Volume 661 Week 37 - Thursday 25 March 2010 
Volume 661 Week 37 - Thursday 25 March 2010 
[Volume:661;Page:9833] 
Thursday 25 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week it is the Government’s intention to advance the Regulatory Improvement Bill the Education Amendment Bill and other first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday 31 March is set down to be a members’ day. On Thursday 1 April the House will rise at 5 p.m. for the Easter break. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for the notice of next week’s business before the Easter adjournment. I signal to him what I spoke to him about earlier today: I have now had a chance to speak to other Opposition parties about the desire of the Business Committee to progress the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. The Opposition is very keen to cooperate with the Government to get that bill through. I notice that he referred to Wednesday’s being a members’ day. If he was prepared to seek leave for us to take the Committee stage of that bill on the Wednesday ahead of members’ orders for that particular day it would facilitate a third reading before we rise on Thursday as a tribute to Lady Raiha Mahuta which many members are keen to have. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That offer of cooperation is very well received by the Government. I think discussions about exactly how the week pans out are perhaps best left until Monday next week. 
Tabling of Documents 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Licences Granted 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a list of all of the mining licences granted under the previous Labour-led Government for national parks and other schedule 4 areas. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Do I take it that the member was actually seeking leave to table a blank piece of paper? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes that is the number. It has been misrepresented by National. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the honourable member how his behaviour today is consistent with the Standing Orders of this House and with good order in this House. He led the House to believe that he had a document. A blank piece of paper is not a document. I take a very dim view of grandstanding like that by use of points of order and it will not be tolerated. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a real document: an access agreement dated 22 May 2006 between the then Minister of Conservation Chris Carter and a mine in the Paparoa National Park that was approved by the Government of that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member wish to seek further advice? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that document advise that there are two or three access ways through which Gerry Brownlee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now resume his seat. That is totally irrelevant to the issue before the House which is that leave has been sought to table a document. This nonsense will stop or someone will take an early shower. Leave has been sought for the tabling of a document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual Temperature Data 
1. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Does he stand by his statement in his corrected answer to parliamentary question 19275 (2009) asking for “the full data on which NIWA’s official time series of the mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853 to 2008 is based” that “links to this data are collated on the following website www.niwa.co.nz” under the heading “New Zealand temperature rise clear”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The answer is yes. I should note that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) website is being updated to make it easier for people to get information about the New Zealand temperature records. The relevant information is now contained on the web page headed “NZ temperature record” which states in the first sentence: “There are many lines of evidence supporting NIWA’s conclusion that New Zealand has warmed by 1.0 deg C since 1900.” 
John Boscawen 
: Which if any of the following statements is false: the claim in the link he gave that the Kelburn site readings were adjusted downwards because “the Kelburn site is on average 0.8 degrees cooler than Thorndon because of the extra height above sea level”; his claim in Parliament on 17 February that “the Wellington site has been moved from Thorndon to Kelburn a difference in height of 125 metres. That requires adjustment.”; or his answer to written question No. 1313 (2010) that “adjustments are not made on the basis of elevation differences either for Wellington or for any of the other six locations.”? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I note in answer to that question that parliamentary question No. 1313 (2010) says in its closing paragraph that one of the reasons why there had to be an adjustment was in fact due to the change of altitude between Thorndon and Kelburn the effect of which is a well-known fact of climate science. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect it might be that the Minister cannot answer the question which should be the answer. But it cannot be said that his answer stands when he said precisely that the institute did not make an adjustment because of the elevation. That was the point of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hesitate to ask the member to repeat the question; it was a very long question. But if I recollect the question accurately it asked which of the following statements was incorrect. In answering it the Minister focused on the third statement if I recollect correctly that Mr Boscawen made. But he appeared to be disputing that statement in his answer and the Minister is at liberty to do that. There are further supplementary questions and I will listen very carefully to make sure that they are answered. I accept that this is a straightforward question that the member is seeking information on. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why does NIWA say that the temperature has increased by 1 degree Celsius since 1900? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There are two key records in this area. The first is the  
NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series 
 which I note includes the Kelburn site. That dates back to 1853 for at least one of the records. The second key record is the eleven-station series which dates back to 1930. The stations in the eleven-station series have not been moved and are largely located in the countryside. The information from the eleven-station series is the raw data. It has never been adjusted. It shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius since 1930. Ultimately this issue is about the science and the data. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Why did the Minister refer Parliament to the 1981 Jim Salinger doctoral thesis and tell Parliament that the original worksheets and computer records used to construct the New Zealand seven-station temperature series are no longer available when the seven-station series was constructed at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research during the 1990s by Jim Salinger and others and the adjusted series was published in a paper by NIWA employees Zheng Basher and Thompson in 1997 with the graph and commentary posted onto the institute’s website in 2007; and how can we conclude anything other than that NIWA has something to hide and is being less than open with its Minister and indeed our Parliament? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have been advised by the institute that in relation to the information in Dr Salinger’s thesis of 1981 some of the material was in various computer records held at Victoria University. Apparently the computer records per se are not available as such but of course Dr Salinger has this information comprehensively reported in his dissertation as is the other information. I say this because it is an important point: the institute is reassuring the public about the veracity of the research by doing a full review of the seven-station series as has been stated in the House a number of times. It has already done it for Hokitika and over the next 4 to 6 months it will do so for the other six stations. When that information is available I suggest that it will be totally open for a robust scientific critique. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does he accept that the review of the seven-station series in itself is an admission of doubt about the official temperature record or even worse that the much-heralded official series which has been used for everything from sworn expert evidence to advisory booklets for local government cannot be scientifically justified that records have not been kept that Ministers have been misdirected and misled and that as a result in part New Zealand is about to massively penalise itself with an emissions trading scheme that will impart huge costs on our country for no benefit; and will he support me in my call for an independent review of the institute’s work on climate change; if not why not? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The reason that the institute is doing the review of the seven-station series is that this is such an important series internationally as it extends back to 1853 and to comprehensively demonstrate the robustness of its work. The institute’s work will be fully open to robust scientific critique. I must also note because this is a crucial point in the whole debate that the eleven-station series which dates from 1930 shows a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius. That particular series has not been adjusted; it is totally dependent on the raw data itself. I finish on this point: the institute is spending a huge amount of time on ensuring that its website is sufficiently robust to enable people to access it and indeed ask the sorts of questions dare I say it that the member is asking. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: How can the Minister have confidence in the work done by NIWA on climate science when the institute’s information has led Ministers to give wrong answers in the House when the principal author was associated with the now utterly discredited British climate research unit when other scientific authorities disagree with him when the institute itself has no material available that can support the analysis underpinning its official series when the principal author of the series has now been sacked and when the institute is having to review the series because it has no confidence in it nor can it justify it or defend it? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I think that the short answer is to look at the eleven-station series which is actually unadjusted and shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius since 1930. At the end of the day this issue will not be resolved by confident assertion but on the basis of the science. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very familiar with the eleven-station series but my question was about how the Minister can have confidence in NIWA. It was not about the series and the Minister did not address the question of whether he had confidence in the institute. It may be that he does not but he should actually answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma is that when a member asks a question like that he or she is seeking an opinion and the way in which the Minister responds to a question that seeks an opinion is really pretty much up to the Minister. I feel that the Minister addressed significant parts of the quite lengthy question that the member asked and I think it would be unreasonable of me to try to pin him down to any more specific answer than that. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to have my question held over until the Prime Minister is available. He has been off the radar this week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have this question deferred. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Ministers—Confidence 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment that her welfare reforms which breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would not bother most people and that “it is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as being fair and reasonable.”; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. If the Government chooses not to work test older women who have been on the widows benefit I think most people would regard that as a fair amount of discrimination. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of that answer why does he believe that the children of widows are more deserving of support from his Government than the children of widowers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made a series of decisions across a package known as Future Focus. It happens that the Attorney-General has made a statement to Parliament according to the requirements of Parliament that says that those changes are discriminatory. However the Government is free under those procedures to proceed with its policy. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment who said that there are jobs out there for everyone or with Paul Henry who said on  
Breakfast 
 that if Paula Bennett believed that she was living in cloud-cuckoo-land? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The good news today is that the released economic figures show that the economy is growing and creating new jobs. It is an aspiration of this Government that everyone who is on welfare should be looking for work. Actually quite a lot of them are finding work. 
Hon Annette King 
: How can he have confidence in his Minister of State Services who told this House last week that there were no plans to close the Blenheim Accident Compensation Corporation office only for its closure to be announced today? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has great confidence in the Minister of State Services because he is a much better Minister of State Services than the previous Minister was. 
Hon Annette King 
: I do not think the last part of the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon Annette King 
: It is a point of order. I know it is a common practice of the Deputy Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. With the nature of the questions being asked inevitably there will be a political element to the answers. The member well knows that and she cannot use a point of order to say that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he ensured that the Minister of Energy and Resources has consulted with the Minister of Tourism over the potential conflict of prospecting for minerals on Dun Mountain at the same time as he is advocating for a national cycleway through the same area? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Which analogy is accurate: his comparison of Whanau Ora to a waterbed or the comparison by the Minister of Energy and Resources of mining to a date scone? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Both analogies are of course appropriate. I am impressed with the talent of my colleagues. They are able to make cut-through statements that even the Opposition can understand. 
Economy—Reports 
3. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today’s Statistics New Zealand release of the GDP figures for the December quarter shows that the economy grew by 0.8 percent. That is the third consecutive quarter of growth. The data suggests that the recession which began in early 2008 bottomed out in the first half of 2009 and since then the economy has grown again at a moderate rate. This is consistent with a range of other indicators and broadly mirrors the pattern of New Zealand’s trading partners. The lift in the economy will create jobs though it is likely to be some time before we see a sustained drop in unemployment. That is why it is important we convert this early start to recovery into a permanent lift in growth rates. 
David Bennett 
: What challenges does the economy face? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite some early signs of recovery the economy faces numerous challenges. These include a fragile global recovery serious imbalances in our own economy that have built up over recent years and an operating balance that remains in deficit. There are early signs of rebalancing: the last two quarters of last year were the first since 2003 when our internationally tradable sectors grew faster than our domestic sectors and for the first time since March 2000 Government administration has not grown over a full year. 
Stuart Nash 
: Given that this Government has said that it stands for fairness and equity how will tax rate alignment and a significant reduction in the top marginal rate for the 8 percent of Kiwis earning over $70000 directly benefit the 70 percent of New Zealanders earning under $40000? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should wait to see how the tax package comes together. I reiterate a point I have made earlier in the House. The Government is looking to extend the tax base to raise more tax from property. By and large that property is owned by higher-income New Zealanders. It is not yet clear whether higher-income New Zealanders as a group will end up paying more tax in total when we include extra property taxes. 
David Bennett 
: How is the Government tackling the challenges the economy faces? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One way we have been tackling the growth in Government administration is to put a lid on Government spending and I am pleased that that is showing through in the figures released today which show that the balance of the economy has shifted slightly in that the productive and export sector actually grew in the last 6 months of last year and the Government sector shrank somewhat. 
Referendum on MMP—Campaign Spending Cap 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he received advice on the benefits of having campaign spending caps in the MMP referendum? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes; and the Minister has also received advice that the previous referenda on the election system in 1992 and 1993 and the super-referendum in 1997 had no cap on spending and no need to register with the Electoral Commission. All that was needed was a promoter statement. In fact the Minister is advised that no Government referendum in the post-war period limited spending by third-party campaigners. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can he explain the logic of requiring spending caps in an election campaign and in a citizens initiated referendum but not for a referendum on the future of democracy in New Zealand? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes the Minister can. The spending limit for the citizens initiated referendum was introduced as part of a package of measures to limit the ability of groups or individuals both to initiate a referendum and to campaign on that referendum. What we have here with a Government referendum where the issue is not put to the public by a third party is an elected Government rightly carrying out its campaign pledge to voters. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why did the Government accept the advice from the Ministry of Justice that the influence that wealth can have on the outcome of a referendum is debatable over the advice that the rationale for regulating advertising is to avoid the influence of wealth on the outcome by its overwhelming other voices in the public information campaign? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: What has happened here is that there has been an endeavour to balance a number of interests. The interest that the member apparently has overlooked is the issue of freedom of expression. But what the proposal in the bill does is place an obligation on anyone who spends over $12000 during the regulated period to register with the commission. So there is a balancing and freedom of expression is a very important factor. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister believe that there is freedom of expression during election campaigns when there are spending caps; if so why not have spending caps during the MMP referendum and also protect freedom of expression? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes of course the Minister believes there are very important freedom-of-expression issues in an election campaign and that is why the National Party fought so hard against the repulsive electoral finance legislation. But the point is that what we have tried to do with this legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] To receive a lecture on section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from Annette King when there was no report under section 7 for the Electoral Finance Bill is a bit rich! What we have tried to do here is balance freedom of expression and introduce the requirement of registration. I say also that the Campaign for Better Government spent huge sums of money in 1992 and 1993 to advance its particular views. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree with the 1986 report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System when it stated that it is not “fair if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.”; if so does he agree that the same logic applies to the MMP referendum? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: One can see where the member is coming from; that is the reason why the registration requirement has been introduced. That coupled with freedom of expression addresses the member’s concerns. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the regulatory impact statement on the Electoral Referendum Bill. As the House will be aware the Government no longer publishes regulatory impact statements with bills but I believe that the House should look at the detail of them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek the leave of the House to table chapter 8 of the royal commission’s report which is the chapter on political finance from which my quote was taken. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the “Advertising Rules” section of the regulatory impact statement alone without the rest of the regulatory impact statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that portion of the regulatory impact statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a slight question about consistency of ruling. You have just put to the House—and I was very surprised—the question of leave for the tabling of a chapter of a royal commission report which is something that has been published by this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What was going through my mind at the time and I may have misheard—and if I did I apologise to the House—but I understood it was a royal commission report from the 1980s. It was my judgment on the spur of the moment that that was something that members may not be so familiar with and therefore I felt that it was not unreasonable to put that leave to the House. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Potential National Parks Act Reform 
5. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does she intend to amend the National Parks Act 1980 to enable mining? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Conservation 
: The National Parks Act does not prohibit mining but sets very high environmental tests for mining to be allowed. The Government will not be changing these tests or the Act. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister now agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday that there will be no open-cast mining in current schedule 4 areas in Coromandel and on Great Barrier Island? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister agrees with the very wise statement of the Prime Minister. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister understand that the economic case in the Ministry of Economic Development papers for mining conservation land in Coromandel used figures based on open-cast mining? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Of course the Minister of Conservation has responsibility for assessing the conservation values as part of the review of schedule 4. The economic issues are for others. However in respect of those economic issues the information is poor and one of the reasons the Minister of Energy and Resources is committed to a substantive investment by GNS Science is so that we can provide more accurate information on New Zealand’s mineral resources. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Have any access consents been granted for mining in national parks; if so when and by whom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes Minister Chris Carter granted approval for the Hart Creek mine in the Paparoa National Park in 2006. For clarity this mine is not underground like Pike River coalfield which was also approved by Labour. It is on the surface and it is for gold and gemstones. The approval of this mine in May— 
Hon David Parker 
: That mine is not in the park. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says that it is not in the park; it is. The approval of this mine in May 2006— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Just make it up Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Two members opposite continue to interject that I am incorrect. I seek the leave of the House to table the access agreement for mining in a national park by Chris Carter on 25 May 2006. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I have a question as to whether a Minister can answer with a point of order seeking leave to table documents. You have been very clear on that and I think it is a good ruling you have made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I assumed the Minister had finished his answer. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But he didn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I took it as that. The Minister will not be given any further time to answer after his seeking leave to table a document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that at the Commerce Committee today the head of the New Zealand Tourism Board was surprised to learn for the first time that the 70 or so mining licences on conservation areas are not in national parks as his Government’s spin would have everyone believe? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is very clear that some of those mines are in national parks including ones approved by the previous Government. Phil Goff said on National Radio this morning that “Labour never ever allowed mining in national parks.” but I say that that statement is false. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the members’ colleague. National front-bench members are asked to show some courtesy for Chris Auchinvole. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister advise the House that the only areas of national park being considered for removal from schedule 4 are those in the Inangahua sector of the Paparoa National Park; if so what advice did the Department of Conservation give to the Government in 2008 when these areas were added to schedule 4? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is correct. The only areas of national parks nationwide being considered for removal from schedule 4 are those in the Inangahua sector of the Paparoa National Park. The House will be interested to know that the Department of Conservation advised against those areas being added to schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act in 2008 saying that the addition was not justified. The previous Government ignored that advice. It is perfectly proper given that Labour went against the Department of Conservation’s own advice that this Government is reconsidering the status of that area. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that it would have been illegal for the Minister of Conservation in the last Government to issue a mining licence or to agree to a mining licence being issued for more than 100 square metres of any schedule 4 land? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The mine in the Paparoa National Park I drew members’ attention to which Chris Carter approved in May 2006 is in an area that at that time was not included in schedule 4. That is why it is true that if an area is in schedule 4 it cannot be mined. But the point being made by Labour members—that they never approved mining in national parks—is false. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What policy governs mining activities in national parks; and when was this policy most recently approved? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: National parks are governed by the general national parks policy as set out in section 44 of the Act. The 1983 general policy for national parks was revised in 2001 and the new general policy was approved by the previous Government in April 2005. The policy approved and endorsed at that time by Cabinet including Phil Goff states in policy 10.8(b): “access arrangements to prospect explore or mine in national parks will be considered on a case-by-case basis”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave of the House to table the general policy statement in which in 2005 the Labour Cabinet approved mining in national parks on a case by case basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Economic Benefits of Environmentally Responsible Mining 
6. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What are the economic benefits— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. This time I ask front-benchers on both sides of the House to show some courtesy to the members at the back of the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: What are the economic benefits from environmentally responsible mining in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 There are many economic benefits. Mining in New Zealand is a $2 billion industry and in 2009 exports were worth about $1.1 billion. Including workers in oil and gas the industry employs about 6000 people. Jobs in the industry are well paid at double the national average and jobs are highly productive contributing to GDP per worker at six times the national average rate. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has he seen any evidence of support for the mining industry in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have seen a great deal of evidence of support for the mining industry in New Zealand. Indeed I have some photographic evidence here today to show the House of some members who support mining in New Zealand. The photograph shows the Hon Damien O’Connor the Hon Trevor Mallard and a New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union official standing outside the Runanga Miners’ Hall when Mr Mallard was launching a document about health and safety in underground mining. It will come as no surprise to members that this photo was taken during the 2008 election campaign. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Are there benefits to members of seeing firsthand the operations of mining in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I believe it is beneficial for members to become familiar with mining operations in New Zealand. To prove that Mr Mallard’s commitment to mining is not short I have this photograph to show the House. It shows Mr Mallard fully kitted-out in his little miner’s suit about to go down the pit. This photo was taken when the Labour Party liked to identify with mining as the industry that was its birthplace. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the member to table the photos so that I can have a copy of them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe the photos are official documents. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave for those wonderful documents to be published. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am unable to seek that leave Mr Speaker as these documents already have been published. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the House has had enough fun on that one. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is there any further evidence of why there is interest in support for the mining industry? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It would appear that Mr Mallard fresh from his visit down the mining pit with the exhilaration of coal dust still up his nostrils must have told such wonderful stories about the experience that his colleague the Hon Phil Goff was encouraged. For those who cannot recognise him he is the guy on the end of this photo. He was encouraged to put on his gear and go down the mining pit. This photo is from a time when Labour was proud to support workers and proud to support the mining industry in New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is rather unfair that they have not shown the photograph of me when I went down the mine. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I understand the problem was that when Annette King went down the mine the workers were scared to come out. In order to accommodate the Hon Trevor Mallard’s request I seek leave to table these three wonderful photographs which have previously been published. I am sure that if Mr O’Connor contacts my office we will make a PDF for his next electorate newsletter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have previously ruled out tabling photographs and that kind of thing. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
7. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements on health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including the statement that the Labour Government doubled spending in health and got a lot less for it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does he say to the 83-year-old woman who was trapped half in and half out of her bed with just a cotton hospital gown on—no singlet and no cardigan—who could not get the attention of a nurse because they were too busy and who was discovered freezing by her family when they went to visit her in Auckland City Hospital last week? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would be concerned about that case if that is the full story but the member is not helping that person by not giving me her name and details as her colleagues do so that I can look into it. I can say that the Government has put an additional $60 million into the Auckland District Health Board. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What is his response to the nurses at Waitemata who are so concerned about their staff numbers being pared back to establishment numbers despite a 77 percent growth in patient numbers that they called a crisis meeting with the director of nursing earlier this week? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I say to those nurses that we in the Government inherited a very difficult situation at Waitemata District Health Board. Under the previous Government people languished under fluorescent light bulbs in the emergency department for up to 35 hours. That no longer happens under the Waitemata District Health Board. I can tell the member that we have put an additional $53 million into the Waitemata District Health Board. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has he seen of other improvements to front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The House might recall that the Government invested an additional $48 million over 4 years in ambulance services including adding 100 paramedics. I am pleased to advise the House that we are almost halfway through hiring those extra paramedics which has allowed for more double-crewing for call-outs in some areas far in excess of what was possible under the previous Government. For example in Whanganui from 66 percent to 92 percent of call-outs are now being double-crewed; in Whakatane the figure has gone from 19 percent to 54 percent of call-outs; in Hastings from 63 percent to 88 percent of call-outs; and in Waiuku from 27 percent to 77 percent of call-outs. We expect to see further improvements in front-line ambulance services with the second phase of the roll-out of the 100 paramedics. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does his categorical assurance to this House that all older people in Otago and Southland would be offered reassessments before their home support was cut relate to the situation of an 81-year-old Mosgiel woman who was assessed by phone 2 months ago had her home help cut from 2½ hours a week to 1½ hours a week and last week received a letter telling her that her home help had now been cut completely? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would be concerned about that case if that is the full story but the member is not helping that person by not giving me her name and details as her colleagues have done so that I can look into it. I can say that the Government has put substantial new money into the Otago District Health Board—close to $20 million in the last year. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What explanation will he give to the 83-year-old woman from Paraparaumu who is paralysed on her right side and has been receiving help for heavy cleaning in her house who received a phone call from a woman from Capital and Coast District Health Board asking how she was coping only to be told that she would lose all support services forthwith and that this was being done on instructions from the Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That would be concerning if that were the full story but the member is not helping that person by not giving me her name and details as her colleagues do so that I can look into it. I can say that the Government has given the Capital and Coast District Health Board an extra $32 million this year despite inheriting a deficit in unfunded services of over $60 million from that failed party opposite when it was in Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the letter I received from the daughter of the woman I described who last week found her mother freezing and unable to get into her hospital bed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table correspondence outlining the situation of the Mosgiel woman who despite the Minister’s assurance has had all her home help cut with no offer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the husband of the 83-year-old woman from Paraparaumu whom I described as having all her home support cut. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Welfare Reforms—Addressing Long-term Welfare Dependency 
8. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Can she explain how this Government is addressing long-term welfare dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Firstly this Government is not ignoring the issues; we are doing something about them. Secondly unlike the previous Government we do not treat beneficiaries like victims; we believe that with the right support they will be able to do it for themselves and work towards self-sufficiency. Thirdly this Government is not scared to tackle the hard issues. 
Todd McClay 
: Can the Minister explain how this approach is different from that of previous years? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In the previous 9 years under the Labour Government we saw many different approaches. First was the “They are all victims.” approach then the “It’s OK to be on welfare for years.” approach followed by the “We’ll wait for the economy to pick up.” approach and finally the “Let’s just pretend it’s not there.” approach. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly asked about reports they may have received on something and you have allowed that but the Minister’s entire answer was a political commentary—the Minister’s opinion of what the previous Government did. There were no policies called the things that the Minister just said in the 9 years before this Government came into office. She is responsible for her policies and that is what she should be answering about today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point of order made by the Hon Darren Hughes. The Minister can refer to and report on previous policies—that is perfectly acceptable—but to describe them in a politically loaded way is not acceptable. It is not consistent with the Standing Orders. To refer to the policies is fine and to report on the outcomes of the policies is fine but to describe them in incorrect terms is not fine. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In terms of differences in approach we saw that in the best of times when we had record low unemployment we still had quarter of a million people on welfare. We see now that over 100000 people have been on welfare for longer than 3 years. That tells us that there are issues there and we need to be putting the right incentives in place and providing the right support for those people to work towards a life of self-sufficiency. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: How many of the currently 168000 unemployed New Zealanders does the Minister expect to have in part-time or full-time jobs in a year’s time as a result of her measures to address long-term welfare dependency; can the Minister guarantee to this House that no child will suffer as a consequence of any of her changes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Of course we have 64000 people on the unemployment benefit at the moment not 168000. That figure comes come from the household labour force survey reading. The member mixes those figures up quite often and makes that error. Yes the 64000 people on the unemployment benefit are obliged to actively look for work. They are work tested. Under our new policy yes after a year they will have to reapply for their benefit. There are expectations on those people and I am confident that they can get themselves back into work. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on this matter. I did not state “168000 on the unemployment benefit”; I said “168000 unemployed New Zealanders”. I do not think she addressed either part of my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a bit difficult to ask me to ask the Minister to be more precise in an answer to a question like that because obviously the policy as I understand it that the Government has announced refers to testing people on the unemployment benefit and that is why the Minister responded in those terms. That seemed to be a reasonable response and I do not think I can ask the Minister to be any more specific than that. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: In terms of the work testing that the Minister of Social Development has discussed in the papers she has put out it is not just people on the unemployment benefit; it is also people on the domestic purposes benefit and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now debating the matter. I have ruled that I am not asking the Minister to answer further. The member has further supplementary questions; if she feels that the answer was inadequate she can ask more precise questions. Members will see that when they ask clear precise questions I can help them get answers. I am prepared to do that. But the questions must be very clear and very precise and then I will do all I can to make sure that answers are obtained. 
Rahui Katene 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Rahui Katene. I again ask the front benches on both sides to please show some courtesy to members at the back of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take severe exception to that. After you rose and made your earlier comment no one on the front bench made any comment from this side whatsoever. It all came from the other side of this House not from this side. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is not assisted by that. When I called Rahui Katene there were interjections. If he wants me to name the members on his side who interjected I am happy to name them but I will not do that. 
Rahui Katene 
: What assurance can she give the House that school-age children of the 43000 sole parents who will be work tested and expected to take up part-time work will not be placed at risk by the welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: All the research that we have seen says to us that children are better off when their parents are in work so we are supporting them into work and giving them the right help. We are also investing another $4.2 million to make it easier for providers to increase the number of out-of-school programmes and places—particularly home-based and small-scale providers. 
Rahui Katene 
: What assurance can the Minister give the House that children who are chronically sick or disabled— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but I say to both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Bill English that it is not helpful to the progress of the House for them to interject loudly like that when a member is being called to ask a question. I also add that although members might not have liked the answer being given by the Hon Paula Bennett I am sure that some members of the House were not able to hear it because the noise was so loud. I ask for a little more reasonableness. 
Rahui Katene 
: What assurance can the Minister give the House that children who are chronically sick or disabled will not be placed at risk by the expectation that their parents will be expected to take up work or face the sanctions that are part of the welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are a number of exemptions under the work test particularly for those on the domestic purposes benefit whose children are over 6 years old. One of them is for children who are unwell or disabled and need their parents more than other children do. There are also exemptions for medical reasons and so on; there are a number of them. If parents need to be with their children either during school hours or outside them they can be exempted from the work test. 
Todd McClay 
: Are these reforms balanced and fair? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes the changes are measured fair and balanced. We will ensure that support and training are available for people to help them get back into work. As I have just said people who have genuine reasons will be exempted. Some of those reasons are being medically unable to work caring for a child who has high needs and being recently separated and needing time to get one’s life in order and settle one’s children into school. For some of them it may be the recent death of a partner or leaving a situation of family violence. There are some good reasons why it is harder for some people to get back into work and we have made exemptions for them. And quite simply if the jobs are not there then nothing changes for those parents. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Figures in Discussion Document 
9. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How can New Zealanders have confidence in any of the figures in his “Stocktake of Schedule 4” discussion document when he said yesterday that “I think the numbers are always going to be all over the show until you actually get something out of the ground you simply don’t know what the story is”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Quite apart from the fact that that is blindingly obvious New Zealanders can have confidence in the figures. They come from reputable analysis carried out by geologists and scientists many from GNS Science which is a very reputable Crown research institute that is internationally recognised for its expertise in this area. It is just common sense that until we carry out exploration all we have is potential based on the geology of any particular area. There will be contention about what that geology means. The underlying fact is that New Zealand is a mineral-rich country. That side of the House wants to lock it up and pretend it is not there. We think New Zealanders should have a say in whether they experience some of the benefits of that estate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What mistake with their figures were his officials admitting to when they contacted television news at 5.30 p.m. yesterday in respect of the exploration value of gold on Great Barrier Island? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The report done by Dr Richard Barker in January of this year— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The expert. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —yes he is an expert—was provided to the Ministry of Economic Development and it was posted on the ministry’s website. It talks about the values from two parts of Te Ahumata Plateau. The figure that was used by the ministry assessed the entire plateau. That figure has been assessed by Crown Minerals geologists and I believe it is consistent with the advice that was given to them by Dr Barker. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister what mistake they were referring to. He referred to Dr Barker’s report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to debate the matter by way of point of order. It seems the Minister is disputing that there was a mistake. He does not have to agree with the claimed mistake when he is answering a question. Does the Hon Darren Hughes wish to ask a further supplementary question? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I am happy to but I thought you were going to call Mr Young. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because there was concern over his first question I was going to come back to the honourable member to pursue his questioning. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When he said there was a degree of hysteria around this issue was he referring to the coalition he has built of conservationists economists activists and geologists who oppose mining in the most special parts of New Zealand or was he referring to the Government’s defence of this sloppy policy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the only people who have had a sloppy position on this policy are the Labour Opposition members. 
Jonathan Young 
: How many coal and mining permits were issued for Department of Conservation land by the previous Labour-led Government? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have previously advised the House that the previous Labour Government issued 74 mining permits on Department of Conservation land. I am very happy to admit that officials have now revised those figures and the real figure is that 218 permits on Department of Conservation land were issued by the previous Government. The amount of land permitted under those 218 permits was 21961 hectares more than three times the size of the land about which the Government is asking whether it should come out of schedule 4. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has he seen any statements in support of the mining industry in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have already shown the House the various sojourns of members from the opposite side of the House to mining sites around New Zealand but there is more. I read this quote in answer which I think perfectly sums up the current Government’s position on mining: “I say again that the industry provides an immense number of jobs and dollars for the economy … We can have business and can preserve the environment as long as there are tight rules.” That statement came from none other that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is it still his expectation that the Prime Minister will push through with these mining proposals when it increasingly looks like there is more accuracy about the volume of minerals present in the recipe for date scones than in the figures in his document? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This Government will honour the public consultation process then there will be some decisions. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How much longer will we see him as the caring sensitive uniting and in-control face of the Government’s mining policy for the 7000 hectares of pristine land before we are all receiving ambassadorial postcards from him eating date scones all around the world? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess the Minister does not need to answer a question that is more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has he seen any contradictory statements about where mining should be allowed in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. The Labour Party is now campaigning against mining on any part of the conservation estate even though whilst in Government it issued 218 mining permits on that land. Just 1 month ago Phil Goff was saying that he though there was some scope for conservation— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you could not hear me calling out a point of order Mr Speaker; we could not hear that answer. We over here would love to hear about the contradictions that bedevil the Labour Party in 2010 and we would like to have the answer in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance on this. The reason why I think the House was in some kind of uproar is because the Minister’s answer was not strictly within the Standing Orders. The Minister cannot allege a policy being a policy of another political party in this House. That is what members observed happening and the other political party denied that that is its policy. That is what debate is all about but it is not what question time is about and Ministers are not at liberty to give that kind of answer. The Minister can report accurately on what policies may have been inherited by the Government but he cannot allege certain policies that may not be factually correct. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The question was whether the Minister had seen any contradictory statements about mining being allowed in New Zealand. I was pointing out that there is quite a significant contradiction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister can answer such a question but he needs to be careful how he answers it. I clearly heard the Minister make claims about the Labour Party’s policy and that is not the Minister’s responsibility. Certainly if he has quotes or reports on what certain members have said then that is factual and accurate and he can report it. But to allege what the Labour Party’s policy might be is not consistent with Standing Orders. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have seen a comment attributed to the Hon Phil Goff 1 month ago in which he said that he thought there was scope in some conservation land to extract minerals if it can be done without any damage to the environment. I have also seen a website put up by the same person’s support body saying “Yours not mines” which makes it very clear that he is now opposed to mining in the conservation estate. That is a contradiction. 
Forestry—Reversing Deforestation and Future Intentions 
10. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What progress has the Government made in reversing the deforestation over the past decade and what further reports has he seen on future forestry intentions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the latest forestry data show a small gain in New Zealand’s forest area for 2009. This contrasts with significant losses in 2008 2007 and 2006. The principal reason for the turn-round has been reduced deforestation. This has dropped from a peak of 20000 hectares to 3500 hectares in 2009. I am also encouraged by the survey’s results released today which show low deforestation intentions into the future of only about 2000 hectares per year. There are also positive signs for new planting with 4000 hectares of new planting last year which is more than double that of 2008. This trend is positive and shows that confidence is coming back to the forest sector. 
Louise Upston 
: How does this latest data on forestation compare in a historical sense? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand’s plantation forest area has consistently grown with major spurts in the 1930s the 1970s and the 1990s. However there have been only three years since records began when there was net deforestation those years being 2006 2007 and 2008. The net gain of 500 hectares last year is small but the fact that we are back on a growth path after 3 years of significant deforestation is encouraging. I am also encouraged that forester intentions indicate there will be net gains of 4700 hectares this year 5700 hectares next year and 7700 hectares in 2012. 
Louise Upston 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the impact of the emissions trading scheme on deforestation intentions into the future? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The report released today is very clear that New Zealand would be losing significant forest area without the emissions trading scheme legislation. The survey indicates that the deforestation rate would be more than three times higher than it is or about 8000 hectares per year. The Government has gone to considerable effort in its moderation of the emissions trading scheme to more than halve the cost for consumers and for industry but to retain the full price signals to the forest sector and this latest data on foresters’ intentions is showing the positive results that this policy is delivering. 
Education National Standards—Teacher Workload 
11. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many of the reports or briefings that she has received on national standards refer to increases in teacher workload and what is the best estimate of that increase in workload expressed in hours per term in 2010? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received an extremely large amount of advice about national standards since November 2008. I am advised that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that my speaker is working. I cannot hear the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s because you don’t have a speaker there any more. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that the honourable member realises that a point of order is being considered and silence is required. In case she overlooked that fact I will overlook the breach on this occasion. The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a reasonable point. There was a lot of noise and even I found it difficult to hear the Minister. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received an extremely large amount of advice about national standards since November 2008. I am advised that many of those reports have some reference to teacher workload but it has not been possible to search every report to determine a specific number that refer to potential workloads. What I can tell the member is that the Ministry of Education has provided me with consistent advice that teachers who are following best practice should not experience an increased workload as a result of national standards. The national standards are about setting goals for students using formative assessment and providing regular progress reports to parents in language they can understand. That is core business for all teachers and for all schools. It is not an optional extra. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have here a reply to a written question dated 15 March which indicated that the Minister had had 24— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I ask you for a little tolerance Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no; the member is disputing the answer by way of a point of order which he cannot do. He has further supplementary questions which he can use if he believes that what the Minister has told the House may be incorrect or whatever. But to litigate it by way of a point of order is not on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of her answer which I received on 15 March and which indicated she had had 24 reports or briefings on national standards I ask whether it was too much work for her office to look through those in order to work out how many of them refer to teacher workload. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat that I have received an extremely large amount of advice on national standards since November 2008. The primary question does not refer simply to the ministry’s advice; it refers to reports or briefings that I have received. I am saying I have received an extremely large amount of advice and the ministry has worked through as much of that advice as it possibly can in the time available since my office received the question at 10.45 this morning. In that time it has identified just two reports that note that teachers may claim an increased workload. I am happy to table a full response to the question once all reports have been worked through but until that time I cannot give an accurate number and I would not want to mislead the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What was her estimate of the increase in teacher workload when she made her decision to go ahead with national standards in their current form? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The estimate we made was that teachers who were using good assessment information to inform their teaching and reporting well to parents would see little increase in their workload. Teachers who are not doing those things will have to start doing them—it is core business for teachers. But I have to say to the member that we have actually reduced some of teachers’ workload. For instance they will not have to hand out “Wassup!” badges they will not have to act as fruit monitors to deliver fruit to schools and they will not have to round up kids who have popped across the road to get a pie because we have rescinded the nanny State tuck-shop regulations. 
Allan Peachey 
: What support is available to teachers to assist them to implement the national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Government has committed $26 million this year to professional development and support. That includes the provision of information workshops self-review tools school training visits in-depth work with 7000 to 8000 teachers support for provisionally registered and overseas-trained teachers and funding subsidies for teachers to access postgraduate qualifications in literacy and numeracy. The ministry has also published extensive online and printed support materials for teachers principals and boards of trustees. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If there is no change for the majority of teachers as she indicated in her answer to the penultimate supplementary question what difference will the majority of parents see as a result of her change to national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The majority of parents in New Zealand support the introduction of national standards because they know that they will give them for the first time good information about their child’s progress in plain language. The fact that that member has to keep asking that question shows— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s question was very simple. It asked what difference parents would see. It does not deserve a political attack like the last bit of the answer; there was nothing political in the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What change will parents see when their children are in good schools that have been reporting well already? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The change that those parents will see is the progress of their children against the national standards. 
Overseas Investment Rules Review—Activities of Technical Reference Group Members 
12. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Have any members of the technical reference group been involved in cases involving foreign takeovers of New Zealand dairy companies while assisting in the review of the overseas investment regulatory regime; if so what are the names of the relevant law firm and lawyer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No members of the technical reference group have been involved in takeovers of dairy companies. One company in the dairy industry did seek to raise capital from the New Zealand public which required Overseas Investment Office approval and it involved a member of the technical reference group. That company was Synlait and the decision sheet is available on the Overseas Investment Office’s website. Synlait ultimately decided not to proceed with raising capital from the New Zealand public. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he have any concern that a lawyer such as Andrew Monteith in the case that the Minister referred to who is advising the Government on rewriting the Overseas Investment Act has also been involved in assisting overseas firms in raising money in order to buy up New Zealand’s dairy assets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have no concerns at all. When the Government gets expert advice it tends to go to the people who do the transactions; otherwise they do not know what they are talking about. In this case I have personally met with those lawyers and have had a discussion about how we can get Overseas Investment Office decisions made more quickly and at a lower cost. They have given some useful suggestions and some suggestions that would not be acceptable to the Government. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that the free-trade agreement with China does not stop the New Zealand Government from declining applications to buy New Zealand farmland under the overseas investment rules? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When he spoke with the technical advisory group lawyers from Chapman Tripp Russell McVeigh Simpson Grierson Bell Gully and Minter Ellison Rudd Watts on 18 February this year did he express any concerns about large foreign firms being able to buy up huge swaths of the New Zealand primary production sector; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We had a discussion about how the Overseas Investment Act works the technicality of the processes and how those processes could be improved for the benefit of both New Zealand vendors and overseas investors. It is up to the Government to decide whether to take that advice. The fact is that under the Overseas Investment Act hundreds of millions of dollars of overseas investment have come into New Zealand—in fact it is billions of dollars. Because New Zealanders do not save enough themselves we are more reliant than many countries on overseas investment in order to provide jobs and incomes for New Zealand families. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How are any conflicts of interest being managed given that the legal firms that the technical advisory group lawyers work for—Chapman Tripp Russell McVeigh Simpson Grierson Bell Gully and Minter Ellison Rudd Watts—have been involved in over 70 cases involving the Overseas Investment Office since they were appointed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is no conflict of interest involved despite the member’s attempts to portray discussions with experts in the field as a conspiracy. When the Government wants to obtain expert advice on the provision of health services it talks to the people who provide the health services. If it wants to obtain expert advice on the provision of education it talks to people in education. When we want to obtain expert advice on the law we talk to people who know something about the law. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a statement made by Minter Ellison Rudd Watts on the appointment of Andrew Monteith to the review group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The second document is the decision summary in the case of Synlait and various unknown overseas persons seeking approval from the Overseas Investment Office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Business of Select Committees 
Appointments 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House establish a committee to consider and report to it on such legislation concerning the referendum on the electoral system and reform to the electoral finance regime that may be referred to it; the committee to consist of 12 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand National 4 New Zealand Labour 3 Green Party 1 ACT New Zealand 1 Maori Party 1 United Future 1 and Progressive 1; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
The bills that are referred to at the start of that motion are both very important bills that come under the general heading of constitutional bills. The MMP referendum which is to be held following the passing of the legislation to enable it will choose a new electoral system for New Zealand and it is important that all of the parties in this House at least have an opportunity to form the bill so that New Zealanders can make the best possible choice for the sort of electoral system that we have in the future. Reform of the electoral finance regime is something that affects all politicians and the general public and it is very very important that we have as much consensus as possible about how those arrangements are to be in place in future. They have been controversial in the past as all of us in this House know. I can report to the House that my colleague the Hon Simon Power the Minister of Justice has been working constructively with parties in the House to ensure that this process will work extremely well. 
I make reference to the latter part of the motion which empowers the select committee to meet at various times outside those provided for in the Standing Orders. It is not intended that this committee will operate in a way that is disrespectful either to the Parliament or to the legislative process. The provisions that are here are largely to accommodate the smaller parties which would have difficulty in getting members to this committee when they were committed to other select committees at the same time. The point has been well made that we do have adequate time particularly during adjournments for this committee to go about its work to ensure that as many New Zealanders as possible have their say on these bills. With those few comments I indicate our party’s support for this motion. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition is in support of Government motion No. 4 to establish a special committee of the House to consider legislation regarding the electoral system and also a subsequent bill for a regime on electoral finance. We concur with the comments made by the Leader of the House that it is important that all parties are represented on this committee; the motion has been worded in a way that reflects that. Anyone observing the make-up of the committee in terms of numbers would see that they are not strictly proportional but on this occasion that matter does not come to the immediate bother of the Opposition such is the way in which the business of this committee will be conducted. 
The Leader of the House quite rightly says that enormous effort is being made by political parties to ensure that there is agreement on these topics. Parliament and our electoral system work best where there is consensus across the House about the rules of engagement about how the system should function. I believe very genuine effort is under way in this respect. 
The Leader of the House mentioned the Minister of Justice Simon Power who has worked very closely with our spokesperson on justice the Hon Lianne Dalziel in order to make sure that the bill that was introduced today the Electoral Referendum Bill has as many points of agreement in it as possible. Clearly there will not be 100 percent agreement but it is hopefully clear to the House that every party is going into this process seeking that total agreement. We would like to be able to report this bill back to the House with a great degree of unanimity across the Parliament which is why it is so important that all parties are represented on the committee. 
Some concern was raised by Labour about the nature of the motion that has been put before the House particularly regarding the ability of the select committee to meet at any time. I was very pleased that in subsequent discussions the Leader of the House has given me assurance and he has just given it to the House that that provision will not be abused—to have the committee meeting morning noon and night at any time. That has been our criticism of other legislation particularly that around Auckland governance. The committee met too often and had to rush through. Mr Twyford will correct me if I am wrong but sometimes meetings were scheduled that lasted 12 hours sometimes on a Saturday. It is not that anyone shies from hard work but it is very hard to try to rush through considering submissions from the public which have been well thought out. There is no possible way that members can listen for 12 hours in a row and remember everything they are told. It is important for the credibility and confidence of the public that this process be handled with great integrity so I am glad that the Leader of the House has given us an assurance that the authority or flexibility that we are likely to vote to this special committee will not be misused in any way. Also I understand that it is not the Government’s intention to have a Minister chair this select committee. It will be chaired by a member of Parliament and I strongly welcome that decision. It is a much better process for a select committee of this nature. 
In closing I make reference to the work that the Parliamentary Service Commission is doing to align the rules for parliamentary expenditure alongside the rules for electoral financing and for the money that can be spent or the way that money can spent promoting electoral referendums. We want to line up the rules that the Parliamentary Service Commission has to follow by way of the Speaker’s directions and the legislation for the referendum and electoral finance. I am very confident we will be able to do that and maintain a consistent definition of “parliamentary purposes” which all fits into this wider topic. 
There is a lot of work to be done to get this matter right but I am very confident that with the goodwill of all the parties in the House we can do it. Once we have got the rules correct we can focus on our policy differences around the different electoral systems that are being promoted in the referendum. If we can make sure that the debate in our country is focused on those issues of substance rather than sniping about issues of process I believe it will result in an excellent debate that will serve the people of the country. Therefore Labour will support the Government’s motion to establish this committee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think I’m developing sleep apnoea. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I was going to finish by giving a bit of praise to the Hon Gerry Brownlee because he has had a particularly rough week but he put a nasty little dig across the Chamber—in the spirit of bipartisanship! It makes me just not want to do it. This is the last chance I will get to wish him a happy Easter so I wish him all the very best in that particular regard. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the motion on behalf of the Greens. The Green Party will be supporting the Government’s motion. We think that it makes a lot of sense to establish a cross-party committee to deal with this incredibly important constitutional issue. Few things are more important than the very nature of our democracy. How we vote in members of Parliament and the very make-up of this Chamber will be determined by the outcome of the process that we are embarking on here today. So we think that it is essential that this matter goes to a cross-party committee. The Greens are of course big supporters of MMP and we have made that very clear all along. MMP is a much fairer system than first past the post and it provides a much fairer representation in the House for women and for Maori Pasifika and Asian people. For those reasons the Greens have been very clear that we support MMP. We also think it is essential that as this is a constitutional process the committee dealing with it has representation from across Parliament and for that reason we will be supporting this motion. 
I also think it is important to put this process into its historical context. The process that we are engaged in here today is part of the grand story of democracy in the Western hemisphere. Democracy in the European tradition and the American tradition has a long history that goes back to I guess Athenian days but in particular to the English Revolution of the 17th century then the American Revolution and the French Revolution all of which have made contributions. I think that the story of our democracy the process of evolution—and it is the process that this motion addresses today—has been a progressive one and MMP has been a progressive step in the evolution of our democracy. We certainly hope that by setting up a cross-party committee and going through a proper process we can make sure that our democracy is deepened rather than turned round to go back to a system such as first past the post which was an extremely undemocratic system. We also recognise that it is tremendously important for the diversity of voices in our country to be represented in this House and that MMP has been tremendously important in doing that. 
We think that the select committee process that is established also to some degree reflects the other conversation that we need to have about our democracy which is that it is not just about voting at elections; it is also about the discussion and the deliberative democracy that happens in a select committee process such as the select committee that is being established here. A democracy does not just start and finish with the ballot box. It is much much more than that; it is a deliberative process. A deliberative democracy requires processes such as this select committee to be established so that people can come along and have their say on what they think about the process that has been set up here for the MMP referendum. In that regard we encourage people to submit to the select committee particularly on the issue of spending caps which has been a controversial one—spending caps on the referendum and whether there should be spending caps. Currently within the legislation there are no spending caps and there are concerns that we could see a rerun of the Peter Shirtcliffe campaign from the last MMP referendum. 
We hope that by setting up a broad-based select committee which this motion does we will encourage the public to make submissions about how they think the referendum on their democracy should be run. At the end of the day this is the people’s democracy. It does not belong to the 122 people in this House or to the Minister; it belongs to the people of New Zealand. We certainly hope that the select committee process that is to be established under this motion will result in large numbers of New Zealanders making submissions on the legislation before us so that they can contribute to the process of the MMP referendum. 
Once again I say we think that MMP is the best system. It is much better than any of the other options on the table. It is a much fairer system than first past the post and produces a much more diverse representation of New Zealanders. We look forward to the ongoing debate and the referendum to come and we are very confident that the people of New Zealand will choose to stay with the fairest and most representative system MMP. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be supporting Government motion No. 4. I have just taken advice from the Clerk who tells me that this debate is about the actual workings of this committee and why it is being established. The ACT Party acknowledges the work that the Hon Simon Power the Minister of Justice has done in talking with all members of this Parliament and we are very pleased to be taking our place on the committee to consider electoral legislation. 
As the co-leader of the Green Party Russel Norman said this process is about democracy and we need to put it in its constitutional or historical place. Russel went on to talk about the great story of Western democracy. I think it is very important that we have cross-party agreement and that we try to reach as much agreement as we can because the last time this process took place there was a great deal of acrimony and there were some damning submissions against the previous Government’s attempt to drive through electoral reform. Who can forget the very famous words of our own Human Rights Commission when it submitted on the Electoral Finance Bill: “This bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.”? I think the Human Rights Commission made a very important submission. It called on the Government to withdraw the Electoral Finance Bill but sadly it was ignored. 
I think it is very important that the process we follow results in citizens being informed. I remember well the debate we had on MMP in 1993. Mr Norman has just referred to the efforts of Mr Shirtcliffe on that occasion. Mr Shirtcliffe is to be congratulated because he sought to inform the public of New Zealand. He sought to inform the public about the issues of MMP and I hope that as the committee is involved in deliberations it can take on those views. 
This committee of course is being established to consider two bills: the bill dealing with the electoral referendum—the bill setting up the referendum for the review of MMP and the electoral system—and the subsequent bill to be considered by this House to do with electoral finance. I only hope that people participate. I hope that the workings of the bill on the electoral referendum that the committee will consider are such that people participate. And I hope that people’s experience with the most recent referendum on smacking does not put them off participating. On the most recent referendum that this country considered 1.5 million New Zealanders took the trouble to vote—1.5 million—and 87 percent of them voted in favour of a change. 
I appreciate that I need to keep my comments on the subject but it is important that the bill the committee deliberates on does not put people off participating. Sadly the record of referendums has not been very good in that regard and in the last referendum some 87 percent of people voted in favour of a change but were ignored. Well they were not totally ignored—I am one of just five MPs who stand up for that 87 percent of those 1.5 million people. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: At the beginning of the member’s presentation he said that this was a narrow debate about the composition of the committee. He outlined very clearly what the scope of his contribution should be and then he proceeded to waver from it. I indicated to him at one time that he should narrow it. He acknowledged that but then he strayed away from the debate. I say to the member that this debate is narrow as he has described. I am prepared to let people have the odd sally on to another subject by way of description but to make it the major part of a presentation to this House is out of order. I ask the member to continue and to stay within the confines of the debate. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker; I will certainly do that. I was referring to the committee’s deliberations or potential deliberations on the electoral referendum bill. 
I now consider the deliberations on the finance bill. Mr Norman referred to the need for the public to be involved. He talked about it being a deliberative process; we want the public of New Zealand to be involved in that process and to make submissions on both of those bills. I encourage the public to make submissions in particular on the bill involving electoral finance because all too often members of this House seek to restrict those deliberations and try to put unreasonable limits on them. I thought that the Attorney-General when speaking this afternoon in question time on behalf of the Minister of Justice put it very very well when he said that we need to balance the public’s interest. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act makes it very clear that freedom of expression—the freedom to be informed and to participate—is a very basic human right and needs to be protected. I am very pleased to think that the Government is having a very open mind towards the laws governing electoral finance. 
The ACT Party supports this motion. We will be taking our seat on the committee. In fact it is currently the ACT Party’s intention that I should represent our party on the committee and I look forward to doing so. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena katou katoa e te Whare. In the Maori Party’s first 3 years in the House we focused on laying down solid policy foundations based on our commitment to kaupapa Maori before entering into a relationship with the Government that included appointment to two ministerial posts. So we are able to bring a unique perspective as the independent Maori voice in Parliament to any debate including a debate on ways to improve the electoral administration system. It is on that basis that we will support this motion to establish a committee to consider legislation concerning the referendum on the electoral system. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Tell us about Paris. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: We expect Maori representation—kia ora George—to be a big issue for the committee as it is for the Maori Party itself particularly given that Maori present as voters on the general roll on the Maori roll and as non-voters as well. Maori people do not all buy into the electoral system hence the phrase “Don’t vote! It only encourages them.” 
For those who do buy into the electoral system there are obstacles that often make them wonder why they do so we are keen to see that change if the Government is serious about involving Maori in the mainstream political process. For example during the 2008 campaign nearly 100000 Maori aged 18 to 35 were not even on the roll which suggests that a major education campaign at wharekura level is critical if the Government is serious about involving Maori in the mainstream political process. We also found during that same campaign that another 47000 Maori had been removed from the roll because their enrolment packs had come back as being undelivered. That was nearly twice the non-Maori figure. Again that is another critical area to be addressed if the Government is serious about involving Maori in the mainstream political process. Clearly there is a need for more research in order to understand why the rates of Maori voter turnout and electoral registration are so much lower than those of non-Maori and there is also a need for more robust strategies specifically targeting Maori and aimed at getting them on the roll and keeping them there if the Government is serious about involving Maori in the mainstream political process. 
Indeed denying Maori the opportunity to vote simply because they have moved is probably a human rights issue so we are keen to investigate other options like the use of Inland Revenue Department numbers drivers’ licences community services cards SuperGold cards and data matching to ensure that those electoral rights are guaranteed to Maori hakoa kei hea ratou e noho ana. Of course once we get them on the roll and get them to agree to stay there we will still face the massive problem of low Maori-voter turnout. It is 62 percent in the Maori seats compared with 80 percent in the general seats. If I may add when we look into the factors that cause low turnout we see to no one’s great surprise that youth and poverty figure highly. So again we will be looking to policies and programmes that will change those factors if the Government is serious about involving Maori in the mainstream political process. 
We also note the conclusions of the 2006 Maori electoral engagement research project which said that the very state of being Maori was a key to the desire development and implementation of any programmes aimed at getting a positive result for Maori. They also noted that there needed to be better training packages before people engaged with Maori communities and that voters wanted more relevant and timely information available at the community level. Clearly a more positive electoral education campaign is needed to encourage Maori to participate in elections including programmes specifically targeting Maori aged 15 to 25 greater education about MMP and electoral process a review of the research about why Maori do not vote and campaigns with a strong message about the importance of enrolment and voting. 
The Maori Party supports any opportunity for a fresh look at the way in which elections are conducted in this country including the long queues for those voting for Maori seats at polling stations the lack of voter information the lack of translators the lack of warmth from electoral officials and the often complete absence of voter packages for those voting for the Maori seats at polling stations. Given how hard it is to get Maori even on the roll nothing is surer than the fact that making them feel worthless about their status when they come to vote is a guarantee that they will never come back again. So again if the Government is serious about involving Maori in the mainstream political process there will need to be greater attention paid to encouraging Maori voters to want to participate. 
The Maori Party has already given some thought to this vexing issue. We are happy to put forward these ideas about Maori electoral participation for the consideration of the House: that all Maori be automatically entered onto the Maori roll at 18 years of age with an option to transfer to the general roll; that the Maori electoral option be changed to allow Maori to change rolls during an election cycle; that electoral data include iwi and hapu to help in the development of tribal planning; that Maori voters be allowed to choose to vote according to their iwi base rather than their residence; and that the Electoral Act be changed so that Te Tai Tonga no longer has to include Wellington as well as the whole of the South Island so that Te Tai Tonga can properly represent Te Wai Pounamu as it always should have been allowed to do. 
The Maori Party will be represented by Rahui Katene on the Electoral Legislation Committee because we see this review as critical to ensuring the right of Maori to actively participate in a system that will have a huge impact on the future of our nation. Kia ora tatou. 
Motion agreed to. 
Unit Titles Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary Provisions 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call to explain to the Committee that I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 112. I say to members that this Supplementary Order Paper—although it looks like a very considerable Supplementary Order Paper; it is quite a few pages in length—is mainly very technical and minor in its overall impact. Many of the recommended changes are merely corrections to typographical and cross-referencing errors. Some of the recommended changes are drafting changes that reword or re-order or even move around clauses. All of the proposed amendments are consistent with the policy intent of the bill and with the changes recommended by the Social Services Committee. The committee made some quite good recommendations about changes and I understand that those corrections have been made. I hope that Moana Mackey from Labour has had her assurance about what those changes are from the officials because I am happy for the changes to be made available to her. In particular the majority of the proposed amendments ensure that people who need to use the processes in the bill have a clear idea of what they need to do and how they are required to do it. 
The proposed amendments also respond to issues raised by the Retirement Villages Association and the New Zealand Holiday Ownership Council where recommendations made by the select committee had not been fully implemented in what came back. Examples of changes were in management and governance amendments. The only significant amendment to the management and governance provisions was made to the way in which votes were counted for ordinary resolution. The select committee recommended that votes for an ordinary resolution should be counted according to ownership interests in addition to there being one vote per unit. This recommendation was not fully implemented but the amendment that has been put in the Supplementary Order Paper will achieve that implementation. So that is just a brief outline of what the Supplementary Order Paper is trying to do. It is mainly technical and minor. 
The Unit Titles Bill is wide ranging in bringing the whole unit titles legislation up to date. When the first legislation of this nature was passed most people had blocks of units that were three or four units big. Blocks were very small clustery things; now we have massive buildings in units. So this bill brings into modern parlance things like the duties and powers of body corporates and body corporate managers. It enables the making of joint decision-making body corporate processes to be more manageable and it provides incentives for participation by unit owners. The bill also has a disputes resolution process mandatory disclosure and new ownership structures. 
One matter that I think is important from another portfolio of mine from the portfolio of building and construction is mandatory long-term maintenance schedules. What happens with these big buildings is that tenants move into them but no one puts up a maintenance schedule with a funding plan of how that maintenance is to be done. Then 20 years later places are in a complete state of disrepair but no one is prepared to stump up or to say how they should have been maintained and who should have paid. 
There are a lot of really good things in this bill. I know that the legislation had its gestation when Labour was in Government and that we have carried on with the major ideas in it. I do not believe that this will be one of the pieces of legislation over which a big fight will occur in the Chamber but I am happy to let members go ahead with questions and try to get the Committee stage through. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call on Part 1 of the Unit Titles Bill. I thank the Acting Minister of Housing for his comments. I think he outlined the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper as they relate to the entire bill not just to Part 1. 
Labour would like to put on record our disappointment that we were not given access to the Supplementary Order Paper earlier. I thank the Minister for allowing me to discuss it with the officials and with staff from his office but having received this Supplementary Order Paper only at question time today it has been very very difficult for me to go through what is very technical legislation and make sure that we are happy with everything in it. I have had a talk with the officials who have assured me that these are minor technical amendments. I note that many a career has been ended by minor technical amendments but that is all right—I am prepared to take the officials’ word that these amendments merely clarify the intentions of the Social Services Committee at that time. Labour will be supporting them. However I note that the date on the Supplementary Order Paper is 9 days ago yet it was made available to the Labour Party—and to other parties I assume—only today. I put on record my disappointment given that we are trying to be very conducive to getting non-controversial legislation through the House and that we have supported this bill all the way through. 
I do not intend to labour on Part 1 for very long. It is comprised mainly of definitions. However I will make a comment. There is a major change in the legislation to the definition of a “principal unit” in response to some of the submitters who came along to the Social Services Committee some of whom perhaps did not get exactly what they wanted out of this. The issue we had was whether open spaces could be considered a principal unit under this legislation. Certainly the existing legislation the Unit Titles Act—as the Minister in the chair the Acting Minister of Housing has said it is greatly outdated and was written a long time ago—was very unclear as to whether open spaces could be issued as a principal unit and sold independently of any buildings. 
We were alerted to examples of vineyards orchards and marinas where the subdivision had occurred under a unit title model as opposed to under a land subdivision model which clearly was not the intention of the Unit Titles Act. We had to make a call as to whether we would allow that to continue. Some submitters thought that it should be allowed to occur. In the end the committee decided that in any future developments it should not be allowed to happen. The one example that we thought merited being allowed to remain as a principal unit was car-parks. Clearly car-parks are sold on their own as principal units and we saw no harm in allowing that to continue. But in all those other areas we felt that it was important that open spaces go back to being a land subdivision issue not a unit title issue. 
This is the area where I need a little guidance maybe from other members who will be speaking on this part as to the status of the principal units that have already been created and that are open spaces which in the future will not be allowed to occur. As I understand it they will remain as principal units. They will not be retrospectively voided by this change that we are making today. I see the Minister nodding and I hope that is the case; certainly that was the intent of the select committee. This particular part took up a lot of the committee’s time and I acknowledge to the number of submitters who were adamant that the open spaces should be allowed to occur that we listened to their submissions and we took them under advisement. In the end we thought it was perhaps pushing the unit titles structure into an area where it had previously not been intended to move. In the past open spaces had been allowed to be issued as principal units but that probably was never the intention of Parliament when it passed this legislation many years ago. 
We made a number of other changes to the definitions in Part 1 for the most part simply to clarify the intent of Parliament and the intent of the select committee to make sure that there would be no further confusion as to what we meant in these definitions. In saying that Part 1 with the exclusion of the definition of a “principal unit” was relatively straightforward and I will be looking to take calls on further parts when we get into more of the detail of the bill. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and take a call this afternoon on the Unit Titles Bill. Firstly I would like to sincerely thank the officials who supported us with this bill through the select committee process and also the submitters who came to the Social Services Committee and made submissions. A lot of them brought some very relevant points that we considered in the select committee deliberations and they influenced what we did with the bill and what has come forward to the House. I thank them for their submissions. They were very powerful submissions. We realise that many of the submitters put a lot of work effort and time into their submissions and no doubt cost as well as the costs to come here to make their submissions. We appreciate what they have done towards making this bill the way it is today. 
National went into the election on a platform of streamlining and simplifying regulations and this bill is just one more way of achieving that. 
Moana Mackey 
: Katrina this was our bill. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Labour began looking at this bill in 2004 but it is National that has delivered it in 2010. The bill is before the House now and is being presented by a great Government that once again is delivering on its promises. The initial Unit Titles Act 1972 was designed for small residential flats and was applied to a range of complex large and mixed-use developments. In 2007 there were 16500 developments and 95000 units. As members can see times have changed and it looks like over half a million people will be living in apartments town houses and high-rise buildings within 50 years so it important that we get this legislation right. The framework will stand true for a period of time. The bill will provide broader and more adaptable ways of setting up and managing multi-unit living both now and in the foreseeable future which is important. 
The bill has attracted enormous support throughout the sector and the industry. There has been consultation and feedback has been highly positive in terms of the direction of the policy initiatives that have been put in place. A range of problems were identified. They included issues with joint decision-making building maintenance financial management governance of developments information disclosure consumer protection and dispute resolution. Those issues have all been addressed in this bill. 
One thing I want to touch on is the definition of a “principal unit” in Part 1 which is what we are debating in the Committee stage at the moment. The issue was that the definition was too narrow and would restrict some current use of unit titles such as car parks. This issue was emphasised by the New Zealand Property Group in particular. The further issue in respect of the definition of a “principal unit” was whether the ability to create open space units would be retained although many car parks would still be allowed to be created. So there was a change that was needed. The definition of “principal unit” would be widened to include car parks whether or not they comprised open space. The recommendation did not include changes that would enable other forms of open space units to be created. When we are talking about definitions it is important that we get those right because they influence everything else going forward. 
The other little area I would like to touch on in this part of the debate is time-share developments. The New Zealand Holiday Ownership Council supported the bill but said it needed new definitions for time-shares. The Lake Edge Resort body corporate and Richard Martin made very strong very accurate formal submissions on this matter. They said that this legislation did not intend to impact them but in fact it did; they had slipped through the net. Because of those submissions the bill had to deal with the specific operating procedures of time-share developments. If this provision was not included it would have made running time-share resorts very difficult moving forward. The committee addressed that issue specifically in regard to the voting quorum and the body corporate’s ability to levy. We inserted a new schedule to provide specific modifications for time-share developments that are unit title developments. Other amendments were put in place as necessary for holiday homes and time-shares. It was interesting to consider the bill at the Social Services Committee. I look forward to talking about it further on during this debate. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I will make a couple of comments at the opening stage of the Committee stage of the Unit Titles Bill. I wish to respond in part to comments made at the outset by the Minister in the chair the Acting Minister of Housing. Even before that I want to draw it to the attention of the Committee—because the previous speaker Katrina Shanks seems to have forgotten this—that this legislation originated from the previous Labour Government. In fact it was introduced in May 2008 by the Hon Shane Jones who was the Minister for Building and Construction at the time. Why it has taken such a long time for the new Government to action this legislation is beyond me. The protestations from across the Chamber that this is a busy Government absolutely belie the fact that it was entirely possible for this legislation to be dealt with in an efficient way through the Social Services Committee. Again I say the reason why it has taken such a long time to emerge from the committee and get to this point in the legislative process is a mystery. 
Secondly referring to the comments of the Minister in the chair I would like to remind him of the origins of the expression now said with some humour “minor technical amendments”. If I remember this correctly—and I am happy to be corrected by those who have been here much longer than me—the origins of that phrase came from the fourth Labour Government when Stan Rodger was proposing the State sector bill in 1986 which he referred to as a “minor technical amendment”. That went down in the annals of Parliament as one of the understatements of all time. I remember writing a 20-page submission on behalf of the Labour Party at the time opposing the legislation. 
I will return to the point. The point is that we have just been delivered Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson which I understand was ready some 9 days ago and as far as Part 1 is concerned it has a number of amendments that we are advised are minor technical amendments. Although I am happy to proceed on the basis of the advice that the officials have given us—and they have assured my colleague Moana Mackey that they are indeed minor technical amendments—it is just a cautionary tale to recite some of that ancient history from the fourth Labour Government which caused it never to do such a thing again. Although there is some humour in that for the Minister in the chair I still wish to make the point about minor technical amendments being brought into the Committee at short notice when it would seem that the Minister had about 9 days to advise us of them. We would like to make sure that the process has some integrity around it and that the amendments are in fact minor technical amendments. 
With reference to Part 1 the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 112 amends clauses 3(a) 4 5(1) 5(2)(a) 5(2)(b) 5B(3) and 6A(b). All of those clauses are in Part 1 of the bill. 
As my colleague has said the Opposition is happy to support this legislation. However it is important to note two things. The first is that the origins of this legislation lay with the previous Labour Government which was trying at that time to ensure that the Unit Titles Act was updated to address contemporary building requirements. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 The Unit Titles Bill as noted earlier was introduced into the House by the Hon Shane Jones. I think it was taken over by Phil Heatley who looked after it for a while and now the Hon Maurice Williamson is the Minister in charge of the bill. 
Although the Labour Party goes along with the bill quite willingly I have to say that the process has been really poor. The Social Services Committee looked at the bill came up with its report and away went the officials. Nine days ago the Government knew what amendments were going to go into this bill—9 days ago. But of course the Opposition did not get them until the day that the Committee of the whole House started its consideration of the bill. 
We had promises from John Key when he went around the country electioneering about the things National was going to change— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And Tim Macindoe. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. Mr McClay looks away; he is putting his hand up. The trouble is that things have not changed. I know that when Labour was in Government sometimes we did those things but everything was going to change under National. Things were going to be different. 
We have a pile of amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 112. The amendments to clause 5(1) include a new definition of a “unit plan”. That is quite important. 
The Act that this legislation replaces the Unit Titles Act was passed in 1972. I think things have changed quite markedly since that time. The building industry the style of housing and the style of units that people live in are far different from what they were back in 1972. 
Todd McClay 
: You’ve noticed have you? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes I have noticed. 
Paul Quinn 
: Did you notice the leaky housing problem? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes I remember leaky houses. Houses were built using untreated timber approved by a National Government. That was its legislation and that member should not forget that. 
But when we get back to what this bill is about and when we look at the process I think we see that the Government should acknowledge that it is guilty for not having gone about it properly. When there is goodwill on both sides of the House for legislation the quickest way to wreck that goodwill is to try to be secretive until the last minute. That is what this Government has done. That is not good. If it wants people to support legislation and to work in a positive way it has to bring people into the picture a lot sooner. The National Government must bring the Opposition and other parties into the picture sooner. 
I thank the Hon Maurice Williamson because he made his officials available to brief our spokesperson on housing Moana Mackey and I think that is fine. But that was only one small step. We needed much more than that. I think the officials were put in a very bad light which was not their fault but because the Government did not do its job. Obviously we will have a lot to say about a lot of other things in Part 1 but I believe that the Acting Minister of Housing should answer those questions and tell the Committee why it took so long for him to make sure the Supplementary Order Paper was available. Why did that happen? Was it a printing problem? Was it a deliberate move by the National Government? Was the Government too busy dealing with other things such as mines and wrecking conservation land? I think the Minister should get up take a call and tell the Committee why it did not let the Opposition see the Supplementary Order Paper much earlier. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call on the Unit Titles Bill at this stage of its movement through the House. I start by recognising the very hard work that was put in by officials of the Social Services Committee and also the officials who were seconded to the committee and gave us great advice. I think it is also important to recognise that both sides of the House worked very well on this legislation during the select committee’s deliberations. 
I also recognise that it was the previous Labour Government that first brought forward this idea and introduced it to the House. The very good news for members of the New Zealand public is they will not have to wait 11 years until it actually enters into law. We have an Acting Minister of Housing the Hon Maurice Williamson who has had the portfolio for less than a month I think and what progress we have seen! The bill went straight into the House and it will become law very very soon. 
The Unit Titles Bill is of course a technical piece of legislation and it is important that we get it right. I recognise members opposite for so graciously deciding to read the Supplementary Order Paper today. It sounds as though they have no difficulties or issues with it so it is good that they are supporting this legislation. 
I want to speak about only one aspect of change in Part 1 and that concerns time-share resorts. Richard Martin from the Lake Edge Resort in Taupo made contact with me very early in the process and of course the very hard-working and good MP for Taupo Louise Upston was aware that there was a piece of legislation that could have an effect upon time-sharing. Mr Martin made a number of concerns known to me and other members of the committee and he put in a submission. 
Largely the concerns were that if the Unit Titles Bill was to go through in its current form and time-share resorts were included then it would be near on impossible for time-share resorts to make any decisions at all. 
Let us think of a resort in Taupo where there are 10 units 52 weeks per unit and 520 possible owners. A quorum of 75 percent would mean that 375 people would need to turn up to a meeting. The select committee looked at that listened to the concerns and made changes and I think this is good for business because New Zealand and tourism could do with a bit more investment in time-share accommodation particularly in my electorate as well as in Taupo. 
I commend the bill to the Committee. I think we have worked very well at the select committee and once the bill becomes law there will be much greater certainty around unit title developments in New Zealand. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Unit Titles Bill. I have to agree with our spokesperson on housing Moana Mackey and other Opposition speakers that there is a bit of concern and it has been laid on the table with regard to the last-minute introduction of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 112. I appreciate the fact that the Acting Minister of Housing the Hon Maurice Williamson has given Moana the opportunity to meet with his officials and I also appreciate the fact that he has had to take over the portfolio from the previous Minister of Housing recently for reasons that are publicly known. But the fact remains that when we consider the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Government today—and I understand that it was ready 9 days ago—we see that it is 13 pages long. 
We have already heard from other speakers that this is a very technical bill. When quickly going through the Supplementary Order Paper I have to wonder whether the people who made submissions to this bill who had genuine concerns about the way we were modernising the Unit Titles Act of 1972 would have had the opportunity to make comments on what is now being amended by the Government. 
I look at the Supplementary Order Paper and I see that the amendment to clause 7B(5) is to omit this subclause and substitute the following subclause: “If the body corporate requests in writing the authority undertaking the public works must at its own expense prepare the new unit plan or amendment to a unit plan as the case may be.” On the face of it I ask myself what it means. I ask whether it refers to local territorial authorities and whether it covers all local territorial authorities. There is the case of Auckland which will be a super-city in the next few months. I ask whether that fact should not be spelt out in that particular clause. Should the local authority pay for public works as it states or should the body corporate pay? Those sorts of questions need to be raised. 
I note that the Minister said the amendments were very technical but it is for that reason that people like me are nervous about the substance of those particular amendments. The changes to wording in the series of amendments on pages 5 and 6 are significant and there are more significant changes later on in the Supplementary Order Paper. The reason I have raised this point is that we must consider that this legislation is the result of a major review that began in 2003 undertaken by the previous Labour Government. After that particular review this legislation was introduced into this House by the Hon Shane Jones in May 2008. We acknowledge that significant work was undertaken and it was done simply because we needed to ensure that we would do things right. 
The representative from Auckland and I have some nervousness about this Supplementary Order Paper because a lot of legislation has been rushed through in recent times particularly with regard to the Auckland super-city. A lot of legislation has been rushed through. It has been our experience in our electorates that whenever Governments rush through things of this nature there are bound to be mistakes. Who ends up paying for those mistakes? It is the public. I have to say that is of concern at this particular time. 
I do not know why it is difficult for members on that side of the Chamber to acknowledge the fact that significant work was undertaken by a Labour Minister and a Labour Government. I want to put that view on the table. It is OK for this Government to take credit for this bill and we are supporting it but it also needs to be acknowledged that significant work was undertaken by some people in Labour. 
I finish off by highlighting again that some other amendments on pages 10 and 12 contain significant changes to wording. The way that the Government has introduced this particular Supplementary Order Paper today at the last minute before the Committee stage does not bode well for the spirit of cooperation. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Unit title developments 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call to support the Unit Titles Bill as an Auckland MP. As many speakers have already noted in many ways Auckland will be most affected by this legislation. The growth of multi-united residential areas in particular is a feature of the Auckland landscape. When we look forward to 2050 or 2060 it is estimated that about 500000 people in Auckland—about a quarter of the population—will be living in the units this bill is addressing. So it is very appropriate and very timely that we are addressing it today. It is 38 years since the original Act was passed in 1972. As previous speakers have said this piece of legislation was begun under Labour and its passage is continuing in a cooperative spirit under the current Government. 
I will speak on a couple of areas in Part 2. A couple of the real improvements to the legislation come through the fact that a body corporate will own common property. That is important because it basically enables the body corporate to act on behalf of all the other unit holders and for the good of the development as a whole. This bill very much updates what was there before. It defines “common property”; it broadens the definition to include building elements that will affect more than just one unit so in a sense the corporate owns the common property. What that means—and I think it is important—is that if an apartment block for example needs a new lift a roof repair or a piece of major reconstruction or change that will cost a large amount of money there is a responsible body that is able to take care of that repair or redevelopment. That is very important because otherwise it would fall on just one of the unit holders to have to do that but this way the cost is shared and the benefits to the apartment block in this case are shared across all the units. 
Another provision that is useful is that large staged or mixed-use title developments will be able to be layered. That means that if there is for example a multi-use type of development we are able to have a smaller subsidiary group which will be able to have its own body corporate to manage its own interests. It is very important for a mixed-use building—perhaps a car park a shopping centre and an apartment block together—that people who have a common interest in a particular aspect of the operation can exercise those rights. So it really does protect the rights of people particularly people who have been badly affected individually by decisions that have been made and it gives them a great deal of protection within the body corporate. 
One other thing that I will touch on is the fact that body corporate decisions no longer need to be unanimous. I think that is a good provision. It eliminates the possibility of many of the decisions that need to be taken by the body corporate being held up by non-resident owners who often object to something that will benefit all the people in a particular apartment block. The change to the legislation means that the great majority of the people can benefit. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 2. 
Paul Quinn 
: Just one? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No more than one I tell Mr Quinn; the excitement is only just beginning. 
Part 2 is a substantial part of the bill. The Social Services Committee certainly received a number of submissions on it and again I would like to address some of the concerns that submitters raised and give some of the reasons why the select committee dealt with the issues in the way it did. 
The first issue concerned clauses 28 to 31 which cover ownership and utility interest. We had a large number of submissions on that issue. The ownership interest is the interest that is assigned by a registered valuer to the principal and accessory units in a unit title development and it is based on a unit’s relative capital value. That ownership interest can be used to determine a range of things such as the owners’ share of common property or their voting share in any unit title development—so it is obviously very important—as well as any contribution they make to the capital improvement fund. 
The second part of that is the utility interest which is also assigned to principal and accessory units and in this particular area of interest the body corporate can vote to change the calculation of who pays what to a more fair and reasonable apportionment of the costs in that unit title development and to assess unit owners’ contributions for operational and maintenance expenses. Under this piece of legislation both of those interests may be assessed at any time as long as 3 years has elapsed since the last reassessment. 
I think it is fair to say that most submitters were generally supportive of what the bill was attempting to achieve there and they supported any moves to apportion operational and maintenance expenses more fairly amongst the owners of unit titles as well as to have time periods provided for reassessment. Obviously some submitters thought that 3 years was too long and some thought 3 years was too short but in the end the select committee had to balance the need not to put too much burden on a body corporate to be continually reassessing the apportionment of those costs with the need for those reassessments to be updated regularly because the costs would change over time. 
Some submitters raised the question about whether it was fair that unit title owners whose units attracted a higher capital value should shoulder more of the expense given that they benefited from having that higher capital value during resale. That was something we considered. Some submitters felt that there was not enough regulation of how that reassessment would be calculated. They wanted to see far more stringent rules put around how the reassessment could be calculated and what kinds of tests had to be met to make sure that that was done fairly. Some people thought that after the deposit of the initial unit plan no more assessment should be allowed—that once people had bought into a unit title development and had been told what their costs would be then those costs should not be allowed to be reassessed because they were essentially the costs that people had bought into. Those were all the kinds of issues that the select committee had to consider under advisement. 
We were given lots of examples where people felt that the legislation had been unfairly used. One of the main examples was about who had to pay for the maintenance of a roof. Should it be the people who own the top units should people in the top units have to pay more and the people in the rest pay a little bit less or should everyone pay the same? Well clearly everyone benefits from having an adequate roof on the top of a unit title development but those are the kinds of issues that bodies corporate will need to come to grips with and we needed to provide a framework in which they can do that with the utmost flexibility according to the wide range of unit title developments that exist in New Zealand. It is incredibly important that bodies corporate are able to apportion those expenses fairly and it is fair to say that in the past some of them have felt that they have not been able to do that under the existing legislation. One of the examples that officials gave us was of the situation where there is a lift an elevator in a building. Should the people on the ground floor who do not benefit from having that lift in the building have to pay for its maintenance or should everyone in the unit title development— 
Hone Harawira 
: Just riveting Moana; just riveting! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know it is riveting. I say to Mr Harawira that he can always leave. He does not have to be here if I am boring him—again. 
Paul Quinn 
: Don’t get personal. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am not getting personal. He just said that he finds this boring; it is actually incredibly important legislation I tell Mr Quinn that affects hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. It took the select committee a long time to go through the legislation technically so if Mr Harawira finds it boring he can leave. He does not need to stay in the Chamber. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: He’s done it before—gone walkabout. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: He has done that before as my colleague said; it is what he did on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. I believe that submitters who raised genuine concerns deserve to hear why we did not address some of the concerns they raised and the reasons for that. That is why I am talking about their concerns I tell Mr Harawira but he can feel free to leave the Chamber at any point—or stand to make a contribution. 
Those were the issues we had to weigh up and I believe that the select committee came to a fair and reasonable position. We did not want to encumber bodies corporate with too much regulation and be overly prescriptive because of the range of bodies corporate out there. 
That leads me to clauses 61 to 66 which deal with the establishment and constitution of bodies corporate. At the moment a body corporate is automatically created once a unit plan is deposited and the body corporate as I have said is responsible for a range of maintenance functions for the common property and for the whole development. A number of submitters from very small developments felt that because of their developments’ size it was unfair that they should be made to form bodies corporate. That is something we considered at length but the fact is that under this legislation we have to do it this way; otherwise we undermine the whole thing. A body corporate is automatically created once a unit plan is deposited; if the developer selects to subdivide the land under unit title law then that is just the way it is. People buy into a unit title development knowing that and we on this side of the Chamber think that that is fair enough. A body corporate at any time later can decide to cancel its unit plan and re-subdivide the land re-subdivide the buildings and move to an alternative scheme. That is an option available to a body corporate later on. But we certainly considered the issues and concerns raised by members from very small developments. 
One of the purposes of this legislation is to reduce the costs on bodies corporate overall and they will be reduced. Members of small developments who had concerns about the costs being overly burdensome on them because there were so few people to shoulder those costs can take heart that costs will be reduced because of this legislation. As well developments that comprise nine or fewer units will not be required to form committees and they may opt out of auditing requirements. So the legislation does allow certain compromises for small developments but overall if a developer deposits a unit plan and decides to create a subdivision under a unit title then a body corporate will be formed and even small developments will need to go alongside that. 
The rights and responsibilities of unit holders are set out in clauses 67 to 71 and I alluded earlier to the fact that submitters wanted us to be clearer about the circumstances under which a body corporate was responsible and the circumstances under which an individual unit holder was responsible. So we amended clause 122 by adding a subclause that makes it clear under what circumstances the body corporate will be responsible for repairs and maintenance and under what circumstances the unit holder will be responsible. Unit owners must repair and maintain their own units so that they do not cause harm to other unit holders in a development. In general when the property is common then it is the responsibility of the body corporate to recover money expended for repairs except in the situation where a unit holder has caused damage to the property by his or her actions. In that case that unit owner will be held responsible. That was not clear in the earlier legislation and again we heard a number of cases—a number of horror stories actually—where the lack of clarity in the existing law had put a financial burden on people who clearly were not responsible for those elements. 
Again one of the most important aspects of clause 122 is that it makes it clear who is responsible for the expenditure that is carried out in a body corporate. I think we have managed to do that in a way that is flexible enough to encompass the range of body corporate sizes and structures that exist in New Zealand without putting too unfair a regulatory burden on them and without putting in place strict regulatory systems that some may find too inflexible to deal with in their own personal situation. As I said we have amended the legislation to make it far clearer particularly when there is that interaction between the unit owner and the body corporate about where exactly the responsibility lies for expenditure. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I take a call on the particular clauses in Part 2 of the Unit Titles Bill that deal with bodies corporate—that is clauses 80 and following. I address them because that issue was one of the inspirations I suppose for some of the amendments to this legislation in the first instance when it came to the previous Labour Government out of the review that had been called for by us in 2003. By the time the legislation emerged and the review had been conducted in a comprehensive way and then considered carefully it was very clear from the numbers of submissions and representations from people that the experience of those who were locked into body corporate arrangements—apartments in Auckland and elsewhere—had proliferated over the last 10 or so years. These people having been locked into those body corporate arrangements found themselves held hostage by the requirements for bodies corporate to make unanimous decisions and the movement of everybody jointly in order to receive any benefit from joint decision-making. 
The counting of votes is outlined in clauses 84 and 85. I do not need to rehearse the words on the page; suffice it to say that in circumstances where one party in the body corporate held out against improvements that were going to benefit everybody because that party had to shoulder an equal portion of the financial burden of that improvement then nobody could benefit because of that party’s holding out. These provisions in the bill we are currently debating are useful improvements. Although there are still protections around bodies corporate that relate to the number of people who must be present in order for a general meeting of the body corporate to be quorate and that require that a majority must be voting in an ordinary resolution in the body corporate one really important change is that special resolutions of a meeting of the body corporate do not require 100 percent agreement but may be passed by 75 percent of the eligible voters. Only the vast majority is now required so no longer is it possible for people to be held hostage by recalcitrant members of a body corporate who do not see the collective good as something to which they should contribute. This is an improvement and it is significant when we think of the numbers of apartment blocks that have proliferated in the last decade in particular in Auckland. It now becomes essential that we have this kind of provision which is a wee bit more flexible. 
The other two clauses that I wish to refer to in this part are to do with the long-term maintenance plan and the long-term maintenance fund. The Minister who was in the chair earlier the Acting Minister of Housing referred to these clauses in his opening comments and they are very sensible. They are important improvements because again they relate to the duration of somebody’s investment in one of these multi-unit apartment buildings. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise along with my colleagues to support the Unit Titles Bill and will address my comments specifically to clause 122 but let me join my colleagues in making some general statements. 
This bill is a long-overdue modernisation of the law in relation to unit titles. As David Shearer said it is particularly so in Auckland where we are seeing huge growth in the number of people living not in the half-gallon quarter-acre pavlova paradise but in multi-unit dwellings townhouses and apartment buildings. This is a long-overdue change to the rules that will make it much easier for people to own property and live together in apartment blocks. It is not just about the convenience for people who are living in these dwellings but we must make it easier and more desirable to live in multi-unit dwellings; we can develop our cities in medium-density and high-density ways. 
I will comment particularly on the issue of leaky homes which is something that has bedevilled this country for almost a decade. During the time of the previous Labour Government members on the opposite side of the House had a great deal of sport. They campaigned up and down the country raising expectations about how easy it would be to solve the problem of leaky homes. They generated very unrealistic expectations amongst owners of leaky homes and the New Zealand public generally that a National Government would solve the problem. A National Government would come and fix it would remedy the problem and would do it at the stroke of a pen. Well I think the Acting Minister of Housing is finding that the problem is a lot more difficult and intractable than I imagine colleagues like Nick Smith thought when they were campaigning on this issue in Opposition. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the national cost of the leaky homes problem is in the region of $11.5 billion. Some estimates go as high as $20 billion and up to two-thirds of that burden rests in Greater Auckland. 
I will move now to make some direct comments about clause 122. Members will see that clause 122 is particularly relevant to the leaky homes problem. The deficiencies in the legislation governing multi-unit dwellings have created a judicial and bureaucratic nightmare for the owners of leaky homes. It has been enormously difficult for people to get a resolution of the problems of leaky homes because of the current rules which are a nightmare. I am sure there would be very few members in this Parliament who have not been approached by members of the public in their electorates and elsewhere with heart-rending tales. Often they are people who live in multi-unit dwellings who have been unable to get their apartments or townhouses repaired because of disputes with other members of the body corporate. 
If we put politics aside I think we would all agree that we need to move beyond litigation with the leaky homes problem. We have to find solutions that are about fixing and repairing dwellings and helping people solve the problems. It is very clear that the courts have not been able to deliver timely and cost-effective results for New Zealanders affected by this problem. There will always be arguments about fairness because of the difficulty of apportioning liability amongst the different players but we must get to the point of repairing the houses. 
Clause 122 is I think an unambiguously good and constructive contribution to solving this problem. It takes a common-sense and pragmatic approach. The clause imposes an obligation on body corporates to maintain repair or renew all building elements and infrastructure in a building that relate to or serve more than one unit. It defines very broadly what a building element is and that it can include external and internal components or any parts of a building and land that are necessary to the structural integrity of the building. Obviously this can include roofs balconies decks cladding and other things but it certainly includes the exterior of buildings. I think this is a common-sense resolution of an issue that has been at the crux of a heck of a lot of litigation in recent years. When there is a leaky building problem or a weathertight problem that affects say the roof or the exterior wall but immediately affects only the unit title immediately adjacent to the leak no longer will that person be solely responsible for fixing the problem because it should be the responsibility of the body corporate. 
There has been litigation in this area. In  
Young v Body Corporate 12006 
 the High Court took a pretty common-sense approach ruling that the body corporate would and should be allowed to contribute to costs. But in the Sunset Terraces case the High Court found the opposite and took a very literal and hard-line approach. The judge said that there was a clear distinction between individual responsibility for individual units and the body corporate being solely responsible for common property. So clause 122 really follows the approach that the High Court took in the Young case. I think this is a practical fair and pragmatic contribution to solving the problem of leaky homes. It is very worthwhile. 
I will finish with a question that I would like to pose to the Acting Minister of Housing and hopefully he will be able to take a call when he is back in the chair and answer it. The Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand which members will know is one of the most active advocates for the owners of leaky homes posed the question that my colleague Maryan Street made some comments about and that is to ask what amounts to a fair voting threshold. In the bill we see that special resolutions can be passed by a 75 percent majority of those in attendance but for those in attendance the quorum can be as low as 25 percent of the unit title owners. By my calculation that means that a special resolution could be passed by as little as 19 percent of the unit title owners. I know that the bill needs to solve the problem of hold-outs and I think that Maryan Street made the case for that very well but my question is why 75 percent of 25 percent. What is the basis for that calculation? I would be interested to know whether the Minister has a view about whether 19 percent of the unit title owners is a sufficient number for the passing of a special resolution. Thank you very much. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a final call to address two areas that I think are important and need to be commented on. One area is the issue of long-term maintenance regimes which the Acting Minister of Housing alluded to in his opening comments. This was an area where we received a large number of submissions and it was probably one of the more contentious parts of the Unit Titles Bill. I think it is incumbent on this Committee to explain to the members of the public why the Social Services Committee went down the route that it did. 
This legislation originally had a mandatory long-term maintenance plan requirement and a mandatory requirement to create a fund to pay for that long-term maintenance plan. We received a large number of submissions that expressed support for the mandatory regime and we received a large number of submissions that opposed it. Although all submitters were supportive of the concept of long-term planning and saving the matter on which we had contention was about whether a body corporate should be forced to do that or left to its own devices to do it. The mischief I guess that led to these clauses being put into the legislation was that in the current situation the body corporate is not required to and often does not plan in advance for the repairs and maintenance of parts of the building. Where there is significant capital development that needs to be done it can mean a one-off charge to residents that is unaffordable and that causes them enormous anxiety. We then have the situation that my colleague Maryan Street referred to the situation when people hold out on their vote. We have changed that voting threshold in relation to the times when someone will say “I know that the roof needs replacing.” or “The outside needs repainting or re-cladding but I simply cannot afford this cost; therefore I am going to vote against it.” One of the things we have tried to do is put in place a requirement to make bodies corporate think longer term and allow a fund to be set up that saves for these developments that will have to happen over time in the life of a building so that unit owners are not confronted with large one-off levies that they refuse to pay cannot pay or struggle to pay. 
We looked at three main options for what we could do. The first option was that we could stick with what we were going to do which was that the long-term maintenance plan and the fund would both be mandatory. The second option was that we would make the long-term maintenance plan mandatory and the fund would also be mandatory but we would include an ability to opt out by special resolution of the body corporate. The third option was that we would make both the maintenance plan and the fund mandatory but both would have that opt-out provision by special resolution of the body corporate. 
I think we went down the middle route by saying that the bodies corporate should be required to have a long-term plan—we are talking about 10 years here. Bodies corporate should be required to plan long term they should be required to have a fund but we would allow bodies corporate to opt out by special resolution of the bodies corporate if they felt that it was ridiculous that they were being required to save large amounts of money. Again that comes back to the entire reason for this legislation which is that the range of developments that are currently covered by unit titles law are so diverse that we need legislation that is flexible. I think that that was a very very good decision by the select committee. We will require maintenance plans to be there and we will require the funds to be there. But in those unit title developments where the owners decide in fact that they do not need to be saving so much for whatever reason or that they could do it in some other way then they will be able to do that. I think we have found a good compromise there. 
The only other issue I will raise in Part 2—and there were a large number of issues in this part but I certainly do not want to delay the passage of this legislation—is an issue about easements that was raised with me. It was raised with me specifically by someone who was sitting there listening to the debate on unit titles and heard no one mention easements. It was an issue of extreme importance to that person. So if the person is still out there listening to this debate on the Unit Titles Bill then I say that I am going to talk about easements. I thank the officials for their advice on this matter. The question that I was asked— 
Chris Tremain 
: They’ll be gripping their seat as we speak. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —I tell Mr Tremain that he can even get my  
Hansard 
 later and relive this experience—concerns the issue where private owners have an easement over a unit title development and the only way they can get to their properties is through that easement. So they are not part of the unit title development; they do not have any rights on that body corporate but they have an easement and they are not able to get to their property without that easement being there. 
Clauses 48 and 49 of the legislation deal with easements. They make it clear that the deposit of a unit plan has no effect on any easement or covenant to which the base land is subject or on any easement or covenant that is pertinent to the base land. I have spoken to officials about that and they have assured me that where an easement currently exists that right would be upheld. I also asked them what would happen to an easement allowed on land not in a unit title development and the land subsequently went into unit title development. I am assured that even though that situation is not covered by this legislation specifically it is covered by the Land Transfer Act. Again the right of that easement is there and permission would be needed from the people who relied on that easement in order for it to be taken away. I thank the officials for their advice on this matter and with that I will sit down. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Special provisions relating to leasehold land 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 3 of the Unit Titles Bill this evening. I was speaking when I spoke last about the 75 percent and 25 percent provisions—the change in the threshold—in terms of coming to an agreement with the body corporate. I was saying I thought that that was a good decision in the sense that it allowed and enabled the body corporate to move forward and make decisions about property without needing absolutely everybody to reach a unanimous decision because essentially one owner could have held up the entire process. I acknowledge my colleague Phil Twyford’s question about why the threshold is set at 25 percent and I hope that an answer on that may be forthcoming in the next little while. But at least in this modern day and age that provision enables the great bulk of the people who are involved in the body corporate to be able to move on and make decisions about their particular property. 
I guess the counter to that though is the need to ensure that the 25 percent of voters—and it may not be 25 percent; it may be much less than that—do have some sort of a process ability or avenue for redress should they disagree with what is being brought forward. That is really what I would like to look at in the next couple of minutes. Basically we need to have a robust process to ensure that those who disagree with the majority can apply to have their views heard through preferably mediation but certainly the adjudication of the courts. There was some discussion on how this is to happen remembering that for much of the last 38 years the High Court was the body that heard a lot of those disputes. Considerable work has gone into this by the officials who have looked at a range of different options and different bodies that would be able to take care of disputes. They looked at the disputes tribunal for example. It was considered not to be the best option. It was a possible option but it certainly was not the best option because the disputes tribunal did not really offer any incentive to resolve disputes. In addition many of its decisions were not necessarily very transparent and were not published. 
What was decided upon was that the Tenancy Tribunal would better fulfil the objective of establishing a more holistic and effective disputes resolution service. It would be quick accessible and credible and it was proven. The Tenancy Tribunal has a very good record in resolving disputes from both landlords and tenants and in this case could be extended to a body corporate. The Tenancy Tribunal has a demonstrated approach to dispute resolution. It has information education and mediation services etc. The process is also very easy to understand and follow particularly as it is nearly always the case that the people who take their cases to the Tenancy Tribunal are not lawyers but are people who seek good and fair redress to a problem that they have. I think that that was a good decision. We are looking at the Tenancy Tribunal in the first instance taking the role of mediating any disputes particularly—as I was saying before—those between the 75 percent majority and the 25 percent who perhaps disagree and enable that to go forward in a way that will be to the benefit and certainly to the satisfaction of all concerned. 
I once again acknowledge the hard work of the officials on this very technical legislation and once again the cooperation that has occurred between members on both sides of the House both during the term of the previous Government and into that of this Government as well. I acknowledge Mr Phil Heatley who brought this legislation to Parliament just a few weeks ago. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Disputes cancellation and conversion 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 4 of the Unit Titles Bill. It is about disputes resolution. I want to comment on the decision of the Social Services Committee in terms of whether the Tenancy Tribunal the High Court or the District Court would be the appropriate forum for disputes resolution. Clauses 155 to 159 make clear that this bill extends jurisdiction for non - title related disputes—that is an important distinction—under $50000 to the Tenancy Tribunal. That is an important change. Currently those disputes would have to go to court which can incur far greater cost because court lawyers are involved whereas that is not the case at the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal can also hear cases far more quickly. 
The primary concern that submitters raised was that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the experience in unit title law to be able to adequately fulfil that function. That was certainly something that the previous Government considered and something that the current Government has considered. We are assured by officials that the very competent individuals who manage and run the Tenancy Tribunal will be well trained and well briefed in this law so that they will be able to pick up that role. And it does make sense; the Tenancy Tribunal is a very efficient forum. It is able to come to agreement on disputes involving lesser amounts of money far more easily than the courts. So non-title related matters under $50000 will go to the Tenancy Tribunal. The District Court will hear any matters transferred from adjudication any appeals on decisions that are made by the Tenancy Tribunal and any claims with a value of between $50000 and $200000. 
In what I think is another good move the District Court will replace the High Court as the court of first instance. That is another important move to make dispute resolution much faster and far less costly. 
The High Court will now retain jurisdiction only over title issues. To clarify title issues are disputes that relate to the title of the land—for example over redevelopment cancellation of a unit plan or conversion to unit title tenure. Those disputes will remain with the High Court as will any claims with a value of over $200000. Those are very very good moves which will make it far easier to resolve disputes far more quickly. 
I acknowledge concerns raised by submitters who did not feel that the Tenancy Tribunal would have the skills to carry out this function. I feel confident from the assurance that we were given about the training those individuals will receive that that will not be the case. They will be adequately trained. I am sure that in the long-run members of the public will see the overwhelming advantage in terms of both the speed of resolution and the cost of resolution in transferring that amount of work to the Tenancy Tribunal and in making the District Court the court of first instance instead of the High Court. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 General provisions 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Members will have to excuse me but I have screeds and screeds of paper in front of me. Because the Opposition wants to facilitate the passage of this legislation as quickly as possible I am struggling to find where I am up to in my notes. 
Chris Tremain 
: Page 159. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank Mr Tremain very much. We are on to the general provisions. The only issue in this part that I want to talk about is minority relief. 
Chris Tremain 
: Just here to help. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Mr Tremain is just here to help; I thank him very much. 
The minority relief provisions in the Unit Titles Bill are very important and I want particularly to refer to the issue that my colleague Phil Twyford raised earlier which had been raised by the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand. The association was concerned that when we have a quorum of only 25 percent and now 75 percent of voters can make a decision that means that 19 percent of unit title holders will effectively be making a decision. This point was picked up by the Social Services Committee. It is a shift in power from the minority who in the past were able to hold up any changes to the majority. Because of that there are minority relief provisions in this legislation. It also became apparent when we were having our discussions that when we have small developments there may need to be provisions for majority relief as well. 
We have attempted in this bill to provide clarity around the disputes processes that minority shareholders can rely on if they feel they have been hard-done-by or that a decision has been made unfairly. We have added a new subsection to the provision currently in section 42 of the Unit Titles Act to allow for majority relief as well in the case where we have a small development of for example three owners. In that case the 75 percent threshold starts to become very very few people indeed. The new subsection allows for a decision to be made where 65 percent of the owners agree as opposed to 75 percent. In the case of a unit title development that has three units in order to have 75 percent agreement we would have to have 100 percent agreement which is certainly not what we intended. That majority relief now drops that down to 65 percent. 
We also had to address issues around time-share developments and issues that were raised by retirement village associations. We thought we had done this in the select committee. We were then contacted by the Retirement Villages Association which told us that it was worried that we had not done this and that there was still too much overlap with its own legislation. We apologise for that. The select committee thought it had managed to completely separate out the provisions of the two Acts. Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson makes the changes to ensure that what the select committee and this Parliament had intended does in fact happen. Again I say particularly to those submitters who were really concerned about the drop in the threshold for making decisions from 100 percent to 75 percent of owners and about what that might mean in terms of the rights of a minority to voice their concerns that they need to look at the provisions for minority relief set out in clauses 191 to 195 of the bill. I think we have struck a good balance. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 1A 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to schedule 1A be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 1A as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the title and commencement of the Unit Titles Bill. Certainly the Labour Opposition is keen to see this legislation progressed as quickly as possible. The commencement cannot come soon enough as far as we are concerned. However I would make the point that this bill was reported back from the Social Services Committee some time ago. 
Given this legislation’s importance it is disappointing that it has taken as long as this for it to come back to the House. In fact we moved through this legislation with utmost haste at the select committee. We made sure we considered it properly but we were very very mindful that we needed to get the bill back to the House as quickly as possible. It is disappointing that it has now sat on the Order Paper and not been progressed. Certainly in terms of the commencement we hope that we will be debating the third reading of this bill next week and that it will not disappear into the ether again like it did after the select committee deliberations and after its second reading. 
I can think of no better title for this bill than the Unit Titles Bill. I think that that sums it up. This legislation will update a very important area of our law and one that has not been updated for a very very long time. The bill clarifies and streamlines the laws around unit title development. It will make it easier for body corporates to know exactly what they need to do and it will make it easier for them to plan for what they need to do. The bill should be progressed as quickly as possible. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 18 December 2009. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to continue my call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill tonight. The bill is long overdue to be modernised in order to meet the needs of our current environment. The original Act came in 23 years ago and the residential tenancies market has undergone significant change in that period. Both landlords and tenants have been keenly awaiting reform to the tenancy laws since the previous Labour Government commenced a drawn-out long-winded review in 2004. This bill is important because it will affect one-third of New Zealand households. One-third of New Zealanders live in rented accommodation. Private rental housing has a significant impact on housing in New Zealand and social and economic outcomes much more than it did when the original legislation came before the House in 1986. 
A review of the Act commenced in 2004 and identified five primary issues with the current Act: insufficient compliance enforcement and dispute resolution; lack of knowledge about landlord and tenant rights and obligations; mixed capacity to manage properties and tenants; variable standards of rental housing; and lack of stable tenure for longer-term tenants. Those were the five primary issues identified by a review of the original legislation. 
Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act were proposed by the previous Government as early as 2004 but no tangible progress was ever made. In fact the sector has been left in limbo for a very long time. This Government is focused on progressing modifications to the legislation in order to make a difference to make a change and to deliver on our promises. We want to give certainty to a sector that has been waiting for years for amendments to be made to the Residential Tenancies Act. The changes will make a difference to many people. Those people are generally our most vulnerable people; many of our most vulnerable are renting houses or flats and trying to get ahead week by week. 
This Government wants to see landlords able to manage their investment portfolios in a way that optimises their return and enables them to be responsive to demands responsive to the environment that they are in and responsive to the changes in our economy. But the Government also wants to see tenants have access to suitable rental accommodation and able to make informed choices about where they live how long they live there and what they are paying for. This legislation has to work for both our tenants and our landlords so that both parties can come together to form a renting environment that is healthy for all. We want to see a rental market that is efficient responsive and well informed. This bill goes a long way to delivering that vision. 
One of the main initiatives in the bill is to provide protections for vulnerable tenants who live in boarding houses. They are currently not covered by the tenancy legislation. The most vulnerable tenants had fallen into a void. This bill brings boarding-house tenancies under the umbrella so that the minimum rights and obligations of people living in boarding-house accommodation are clear adequate and readily enforceable. 
I thank the officials and the submitters who came forward during the select committee process. We had many many submissions from many groups individuals and non-governmental organisations and from landlords in the sector as well. They all added considerable depth and knowledge to what we learnt in the Social Services Committee and because of that many changes were made to the initial legislation to make it a much better bill for all—landlords and tenants alike. This has been a short call. Thank you very much. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and finally take a call on the second reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The chair of the Social Services Committee Katrina Shanks did a very good job of chairing the committee and this is very interesting legislation. I think all members of the committee worked particularly well together. 
But this was another bill that had to pass very quickly through the select committee. We reported back in September last year and it is now nearing the end of March. So Katrina Shanks can talk about delays in getting this bill passed but the fact is that we have sat here and passed ridiculously useless legislation while this very very important legislation has languished on the Order Paper. I particularly took offence that boarding-house tenants who were finally being given tenancy protection under this legislation had to wait over the Christmas break for that protection to be extended to them. I also mention the fact that during the Rugby Sevens tournament that was held here in Wellington in February boarding-house tenants were evicted so that landlords could put people who had come to the sevens in those boarding houses. Had we passed this legislation before Christmas that may not have happened. It is hard to say; the protections we put in place for the boarding-house tenants are not as extensive as they are for other rental tenants. 
I was not going to say this until the member Katrina Shanks got up and extensively criticised Labour for not passing this legislation fast enough: it should have been passed last year. Labour started the work on this legislation. It is important legislation. 
Katrina Shanks 
: In 2004. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Labour does not work with shoddy legislation I say to Ms Shanks. When we redraft a major piece of legislation that affects some of our most vulnerable families we want to do it properly—and we did. That is why this legislation will pass today in the House with 100 percent support. The time was taken to do it properly and I make absolutely no apologies for that. 
This bill was introduced by Labour. The Government took it and made changes to it that in Labour’s view have worsened the legislation. But overall there is no doubt that it is a major improvement on the status quo. That is why Labour will be supporting it and why we will be moving Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage in an attempt to bring it back to where it was when we introduced it in terms of fairness. 
I will touch on a few areas that were probably the most contentious at the Social Services Committee. The first was the issue of representation at the Tenancy Tribunal. The original Labour bill allowed for advocates to be used in the Tenancy Tribunal particularly with tenants who do not understand the process are uncomfortable with it may have English as a second language or may simply be terrified of the process and not understand their rights. It may actually speed the process up to have someone there with them who can explain the rules what can and cannot be litigated in the Tenancy Tribunal and to be there as a support person particularly where people are up against a professional tenancy manager or Housing New Zealand. During the submissions we heard cases from people who had to go up against Housing New Zealand who could hardly be considered to be laypersons in respect of the Tenancy Tribunal. 
What this bill does is make it even worse. Not only does it remove the right for those tenants’ advocates to be in the tribunal but also it raises the monetary threshold so the automatic right to be represented kicks in from $3000 to $6000. Although that might not seem like a lot of money to some people to many of our most vulnerable people particularly in boarding houses most of their issues will be less than $3000 or $6000 worth because often they own nothing. They want to be represented at the Tenancy Tribunal by someone who has the ability to help them ensure that the process is fair. Although we certainly appreciate that the tribunal was established to provide low costs and expeditious resolution of disputes the desire for speedy results should not overrule the right of a tenant to have a fair hearing. We also understand that there is a concern that if a professional or even a lay advocate is brought in on one side the other side might reciprocate and it starts building up. That ignores the reality that professional tenancy managers and Housing New Zealand tenancy managers are already involved in this area. They are professionals and they know what they are doing. It is an unfair balance. We simply think that the playing field should be level. 
The second issue is letting fees. Currently real estate agents have an unfair advantage over property management companies because real estate agents can charge tenants a letting fee but property managers cannot. We certainly agree that that is unfair. This bill balances that out by stating that both can charge a letting fee. Labour believes that we should balance it out by saying neither of them can charge a letting fee to tenants. Certainly the property managers we spoke to just wanted a level playing field. They did not want to charge tenants for the letting fee. It was not about income; it was just about getting equality. The reality is that a letting fee on top of a bond is a huge barrier for people who are trying to get into a tenancy. We do not believe that tenants should be charged a letting fee where a landlord has engaged a tenancy service in order to help them fill a tenancy. We were told that they are acting for the tenant because the tenant is the one who is getting the help. We made the comparison to real estate fees where the person who is selling the house is always the one who pays the fee regardless of whether there is a strong housing market or a weak housing market. They are the ones putting their property out there. They will always get charged the fee no matter what the demand is from buyers. We disagree with that measure very very strongly given the huge financial barrier that it provides. 
We see it even more at the moment. If we look at studies of homeless families who have gone into a housing crisis we see that one of the hardest things about getting back into housing is all the upfront costs—moving all their things payment of bonds and letting fees. If we can remove that letting fee that is one small barrier that we are taking away for tenants who are trying to get into a tenancy. 
This bill removes the proposed requirement for a landlord to reveal that a cleansing order had been held on for example a P house. I have received correspondence from people who are actually really concerned about that. I have asked for some information from local government experts. The Social Services Committee was told that cleansing orders are automatically done by the council they have to meet certain requirements and then the order is given showing that there is no more danger. The landlords are asking why they should have to tell people about that if there is no more danger. I have been told that there are no standards for them. They are done on an ad hoc basis and people are genuinely concerned that there may be cleanups that have not been done up to standard. Certainly that is something that I think we need to look at in the Committee stage. Maybe the select committee was not given the full information about that particular clause in the legislation. 
Finally I will come to the issue of boarding houses. That is probably the most important part of the legislation. I think it is such a shame that it has taken so long for us to debate this in the House at the second reading. I sincerely hope that we will have the Committee stage and third reading next week so we can finally get this legislation passed because we need to bring boarding-house tenants under the protection of this law. I read the Minister’s first reading speech and I was concerned that he was under the impression this would solve all the issues for boarding-house tenants. That is not true. This will provide tenancy protection for boarding-house tenants. It does nothing about the state of the boarding houses and the standards that boarding-house owners are required to keep their properties up to. 
During the select committee we had a submission from the New Zealand Coalition to End Homelessness. I congratulate the coalition on its inaugural AGM which I went to in Auckland this morning. Coalition members put an offer out to select committee members to come with them and have a look at boarding houses in Wellington. My colleague Grant Robertson and I took them up on that offer. I certainly hope that other members did as well. It really opened my eyes to some of the absolutely disgusting properties that are out there on the boarding-house market at the moment. Frankly it kept me awake at night. It is truly appalling. We saw some of that in an exposé about boarding houses in Auckland. I reiterate to members that this bill deals only with tenancy protections. I think there will be some who argue that we did not go far enough in this legislation. Maybe we will need to come back and address that down the track. Maybe we need to provide longer times because boarding-house tenants tend to be more transient and the tenancies are shorter. Therefore the protections under this law are not the same for them as for those who have a regular tenancy. We may need to revisit that in the future. I certainly would not rule that out but I hope we managed to address it well enough here. The fact is that this is only part of the problem; there is a whole lot more that needs to be done in the areas of boarding houses and homelessness generally. 
Again I urge members of the Social Services Committee to see that we need a select committee inquiry into the pathways into homelessness in New Zealand. Every single sector group out there is calling for it. It is not something that should be done by Housing New Zealand because of the huge amount of distrust that exists between Housing New Zealand and some of those people who have had negative experiences. A select committee inquiry would do an awful lot of good in that area. The sector is crying out for it and I do not understand why members of the Government which holds the majority on that committee keep blocking a select committee inquiry. I urge them to support it and to rapidly move this legislation through the House. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 First I take this opportunity to join with the rest of the House in acknowledging the passing away of Lady Raiha Mahuta. Lady Raiha was well known in Mangere and was deeply respected for her advocacy for Maori and for Tainui. She was also known particularly to the kaumatua and kuia of Te Puea Marae. On behalf of the people of Mangere I pass on my sympathies and condolences to the people of Tainui. As we say in Samoa “ 
Ia manuia lau malaga” 
which is to say “Farewell and may you have a safe journey beyond the veil.” I do that because in Te Puea Marae there is housing for the elderly. That is organised by one of the local community organisations that work very closely with the marae in recognition that there is a growing population of Maori as well as Pacific people who need good-quality warm housing particularly in winter. There is a group of Maori and Pacific people who will be affected by the changes that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill brings about. 
Labour is supporting this bill and we are doing so because our past Ministers of housing have done significant work on the bill with the intention that the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenants are clarified and that there is some balance in this process. The intention is also to enable landlords to manage their properties more effectively and take responsibility for them. 
However I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague Moana Mackey Labour’s spokesperson on housing when she highlights the significant changes that this Government has introduced into this bill—changes we would argue that the Government needs to reconsider. Appropriately Moana will be making recommendations during the Committee stage that will highlight the need for the Government to listen to ordinary tenants who will be affected by those changes. 
Some of the background that I want to highlight will give an indication to the House of the hardship that certain clauses will cause for vulnerable tenants. For example the Government recently announced its welfare reform policy which stereotypes beneficiaries as not wanting to work. In reality many of those beneficiaries are looking for work. I know that in Mangere people consistently come into the office and line up in order to try to find appropriate housing. The fact of the matter is that housing in the private sector is generally unaffordable particularly if someone is on a low income. Also Housing New Zealand Corporation is probably one of the biggest landlords in Mangere and other parts of Manukau City so the letting fee that the Government has now decided to put back into the legislation will have a detrimental impact on many of those vulnerable communities. 
The Government says the issue of letting fees is complex and difficult. Instead of focusing on how the legislation will impact on vulnerable communities the Government says: “Let’s allow all property managers and real estate agents to charge a fee.” It argues that this will encourage competition but we do not accept that argument. In fact the members of the select committee who heard submissions on this issue believe that “… allowing all letting agents to charge letting fees …” would “… result in reduced choice of housing for people unable or unwilling to pay a letting fee”. 
Our position is that we support removing the unfair advantage that real estate agents have over property management companies whereby real estate agents can charge tenants a letting fee but property managers cannot. We believe that removing that letting fee would fairly allow an equal economic environment and it would probably remove the barriers to some tenants finding appropriate accommodation. Prohibiting that letting fee would reduce the need for benefit advances to cover letting fees for some families especially in light of recent Government reforms to the welfare system which may disadvantage sole parents. It will also reduce pressures on social housing from tenants who can afford private sector tenancy costs but not the costs of bond and letting fees as my colleague Moana Mackey has mentioned. 
I emphasise that removing the letting fee ensures that all property managers can compete on an even playing field with real estate agents. As the property management companies submitted they were primarily motivated by the concerns about anti-competition in the market. So their view was that it should be removed or put in place for all. I would have thought that a Government that talks about wanting to look after the vulnerable and wanting to support those in need would look at removing it but instead it put it back in. 
The further issue I raise concerns boarding houses and vulnerable tenants. In my electorate there are several boarding houses. We understand from those who made submissions that one of the ongoing issues that proprietors of boarding houses have to cope with is boarders with mental health issues. Those people also suffer disproportionately if evicted. So it is our desire that every effort be made to resolve a situation first with eviction being used only as a last resort. We heard from social organisations that said it was probably preferable for proprietors to be able to make connections with them as they can help to deal with situations where people with mental health disabilities may pose a risk to others. But the point is that the eviction of people with mental health disabilities should be the last resort. We want to be able to provide some support for that group in our community. 
Moana Mackey has raised the other issue I want to emphasise and it has to do with representation at the Tenancy Tribunal. Clause 63 amends section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act which sets out the circumstances in which a party may be represented by counsel or by the Tenancy Tribunal. With clause 63 the Government seeks to raise the monetary threshold from $3000 to $6000 in terms of the amount involved in a dispute before one has the right to be represented by a lay representative or counsel. Most of the people who will take up grievances with the Tenancy Tribunal are dealing with matters where less than $3000 is in dispute. We want to see this threshold removed altogether or lowered for the sake of vulnerable tenants. We appreciate the fact that the tribunal was established to provide a low-cost and expedient resolution of disputes but we do not believe that that should override the right for many vulnerable tenants to have a fair hearing. Some of those tenants will not be comfortable unlike you Mr Assistant Speaker and others to sit in a tribunal situation. Many of them have never experienced that. 
So again I emphasise that if this Government is genuine about helping vulnerable people then it needs to look seriously at making the appropriate amendments to the bill rather than putting more pressure on vulnerable workers as it has done with the more recent reforms to the welfare system. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. As a member who is a tenant and a renter I am happy to take a call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The bill updates the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Greens will be voting in support of it but we lament the missed opportunity to increase rights for the more than 1 million tenants who reside in New Zealand. 
We support many of the minor changes in this bill to clarify existing law: for example clarifying provisions relating to address for service of documents relating to the tenancy clarifying that landlords must give a reason for terminating a periodic tenancy with less than 90 days’ notice clarifying that an agreement for sale and purchase must be unconditional before a landlord can give 42 days’ notice and requiring a landlord who is overseas for more than 21 days to appoint an agent. 
As the youngest member in this House born only 5 years before the Residential Tenancies Act came into effect I acknowledge that New Zealand’s housing situation has changed substantially since that time. Since 1986 the proportion of New Zealanders renting their homes has gone up. Fewer young people are flatting away from home and more older people with families and children are renting. Homeownership rates have declined to 67 percent from a high of 74 percent in 1991 and they are predicted to drop further still to 62 percent by 2016. 
New Zealand has about 450000 rental properties housing a third of our population. According to the 2006 census one in three households—that is 33 percent—do not own the house they live in. That figure was up from 32 percent in 2001 and 29 percent in 1996. More and more Kiwis are renting because for many purchasing a house is a distant and impossible dream. Housing affordability is a major issue in New Zealand with close to one in three New Zealanders now spending 30 percent or more of their disposable income on housing. 
Demographia’s 2009 international housing affordability survey found that the median house price in New Zealand is 5.7 times the median household income ranking New Zealand in the category of “severely unaffordable” with only Australia worse at 6.0. The bright side of course is that at least we are catching up with Australia in one respect! As I pointed out to the House last night during the debate on the Infrastructure Bill this is an especially pertinent issue for people of my generation. People of my generation see homeownership as an almost impossible dream. It is a struggle for people who come out of university or other tertiary education encumbered by debt. They are conscious they are entering a housing market that has grown rapidly over the last decade mostly to the benefit of baby boomers or those already on the property ladder and it has not been slowed by sensible moves such as a capital gains tax—not on the family home—or reviewing the tax rules around loss attributing qualifying companies. 
Loss attributing qualifying companies allow people to offset their losses on their investment properties against personal income tax. This means that young people trying to get into the housing market are effectively subsidising the tax offsets of those buying investment properties using loss attributing qualifying companies. This is both wrong and pernicious. We cannot rely on the recession as Moana pointed out to make housing more affordable. We need to be more proactive as legislators and regulators. The trend towards less affordable housing will see the number of tenants increase and that makes the changes discussed here today in this House as relevant and as important as ever. 
This bill is an important amendment bill to update the original 1986 legislation. It is important that we strike the right balance between the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants. I would like to take a few minutes to look at a few issues that the Greens have with this bill. I would like to look at the termination of tenancy for boarding-house tenants the issue of letting fees the unfortunate oversight of not addressing the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of the tenant legal representation issues and exemptions for people who reside in camping grounds backpackers hostels and other such places. 
I look first at the termination of tenancies in boarding houses. The security of tenure issues for boarding-house residents that we had concerns about in the earlier stages have been improved somewhat by the select committee but not to the extent that we would have liked to see. It is still better however than the current situation where boarding-house residents have no security of tenure whatsoever. 
New section 66U inserted by clause 47 sets out when landlords of boarding houses may terminate a tenancy: immediately on 48 hours’ notice on 14 days’ notice or on 28 days’ notice. It is good that the select committee recommended amending the criteria to allow 10 days’ consecutive notice that rent is in arrears before giving a tenant 48 hours’ notice of termination where the tenant’s rent is more than 7 days in arrears. Tenants can face legitimate reasons for being in arrears often through no fault of their own. Many boarding-house tenants receive benefits from the State and as Sue Bradford recorded in the first reading debate often this is because of problems caused by Work and Income rather than by the beneficiary himself or herself and such issues take time to work out. In the case of boarding-house tenants who are also mental health clients we concur with Labour’s call for an expectation that proprietors will take the opportunity to refer such individuals to the appropriate mental health services if an eviction is being contemplated. We support the provision of a list of services in each area which should be made available to the proprietors of boarding houses so that they may refer such people to those services before the eviction is effected. 
I turn to letting fees. This bill proposes to remedy the anomaly of real estate agents being able to charge letting fees although property management companies cannot by allowing both to do so. Letting fees on top of a bond rent in advance and other moving costs can be a significant barrier to beneficiaries students and other people on low incomes needing accommodation. The Green Party supports prohibiting letting fees—full stop. 
Provisions in the bill regarding the termination of a residential tenancy following the death of the tenant do nothing to improve the current situation when a caregiver relative is suddenly evicted from his or her home following the death of the family member for whom the caregiver has been caring. Relatives of the tenant living with the tenant should at least have some protection of tenure when the tenant dies. This was one of our original concerns about the bill and it is unfortunate that it has not been addressed properly by the select committee. 
The bill raises from $3000 to $6000 the monetary threshold for the right to legal representation in the Tenancy Tribunal. This continues the current unfair provision that permits a corporate landlord to be otherwise represented by an experienced tenancy manager while the tenant who often knows little about tenancy law and may well have English as a second language is forced to represent himself or herself. This places many tenants at an unfair disadvantage at Tenancy Tribunal proceedings and is an example of where the bill could strike a fair balance but fails to. There is a provision in section 93(3)(b) that permits representation where there is significant disparity between the parties affecting their ability to represent their respective cases. But the problem is that the disparity and the ability of the parties to represent their cases may not become apparent until a case has been partly heard. The Green Party was advised by the Tenants Protection Association about this a while ago and we were told that adjudicators almost never invite a tenant who is disadvantaged in that regard to obtain representation. This was one of our concerns with the original bill and is also noted in Labour’s minority report. This is probably also a good time to raise the excellent and also lacking provision in this bill. The Citizens Advice Bureau recommended that plain-English statements of tenant rights be adopted as part of all tenancy agreements and displayed prominently in boarding houses. 
My last point is that the homelessness survey is due to come out in June and I predict based on Australian similarities that between 20000 and 30000 Kiwis will be officially classed as homeless. Many of these people reside in non-traditional housing forms such as caravan grounds and backpackers’ hostels. This bill fails to address the fact of life in 21st century New Zealand that many Kiwis do not live under stable tenancy criteria. The Citizens Advice Bureau gave some terrible examples whereby non-formal tenants have been abused by the system. I concur with Moana Mackey that we need a select committee inquiry into homelessness. This already occurs in countries such as England and Wales and many states of Australia. It is a good example of where a much-needed updating of this 1980s Act does not go far enough to reflect the facts on the ground in the real world. 
In summary the main criticisms that we raised in the first reading debate were over issues that this bill does not address adequately. However following the changes made by the Social Services Committee—some positive some negative—we still think it remains the case for the Green Party on the balance of evidence to support this bill. Kia ora. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I congratulate Katrina Shanks on her chairmanship of the Social Services Committee. I also congratulate the other members of the committee who interacted well with each other. In particular I would like to congratulate Moana Mackey on the research she has done and the contribution she has made to this debate. 
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill adequately addresses a number of issues that have been raised over the last few years about deficiencies in the Act and tackles some new problems too. An example is the contamination of premises though the manufacturer of methamphetamine. The bill requires landlords to declare that contamination has been detected in a house and to have it cleaned prior to a tenant taking up residency. I recently had a situation in my electorate of a family becoming quite ill as a result of living in a house that had not been cleaned because the contamination had not been discovered. 
The bill provides the ability to take matters before the Tenancy Tribunal to argue strongly for it to extend provisions and entitlements to tenants that had not previously been available to them and to hold landlords to account on behalf of tenants who are vulnerable. That is a good measure. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and like my colleague Moana Mackey and the speaker from the Greens Gareth Hughes I want to talk about some of the concerns. 
Labour clearly agreed that there was a need to update the Residential Tenancies Act because significant changes have been made to the structure and dynamics of the residential rental market since that Act came into force. 
Before I talk about the number of people living in rental housing I will note the aims of the legislation: firstly to encourage the development of a rental market that provides stable quality housing to those who rent their homes; secondly to enable landlords to manage their properties more effectively; and thirdly to clarify and appropriately balance the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords. 
All those aims are very worthy. The question is whether we have the balance right and whether the bill provides the level of stability and quality we would like. I think it is fair to say from Labour’s point of view that although this bill is an improvement it does not quite get all the way there. Housing is a matter of fundamental importance to people. The right to shelter is one of our most fundamental rights—the right to be out of the weather to have a roof over our heads. They are very important things so it is important to try to get housing legislation right. 
There is a range of broader health social and educational implications in having the sort of stable rental market that this legislation is meant to promote. Clearly these rental properties become people’s homes. They may not own them but they are their homes. They live there with their families and they are part of the community where they are living. We want people to be stable in terms of their children’s education. There are all those factors so it is fundamentally important to get this legislation right. 
The bill explicitly talks about balance and it is fair to say that in terms of the various provisions it is debatable as to whether the balance is quite right. Like other members I agree that landlords’ investments in their property are important. It is important that the money they have put in is secured that the property they own is well looked after and maintained and that they retain important rights to that. 
It is fair to say that a significant number of the people who own rental properties are small investors. They quite often are people who are slightly older than me and they have often invested their superannuation savings into a rental property. So for them it is significantly important that that balance is right and that their investment is protected. But for tenants as I have already said those rental properties are where they live. They are their homes where they raise their families and go about their business. 
Those two things are not a level playing field. The consequences of people losing the right to be in their homes is very very significant if they do not have somewhere else to go or even if they do because there is a big upheaval in having to move from one property to another. As I said Labour supports this bill although we do have a number of concerns and at a later point we will put forward a number of amendments. 
As I said the purpose of the bill is to update the 1986 Act as there have been a significant number of changes in the rental market since 1986. The number of people living in rental accommodation is significantly higher. The number of people who can afford to buy their own home has diminished. We now have the reality that the rate of homeownership has declined to 67 percent from a high of 74 percent in 1991. There are about 450000 rental properties which house about a third of our population. So renting is now a significant form of accommodation for New Zealanders and we need to ensure that the legislation is updated to meet that. 
The bill itself as others who were on the Social Services Committee have identified has a great number of provisions. There is a significant number of changes including provisions relating to fixed-term tenancies refunded bonds landlord responsibilities the right of entry to premises termination of tenancy renewal or extension of tenancy and as others have talked about in some detail provisions relating to boarding houses. So a wide range of areas have been covered in this bill. 
As Moana Mackey mentioned there was quite a short time frame in which to consider fundamentally important legislation that contains a range of significant provisions. I think that is of concern. We should not be rushing through provisions in tight time frames when we need to seriously contemplate what they mean for people and for their standard of living. There were 59 submissions on the bill and 35 of them were heard by the Social Services Committee. It is positive to hear that the members of the committee worked hard together to try to get the bill in as good a form as they could. 
I want to mention housing shortages in New Zealand particularly in the area where I live in Auckland. Recently I was privileged to attend the launch of  
A Road to Recovery: A State of the Nation Report from the Salvation Army. 
 The report talked about new housing building activity having plunged to a 20-year low. It looked at the consequences of this in Auckland with the combined effect of population growth from within our own population and from migration and it talked about the burgeoning housing shortage in Auckland. I think it is important to note that as part of this discussion. 
As I mentioned earlier the issue of housing affordability is also particularly important when we talk about the housing market. It seems somewhat ironic to be standing here now talking about this bill in view of the fact that yesterday we talked about the Infrastructure Bill which of course is about repealing legislation that the previous Government put in place. I am referring to the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act. That Act tried to ensure that local authorities had the ability—they were not required but they had the ability—to put in place more affordable housing. 
Chris Tremain 
: It did nothing. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: A member across the House mentions that it did nothing. Actually there was virtually no time for that to be identified. A far better response would have been to analyse it. Certainly the Human Rights Commission indicated that there was an absence of compelling evidence that the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act was counter-productive. The commission noted that the Act’s repeal would have the effect of reducing the supply of affordable housing. It regretted the Act being repealed without anything else being put in its place and I think that is a sad indictment on this Government. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.