennis championships while he was studying in the United States. Inter-marae and inter-rohe championships for the Turoa Morehu and Marumaru Cups were in full swing by 1910. The New Zealand Maori Tennis Association was formally constituted in 1926 by Sir Apirana Ngata long before the Auckland Domain was developing the facilities for the Auckland Lawn Tennis Association. 
However tangata whenua have a background with the Auckland Domain that predates even the history of tennis in Aotearoa. Almost 190 years ago Te Wherowhero the great rangatira of Waikato came to Pukekaroa to make peace with Ngapuhi. When Lieutenant Governor Hobson set about founding Auckland in 1840 at the invitation of Ngati Whatua—I repeat at the invitation of Ngati Whatua—he reserved some 200 acres around the central volcanic cone for parkland that eventually became the Auckland Domain. We can of course go even further back. Ngati Whatua have advised the Maori Party that they have a kaitiaki obligation that stretches back to the 1700s when the land in question was a waka tauranga a landing place for waka known as Waipapa. 
This history of the tangata whenua relationship with tennis with the Auckland Domain and with the Auckland City Council should have been canvassed well before this bill made it to the House. The requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 for councils to consult with mana whenua are not just words on a page or concepts to pad out a policy. The Local Government and Environment Committee stated that it was informed that local iwi had been consulted before the bill was introduced. Yet we wonder who it was that was consulted. Was it Tainui? Was it Ngapuhi? Was it Ngati Whatua? Was the Aotearoa Maori Tennis Association involved or Kingi Tuheitia its patron or its tumuaki Dick Garratt? When we in the Maori Party approached Ngati Whatua at the first reading of this bill we learnt that they were not aware of the bill even being put forward. It is hardly the benchmark of a good relationship on the part of Auckland City Council. The council now has a legal right to the land in question in its capacity as lessor but that should never have had the effect of denying the cultural interest that Ngati Whatua maintains in the land and the ongoing obligation of kaitiakitanga. 
Today as we approach the second and third reading of the bill we have learnt that Ngati Whatua now gives conditional support to the bill—conditional on tennis remaining as the kaupapa and not having something else such as the building of apartments. We would have expected however that Ngati Whatua o Orakei would have been involved in the planning stages. We would expect also that any development scheduled for the site will be required to go through the resource consent process which again should inevitably involve Ngati Whatua. It is not a big ask. 
The Auckland Tennis Association is a key player in the competitive global environment in which tennis events take place. The ASB Classic Women’s International the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour and the ATP Heineken Open men’s tournament are all elite events on the prestigious international tournament circuit. The $25 million upgrade of the Auckland Domain is critical in order for Auckland to be able to maintain a high standard of facilities for players and spectators alike. Planning is currently in progress to develop state of the art tennis and squash courts; gymnasium creche recreation pool and health facilities; and a new on-site car-park. In the midst of such intense investment we in the Maori Party would have expected that ongoing relationships with mana whenua would be accorded priority. 
The slogan for Auckland Tennis is “Hit me with your best shot.” The best shot in terms of actively respecting and engaging with mana whenua is a long shot off but the game is not over yet. All we can hope is that Auckland City Council does not keep on serving up faults. The future ahead for Auckland Tennis will inevitably require it to engage in public consultation if it expects to apply for an extended lease or the right to sublease part of the site. We will follow the lead of Ngati Whatua in giving conditional support for this bill but the match point must be that we hope that the overwhelming generosity of mana whenua is recognised as Auckland Tennis moves forward. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a second time and a third time. 
Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 21 May. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill if only to express my relief that a majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee decided that the bill was without merit in terms of what it purported to do. 
When the bill was first read in this House some time ago National was reasonably upfront in stating quite clearly that although we were very happy to support it going to the select committee we saw little merit in it. I said that as the issues in it had been raised—and raised in a way that New Zealand First often tends to raise issues to do with Treaty matters especially in an election year—I was of the opinion that the bill should go to a select committee so that those issues could be discussed debated and considered fairly if only to maintain the integrity of the process of the Waitangi Tribunal which has served this nation very well since 1975. I might add that the tribunal has been the object of study and visits by overseas indigenous peoples and others who have come to see how we have addressed and continue to address the issue of historical claims of the indigenous Maori of New Zealand against the Crown and an examination of the Crown’s conduct pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
This bill is taking its course and has been to the select committee. As I said we in National thought it should go there but now that it has been there and come back with the majority of the committee against it I think we can all be reasonably satisfied that it has had its proper scrutiny. It was found to be wanting in terms of what it proposed. I will not say that that is what I always thought but what it does present I think is a picture of a functioning forum—unique in the world I might add—that examines Crown conduct vis-à-vis the indigenous people of this nation. 
The bill states that a conflict of interest arises in respect of the fact that the judges of the Maori Land Court sit on the Waitangi Tribunal. There are two different jurisdictions as we are all probably aware. The Waitangi Tribunal was established under its own Act in 1975. It is a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations to the Government on Crown conduct according to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Gleaning the meanings of those principles or gleaning those principles from a study of the two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi one Maori and one English called for an approach that was more inquiry-driven than strictly legal or adversarial. I have sat on the tribunal and have seen how that inquiry function has been very supportive of the kaupapa. But it is very important none the less as there are quite high stakes here in terms of public interest and the politics of it that it possess—and it still does—a semi-judicial function. 
The Maori Land Court of course has its own separate jurisdiction under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. They are two different jurisdictions and on the face of it—and in fact—they are not in conflict as to the two tasks to be performed. One thing though—the upside of the fact that judges of the Maori Land Court sit on the tribunal—is that there is an understanding of the issues that are likely to come before the tribunal. This is a specialised area of the law. We see that with the Environment Court for instance and with the Employment Court. Those courts deal with specialised areas of the law and the Maori Land Court even more so in terms of what we are dealing with here I think than with some of the other areas of the law. It therefore calls for people with an underlying knowledge of the Maori dynamic Maori iwi structures and so on. 
The second comment on this issue of so-called conflict of interest is that it is not unusual for judges for instance to be able to sit in more than one jurisdiction. This is not something unique in the jurisdiction we are talking about. High Court judges sit on the Court of Appeal and District Court judges and Maori Land Court judges may serve in the Environment Court. As far as I am aware there has never been any suggestion that there is an inherent conflict of interest arising in such situations. The situation is similar here. There is no inherent conflict of interest in Maori Land Court judges serving on the Waitangi Tribunal. The other thing is that members of the judiciary—and I am talking about the wider judiciary—often undertake tasks outside the judicial system. Chairing commissions of inquiry as long as it does not conflict with judges’ judicial role is a practice as well. 
The point is that there is nothing unusual in what is happening here. There is nothing unique about it; it happens across our judiciary. But the very fact that it is raised by New Zealand First tends in my mind to raise the question as to whether we are picking on these two jurisdictions simply because they deal only with Maori issues. I hope not. In any event that has been rejected by the select committee as well. It is proper because the stakes are high in this whole Treaty of Waitangi process that if from time to time issues are raised as to the efficacy of what we are doing here then there is a forum within which we can air these matters and that is what has happened here. 
I hope that as the majority of the House sees no merit in the bill that might convince our colleague who is in charge of it Pita Paraone. I respect his judgment but given that this matter has been widely aired in its second reading—and I have read New Zealand First’s comments in the report back from the select committee—he may have a comment to make about the reasons put forward by the committee and by the majority of MPs in this House as to why his bill ought not to proceed. 
In closing I say that the Government I think today and maybe yesterday has introduced two major settlement bills to the House. After 9 years that is a good thing. I do not make any mention at this moment of National’s position but certainly in the future—as we have said many times—when we make Government which we obviously hope to do in a few months’ time we wish to move the settlement of Treaty injustices forward in a more timely way. If as there seems to be there is wide support by the iwi of the central North Island for the two settlement bills that are now before the House then that makes us pleased as well. The one thing we all want—all of us across the House including New Zealand First despite this bill—is that the momentum for Maori development which has been obvious and spectacular over the last 20 years continues. The entry of those two bills into the House is progress and we will see more of that sort of thing when the election is over and National takes those seats on the other side of the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I just clarify where New Zealand First is on the speaking list. We are on a second reading and have just had the second speech from a National member so are we No. 8 or No. 10 in the speaking list of 12? If we are No. 8 it means that the Greens the Maori Party United Future and ACT have all missed out on an opportunity to speak—that is if they wanted to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could everyone other than Dail Jones sit down please. 
DAIL JONES 
: I mention it for the sake of the Maori Party members if they had wanted to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can I deal with the point of order please. 
DAIL JONES 
: The point of order is that they have lost their opportunity to speak. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I have heard the point of order and I am now going to adjudicate on it and explain. 
DAIL JONES 
: We have no objection to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much. Can you please sit? The first people to speak in this second reading 2 or 3 weeks ago were from New Zealand First and National. Labour should have taken the call when we came into the debate today. It was taken by National. I will now resume the order as at No. 3. We will have Labour the Greens the Maori Party United Future ACT and then we will skip a National speaker and go on. Thank you. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Labour) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi maku kei te mihi atu ki a koe e te whaea Georgina i roto i au nei tirohanga mo tenei pire e pa ana ki te Ropu o te Taraipiunara. Na reira kei te mihi atu. 
[ 
The first thing for me is to acknowledge your views madam Georgina in respect of this bill about the Waitangi Tribunal 
.] 
I am just acknowledging the contribution by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in terms of her wise observations about this bill. I am very interested in making a contribution to this bill because it talks about conflicts of interest. 
Na tuarua kei te mihi atu ki a koe e te whanaunga e Pita nau nei tenei take i whakapuaki ake hei korerotanga hei whakawhitiwhititanga whakaaro mo nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki te tribunal. 
[ 
Secondly I acknowledge you Pita the relative the one responsible for this bill as we debate and deliberate aspects relating to the tribunal 
.]  
I am acknowledging also the contribution and the introduction of this bill by our colleague Pita Paraone. It actually goes to the core of what the Waitangi Tribunal is all about. I supported the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill and its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The reason was the unclear nature of the process in terms of proposed or perceived conflicts of interest. I think it is very important that when we look at a judiciary—specifically the tribunal and the tribunal’s functions—we can have confidence in it. Irrespective of the make-up of the tribunal the people of New Zealand both Maori and non-Maori have to be confident that the people in our jurisdictions have the ability and integrity to carry out their duties without conflict and without persuasion by anybody. 
At the time of the bill’s introduction I read its explanatory note which comes from our colleague Pita Paraone who is the architect of the bill. It states: “It seems highly dubious to allow serving Judges of either court to preside over matters on the Waitangi Tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court or the Maori Land Court.” Reading that stirs up ideas that there may be duplication or some conflicts of interest in terms of the jurisdiction of judges and rightly so—I think the matter needed to be raised. This issue has been in the minds of many people involved not only in the tribunal but—God help us—in the Maori Land Court. 
So I think that allowing the bill to go to a select committee was the appropriate process. It is in that arena that we listen to submissions from people who have experience and knowledge about these matters. The select committee process also allows us to canvass the general public and those stakeholders who may be affected and who are intending to make submissions to the tribunal or the Maori Land Court. That is the process that would eradicate or alleviate any concerns about the issues of proposed or perceived conflicts of interest. 
I know that my colleague Pita Paraone is disappointed but I thank him for raising the issue. I think this Parliament owes him that gratitude and I would expect that members of that select committee would take on board his real concerns about the perceived conflict of interest. As I said before I was one of the ones who supported the bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Now the bill has come back to the House and I thank the select committee members for their very comprehensive report. I am mindful of the conclusion of that report where the select committee says: “We consider that there is no inherent conflict of interest in sitting judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as the Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal.” Well that is good enough for me. Although I understand the disappointment of my colleague Pita Paraone I think he can understand and also appreciate the objectivity that has been brought to the process by the select committee and I am glad to hear that that sentiment has also come from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. 
I have always been concerned about the integrity of the process not only of the Waitangi Tribunal but also of the Maori Land Court. This bill goes to the heart of the functions of the tribunal when we talk about the integrity of those who are presiding. Some of the decisions of the tribunal have been rather dubious. I understand some of the reasons why and I understand the environment that the tribunal has to work in. It must decide whether the evidence that is put before it is historical fantasy—made up by people who have some sort of cultural diversions if you like and who have been watching  
The Lord of the Rings 
 and coming before the tribunal with that type of evidence—or historical fact. 
There are two phenomena within this jurisdiction. There are those who have many stories to tell. There are those who still believe that Maui fished the North Island out of the sea—I am one of them because I am a fisherman. But it is not necessarily factual and it is not necessarily true. So when these matters are put before the tribunal we need the rangatira both men and women who have wide knowledge about tikanga and tekanga. They are two different things. Tikanga is the culture of Maori and tekanga is the spinning of a lot of bullshit—with respect Madam Assistant Speaker. That is the inherent difference. Sometimes when rangatira are sitting up there they are confused at the difference between tikanga and tekanga. 
I see that my colleague Pita Sharples has a smile on his face. He knows what I am talking about. In the past I have sometimes seen him presiding on both sides of the table and I do not know whether he is telling me tekanga or tikanga! He has advocated in this House this afternoon about tennis players—about Ngati Kahungunu being tennis players mai ra ano since 1840. I can tell members that the Ngapuhi have been tennis players since the 1600s. Our rocks our tennis balls were a bloody sight bigger than theirs. So that comes back to tekanga again. 
I come back to the bill Madam Assistant Speaker; I am just saying that therein is the integrity. We are satisfied that the select committee has done its job and I support the committee’s appropriate recommendation. 
No reira kei te mihi ki a tatou katoa. E Pita tena koe me wo whakatauki a ko koe te rangatira o te purei paoro o te tenehi. Taku korero ki a koe ata korero. Kei kona taku whanaunga a Hone e titiro ana ki a koe a te wa e tu ai te All Blacks ki te purei tena pea kua wini tatou. No reira huri ana i to tatou Whare tena koutou. 
[ 
So I acknowledge all of us. Peter greetings to you and your wise sayings. You said you were a top tennis player. I say to you look out. My relative Hone is over there keeping an eye on you. When the All Blacks turn out to play—who knows we might win. So greetings to you collectively throughout our House 
.] 
Madam Assistant Speaker thank you for your indulgence. Kia ora tatou. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. I am sorry but I find no humour in having to speak to this bill. This New Zealand First bill which is promoted by Pita Paraone and is denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country plans to end the careers of some of our best Maori judges of the Maori Land Court the High Court and the Waitangi Tribunal and to stop them from serving their own people. 
This bill is exactly the same as that other anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the Justice and Electoral Committee by Pita Paraone voted for by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country. That bill was called the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill and it proposed taking the Treaty of Waitangi out of all New Zealand legislation. Thankfully the rest of the House voted with the Maori Party at the second reading and threw the bill out but not before all of Labour’s Maori MPs had actually voted to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all New Zealand legislation. And vote for it they did. It was not just a couple of them but the whole lot of them: Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones. 
In fact so horrified was Angeline Greensill the Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato that she rang me to ask whether I was sure about that. She asked me to confirm that every one of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones actually did something as dumb as to vote to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all New Zealand legislation. Being a fully paid-up member of the Maori Party I had no option but to tell her the truth: that in fact yes they had—all of Labour’s Maori MPs had voted to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from all legislation. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On the matter that was raised clearly on the first reading of the bill Labour members voted for it to be sent to the select committee. But if the member wants to establish the facts in the House and go through the  
Hansard 
 at that time he will find the bill was sent to the select committee and on the second reading it was voted against by Maori members in the Labour Government—in fact by the Labour Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I appreciate the point but you are making a debating point. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There must be some degree of relevance in what the member is saying. He is debating a bill that has long gone. Can he at least get to the point—that is if he knows what the point of this bill is? So far he has indicated a total absence of relevance to this bill. Could he be relevant? Madam Assistant Speaker it is your responsibility to require him to be relevant. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I do not need to be reminded of my responsibility. Yes I ask the member to confine his comments to this particular bill. He was taking off on to past legislation. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: This bill the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill is the same in many ways as the earlier bill I have referred to. This bill has also been put forward by New Zealand First. This bill was also represented at the Justice and Electoral Committee by Pita Paraone. This bill was also supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones. This bill has also been denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country. I am happy to say for all of those reasons and more the Maori Party will not be supporting this bill. 
The Maori Party will not be supporting this anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country because we know as does the select committee that sitting on both the Maori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal requires people to have an understanding of tribal structure Maori land history custom and tradition. Given that 80 percent of those people are likely to be Maori we know that this bill would effectively dump all of those Maori who had dedicated their lives to law school court work and tribunal work before taking up an appointment to either the Maori Land Court or the Waitangi Tribunal and would dismiss 95 percent of the greatest legal minds within Maoridom. How dumb is that? How mind-numbingly nonsensically foolishly downright dumb is that? 
Another reason the Maori Party will not be supporting this anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from all around the country is that it continues the assault against some of our top jurists. People like Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias Maori Land Court Judge Caren Fox and Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court Joe Williams have all been dragged into the political spotlight and attacked by overzealous and intellectually challenged Ministers of the Crown who want to impose their prejudices on the judiciary. There is probably not another party that wants to change the appointment process for judges in Aotearoa as much as the Maori Party does but even we recognise the importance of keeping the judiciary separate from politicians who come and go at the whim of the electorate. 
Another reason the Maori Party will not be supporting this anti-Maori bill put forward by New Zealand First represented at the select committee by Pita Paraone supported by all of Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones and denounced as being anti-Maori by Maori from throughout the country is that it plans to muzzle the voices of judges who demonstrate every day high levels of judicial competence and knowledge of Maori land matters and to replace them with retired judges who already have heaps on their plate. I was happy to be the Maori Party representative on the select committee that considered this bill and I was equally happy to hear the recommendation of the select committee that there was no inherent conflict of interest and that therefore this bill could be thrown out on the same scrap heap as the last one. 
Finally let me ask this most obvious of questions—the question on the lips of Maori people all around the country. If it is a conflict of interest that Pita Paraone Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones are really concerned about then what about the conflict of interest that arises from the thieving buggers who actually stole our land being the same critters who then set up the Waitangi Tribunal to decide the case pick who the judges will be decide what can be returned and what will not be returned pick who can speak for the poor bloody victims and then say how much the victims will have to pay to get their own land back? That is a conflict of interest I say to Mr Paraone if the member wants to talk about a conflict of interest. Well that is what we call a conflict of interest I say to Mr Paraone. That is the real deal that no one here seems to want to talk about. 
I ask Mr Horomia why the thieves who stole his tupuna’s land should also get to pick the judges for the court case. How about that for a conflict of interest? And I ask Ms Mahuta why the thieves who stole her tupuna’s land should also get to say which lands she can have back. How is that for a conflict of interest? Why should the thieves who stole Mr Okeroa’s tupuna’s land get to say who his negotiators can be? How is that for a conflict of interest? I ask all of the rest of the Maori MPs in Labour how they dare to support legislation that would delete the Treaty and deny Maori the right to sit on our own land courts. 
This bill which is supported by Pita Paraone Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones in spite of overwhelming opposition from Maori right around the country and which is intended to strip the Waitangi Tribunal and the Maori Land Court of some of the best legal minds in Maoridom is nothing but a pathetic attempt to deny Maori equal access to all levels of the judiciary. The Maori Party stands proudly alongside the rest of Maoridom in denouncing this anti-Maori bill and we call on this House to consign it to the same trash bin as the last piece of legislative prejudice put forward by New Zealand First. Tena koutou katoa. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleague Hone Harawira on his contribution to this debate because I agree with virtually everything he said. I will talk about the Green Party view on this bill which is very similar although it will not be put in such an elegant or passionate way I think. 
It interests me a great deal that New Zealand First has a tendency to put forward into the ballot bills that concern the Treaty of Waitangi in various ways. In fact as far as I can remember—and I have been here for a wee while now—there has been only one New Zealand First bill pulled from the ballot that did not concern the Treaty. A number of them have concerned the Treaty and all of those bills have been focused on undermining the role of the Treaty in legislation and in society. That raises a great deal of concern. It means that when the Greens approach legislation like this Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill from New Zealand First given that it concerns the Treaty as well we do so with a great deal of suspicion that the purpose of this legislation is about undermining the Treaty about eliminating it from the law books and from the community’s view and in some way about taking an anti-Maori approach. 
It is very sad that a party that has a number of Maori MPs—which it certainly did in the last Parliament—is happy to promote such legislation to the House and that its Maori MPs are then encouraged or required to promote that legislation through the House as well. I have some sympathy for the members who are in that position because I think that it puts them in an inherent conflict of interest which is just the situation that they expect the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal to be in. 
Getting to the bill itself as far as I can tell from my work on the Justice and Electoral Committee there is no requirement that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court also be the chairperson of the tribunal. The law simply allows for that to happen recognising that there is still a shortage of people with the kind of expertise needed and it makes sure that regardless of other circumstances it is possible to have the most highly skilled person for both those jobs doing both those jobs. Given that it is not a mandatory requirement there really is no need for legislation that takes that opportunity away because it simply undermines the ability of Maori to take up these positions and fulfil these seats of power. 
One of the issues raised by the select committee was that the pool of people available for positions like this in a number of positions like this is still very small. That is quite true. That is because there have been decades—in fact a century and a bit—of under-representation of Maori in the higher reaches of education and there continues to be a lack of Maori getting the kind of education and experience that is needed to do this kind of work. One might reflect for example on the universities that are currently going through the process of using funding formula issues to restrict access to some of the first-year arts and Maori courses which again will have a disproportionate effect on Maori. It will mean that they will have much greater difficulty in accessing tertiary education at the degree and post-degree level so that they are then able to have the kind of education the kinds of qualifications they need to get the work experience they need to do this kind of work. 
There is a systemic issue with education that prevents Maori from getting the kind of education needed so that we can grow the pool of people who are able to do this work. Having said that we are doing a little bit better. I have always been enormously amazed at the talent skill and knowledge of the people whom I went to law school with for example. We have some fantastic examples of those people doing amazing work in their community and that pool is growing slowly. But the systemic barriers to it continue to exist and this legislation is simply another part of that systemic barrier. This provides a barrier at the top end. Where the universities are putting in barriers at the bottom end New Zealand First wants to put barriers at the top end again to prevent Maori from taking up these positions of considerable responsibility and authority. Again this is a deeply anti-Maori measure that is promoted by a party with Maori MPs who should know better. 
One of the other issues raised in the select committee was that resources are necessary to ensure that a person who is doing both jobs is able to do both jobs well and effectively. That is always an issue for Maori organisations of any description—that there are simply not the resources available. The Greens are certainly of the view that the Waitangi Tribunal is insufficiently resourced to carry out the work that it is trying to do. The tribunal is often in quite a conflicted position because it acts as an arbiter or an assessor of the wrongs that were committed against Maori by the State in various forms over many years yet it does not have the full resources it needs to do that work as well as it could. It does a fantastic job with the resources it has but it could do much better with more and it is still pulled into a lot of the Government policies. For example Michael Cullen the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said in the select committee today how pleased he was to see the Waitangi Tribunal the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust working together around Government policy. But of course that raises real questions about the role of the tribunal as an independent arbiter of the wrongs that were committed against Maori when working with the Government on a policy that seeks to restrict their compensation if you like to less than 1 percent of the value of the properties they lost. 
So there is still a real issue around the resourcing of the tribunal and the Maori Land Court to make sure that they can do their work well. I am pleased that the select committee referred to that in its report so that it could be brought to the attention of the House and so that the whole concept and issue of resources for these organisations and for the people who work there can be raised continually for people’s purview. 
Mr Harawira raised an interesting question around the role of Labour in supporting this legislation. I know that Labour has supported a number of New Zealand First members’ bills—including for example the foetal criminal responsibility bill which was promoted by Ron Mark and other legislation like the members’ bills promoted by New Zealand First that have called for the elimination of references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. I do think this is an ethical issue for the public to be aware of. Labour and New Zealand First have a political agreement that Labour will support the first readings of all of New Zealand First’s members’ bills going to a select committee whether or not individual Labour members agree with them. This is a big issue especially when members’ bills generally involve conscience issues or issues that are of particular concern to individual members. At times other members of other parties will want to make a personal statement or a personal stand on those issues and I think they should be entitled to do so. 
So a political agreement between these two parties—Labour and New Zealand First—prevents individual Labour members from being able to express their real view. They have to vote for and have their name recorded in favour of legislation that they are personally opposed to. I have great faith that Labour’s Maori members oppose this legislation as I am sure they did when it came to the New Zealand First bill to eliminate references to the Treaty from legislation. I am sure that many Labour members were also opposed to Ron Mark’s foetal criminal responsibility bill. How ethical is it for MPs to be required to vote against their conscience and their personal views on such serious matters and on personal matters in a context where members would ordinarily have the opportunity to express their own views on members’ bills? I think it is an unfortunate state of affairs that Labour has got itself into with that political agreement. I think it is highly unethical. 
The Green Party has done very well with its members’ bills without having such an agreement. In fact we are the only party to have had members’ bills passed into law. Currently three pieces of legislation are fully Green Party Acts and we will add another two Acts in the next few months. We will have achieved five Acts not because of an unethical deal that was done with another party but because we have done the work and put up the bills that get the legislature’s support. I think that is a much more ethical position than that proposed by New Zealand First and Labour. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Given the contribution of the MP for Te Tai Tokerau—soon to be replaced—Hone Harawira I was not prepared to give him the charity of my silence on a number of issues that were raised in the House in relation to positions taken by Labour Maori Government MPs. In fact although the MP for Te Tai Tokerau may be happy to mislead the House—and people listening to the debate could very easily be misled by that contribution—it really is important to set the record straight. Let us look at the issue of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill which was introduced by New Zealand First. Yes that bill was supported through the first reading stage to be sent to a select committee. The clear understanding given by Labour Maori MPs at the time was that although that is a view held strongly amongst New Zealand First we were not prepared to stifle any debate on the Treaty of Waitangi at any point because it is a debate that every New Zealander has an interest in. That is why the select committee process becomes so important. 
I now move on to the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. For any person listening to a considered debate on issues in this House if one were listening to the contribution of the MP for Te Tai Tokerau on this bill—and again sending it to select committee can be a positive thing because the submission process in itself starts to inform this House through its select committee members about the public view on issues that are hotly contested across all sectors of this House—it would be wrong to think that Labour Maori MPs do not support issues regarding Maori. In fact it was the Labour Government that established the Waitangi Tribunal. It was the Labour Government that allowed retrospective claims to the tribunal and it was the Labour Government that continues to advance Treaty settlements in this House. In fact if people were to listen to the considered debate on just how Labour Maori MPs and this Government advance and support Maori development they would be very interested and concerned to hear that many of the Maori Party MPs have not voted for Treaty settlement legislation—and that is a fact. So the charity of my silence would be misplaced on this particular issue because this House is informed on good political debate. 
The Green Party member made the point that although understandings apply across the House much of the Green Party legislation that has gone through has done so with the support of this Government on similar understandings of a different nature. But we cannot take the moral high ground too much in terms of the nature of the relationships that exist in this House. 
I come back to this bill because it is an important issue that was well considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think the most cogent part of its consideration was expressed on page 3 of its report 
 
 which brings the crux of the matter into a nice sharp crisp statement. That is the reason why we will not be supporting this bill in its third reading. The report states: “It is not unusual for Judges to be able to sit in more than one jurisdiction: for example High Court judges sit on the Court of Appeal District Court judges and Maori Land Court judges may serve in the Environment Court. There is no suggestion that any inherent conflict of interests arises in such situations and we see no reason for considering the situation of Maori Land Court judges and serving High Court judges to be any different. We were forwarded advice issued by the Crown Law Office in 2001 which supports this conclusion.” I think that if anyone wants to get to the nub of the matter and understand the full consideration of the select committee that really is a very clear statement and it is well put within the context of this report. I am happy we have had the debate and I inform the House that Labour Government members will not support this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 National will not be supporting the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill any further either. I want to put the argument in this manner—and I ask my elder— 
Pita Paraone 
: What’s he talking about? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member is not my elder? That is fair enough. That is fine. I was just trying to be a bit charitable for once in my life. 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s a surprise. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes it did surprise a few people but let us revert to how we usually act. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please don’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If it were so important to have this bill why was it not part of the coalition negotiations? If this bill and the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill were so important then why did New Zealand First not put them up as cornerstone policies going into a coalition deal with the present Government? I can only suggest and surmise that this measure was not that important a deal to New Zealand First. This bill is New Zealand First’s bread butter and breakfast. It is what it trots out every election time. It is what it trots out to get a bit of sympathy from a certain quarter. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Don Brash quarter? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is funny that that “ginga” says that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member will use correct names please. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —OK Mr Darren Hughes—because if it was a “Don Brash” view then why the hell did the Labour Party vote for it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You worshipped Don Brash. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Is it all right for the member to sit in the back row and snipe and say with all of his 22 years of experience that it is a Don Brash thing to do but Labour will vote for it anyway just to keep New Zealand First happy? Is that the principled way to deal with the issues? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You were a Brash man. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am a Brash man? Well I would rather be a Brash man than a Clark lady. The unfortunate thing is— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Anything for a job eh Tau! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well let us talk about that shall we? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I wonder whether we could talk about the— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
:  Oh no Madam Speaker. If it is all right for him to snipe it is all right for me to respond in kind. If you are going to rule—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not mind your rulings; your rulings are fantastic. However if I am told to go back to the bill then surely to goodness the member on the other side of the House should be told to zip it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the Hon Tau Henare. Interjections should be short pithy and not be a barrage. They were getting close to being continuous. I wonder whether we all could go back to the bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is no wonder this bill is not being supported by anybody in the House apart from my colleagues from New Zealand First. As I said earlier that is their stock in trade. It is just outrageous that those members could accuse the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court of having a conflict of interest because of that position and because he also acts as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. I suppose I have a conflict of interest because I was the Minister who appointed the current Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. If for example the judge was to hear a case about say Ngati Hine and then in his position as chairperson of the tribunal was to hear a case on a similar issue concerning Ngati Hine I am sure—I am under no illusion—that the integrity of the judge would require him to stand aside. So there would be no conflict of interest. 
I ask where this bill comes from. Has there been a conflict of interest? No there has not. Has there ever been a conflict of interest between the two positions? No there has not. This bill is a make-up measure to pander to a certain section of our society and that happens only in an election year. It happens only when the 5 percent is rather a distant hurdle to get over. That is all it is about. Umpteen dozen people turned up to the Maori Affairs Committee—not ordinary Joe Bloggs on the street but well-informed professional people—and gave evidence that there is no and can be no conflict of interest. 
If there were a glaring conflict of interest then a judge would step aside. In fact in other jurisdictions judges of the High Court have sat as a judge on one of the other courts. For example a High Court judge sometimes sits in the Court of Appeal on the criminal appeal or civil appeal divisions; and a District Court judge sometimes serves on other courts like the Environment Court. If there were a possibility of a conflict of interest in those circumstances we can basically guarantee that the judge would stand aside and somebody else would take over. So do we have to be so prescriptive or should we leave it to people’s good judgment—especially these people? They are the very people whom the public rely on to get things right. We may disagree with some of their decisions but essentially those people are held in high esteem and nine times out of 10 get things right. They have the best interests of the community at heart. That is why National will not support the bill any further. 
I will take a couple of minutes to suggest that if the argument is about supporting a bill to the select committee then why not have a system whereby every bill is supported to the select committee? The Hon Dover Samuels said he would support the bill to the select committee to see whether it had merit. If that were the case why do the Labour Party the National Party New Zealand First and everybody else not support every bill to the select committee? 
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: No merit. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: We do not know that; not until a bill comes out of the select committee. So that is a little point I want to make. We should not use the decision to send or not send a bill to the select committee as an excuse to dump that bill. Nobody believes that. For goodness’ sake we are all grown-ups. We know that the sending of bills to select committees is politics horse-trading and all that sort of thing. But if we are serious about it then let us think very carefully about sending all bills to the select committee. I do not think we would get into that because the system would be far too cumbersome but there we are. 
National will not support the bill. It has no merit and thankfully most of Parliament will vote “no”. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
 I came into the Chamber earlier because I was looking forward to hearing what the member for Te Tai Tokerau had to say. I was looking forward to that with great anticipation but unfortunately I was disappointed once more. I was absolutely disappointed. That member has been in the House for almost one term. If he had not said “Okeroa Ririnui” and so on and so forth there would have been nothing in his speech at all. 
The other point I want to pick up on as an introduction to what I need to say about the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill is the extraordinary difficulty I have in accepting the comment that the sponsor of this bill could actually be described as promoting something that is anti-Maori. I find that to be totally unacceptable in the sense that the sponsor of this bill Mr Pita Paraone is descended from one of the principal and highly respected chiefs of his people and who had demonstrated everything about being very pro-Maori as opposed to being anti-Maori. I need to say that my knowledge of the sponsor of this bill is that he has had the courage to put up this member’s bill and I find no reason to then call him anti-Maori. 
I know the sponsor quite well and I would say that all his life he has done everything to assist Maori and not only that but he has been acknowledged as having done so. I refer to the honour that was awarded to him in respect of his services to Maori people. I want to put that in its proper context for people who are listening to the debate. If Mr Paraone were anti-Maori then certainly he would not have been the recipient of an honour that reflected both his service to the community and to his people. The only anti-Maori flavour that I can conjure up and that all Maori in New Zealand should be aware of is the appalling record of the Maori Party in not supporting Treaty settlements. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA 
: I wish to continue on the theme I was articulating prior to the dinner break. Elements of the Maori Party attacked Ngati Porou for their foreshore and seabed heads of agreement calling it a sham. In doing so Maori Party members rode roughshod over the right of iwi to make their own decisions an ideal the Maori Party purports to support. Let me quote a leader of Ngati Porou by the name of Api Mahuika: “I would warn Maori people to think again before voting in that”—Maori Party—“direction. If they are the Maori Party they should actually be saying to Ngati Porou ‘congratulations for making … a precedent others can follow’.” I find that—not the comments by Api Mahuika but rather what occasioned those comments—definitely anti-Maori anti-whanau anti-hapu and anti-iwi. In a sense it is completely anti-Aotearoa. 
We need to put this in context so that those who listened to the speech made by Hone Harawira are able to appreciate another point of view. That is really critical because having weighed the evidence and considered the debate the Labour Party recommends that this bill not be passed. We consider that there is no inherent conflict of interest in sitting judges of the High Court and the Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal or in the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. We note that this view is supported by all the evidence and advice that was reviewed during the considerations. We consider further that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members and to provide recommendations on matters of national importance. 
I conclude after some consideration that the true value of Hone Harawira’s speech was only in his indelible printing on the consciousness of all those people watching the debate that Maori Labour MPs are anti-Maori. But they are not because each and every one of those MPs has a huge knowledge and in-depth understanding of what marae and wharenui are about. On both marae and wharenui people have the ability to articulate discuss and debate differences of opinion. I do not see any clear difference between that situation and our allowing this bill to go before a select committee following a democratic process that allows people the right not only of participation but of debate. To call Maori Labour MPs anti-Maori for following a tikanga of marae is totally and utterly unacceptable and misplaced. 
Labour does not support this bill but it is not because people are not allowed to articulate difference. 
No reira e te hoa e Pita anei te whakaputa mai i tenei tangata ki a koutou ki te wero e werohia nei e to hoa a kua ki a au kua he rawa kua kotiti kua rere ke hoki nga ahuatanga o ana nei korero kua riro mai i runga i te pokohiwi ehara i a matou anake ki a tatou katoa. No reira tena koutou tena koutou mauri ora ki a tatou katoa. 
[ 
So to you Pita fellow colleague and to you collectively in respect of the challenge made by a colleague of yours I say that aspects of his speech are totally wrong misguided and changed as well. Such talk should not be shouldered by one individual and by us but by all of us collectively. So greetings to you greetings to you. May the force of good life be upon us all 
.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou e te whanau. This bill was brought forward as an essential part of modern social democracy by my whanaunga Pita Paraone a high-born son—unlike his critic Hone Harawira—of Ngati Hine. 
Na reira e puare ana tenei Whare ki a koe e Pita maua mai i enei whakaaro hei korerotanga hei whawha hei hamahama ma tatou. Koia tenei te tikanga o tenei Whare. E puare ana ki te iti me te rahi ahakoa pehea te kawa te kakara o tena take. 
[ 
This House therefore is open to you Pita to bring these viewpoints here for us to debate to get a feel about them and to hammer out. That is the custom of this House. It is open to the minority and majority regardless of how distasteful or how pleasant that issue may be 
.] 
This House is the highest court in the land. It is a place where issues of this nature ought to be debated and made available for all manner of contributions. As I said in our Maori language Pita Paraone has brought forward a perspective that will not carry the majority this evening but he is entitled as a key contributor to this House to do so. Any suggestion from the member for Te Tai Tokerau that this bill is anti-Maori anti-democratic or inversely related to the advancement of our nation goes to show that the only creatures that enjoyed the contribution à la Hone Harawira this evening were the bug-eyed goldfish going round their bowls. They found a friend in Hone Harawira who spouted circuitous mindless rhetoric. He said that the future of the Waitangi Tribunal the composition of the tribunal and the confidence in the tribunal of the citizenry ought not to be debated here. Between the approaches of Pita Paraone and Hone Harawira Maori voters up and down the country have two clear opportunities: one is to embrace a petty very stunted negative and divisive view; the other is to embrace an open vigorous not necessarily consensus-oriented but valuable contribution to this House. 
I support much of what Mahara Okeroa had to say. Enough of Hone Harawira; the voters of the north will pass that verdict. In fact today I met with Te Roroa from Waimamaku. They are great supporters of what is happening in the area of the Treaty. They fear that the tide is going out so fast that my whanaunga is getting caught on a pipi bed. The tide is moving against him and is taking a new waka with the friends Ropu Reipa and Aotearoa Tuatahi in it into great fishing grounds. That waka is not stranded surrounded by stunted pipis scorched mussels and desiccated fish which represent the essence of Hone Harawira’s contribution. Fortunately the proud families of Te Aupouri and the proud families of West Auckland—although Hone Harawira’s supporters would probably fit in the telephone box very near John Tamihere’s house—will not agree with one single word of the unwanted and superfluous remarks that he made this evening. 
The reality is that we must have confidence in our jurists and our judicial officers. The odd possibly deluded complainant may have gone to Pita Paraone out there at Bucklands Beach—that hive of Maori activism—to alert him to the concern that some of our Maori judges on the Maori Land Court may lack the ability to be dispassionate and fair. In my experience many of the Maori Land Court judges who also sit on the Waitangi Tribunal are just as fierce in their criticism of Maori contributions as their Pakeha colleagues are. At the moment those judges can sit on the Environment Court and they can sit on the tribunal. 
Let us back our judiciary. Let us not be like Hone Harawira who attacked that very sensible judge from Ngati Kahungunu country. Hone Harawira says that inveterate taggers—junior voters no doubt of the Maori Party—should be allowed to escape and carry on their mindless destructiveness without having to face the consequences of their actions. We will never hear that from Pita Paraone. He would say of that judge in contrast to my whanaunga Hone Harawira that he should be put on the honours list—not called a teke. 
Therein lies the contrast between the two approaches. Of course on our side we take elements from both approaches. We take the tradition-bound approach that Pita Paraone is bringing to the table of ta te rangatira kai he korero—which basically means that debate and oratory are a chiefly pursuit—and we take the energy that occasionally is seen in this House and that is largely anarchic when it is in Hone Harawira’s hands and bind them together so that we have a balanced contribution in relation to the Treaty debate. 
The concerns that Pita Paraone has lie with whether a potential conflict of interest is manageable. No less a powerful and judicious person than Peter Salmon has pointed out that it is provided that it is declared and provided that there is a process to manage it. I have no doubt that in the event that a potential conflict of interest is so serious as to have a negative impact on the Crown on the iwi or on other stakeholders there are more than enough judges to fill the role. Lord knows we on this side of the House have been out on a harvesting exercise and have boosted the number of Maori Land Court judges. I say to Pita Paraone that when they are appointed they enjoy a rare privilege which unfortunately we do not enjoy: they do not stand for office. However many iwi have promoted the notion that Maori Land Court judges should have to go and gain their credentials from iwi but for fear that Hone’s rhetoric might infect iwi decision-making I hope that day never comes. 
This bill is an example of a large party and its key colleague a minority party—Aotearoa Tuatahi—being able to agree on how an issue should be debated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people going to a select committee to give their differences of opinion the select committee staff sieving them the select committee members debating them and when the measure comes back to this House the power of democracy having its way. That does not mean that the man ought not to have been allowed to bring that perspective here. He should be congratulated on it. He is actually adding to the richness of our parliamentary tradition whereas unfortunately Hone Harawira is adding further fuel to his new name “Kaitaia Fire” because what comes out of the mouth is hot and incandescent but it generates a lot of heat and precious little light. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill Pita Paraone. It is not often that a member is able to have his bill pulled from the ballot in this way. The other fact is that Pita Paraone is Maori and it is not often that we see bills coming through from Maori. I acknowledge him in relation to those two matters. I also reaffirm the undertaking given by Labour to support the passage of the bill through to the Justice and Electoral Committee as that support was part of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. 
I take this opportunity to respond to an issue raised prior to the dinner break. I think it is important that we have the option of referring bills to select committees—particularly for those of us who are not involved with the particular select committee—because it gives us more information. The select committee process has given us the opportunity to arrive at an informed decision on this bill so I do think it is important. It has given that opportunity to those of us who are not associated with that select committee. 
I read in the report back that the bill “proposes to amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to remove the ability of serving Judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court (including the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court) to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal. Instead it provides that retired Judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court (including retired Chief Judges of the Maori Land Court) be members of the Waitangi Tribunal; and that a member who is either a retired Judge of the High Court or retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court should preside as Chairperson of the Tribunal.” 
The bill cites an inherent conflict of interest as to the reasons for the proposed amendments. We do not support that view. We do not consider that there is an inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or the Maori Land Court serving on the tribunal or with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. It has worked I think well in the past and we are not experiencing any major problems. 
The Waitangi Tribunal as we know is charged with making recommendations to the Government on claims brought by Maori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that may breach the principles of the Treaty and the Maori Land Court makes decisions relating to ownership and administration of Maori land in accordance with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I hold the very strong view that consideration should be given to the requirement for the Maori Land Court and Waitangi Tribunal members to have similar qualities—that is the understanding of tribal structures and of the Maori land history customs and traditions. They are competencies that are relevant for the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal—especially considering that the pool of judges who meet those criteria is quite limited. So there may be practical difficulties for a person holding both positions if he or she does not have adequate resources or the ability to delegate that responsibility. On that point I note that the tribunal’s chairperson currently has the power to delegate work to an appointed deputy. I consider that this option at the very least partially addresses the concerns about workload. 
I also take on board the concern raised by the member that there are other people in New Zealand who have the knowledge or have even greater knowledge than a Maori Land Court judge on matters relating to issues of Maori and in doing so I note that the role should be made available to others and not be limited to the judiciary. However we consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members. Currently there are not enough judges around with the high level of understanding of Maori grievances and tribal systems that they need in order to serve just as members of the tribunal. 
On occasions judges disclose conflicts that allow parties to request an alternative presiding officer or ask a member to withdraw or file a memorandum which I think is perfectly legitimate. A more common example of conflict of interest for presiding officers is where they may have acted as counsel to one or other of the parties involved at some earlier stage of their careers. In that instance again the matter is usually resolved in the same way by the court proceedings. 
Finally I say again that in our view there is no inherent conflict with sitting judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court serving on the Waitangi Tribunal or with the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting as a chairperson of the tribunal. It has worked well in the past as I said without major problems. We consider that the amendments proposed could severely limit the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to draw on the expertise of those best qualified to act as members and there are not enough judges with the high level of understanding of Maori grievances and tribal systems that is needed for them to serve as members of the Waitangi Tribunal. 
In finishing I again acknowledge the member in charge of the bill. I think it is important that we as members of this Parliament have the opportunity to have this debate in order to be able to critique the report from the select committee so that members can reaffirm their position as to which way to vote on this matter. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate Mr Dave Hereora on his speech and thank him for his kind remarks as well. He at least looked at the Treaty of Waitangi Act read the report gave consideration to it and gave some thought to what he had to say. That is unlike the member of the Maori Party whom I doubt ever really read the report or the Treaty of Waitangi Act. I especially doubt whether that member has ever looked at section 4 because in his entire speech he seemed to be absolutely ignorant of the issues that are before the House tonight. I would also like to thank all other members who took part in this debate. New Zealand First is disappointed that this matter is clearly not going any further but its members appreciate the opportunity for the bill to have been sent to the select committee and for the people of New Zealand to give consideration to the issue raised by New Zealand First. 
I would like to make some points on the bill that seem to have escaped the attention of most members of the House. Currently section 4(2) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which is the section in question states: “The Tribunal shall consist of—(a) a Judge or retired Judge of the High Court”. Currently the Waitangi Tribunal can consist of a judge or retired judge of the High Court not only the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. Section 4(2) states further “or the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court.” The Act already envisages that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court may not be the only possibility for chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. That possibility is already contained in the Act which goes on to state “and the Judge is both a member of the Tribunal and its Chairperson and is appointed by the Governor-General…” etc. So currently when we talk about expertise and all those wonderful things the person who can be the chairperson need not be a Maori person and need not be the Maori Land Court judge. That is already provided for in the Act and that is something we should bear in mind. 
Subsection (b) which is not part of this bill states that the tribunal shall also consist of “Not less than 2 other members and not more than 16 other members …”. New Zealand First members made the point when we presented the bill to the House that the Act should be amended so that the chairperson should be either a retired judge of the High Court—I emphasise that he should be a retired judge of the High Court and that is already provided for in the current Act—or a retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. The only change that we are bringing into this legislation is that the person who is a judge of the Maori Land Court should be someone who is a retired Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. It is as simple as that yet for one reason or another the bill has been totally confused by so many members of this House. 
I have heard speeches given tonight saying that if we remove the Maori Land Court judge and if we put in a retired Chief Maori Land Court Judge as this bill states we will lose expertise. Well that must be nonsense because a retired Chief Maori Land Court Judge is likely to know a lot more than a recently appointed Chief Maori Land Court Judge. That is the first point. 
The second point of course is that irrespective of who the judge or chairperson might be we have up to 16 other possible members of the tribunal. In terms of the very way in which they are appointed subsection (2)(a) of that section states: “In considering the suitability of persons for appointment to the Tribunal the Minister of Maori Affairs—(a) Shall have regard to the partnership between the 2 parties of the Treaty; and (b) Shall have regard not only to a person’s personal attributes but also to a person’s knowledge of and experience in the different aspects of matters likely to come before the Tribunal.” So every other member of the Waitangi Tribunal has to have that expertise. 
So all these speeches I have been hearing in the last few days that have said there will be a lack of expertise are absolute nonsense. It suggests that the members who made those speeches have not actually read the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and grasped the provisions of section 4(2)(a). Every other member of the tribunal must have that expertise. There would be no question of expertise being lost if the person were a retired High Court judge because the only other person would be the retired Maori Land Court judge. 
New Zealand First is saying that when one has a current serving judge whether it is of the High Court or the Maori Land Court there is inevitably a concern that someone is currently in the business of dealing with these lands and suchlike and that “justice is not being seen to be done”. For some reason or another there is always a concern especially when we have a disgruntled person before the tribunal that someone is likely to say that a person is currently a Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and that he is looking after his mates and his family. Well that is not possible under the proposal that is set out by New Zealand First to have a retired High Court judge which is already provided for in the existing law or a retired Maori Land Court judge. That is the only difference: a retired Maori Land Court judge is what we say should apply assisted by two to 16 others. Many of the arguments I have heard suggest that members have not grasped the bill in any way at all. 
Of course even Mr Finlayson when he was speaking in this House on 21 May—and his speech appears in  
Hansard  
at page 16213—made the point quite correctly that what we have before us is a commission of inquiry. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court. It does not make binding decisions; it is merely a commission of inquiry that gathers information and can then make a recommendation. Of course in doing so it must have expertise in the areas concerned and we are all in agreement with that. Mr Finlayson made a rather specious comment in his speech as to whether the person should be an accountant or a teacher. Obviously he has not read the bill very well because we have made it clear that the person has to be a retired High Court judge as is currently the case or a retired Maori Land Court judge. As far as the second point that Mr Finlayson and other members have raised is concerned—and they have quite properly raised this point because there was reference to the conflict of interest that might arise—Mr Finlayson in his speech at page 16213 agrees that there can be a potential conflict of interest. I am concentrating on this speech because it has been made by a lawyer and he should have thought these comments through clearly. 
When we talk about conflicts of interest and current judicial officers being involved in the Waitangi Tribunal members have said that no one has ever complained about the current holders of the positions. Well I have a letter here in front of me from a distinguished person. He mentioned that he heard Pita Paraone speaking and said: “I express support for removing judges from the Waitangi Tribunal … and I found that in his area of New Zealand it is not well serviced by the Maori Land Court judges. This is because of the time that has been spent on Waitangi Tribunal hearings so judges often come down to us totally ill prepared having not even read court files till the morning of the hearing. Oh well that’s what they expect in that part of New Zealand.” 
One of the problems with the Maori Land Court judges or even if a High Court judge was the chairperson concerned is that if they are busy doing other Waitangi Tribunal work they have to go back and do their Maori Land Court work. Well they do not even prepare properly for the Maori Land Court work according to this person who has written to New Zealand First. 
So clearly in that respect if we had a retired judge he or she would be able to give his or her whole time to the position rather than be a part-time worker judge or chairperson. We want a full-time person involved in the Waitangi Tribunal. We have the greatest respect for the work it does which is why we want better quality time available for the person who chairs the Waitangi Tribunal. That does not seem to have been accepted by the other parties in this House. We are disappointed that the other parties in this House do not want to see a full-time chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. A full-time person would give all the time and devotion to the job that a full-time person can. A part-timer who is involved in things that might create potential conflicts of interest can clearly not do the job as well. New Zealand First wants to see the best possible representative as chairperson on the tribunal. 
As far as some of the other issues are concerned I think I have covered them. Once again I thank all members of the House for the contributions they have made although I thought that the Maori Party was a little bit childish and repetitious and clearly did not understand the situation. Finally I was concerned at the comments made about the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. If members could have just worked out that the only words being removed were “the principles of” and that the words “Treaty of Waitangi” still stayed then they would have had clarification. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill 
Second Reading 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a second time 
. It is 2 years and 4 days since this bill had its first reading but that is not a record. The Criminal Procedure Bill has been languishing for twice as long. But this bill has not been like Sleeping Beauty waiting for the National Party kiss of life. 
In my first reading speech I said I looked forward to engaging with other political parties with the public and with different sectoral groups to make this bill as effective practicable and achievable as possible and that has been the strategy. After the bill passed its first reading I went on a Zero Heroes waste tour to get out and talk to people surfing the bow wave of change in resource recovery as well as some who might better be described as barnacles on the bum of change. The general response was positive as much for the opportunity to talk about waste as about the bill itself. Generally most people agreed with the bill’s objectives and liked some parts of it. Few people liked all of it and everyone disagreed about what the good bits were. 
There were notable exceptions to that positive response. The New Plymouth Chamber of Commerce refused even to meet me because apparently it had nothing to learn and it seems extraordinary to me that apparent grown-ups would prefer ignorance to knowledge. But in any case I met with many businesses from Foxton Fizz to Coca-Cola Amatil. I met with councils and recyclers with the aim of explaining what the bill does and encouraging people to have their say. I particularly acknowledge those organisations and people that connected me into their networks—in particular the Community Recycling Network various council waste forums—especially in Auckland Wellington and the Waikato—the Packaging Council the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand (wasteMINZ) and the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development. I especially acknowledge Rob Fenwick whose recognition in the honours list I think is well deserved. I also thank Laura Palmer for taking me around recycling operations so that I could grasp the practical realities of recycling and resource recovery. 
As a result of the 316 submissions on the bill I along with Quentin Duthie and Chris Teo-Sherrell negotiated a Supplementary Order Paper with a succession of Ministers for the Environment. David Benson-Pope David Parker and Trevor Mallard have all had a hand in it which means of course that the Green Party can take all the credit for the good bits and blame the Ministers for the bad bits—because how would anyone know? That Supplementary Order Paper was introduced to the select committee in September last year. It went out for a second round of consultation and 125 submissions were received. 
The Supplementary Order Paper makes significant amendments but in essence it keeps the bones of the original bill and alters the flesh. It retains the financial driver of the original bill—the levy on waste going to landfill. It is a blunt attempt at a pigovian tax to internalise environmental externalities. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development suggested that it would take a levy of around $30 a tonne to do that. The bill starts at $10 a tonne with a review after 2 years and then reviews at least every 3 years and there is a widespread expectation that the levy will rise to around $30. The fund generated by the levy will be split 50:50 between local authorities and a national contestable fund. It can be spent only on waste minimisation initiatives and there are powers to withhold funds from councils if the money is being diverted to other things. This money will help to make recycling more available through research seed funding capital investment and the like and also fund better public information about how to recycle because New Zealanders want to recycle. 
Supplementary Order Paper 150 renames “extended producer responsibility” as “product stewardship” which implies a more shared responsibility. Like the original bill it makes it mandatory to participate in product stewardship—at least for some products—but it allows industry to design the scheme to meet set targets because that is how compliance costs are reduced. Under the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister will designate a list of priority products that require product stewardship. That list will be subject to public consultation but might include things like e-waste compact fluorescent light bulbs waste oil agricultural chemicals and things like that. The bill offers a range of regulatory mechanisms to underpin any scheme such as front-end levies mandatory take-back schemes or the ban of certain items from landfills. The idea of product stewardship is not just to increase recycling but to drive design change to reduce the amount of waste being produced in the first place. 
The Supplementary Order Paper changes the Waste Minimisation Authority to a Waste Advisory Board. Its functions are more limited than those in the original bill but it will give independent advice to the Minister on things like the deciding of priority products guidelines for product stewardship schemes the setting of regulations for product stewardship schemes a review of the landfill levy and criteria for allocating the contestable fund. 
Finally the Supplementary Order Paper removes provisions around mandatory waste minimisation plans public procurement and the setting up of waste control authorities but provides for greater data collection. 
The result of all those changes that have been adopted by the Local Government and Environment Committee plus the further amendments that the committee made means that this bill which passed its first reading with 68 votes to 51 now has almost unanimous support across the House. I thank the Ministry for the Environment and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for their excellent advice to the committee and I especially thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who heard two rounds of submissions and grappled with very difficult and complex issues. The experience of the Hon Marian Hobbs as Minister for the Environment was invaluable in sifting the bull from the crap. Mark Blumsky brought a wealth of experience in local government. Nicky Wagner approached the issues with intelligence and enthusiasm. Steve Chadwick and later Moana Mackey chaired the committee with skill and John Carter had a road to Damascus experience and almost convinced us to rename the bill the “Resource Recovery Bill”. But I told Mr Carter that he would have to watch his language if he wanted to join the Green Party. 
The committee looked at container deposit legislation but was not in a position to resolve it despite very strong submissions from people like Warren Snow and the Problem Gambling Foundation. I wrote to the Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard suggesting that the Waste Advisory Board might look at container deposit legislation. He responded that the Ministry for the Environment might commission an independent analysis of container deposit legislation and that that could usefully be reviewed by the Waste Advisory Board. I thank him for that. 
In addition since the select committee reported a number of concerns have been raised. Some of them were adequately dealt with at the committee. Some of them are those of submitters who did not win their battles at the select committee stage and want to come back for another go. But there are some issues that do need further work and thought and it may be that we will require some more Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage. I want to assure submitters and people who have made those points that although I will not be the member in the chair during the Committee stage of this bill—I will be leaving Parliament next week—I intend to remain involved in the development of the bill. 
I have always said that the bill needed amending from Mike Ward’s original proposal. That is no criticism of him; it is the nature of members’ bills. Although the outcome would have looked a little different had it only been up to me the reality is that it was not. This is the result of negotiation and compromise. Even so if passed this will be the most significant waste legislation this Parliament has enacted. It is not a magic bullet. It is not the single solution to our waste problem. This bill is about providing opportunities and a framework within which individuals communities business and the public sector can make a difference by getting involved in the public consultation and by making use of the opportunities that the bill provides. I am strongly of the belief that this bill will be a major step forward and I am very proud to have brought it this far. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. I thank Nandor Tanczos for his kind words with regard to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and note that it is sad that Nicky Wagner who sat in on the committee on my behalf is not here tonight to take part in the debate. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Oh heartbroken! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well I am here so it is all right. The original bill has been substantially rewritten and most of the comments I make will relate to Supplementary Order Paper 150. The new bill is the result of two lengthy submission processes and I sat in on some of those meetings. Also the Regulations Review Committee reviewed the bill and suggested some technical changes to it. Many of the provisions that National originally opposed in this bill—things like the highly prescriptive requirements of compulsory waste plans which I could see from a mile off were going to be unworkable; detailed consumer information where again too much detail was required; and the complex and expensive bureaucratic layers of administration—have been omitted from the bill. It has to be said that the Supplementary Order Paper has generally been positively received by many members of the public. Of the 125 submitters only 8 percent opposed the Supplementary Order Paper 22 percent were in outright support of it and 61 supported it with some amendments. I have to say that when I was sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee the committee generally viewed the process with a good deal of goodwill and had an honest working-together attitude which is something to be much encouraged sometimes I would have thought. 
There is much concern in the community of course about the management of waste and businesses are well aware of the high public expectations that are held in this area. A lot or work has been done on the Supplementary Order Paper and the unacceptable parts of the bill have been dumped. It is worth noting that voluntary product stewardship schemes already exist—for example Fisher and Paykel have such a scheme as of course part of the packaging accord. Business as a whole is keen to retain the voluntary nature of these product stewardship schemes. This is possible even for priority products as long as the schemes are effective and agreed targets are reached. There seems to be an acceptance of the need for a waste levy and at the rate set at $10 a tonne it will be a less than significant cost to individuals and businesses. Other countries have legislated for large mandatory increases. This bill allows for an increase to the levy following a review of its effectiveness and that can take place after 2 years. 
The community by and large and local government support this bill and in its new form even business is beginning to accept that its time has come. The purpose of the bill is to protect the environment from harm and to provide environmental social and economic benefits by encouraging more effective use of materials a reduction in waste and good careful disposal of waste. It is good to note that it aligns directly with National’s  
Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
. I know that members of the Government who closely read our blue-green vision policy document will only fall into agreement with me on that point. 
The bill contains several major issues. The first one is product stewardship and the bill provides accreditation and also regulatory processes to encourage and foster product stewardship schemes. These schemes will take responsibility for the environmental impacts of disposing of a product after its useful life. By that I mean the collection and disposal of used oil and things like safe disposal of electronic waste. Many of these schemes again already exist voluntarily but legislative backing will get rid of the free-rider problem. 
Another aspect is priority products. This aspect provides criteria for identifying priority products which include environmental harm from disposal. Public concern identified benefits from reuse recycling recovery or treatment of that product which means that the biggest problem products get dealt with first and an accredited product stewardship scheme must be developed for all priority products. Again business generally prefers voluntary options in this and these may be accredited if they meet accepted targets. 
I move on to the waste disposal levy. This enables a levy of $10 per tonne to be placed on all waste going to landfill. It is estimated that this will collect approximately $30 million per annum. The waste disposal levy is user-pays; it is a pricing mechanism used as an incentive to divert waste. It is seen as a fairer way to fund waste minimisation projects than the rather blunter tool of using local body rates. The revenue from this waste disposal levy will be split—50 percent to territorial local authorities on a per capita basis to be spent on waste minimisation projects as identified in their waste management and minimisation plans and the other 50 percent as a contestable fund to fund waste minimisation projects. 
I turn to the commentary on the bill under the heading “Waste Disposal Levy”. The select committee states: “We consider this lower figure adequate initially as it will take time for worthwhile schemes for waste reduction to attract funding through the levy fund.” I would have to take a bit of issue with that statement on behalf of the committee because actually there are a lot of worthwhile schemes already in existence in New Zealand. If I just turn to my own electorate in the South Island I tell members that the Waitaki Resource Recovery Park is leading the country in resource recovery. In fact it does not call it waste; it calls it a resource. That is the philosophy that underlies the work it does. It is supported wholeheartedly by the local and wider community to the extent that there is a group up in Kurow manned by volunteers who are also very passionate about resource recovery. There is also a number of waste-buster schemes in other parts of my electorate alone. It would be fair to say that these worthwhile schemes not only do not need time to get ready to apply for levy monies but in fact have been said to be leading this whole process. So if I disagree on any point it is that one. 
Another aspect is the Waste Advisory Board. The bill provides for the establishment of a Waste Advisory Board of four to eight members it specifies how those members are appointed and it deals with its operations. The board will provide guidance and independent expert advice to the ministry and to the Minister. 
Let us move on to territorial local authority responsibilities. The bill provides for the adoption by territorial local authorities of waste management and minimisation plans to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in their districts. Well that is all well and good but a number of territorial local authorities are also undertaking these plans. One concern I would have is that the provisions in this bill should it become law will require territorial local authorities to revisit those plans. Although I know local government in New Zealand is in support of this bill I would hate to think there was any unnecessary cost imposed on local authorities due to the requirement to develop yet another plan. That would be a reservation I have. Provision is made for public consultation in preparing these plans and in a sector that is well and truly consulted on an ongoing basis this will provide yet another opportunity for the public to well and truly have its say and get in behind waste minimisation. 
In conclusion National supports the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill in the name of Nandor Tanczos with a few reservations noting that the aims of the bill align with National’s blue-green policy on the environment and we are pleased that a number of amendments have been made to the bill that reflect National’s position. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I speak in support of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill which I note has been returned to the House with unanimous support. I thank the Greens especially the departing member Nandor Tanczos and the Local Government and Environment Committee which put in a lot of hard work on the bill and considered over 300— 
Nathan Guy 
: You’re not leaving are you Trev? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member who was beaten by the schoolboy from Otaki had better be quiet; I would still be embarrassed if I were that member. 
The select committee considered over 300 submissions on the bill and another 125 on the Supplementary Order Paper. The result of that effort is legislation that is more workable and pragmatic. The Government wants this nation to be sustainable. The passing of this new waste minimisation legislation will help that to occur. It fits in with other work that the Labour-led Government is doing around fresh water amongst other things. 
Briefly this bill puts a levy on all waste disposal for landfill. It is initially set at $10 per tonne. I think it is fair to say that that amount is designed to set up the system and that at some stage it will go to a more realistic level. Revenue from the levy will be used to help communities and businesses address waste issues. The bill helps and where necessary makes producers brand owners importers retailers consumers and other parties take responsibility for the environmental effects of their products. It allows for regulations to be made on reporting on waste by territorial local authorities and by operators of landfills and recycling facilities to improve information on waste. This is an area where a lot of work needs to be done. The bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of local authorities in respect of waste minimisation and it introduces a new board to give independent advice to me as the Minister for the Environment on waste minimisation matters. 
As part of the select committee process and following feedback from submitters the bill now defines “waste” and gives it a broad meaning. It covers every item that is no longer wanted for its original purpose and were it not for waste minimisation initiatives such as recycling would be thrown away. Industry submitters proposed a narrower definition that would confine “waste” to materials that are landfill. Industry stakeholders consider that defining waste broadly gives territorial authorities the ability to obtain commercially sensitive information from the recycling industry about the source and destination of recyclable material. But the bill now restricts the ability of territorial authorities to obtain the information. 
The process for developing waste management and minimisation plans and the content of the plans have also been significantly changed as a result of the select committee process. Territorial local authorities must now have regard for the New Zealand Waste Strategy or other Government policies on waste management and minimisation. This will ensure that plans have a degree of national consistency and will assist with achieving the goals of the Waste Strategy. The strategy provides actions and targets that territorial authorities can adopt in order to address waste issues. The authorities will need to carry out an assessment of their current and future waste services in their districts. The requirement to carry out an assessment of services is already contained in the Local Government Act 2002. It is now broadened so that the authorities carry out an assessment of recycling recovery and treatment services as well as collection and disposal. 
The Government has been focusing on waste minimisation for some time as the member in the Chair Marian Hobbs is well aware. When the Waste Strategy was launched in 2002 it set a new direction for minimising waste and for improving waste recovery. It is a programme of actions for the medium term and also has some far-reaching commitments. I am pleased to inform the House that since 2002 good progress has been made. However there are still aspects of waste where further progress is needed in order to meet those commitments. Waste minimisation in New Zealand has been based on voluntary initiatives; to move towards zero waste we need a more concerted effort. 
The bill intends to significantly reduce the amount of waste generated and disposed of and to lessen its environmental harm. It also aims to benefit our economy by encouraging better use of materials throughout a product’s life cycle promoting domestic reprocessing of recovered materials and providing more employment. I must say that there already are some very good examples out there and I compliment in particular the work that has been done in Canterbury. It is led by the Christchurch City Council but is done cooperatively on a regional basis. The participants’ ability to reduce waste to landfill by good recycling—the work that they are doing in the glass area is superb—makes them a shining example of what can already be done. If that can be further expanded then that will be good. 
Product stewardship proposes to make producers importers retailers consumers and other parties take responsibility for the environmental effects of products. It is a tool to greatly improve how we deal with some of the more difficult forms of waste such as electronic goods. A Green Ribbon Award was recently given to eDay which is run by Computer Access; it has been giving some very good leadership in this area. The bill will assist and recognise businesses that develop voluntary product stewardship schemes and enable them to prove that they are taking steps to minimise environmental impacts from the manufacture use and disposal of their product. There will be some issues to work through around the number of areas that we focus on initially. The question is whether we go wide and shallow or narrow and deep. My inclination is that we should focus on where we can make some big gains. Those areas may have a little bit more focus than some people would like and some areas will be brought in earlier than others but I think that is appropriate. 
The bill will provide benefits that go beyond reducing what we throw away. It will provide economic incentives and rewards for those who do the right thing. Businesses councils and the public will find that reducing waste saves money. If less material is needed in the first place greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and new business opportunities are created. In short this bill provides the opportunity to deal with waste in a smart and sustainable way. The Government is pleased to support it. 
I say to Mr Tanczos—this is probably the last occasion that I can do this within the House—that members on this side of the House appreciate not only the way that he has dealt with this legislation but the contribution he has made to Parliament generally in the time he has been here. The fact that he has been able to work with a range of parties on this legislation and to bring people together I think is an indication of the way that he has worked in Parliament generally. I thank him for doing that and for making a contribution over a period of time. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call because New Zealand First was not represented on the Local Government and Environment Committee and therefore did not play an active part in shaping the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. But we are concerned about the bill. When the bill was sent to the select committee it was an example of bureaucracy gone mad but as I recall we supported it going to the committee because we thought that the principles behind it needed to be discussed. As I recall the National Party had a similar view to us at that point in time. I note that its members have now changed their minds although Jacqui Dean did indicate that she still had some concerns. 
Members of the public have contacted various members of New Zealand First since the bill emerged from the Local Government and Environment Committee and they have outlined a number of serious concerns. We note that the initial bill has virtually been ditched. A significant number of pages have been deleted a significant number of pages have been inserted and on top of that there is a Supplementary Order Paper of some 40 pages including the explanatory note. We are not convinced that the select committee has it right. We looked at the membership of that committee and tried to work out who was on it on a permanent basis—it seems to be a never-ending rotating list. I do not know how many times the committee membership has been rotated but there was a very long list of members. 
At this point in time New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. We will listen with interest to the debate when the bill reaches the Committee stage. We respect the member who put up the bill Nandor Tanczos. We had some informal private discussions with him and we found that his intentions were good. We are not against what is intended but we are really concerned that the methodology of addressing the problem is not yet fine-tuned enough. One of the people who made a representation to us indicated that charges for disposing waste are likely to give an incentive for people to put more waste on the roadside and in the hedgerows. I do not know whether that will occur but there is a concern that we might well be pricing out of the market—if that is the right terminology—the incentive to dispose of waste in the proper areas. The suggestion put to us is that there will be a perverse incentive created to dump rubbish in hedgerows or down banks and what have you. We hope that will not occur but we have concerns. Respectable people in the community have raised serious concerns with us so at this point in time we will oppose the bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou katoa i tenei po. Last night my colleague Dr Pita Sharples shared with the House his knowledge about the essential importance of whakapapa to tangata whenua to te iwi Maori. In my case Ngati Rangiwewehi that whakapapa includes our taniwha Pekehaua central in our understanding about who we are and where we come from: ko Pekehaua te taniwha ko Ngati Rangiwewehi te iwi. 
[ 
Pekehua is the deity and Ngati Rangiwewehi is the people 
.] 
The Taniwha Springs the Awahou River—kia ora—are a significant part of our history and we regard these springs as our taonga over which we exercise rangatiratanga ownership and control. As Ngahihi Bidois told the Waitangi Tribunal recently they are intertwined in our hearts and minds and culture as inseparable taonga of Ngati Rangiwewehi. 
Reference to pepeha or proverbial statements or sayings signals if you like a respect for people for the resource and for the environment. As Ngati Rangiwewehi we take our role as tangata whenua as kaitiaki very seriously indeed as do all whanau hapu and iwi across Aotearoa. Tangata whenua te iwi Maori believe that we have a vital role as kaitiaki as guardians over Papatuanuku—Mother Earth. Across the generations we have been linked as indigenous peoples of the land. Our oral traditions our pakiwaitara our patere our ngeri connect us to the land water and air. Our environments are integrated. 
Because of our customary guardianship of our environmental and cultural heritage we feel very strongly the responsibility to ensure that traditional ecological values are upheld. We are always mindful that although legislative actions have impacted negatively on the legal ownership of our traditional lands we continue to maintain mana whenua over them including all resources as guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But the good news is that the protection management and development of natural and physical resources is not an exclusive responsibility. In the spirit of meaningful partnership articulated in Te Tiriti o Waitangi the Maori Party welcomes the advances made by our brother here Nandor in bringing this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill to this House. 
The bottom line for us all is that we know that if waste disposal reduces or destroys the life-supporting capacity of soils it damages the mauri the life essence of the whenua. The disposal of solid waste must be done in such as way as to keep the waste and leaching from waste out of water whether it be surface ground or coastal. Can I also say that our view is that refuse disposal facilities must not be sited on areas of cultural or historical value such as wahi tapu—that is a no-no and discussion with tangata whenua is in fact a yes-yes. 
The Maori Party was very happy to support the first reading of the bill. We saw the intention of the bill as being about protecting the environment and the principle of the reduction of waste at its source is a benchmark position that could influence households businesses and public organisations. With the increasing strain across our environments it is imperative that sound waste-management strategies are adopted across all levels. The Maori Party believes in the value of principles such as whakaiti iho whakamahia ano whakahou and araitanga: reduce reuse recycle and prevent. 
These are objectives we can all live by and unlike the emissions trading scheme the original framework for this bill fairly and squarely encourages producer responsibility for waste minimisation. It urges that organisations adopt waste minimisation plans over the next 10 years and that a central agency the Waste Minimisation Authority would facilitate the move to a minimal waste society. The roles of local and regional authorities regarding waste minimisation and management would be clearly specified and enforced through lawmaking and licensing provisions. All organisations including Ngati Rangiwewehi would be challenged to establish objectives that are measurable and achievable and to accord priority to purchasing decisions that decrease waste or enable recycling. 
Just to get some idea about the scale of what we are talking about I thought the submission from Rachael Goddard environmental manager and environmental lecturer put it all in perspective. She said New Zealand is one of the highest producers of rubbish in the world next to the USA: 189 000 tonnes of plastic is dumped in landfills each year. We discard 22 million plastic bags each week. Roughly every child man and woman in Aotearoa chucks away five plastic bags a week every week. Put simply our waste problem is huge and growing. We need to set manageable targets for waste minimisation hazardous wastes and waste disposal including paying particular attention to contaminated sites construction and demolition waste and indeed trade wastes. 
Although recycling is good it requires significant energy to maintain. A stronger proposition is to design better products for minimal waste. By that we mean to design products that last and products with minimal packaging and to learn how to use resources more efficiently so as to produce more with less. It could be as simple as doing what they do in Ireland South Africa and Bangladesh I understand which is to ban plastic bags or it could be more of a need to educate people to purchase better and to consume less. 
The key to change is in understanding how we got to the point we have in silently melding into practices that damage Papatuanuku and the mauri or life force around us. Environmental degradation is born from a lack of understanding so the solutions lie in having an education campaign alongside targets and measures to encourage waste minimisation and to reduce waste disposal. 
A critical component of such a campaign might be active engagement with tangata whenua iwi and hapu or marae ohu groups. Iwi must be consulted and their views taken into account before targets and guidelines are set. Tangata whenua could be invited to form monitoring groups. Tangata whenua could nominate cultural advisers to assist local government in scheme formulation and resource consent projects. The thing is that if we really do care about our environment then we must demonstrate the care and the respect it requires. Ki te pai te manaaki ka manaakitia. 
[ 
If it is looked after well it will serve one well in return 
.] 
But here is the interesting thing: although whanau hapu and iwi are themselves looking at natural treatment systems and investigating future technologies—at waste reduction at source at Papatuanuku passages; that is using stones and rock channels in beds as a mediating force—the changes that have ended up changing the Local Government and Environment Committee report have reduced the ownership and the accountability of the problem. In fact just like the changes made to the emissions trading scheme the parts that sought to encourage behavioural change have been removed from the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 150 has changed the bill substantially removing the waste minimisation plans of organisations abolishing the waste minimisation authority before it even got going and deleting the target dates for waste reduction goals. 
Despite significant support for the bill from the bulk of the 316 submissions the proposed legislation is now diluted and simplified to such an extent that there is little to object to but equally there is little in it to make very much of a difference. The sad thing is that there is actually a lot of public support for this bill which was not noted by the select committee. The Government has listened to the cost concerns of councils and it has gone with a watered-down approach that will reduce the costs and the compliance. This Government has been consistent in that it will water down any legislation that takes seriously the protection of the environment. The waste disposal levy has been reduced from $25 per tonne to $10 per tonne targets and dates have been taken out the implementation and monitoring of plans have been removed and producer responsibility has now been weakened to include a measure of voluntary participation. 
We believe that Maori traditions such as kaitiakitanga have much to offer in relation to waste minimisation and care for the environment. Tangata whenua live by a relationship that is a symbiotic one—a relationship of mutual benefit. Pouwhenua the prestige of the land depends on human activity and the environment for sustenance. We all have a duty to protect the mauri to treasure the land the water the air and the flora and fauna as nga taonga tuku iho—treasures handed down. The Maori Party will support this bill at its second reading because in essence it is better than doing nothing but we are greatly disappointed that the goal envisioned by Nandor Tanczos of having a waste-free Aotearoa by 2020 will not be greatly advanced by this bill at this point in time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National is supporting this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill after opposing it quite vigorously at its first reading. I acknowledge Nandor Tanczos and also Mike Ward who was the original sponsor of the bill. The concern National had about the original waste minimisation bill was that it created a very large bureaucracy—a bureaucracy that involved every business and organisation in New Zealand developing a waste plan that waste plan having to be approved by a territorial authority as being consistent with its own district plan that district plan having to be consistent with regional plans and then that regional plan having to be consistent with national plans. That whole plethora of plans took a very regulated approach to the challenge around waste and National believes that it would have added more waste and more paperwork than the waste reduction it would have achieved. 
I have to say that out of all the select committees I have worked on working on the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill has been a pleasure. There has been a genuine process of engagement with respective parties trying to do something of good in this area of waste management and a willingness on the part of all parties to do a bit of compromising in order to try to come up with something that is workable. 
In 2006 National published  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 and the approach we took in that document was that the real key to getting good decisions around waste was accurate price signals. You see for years councils have effectively subsidised waste. Councils have said that they do not want people dumping rubbish on the roadside or at the beach so they rate all constituents and whether or not they are good recyclers they are all forced to pay for the council landfill. National is of the view that that approach is flawed and does not actually provide the encouragement and the economic incentive for people to take a more responsible approach to the environment. It will not surprise members to hear that National is a party that is cautious of new levies new taxes and new ways of putting charges on people so they may be asking why the National Party is supporting a waste levy. Well I will tell members why very simply: National supports user-pays. We also support “polluter pays”—that is well-targeted taxes. Rather than base payments for local authority’s waste services on the size of a section or the value of a property which is the way it works at the moment we believe that it is fairer to charge people for their waste services based on the amount of waste they produce. 
Peter Brown 
: Poll tax. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I heard the New Zealand First member speaking earlier. New Zealand First members said that their worry was that if we were to charge people properly for their waste then they would only dump it irresponsibly. I have to say to New Zealand First that that has been the approach taken by councils for decades in using ratepayer funds to subsidise landfills. It is a flawed approach. It is an approach that effectively subsidises environmental degradation and subsidises the waste stream. What is good about this bill is that it says the user pays—those who produce more waste should pay more. 
It is National’s view that a really exciting revolution is taking place out there in waste services. If members were to go out there even to very small communities they would be surprised at the number of innovative businesses that are finding new ways of using the waste stream for quite productive purposes. A further concern for National has been that with that sort of innovation occurring among New Zealanders without Government interference we do not want a waste minimisation bill that will either provide a disincentive or get in the way of councils and small businesses doing the right thing about waste. We are satisfied that with the way this bill has been structured it will not be a discouragement to those who are innovators. In fact our view is that we want to make sure that the waste levy is used for genuine recycling without discriminating against private enterprise providers as compared with public or community providers of recycling and reusing waste services. 
I also endorse the concept in this bill of extended producer responsibility. We all know that whether we use a cellphone a car or a whole number of products we would be able to recycle so much more if the original designer and engineer had thought about how we might be able to recycle the natural resources contained in that product. Again I have to say that I have been quite impressed that there is an increasing awareness by companies of the need to recycle particular things. I like the idea that a number of cell phone companies provide a free service to take back cell phones and to reuse the natural resources within them to manufacture the next generation. I think we have a way to go with car manufacturing to make sure we can design cars in such a way that we maximise recycling. In the extended producer responsibility provisions of this bill there is the framework within which we will be able to encourage more of that approach. It is true that National is cautious about regulation in this area as it can sometimes incur more costs than the benefits that are achieved by it. We will be watching closely the way in which those particular provisions are administered because they do need to stack up to a cost-benefit test and some of the changes we were able to achieve in the bill ensure there are some checks on those who in their enthusiasm for recycling go beyond the boundaries of what is economic. 
New Zealanders—including interestingly those in our most rural communities—have often been the leaders in the area of recycling and kerbside collection services. We need to be careful that in passing such legislation we do not override those very good initiatives that have been taken by many councils. That is why National in response to submissions from councils and from Local Government New Zealand wanted a less regulated waste-control authority—one that would not be able to dictate to communities as to how they do stuff. We actually support—I can use a very green phrase—an “organic approach” where that sort of community innovation is encouraged and not some sort of central dictate that will have central government telling communities how they can best advance the cause of increasing recycling and reducing the waste stream. 
In conclusion National’s support for this bill shows that as an Opposition—where legislation is done properly through the select committee process where its sponsor is open to changes and to working with other political parties—National is prepared to back innovative and progressive environmental legislation. Although I accept that emissions trading and climate change is a more challenging issue I say to this Parliament that if more of the approach that was adopted around this bill was adopted in respect of that legislation we would be closer to getting a solution and the sort of cross-party dialogue and support that will give longevity to these sorts of measures. This bill is a step in the right direction. New Zealanders want to see real practical measures to tackle the issue of waste. They want to see more recycling. It is National’s view that this bill will try to facilitate that. I say again that it is the economic provisions in this bill that will encourage enterprise and the taking of a polluter-pays approach that will provide the greatest gains for the environment and a step forward in the way in which New Zealand manages solid waste. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this bill and I certainly noted the comments of the previous speaker Nick Smith. I think it is appropriate that I take the opportunity to speak firstly because I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee for part of the consideration of this bill. I was personally fascinated by the range of submissions—through that process I came to more fully appreciate the number of enterprises and businesses that are now focused on waste minimisation—and by the number of very very constructive contributions and suggestions. 
Secondly I want to give a big bouquet to Moana Mackey and the select committee but the major bouquet tonight is of course reserved for Nandor Tanczos. As a Waikato member of Parliament I say that we are going to be sorry to see him go. I will take an opportunity within the context of the Standing Orders in speaking to this bill to give my personal best wishes to him in the next phase of his life. 
This bill is a very good example of the significant contribution Nandor Tanczos has made to this place. One does not have to agree with Nandor’s every viewpoint—that is not what democracy is about—but if ever there was a member who made a solid contribution it is Nandor Tanczos. I say to Nandor that we are very proud to have him as a son of the Waikato. We hope he will continue to play a role in our region but whatever that role and life journey is we wish him well. 
It is no mean achievement for a member’s bill to attract what appears to be the overwhelming support of the House to be adopted as legislation by the House and to become part of our country’s law. No doubt in the future this measure will come to be known as Nandor’s bill in school books in environment classes and all of that—and so it should be. 
I will tell a bit of a story if I may then I want to highlight and re-emphasise some points in the bill as the Minister for the Environment did. It is easy to stand in this House and say the right things and what we should be doing as a nation but I will tell a somewhat funny story. A couple of years ago I put out a media release encouraging people to have compost bins which is another very practical thing that households can do. My wife is not backward in pointing out some inconvenient truths and in the end she put the article about the need for recycling on our own kitchen waste bin. She was forever saying: “I’ll tell the Greens. I’ll go and tell Jeanette Fitzsimons on you because you have double standards. You are a hypocrite.” She literally said that—seriously. So in the end she put the article—in which I was quoted as talking about the need for waste minimisation through compost—on to the kitchen bin. It was very interesting because on several occasions I would go to put in a can a plastic bottle or something and the article was there to remind me. 
Although what I am saying is at my own expense I am making the point that in terms of behaviour and brain-wiring if that is the term we have all been wired through different phases and different generations to do those kinds of things without thinking. Hamilton now has—as do other cities—a well-developed recycling system. Over time we develop new habits—it is just a basic individual thing. The point I am trying to make is that it is easy to stand up and give these speeches about doing these good things but each of us individually has to make our contribution and there are some very practical things that we can do. In my case it was somewhat extreme. My spouse was threatening to give a report to my Green friends if I did not change my habits and I have gone some way towards doing that. 
This example is a bit anecdotal but one can now find oneself going to motels or hotels and being really interested in where the recycling bin is in the unit and being told: “Oh we’re just managing it for the weekend. What do you mean? What are you talking about?”. I hope this legislation will start to move us forward so that there is a buy-in across the board not just in terms of what we do in our homes but also in accommodation which is a very important area and in the shopping malls and shopping precincts. As I understand this bill it will be a very practical platform for this exercise. Let us highlight again what the bill does which is to place a levy on all waste disposed of in a landfill. Revenue from the levy will be used to help communities and businesses address waste issues. 
I can tell members another story. It was when Marian Hobbs was the Minister for the Environment. As members will know in the Waikato we have things such as the tyre mountain. These are horrendous environmental issues. We are a small country that has the second-highest ownership of cars per head—I think we come after the United States. These are major issues. I apologise to Marian Hobbs because I probably gave her a hard time on that issue but to her great credit she was very understanding and very proactive. 
But again what has come out—and Nandor will know about this in terms of the problems that say the Waikato District Council has had—is that that was just one example of where these issues were falling between the cracks in relation to what could be done legally in regard to property owners and so on. At one end we have the extreme situation of the tyre mountain and at the other end the more practical things we can do in our homes. 
I note the current Minister for the Environment has also given very very warm support to the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. The bill also encourages responsibility by producers brand owners importers retailers consumers and other parties for the environmental effects of their products. The Local Government and Environment Committee received some really brilliant submissions from producers and manufacturers. I am trying to remember one in particular and I think it was either electrical goods or to do with motor vehicle production. The manufacturers are looking at the lifetime of a vehicle from production to the end stage. When people think of places like Turners Auctions they think they just deal in second-hand cars. When talking to management it was interesting to learn that these people are tuning into the whole life cycle of vehicles. 
There are some really good examples now of innovative thinking by businesses. They have come on board. It is fair to say that 20 years ago that would have probably been outside the frame. The bill allows regulation on the reporting of waste in respect of territorial authorities and for operators of landfalls and recycling facilities to improve information on waste; and it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of territorial authorities in respect of waste minimisation. 
I think Dr Nick Smith made a very valid contribution if I heard him correctly about the role of local government and local communities and those kinds of initiatives. We remember the other practical things like glass bottles for milk as they have in the UK even now. We remember when they got rid of our glass milk bottles and gave us plastic and said it would be dare I say it plastic fantastic and no problem. But we remember the mountains of used milk containers and how many of us dutifully went along to the local school to be part of the recycling effort but there was nothing beyond that. So that is another example whereby we need a product container—in this case looking at the historical plastic container for milk which is a good example—that can be used from start to finish; whereby we can recycle and reproduce that item and not get those mountains of used containers. That is where local communities and certainly local government and local authorities can give leadership at a local level in promoting recycling. The work they do with industry is very important. It is hoped that this bill will encourage manufacturers and producers in terms of the kinds of containers they produce. 
There was also an interesting submission from people who deal in cosmetics looking at how some of those people could fall out of the system because of all those little cosmetics bottles. I use that as an example to show that where an industry plays ball and exceeds the standards then the industry should be encouraged and rewarded. Obviously we want to bring in some of these other fringe operators who do not have quite the same standards. 
I notice the new board will give the Minister for the Environment independent advice on waste minimisation issues and hopefully the board will have a cross-section of New Zealanders with a cross-section of expertise. In my view it should not represent narrow sectorial interests but should realise the degree of talent and experience out there. Again industry and local government participation is very very important. 
Without further ado in the brief time I have left I want sincerely and genuinely to compliment Nandor on this bill. I think this is a fantastic achievement by him. He is a great son of the Waikato. He has made is making and will continue to make a great contribution. If I do not have a chance to say this publicly to Nandor then I say that we in the Waikato wish him well. This is another example of a very good Waikato MP doing a great job and I give my compliments to him. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill and although I am chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I want to acknowledge Steve Chadwick who was the previous chair of the committee and who did the bulk of the work. I have come in at the end of that work and apparently have taken a lot of the credit for it which I do not deserve. But I want to acknowledge what a good bill this is and the work that the select committee did on it which was substantial when one looks at the bill as it was introduced and how it came out. It really was a very good process on the part of our select committee. 
I acknowledge all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. We worked very very hard to get this bill reported back to the House within the time frames because we knew how important this issue was and we did not want to delay it any further. So I made myself extremely popular when we had several extra meetings outside of our regular select committee times! I thank all the members from all parties who engaged proactively in that process. I acknowledge Nicky Wagner from the National Party who has a phenomenal amount of knowledge in this area and who was very constructive on that select committee. I acknowledge my colleague Marian Hobbs who was also very passionate about this issue and who contributed a lot to the development of this bill. That is not to take away credit from all the other members of the select committee. I know that it is always a danger when one acknowledges some people and does not mention others by name but all members contributed to this bill. 
But of course I want to pay particular tribute to Nandor Tanczos. It is fitting that this bill is something he will be remembered for in this Parliament as he leaves but at the same time it is very sad that he will be leaving us. I hope he can feel very proud of the work that was done on this bill and his contribution in this Parliament because it has been substantial. Who would have thought that an issue that was not seen as mainstream so many years ago would become very mainstream now and be embraced by not only so many parties in this House but also so many people across our communities? So I say congratulations to Nandor and I personally wish him all the best for the future. I am sure he will be very happy particularly with that gorgeous child of his. 
The Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is a very good bill and I thought the Hon Dr Nick Smith made a very good point previously when he pointed out that provincial and rural communities often have done particularly good jobs at waste minimisation. I think of the Opotiki District Council. It has substantially reduced its waste yet the kind of perverse outcome of that often has been that it finds it very difficult to find an economic reason for landfills because it still has some waste that needs to go to landfill and it finds it very difficult without combining with huge numbers of other districts in shipping long distances to be able to meet those economies in a small community. I even think of my own home city of Gisborne which has significant issues with its landfills and which ships waste to Hamilton. I think this bill will provide economies that incentivise waste minimisation and I hope that will be beneficial particularly for those councils that have already made strides in this area. 
That brings me on perhaps prematurely to one area that was significant during our discussions and that was raised with us by submitters because we did go back out to submitters and asked them to come back again. I think it is important to acknowledge in the select committee process that we recognise that such a substantial change in the bill should go back out for people to resubmit on and we did rehear submissions on this bill. One of the things of course that was very difficult for a select committee to balance was where the waste levy money should go. Should it be 100 percent contestable should it be 100 percent territorial authority or should it be a mix—somewhere in the middle? That is not an easy balance for a select committee to come up with because there are very very strong arguments on both sides of that equation. 
For example as previously said we have many territorial authorities that have been ahead of the pack and that have done many very very good things above and beyond that which would be expected of them in their basic duties as a territorial authority. They might rightly ask why they should not be now able to go back and get some funding for a project that they have done above and beyond what every territorial authority has done but for which now they would be able to go out and apply for funding if they were not doing it already. We had to balance that against other interests that said that if we allow all that money to go to territorial authorities it will simply be a rates offset—basically they are doing it already they factored it in already they have done the costs already for their community and have decided it is worth it. So if they are given money out of this levy fund then basically they will now be using that to offset rates. That is not an easy balance for a select committee to come to. We took the middle road and 50 percent goes either way. I think that is appropriate. 
We certainly do not want to penalise a lot of those territorial authorities. A number of them are very small and rural they have been ahead of the charge and they may want to look at developing further on those programmes. At the same time we also recognise there are enormous opportunities out there within the private sector for developing waste minimisation. 
I am very pleased that the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill will get broad support across the House. When I was leaving my office I heard the speech made by Te Ururoa Flavell who said that this bill was being watered down. I think there is a reality that we have to accept with some of this legislation. I take the example of the per tonne levy on waste disposed in landfills—it was $25 in the original bill and is now down to $10. The Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned about illegal dumping. We need to be very very careful when we go into some of these areas that we incentivise behaviour that is good but do not make it far more attractive to engage in behaviour that is bad. This was another area that was not easy for the select committee to decide a way through but I think the introduction of a $10-a-tonne levy on waste disposal and landfills is a good middle road. Of course that levy can be reviewed at any time if that is deemed appropriate by the Government of the day. I certainly do not see it as watering down the legislation. 
In fact I think the entire select committee process was about aligning this legislation as much as possible with what was already happening so that we did not disadvantage people who were already doing very good things in this area. Also it was about making sure we did not introduce more and more layers of compliance for territorial authorities and the private sector. In looking at the role of territorial authorities it was very clear to me that there was a need for clarification of their role especially beyond what they carry out during their normal course of business. I believe that the bill achieves that. 
Part 7 establishes the Waste Advisory Board. Under Part 2 of the bill as introduced a Waste Minimisation Authority would have been established with a far more extensive role than that of the Waste Advisory Board. I think this strikes a very good balance in terms of what we are trying to achieve and in terms of not introducing more and more layers of compliance for people who are already working in a potentially very difficult area. The select committee had a tendency almost to put too much upon the Waste Advisory Board. We had to keep ourselves in check when considering the role of the board. It is very important that the board is independent. At the end of the day its role especially in advising the Minister on key issues will be crucial to the overall success of the legislation. 
I will touch on one other area—the product stewardship schemes. This is a very important area. Those of us on the Finance and Expenditure Committee looking at the emissions trading scheme know how important it is to have good product stewardship schemes in place especially in terms of refrigeration gases. Gases that are used in the refrigeration industry are quite devastating if they are released into the atmosphere. But if a proper product stewardship scheme is in place and gases are maintained those gases have no impact whatsoever. That is a very real example of how product stewardship schemes are incredibly important. Those gases are hugely more damaging to the environment than other well-known greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. Their greenhouse gas impact is many many times more intense. If we can maintain those gases through good product stewardship schemes then we will be able to mitigate an awfully large cost to the New Zealand economy and to the world environment. 
The idea of making people aware of the exact cost of a product from cradle to grave—including the disposal of the product—is long overdue and was embraced by a large number of the business people who came to the select committee. They want to make their customers aware that the life of a product has not ended just because a customer has finished with it. Someone needs to pay for that cost and who should that be? It should probably be the person who has used the product for the entirety of its life. 
In finishing I thank the officials who worked on this bill. They did a fabulous job. They were always able to answer our questions and they met some very strict deadlines. I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill Nandor Tanczos and wish him all the best for the future. I hope this bill has a speedy passage through the House. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am delighted to be the final speaker in the second reading debate on the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. I start by congratulating my colleague Nandor Tanczos on the incredible determination he has shown over the last 2 years. He picked up this bill from Mike Ward who introduced it to Parliament and helped to develop it. When Mike left Parliament the bill was assigned briefly to my late co-leader Rod Donald who had always had a passion for waste issues particularly for deposit return legislation and product stewardship. He held it for a mere 6 weeks until his death and then Nandor came into Parliament and picked it up and he has done all the hard graft on it since then. 
Members heard Nandor Tanczos describe how he has been around the country talking to local authorities to people who operate recycling schemes to people who get their hands grubby to people who dump rubbish and to business—very much to business—to find out how to make the bill more workable. He has also engaged with successive Ministers and officials and he has drafted very substantial Supplementary Order Papers. In that time he has shown perseverance cooperation and an ability to reach consensus positions and I congratulate him on that. I am very glad that he has had the opportunity today just before his departure from Parliament to see that work come to fruition with the second reading of this bill. I say to Nandor that I am very pleased he is with us tonight. The bill will be taken through the Committee stage by the House’s newest MP Russel Norman and if the schedule proceeds as intended he may in fact be sitting in the Minister’s chair on his second day in Parliament—so things go. 
The key issues for a sustainable economy are energy water and waste. The Greens introduced New Zealand’s first-ever legislation on energy efficiency and conservation 10 years ago and it was passed 8 years ago. That legislation has resulted in major changes in the way energy is used in New Zealand including the introduction of minimum performance standards for products. These products have so far saved consumers $148 million on their power bills as they have not had to buy lower-performing products. 
This bill is the second leg of the trifecta. It is the first substantive bill covering waste management to come to the New Zealand Parliament having achieved the support of nearly every party here which is a real achievement. New Zealand is facing severe resource limits. In fact our economy is bumping up against resource limits all the time whether they be in terms of oil water land fish or minerals. It simply does not make sense to throw those resources away after one use when they can be recovered and used again. 
We are facing environmental limits in terms of the capacity of the environment to absorb the waste we throw away. Waste is also one of the smaller contributors to climate change as methane emerges from landfills when organic waste rots anaerobically. There is no waste in nature. Everything goes around in what Barry Commoner described as the closing circle. Over the years it has become more and more clear that if human societies industries and economies are to be sustainable in the long term we have to mimic ecological processes as closely as we can in our production and consumption systems. So closing that circle and providing for resources to be used over and over again is an essential part of living sustainably. 
It is now 32 years since I set up the first profitable local authority recycling scheme in New Zealand. It was for the Devonport Borough Council in 1976. I was working for the Environmental Defence Society at the time. I will not go into all the history of it but the council decided that instead of contributing to the pollution from the landfill it was interested in setting up a kerbside recycling scheme having a composting scheme at the tip for organic waste and encouraging people to separate their waste. The society wanted to extend the life of its landfill avoid transport costs and do the right thing environmentally. 
We planned that on a budget of $500. We had no buildings and we had no hard standing. We hired some skips we had a guy at the gate and we concentrated on good community information and conversations. We encouraged people to make compost in their own backyards and many did. We made compost with a front-end loader and shredder in open windrows at the tip site and it did pretty well. Two-thirds of the material that had been going into the landfill was diverted from the landfill into the recycling scheme and it made a profit for the council. 
Once that was done I thought: “OK now we just have to sit back and wait for every other council to adopt it.” But did they? No. There was apparently something special about the people of Devonport that could not be copied anywhere else. One or two councils that did try over-engineered and spent so much capital that they had no chance of ever recovering it and of course they made a loss. 
It is a long way from there to here but we learnt a few things from that process and I would like to draw the attention of New Zealand First to one of the things we learnt. We put a charge on rubbish bags. We encouraged people to recycle by putting a charge on rubbish bags which paid for the disposal—user pays—but we did not get an increase in illegal dumping. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What was the charge? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Illegal dumping had always happened to a small extent and it did not increase in any way at all. The charge was $2 a bag which was quite a lot in 1976 and certainly much less than $10 a tonne that is being proposed here. So I do not really think that that argument will hold water. 
We also discovered that if we are going to recycle properly we have to design for reuse and recycling when a product is made. It is no good putting together multiple layers of metal plastic cardboard and wax coatings and then asking someone to take them apart and do something useful with them. So design for durability reuse and recycling has to be built in and that is what this bill will achieve through the product stewardship scheme. 
I am sorry that the Government procurement part of the bill has disappeared. I do think that the Government needs to show leadership. We do have the little waste boxes at the moment as part of the Govt3 programme and many people have been using those for a long time. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry Rodney is not here to hear this little lecture. There will always be a few laggards and renegades and they are the ones we have to regulate for. Other people will do it voluntarily. But never mind; there it is. 
I would thank all the submitters who made it easier for Nandor to develop this bill in the best direction. I thank the various Ministers who cooperated and other members of the House who have cooperated on the select committee. I thank the National Party for coming to the party after an absolutely scathing attack on the bill during the first reading debate. But National members came to their senses and joined us and that is just great. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to its Committee stage and once again I thank Nandor for doing a fine job. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a second time.name changed to Waste Minimisation Bill 
Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was written at the end of 2004 after the Government had amended the Resource Management Act to remove the powers of regional councils to consider climate change matters when they were issuing air discharge consents and in making regional plans that dealt with air discharge consents. The Government removed from the Act the ability of regional councils to consider climate change because it intended to bring in a carbon charge and believed that a national economic instrument was all that was needed to deal with climate change in New Zealand. 
Then it became apparent that the carbon charge might never eventuate and at the end of 2005 it was dumped. I felt a huge hole had been left in the Resource Management Act because we had neither one thing nor the other so I introduced this very simple little bill to replace the clauses in the Resource Management Act just as they had been before. I was proved to be right in that now in 2008 we still have no price on carbon. We do not know whether we are going to get one. But it became clear along the way that even if we do there is no reason not to give regional councils the power to control carbon emissions as well. 
There were 1925 submissions on the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Admittedly a lot of those were form submissions but they were nevertheless from people who felt strongly enough to put their name to a piece of paper and support the bill. The vast majority of the submissions did support the bill and I want to thank all the people who went to the trouble of doing that. They were ordinary people who had just read about the bill decided it was sensible and put their name to a form submission and also people who went to a great deal of trouble to bring us detailed well-thought-out and academic submissions. 
The bill sat in the select committee for more than 2 years. It was not because it took very long to hear submissions—we actually heard only 33—and it was not the case that the committee gave it a huge amount of consideration either. The delay was because the report back was repeatedly extended. The committee went for repeated extensions because the Government could not make up its mind whether it was going to support the bill. I agreed to those extensions for a while. I was being told that we had to have extensions until it was clear whether we were going to have an emissions trading scheme or that we had to have extensions until was clear what the emissions trading scheme was going to say. Then when further extensions were asked for it became blindingly obvious that the Government had no intention of supporting this bill at any stage and neither did the National Party. At that stage I said no I would not agree to another extension. I said I thought 2 years was long enough for them to make up their minds so it was time we brought the bill back to Parliament and they put on the record why it is that they are not supporting it. That is what we are doing tonight.  
I disagree with the position that all we need in order to deal with climate change is an economic instrument. I have always disagreed with that position. Putting a price on carbon is a useful thing to do but we actually have to deal with climate change at every level of the economy. We have to deal with it in regional and local councils we have to deal with it in businesses we have to deal with it as individuals and we have to deal with it internationally. This bill would be a very useful supplement to the price on carbon that we may or may not get. 
I will quote from a chapter called “Carbon Neutrality and the Law: the role of the Resource Management Act” which was written by Klaus Bosselmann the director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law at the University of Auckland and a very learned professor at that. He wrote: “The recently announced emissions trading scheme and other proposed policies are insufficient to meet our Kyoto target let alone to achieve carbon neutrality. The Government must pass the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 2006 a private member’s bill. We need to develop national environmental standards and/or a national policy statement for achieving carbon neutrality. The purpose of the bill is to once again empower local authorities to consider the effects of greenhouse gases and in particular CO2 on climate change when writing local plans and granting air discharge consents.” He goes on to say: “The current state of legal affairs is not without irony. While a system of air quality standards has been established it protects people from certain toxins with an immediate effect on health but almost completely ignores the biggest threat climate change.” 
Many submitters agreed with that view. Many of the people who disagreed with the bill were those with a vested interest in it not proceeding—those who wanted to get their air discharge consents rather more easily without having to defend their carbon dioxide emissions or those who did not want to be involved in the trouble of administering the system. But we had some interesting very substantial submissions from others. For example Meridian Energy put it to us that if it wants to build a renewable electricity station using renewable energy it has to fight through the Resource Management Act in order to get consent to use its fuel. Whether it wants to use water air or geothermal heat it has to get consent to use that fuel. But if a company wants to build a thermal power station there is no consent required to use the fuel. Nobody can challenge a company’s right to burn oil coal or gas in the way that it is possible to challenge the right to take water or use the wind. Meridian Energy said that that created an un-level playing field and I agree with that. The removal from the Resource Management Act of the provisions enabling regional councils to consider climate change matters is one of the reasons why there is a problem. 
But we are not just talking about power stations here; we are talking about anybody who builds a plant that needs an air discharge consent because the plant will burn fossil fuels. For example I think of a new Fonterra milk-processing plant that wants to burn coal. One might say that the emissions trading scheme would take care of that. But hang on—Fonterra will be grandparented at the rate of 90 percent until 2019 for its emissions. It will only have to face the price right at the margin not for the rest of its emissions and then that will phase out only by 2030. So for a long long time companies that build fossil fuel - burning plants will not face the price on more than just the very margin of their emissions. A lot of people have become very concerned about the Genesis-proposed gas-fired power station in Rodney District which really faces no great obstacle in terms of climate change emissions. The council up there is powerless to look at the fact that the power station would be a very heavy emitter of carbon dioxide. 
Some submitters including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who was one of our advisers suggested that the bill would be strengthened if we added a provision for mandatory national environmental standards to be set for carbon dioxide emissions. As the hearings continued a kind of consensus developed among many submitters—and even the committee was quite sympathetic to this view—that if we were going to pass the bill it would be sensible to amend it in order to establish national environmental standards that councils could then use around the country in their land-use planning and in their air discharge consents. Unfortunately that is not to be because the committee has decided to recommend against passing the bill and I think that is unfortunate. Even the Government admits that the emissions trading scheme will reduce emissions by less than 2 percent—less than 2 percent. Putting a price on carbon is a good start but it will take us only a little bit of the way towards the destination. We need to have a whole lot of other measures that are complementary to that price if it is actually to work. 
Those who submitted against the bill were opposed to it because they said it would be complex and costly. That argument of course is used against anything one does that interferes with anything that anybody else wants to do—it will be complex and costly. Well if people want something that is complex and costly they should try the emissions trading scheme. It is hard to get much more complex and costly than that. Sometimes a measure that is complex and costly is OK if the outcome that we achieve through it is worth having and that is what we still have to decide about the emissions trading scheme. 
So I will be voting for this bill to proceed and it is up to the House to decide whether it does so. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National understands the frustration that the Green Party has with the lack of progress on the huge issue of climate change over the last 9 years. I remind the Labour members that when they were elected in 1999 they promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005. But when the records came out for 2005 far from Labour reducing emissions by even 1 or 2 percent we found emissions had in fact gone up by 15 percent. But not to be outdone by Labour’s promise of a 20 percent reduction in emissions Helen Clark said the Government would go for a 100 percent reduction in emissions and said the Government’s programme was for there to be carbon neutrality. Yet in every area of climate change policy over the last 9 years we have seen one policy debacle after another. 
We had the energy efficiency strategy that was launched with great bells and whistles in 2001. Not only did that $100 million programme fail but the energy efficiency gains were less than those achieved in the previous 5 years when we did not have a strategy. Then there was the debacle over the animal emissions levy and the projects to reduce emissions. Another big announcement from the Government was that it would support projects that reduced emissions by tendering carbon credits but it shut that scheme down. We then had the policy initiative of a carbon tax which the Government subsequently abandoned. There was an announcement around Switch on the Sunshine where the Government was going to provide a programme to support the installation of solar water heaters but within 12 months we saw the first drop in the number of solar water heaters being installed. 
So National says to the Green Party that we understand its frustration. There has been one policy debacle after another and emissions are going through the roof as never before. Interestingly the rate at which emissions are going up by is even faster than the rate that they were going up by in the 1990s. They were going up by about 700000 tonnes a year throughout the late 1990s; on average they have been going up by over 1000000 tonnes a year in the term of this Government. 
If we take our record internationally we see that the Prime Minister is saying New Zealand is going to be a world leader on climate change. Well I went to a conference in Bali and numbers were tabled there on how much countries had increased their emissions by. Out of the 42 developed countries that had commitments under the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand’s numbers were the 38th worst—the 38th worst out of 42 countries. I say to members opposite that talking about Labour being a world leader on climate change is like saying that we are going to go to the Olympics and win gold medals when we have come last in the heats right across the board in policy terms. 
Let us take another area. Labour says that we will have 90 percent renewables. Well let us look at Labour’s 9-year record. We see that 75 percent of the new electricity generation built during the term of this Labour Government has been thermal generation. In fact what is worse the Government has actually intervened in the market to build thermal stations. It put an electricity levy on every consumer of electricity in order to build a new diesel power plant at Whirinaki which is currently running at full bore. When it came to Genesis Power the Government offered to provide a Government guarantee so that the company would build a new gas-fired power station the biggest new thermal power station built since Huntly was born—the e3p. So National says that Labour's climate change record is awful and we understand why the Greens wanted to introduce this bill. 
However understanding that is one thing but making sure the legislation will work is another. Will putting provisions into the Resource Management Act—an Act that has already caused great difficulties for those who want to build new power stations—make a difference? Will it provide the sort of clear policy direction that is needed from this Parliament? National says the intent of the Greens is good but this is not the right outcome. Let me explain why that is the case. If someone wants to have another car on the road is it necessary to get a resource consent under the Resource Management Act? No. If a farmer wants to buy another cow to put on the farm thank goodness the farmer does not need to go through the bureaucracy of getting a new resource consent yet that animal adds to emissions. If somebody wants to put a gas burner in his or her home it is not necessary to get a resource consent. So why would we say that in order to manage climate change we will use the blunt and arbitrary tool of the Resource Management Act? 
What is more the reality is that this was the law from 1999-2004. So between 1991 and 2004 when what is in this bill was the law of the land did it help us to address climate change? No. It only created confusion. All that it did for the Environment Court or a commissioner when considering a consent of some sort was to leave the decision makers scratching their heads as to how they could possibly deal with an issue as big and as challenging as global warming and the huge amount of emissions. For instance if an application is made for a new dairy plant and part of it is a drier and it includes the burning of natural gas to dry the milk should the decision makers give it a tick or a cross as a consequence of making them take into account the effects of climate change? The reality of the milk plant is that the teeny-weeny amount of carbon dioxide it puts into the atmosphere would in global terms have a very minimal effect albeit that globally we do need to address the issue of climate change. So National says this bill is an arbitrary unfair provision in terms of the way we address climate change. It will have perverse effects. It did not work when this measure was there in the Resource Management Act and it is the wrong policy instrument. 
The right policy instrument for dealing with climate change—as they have in Europe as they are currently debating in many states of the United States as the Government in Australia has decided and as we have decided in New Zealand—is a well-balanced and well-designed emissions trading scheme. That is why National when the emissions trading bill was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee had several cracks at trying to advance the development of an emissions trading scheme. Why is that a better instrument? The first thing is that the core concept of a well-balanced emissions trading scheme is that it would treat emissions equally. Whether they come from a car a power station a milk-processing facility or a timber-processing facility it would treat them equally which this bill would not do. Furthermore it is our view that if we can get an emissions trading system right then it is the least-cost way to deal with the climate change issue. 
We are frustrated that for 8 years the Government opposed an emissions trading scheme and in the last year in a moment of panic it is now trying to rush through Parliament an emissions trading system that has some key flaws. The record of climate change policy shows that this work is hard. It is difficult and by rushing things we keep getting it wrong and we go backwards. That is why National says—as we said in our 10-page minority report on the emissions trading bill—that on the issue of the emissions trading scheme yes we back it but by goodness we need to take the time and the care to get it right. That is why National says that that the emissions trading legislation needs to be amended. It needs to go back to the select committee. We need to address the major concerns that have quite legitimately been raised by a number of key sectors of the New Zealand economy because with a well-balanced and well-designed emissions trading scheme we have the right framework to deal with the enormous challenge of climate change. 
This Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill is a signal of frustration from the Greens but it is not the right policy instrument for dealing with such a complex issue as climate change. 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member but I just want him to clarify something he said because I think he made a mistake. In the Bali figures he quoted he actually described New Zealand as being the 38th worst country. That makes it the fourth-best out of 42 countries. I think he meant 38th country from the top did he not rather than 38th from the bottom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The quote was in terms of an increase in emissions. New Zealand’s were ranked at 38th out of 42 which meant that we are the 38th worst in terms of the growth in emissions in the term of this Government. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand up and take a call on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to start with the comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I will start off on a positive note and congratulate him on his impending nuptials then I will make the comment that it is a little bit galling to be lectured by a member from a party that is only recently a convert to climate change and has a leader who until very recently said that he thought climate change was a hoax. Although I have no doubt that the Hon Dr Nick Smith himself is very passionate about these issues and is a believer in them I suggest very respectfully that he might want to turn round and give that little lecture to a number of the members sitting behind him including one in particular who on the emissions trading scheme and during the submissions showed himself to be very much a sceptic of the phenomenon of climate change. I respectfully say to him that he might want to look within his own party while he is throwing stones at many others. 
I am very proud of the commitment that this Labour-led Government has made to climate change policy. It is not an easy area to advance as we have seen with many different pieces of legislation. Saying we support climate change policy is one thing; actually supporting it when it comes to the House is entirely another. 
If we just look at the emissions trading scheme which was raised by the previous member we can see his complaints are very reminiscent of a number of the captured interests who came along to our Finance and Expenditure Committee to say that they loved the idea of an emissions trading scheme and they thought it was the only way to go but that they would never support one when they actually saw it down in words. The Finance and Expenditure Committee which I am a member of worked very hard on that scheme and I believe it will make an enormous difference. It is already being looked at around the world in terms of what we are doing and I do not accept the response that we should always just copy everything Australia does and never think for ourselves particularly not when our emissions profile is significantly different from that of Australia. But coming back to this bill despite that little aside I do agree with a number of the points that the previous member raised about this bill. 
Although I appreciate where this bill is coming from—and again this is another bill where as chair of the select committee I came in quite late in the piece—one of my big concerns is the regional inconsistencies that can arise from leaving something as important as this to regional councils. Different regional councils will approach this area in different ways. It is not like it is with us here in Parliament; there is a big concern out there in the general community about climate change and a genuine desire for politicians to do something about it. A number of our regional councils believe this is something that central government should be doing. They are not saying that nothing should be done about climate change; they are just saying that they do not believe they are the appropriate people to do it. That is something that resonates on the election trail with many voters who believe that this is a national issue that should be approached from a consistent national viewpoint. 
I will raise another very important issue. The transport sector is of huge concern when it comes to climate change. Of course the Resource Management Act has no power to keep cars off the road and it has no power to promote coastal shipping rail or other forms of more carbon-friendly transport. Again when it comes to agriculture the Resource Management Act has no power to control the number of stock that are grazed on land so we see a very genuine imbalance between the different areas that are emitting carbon. Although I genuinely appreciate where this bill is coming from I do not believe that the final result would be desirable. 
I understand the frustration of the member in charge of the bill Jeanette Fitzsimons with how long this bill has been at the select committee. She is a former chair of the select committee that was considering the bill and I do not believe there was any malice in her taking this bill away from the select committee—that was entirely her right. This is a very important issue for us to discuss in the House and I believe that this debate will be very important in the greater climate change debate. Although I am very sorry that we could not do what she wanted at select committee and that we were not able to find a way through I completely appreciate that the number of extensions this bill had already had was significant and that she as the member in charge of this bill has used her right to bring this back to the House for debate. 
In saying that we have a number of bills dealing with climate change before many of our select committees. The Local Government and Environment Committee is currently considering the Biofuel Bill. As we have just said the Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported back the emissions trading scheme bill and it is generally regarded that the emissions trading scheme would supersede a lot of this legislation. It really is a matter of timing. 
The emissions trading scheme bill could have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee which perhaps would not have been appropriate because it is a small committee compared with the Finance and Expenditure Committee but I think there are genuine arguments for a bill like that to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee where every party in this House is able to sit in and have its say on it. If this bill had gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee then perhaps it might have been considered alongside the emissions trading scheme and that might have given the member in charge of the bill the opportunity to have it heard. Fortunately that is not the way that it went. We were left with this bill at our committee and we had to decide what to do with it. 
The majority of the committee decided that the emissions trading scheme covers most of the areas that this bill covers. A moratorium on new thermal generation for baseload is a very significant step and something that obviously cuts across a lot of the issues raised in this bill. In saying that clearly the Resource Management Act considers climate change - related or environmental issues; that is obvious. But Labour members on the committee felt that the danger of regional inconsistencies in the way climate change is dealt with was very real. We did not want to see some regions being penalised for having a very strict interpretation of the law whereas other regions might decide that they would benefit from that and take those industries into their region because they do not interpret the law quite so strictly. We think that when we are looking at overall global or even national greenhouse gas emission reductions we need to have consistency across the country. There is no point in simply shuffling them between different regional authorities so that one authority gets emissions down but another authority lifts them by just as much. That does not do anything in terms of our Kyoto Protocol commitment and the monetary commitment we will have to meet if we do not reduce our emissions or indeed the global emissions in the environment. 
Again I say that I am disappointed that we could not do more with this bill at the select committee. I would have liked to hold it over for a bit longer at the committee so that it remained live—so that it remained in a position for us to do something with it if members felt that the emissions trading scheme did not quite cover off everything that this bill meant to or for it to be retired with dignity if the emissions trading scheme did indeed cover it all off. But I have entire respect for the decision that the member in charge of the bill has made in bringing it back to the House now. It is an important debate to have and it is one that we are happy to engage in. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Before I speak on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill I want to clarify what Nick Smith told this House. He told us that the figures he had obtained from the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali made New Zealand the 38th worst country. In my language the worst is the worst the second worst is not quite as bad and the 38th worst is close to the top if it is out of 42 countries. But I do not think that is what he meant. I think he was saying we were the 38th from the bottom— 
Eric Roy 
: From the top. 
PETER BROWN 
: From the top close to the bottom—fourth from the bottom. Would members agree with that? That is not 38th worst is it? 
Eric Roy 
: It can be. 
PETER BROWN 
: It might be down in Southland I say to Mr Roy but it certainly is not normally. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’re in the southern hemisphere Pete. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh it is the southern hemisphere? There you are—that explains it. No I have to say that the honourable member Nick Smith is quite confused. He is going to get married he is engaged to a lovely lady and he has got all excited about it. Let us put it down to that. 
New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill and I want to read from the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. It says under the heading “Submissions opposed to the bill”: “All submissions opposing the bill were substantive and came from business and industry groups local government electricity generators professionals and academics environment and community groups and one from a transmission network provider. Most submitters considered climate change to be a serious issue but expressed opposition to the bill because it made climate change a local government responsibility when submitters favoured a national response.” That is our position entirely. I think the member who just resumed her seat indicated that although local government could have control over certain aspects of certain emissions it cannot have control over the number of cattle on a farm ships coming into a port and what have you and that creates a dual standard. 
I understand where the member who is promoting the bill is coming from. I understand the frustration that would result from the bill sitting there for 2 years; I think that is enough to frustrate anybody. But New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We believe that the emissions trading scheme legislation that has just emerged from the select committee and is under discussion by the Government and other parties is the way to go when it comes to climate change emissions carbon footprints and all those sorts of things. We want one piece of clear legislation that everybody understands and works in with—that must be the aim of the game surely. This piecemeal approach will not work and is not acceptable to New Zealand First. We will be opposing this bill. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 In the absence of someone else taking a call I will jump the queue a little bit but I sense that Mr Deputy Speaker will cut me off about now. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.