Volume 670 Week 65 - Thursday 17 February 2011 
Volume 670 Week 65 - Thursday 17 February 2011 
[Volume:670;Page:16889] 
Thursday 17 February 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will consider a range of Government bills on the Order Paper including the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and the Legal Services Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the assurance of the Leader of the House that there will not be urgency next week and ask him whether his colleagues have noticed that he makes much more progress when he does not use urgency. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I know that my colleagues are always concerned about my progress and so far they are very satisfied. The issue of urgency is always one that we are prepared to talk to the Opposition about should it decide to work more than 17 hours a week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That was 2 extra hours; keep going. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My comment was slightly gratuitous I agree and not consistent with the Speaker’s demands of appropriate behaviour in the House. I can say there is no intention to have urgency in the House next week. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economic Stimulus Package Transport—Progress 
1. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the Government’s jobs and growth stimulus package for transport? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: The Minister of Transport was in Rotorua this morning for the opening of the Fairy Springs upgrade which is one of the many projects that have been advanced under the jobs and growth plan. The $322 million investment in roading projects around the country has provided 550 jobs and has supported a further 1200 jobs in associated trades. This investment has given a real boost to the regions by utilising regional workforces and local contractors. The jobs and growth plan provides a short-term stimulus but the real value is the construction of projects that will support prolonged growth when completed. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How many more jobs have been created by the Government’s roads of national significance? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The 550 jobs I mentioned in the primary answer are over and above those of the more than 1500 people working on the Government’s roads of national significance and the many thousands working on the overall road-building programme. These jobs would not exist if the previous Government had had its way and scaled back the roading programme. This investment in infrastructure will improve key roading corridors and will reduce bottlenecks to growth as the economy picks up. 
Community Programmes Funding—Factors Influencing Expansion 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What factors will she take into account when making decisions about expanding funding for community programmes? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 A number but two factors would include giving young people a foothold into work and ensuring value for taxpayers’ money. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she believe taxpayers would support extending funding for Community Max when they read of a programme that costs more than $175000 to employ 12 people for 6 months to produce a Maori business directory that was launched in January last year and canned 5 months later because better Maori business directories were already available online? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes if a large number of those people who attended the course subsequently did not require the assistance of a benefit. 
Hon Annette King 
: When the Acting Minister said in Parliament in response to a question earlier in the week that Community Max programmes were value for money unlike “hip-hop tours going around the world for $26000” was he aware that the same amount of money was being spent on hip-hop training in Christchurch; if so do the 16 people who finished the course and who are not on a benefit have a job? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The member is labouring under some misapprehensions about how those two schemes compare so let us take a bit of time to clarify that—let us clear that up. Firstly two people teaching hip hop in a classroom as an alternative to sport does not compare to $26000 on a hip-hop tour for a mother and daughter who went to New York Los Angeles Paris Hawaii and Fiji. Secondly there was no chill-out time built into this programme as there was under that programme when the two participants stopped off in Fiji for a holiday. Finally and most important of the 19 participants in this programme 18 are no longer on benefits. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the Government is interested in value for money when will she stop funding boot camps a programme that was the brainchild of the Prime Minister which after less than 1 year in operation has had a reoffending rate by those who completed the course of 50 percent a rate that is estimated to reach 65 to 70 percent after 2 years and which is costing $36000 for every person on it? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No funding will continue for those camps and the reason is that once the two trials that the member referred to were completed the one full course which has undergone some tweaks since those trials has seen only two people reoffend since that part of the course was completed. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did she allow Work and Income to enter into a funding arrangement of nearly $40000 with a charity in Christchurch when she was advised that the principal of that charity was an overstayer in this country and is this not just another example of the shambles that the Government’s programmes are in even though the Minister tries to pretend they are working? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In respect of the second part of that question they are working. Approximately 70 percent of those who attend these courses are no longer on a benefit. In respect of the first part— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They’re in Australia. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: —not necessarily. In respect of the first part of the question I am sorry that I do not have that detail to hand. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Is it correct that the 70 percent figure that she and the Prime Minister continue to use actually represents the number of graduates that Work and Income cannot account for as stated by Peter Hughes; and that after spending more than $50 million on this scheme she has no idea what impact it has had? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: That is a very cynical slant to put on the information that has been made available to date. The fact is approximately 70 percent of the people who have completed these courses no longer receive a benefit. I think that is a good-news story and I do not know why members on the other side want those people to be back on a benefit. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she acknowledge that her ministry can claim to have placed only 936 Community Max graduates into work and that that represents just 1 percent of the young Kiwis who are not in work education or training? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I cannot comment on the raw number that the member uses but I can give some percentages. As at November 2010 of those who had contacted the ministry which they are not required to do 28.7 percent were in work—part-time or full-time—and 10 percent were in training or education. There is a large number who have not contacted the ministry but we do know they are not on a benefit. 
Hon Annette King 
: Could the Minister tell the House how many of the 40000 young people between the age of 15 and 19 who are currently unemployed would actually qualify for a benefit? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. 
Economic Stimulus Package Housing—Results 
3. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 on behalf of  
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What were the results of the $124.5 million that the Government invested in State housing in February 2009 as part of its jobs and growth stimulus package? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The package was to upgrade 10000 existing State houses and build 69 new State houses over and above those already planned. Housing New Zealand Corporation exceeded both these targets by upgrading 11290 State houses and building 87 over and above those planned. That is 11000 State houses and families who would otherwise live in cold old and mouldy houses that the previous Government left. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What jobs have been created as a result of the Government’s additional investment in State housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: This programme ensured that nationally the maximum number of contractors gained work. At its peak 52 contracting firms were involved in the delivery of this programme. On average an additional 1528 people were employed each month around the country to deliver warmer healthier more liveable homes for State housing tenants. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is he seriously saying that his 1-year “stimulus package” was adequate to address the current shortage of social housing with a waiting list of nearly 11000 people let alone a national housing shortage of 70000 dwellings; and does he still stand by his decision to slash the budget for State house acquisitions and maintenance by more than 80 percent in Budget 2010? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No I am saying that 11290 people now live in nice warm homes. When we came into Government they were living in old cold and mouldy homes. I do not know why the Labour Government did not just pitch tents for them. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he seen any reports linking the current pressures in social housing to the actions of his party when last in Government which hocked off 13000 State houses to its development mates and carried out no modernisation; if so instead of lecturing Labour which spent 9 years trying to undo the damage maybe he should just apologise get off his chuff and do something about the ever-worsening housing crisis which has got far far worse under his watch? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No. 
Surgery Elective—Waiting Times 
4. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his health target to get genuine reductions in waiting times for elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The premise of the member’s question is incorrect. The health target for elective surgery— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the Minister just as he is beginning his answer but—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the National backbench that the noise coming out of the back corner of the House is unacceptable. 
Grant Robertson 
: A question as you know has to be authenticated and so the premise of the question has been authenticated with your office. For the Minister to begin his answer by saying that the premise of the question is incorrect cannot possibly be true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Although questions are authenticated in terms of the face of the question it does not necessarily mean that the question is not out of context or is not in a somewhat different context from where a Minister’s statement or target may have been placed. So I do not want to hear the Minister criticising the member for asking the question but it is not out of order to argue that it may be out of context or that the premise is not correct. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The premise of the member’s question is incorrect. The health target for elective surgery is an increase in the volume of elective surgery by an average of 4000 discharges per year. The Government’s concern is that sick people should get their operations as soon as possible and far more people are getting their operations now than under the previous Government. This year the Government will deliver 140000 elective operations which will be 22000 more patients a year than that member’s Government ever delivered. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given that answer is the Auditor-General wrong when she says that the waiting times for elective surgery are between 9 months and 1 year not the 6 months required by his target? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member has to note that I have not seen the Auditor-General’s report. I can tell the member that when we inherited this portfolio a lot of people were waiting more than 6 months to get their operations. For example 5 years ago in January 2005 of the thousands of people who had been promised treatment and had not received it 4.5 percent—or over 1348 patients—had been waiting for more than 18 months. By January 2010 that figure had been dramatically reduced to 0.3 percent or 118 patients. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was critical of the National backbench. I say to the Labour front bench that the noise is pretty excessive today. But I say to the Minister that the question was pretty simple. The member asked a very simple question about the Auditor-General’s report. The Minister used the opportunity to tell the House what he wanted to tell the House and not actually answer the question. That is not really a part of the game or the rules but I will let him get away with it on this occasion. I am just alerting him to that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Auditor-General wrong when she says that it appears that district health boards are actually working towards providing a first specialist assessment within 12 months and treatment within 9 months instead of the 6 months required by the strategy? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As I said earlier on I have not read the Auditor-General’s report. I know that the report is at the Ministry of Health. I also know that I am never going to fix a waiting list problem by culling 30000 people from the waiting list just because I want the numbers to look good which was what the party opposite did. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has he received about how the previous Government handled elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have received a number of reports that under that Government elective surgery did not keep up with population growth which meant patient access was cut. Five years ago of the thousands of people who had been promised treatment but had not received it 4.5 percent—or 1348 patients—had been waiting for more than 18 months. By January 2010 that figure had been dramatically reduced to 0.3 percent or 118 patients. There is more to be done but this Government is providing thousands more people with surgery and we will not do what the party opposite did which was to fix the problem by sending 30000 people a letter saying that they had been culled from the waiting list. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will he commit to releasing the Auditor-General’s report as it now stands without his interfering or trying to doctor it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have the report. The report is the property of the Auditor-General and I am sure she will release the report once she has had the numbers checked and precisely looked at by the Ministry of Health. But despite whatever may be in the Auditor-General’s report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister had answered the question absolutely adequately and he is not to go on to say “despite” and attack the questioner. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will he allow the Auditor-General to investigate the credibility of his other target in particular his target on cancer treatment given the cutting of cancer patients from waiting lists in the central North Island? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would welcome the Auditor-General’s looking at the cancer radiation targets. I am sure she would find that unlike the previous Government we do not have lots of women whose lives are being disrupted by their being sent to Australia for treatment. We are providing most treatment within 4 weeks which is a world standard that that failed party opposite could never match. 
Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Retrofitted Houses 
5. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many houses have been retrofitted under the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am very pleased to advise the House that since July 2009 just under 89000 houses around New Zealand have been retrofitted under the scheme. Nearly 50000 houses occupied by people on low incomes will have been retrofitted. The insulation and clean heating programme will go a long way to improving the quality of their lives. 
Jonathan Young 
: What is the effect on employment of the Warm Up New Zealand scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Warm Up New Zealand scheme has had a positive effect on employment during some tough economic times. Officials estimate that about 2000 jobs will be created as a result of the scheme. 
Rahui Katene 
: What provision has been made for Maori families to take up eligibility for the home insulation scheme and how many of the houses are owned or occupied by Maori families? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Maori families are eligible like all other New Zealanders to access the scheme and a great many have done so. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority also has a number of special projects that aim to deliver to Maori households including agreements with Nga Rauru Waikato-Tainui and Whanau-a-Apanui. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Ownership of Shares 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all of his statements on the sale of shares in State-owned enterprises? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes although I repeat that no final decision has been made about extending the mixed-ownership model. 
Hon David Parker 
: When the Prime Minister said on radio this morning that the vast bulk of Contact Energy’s shares remain “in widespread Kiwi mum and dad ownership” why did he not tell New Zealanders that 75 percent of all Contact’s shares are owned by big corporates with the majority of those shares being owned by an Australian company? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Presumably the Prime Minister meant that the vast majority of shares originally obtained by mum and dad investors remain in their hands. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the Prime Minister cannot even get his statements about asset sales in the past right why would anyone believe that he can get his statements about asset sales in the future right? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Because the Prime Minister has a very good record for keeping his promises to the public of New Zealand unlike when that party came into Government in 1984 promising not to sell State-owned assets and then went ahead and did it. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has he seen any other reports on Government plans to reduce shareholding in an asset? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes he has seen a press release stating that the Government has approved a proposal subject to competition watchdog approval to reduce its shareholding in Air New Zealand to 63.55 percent. That would have meant a 22.5 percent shareholding going to Qantas a foreign investor. That press release was from 2002 and released by Ministers Cullen Swain and Mallard. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Prime Minister also say on radio this morning in regard to Contact Energy: “The float when it started gave 51 percent to an Australian company Origin. That was the starting position and it did not change.”; if so was his statement correct? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Fifty-one percent of the shares in Contact did become held by Origin. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was it a starting position? Answer the question. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am just finishing the answer. Originally of course Edison bought its original 40 percent directly from the Government and not by the way from Kiwi mums and dads. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the sale of any asset to a foreign buyer or purchase of any foreign asset by a New Zealander cannot possibly change the net claims of one country on another because for a foreigner to buy a New Zealand asset is simply to swap a foreign asset for a New Zealand asset—nobody wins nobody loses; they just end up with a different portfolio of assets and liabilities? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Broadly the theory may have some merit but this Government has laid out five tests that have to be met and they are slightly different from the model that the member outlines. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Prime Minister in that same radio interview this morning make an accusation that Phil Goff was “financially inept” for supposedly not understanding that Origin owned 51 percent from the start when it did not; if the Prime Minister did make that statement and the statement was wrong does the Prime Minister now accept that it was he who was mistaken? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In respect of the first part of the question yes. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Prime Minister see any validity in the arguments from Labour and the Green Party that the sale of any shares in State-owned enterprises will lead to increased overseas ownership of New Zealand; or does he agree with the ACT Party that this argument reflects the unfortunate common economic illiteracy in Labour and the Green Party about savings and investment issues? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: That is a far more straightforward question from the member. The answer is that he agrees with the ACT Party. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek to table a Treasury document from its website which shows that the sale of Contact Energy was originally a 40 percent sale to Edison and not a 51 percent sale to Origin. 
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. 
Employment Relations Health and Disability Sector—Payment for Sleepover Shifts 
7. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the Government’s response to the Court of Appeal decision in the so-called “sleepovers” case and to its impact on health and disability services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The decision of the Court of Appeal is extremely significant for public health services. It will have significant financial ramifications for some providers and for the people who live in the residential services and it could have implications for the way support is provided for in the future. Therefore the Government will carefully consider the implications of the Court of Appeal decision. As we work through this issue though people with disabilities and their families can be assured that the provision of best-quality care will remain a top priority for the Government. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other reports has he seen in relation to the “sleepovers” decision? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen statements made by the Leader of the Opposition by Labour’s former health spokesperson and by the Opposition spokesperson on labour that Labour would fund the shortfall for providers. I am advised that the Ministry of Health has estimated the cost of this decision to be over $50 million a year for ongoing extra wage costs and up to $350 million in backdated pay. There is an estimated cost of over $500 million over 3 years which Labour would pay out without even knowing the numbers without careful analysis of the implications of the decision and without saying where the money would come from. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is he prepared to meet with unions disability providers and representatives of service users to find a durable way forward for funding the disability support sector so that quality services continue to be provided and workers are paid their entitlements to the minimum wage according to the Court of Appeal decision? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There have already been discussions with participants involved in this matter and I am sure there will be ongoing discussions. But what I need to make absolutely clear is that this is a very significant financial cost for the public health service and this Government will take a responsible approach that makes sure we can provide affordable care for people who are vulnerable. We will not go around promising spending without even knowing the price tag. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other implications is the Minister aware of that could flow from the court decision on the “sleepovers” case? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am aware that the decision of the “sleepovers” case could have significant implications for Child Youth and Family and also for the Ministry of Education. For example teachers and teacher-aides who stay overnight at school camps potentially could be paid the minimum hourly wage while sleeping at the school camp. It has been estimated—[ 
Interruption 
] Labour should not have made the promise. It has been estimated that the costs in education could be—[ 
Interruption 
] Labour members can shout as much as they like but they made the promise and they do not know what the cost is. It has been estimated that the costs in education could be around $57 million for past liability and $9 million per annum for ongoing wage increases. The Ministry of Health advises that the cost is $350 million in back-pay and $50 million in ongoing costs and that is why this Government is seriously considering the implications of the judgment. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister was quoting from official advice in that answer could I ask that he table it please? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister whether it was material prepared for his answer to today’s question or an official paper that he was quoting from. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It was material prepared for the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Material prepared for answering today’s question is not required to be tabled. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard most of that answer but for members sitting on this side of the Chamber it was quite hard to hear because of the shouting that was coming across. To be fair to members on this side of the Chamber I ask that you keep an eye on that so that we can hear the answers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member is saying. It would be my understanding that the information the Minister was giving in his answer was seen to be somewhat provocative by some members of the House and they did respond to that. I believe it was possible to hear what the Minister was saying and I believe the interjections were not gratuitous because members were responding to what the Minister was saying. 
Ministerial Vehicles—Replacement 
8. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Was he or any other Minister aware before the end of last calendar year that the ministerial BMW fleet was to be replaced? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development)  
on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Ministers were not briefed ahead of the decision to replace the fleet which was made by the Department of Internal Affairs in November 2010. Following the department’s decision it is my understanding that the Minister of Internal Affairs wrote to the Minister of Finance on 17 December about the retention of surpluses on the sale of VIP fleet vehicles. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he John Key responsible for the budget of Ministerial Services for the 2010-11 financial year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is responsible for the Ministerial Services budget. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the spokesperson for the Department of Internal Affairs correct when he said yesterday that the contract entered into during the term of the last Government had no obligation to purchase further cars this year or in any other year and that there would be no penalty if no cars were purchased? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My information is that that is correct. If the contract is terminated there is no contract penalty for ending the contract during its term. But there would be substantial cost in managing a further competitive tender and there is no evidence that a less expensive fleet of fit-for-purpose vehicles could be bought. What I would say is that the previous Government did such a splendid job that there is no way that even now any other company can compete for the contract. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Which of the following optional extras that come with the new BMWs will be supplied with the new fleet: the massage chairs that relax the occupant’s thorax shoulders and lumbar spine; the four air conditioning units that enable the driver and the front and rear passengers to each set their own individual air temperatures; the DVD players in the rear seats; the 16 high-performance speakers; or the automatic closing doors? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Can I simply say that we would expect the same austerity to be exercised by those purchasing the cars on behalf of the Government as was the case under the Helen Clark regime. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific and serious question. Taxpayers’ money is being spent on this. I request a list of what has been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question and the Minister answered the question. That may not have been done in exactly the way that the member asked it but the Minister gave a perfectly reasonable answer that a whole lot of options were missing from the cars the first time round and he expected the same options to be missing from them the second time round. That seemed to be a perfectly reasonable answer. We cannot insist on anything further. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How often has John Key used the new BMW currently carrying a CR number plate in Auckland? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am not able to answer that question but I suggest to the member that when the Prime Minister travels on behalf of the nation the last thing he is interested in is the number plate or the model and make of the car. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Effect of Proposed Lignite Mining Projects 
9. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: By how many tonnes would Solid Energy’s proposed lignite projects in Southland increase New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emissions in 2020? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I understand that this morning Solid Energy informed the Commerce Committee that depending on the scale of technology used gross emissions could be 10 million to 20 million tonnes per annum. I also understand that Solid Energy has said on many occasions that taking full responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions is a key consideration in its lignite developments and it expects its lignite-based plants to achieve full carbon compliance. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: If by achieving compliance the Minister is referring to carbon capture and storage as indeed Solid Energy identified as one of the means this morning can the Minister name one suitable reservoir to store carbon dioxide in the Southland lignite region? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am not able to give operational answers on behalf of Solid Energy but I would say that we have introduced an emissions trading scheme that will enable carbon compliance. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not asking the Minister to speak on behalf of Solid Energy. I was asking the Minister whether he could name one reservoir that would engage in carbon capture and storage. I am asking him for his knowledge. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is answerable to this House only for what the Minister is responsible for. He is not answerable to this House for his knowledge about what various issues may be. The Minister referred to the matter as being an operational matter for Solid Energy. I cannot dispute that with the Minister. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: The Minister and his Government are responsible for ensuring a net decrease in carbon emissions for this country. Knowing whether there is adequate carbon capture and storage in Southland does not fall solely within the operational responsibility of Solid Energy but within his ministerial portfolio. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure if the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the Minister wish to add to his answer? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well it may help if I simply said that there is no proposal yet from Solid Energy to engage in a particular type of lignite recovery and therefore no indication yet of how carbon emission may be mitigated. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does the Minister agree with his colleagues Nick Smith and Tim Groser that to efficiently address climate change fossil fuel subsidies should be phased out? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and I am not aware that we do have fossil fuel subsidies in New Zealand. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Then what is his response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s statement that under this Government’s emissions trading scheme companies such as Solid Energy are likely to receive subsidies of millions of dollars a year from New Zealand taxpayers to develop products from low-grade coal—that is to say lignite? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I simply do not accept that that is the correct position. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I understand that to mean that he does not accept that that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Minister has answered the question. The member has the chance to ask further questions but he cannot by way of a point of order give his interpretation of a Minister’s answer. That is not what a point of order is all about at all. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Sorry Mr Speaker I was just seeking clarification. Will the Minister consider extending Government support to renewable energy schemes in wind and solar so that we can meet our national energy needs while leaving the lignite deposits in the ground? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not believe the two objectives are either complementary or opposed to one another. The lignite opportunities will reduce if they come to fruition significant imports of urea and will also make a significant difference to the availability of fuels in New Zealand. 
Pay Equity Gender Gap—Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ Priority 
10. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Is it still the priority of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to close the gender pay gap? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: The Minister has a range of priorities and that is one of them. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What has been done to action a suggestion made in the December issue of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs newsletter  
Panui 
 
that there is a need to “speed progress” to eliminate the gender pay gap which is urgent in light of the real financial pressure facing many low and middle income New Zealand families? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I say to that member that obviously the ministry has done some tremendously good work because the pay gap has fallen from 13 percent in 2008 to 11.3 percent in 2009 and to 10.6 percent in 2010—the third lowest in the OECD. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Is the Minister aware that the income survey she has just referred to showed that overall wages had dropped 1.7 percent and that inflation had risen 1.7 percent showing that real wages went backwards 3.4 percent and that is no reason to celebrate? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I say to that member that had Labour been in Government the wage gap would have been even worse — 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should make some attempt to answer the question. The question admittedly was an opinion question; it asked whether the Minister was aware of something. But to just attack the questioner’s party is not the way to start answering a question. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I would have to say that those numbers can be disputed and are disputed. I refer to previous comments that have been made by both the Minister of Women’s Affairs and the Prime Minister. 
Carol Beaumont 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Those figures which the Minister quoted herself were from the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order procedure is not for disputing the Minister’s answer. The member can ask a further supplementary question if she disagrees with the answer. 
Carol Beaumont 
: I would like to table the New Zealand Income Survey for the June 2010 quarter which contains the figures that the Minister used and also the figures I used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There must be silence because I missed the detail of the document the member is seeking leave to table. 
Carol Beaumont 
: The New Zealand Income Survey for the June 2010 quarter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Conducted by? 
Carol Beaumont 
: Statistics New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Those statistics releases are available to everyone so I will not be putting the leave to table that document. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What would the Minister say to education support staff school support workers and other women who are doing important jobs but earning less than they should because of gender discrimination and who are struggling to manage family budgets and ever-rising prices? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I would say to those women that they should be grateful that there is a National Government that has a focus of lifting New Zealand’s economic performance and ensuring the well-being of families and communities. 
Air-quality Standards—Business and Local Government Concerns 
11. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What decisions has the Government made in response to concerns from local government and business groups that resource management regulations on air quality unfairly target industry and would put thousands of New Zealanders out of work? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There is a serious disconnect in the current air-quality regulations. Although 60 to 80 percent of the problem comes from home fires only industry faces any penalty if the standard is not met by 2013. These regulations reflect the anti-business culture of the previous Government: even if it is not businesses’ fault they get the punishment. The implications are very serious. Over 100 businesses would be prohibited from renewing their consents putting over 17000 fellow New Zealanders out of work. The Government has decided to change the regulations to provide a more balanced and practical approach. This approach includes tighter rules on home fires and an early requirement for industry to reduce pollution without the arbitrary penalty that would put so many people out of work. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How many households have received Government assistance to convert to clean-air home heating in the last 2 years and how does this figure compare with support provided in previous years noting that if we are serious about reducing smog the key is to convert open fires and old dirty log burners in polluted areas? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is quite correct that the most important issue in making progress on air quality is about converting those old household fires to clean technology. This Government is very proud of its record. We have invested over $16 million in converting 20000 households in 2 years—or 10000 per year. This figure compares with just 100 households per year over the previous 9 years. We have in fact made progress at 100 times the rate of the previous Government. We are making progress at 100 times the rate in converting home fires. I expect this rate of conversion to accelerate with the good work that my colleague is doing in Christchurch in the recovery from the earthquake where up to $100 million will be spent on clean heaters to replace the chimneys damaged in the Christchurch earthquake. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What response has there been to the changes that the Government has made to the air-quality standards? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The changes that the Government has made have been welcomed by Local Government New Zealand by mayors by councils by industry— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Not in Nelson. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member mentions Nelson. I challenge her to compare the record of how many homes this Government has converted with the previous Government’s record. I note the very positive editorial in the Christchurch  
Press 
. Even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said the previous Government’s rules were unfair and would not work. I particularly note and highlight the comments of air-quality experts who refer to the fact that even moving from the 30 exceedances per year in many communities to one exceedance by 2013 was near to impossible. But to get down to three by 2016 and one by 2020 will require considerable change. 
Rahui Katene 
: What requirements is industry expected to address in order to reduce emissions and what progress is he able to report on its compliance with such measures? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One of the changes that the Government has announced is that on 1 September next year each industry will be required to offset its emissions—that is to fund the conversion of households in order to more than offset the emissions from its own industry. In our view providing the financial incentive for industry to positively contribute to less pollution is a more sensible approach than just putting 17000 New Zealanders on the unemployment heap by making those industries have to close. 
Hon Annette King 
: That is just made up. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The deputy leader of the Labour Party claimed I had simply made up the numbers. I seek leave to table the Cabinet paper that shows the details of the 17000 jobs that would be lost under Labour’s regulations. 
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. 
Pansy Wong—International Travel 
12. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he prepared to ask the Auditor-General to inquire further into the overseas travel of former Minister Pansy Wong? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: No as the Prime Minister has stated previously if anyone has evidence that they believe has not been looked at then they should refer it to the Speaker or the Auditor-General for further investigation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In light of the  
Campbell Live  
investigation that was aired last night which found evidence that in June 2008 Sammy Wong took a taxpayer-subsidised trip to China that included business activity is it Government policy to attempt to recover taxpayers’ money from people who have spent that money wrongly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I invite the Minister to answer the question I point out that the Prime Minister is not responsible for a matter to do with part of the Parliamentary Service. Any travel by Sammy Wong is a matter for the Speaker. The Speaker can certainly be questioned on the matter if the member wants to put a question in writing to the Speaker but the Prime Minister is not responsible for travel funded by the Parliamentary Service under the Speaker’s directions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the question was very deliberately worded in such a way that it was to do with the overall responsibility of the Government to recover Crown funds that appear to have been stolen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must not allege that sort of thing in the House. It is not fair to use parliamentary privilege in that way. It is not fair to treat New Zealand citizens in that way. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a real matter of fairness here. I do not know whether you saw the television programme last night but it did show dated photos of Sammy Wong— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. Labour has certainly just lost a supplementary question and any repeat of that behaviour will result in the shadow Leader of the House leaving the Chamber. When I get to my feet he will resume his seat. I make that absolutely clear. He will not use the point of order procedure to try to make allegations about another New Zealander. It is irrelevant whether the Speaker saw some television programme last night—totally irrelevant. The member will not abuse the House in that way. The member is better than that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I am still on my feet. That is enough. I have been giving thought to the issue of the budgetary considerations of the Government. The Speaker is responsible for the budget of the Parliamentary Service. If the Minister wishes to answer the part of the question about the Government’s overall budgetary responsibility I am happy for him to do so. But if the Minister feels that that is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility then that is certainly a perfectly fair response. I do not want to prevent the Minister from answering the question. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is not under his jurisdiction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is making it clear that he does not consider that is appropriate and that is where the Speaker must leave it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether you could tell me now if I were to ask a question that read “Is it Government policy to attempt to recover taxpayers’ money from people who have spent that money wrongly?” that question would be in order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker should not be answering that kind of question although I sympathise with the member in that he wants to be able to ask questions that are in order on this particular issue. Normally when members are questioning Ministers about their budgets they are asking specifically about matters to do with the budgets they are responsible for and that is correct and a Minister could be questioned in that way. The dilemma with this particular question is that the “Minister” responsible for that budget is the Speaker. There is a procedure for questioning the Speaker. The member is perfectly at liberty to put down a question for written answer to the Speaker and I can assure the member that the Speaker will answer it. That is the difficulty I have with questions of that nature because it is absolutely clear that the Prime Minister is not responsible for Sammy Wong’s travel and is not responsible for a budget that the Speaker is responsible for. That is the dilemma I have with this line of questioning. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you are relatively unhappy with me at the moment but I ask you to consider this question again. I think you are responsible for the appropriation. You are responsible for the expenditure; you are not I think responsible for the revenue of the Crown. That is the responsibility of the Government led by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the member’s point of order is being made in good faith but the dilemma I have is that I have put it to the Minister as to whether the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister believes there is ministerial responsibility for the question put to him and the Minister has indicated to me that he does not believe there is ministerial responsibility for that question as it was put to him. I cannot argue that with a Minister; the Minister is a better judge of that matter than I am. All I can say is that matters relating to travel by members of this House who are not Ministers are the responsibility of the Speaker and that is the difficulty we have on this question. The Minister has indicated that he does not believe that the Prime Minister is answerable for that matter in this House and I cannot dispute that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How much does he think Mr and Mrs Wong need to pay back? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have no knowledge that they need to pay back anything and I would suggest to the member that if he has any evidence that has not been considered so far he needs to make it available to either the Auditor-General or the Speaker in order for that evidence to be considered. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How can the Prime Minister tell the House that in his view the answer to the question about how much needs to be paid back is zero when documentary proof of a further rort was aired on television just last night? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the Prime Minister is responsible I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Prime Minister did not see  
Campbell Live  
last night and speaking for myself I seldom watch it. But I would say that if there is further evidence that needs to be considered then the member should make it available to either the Speaker or the Auditor-General. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Noting that Mr Wong reportedly told Mr McPhail that he went to Shanghai in June 2008 to visit friends when he actually went to Lianyungang to put a hovercraft deal together does he now think that the McPhail report is flawed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question is totally out of order. The member knows that he should not have asked that question because he knows that it is out of order. He was using the question as an opportunity to try to score a political point and that is not an appropriate use of question time in this House especially by an experienced member. 
Questions to Members 
Questions Nos 1 2 and 3 to Member 
Questions withdrawn. 
Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Submissions Received 
4. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submissions have been received to date on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 Two submissions. 
Clare Curran 
: Has the committee considered extending the closing date— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The chair is not answerable for what the committee might have decided. 
Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Closing Date for Submissions 
5. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: When do submissions close on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
:  
Submissions close on 25 February 2011. 
Clare Curran 
: Is it the intention of the committee to extend— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The chair is not answerable for what the intention of the committee might be. 
Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 15 February. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will take a short call on this bill. We will support its referral to the select committee but we make no indication beyond that of our intention to support it. It is beyond dispute that the normal process for calculating rents based on the unimproved land values of these leases is not a viable process so something has to be done about that problem. The issue touches on one very small aspect of the very much larger issue of how best to manage these pastoral leases especially in the high country. 
These leases have been historically important for New Zealand agriculture but are now under considerable pressure. For the most part these areas of Crown land are also the sites of very high conservation values and that is the nub of the issue around these leases. Tenure review is a process that is placing some of those conservation values at even greater risk and that happened under Labour Governments and National Governments but particularly under the current National Government there is a determination not to add any land to the public conservation estate and at the same time that is coupled with the disastrous decision by the Government to in fact reduce the funding available for conservation. 
That has created a situation in which the objective of the Crown Pastoral Land Act to manage these areas in an ecologically sustainable manner is now at profound risk. What the Government is instead doing is relying on an extremely weak form of protection—covenanting—to provide any protection whatsoever for the conservation values on these areas of land. 
I am a big fan of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust. I have a trust covenant over my own land on the West Coast. The success or otherwise of that mechanism for actually protecting the conservation values of a place is entirely dependent on the motivation of the landowner because the trust itself is not in a position to actively manage and protect those conservation values. 
Although there are some great and committed landowners who are part of the trust and who entered into that covenanting relationship willingly if instead the covenanting of parcels of their land is a condition of the tenure review process one might suspect that at least in some of those cases the commitment of a landowner to protecting the conservation values in that place is likely to be less. That means that some of the places with the very highest values in New Zealand in terms of conservation are now resting on the whim of the landowner who may be poorly motivated to do so to protect them. That is a situation that creates some profound risk for some very important conservation values for New Zealand. So that objective of the Crown Pastoral Lease Act is currently subject to jeopardy. 
It was kind of interesting that another mechanism was offered by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her report from April 2009 
 Change in the high country: Environmental stewardship and tenure review.  
The report indicates that a more creative option around rentals was possible. She suggested in fact that our Parliament should look at a rental policy that actually prioritised the environmental outcomes that we were seeking from these precious places. It is with regret that I note that the Government has chosen not to pursue that path. 
However this is a complex issue and it may well be that there are sound arguments for not pursuing that option that was proffered by the commissioner. If so—and we have not heard them yet—we will be very interested to hear the debate at the select committee. We are prepared to support the first reading of the bill but at this stage our intention is to wait and see what the submissions say. Thank you. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 The Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill is a continuation of how this Government is providing certainty fairness and equity for all things related to New Zealand. This Government is committed to fairer more equitable high country rents. It acknowledges and many across this country acknowledge that the current system is unworkable. It is inequitable and it was more about some political philosophy rather than the economic realities that high country farmers in the South Island face. 
This bill is a new approach; we acknowledge that. But it brings fairness and equity. I also note that it was a key element of National’s pre-election agricultural policy which was endorsed along with many other fine National policies just 2 years ago. I commend the bill to the House. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to take a call on the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. This bill will give effect to a new rent system for Crown pastoral leases and will amend the existing rent-setting provisions in the Land Act 1948 and the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998. 
There has been widespread support for the introduction of these measures by high country farmers in the South Island where the majority of Crown pastoral leasehold land is located. As the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga I will of course be listening to the views of those farmers and taking their support into consideration about how this bill impacts on Te Wai Pounamu. We know that this bill will deliver certainty to leaseholders by creating a more objective formula tied to the productivity potential of the land. Certainty is of great importance to the economic and social well-being of the primary production sector. 
The particular point of interest for the Maori Party in this bill is in relation to the fact that the leases will be set according to the earning capacity of the land at its highest and best use. Realising the highest and best use of land is an intergenerational priority for iwi and for Maori landowners. I would expect that every member of this House will be aware of just how important the concept of whenua is to the people we know as tangata whenua—literally: “the people of the land”. I would also expect every member of this House to know the tragic story associated with Maori land alienation. Maori lost land to the Crown and private owners through a wide variety of methods. Some was sold to the Government for very low prices; other areas were confiscated after the New Zealand Wars. The Native Land Court converted customary titles to freehold often leading to further losses of land. On top of this shameful history there is also a more recent history relating to the current condition of Maori land which may be affected by this bill. 
There have been many practical and statutory barriers to Maori land and iwi assets achieving productivity potential. It will therefore be important for the House to carefully assess whether the valuation formula successfully takes into account any barriers iwi and Maori may experience in achieving the earning capacity of the land. I think it has bearing on this legislation to consider the broader context in relation to the productivity of Maori land. We know from the local government rates inquiry in 2007 that the quality of Maori land is so variable that it would be inappropriate for valuations for rating purposes to be based on the market value of Maori land. It is important to the Maori Party that certainty is carefully partnered with fairness. 
All the evidence to date suggests that high country farming leaders are backing the system outlined in this bill for setting rents for pastoral leases administered by the Crown. Our particular interest as the Maori Party is to consider what if any impact this legislation will have for Maori land and for iwi and Maori landowners. It is also important that the potential precedent effect of this formula is recognised. The approach for Crown pastoral land is not necessarily suitable for private arrangements particularly those attaching to Maori land. 
At this point we will support the bill at its first reading to enable the korero to be had and for iwi and Maori landowners to have the time to consider the implications carefully. Tena tatou katoa. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I am a little bit surprised by the Green and Maori Party positions on this Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. I listened closely to the contributions from Kevin Hague and Rahui Katene and it seems as though they are keeping an open mind at this point in time. But really I think once they hear the submissions at the select committee and once they have actually looked through this bill properly they will shift their position closer to the Labour position which is to oppose this bill. Because if ever there was an example that this Government is not working for ordinary New Zealanders it is this example. We have plenty of examples but here is just another. 
Ordinary New Zealanders own this land. The South Island high country is one of New Zealand’s most precious State assets but this bill proposes to reduce the rents that the Crown can actually receive from that asset. The rents the Crown receives should be fair and they should reflect the value of the land. That is how every other landlord would do it. That is what National members would expect from a private landlord. They would say that property rights are important that we need to uphold property rights and that a private landlord should get to set a fair market rent. But for some reason they seem to believe that the Crown should not be allowed to do that. This Government is intent on undermining public property rights. 
Not only are we seeing an undermining or erosion of the rent that can be received from those properties but there is a massive flow-on effect. This is the bit at which I think the Greens will come round because at tenure review some of this land gets privatised. Tenure review is a process by which some of the land gets shifted into the Department of Conservation estate the land that is quality pastoral farming land gets privatised and money changes hands. But we have seen over the years an absolute rort of the tenure review system whereby private landowners get the land for an absolute pittance the Crown cannot get a reasonable and fair price for the land and those landowners get all the windfall profits from that land. It is simply unfair that the 4.4 million New Zealanders—the vast majority—who own this land do not get the windfall profits. Meanwhile the 231 lessees—231—are getting all of the profits and all the benefits out of the system at the expense of 4.4 million New Zealanders. 
Windfall profits mean that farmers are in a better position to freehold their properties. They are in a better position to onsell a part or all of a farm and that gives them windfall profits. We have already seen that happening. Of the 77 runs that have completed tenure review between 1992 and 2008 at least 28 of the new landowners have onsold 176 parcels of newly freehold land. Those 28 new owners paid the Crown $6.9 million to freehold that land but they have realised $134 million after onselling 45266 hectares or 44 percent of the land that was freeholded. So 44 percent of what was valued at $6.9 million has ended up paying windfall profits of $134 million. That is a massive transfer of wealth from 4.4 million New Zealanders to a tiny number of people—28—and 4.4 million New Zealanders have lost out so that 28 of National’s mates could make just under $130 million. It is an outrage; it is an absolute outrage. 
Brendon Burns 
: Good donations! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I bet there were some good donations out of that. But here is the thing: the lessees will argue and the Government is arguing that the lessees cannot afford the full market rent. Well if they cannot afford the full market rent a discount is already available—they can apply for a discount. Do members know how many of those lessees applied for a discount? Can anybody guess? Zero nada none—not a one! Nobody applied for a discount yet apparently it is absolutely outrageous that the Government expects a fair market valuation on the land so that it can ask a rent—would members believe—of 2 percent of the total value of the land. It is apparently so outrageous that no one can afford it but not one of those lessees applied for the rent discount. They were told about it—they were told about it three times no less. They had plenty of opportunity to apply for a discount but they did not. 
Why? It is a very good question. Why do lessees not apply for a discount if they think they cannot pay the rent? Well because there is another option which is to challenge the full rental valuation. That is exactly what these lessees have done. In fact I have heard from the Government that about 113 lessees have applied to the Land Valuation Tribunal for their rental assessments to be revalued. Why would they do that? If the lessees get an actual revaluation of their leases it diminishes the value of the land so that when they get to tenure review and there is an opportunity to privatise the land they can get the land for a lower value. 
If the discount were applied for and it was acknowledged that the full market valuation on the rental still existed but because of particular circumstances a discount was given then that would secure the full valuation of the land. In that way the Crown would get to realise the full value of that land when it was privatised. But no! That is not what the lessees want to do and that is not what this Government wants to do: it wants to make sure that all those windfall profits go to their few mates in the High Country Accord at the expense of the rest of New Zealand. 
There is an agenda going on here to devalue a Crown asset. It is one thing to go around selling off all our Crown assets left right and centre but here we have an asset that the Government is receiving rent on. It is a dividend that comes into the Government coffers that can be used for everybody. But no the Government wants to devalue that so it can reduce the amount of income coming in. The gains that come from those leases rightfully belong to all New Zealanders. It is quite obvious what this Government is trying to do. In the first instance it is undermining the dividend; it is reducing the dividend that all New Zealanders could have received. In the second instance it is ensuring that the windfall profits go to a tiny few and do not get passed on to the majority of New Zealanders. The Government would have people think that by Labour taking this position the party is somehow anti-farmer. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Well you are. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Aha—there we go. I just wanted to check and make sure—yes OK! The Government would have people think that we are somehow anti-farmer. Well that is simply not true. 
Let us just look at this policy a little bit more closely. Who actually benefits from it? Is it the farming community at large is it New Zealand’s entire rural community or is it in fact 231 lessees not all of whom are farming? It is the latter who benefit from it—231 lessees not all of whom are farming. Some of them are foreign rock stars who just enjoy living on that particular land with all of the views and the general and pleasant lifestyle they get from it. All other farmers in the country have to pay either a fair valuation if they purchase the land or a fair market valuation if they are leasing the land. This policy is not some pro-farmer policy; it does nothing for most farmers in New Zealand. It works for only a tiny tiny few living in the high country of the South Island. 
These lessees are getting very special treatment from this Government and I would like to know why the Government is giving such a small number of people such special treatment because that is to the disadvantage of all New Zealanders. It is to the disadvantage of the rest of the rural community; it is to the disadvantage of the Government of the day which receives a dividend from this land. It is just unbelievable that the Government is trying to sell us a story about how it is supporting high country farmers. You know I think the Government would have us think that the people it is working for here are blokes riding around on horseback saying “Good on ya mate.” to one another but it is not. They are a tiny tiny few and this legislation is to the disadvantage of all New Zealanders because this Government is not working for New Zealand. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I applaud the Hon Maurice Williamson for bringing the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill to the House. This is a win-win opportunity. The simple truth is that Opposition members are fiscally incompetent and do not understand that people can be rated or rented off the properties that they occupy. Here is an opportunity to keep people on the land looking after the land being productive and providing conservation and stewardship of that land in a win-win situation and Opposition members do not want it. That is why there was such a mess under Labour. National will make a difference and make sure that that situation is a win-win and an improvement for all New Zealanders. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand Labour 38; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I move  
That the Primary Production Committeeconsider the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill 
that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 July 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I move  
That the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. 
Today I present to the House the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. The bill repeals 31 Acts that have been identified as no longer being required obsolete redundant or spent. The bill forms part of the commitment made by this Government to improving the regulatory environment in New Zealand as outlined in the  
Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation Less Regulation 
. That sets out the Government’s commitment to introducing new regulation only when satisfied that it is required that it is reasonable and that it is robust and to review existing regulation in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly. Ensuring that the statute book contains regulations that are easy to use up to date and fit for purpose is the key to a quality regulatory environment. 
The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill will help achieve this by clearing the statute book of some unnecessary and spent Acts without having to proceed with a repeal bill for each of the 31 separate pieces of legislation. Without this bill the spent Acts may continue to sit on the statute book which creates unnecessary clutter and potentially may create confusion for the users of legislation. The use of a single repeal Act to repeal multiple Acts is not unique to New Zealand; the United Kingdom has used legislation to repeal and amend a number of Acts and the Commonwealth Government of Australia has a regular Statute Law Revision Act. 
Each of the Acts put forward for repeal via this bill has remained within the stock of regulation for New Zealand even though each item is for all intents and purposes no longer live. None of the Acts are currently in use and their removal will not affect any party. The bill contains four clauses. The first two clauses cover the title and the commencement of the legislation. Clause 3 repeals the Acts specified in the schedule to the bill and clause 4 provides for the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill itself to be repealed 28 days after the Act comes into force thereby removing the need for future repeal bills to have to repeal their predecessors. That is not bad—a bill that will knock out 31 statutes and then knocks itself out a month later. 
The Acts put forward for repeal have been identified by Ministers from seven portfolios and have been identified through a number of avenues including the regulatory scanning exercise. The Government asked agencies to undertake scanning of their legislation as part of the commitment this Government has to the  
Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation Less Regulation 
. Many of the Acts contained within the bill are Acts that agencies have known they have had on their books but have not yet had the opportunity to repeal. The Acts put forward for repeal in the bill range in date from 1884 to 2003 indicating that time is not necessarily a factor in identifying when an Act will become obsolete. 
I do not think that our work in getting rid of the regulatory burden will be finished with the passage of this repeal bill; I intend that an omnibus bill of this nature be proposed as and when necessary to ensure that Acts no longer required are removed from the statute book using this highly efficient method. I thank my colleagues responsible for the Acts put forward for repeal in this bill. Their decisions to put these Acts into the bill show the commitment they have to improving the stock of regulation. 
The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is part of a broader agenda of work designed to improve the body of regulation in New Zealand. Other work in this area has led to the introduction of the Regulatory Reform Bill which contains legislative amendments that reduce compliance costs to businesses. I have also prepared a revocation order that proposes the revocation of spent and obsolete regulations. This set of legislative vehicles is designed to improve the stock of regulation in New Zealand and it will make sure that New Zealand has an evolving regulatory environment that is relevant up to date and best placed to meet the needs of a dynamic economy that will help New Zealand grow. This is a good day because here we are in the Parliament removing 31 statutes. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The Labour Party of course will support the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. But let me say that for something called a regulatory reform bill it is the most inefficient use of Parliament’s time that the Minister for Regulatory Reform and indeed the Government have imposed on this Parliament so far. Given some of the legislation we have had in this House that takes some doing. Last Tuesday only 2 days ago we debated the Regulatory Reform Bill and referred it to the Commerce Committee. Why on earth was the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill not a schedule to that bill? It would have made absolute sense for this bill to be included within the legislation we have already referred to the select committee. I ask the Minister why this is a separate bill. Perhaps one of his acolytes who rises to speak on the bill could explain to us why there is a separate bill when we had a Regulatory Reform Bill before the House just 2 days ago. In fact it has already been referred to the select committee and we will be advertising and calling for submissions as is standard practice. 
The first principle of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice is efficiency. It is the No. 1 principle. What is efficient about two separate bills taking up the House’s time including this debate this afternoon? What is efficient about two separate references to the Commerce Committee which I chair? We are an extraordinarily busy select committee and we do not need to have our time wasted when these bills could have been compacted into a single piece of legislation. What is efficient about doubling the cost of the advertising for submissions when the two bills could have been advertised together? This does not meet the No. 1 test of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice in itself. It is a complete failure in that regard and I am utterly appalled that the Minister for Regulatory Reform gave his speech in the form that he did. He has indicated that this bill is doing something that it simply is not doing. 
If there were a single valid reason for having two separate bills—and I for the life of me cannot think of one reason—then why not include this provision within a Statutes Amendment Bill? There is nothing at all by any stretch of the imagination controversial about repealing three pieces of legislation that date back to the 19th century. I do not think anyone will be opposed to the repeal of the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 the New Zealand Shipping Company (Limited) Empowering Act 1884 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885. I do not think we will miss that legislation. I do not think there is anything controversial about repealing them because they do not have any effect any more anyway. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is a “do nothing” bill that could have been added to a Statutes Amendment Bill in its own right. It is also repealing one Act from 1934 and one from 1964. The rest of the Acts date back to the 1980s and the 1990s and three are from this century. So only three of the Acts being repealed are from this century. But guess what? Of the 31 Acts of Parliament that this bill repeals 12 of them are repeals of repeal Acts. All they are doing is repealing the fact that there was a repeal Act on the statute book. They are not something that anyone would be looking up in our printed statutes but I will come back to that in a minute. 
If there were a single valid reason not to include this bill in the Regulatory Reform Bill then we would have seen it in a Statutes Amendment Bill except that there is possibly a reason why this Minister for Regulatory Reform wants a separate bill. It is because he wants to prove that he is delivering on the second principle of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice and of course we all know what that is off by heart do we not? In fact Aaron Gilmore will know; he probably wrote the Code of Good Regulatory Practice. The first principle is efficiency so what is the second principle? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: It doesn’t really matter. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No he does not know. Ha ha! I did not think he knew. The second principle of good regulatory practice is effectiveness. This Minister wants to show he is an effective Minister because he has had all these bills passed in his name. Can I just say that one does not measure effectiveness by quantity. It is the quality of the regulation that counts not quantity. The number of pieces of legislation in the Minister’s name that are passed in his name does not meet the test of effectiveness either. I wonder whether it has something to do with the fact that the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be introducing its own Regulatory Responsibility Bill. I wonder whether it is because Rodney Hide’s old Regulatory Responsibility Bill because it is a member’s bill is now in the name of the Hon Sir Roger Douglas so he wants to get that name back on his Regulatory Responsibility Bill. 
Of course if that Regulatory Responsibility Bill had been in place at the time that this Government had taken office then that Government would not have been able to pass the amount of legislation it passed in its first 100 days in office because a number of those pieces of legislation failed the test of the bill. If anyone thinks that the union movement would not have gone to court on the 90-day trial period legislation I would think that that person had not given much thought to how the Regulatory Responsibility Bill would have worked. That is why we have the bill. We have the bill because the Minister wants to say that he has passed X number of bills and that he has repealed 31 statutes. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill repeals 31 statutes that have no effect. Therefore the repeal of them is a bit like multiplying by zero. What happens when we multiply one by zero? What happens when we multiply 150001 by zero? The answer is still zero and that is what this Minister has produced: zero. 
Unfortunately this bill also offends principle No. 3 of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice which requires transparency. There is no transparency in presenting a bill when the explanatory note says: “The maintenance of a quality regulatory environment requires ensuring that the existing body of legislation is easy to use up to date and fit for purpose.” It is all very well to say that that is what this bill delivers when all it does is clear from the statute book some unnecessary and spent Acts. These are all pieces of legislation that are now completely out of date no longer have effect or have very limited effect and none of which are relevant to our legal system today. There is nothing about the bill that actually delivers on that. Let us look at what the explanatory note states: “The maintenance of a quality regulatory environment requires ensuring that the existing body of legislation is easy to use up to date and fit for purpose. This Bill will help achieve this by clearing the statute books of some unnecessary and spent Acts.” 
I come back to my point: the legislation that this bill repeals does nothing. The repeal of the legislation that this bill repeals does nothing as well. There is nothing that the Minister or any of the MPs on the other side of the House can say that will make it otherwise. If each of the laws that this bill repeals has no effect then as I have said the bill will not do anything other than create the obligation for those who still have printed statute books to update them by crossing out the statutes that have no effect anyway. In regard to all the books out there in the lobbies someone will have to come along and open them up at the relevant pages from the 1890s into the 1930s the 1980s and the 1990s and put red lines through all of those pages. It would be a make-work scheme and maybe the Government could get someone on Community Max to do it. That would be a very good idea but actually it is a very skilled job that has to be done in these areas because we should not be playing around with our statutes. 
But who uses the statutes out there any more? If members are in their office they can go on to legislation.govt.nz. I do not know how many people are still using the printed statutes and that is why again this is such an irrelevancy that does not deserve a separate debate and separate referral to the select committee. The only reason this is a separate bill is so that the Minister can puff up his chest and claim that he has yet again applied the blowtorch to regulation and any National members who back him up will prove that they are the patsies they are. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I have heard racing commentaries that were slower less excitable and less intense than that contribution. I can only assume that Ms Dalziel must moonlight at Riccarton racecourse on a Saturday afternoon. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: As a horse! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Thank you Mr Williamson. What an entertaining if slightly angry tirade that was from the former Minister of Commerce. It was a breathless contribution. But methinks that it was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. 
I was pleased to speak in the first reading debate on the Regulatory Reform Bill in the House on Tuesday afternoon and I am equally pleased to speak today in support of this important companion measure the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Again I congratulate the Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide and his team of officials on the work they have done in bringing this bill to its first reading in this House. I make the point that this bill is a significant part of the Government’s strategy to lift New Zealand’s long-term economic growth create jobs boost incomes raise living standards and provide world-class public services. 
The explosion of bureaucracy and red tape that occurred under the previous Labour administration in the first decade of this century has had disastrous consequences for productivity and jobs in New Zealand. That is why the National-led Government is determined to reverse the trend and overcome the problem. It is why the Government made two clear commitments in the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
 which was released in August 2009. Those commitments are firstly that we will introduce new regulations only when we are satisfied that they are required reasonable and robust; and secondly that we will review existing regulations in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly. 
This particular bill will repeal 31 Acts that have been identified as redundant as was envisaged when the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
 contained the pledge to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly. Some of the Acts identified for repeal as we have just heard from Ms Dalziel are even older than most of the members opposite and like those members they have long since ceased to serve any useful purpose. Ms Dalziel read out some specific examples. They also include the Aid to Water-power Works Act 1910 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885. I think at least one of those measures was passed when Ms Dalziel was a junior member of this House so I understand that she may feel some grief at its passing not to mention understand that party’s apparent reluctance to see any red tape removed from our statute book and regulations. But it is well past time that those Acts went. 
There is a very serious purpose to this measure as the repeal of the 31 redundant Acts will minimise the potential for confusion that firms and individuals may experience. As a Government we are working to ensure that the statutes are up to date easy to comprehend and fit for purpose. Under the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
 Ministers are required to certify that all new regulation is consistent with the two principles I mentioned a moment ago. Their departments are required to provide annual regulatory plans of all known and anticipated proposals to introduce repeal or review legislation or regulation. To assist in that aim—and an example can be seen in the 31 Acts that have been identified for repeal in this bill—a process of scanning has been adopted. This scanning process will be followed by all departments which have been directed to look over the stock of legislation and regulations that they manage and assess whether they are still needed efficient and proportionate. The current Government’s initiative is designed to minimise the burden of regulation placed on individuals and firms. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be a significant and widely welcomed procedure. 
Notwithstanding the extraordinary contribution we heard a moment ago I expect that this measure will enjoy broad cross-party support in the House. For that reason I commend the bill to the House and say we should get on with it and not have quite as much excitable nonsense as a red herring. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Of course the member who has just taken his seat Tim Macindoe has not done anything to answer the criticisms that were made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. The reality is that this separate bill the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill has one operative clause clause 3 which is seven words long. It states: “The Acts specified in the Schedule are repealed.” That is all this bill does. It states: “The Acts specified in the Schedule are repealed.” Lianne Dalziel was quite right to point out that we passed a regulatory reform bill earlier this week that could have included that phrase and repealed this list of old statutes which do need to be repealed in that regulatory reform bill. The fact that it was not included in that bill is a nonsense. It is a colossal waste of money. We know that the cost of each separate Act of Parliament that is passed in this Parliament runs to many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are unnecessarily adding to that cost to taxpayers. So although Labour agrees that there are old Acts on the books that ought not to live there any longer and ought to be killed off and that can simply be done by a phrase that long we do not agree that it should be a separate Act of Parliament. 
I also want to talk a little further about why that is given that it is so patently unnecessary for this to be done in a separate Act of Parliament and so patently wastes the time not just of Cabinet but of this Parliament and of select committees. Why is the Government organising its programme in this way? It is patently clear: it has no economic programme to bring before the House. It is not busying itself with the things it needs to do as a Government to take New Zealand from its double-dip recession and to improve our economy. 
In this country over 100000 people are unemployed now and we are entering into a second recession—a double-dip recession. We are one of the few countries in the Western World that is experiencing a double-dip recession. It plainly is National’s recession. It cannot duck responsibility for this one. It cannot blame it on Australia. It cannot blame it on China. It cannot blame it on the rest of the world. It cannot blame it even on the previous Labour Government which it has tried to do. It is National’s recession and National’s responsibility. Why is this Government playing around with parliamentary processes wasting taxpayers’ money and the time of Parliament and the executive with a bill like this one when there are serious things that need to be addressed in this country? 
The reality is that we know from those who are regular followers of Parliament on radio or from those who sit on the Opposition benches that it is patently clear now that the Government does not have an adequate plan to deal with the challenges that the country faces. It has given up on some of the promises that it was elected on. One of National’s core promises at the last election was that it was going to close the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. Having promised that the Minister for Economic Development Gerry Brownlee halfway through last year made a fool of himself by saying that the Government was achieving that. The Prime Minister dug a hole for himself by saying that yes he agreed. But we unpicked that in Parliament. All of the analysts and journalists agreed that the Opposition was right that rather than that gap narrowing it was broadening and it continues to broaden. 
Chris Hipkins 
: They’ve caught up with unemployment though. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh yes that is true. The only thing we have caught up with Australia on and in fact surpassed it is the unemployment rate. But in terms of the growing wage gap between Australia and New Zealand the Government has not caused it to narrow. It has not even caused it to stabilise. It is growing. 
On the back of that we have tried to pin the Government to some milestones whereby the Government would be judged as to whether by its own measure it was succeeding or failing and it has dodged that. The Government has said that that is a target for 2025 by which time its members will all be retired or will have been retired by the electors. Such a meaningless target that is so far out is something that the Government tries not be judged upon. 
Let us look at what other things the Government promised which it should be focusing on instead of focusing on this completely unnecessary bill that could have been included in another bill that we considered just 2 days ago. The Government was promising a step change in the New Zealand economy. It said that a step change in the New Zealand economy was necessary in order to amongst other things bridge the ever-growing wage gap under this Government between wages and salaries earned in Australia and in New Zealand. Well that phrase has dropped from its vocabulary. If we were to look at the election material provided for the last election campaign we would find that National had promised a step change in the New Zealand economy. The National Government even kept up with that language until the middle of last year. It was on its publications and on its website. The Government said it was seeking a step change in the New Zealand economy. Well now that the Government has taken us back into another recession that phrase also has dropped out of its vocabulary. It is no longer talking— 
Chris Hipkins 
: We’re stepping in one direction but it’s not the direction they promised. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well certainly we are taking a step backwards. It is a step change in the New Zealand economy but in the wrong direction. It certainly is not a step change in the direction of the New Zealand economy that will cause more people to get jobs and incomes to rise. 
If we reflect on what is left in the Government’s armoury when it comes to economic policy other than this meaningless regulatory reform bill which repeals Acts that are already irrelevant anyway we find that the cupboard is just about bare. There is no significant policy. The Government has always been a single-focus party which is tax cuts. That is all it understands. It thinks that tax cuts are an economic policy. Tax policy is an important part of economic policy but it is just a part. The Government does not yet seem to understand that reality. So that is why rather than dealing with all of the other things outside of tax policy that are so important and need to be done this Parliament instead is considering this largely irrelevant legislation. 
We know that the Government’s tax policy has increased inequalities in New Zealand. We know that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have both said in the last month that one of the problems in the world that threatens both civil order in a lot of countries and economic progress is the growing gap between the rich and the poor. When the gap becomes as large as it is in New Zealand and in a lot of other Western countries the economy does not grow as fast. This Government in respect of just about its only economic plank which is tax cuts has made that worse in New Zealand by so unfairly weighting the income tax cuts to those who are already best off. In fact over 40 percent of the income tax cuts made by this Government have gone to the top 10 percent of income earners. 
This Government is bereft of ideas to get New Zealand moving again. It is not doing much. It says it has spent a bit on infrastructure and that is true; it is also true that it is not really spending much more on infrastructure than was spent by the outgoing Labour Government. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been listening to the address from this member and I have to say that the bill is about regulatory reform yet most of his speech has been about economics and the Government’s economic policy. As a point of relevance I suggest to you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker that we bring him back to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: To be fair the member has referred to the bill on regular occasions has referred to regulatory reform and has referred to matters that the Government could have been doing in addition to this. So the member has not been entirely off the topic. But the point is well made. We are discussing the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Members are entitled to draw on other things but not to rely on them entirely. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have said previously the Government has often said that one of the important things to get this economy moving is regulatory reform. It has rattled on about how if we change the Resource Management Act the economy will go faster and how if we improved regulation it would somehow significantly improve our economy. That was one part of its plan. The other part of its plan was tax cuts. 
I know that Mr Carter does not like to hear the message I have been giving to the House. He tries to stop me repeating it because it resonates with a lot of people who have become unemployed and people whose incomes are languishing compared with Australia. The message is that the plan that National says it stands for which is regulatory reform and lower taxes does not cut the mustard. It does not do it especially when we know that most people overall are worse off after the so-called tax switch and only a very small percentage at the top are significantly better off as a consequence of the tax changes. The vast majority of people also know that as a consequence of the failure to get this economy running properly and as a consequence of borrowing for tax cuts the Government’s finances are not in as good shape as they would otherwise be. 
New Zealand is not yet in a parlous state in terms of the Government accounts because of course the incoming National Government inherited very low Government debt by world standards. In fact net Government debt was at virtually zero—one of the lowest rates in the Western World. But it means that the economy is performing less well than it ought to and it means that now over 100000 people are unemployed. A very significant proportion of our young people once they leave school are going into unemployment. They are not going into training; they are going into unemployment living off a benefit and becoming disenchanted. Sadly they are becoming unmotivated which will present future social problems for New Zealand. It is one of the reasons New Zealanders are leaving in almost unprecedented numbers every week to go to Australia—so much so that Julia Gillard on her visit to New Zealand this week said that she views New Zealand as a worthy place of well-trained well-educated people who go and make Australia wealthy. This bill is a smokescreen for the lack of progress made by the Government. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 It is enough I think to say that the Green Party will support the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill through its first reading. 
My modest contribution to the debate will be confined to an acknowledgment that I have not delved deeply into the Cornish Companies Management Act Repeal Act 1994 nor have I actually delved into any of the 31 Acts this bill repeals such as the Economic Stabilisation Act Repeal Act 1987 which of course had far more historical significant once upon a time. The New Zealand Planning Council Dissolution Act 1991 causes me grief since I worked for the Planning Council only 7 years before that and there is no telling what might have happened if the Act had been passed earlier. 
I do not intend to spend time rhapsodising about the New Zealand economy for or against Government policy at this moment. I would rather not take up more of the House’s time. I reiterate that we will support the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I am just a new member here but I am pleased today to be able to help out the Hon David Parker and the Hon Lianne Dalziel with something that apparently I know and they do not. The reason that the Regulatory Reform Bill debated earlier in the week was not tied up with this bill is simple: omnibus bills must have a shared purpose. The Regulatory Reform Bill’s aim was to reduce compliance costs for business; the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill does not do that so it has to be a separate bill. 
I find it extraordinary that Lianne Dalziel felt the need to go on for her full 10 minutes—on and on—about something she said mattered absolutely not at all. I will not fall into making that mistake. I commend this bill to the House. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill but in order to prevent speakers from the Labour Party dragging on and on about a bill that we should be able to deal with in 5 minutes I have taken this opportunity to say that we support this bill. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 Like the three speakers who have spoken immediately before me I do not want to spend a long time on what is a very simple bill the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I have said everything I wanted to say about the importance of getting the regulatory environment right to move the country ahead in my contribution earlier this week on the Regulatory Reform Bill. 
The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is not a significant bill. It is not a world-changing bill but none the less it needs to be passed. I think the fact that some of the legislation now being repealed includes legislation like the District Railways Purchasing Act from 1885 and the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 is testament in itself as to how long overdue this exercise is. It is not just about making sure we do not create too much new regulation and that when we do it is right; it is also about making sure that when a regulation is no longer required we get rid of it tidy things up and get it off the books. That is what this bill is all about. 
I am very pleased to see in the words of  
Mission Impossible 
 that the bill itself will self-destruct 28 days after its passing to make sure it does not commit the same folly as the bills we are now having to deal with of remaining on the statute book long after its time. With that comment I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill could have been dealt with earlier this week alongside the Regulatory Reform Bill. This is a basic bill. It repeals 31 Acts that have expired in terms of their use. As the previous speaker said the bill will self-destruct after being passed. I make the point that it would be good if more National bills did so. If I had had time I would have put together a list of the National bills that should self-destruct. 
We accept that Acts proposed for repeal are spent but as a number of speakers on this side of the House have asked does the Government not have anything better to do? Is this really a good way to spend Parliament’s time? Mr Hide the Minister in charge of the bill said in a press release in December: “Through regulation government has the power to affect the lives of every New Zealander.” This Government is using its power to affect the lives of every New Zealander by repealing Acts that have no effect whatsoever. Spent Acts can be repealed without any practical consequences. New Zealanders need practical solutions to the problems they are facing. 
Labour welcomes regulatory reform with a balanced approach that will deliver solutions that work for businesses and will ultimately benefit the New Zealand economy as a whole. The bill is not about regulatory reform as its title purports. 
Having made that point I will talk briefly about one of the 31 Acts that are expiring. One of the Acts that will be repealed under the bill covers an area that is very close to my heart the New Zealand railways. The District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 authorised “Her Majesty the Queen to purchase certain Railways within the Dominion constructed under the District Railways Act and the Railways Construction and Land Acts.” I will read a paragraph from the preamble of the District Railways Purchasing Act: “And whereas the companies owners of the railways mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are desirous of selling their railways to the Government of New Zealand: And whereas it is expedient that the Governor should be empowered on behalf of Her Majesty to purchase the said railways in the manner provided by this Act”. 
The District Railways Purchasing Act might be 126 years old but it does have symmetry with today when one reflects on the benefits of State-owned enterprises while the Government plans to sell them off. A recession is happening in this country. There are not enough jobs. We need a plan for our economy. That is what the Government should be concentrating on. Instead we have the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill before us today. Selling off our assets is the Government’s big plan. The asset sales will be great for foreign investors but a disaster for Kiwis. We will see power prices skyrocket as the new foreign owners push for bigger profits. Labour has said it will stop asset sales and keep our prize assets in Kiwi hands. We already own them so why sell them? The only long-term winners will be the foreign investors. After 9 years in Opposition and 2 years in Government that is National’s plan. National’s model of mixed ownership means that the wider public interest that should be an essential requirement in terms of running New Zealand’s electricity system will be surrendered to private investors many of whom certainly do not have New Zealand’s best interests at heart. As my colleagues who spoke before me asked is this a step change in the economy? I do not think so. 
I think it is relevant in relation to the 31 Acts that are expiring one of which is about the purchase of New Zealand railways to talk about the importance of State-owned assets and the failure of the Government to grow the export economy which to date has been reflected in its appalling economic decisions—abolishing the research and development tax credit despite our demonstrably low private sector research and development spend; undermining KiwiSaver despite New Zealanders’ poor record in savings; and falling at the last hurdle on ring-fencing property losses. Let us think about what the Government could do. I will go back to the bill before us today and the Act I mentioned before the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 which is 126 years old. New Zealand can control its own future only with strong sustainable local industries such as what was intended in the Act which is being expired as a result of the bill before us today. The Government should be ensuring that we have such industries. 
Last year I released a member’s bill called the Kiwi Jobs Bill which was put into the ballot. It aimed to maximise opportunities for competitive local businesses when tendering for large Government projects such as providing work to our rail engineering industry in New Zealand which is not a sunset industry but is an important part of our economy. There are two significant places in New Zealand where rail engineering work is undertaken. One place is the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin which are just down the road from my office in Hillside Road and the other place is the Woburn workshops in the Hutt. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A high-quality place. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: It is a high-quality place and I am sorry that I do not know the address off by heart but I have been there. They are both very good workshops and have highly skilled people working in them. They are exactly the sorts of places that should be supported by the Government. The member’s bill that I put into the ballot establishes a commission of inquiry to compare Government procurement policies in Australia and other comparable jurisdictions— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I think this has relevance. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is some flexibility in a first reading speech but I would like the member to come back and talk about what this bill is doing. She is actually talking about her member’s bill now which is not part of this debate. I have given the member the opportunity to bring it back in line. I ask her to spend her remaining time on the bill please. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: In winding up on that matter I think the important point to be made in relation to the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill and the 31 Acts being expired under it—one of which is the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 which is 126 years old—is that in 2011 the Government of the day should be putting investment into Kiwi firms. Those firms should be given the best chance possible with full fair and reasonable opportunities to compete for tenders in major projects. 
Labour supports this bill but we consider it to be fairly rudimentary as it could have already been dealt with and the Government could instead be showing leadership through providing stimulus to the economy. Instead the House is fiddling about and the Government is not showing leadership. Real leadership is about hard work not smiling and waving. It is about articulating a vision and delivering concrete changes to better the lives of this generation and future generations of New Zealanders. It is something that has been absent from the National benches for a long time. Essentially we support this bill but we question whether it is really the best use of Parliament’s time and we ask why this Government has no better ideas than to repeal old legislation. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and correct some of the nonsense that has been coming from the other side of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] It could take hours and I have only a few minutes so I will just deal with what I can. First of all we heard the comment from members opposite that this Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill should have been taken into account with the bill that we had 2 days ago. Clearly the Opposition has not heard of a thing called the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
. This bill cannot be included in an omnibus bill which is why it is being dealt with separately. I wish the Opposition would learn the Standing Orders within which we have to operate. 
Secondly we heard a whole lot of conversation from members opposite who talked about railways and their relevance to this bill. Talking of railways and diesel I think that the contribution of “Diesel von Trapp” in the very brown hat over there will be very interesting to hear I am sure. 
The first Labour speaker on this bill Lianne Dalziel asked why bills are even printed any more. Ms Dalziel may be aware that in regard to the Legislation Bill that was recently dealt with by the Regulations Review Committee of which I am a member the Labour members on the committee fought vehemently to retain that clause in that bill. So I think that is very strange. Those members should talk a bit about what they want. 
But I will talk about the Government’s economic reform platform and the important part that regulatory reform is playing in that. The Government stands on a number of things. We stand on rebuilding infrastructure. We stand on having the ability to gain more skills and innovation. We stand on getting taxes down. We stand on reducing regulation and red tape. Before us today is a bill that does that. It removes 31 Acts of Parliament from the statute book like the Chateau Companies Act 1977 and the Clerks of Works Act Repeal Act 1992. What do those Acts do? They do nothing. They are a complete waste of time. That is what this Government is about: getting rid of things that are a waste of time and getting business and our economy growing. That is what we really truly believe in. The Opposition just believes in wasting time not following the rules and having discussions about things that are completely off the platform—so much so that we heard Mr Parker talk about the need for an economic agenda. Well I see that the Labour Party is advertising for an economic adviser in its office so it is obviously looking for ideas at the moment. I find it very hard to believe that Labour members are so full of good ideas that they need somebody else on their team. 
My contribution today is very short and sweet. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its continuing progress. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 If the House will indulge me for a couple of minutes I will explain the rationale behind my very spiffy outfit. At 10.47 a.m. on 3 February 1931 a 7.8 magnitude earthquake destroyed Napier. What was not destroyed by the earthquake was totally ruined by a fire that swept through the city. The city of Napier was razed to the ground. I will tell members what happened in 1931. The people of Napier stood up they had a plan and they had a strategy. The people of Napier rebuilt the city in 2 years. They rebuilt the city in 2 years. 
The reason I am wearing this outfit is that this weekend is Art Deco Weekend in Napier. We will have thousands upon thousands of people coming into the wonderful city of Napier. Some would say—in fact most people who live there and everyone who visits it would say—that Napier is the best city in the country. Napier is the best city in the country. People come into Napier for Art Deco Weekend for an absolute celebration. People can walk down the streets of Napier and be taken back to the 1930s. New Zealanders are taken back to the 1930s. Visitors from all around the world marvel at the absolute spectacle of the Art Deco festival. In fact the Art Deco festival is the only New Zealand festival listed in the Lonely Planet guide that lists international festivals and places to be. It is fantastic. 
I am wearing this fantastic outfit—a genuine 1920s suit trilby hat tie and two-tone shoes—in celebration of Napier. It is a celebration of Art Deco Napier because I believe in the city. I believe in the people of Napier. I think it is a fantastic city. But goodness me there is a lot of work to do there to bring the city back up to what it once was because after 2 years of this Government the people of Napier are struggling. 
Is it not interesting? I will make my analogy. The city of Napier was rebuilt in 2 years pretty much—2 years. There has been 2 years of a National Government but it has not rebuilt the economy—in fact it has torn it down. There has been no plan or strategy to drive growth drive down unemployment and get this country up and running. 
The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is an example of what is going on at the moment under this Government. Labour supports the bill because we support any bill that removes regulations that have been on the statute book for a long time. One of the Acts the bill repeals has been around for 127 years—the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885—but I wonder why the House is spending time and energy repealing that Act at a time when 158000 New Zealanders are unemployed. Could the bill not have waited until a Labour Government returns gets the economy up and running and gets the fiscal situation sorted out? Then we can tidy up such things. 
I do not know whether the press gallery are aware that the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 is included in the bill. I hope they are and that there has been wide consultation on it. That Act has been on the statute book for 117 years yet the Government wants to remove it at a time when the country is in a double-dip recession the worst since the 1930s and the worst since stylish gentlemen were wearing suits like I am wearing. 
The bill will not create employment for the 160000 New Zealanders who now class themselves as unemployed. The bill will not help companies export more products. It will not help companies grow and create employment. The bill will not get our unemployed youth back into education or training. It will not help them develop a sense of self-worth. The bill does none of that at all; it repeals 31 Acts—for example the Potato Industry Act Repeal Act. I do not know how the 7000 unemployed people in my region of the country will feel about the repeal of that Act but I do not think they will be jumping for joy in the streets. Repealing the Potato Industry Act Repeal Act will not make headlines as a plan for economic development. The bill repeals the Poultry Board Act Repeal Act. Repealing that Act is not earth-shattering and will not create jobs. The Government has no plan for economic development and this bill is an example of that. 
The previous speaker Aaron Gilmore when it was his turn to speak on the bill talked about the Government’s economic reforms. Well that is a bit of a joke. Aaron Gilmore stood up to speak on a bill that repeals the Potato Industry Act Repeal Act but talked about economic reforms. I tell him that the people of New Zealand want to see a plan about real economic reform; they do not want to see the Government wasting time on a bill that repeals 127-year-old Acts. 
The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is simply a travesty. It was introduced by Rodney Hide. Goodness me the business people of New Zealand must be disappointed in that member. He came in and said he would cut red tape for every business. He said he would make it easy for businesses to work. Today is the second time this week I have spoken on a bill that will not help businesses in any way shape or form. The bill does nothing for businesses. If Mr Hide champions himself as the true driver of economic business growth of the free market then why is he introducing bills like this one to the House? 
The bill is one reason why ACT will disappear this year. Not even ACT has a plan. When the Hon Simon Power stood up at question time today and said he agreed with the Hon Sir Roger Douglas on economic policy I realised that a lack of a plan—except for selling State assets—is the major problem facing this country. It really is a travesty that instead of MPs spending time visiting constituents and dealing with issues we are spending time on a bill that is not about a plan will not create any benefits and will not create jobs. 
I will quote Mr Hide speaking on the bill. He said: “Through regulation government has the power to affect the lives of every New Zealander.” In a way Mr Hide is right but this bill will have no power. It will not affect the life of any New Zealander. I say to Mr Hide that if regulation can affect the lives of every New Zealander he should put forward a bill that actually does that. He should put forward a bill that shows there is a plan because this sort of bill shows there is no plan for economic growth and no plan for creating jobs. I think the people of New Zealand are a little bit sick and tired of these sorts of bills. They are a little bit sick and tired that over the past 2 years they have seen this country go backwards into a double-dip recession. 
The city of Napier was rebuilt in 2 years. It has stood since 1931 and it is celebrated. I do not think that in 80 years’ time the people will be celebrating the 2 years of this National Government. This period will go down in history as one of the worst 2 years this country has experienced. We have a double-dip recession and 7 percent unemployment. That is an absolute travesty. 
Labour is supporting the bill but it shows that the Government has no plan to drive economic growth and no plan for jobs. Thank you very much. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 My intention this afternoon is to speak very briefly on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I say to the Opposition members that had they looked at the explanatory note of this bill they would have seen that this is a timely and cost-effective method of collectively repealing spent Acts. Yet each member of the Opposition team managed to talk for 10 minutes about nothing of interest to this House or to the public of New Zealand wasting this House’s time. 
This Government is getting on with business. This bill is nothing more than getting on with business and therefore I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me some pleasure to speak again in the course of the progress of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill.  
The preamble simply relates the history of the fact that this legislation dates to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. When we come to debate on Part 1 I will take more time to discuss some of the particular provisions. The background to this deed of on-account settlement of the historical claims of Whanganui iwi is outlined in this bill. That is what the preamble refers to.  
It goes on to talk about the fact that the agreement as expressed in the bill has been the result of negotiations between the Crown and the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working group to enter into an agreement in relation to parts of the Whanganui Forest and the Kaitoke Prison. The preamble also outlines the fact that the North Island part of the Ngati Apa iwi consulted with neighbouring iwi and then proceeded with the Crown and the working group to sign the deed that this legislation gives voice to.  
The preamble simply summarises the effect of the provisions that follow. I would prefer to use more of my speaking time in discussing Parts 1 and 2 as we get to them. Thank you. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair te Whare Paremata. He mihi nui ki te tangata whenua o nga hapu me te iwi o Whanganui. The Green Party recognises the complexity of the Treaty settlement process and we support the Whanganui (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. But we recognise the huge and ongoing consequences of colonisation and we are very well aware that with bills like this one iwi and hapu are forced into a form of legal warfare with the Crown and with each other sometimes with very heavy burdens being placed on the people concerned. We recognise that iwi and hapu must bring settlement claims in order to create the resources for the future and for their mokopuna but it is at high cost. 
We also feel that no matter how many Treaty settlement processes are passed through this House—all of which we have supported—the deeper challenge is to make sure that Pakeha and tauiwi katoa have a deeper understanding of the history and current privileges we enjoy so that both cultures approach the Treaty settlement process with the respect with which tangata whenua approach it. Both cultures recognise the burden that is placed on the shoulders of a culture that would like to see us address the inherent racism in and the limitations of Treaty settlement deadlines and the raupatu issues associated with the foreshore and seabed—the takutai moana. 
We support the bill in the context of a flawed process and a struggle by hapu and iwi of Whanganui for basic justice for many many years. As a non-expert on the detail of the bill at the preamble stage I simply get up to say that we support the hapu and iwi of Whanganui in their struggle for justice and in their difficulties in a Crown-defined process which sometimes virtually entirely limits their ability to use their cultural mechanisms to sort out any differences in the way they traditionally would. We control the shots and often the people pay the price. That situation has been so since the coming of the Pakeha. 
I say kia kaha to the people of Whanganui. I support the bill. Kia ora. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will take a brief moment to make a contribution to the preamble and reiterate Labour’s support for the negotiated outcome that has been reached in respect of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. 
The preamble is a very succinct illustration of the on-account settlement but one might be forgiven for reading quite a bit into it because at some point it affords the opportunity for Kaitoke Prison to be owned by the people of Whanganui and particularly by the people of Ngati Apa as I read it. 
Although I was not on the Maori Affairs Committee I commend its members for their work as difficult as it was for them. They were not able to change too much in the bill. In fact no changes have been made to the preamble at all. That is probably an inheritance of the Treaty settlement process and a negotiated outcome between primarily the Crown and iwi. The select committee has become more of a sieve if you like that tries to ensure that the intent of the negotiated outcome can be articulated correctly in legislation. We have at the most minor technical amendments but not substantial amendments and that has been the case since this process started. Although various parliamentarians have at times sought to consider changes in various parts of the bill we recognise the difficulty in being able to do that. 
In respect of the preamble I think the process of setting out clearly in a preamble what the terms and conditions of a settlement are is a good standard for settlement legislation. Over time as our House matures we might actually see a greater calling for bilingual interpretation of our legislation. I can see that over time we as a House may see ourselves debating our laws both in English and in Maori. We have a number of lawyers coming through the Whanganui iwi who want to see law written in te reo Maori. Indeed one day we may see preambles of Treaty settlement legislation at the minimum translated. 
In response to some of the comments raised by the Green Party member Catherine Delahunty I say that I do value Green members’ contributions to these types of debates. Although the process is difficult by and large once one gets to the point where a settlement has been reached—and to the point where iwi and certainly negotiators have recognised it along the way—concessions a great deal of sacrifice and some judgments have to be made. By the time that process has been through and we have got to this stage in the House it is my strong view that as parliamentarians we should ensure that there is a robust process to ensure that the legislation aligns to the intent of the deed and to ensure that those voices who do not feel that they were heard through iwi processes have Parliament as a last forum in which to petition and advocate those interests prior to the passage of legislation. Perhaps as a lasting testament to the leadership of the country there should be an opportunity for political parties to put a peg in the sand and say where they stand on Treaty settlements which will form the foundation of where this country is going. 
In my brief contribution to the preamble I say that it is a succinct summary of the terms and conditions of this on-account settlement with Whanganui iwi regarding Kaitoke Prison. I want to talk more probably in other parts of the bill about the substance of what that affords in terms of opportunities. Finally I would like to commend the work of the Maori Affairs Committee in ensuring that there is a strong alignment between the intent of the settlement with the form of the legislation. Kia ora. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. The first line of the preamble of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill states that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. I think it is fair to say that things went downhill from there. At Waitangi on 5 February when all the political parties were invited on to Te Tii Marae at Waitangi the Prime Minister told Maori to put grievance behind them and to focus on education. I agree with those sentiments exactly. The way forward for Maori is to pursue education and to make sure we all achieve beyond our potential. But it is another thing to say we should just put grievance behind us. I agree with the sentiment but a heck of a lot has to be done to help us put grievance behind us as Maori. 
There is not an iwi in the country that was not affected by the deeds—or misdeeds—of the Crown and the Whanganui iwi are no different. They had their land taken away from them and they had all sorts of misdeeds perpetrated on them and it is only right that this bill is before the House now to turn those round and help rectify the wrongs of the past. 
The preamble to the bill sets out the background to the deed of on-account settlement of historical claims of Whanganui iwi in relation to the Whanganui Kaitoke Prison and part of the Whanganui Forest. The bill defines the term “deed of on-account settlement” as “The deed of on-account settlement of historical claims of Whanganui Iwi in relation to the Whanganui Kaitoke Prison and part of the Whanganui Forest between the working party on behalf of Whanganui Iwi the trustees of the Pakaitore Trust and the Crown dated 31 July 2009 and as amended from time to time”. 
I do not intend to go on in terms of debating the preamble but I think it is really important that we acknowledge that this is a very necessary bill and that the misdeeds and wrongs that have been perpetrated on the Whanganui iwi amongst other iwi across New Zealand are righted. This bill is the start towards rectifying those issues from the past. Kia ora. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairman looks surprised that a Pakeha boy from the West Coast can stand and speak on the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill but I have been drawn into this debate for a couple of reasons. The first is that I am here in the Chamber. The second is that through fate I was formerly the Minister of Corrections when the negotiation that led to this bill was taking place so I am familiar with some of the background to the bill. 
In the preamble there is reference to consultation with neighbouring iwi. I visited the prison with the Hon Tariana Turia on one particular occasion and it is fair to say we had to negotiate a sensible position because at that time there was a dispute about which particular iwi was tangata whenua when visiting the prison. Being conscious of that when the agreement in principle was brought to me as the then Minister of Corrections to sign over half of the land effectively fee simple to North Island Ngati Apa I was somewhat concerned about that. I was not sure what it might mean knowing full well that there had been discussion between iwi and that the Crown had a clear obligation to settle this matter with iwi. I will not go into the injustices; my colleagues know full well what has taken place. The Crown has a duty and an obligation to work through Treaty settlements right through the country. 
I think this is a sensible agreement. Kaitoke Prison is an unfortunate establishment. I do not think that any iwi wants to have a prison sited on its land and I guess there will be questions as we go forward and maybe later in the legislation here as to what happens with regard to that ground. I am sure that within Maoridom there is debate around whether Maori should be owners of land or indeed of prisons. The unfortunate fact is that 50 percent of the population of prisons is Maori. That is a disgrace for a nation and we have to work on that. 
I am speaking just on the preamble here. I acknowledge South Island Ngati Apa as an iwi in my local area. I also acknowledge that the preamble lays down the background to what has been quite a difficult if not an uneasy process at times that has led to this legislation coming to the House. All of us welcome the bill and we want to move it through the House as quickly as we can. Kia ora. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.  
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 The important parts of the preamble are obvious. Jo Goodhew might sigh but it is important. The important parts of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill preamble are in fact recitals 3 and 4. Recital 4 more particularly sets out that there will be provision in the overall settlement for Ngati Apa to purchase the Kaitoke Prison. That is the key element of the on-account settlement because it signals a clear intention. 
My colleague Kelvin Davis said that it was all well and good talking about trying to get to this point but it was indeed very difficult. I expect that the discussions amongst the Whanganui iwi collective in terms of identifying the components of the settlement that were important to them—getting the balance of interests right and setting the overall quantum—actually took quite a bit of internal negotiation but they got there. 
I point to recital 4 because it specifically outlines the provision for the overall setting of the quantum of the settlement. I say to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that I might have got this wrong and he might want to correct me but my reading of it is that in the overall setting of the quantum provision will be made for Ngati Apa to purchase Kaitoke Prison and the sum of that purchase will be considered in the final redress measure. That is certainly my reading of that recital. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected so that I am not misinterpreting the Minister’s intent. 
In terms of approaching opportunities for settlements where there are specific interests of hapu groupings within a wider iwi collective this type of approach gives a level of certainty and assurance to hapu groupings that their particular components of iwi settlements have been provided for and are considered very specifically in terms of the overall setting of the redress quantum. 
I will not take too much further time on the preamble. Recitals 3 and 4 are the most important. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Kia ora. Good speech. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I thank the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee who wants to rush this debate through. I understand his eagerness. But I recommend this preamble as a great standard. For settlements where there are internal differences around what people place as their priority in terms of redress it sets out a framework to address those types of matters. 
When the time comes for Ngati Apa to put some very real consideration into purchasing back Kaitoke Prison the redress component will have already been factored into the settlement and they will be able to do that. Then they could ask themselves further questions about the long-term management potentially of Kaitoke Prison and what further role they want to have over and above that role as landlord. 
I reiterate the comments made by former Minister of Corrections Damien O’Connor. It was helpful to hear his insight into this matter. I say simply that I am very sure that the people of Whanganui although they might be the owners of a prison will certainly hold very strong views about not wanting their people to go to prison. This might afford a future opportunity and we can only hope that fewer Maori go into Kaitoke Prison. Kia ora. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I want to pick up a number of points that relate to Part 1. I foreshadowed them somewhat in my comments on the preamble. First of all it is important to note as my colleague Kelvin Davis drew attention to in his speech that this settlement legislation is not something that has been arrived at in a vacuum. It dates back to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi so for it to take time in this Chamber is no hardship. If we get this right and the legislation is right and the settlement is good just and durable then we are performing an enormous service to the country. 
The settlement of Treaty of Waitangi grievances historic grievances is absolutely fundamental to our forward progress as a nation. For members opposite to roll their eyes and think that we are taking too much time over this is offensive—it is simply offensive. I ask that they look at the bigger picture and look at the seriousness of some of the infringements of the Treaty of Waitangi that have occurred which this small bill in its small way is trying to redress for the people of Whanganui iwi. So it is worthwhile to take time and look at it. 
Part 1 consists of clauses 3 4 5 and 6. Clause 3 is the purpose clause which states: “The purpose of this Act is to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of on-account settlement of the Whanganui Iwi historical claims.” Why are we at this point? Why is this legislation necessary? What precipitated this legislation and means that we are moving it through the House in I hope a dignified and considered way and not with the kind of haste that some members opposite are seeking? 
The fact of the matter is that this bill is a response to breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is as simple as that. There is a piece of legislation that many iwi up and down the country revile and it is the Public Works Act. Properties were taken by previous administrations in the course of the 19th century in particular but later as well. Pieces of land were appropriated purloined confiscated and stolen by the Crown under the Public Works Act. In this legislation concerning the on-account settlement of the Whanganui iwi historical claims two things are cobbled together: Crown forests and the Kaitoke Prison. These two things are put together—two sources of aggravation of grievance and of distress for Whanganui iwi. Here is a moment when we can correct that. 
Clause 4 is simply interpretations but frequently everything hangs on interpretations. It is again useful to remember that this legislation does not sit in a vacuum. Not only does it have its historical antecedent in breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 but it tries now to address those breaches and it picks up on grievances that have arisen subsequently and I particularly want to focus on the definition of Crown forestry assets because of what happened to that land and the land that was used for Crown forests. 
In 1989 as we know the process of the sale of Crown forests was held up by the New Zealand Maori Council. Sir Graham Latimer as chairman of that council took the case all the way to the Privy Council. This resulted in legislation that protected the land on which the trees stood. The land on which Crown forests stood was to be held in trust by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust for iwi or whoever the rightful owner was determined to be when an eventual settlement of the historical grievance under the Treaty of Waitangi was to be settled. We are settling that grievance with this legislation. 
The process in this settlement was begun under the previous Government and it is being continued under this Government by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Both the previous Minister for Treaty negotiations and the present Minister deserve to be commended for their efforts in bringing it to this pass. But it means that the Crown forestry assets that are referred to in clause 4 the interpretation clause are set down in the Crown Forest Assets Act of 1989. The year 1989 is not so long ago and it goes to show that even in relatively modern times events were happening that compounded grievances previously caused by Crown actions. Those grievances remain deeply felt by iwi but here we have a settlement and we have the restoration of the northern part of the Whanganui Forest in this settlement. 
Little by little piece by piece Crown forestry assets are being returned to iwi and the value of their rental is being returned to iwi or apportioned appropriately according to negotiation by the Crown and the iwi concerned. This is a living moment for a long-held grievance that resolves a piece of our history. It should not be rushed it should be taken with care and it should be scrutinised properly in the Committee stage. Before the next National member rises to move that the question be now put I ask Government members to consider the seriousness of what we are dealing with at this moment. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 5 is titled “Meaning of Whanganui Iwi historical claims” and it states: “In this Act Whanganui Iwi historical claims means every claim (whether or not the claim has arisen or been considered researched registered notified or made by or on the date on which the deed of on-account settlement becomes unconditional under clause 6.1 of that deed) that Whanganui Iwi had at or at any time before that date or may have at any time after that date”. I think that is really important in that we are talking about settling all the claims. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in the debate about the preamble. We need to settle all the claims so that Maori can move away from grievance so that we can move ahead in our lives and not always be looking back. 
I believe that clause 5 is a very telling part of this bill. It says that it will settle every claim from Whanganui iwi and I believe that that is very significant. Throughout Part 1 we see that the word “Wanganui” has been changed to “Whanganui” and that in itself is extremely significant. Many of the people listening and watching will be asking themselves what the big issue is about the letter “h” being included in the word “Wanganui” to make it “Whanganui”. This change recognises that Maori have for a long time been marginalised and it puts this little bit of history right for the iwi of Whanganui. 
The time has long since come and gone when Maori needed to apologise or ask permission for our language to be spoken correctly written correctly and pronounced correctly. This bill rectifies the fact that for decades—centuries—the word “Wanganui” was used instead of “Whanganui”. In the Maori language there is no such word as “wanga”. That sounds more Aboriginal than Maori. From my understanding “Whanga” means a bay and “Whanganui” means a large bay. There is no such thing as a large “wanga” whatever that may be. 
The other meaning of the word “Whanga” is to have to wait. One could say that “Whanganui” means a long wait or a big wait. The people of Whanganui have had to wait a long time for the wrongs of the past to be righted. I remember a kuia up north saying that when she hears a Maori word she can visualise the word in her mind and she sees a picture rather than a word. She said: “You can’t actually see a wanga because it doesn’t exist.” That is basically saying that Wanganui as the iwi of Whanganui know it does not exist. It denies their history and in itself is worthy of I believe if not a grievance then certainly anger at being marginalised. I believe that this bill by changing the word “Wanganui” to “Whanganui” rectifies that little grievance. 
Another word mentioned in the bill is “Kaitoke”. It would be interesting to get an understanding of where the word “Kaitoke” comes from. As New Zealanders we all know that “kai” means food or to eat but I would guarantee that most people do not understand what “toke” means. Where I come from a “toke” is a worm. So there is a bit of history there and I guess a bit of a story that remains untold to the wider public of New Zealand that somewhere along the line somebody has been eating worms. That sounds quite gross but I would say that there is a very deep and meaningful legend and story behind that that deserves to be told and shared. I believe that in schools these legends and stories about the naming of areas and the history behind that should be part of the school curriculum so that being Maori and the Maori way of life is not strange to New Zealanders but is something that is shared with all New Zealanders. All schoolkids should grow up understanding a Maori perspective on historical areas and events in their geographic region. I think that would do a lot to break down the misunderstandings and tensions that arise simply because people do not understand the Maori perspective and the Maori point of view. 
I will go back and mention something I have mentioned in this House before: New Zealand is like a river. On one bank of the river is the Maori part of New Zealand and on the other bank is the non-Maori part. The Treaty of Waitangi which I mentioned in the preamble is a bridge that connects the two sides. Over the decades and the centuries most Maori have crossed that bridge and stepped into the non-Maori side of New Zealand. They understand the language the customs and the ways of doing things. The question that has been asked is how many non-Maori have crossed on to the bank on the Maori side and seen New Zealand from our point of view. Some but not many Pakeha have crossed over. Just about every Maori in New Zealand has crossed over and understands and feels confident in walking on the Pakeha or the non-Maori side of that river. 
With that I will close by reiterating that it is great that under clause 5 this bill looks to settle all Whanganui iwi historical claims. Kia ora. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will speak on Part 1 of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. The purpose if I am to understand its intention stated in clause 3 is that this bill is a small part of a larger comprehensive claim for Whanganui iwi. 
As I alluded to in my previous contribution the mechanism to give effect to small component parts of larger comprehensive settlements is very important in terms of how the legislation is set out. I want also to speak on clause 5. I think the way in which negotiators have set out their intent of what is comprehensive in clause 5 is quite deliberate. Clause 5(b) clearly sets the scene by stating that we are dealing only with historical claims. Clause 5(a) sets out the basis upon which those claims originate. So claims emanating from the Treaty of Waitangi or as a result of an omission in law or issues to do with common law are the types of things that are component parts of this comprehensive settlement. 
Clause 5(c) is really important. In my mind it highlights what Sir Archie Taiaroa lived and died for: the Whanganui River. The Whanganui River is not included in the comprehensive settlement. That gives me great hope in terms of his aspiration and vision for the people of Whanganui in ensuring that the river settlement—as the river is so much an intrinsic part of the people and how they identify themselves—will be dealt with altogether differently. If that is the intent I say to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations of clause 5(c) which states that it “does not include claims relating to the Waikato River.” then the comprehensive— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Whanganui River. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Sorry did I say Waikato? Well they are one and the same in terms of some history so I could go back to that actually. It is said that there was one teardrop that fell on Ruapehu and from there the Whanganui and the Waikato rivers originated. There are many stories that we have that link us as a people in Waikato to the river. I think we may have inherited our korero from our tuakana in Whanganui so my apologies. 
If my reading of clause 5(c) is correct then the Whanganui River is not included in the comprehensive historical claims. I think that is a good thing. It is a testament to wise leadership which had been so long provided by Sir Archie Taiaroa. It will be a testament to his memory that the people of Whanganui can address their very important concerns regarding that settlement in a meaningful and separate way. 
On Part 1 I reiterate the comments made on the forestry component of this on-account settlement. I further highlight that there is a significant share of lands in the Whanganui area under the conservation estate. My brief time of interacting with the people of Whanganui often has been turbulent in terms of their experience of how Department of Conservation lands have been managed in the area. The forest component of this settlement I am sure lends itself towards a very proactive opportunity for the Ngati Apa people. 
I will go back to the issue of Kaitoke Prison. If it is the intent—and it is Ngati Apa’s decision to make—to purchase the land on which Kaitoke Prison is situated then the people of Ngati Apa will be the landlords of that facility. As I said earlier my strong gut instinct is that the people there will not want to see more Maori going to prison; they will want to see fewer Maori going to prison. As landlords that may have some influence on how they see their role in that area. I make the comment without any type of judgment but with the understanding that as a landlord of a Crown-rented operation the corrections facility that may create a little bit of tension. As market rentals are reviewed and the Crown is required to pay perhaps more than their market rentals they may not understand on the other side of the ledger that those rentals are an opportunity to reinvest back into the development of the people in the strong hope that more will be invested into Whanganui people so that they are not going into prison but are staying out of prison. 
I watch with some anticipation to see how events there unfold. We see that this Government wants to privatise prisons and there is a mood amongst various iwi groupings that they may want to get into managing prisons. This is a case in point where there may be an opportunity to consider that in some serious way. I make reference to that because it is a very important issue when we start to think about the potential opportunities arising out of settlements like this. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I follow on with regard to Part 1 on the issue raised by my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. 
Hon David Carter 
: Turn your tie off. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Thank you. 
It is not for me to relitigate in any way the quite complex issues that were discussed through the settlement process which was based on addressing the grievance that the Crown had acquired land cheaply and at the time assured Ngati Apa that they would benefit greatly from it but of course they found themselves effectively in poverty and trapped. I ask a question that was in my mind as Minister of Corrections when the proposal to utilise the prison land was brought to me: is there a potential conflict of interest? I raised it briefly in my earlier speech. 
If the settlement is indeed intended to pass on to Ngati Apa some prosperity then we have effectively by transferring prison land ensured that the benefits that accrue from the rental from prisons will benefit Ngati Apa. But the sad and tragic reality is that 50 percent of the population inside that prison may very well be Ngati Apa as well so poverty will come from this deal too. If we consider that incarceration of Ngati Apa people—those who have committed crimes and have gone through the justice system—is indeed the way that we pass on prosperity to Ngati Apa then we have a conflict of interest. 
I do not think anyone in this House would want another grievance to ensue through the settlement process so I just raise this word of warning. I may be raising it from a slightly distorted view of the matter or maybe from a fresh new view; I do not know how people may see this matter. But I for one—and I know my colleagues as well—would not like to see any poverty or any further grievance flow from this settlement. 
As my colleague Nanaia Mahuta said the danger of course with the current National Government is that it is going to privatise some of the prisons. That is a tragic and in my view unethical move by a Government that has no moral standards. If that next step were to take place and that prison were to be privatised we would really entrench the potential for further grievance poverty and loss for Ngati Apa. I raise the questions; I do not have the solutions. I do not want to relitigate the settlement and I trust that the elders of Ngati Apa and those who have negotiated this settlement will have realised this potential danger. 
Of course at the time of negotiation Labour was in Government and we believe firmly that incarceration and management of the entire justice system is the role of the taxpayer and of Government. Transferring a big portion of that system into the private sector as National and the member over there for Timaru—Aoraki—wants to see— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Rangitata. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Sorry yes. I am sure the people of Timaru like “Rangitata” although I think they would probably prefer “Aoraki”. But anyway I do not want to relitigate that issue—one thing at a time. 
I just say that in Opposition we have a responsibility to raise the potential problems that might flow from legislation. No matter how well intended legislation may be I think each and every one of us knows that whenever legislation is passed by this House there will be faults in the wording or in the outcome of it. We have to trust the advice from officials overseen by the Minister—in this case Mr Finlayson no doubt but assisted by Judith Collins. I know she wants to privatise the whole prison system. 
I am not sure whether the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations can see the potential danger in what he is doing. I do not think he would genuinely want to create a further grievance. I trust and hope that the Minister in the chair can if not in the passage of this legislation then in further discussions at Cabinet level ensure that through the process of privatisation or some other distortion of the justice system which National seems to be intent on further grievances cannot occur. I hope he ensures that the Ngati Apa tribe which this legislation is aimed at is not disadvantaged in some perverse way whereby incarceration of their own people is the only way to generate benefit for their own iwi. We would hate to see that situation. I raise that issue because I think it is a realistic possibility and one that we hope will not eventuate. Kia ora. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I feel moved to take a call in this debate today. The desire to take a call really arose from the response of the junior National whip when we were beginning serious debate on a bill that is the end of a long journey. I found it insulting and insensitive to hear the National Party whip tell us to hurry up as we were just debating the preamble. I say to that member that this is not just the preamble. She and other National Party members felt bored about the process of bringing the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement bill to the Committee today. We certainly heard about the long wait. I think this is the sort of debate that the junior whip would have precluded today by trying to railroad this bill through the Committee today. 
We have heard some wonderful erudite submissions today on this bill both on the preamble and now on Part 1. My colleague talked about Whanganui and the long wait. Sure they have waited. I tell Mrs Goodhew that my whakapapa in my family goes back to the Whanganui River. We feel insulted by that party opposite although I would exclude from that statement the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations who has learnt about the sensitivity and time it takes to get Treaty settlements to the table. The Treaty of Waitangi is now 171 years old. We had the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975 and then we got to the deed of settlement and the Deed of On-Account Settlement of Historical Claims of Whanganui Iwi in relation to the Whanganui Kaitoke Prison and Part of the Whanganui Forest. That was when things started to move for Whanganui which is reflected in Part 1. That was 2¾ years ago. We then moved on to the deed of settlement. The Minister in the chair has endeavoured to pick up the pace and rate of the settlement process. That will be appreciated by both Ngati Apa and the Whanganui iwi. 
A very important component of Part 1 is that it states: “Whanganui Iwi historical claims means every claim …”. That is great. We are getting to the difficult end of Treaty settlements. There is quite a complex cluster of issues around forestry and Ngati Apa’s ultimate ownership of Kaitoke Prison. It is a very good model. 
I want to refer as did my colleague Damien O’Connor to the issue of iwi ownership of facilities like Kaitoke Prison which will result from Part 1. I was the member for Rotorua at the time when we looked for a youth justice site and could not find a site. In fact National members at the time were dying to destroy my career. When I found a location they did not like it. Ultimately I went back and worked with iwi who came up with a new proposal to have the youth justice site on iwi-owned land. That was quite a break in tradition just as Part 1 will be a wonderful opportunity for the people of Ngati Apa to look at prison management and ownership. We are seeing some very interesting things coming from Te Arawa involvement in our Rotorua youth justice site. It is really great to see provisions in this bill starting to address things that were injurious to the people of Whanganui and Ngati Apa through the Public Works Act through the taking of land to build a prison and also through the forestry components that we are addressing in this legislation. 
I congratulate the Minister in the chair. When this is over and we have heard the full debate on every part of the bill I think it would be lovely if the Minister had a little quiet word to the members of his caucus to ask them to show a little bit more sensitivity when bills of settlement are coming before the House and to not rush through the process. It is a very important process. The debates are listened to by hundreds of people on the sound waves. It is offensive if there is an indication that we are wasting time. I am deeply offended by that suggestion. We are debating the bill as the House of Parliament and this is the democratic process. I look forward to continued debate on the bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Transfer of Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and northern part of Whanganui Forest and related matters 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 is the guts of the matter. It is the heart of the bill. In my speech on Part 1 a few minutes ago I talked about Crown forestry assets and how they were arrived at. Clause 7 states that the “the northern part of the Whanganui Forest ceases to be Crown forest land …”. The land ceases to be Crown forest land and goes back to iwi. In the course of that process the accumulated rentals on that land also go back to iwi so there is a financial component in this part of the settlement as well. Not only do the lands get restored to iwi but the fact that those lands have been used by forestry companies to grow trees decade upon decade and to have those trees felled and sold for profit—none of which has ever gone back into iwi hands—means that now is the moment when some economic benefit from the use of that land can be restored to iwi. They have been waiting a very long time for that. Let us be clear that this is the moment when both land gets restored and the accumulated rentals for the use of that land by forestry companies get returned to iwi which is a wonderful thing. Forestry companies had paid a rental to the Crown for the use of the land to grow the trees from which they had made a profit. A few years ago the Crown Forestry Rental Trust had a total putea of somewhere in the order of $380 million of accumulated rentals. The interest on those rentals which were held in trust for iwi was used for iwi to advance their claims. The interest on the rentals was disbursed to iwi as they were able to bring forward their claims and have them heard by the Waitangi Tribunal or in direct negotiation with the Crown. 
That process has been speeding up a lot in the last few years. We now have the disbursement of those accumulated rentals to iwi as part of the settlement together with clause 7 in Part 2 which states: “the northern part of the Whanganui Forest ceases to be Crown forest land and any Crown forestry assets associated with that land cease to be Crown forestry assets.” In other words land and money will go across to the Whanganui iwi and this is a process of settlement. It is about redressing wrongs. 
I know that Mr Henare got a bit tired of my last speech a few minutes ago to this effect but he has that dismissive attitude towards anything that is said by members on this side of the Chamber so I have learnt in my few years here not to take any notice of him. But it is important that we consider what is happening here and the fact that this now gets to the heart of the matter. Part 2 is the stuff that the settlement is made of. 
In clause 8 in Part 2 we have the application of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Act 2010 to transfers. That is critical to the Whanganui iwi. It is what they have been waiting for it is what they have negotiated and it is what they have been working towards for a very long time. It is a good thing. Here comes the land on which the forests have grown—the forestry land—and the assets the accumulated rentals and they will go to the iwi for the betterment of that iwi. 
I know that National relies for support on people who are sometimes a bit disconcerted by what this means and who wonder whether there will be a whole lot of wealthy Maori around who will exercise undue influence and commercial power because of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. I just say that in my time as a trustee of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust which was before I came into Parliament I have never known of any iwi that has done anything other than apply the settlements and the things they acquired from settlements whether it was land or financial redress to anything other than the well-being of their iwi. So I think we can have some confidence that this settlement will materially benefit the people of the Whanganui iwi. 
We have heard my colleagues talk about the possibilities for the Kaitoke Prison and what might happen with the greater engagement of Maori in that facility—and in the whole custodial and judicial process really. I look forward to a greater sense of partnership as we move forward out of the historic grievance period as these historic grievances are settled and as assets are returned or appropriately disbursed. Assets are not always returned to iwi; sometimes they are returned to the Crown or portions of them are returned to the Crown and portions are returned to iwi. It is not always about simply giving back something to iwi but predominantly that is the case I have to say because we are redressing grievances. 
But in this disbursement of settlement assets lie the hope and the future of the Whanganui iwi. They have the same aspirations for their children that I have for mine. They have the same aspirations the same goals and the same wish not to be the dominant population of our custodial facilities—not to be the majority population in prison. They have no wish to perpetuate that situation. They do not wish that on their children and their children’s children. Their wishes are no different in that respect from anything I would wish for my family and we need to see this settlement in that light. 
Here we have both prisons and forests. We have two aspects of our society both of which Maori are heavily involved in one for good and one not so much for good. But they are two aspects of our society that Maori have been traditionally heavily involved in. They have been involved in contributing to the forestry industry but they have never seen the benefit of land ownership accrue to them and they have been trying to keep their young people out of prison. Perhaps in this settlement by the joining of these two quite diverse and different assets we can see something that not only gives rise to some hope and future prospects for the Whanganui iwi but also settles the past and allows them to get on with their future. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Finlayson around clause 7. We have heard just now from the Hon Maryan Street how Whanganui iwi are getting the land back as well as the assets—that is the rentals. My question though is what happens to the trees on that land and who is liable if they are harvested? Does the iwi then have to replant those trees? Do they have any liabilities under the emissions trading scheme? I bring this up because Ngati Hine—the iwi up north around the Bay of Islands area—were convinced to plant pine trees 35 years ago in quite a significant area of land. Harvesting has since begun and now the iwi has a real concern that because the forest will not be replanted by the owners of the trees the liability to replant falls on them because the forests were planted I think before 1991. They have real concerns that the liability for replanting the trees falls on them since the company will not replant. That is my question for the Minister around clause 7. What are the liabilities if any for Whanganui iwi if the forest is harvested? Who is meant to replant; and if replanting is not going to happen does the liability fall on the Whanganui iwi? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those questions. Kia ora. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on the 
Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill but I am drawn to it because this is the first time since I have been in Parliament that I have had the opportunity to speak on the settlement of a Treaty of Waitangi claim. In some ways— 
Paul Quinn 
: You have broad experience. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is quite pertinent I tell the member. For a couple of years I worked for the Tainui Maori Trust Board alongside Nanaia Mahuta’s father Sir Robert Mahuta collecting the evidence on the Tainui claim which was settled many years ago. The settlement has meant that Tainui now has the financial and economic basis Sir Robert always dreamt of to give Tainui the mana and the economic strength to go on and be not only a stronger tribe but also an economic force amongst Maori and within New Zealand. It is interesting that settlements resulting in Maori ownership of their lands mean that the economic base of Maori is now in excess of $16 billion. 
Turning to Part 2 with regard to forestry I am reminded that just a few weeks ago I was visiting Scion in Rotorua in the middle of the North Island. That institution does research in relation to forestry. We were looking at the potential for forestry to drive many economic advantages for New Zealand. Interestingly Scion said that because many of our major forest enterprises are now sold to foreign interests and as those foreign interests are more interested in chopping down trees and sending them off to Russia and to China in particular we are not able to take advantage of the many developments Scion is making within the area of biofuels and organic plastics. One of Scion’s key developments was to look at the way Maori-owned forests were being utilised so that they could get behind many of those economic opportunities. 
The reason I bring that up is that under Part 2 which relates more particularly to the forestry assets that Ngati Apa will accumulate as a result of this settlement the benefits will in fact fall within the ambit of what Scion was trying to do—that is the forestry interests will be owned by Maori interests. Maori interests will not sell them as we have done with much of our forestry interests throughout the North Island and also in part in the South Island. It gives me personally a great amount of pleasure to stand up and speak to this bill. As my colleagues have pointed out the bill is hugely significant for the Whanganui area. This issue has been a source of huge grievance over many many years and finally some of that grievance can be put to rest. 
I want also to touch upon the change made in Part 2 to the spelling of “Wanganui” which is quite significant in many ways. To include the “h” in references within this bill is a bold way of expressing the changes that have taken place in Whanganui—or as people from the area call it “Wanganui”. I know that Minister Williamson at the time kind of had a buck both ways on that issue and said the Crown and Crown entities could do what they liked but that he hoped they would put the “h” into Wanganui which they are doing now. I think that slowly over time we will see the general pick-up of that spelling throughout the Whanganui area despite the best efforts of Michael Laws and the various people in the Whanganui area who have some sort of aversion towards it just as many people in Taranaki had problems with the renaming of Egmont. But in Part 2 “Wanganui” is replaced by “Whanganui”. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 If I was being flippant or was not making worthwhile or valuable points I could understand the Chair not giving me the call. But he has and I appreciate that. 
Part 2 of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill is about the transfer of the forests. One of the questions I have always had goes back to the objective of the bill which is the settlement of a longstanding grievance. The grievance goes back to a contract laid out in 1840 about a partnership that was clearly short-cut by the Crown. We obviously have to address the grievances arising from that. 
As I understand it we are going to hand back the forest land. That may seem really good; it may be really great because iwi have a connection with the land. As a farmer I can understand that connection. But the land in itself—and there is much Maori-owned land around the country—may not be delivering benefits. In fact it may not even be paying its way in some places. Rather than being beneficial to Ngati Apa it could be a liability. 
There are a couple of things to mention. I have believed for a long time that forest land in itself although it has a wonderful emotive connection with iwi or whoever owns the land does not necessarily deliver benefits. I think we are starting to see this. In fact questions are being asked around the country now about the division between forest land ownership and cutting-rights ownership about who gets to determine where the logs go about who gets the benefits of a rising market and about who carries the losses from a declining market. 
The issue is that the trees growing on the land will deliver economic benefits back to Ngati Apa. Those benefits could come by way of a fixed-term lease calculated on the return on logs. I am not aware of the details of that. The settlement terminates obligations in relation to the forest. I am not sure; I guess the obligations may relate to replanting. They may relate to possible emissions trading scheme obligations or there may be obligations regarding access. I am not sure what they are and the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations might be able to take a call and answer that question. Those things are quite important. 
It is no reflection on the negotiators; there are some very smart people around this country and the negotiators have the very best intentions. But they may not have foreseen the change in the emissions trading scheme. I do not know what the Government will actually deliver by way of forestry obligations—or indeed agriculture obligations—in relation to the emissions trading scheme. It is yet to clearly define what it will do. 
The point is—and I am not deviating too much from the bill—that this settlement terminates the obligations in relation to the forest on the land it is transferring back to Ngati Apa and those obligations are unclear to me. It is important that we in Opposition ensure that legislation being passed in this House indeed delivers on its intent. The intent is to do justice to Ngati Apa. They will get half of the prison land back—I have question marks about what that might do—and they will get the forest land back. The question is whether in that transfer— 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s to do with the Crown Forestry Rental Trust Damien. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Quinn may know the answers to these questions. I ask him to please take a call. I confess that I was not on the Maori Affairs Committee but I have come in objectively looked at the bill and read through it and I am asking questions of the members of the select committee and the Minister. I think a lot of people out there want to know the answers as well. 
We know there is confusion in relation to the emissions trading scheme in relation to forestry and in relation to the land below the forestry. I ask who gets to pay the emissions trading scheme obligations. We have had a discussion; we are not sure. In the far north I believe the landowner pays but I have always been led to believe that the person who cuts down the trees or who has an obligation to replant pays. I ask Mr Quinn to please get up. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. On this part which is quite substantial we have had only four calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have not made a determination. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 People listening to the debate on Part 2 of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill should feel absolutely assured that Labour strongly supports this bill. Throughout the debate we have raised questions we have identified potential issues arising out of this settlement and we have asked for points of clarification. In terms of our contribution this afternoon it is for that reason that we have continued to seek points of clarification. 
I will highlight some of the questions that have been asked about Part 2 because it is really the meat on the bones the guts of the settlement and the opportunities that will be afforded to the Whanganui iwi. Firstly I am building on the contribution of Maryan Street who said that a component of Part 2 transfers the Crown forest assets the land and the accumulated rentals. Arising out of her contribution my question to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is what the value of the accumulated rentals is. Part of the difficulty the reason for our having to ask that question here in the Committee stage is that the Maori Affairs Committee did not provide a robust report at the beginning of this bill that answered some of these more permeant questions. I put that question to the Minister because it is an important one; it is one of substance relating to the value of the settlement. Many times prior in other settlements we understood the value of the settlement whether it was cultural redress or dollars. I think that is a reasonable question to ask the Minister. I also ask whether our contribution in identifying accumulated rentals as part of the transfer to iwi is correct. If it is correct I ask what the value is of the accumulated rentals that will be transferred to iwi because that in itself will signal the level of opportunity afforded to Whanganui iwi. 
With regard to the emissions trading scheme building on the contribution of my colleague Kelvin Davis and the situation up north I thought while he was speaking that if any question was to be asked regarding the emissions trading scheme we should probably ask the Maori Party how its deal with National offered opportunities for Maori in this settlement. I understand that it was quite a key piece of the negotiating of an outcome on the emissions trading scheme. It would be really good if a member of the Maori Party could explain to the House what the benefit of that particular deal on the emissions trading scheme will mean for this settlement. It is a very real question to ask who has liability for the replanting of the trees: is it the owners of the trees or the owners of the land? It is a very simple question and by and large something that goes to the heart of broader questions around how the emissions trading scheme agreement reached by the Maori Party and National would benefit the Whanganui iwi in this case. 
So I tell Minister Finlayson that we have not asked too many questions on this bill but we have sought points of clarification. We would indeed appreciate a response on those particular questions because we believe that seeking clarification at this point of the Committee stage will actually help people who are listening to the debate understand and appreciate I think the depth of the effort that has gone into this particular component of the settlement. 
Also I note in clause 11 that there is provision for access to the settlement online so that people can see the components of the settlement. I wondered when I saw that and I cannot recall my attention being drawn to a clause like that in other settlements. It could be a common provision but I wondered whether there were technical aspects of the settlement that might lend themselves to a type of interpretation that could create confusion. If the intention of including a small clause like that to make sure that access to the on-account settlement is free is to ensure that people are able to cite it in its full extent then there should be clarification about whether some technical aspects of the deed could create confusion or misinterpretation of the intent of the deed. 
So I have three small questions for the Minister. Firstly around the emissions trading scheme who has the liability for the replanting of trees—is it the owners of the trees or the owners of the land? Secondly what is the value of the accumulated rentals so that we could get a feel for the quantum of this particular settlement? Thirdly is access to the settlement in the manner provided for in the bill because there could be some misinterpretation of the intent of the deed? If the Minister responds to the question and my concerns are unfounded on all three fronts then I am prepared to accept that. Thank you very much. Kia ora. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 38 
New Zealand Labour 37; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. It is my first call in the Committee Stage. Obviously along with other members Labour members support this bill but we would have liked the questions that my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta asked to be answered by the Minister in the chair the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. It is a pity that the Minister did not choose to do that when he had the opportunity. 
I turn to the title of the bill. As the buddy MP for the Whanganui electorate I want to take a call on the amendment to the title. When I have visited that particular region the question of the pronunciation “Wanganui” versus “W’anganui” or “Fanganui” is something that people have raised with me many times. As a lad brought up in the South Island—not unlike the member in the Chair Eric Roy—when I have seen an “h” in the word I have been moved to say “Fanganui” because that is what it has looked like to me. So it is interesting to note the change that has been made to clause 1. There is a move from what we would have said in the past “Wanganui” to “Whanganui” but I have learnt as the buddy MP for this electorate that “Whanganui” is not pronounced “Fanganui” but “W’anganui”. It is something that I think is important to note. The amendment to the title clause changes “Wanganui” to “Whanganui” which is pronounced “W’anganui” not “Fanganui”. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Not “Fanganui”? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No. That is something that perhaps people who are not from the area do not know and it is an important change to this title clause— 
Hon Member 
: The South Island in particular. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is. It is difficult for people who are not from the area. I know that the member who is from the area Tariana Turia when she is saying the Maori word for family says “w’anau” rather than “whanau” and to the local iwi that difference is important. 
I raise this issue because it is a significant change in the sense that this is the first bill with this word in it to come before the House since Maurice Williamson as the Minister for Land Information acknowledged that both “W’anganui” and “Wanganui” were acceptable forms of pronunciation of “Whanganui” but not “Fanganui” because that is pronouncing the “h” in a way that the local iwi do not do—as evidenced by Tariana Turia. I wanted to note that the change to the title clause is significant. This is the first bill since the Government acknowledged that either spelling of the word was acceptable and it is worth noting that because I know that it was a decision that the Government found difficult. Maurice Williamson grappled with it over a period of time then allowed for both options. I know there are people in the city of Whanganui who would like to see one or the other chosen but this is a compromise. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: But not “Fanganui”? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No; clearly that would be incorrect I say to Ms Sepuloni because that is not the correct pronunciation. This title clause marks a significant shift in the way that legislation that involves this region is written and I think it was important for someone to recognise that when we came to this particular clause. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 My colleague Grant Robertson raises a really interesting point when he talks about dialectal differences. Up north where I come from we definitely say “Fanganui”. It is definitely “Fanganui” because that is how we say things up north. Mr Robertson has said that “Whanganui” is pronounced “W’anganui” down in “Fanganui”. But it is interesting the way Pakeha missionaries interfered with our language when they first arrived here. They did not like the “f” sound in a word like “whakarongo”; they did not like the sound of the first two syllables of that word so up north they tried to get us to say “’hakarongo”. 
Hon Member 
: Really? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: That is correct. We stopped using the “f” sound and a lot of people up there will say “’hakarongo”—meaning listen. One can come across any number of words like that up there. That is true and it is because the missionaries did not like the sound of those first two syllables. Up there quite often people will not say the “f” sound. They will use an “h” sound. It is quite common to hear people say “’Hangarei” instead of “Fangarei”. Even in the Treaty of Waitangi if one reads it carefully—and I know that everyone in the Chamber has and has absorbed everything— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.