Volume 642 Week 56 - Wednesday 19 September 2007 
Volume 642 Week 56 - Wednesday 19 September 2007 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Wednesday 19 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Neil Joseph Morrison 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death this morning of Neil Joseph Morrison who represented the electorate of Pakuranga from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express the sense of loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill 
Discharge 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby inform the House that I have received advice from the Palmerston North City Council the promoter of the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill that it is withdrawing the bill pursuant to Standing Order 274. The bill is consequently discharged from further consideration by this House. 
Motions 
Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament—Lions District 202H  Wellington Project Award 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That this House notes the achievement of the Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament the activities of which are supported by Lions Club members and non-members from all parties in the House on being presented with the Lions District 202H Wellington Project Award for spearheading the initiative to establish a new playground at Wellington Children’s Hospital which opened in October 2006 at a final cost of $100000. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Electoral Finance Bill—Encouragement of Full and Open Expression 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill that the Government “is seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election.”; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes; because that is the Government’s intent. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Government’s bill been criticised by the Human Rights Commission which says in contrast to the Minister of Justice’s opinion that the bill “will have a chilling effect” on the expression of political opinion during an election year and how come the Minister the Human Rights Commission and many other submitters have completely opposite views of what the bill will do? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The intent of the bill is to ensure that there is full and open expression. There is a select committee process under way and the Human Rights Commission has made a submission. I am sure that its views will be debated in full. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister reads the bill rather than runs the Labour Party spin about its intent does he realise he will find out that the Ministry of Health will be allowed to put out a communications package during the regulated period from 1 January that talks about cheaper doctors’ fees under the primary care strategy but that if the same statement was made by the Labour Party it would be caught as an election advertisement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As we said yesterday to the member of course Government departments will continue to ensure New Zealanders get access to services and that will require them to make those services known. The hypothetical case he raises is something he is amusing himself with but I do not think it is relevant to this debate. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister believe that the hugely increased financial influence demonstrated at the last election is destructive to democracy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is clearly yes. That is why I think many people are deeply concerned at the continued argument by the National Party which seems to be determined to want to continue having large amounts of money flooding through its coffers during election periods that may well influence what voters do and may well influence policy rather than to do what so many other countries do and have a fair and an open contest. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it Labour Party policy that statements made by Government departments regarding the benefits of the Government’s policy would be unregulated and uncapped but that the same statements if made by the Labour Party itself would be subject to the political advertisement restrictions in the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member assumes an identical statement would be made by a political party and by a Government department. He has not given an example yet. Therefore this is merely hypothetical and I do not think it is part of the debate. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister reads the bill does he realise that he will find out that in fact Government departments are not exempt from the provisions that ban electoral advertising during the regulated period—even though Parliamentary Service spending is exempt—and that the effect is that Government departments will have to check whether the statements they make constitute electoral advertising and if they do they will have to make statutory declarations and/or register as third parties because they will be subject to the law in the same way as everyone else? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is interesting that the member changes the argument each day. I think the argument that has been made that the select committee is the appropriate place to work through these issues so we get good consistent legislation is obviously right. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Government know whether Government departments would have to register as third parties if they spend over $60000 on making statements that might constitute political advertisements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If Government departments are going about their normal business of making taxpayers aware of services available to them of course they will not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that this postcard asking Annette King to fire Clint Rickards which is being given out in the main street of Wellington right now will next year be illegal because it is not authorised by a financial agent when it takes a political position? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to the member that that is exactly the kind of situation the Exclusive Brethren found themselves in. They were spending large amounts of money with no attribution and no address on trying to influence the election campaign. Does the member want to see that carry on or not? 
Schools—Funding 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on the level of school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen one report arguing that schools are raising nearly half a billion dollars through fund-raising. To reach this rather outrageous conclusion the author of the report counts only revenue and does not count expenditure. As a result it has been assumed that 100 percent of revenue from say a school tuck shop is profit but of course the school had to buy the products in the first place in order to be able to sell them. That report came from Katherine Rich and I can only say that if that is the kind of “creative maths” approach that the National Party is undertaking we can see how there can be tax cuts and an increase in Government spending at the same time. 
Dianne Yates 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on school funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports and they have been as diverse as suggestions being made that low-decile schools are “awash with cash” that we should fund private schools at a higher level that privatisation has a greater role to play in education and that there should be a rolling programme of tax cuts every single year. I say to schools that if they have heard those reports and think they are raising money now they should just wait to see if there is ever a National Government to contend with when it will remove all their money for its rolling tax cuts. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Ministry of Education given any consideration to the recommendation in the rates inquiry report that schools should pay rates; if so how does it suggest that such a recommendation could be met without exacerbating the breaches of the principle of equal educational opportunity that occur under the present funding arrangements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know that report is still under consideration. But I think that the point he makes at the end of his question is a very important one. One of the reasons we do not have rateable properties on our schools is that it would cause costs to fall on schools that may well relate to access to education. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Could the Minister who mentioned a report on rolling tax cuts on an annual basis tell the House who made such a statement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am struggling to find out how that relates to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where’s the ministerial responsibility— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the House if he keeps interrupting when I am ruling. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Be seated. Just be seated Dr Smith. I am tired of your constant interruption before I can give my ruling. Would the Hon Jim Anderton like to rephrase that question because by the way in which it was given it was difficult to know where ministerial responsibility lay. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: In relation to the report that the Minister quoted of rolling tax cuts made on an annual basis what would be the implications of that process for any Government; and is there any author to that report whose name can be given to the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. That does not relate specifically to education so I rule that question out of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Thank you! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member is on his last warning. 
Dianne Yates 
: What alternative proposals has the Minister seen regarding changes to the way our schools are funded? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen one report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding on a “no ifs no buts and no fighting in school communities” basis and stating that that will be a political decision made by politicians. Bulk funding would effectively cap school funding and force schools to employ less-experienced teachers on cheaper salaries. It would slash funding dedicated to teacher professional development and force each school board to negotiate contracts with its own individual teachers. The person who asked for this to happen and who said that it should be a political decision is none other than Mr Bill English supported by Mr Allan Peachey. It is another example of the National Party simply not learning from its past mistakes. 
Taxation—Effects of Reduced Rates 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is it still his position that tax cuts would require “severe cuts on expenditure on public services and infrastructure”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 My comment was made in the context of National’s utterly irresponsible 2005 promise to cut taxes by 2½ billion dollars a year from 1 April 2006 rising to $4 billion a year by 1 April 2008 and I absolutely stand by that comment. Given the member’s remark that retirement income provision in New Zealand is too generous one can see where one of the cuts would have occurred. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his reported statement today where he is quoted as acknowledging that tax cuts are affordable and that there is fiscal headroom; does that mean he has changed his mind on his position that any tax cut means significant spending cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member had bothered to listen to my Budget speech in May this year that is precisely what I said. I might refer him to the Treasury report of 30 November 2006 which has been in the public arena that made it clear the reason why there should not be fiscal loosening was in relation to the macroeconomic situation—a point this member has been making for months that fiscal policy should be tighter—and now he says it should be looser. The National Party now agrees but agrees on the wrong position. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he seen on the advisability of large-scale tax cuts in the current macroeconomic environment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Along with the many reports from agencies such as the IMF OECD and the Reserve Bank warning that significant stimulus above that currently planned would be inflationary I have also seen a report saying that: “Now is not the time to be giving extensive tax cuts.” That was said by Mr Bill English. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister be announcing a programme of tax cuts in his next Budget; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I have said on many occasions over recent weeks and months is that in next year’s Budget I expect to announce a programme in relation to revenue over the medium to longer term. I also expect that that programme will be looking at ways in which any tax reductions can be shared more evenly across the population and not simply go to those whom the member represents. 
Gordon Copeland 
: If the Minister still believes that meaningful tax cuts would lead to infrastructural investment cuts why does he not look at alternative ways of funding that investment by for example selling down a minority stake in State-owned enterprises to Kiwis thus building an ownership society reducing tax and growing infrastructural investments—a win-win-win situation for New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Selling off part of the State-owned enterprises to pay for current consumption is not something I think almost anybody in this House supports. I am not sure it is at all consistent with the kind of long-term view one might expect from a spokesperson from a Judaeo-Christian – principled party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the Minister’s position that any tax reductions by Labour are affordable and there is fiscal headroom for them and any tax reduction by National means that doctors nurses and policemen will be sacked? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It certainly is that if the member cares to lay over the current and last 2 years’ fiscal statements on the economy tax cuts are $2.5 billion on 1 April 2006 rising to $4 billion a year from 1 April 2008. Without significant fiscal loosening without stimulating further inflation large reductions in spending would have had to occur and that is what this member has consistently opposed and told John Key in 2005 was not affordable. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How much would it cost to deliver a $10 per week tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Assuming that was reasonably evenly spread it would cost something over a billion dollars a year—about the same amount invested in KiwiSaver which will lead to significant increases in people’s retirement income. But unlike the investment in KiwiSaver it would of course have fed into further demand in the economy placing further pressure upon monetary policy leading to a longer period of higher interest rates and a higher exchange rate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister recall his statement in the 2005 Budget that he would raise income tax thresholds to reduce taxes his repeat of the same promise in the 2006 Budget and then his decision to rescind both of those promises in the 2007 Budget and is he aware that that is why most people do not believe anything he says about tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes no and yes and of course what the member did in response to the 2005 Budget was to say that those cuts were not worth having. If they were not worth having then I am afraid he got his best wish in that respect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we sum up the Minister’s position on tax cuts in this way: that he said he could not and he would not then he could and he would and later he cannot and he shall not but now—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please continue. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I start the question again? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes you can. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we now—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have the question in silence so we can get it through. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we now sum up the Minister’s and Labour’s position on tax cuts in the following way: he said he could not and he would not then he said he cannot and he shall not then he said he could and he would and now he might when it is right and why does he not listen to those New Zealanders who are telling him he is wrong and he is gone and his Labour colleagues who are saying that he is tired and should be fired? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will now have the reply in silence. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Like the member of course that was a heavily recycled joke. But what I can say is that my position over the last couple of years can be quoted in the following simple words: “Now is not the time to be giving extensive tax cuts.”—the Hon Bill English. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the House be correct in concluding from what the Minister said earlier that there will be some announcement of a programme of tax cuts in the next Budget; they might not be say the tax cuts that this particular member would be interested in but there will be some announcement of tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I expect that any announcements I would make in next year’s Budget are not likely to lead to a mass break-out of the “Bolly” in Kohimarama. 
Health Services—Appointment Non-attendance 
4.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports regarding the costs to the health system resulting from those who fail to turn up to medical appointments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have received many reports. The DNA or “did not attend” rate is an ongoing issue in New Zealand hospitals as it is elsewhere in the world. Good progress has been made in many areas particularly in Northland where the “did not attend” rate has reduced from 22 percent to 6 percent over recent years but there is still room for further improvement. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware that a recent study of the number of patients who did not attend medical appointments across all 21 district health boards found that the book cost of that non-attendance was $57 million last year alone and that nearly one in 10 people did not attend their pre-set appointments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of the study that the member refers to and indeed the estimated cost which is as I am sure the member will agree more of an opportunity cost than a real cost both for the patient who did not turn up and for the patient who might have taken that person’s place. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware that the same study found that nearly two-thirds of those not attending were senior citizens with Maori Pacific Islanders and other ethnic minorities making up the majority of the remaining third and that almost without exception the reason for their non-attendance was a lack of transport? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It may be useful if I refer the member to a different study a thoroughgoing study done recently by the MidCentral District Health Board which tends to confirm the member’s point of view that a lot of senior citizens Maori and Pacific Islanders are amongst those who did not attend appointments at that particular hospital but points out that we cannot really say that the major problem is a lack of transport. In fact the MidCentral District Health Board study gives 27 reasons and although transport is the most important of them it accounts for only 13 or 14 percent of the “did not attends”. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware that the National Travel Assistance Policy has been patchy at best in meeting the transport needs of seniors and others and that those district health boards—such as Taranaki—that have the lowest rates of non-attendance also have their own fleet of transport vehicles specifically to address this matter? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of a bus that runs twice daily from New Plymouth to Hawera and back and indeed another one that whips round the mountain. The Taranaki District Health Board does have a good “did not attend” rate but if one looks at the whole country one finds that there are very low “did not attend” rates in areas where there is poor public transport—Northland being an example and South Canterbury another—whereas in some other parts of the country where there is very good public transport such as Auckland the “did not attend” rate is actually high. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister believe that rather than the health system incurring a cost of $57 million a year a small investment by the district health boards nationwide in transport services would greatly reduce the number of those not attending appointments and result in not only a significant financial saving but better health outcomes for those affected; and is he prepared to direct district health boards to take this simple step? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The district health boards are certainly free to take this step and I thank the member for his interest in this issue; it is an important one. I do however disagree with the member in his assertion that “did not attends” and transport issues are inextricably linked. They are not. The “did not attend” rates in Auckland where the transport system is very good are much higher—in fact twice as high—than they are in South Canterbury where the public transport system is nowhere near as good. So it is not at all clear that transport and non-attendance are as closely linked as that. The reasons for not attending are very complex; there are very many of them. If the member wants a copy of the research from the MidCentral District Health Board he can have it for the asking. 
Pita Paraone 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the report on “did not attend” numbers percentages and costings per district health board. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Immigration Service—Confidence 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the Immigration Service; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes; it is a hard-working and conscientious department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that a Mr Jameel ur-Rehman client No. 27540653 came to New Zealand on false documentation and does he represent one of the 596 identity-fraud cases identified by the Auditor-General as of February this year? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is with great respect to the member opposite always regrettable when members pose a generic question and then follow it up with a case-specific supplementary question. However in view of the recent publication of an article on this case I can give the member some information. I understand that the information in the relevant article in  
Investigate  
magazine came from one unsubstantiated source. At this stage I am advised that New Zealand law enforcement agencies have not been able to support any of the allegations made in the article. I am in the process of receiving and considering briefs from Department of Labour officials on this matter. There is an investigation under way but early indications are that the information is unsubstantiated and may be malicious in nature. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Can the Minister advise on the individual number of case decisions that the Immigration Service in New Zealand makes? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that approximately 4 million border crossings into New Zealand are made annually and in addition in the 2006-07 year nearly half a million individual case decisions were made by immigration officers. In any such system not every decision will be perfect; however I am satisfied that where errors in judgment or system failures occur the department actively seeks to address those. The Immigration Business Transformation programme is looking to strengthen both systems and procedures and will go a long way towards future-proofing immigration processes. It is a shame to see the Opposition attempting to derail these significant changes by the manufactured politics of individual cases. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why is Mr Rehman still in New Zealand when his cousin who arrived under similar circumstances has already been deported and when Immigration New Zealand has evidence that Mr Rehman supports terrorist organisations and received military training at a terrorist base near the Afghan border? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member is correct. The gentleman’s cousin a Mr Anwar was removed from New Zealand after refusing to answer questions posed to him by the Immigration Service. I am advised that Mr Rehman however did answer the questions posed to him. However I have asked for a further report on this case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why does Mr Rehman still have a work permit when Immigration New Zealand has irrefutable evidence that Jameel ur-Rehman obtained his work permit for New Zealand using a false document? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be a great disappointment to the House if the member opposite determined what was irrefutable from  
Investigate 
 magazine. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why is Mr Rehman still in New Zealand when Immigration New Zealand has evidence he sent money back to a brother directly involved in a terrorist organisation—an offence under New Zealand’s Terrorism Suppression Act? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that although I have called for a further report on this case I am advised that to date the only evidence that has been made available to either the Department of Labour or other relevant agencies comes from one unsubstantiated source a source who had a personal grievance against the person named in the article and who had lost a case against that person under the Employment Relations Authority. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How many of the other 596 identity-fraud cases identified by the Auditor-General involve people with highly suspect backgrounds like Mr Rehman? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member opposite just keeps digging. If he is taking the definition of “highly suspect” from one Ian Wishart he is violating an important principle of our common law that a gentleman wherever he comes from or whatever his name sounds like is innocent until proven guilty. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statutory declaration of Jarved Chaudhry director of Hamilton where he— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I just seek your guidance as to what the statutory declaration was about? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Standing Orders state that the document should be identified and I think you did clearly identify what it was. You may seek leave of the House if you wish to make a statement to that effect; there is nothing to prevent you from doing that. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under the Standing Orders you are meant to allow a member to identify what a document is actually about. Now certainly I had no intention of reading the document but this is impossible; the statutory declaration could have been one stating that this person had evidence that the Speaker of the Parliament was involved in all sorts of activities. Now it did not but you are not to know that because you did not allow me to identify what the statutory declaration was about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need any assistance but I thank the member. Tabling a document is not to be an opportunity to make a statement. The rules are quite clear that as long as the document is identified—not necessarily the content of it but the document—then that is sufficient. The member kindly did that for the House and there was no objection to it being tabled. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statutory declaration of a student of Hamilton where he outlines the involvement of Mr Rehman in terrorist organisations. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statutory declaration of a further student from Hamilton where he details the family’s involvement of Mr Rehman— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it not true that our immigration laws are in a mess and that that is the principal reason for the review and the forthcoming major overhaul of the immigration laws? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member is indeed correct; it is not true. 
Food Labelling—US Country-of-origin Labelling 
6.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Can he confirm that the New Zealand Government has been lobbying the United States Department of Agriculture not to introduce country-of-origin labelling on meat fish and other perishable agricultural goods; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Yes; the Government has been both consistent and open in opposing mandatory country-of-origin labelling proposed by protectionist groups in the United States which is designed to damage our exports. Such labelling imposes costs on New Zealand exporters of New Zealand food without providing any advantage at all to the United States consumer in terms of food standards or food safety. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that it is the Government’s position then that consumers in New Zealand and in the United States are not entitled to know where their food comes from because it could affect the profits of the meat and dairy industries; in other words that it is the Government’s policy to put the interests of two large exporters ahead of the democratic rights of consumers to know where their food comes from? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government’s position is to support the exporters of very safe and high-standard New Zealand food against having big costs imposed on them for the purpose of making New Zealand produce uncompetitive with United States produce without in any sense whatsoever improving the safety or standard of food to the consumer. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is New Zealand’s key concern in relation to mandatory country-of-origin labelling on our food exports to the United States? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The key concerns are the costs that such labelling would impose on our beef exports as a result of labelling and record keeping. A report by the United States General Accounting Office found that such costs would be high and would be particularly high where the goods had to be segregated. The fact is that two-thirds of our beef—our major export to the United States—is manufacturing beef which is ground and mixed with beef from other countries and the United States. If we had to label that that would impose compliance costs that would make our food exports more costly and less competitive than the United States product which is of course what motivates many of those promoting country-of-origin labelling in the United States. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he explain what the huge compliance costs are in putting a label on fresh agricultural products such as meat fish cauliflower and fruit and what the expense is in putting a label next to a bunch of cauliflowers; and can he confirm that the meat he is complaining about—which is mixed together into hamburgers—is for the most part sold in take-away outlets which are not the subject of the legislation? So can he confirm in other words that the Government is wildly exaggerating compliance costs to somehow try to protect two export industries—the dairy and the meat-exporting industries? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot confirm that at all. The protecting that is going on is the protecting of US producers against fair competition from New Zealand. As far as I know we do not export cauliflowers to the United States but we do export one hell of a load of beef and two-thirds of that beef is mixed. As far as I understand it the requirements that would be imposed by the regulations would require a labelling of that product which would be very expensive thus making our exports less competitive. The member may support making goods less competitive when they have no impact on food safety or standards but I do not and this Government does not. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he aware that the overwhelming majority of Americans—92 percent according to one recent survey—want mandatory country-of-origin labelling and does he think his department has a mandate from the people of New Zealand who also overwhelmingly want country-of-origin labelling on single-ingredient foods to seek to interfere in American domestic politics against the clear wishes of American citizens; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I do know is that this Government and this Parliament have a mandate from New Zealand to stand up for New Zealand agricultural exporters whose produce constitutes two-thirds of all exports from this country. This Government also has a mandate to oppose such blatantly protectionist measures that various elements that have been lobbying Congress are seeking to impose. We will stand up for New Zealanders’ rights to export in a fair and competitive market. We will also stand up for needs of food safety and food standards but food safety and food standards have nothing at all to do with country-of-origin labelling though the member repeatedly tries to confuse those two things. 
Tim Barnett 
: Do New Zealand submissions on country-of-origin labelling constitute interference in the domestic affairs of the United States as alleged by Sue Kedgley? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The claim that Sue Kedgley has just made is absolutely bizarre. New Zealand made the submissions in response to the request of the United States Department of Agriculture for submissions on the proposed mandatory labelling from all World Trade Organization members. The invitation allows countries whose trade may be affected such as New Zealand to have an input into the regulation process. To claim that we are wrongly interfering in the domestic politics of the United States is absolutely wrong; we were invited to make the submissions by the Government of the United States. What is it about that that the member does not understand? 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did the Government’s submission to the United States Department of Agriculture say: “New Zealand does not believe that mandatory country-of-origin labelling would benefit consumers.” when a majority of New Zealand consumers have said in surveys that they want mandatory country-of-origin labelling and see it as basic information like the ingredient panel or the nutrition label? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We said that because that is the position of the New Zealand Government and I would say three-quarters if not a lot more than that of the members of this House. The member cannot confuse or try to have the public confuse the question of food safety which is legitimately regulated with country-of-origin labelling which has nothing to do with safety or standards but can be placed on the product by the retailer or by the producer if they so wish. It is not something where there are grounds for the Government to step in with a heavy hand to impose. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How can he claim that country-of-origin labelling is not a food safety issue at a time when global food scandals—particularly over exports from China—have led to product withdrawals and food being held at the United States’ border until it is proven to be safe? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is doing it again: she is confusing country-of-origin labelling with food safety. The two things are absolutely separate. This country has very strong regulations to do with food safety and food standards. It does not mandatorily impose country-of-origin labelling on food products because that has nothing to do with the issues that the member is constantly trying to confuse. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a survey showing that 92 percent of American respondents said they want mandatory— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Early Childhood Services—Licensing Standards 
7.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What minimum standards do licensed early childhood services such as creches at pools and gyms have to comply with? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Like all early childhood facilities creches in pools and gyms have to keep children safe. They need to have safe facilities and they need to have adequately qualified police-checked staff to supervise children. They need to comply with the fact that no parent would want to place his or her child in an unsafe environment. The regulations are designed to ensure that creches meet these standards. 
Paula Bennett 
: Should a free child-minding service in a safe cordoned-off area in a gym which has adult supervision for up to six children for no more than an hour at a time with parents just metres away have to be licensed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is worth just rehashing very very briefly the history of the regulations. The regulations that are in place came in in 1989. That means that they were in place for 9 years of a National Government. Labour has just begun to review those regulations and there will be an opportunity for a question such as that to be raised as people discuss the regulations. The regulations are currently on the website. If the member would like to look at them and discuss them with the people who are writing to her she is welcome to do so. Unlike the National Government which for 9 years administered the regulations exactly as she is complaining about them we are having a look at them. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What steps is the Government taking to lift the quality of early childhood education in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As part of the Government’s push to continue to improve the quality of early childhood services in 2002 we announced a review of the entire regulation framework for early childhood education services. Since 2003 the ministry has been reviewing that system. Last year some of the changes to the Education Act 1989 were made. In October this year all services will have a further opportunity to contribute to the draft criteria of the requirements that services will need to meet in order to be licensed. We have received over 1800 submissions and have had positive feedback about the first draft. The new system is designed to be more flexible and transparent for services and to provide quality standards. I repeat to the member—because she may not be aware of this—that the rules that the National Government operated under are the rules currently in place. We are currently reviewing those rules and this is a chance for the member to make her views known. 
Paula Bennett 
: If the Minister is currently reviewing that legislation then why is his ministry writing to centres within gyms and telling them they are running illegally; and does the Minister accept that it is ridiculous to make a gym such as Devine Fitness license its child-minding service which is a special adult-supervised area right next to the parents when if the gym did not supervise the children and let them run around the gym equipment it would not need a licence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Ministry of Education responds to formal complaints. The issue that seems to have kicked off this current round of media inspection of centres concerns the centre in Nelson. Someone made a formal complaint about the gym not supervising children correctly and therefore representatives from the Ministry of Education went around—as they are required to do—and discussed the issue with the gym. In the end I think that the gym has decided to close the centre. The basic principle is that all children should be safe. Although it may be a bit of a myth that people stay for a short time at gyms in fact it does seem that people put their children in gym creches for up to 3 hours at a time. Therefore the children ought to be properly supervised. 
Paula Bennett 
: Will the Minister close down the child-minding service at the community-run Motueka Recreation Fitness Centre which provides a supervised play-pen three mornings a week for 1 hour for up to five children with the parents exercising just 15 metres away from it because it does not provide a sleep area? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know it amuses the member to get up and raise one case after another like this. The basic principle that the National Government operated under—as does this Government—is that these children should be safe. Unlike National we are allowing a discussion around the regulations at the present time. Perhaps instead of going on about individual cases that would have happened under a National Government she should get stuck into the regulatory review. 
Paula Bennett 
: What response does the Minister have to those mothers in Nelson who have had their creche at the cityfitness gym closed because the Minister insists that it be licensed even though they are happy with the facility and its level of care and safety or does the Minister know better than those parents? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I pointed out to the member before the centre she is talking about was the recipient of a formal complaint. The Ministry of Education has to respond to formal complaints. The parent who complained was unhappy about the system that was operating in that particular facility. That is what the ministry responded to. 
Paula Bennett 
: What choices do parents who want to exercise have when the Minister is closing down unlicensed premises and when according to a Fitness New Zealand national survey the number of licensed childcare centres in gyms has decreased from 28 in 2004 to just 16 in 2007 due to excessive bureaucracy and licensing legislation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I remind people that the National Government operated under exactly these rules for 9 years. I would say to people that the central principle is the safety of their children. I would also say I really approve of parents getting fit. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the Ministry of Education on 11 September to the Motueka Recreation Fitness Centre. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table the updated statement of Early Childhood Desirable Objectives and Practices which regulates the early childhood services that have been referred to that was given Cabinet approval in 1998. 
Document not tabled. 
Iraq—New Zealand Troop Deployment 
8.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports if any has he received on committing New Zealand troops to fight in Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have seen the  
New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 
 dated 18 March 2003. It records that all 27 National MPs voted for a resolution moved by the then ACT leader Richard Prebble on the invasion of Iraq which “calls on the New Zealand Government to offer all practical support to the ‘coalition of the willing’.” There can be no other interpretation of that than National’s readiness and support for committing New Zealand soldiers to the war in Iraq. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the documents showing that the practical support the Government gave the invasion of Iraq was the transport of troops on Air New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will finish the answer to the question which no doubt embarrasses Mr Brownlee who voted for that resolution. What that unanimous vote by the National Party represents is the absolute falsehood of recent claims by John Key Murray McCully and others that the National Party never supported sending New Zealand troops to Iraq. That vote is proof positive that they are speaking untruths and misleading the public. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Unfortunately I had huge difficulty in hearing the last part of that answer. What reports is the Minister referring to in the last part of his answer which I was actually able to hear? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of reports. TV3’s  
Campbell Live 
 for example records Mr Key saying: “Our caucus did not support sending troops to Iraq.” and that he personally did not support this. Yet in March 2003 every member of the National caucus including Mr Key voted for that resolution. A second report was in July of this year. Mr Key again said that National would not have sent troops to Iraq. That obviously is a false statement. The third and last report came from Murray McCully on  
Agenda 
. He again denied that the National Party would have sent troops to Iraq. All of those claims are demonstrably contradicted by the fact that all members of the National caucus voted for a resolution that clearly indicated their support for sending troops to Iraq at the time of the invasion. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the Minister deployed 60 combat engineers to Iraq in June— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before we make a decision on tabling that document I ask whether the member can produce evidence that the engineers went to Iraq for the purposes of combat. That statement is demonstrably false as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order was to seek leave to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on retraction and apology for the claims made given the clear evidence that such claims are false? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Now apologise! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: When the windbag on the other side of the House wants to shut up I will answer that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members let the Minister deliver his answer—a short answer—in silence so we can move on and this disorder can cease. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not seen any apology or retraction from the Leader of the Opposition which is disappointing. It is one thing to show poor judgment at the time and to decide that troops should be sent to Iraq; it is another thing in relation to credibility and honesty to deny that that decision was ever made yet that is what the Leader of the Opposition is doing. This is an opportunity now for Mr Key and his colleagues to stand up and apologise or to make an explanation for their actions at that time. 
Accident Compensation—Employers’ Liability 
9.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that she agrees with “the principle that accredited employers should continue to have the right to determine themselves whether an injury is work-related or non - work-related and to revoke that decision if after reconsidering the facts they change their view.”; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. The agreement that accredited employers have with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) gives accredited employers the same powers as ACC to make the decision to provide cover for a work-related injury and to alter their decision when the original decision was incorrect. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister reconcile that with her statements yesterday when the correspondence I tabled in the House from ACC to AFFCO dated 15 October 2004 9 June 2006 and 4 April 2007 shows that AFFCO has consistently argued for 4 years that this gang shooting was clearly not a work-related accident and that it did not accept that a couple of guys who sneaked out of the workplace during a break to smoke a joint should be said to be having a break for a meal a rest or refreshment? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On 22 April 2003 the case manager employed by the third-party provider contracted to AFFCO wrote to Mr Storey saying: “Your employer AFFCO is an accredited employer … We have considered your application for cover under the Act. We are pleased to advise you that the injury you sustained on 8 April 03 has been accepted for cover under section 20 of the Act which addresses personal injury and your employer acknowledges your injury to be work-related.” The fact that later when the costs became very obvious to the employer the employer decided to relitigate the situation does not meet the threshold of new information of facts and of the basis of an incorrect decision. But even if it had done so AFFCO should have revoked its decision. It has never done so. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can we take it then that the Minister is basing all her responses on the letter from AFFCO to the worker just 2 weeks after the shooting before the full details were known and when two separate and different claim forms had been lodged; but is it not true that when AFFCO discovered that the Occupational Safety and Health Service had not investigated—because it was seen as a police matter not a work accident—and the full facts of the gang shooting became clear AFFCO notified ACC that the accident was not work-related and therefore it was ACC’s responsibility and not AFFCO’s? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No that is not the case actually. Under section 65 of the legislation as I explained to the member and the House yesterday AFFCO should have revoked its decision to provide cover which it had granted on 22 April 2003; otherwise the decision stands. The revocation is the trigger for the claim to then be lodged with ACC for its consideration. But the Accredited Employers Programme does not give AFFCO or any other accredited employer the right to say: “This is looking very expensive. We think the taxpayer of New Zealand should carry the liability despite the fact that under the law we accepted cover and haven’t revoked it.” That is not how the scheme should work. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Since when are gang shootings in public workplace-related? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I know that that is the way it would work under a private insurance regime which that member proposes but it should not work that way under New Zealand law. 
Darien Fenton 
: What does an accredited employer agreement involve? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: An accredited employer arrangement involves employers who meet certain good health and safety criteria being able to manage their own work-related injuries. In exchange for employers taking on that responsibility they receive significant discounts on their levies. Accredited employers that have an employee who sustains a significant and costly injury should not be able to go back on their agreement simply because they feel that it would cost them too much. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not an accident; it’s a gang shoot-out. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Frankly it is irrelevant whether he injured his toe or whether it was a gang-related shooting. The legislation for years has been consistent in the definition of a workplace injury. It relates to the time and the place rather than to how the injury was incurred. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister stand by her statement yesterday that AFFCO “made the decision. It was handed over to ACC a year later because it was a complex case.” when the facts are that AFFCO consistently argued that ACC had taken over the management of the file itself in order to prevent AFFCO from issuing Mr Storey with a notice that the accident was not a workplace accident? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Because that is not a fact. There was nothing at all prohibiting AFFCO or stopping AFFCO between 2003 and its reconsideration—there was nothing at all standing in its way—from invoking section 65 of the Act which is very clear. AFFCO just revokes its decision. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister stand by her statement yesterday that “the worker concerned was inside a security fence” when the fact—as seen on TV last night—is that the car-park was outside the secured plant area and open to general use by staff and the public? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is a process for resolving disputes with an accredited employer who wants the taxpayer to pick up what is lawfully its obligation. Given that that accredited employer has already breached its confidentiality agreement I am surprised that the member persists along these lines. There is a process to revoke a cover decision; AFFCO has not taken it up. There is a process for resolving disputes— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult to hear the answer! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —and AFFCO should comply with it. The puzzling question is why when the law—which was unchanged throughout the entire 1990s and prior to that—determines the boundaries between a workplace injury and a non-workplace injury the member is proposing that the taxpayers of New Zealand pick up AFFCO’s liability? 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a very long answer but at no stage during that answer did the Minister address the question I had asked which was about the security fence—why the Minister had said the worker was inside the security fence when in fact as shown clearly on television the worker was outside the security fence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister please address that part of the question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: With respect I did so at the very beginning of my answer and then I elaborated on that process. I explained to the member that when facts are in dispute when people have different views and different perspectives there is a process for resolution of those facts. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister stand by her statement to the House yesterday that she did not intervene because it was 2 days before “ACC thought a settlement might be reached” when the correspondence tabled yesterday from ACC to AFFCO makes it very clear that ACC was not budging one iota from deeming this vicious gang-shooting a work-related accident; does the Minister now accept that she got the whole story wrong? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Absolutely not. I know from the correspondence— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ignored the previous outburst of the member interjecting because he has started this House down various tracks in the past but I am not going to ignore the repetition of that kind of comment from that member. He is the last person in this House to start those kinds of accusations in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Members on this side of the House regularly have to enjoy the replay on TV of Mr Goff saying: “Tell the truth Mr Key.” “Tell the truth Mr Key.” “Tell the truth Mr Key.” Far from changes to what is acceptable parliamentary comment in this House having come from the National Party they have come from the Labour Party. Despite the repeated playing of that particular comment from Mr Goff on television stations there has been no consequence for him. Therefore the assumption is that such a comment is perfectly acceptable. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Of course if the member had wished to raise an objection to those comments at the time he should have done. He did not do so. It is perhaps a matter of some significance that he and his colleagues remained silent at that point. I have raised a point of order immediately upon Dr Smith saying “Tell the truth for a change!”. Madam Speaker I suggest to you that even if the first occurrence was not sufficient the second added to it. That member of all people in this House should not start getting into those kinds of exchanges. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have listened carefully to the arguments and I think there is merit in both points of view that have been put on the phrase “Tell the truth!”. Obviously it is a phrase that creates disorder in this House so from now on it will be considered an unparliamentary term whoever uses that comment. I am warning members that it is an unparliamentary term—questioning who tells the truth—to be thrown across the Chamber by anyone. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: When I received representation via a third party to intervene in the situation that the member raised yesterday I sought information from ACC— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! It is very hard to hear the answer. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —about the process of decision making and as part of the information I received back I was told that 2 days later was the deadline for the final response from AFFCO to a proposed settlement. I did not think it was appropriate first of all that I intervene in a process that was clearly set out in legislation and was being complied with. Secondly I did not think it was appropriate that a Minister in Government be used as a lever to up the amount of money that AFFCO might get off the taxpayer. That member clearly disagrees with that. 
Health Services—Inequalities 
10.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the reduction in health inequalities under a Labour-led Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I launched the  
Tracking Disparity 
 research last month. The research showed that although inequality in health outcomes between ethnic groups and across income brackets grew steeply in the late 1980s and right through the 1990s it appears that those gaps may have stopped growing and may have even started to narrow. We can celebrate this early sign of success and acknowledge those who work in the health system to deliver it but the disparities are still large and they are still unacceptable. 
Smoking—Anti-smoking Initiatives 
11. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
on behalf of  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on the success of the Government’s role in reducing smoking? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is such good news. New Zealand Ireland and Finland were jointly awarded the Global Smokefree Partnership’s Extraordinary Award last week in recognition of their exceptional and outstanding commitment in the development of guidelines for Article 8 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is an outstanding achievement for a lot of hard work done by a lot of very good officials. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has he received on the Government’s role in reducing smoking? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The first New Zealand Tobacco Use Survey was released in June this year and shows that New Zealanders want to quit this habit that kills nearly 5000 of us every year. According to the survey two-thirds of smokers in this country have tried to quit in the past 5 years. I would also like to refer to another Health Sponsorship Council monitor survey that showed that 90 percent of the population support the right to live and work in a smoke-free environment—endorsement of this Government’s change the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act 2003 which has been an outstanding success. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How is it that the Minister can say the Government’s role is an outstanding achievement when under his Government’s watch lung cancer rates in women are steadily rising and smoking remains high in young people in Maori and in Pacific Island people? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It is true that we have some very sad statistics around lung cancer rates as a result of years of neglect by National Governments in this policy area. There have been improvements although we would like to see more in the area of reducing smoking rates particularly with young Maori women. That is why we committed over $10 million extra in this area to reduce smoking across New Zealand. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table page 62 of the Ministry of Health’s  
Cancer: New Registrations and Deaths 2003 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table a report by Action on Smoking and Health that shows smoking remains high in Maori and Pacific Islanders and in young people. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table the 2005  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 article by Shaun Holt which seriously questions the Government’s— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that when the smoke-free legislation came before the House it was opposed by the overwhelming majority of National members and in fact they put in their manifesto a pledge to repeal it and is he aware that that is still their position and is that the position of Dr Coleman for example— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not acceptable. The Minister knows there is no responsibility for National policy. The first part of the question is acceptable. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It does not really matter too much whether the Minister answers the question but I would ask you to consider whether there is ministerial responsibility by any Labour Minister for the National Party’s voting record because that was the first part of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. If it is on a bill for which the Minister is responsible yes but he is not responsible for the party’s policy. But certainly if it relates to that yes the Minister is responsible. Would the Minister please reply briefly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is not something this Minister is responsible for. This happened two Parliaments back. I would ask you again to consider whether any Minister in the current Government can be responsible for the National Party’s voting record on everything. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am almost tempted to support the member because it would be very helpful of course from a Government perspective if one could ask questions relating only to the current Minister in any portfolio and not anything that might cover a previous Minister within at least the same Government. But I am sure that you are going to rule that that would be far too friendly a ruling from a Government perspective and should be rejected. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on it. If there is a bill before the House for which the Minister was responsible then the Minister can address that question that relates to matters relating to it including the voting on it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to be helpful to you. This in fact was a member’s bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that as well but it does not alter the facts. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am sad to report that many National Party members voted against this legislation and if I could quote one particular member he said: “We will be in an extraordinarily grubby country as a result of this stupid legislation.” I am pleased to say that it is not true. In fact the vast majority of bars and workplaces are far cleaner as a result of this legislation. The person who made that claim was Gerry Brownlee. 
Te Puni Kokiri—Confidence 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in Te Puni Kokiri; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in Te Puni Kokiri because its employees are hard-working and conscientious public servants. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does he consider Te Puni Kokiri’s seven aquaculture hui a success given that only 143 people turned up across the whole country when Te Puni Kokiri spent over $180000 on the hui; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am more than certain as that member knows that they were more than successful. They are one part of a whole lot of consultation that is going on. Within that costing there has been preparatory stuff that will prepare Maori as major owners in the aquaculture industry to do better and be better involved. 
Dave Hereora 
: What successes for Maori has Te Puni Kokiri contributed to? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are several. More Maori are working. Maori own 56 percent of the aquaculture industry in this country and they are good partners. They know how to work with local authorities. More Maori are moving into semi-skilled and highly skilled occupations and more Maori are earning a lot more than when we came in. 
Phil Heatley 
: Was it good value spending $26300 on the Whanganui-Taranaki hui given that only five people turned up costing Te Puni Kokiri $5260 per attendee? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: This member has quite a habit of misconstruing facts. The facts that I have here are that in Whanganui it cost $4583 and the travel and— 
Paula Bennett 
: That’s a lot of kai. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The member should know. She should come out of the closet about being Maori. But the member Phil Heatley certainly misconstrues those facts and those figures as he has done before. 
Phil Heatley 
: Was the value for the five people who turned up to the Whanganui-Taranaki hui the fact that 10 officials turned up and therefore the people were able to get 2:1 attention? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It was not just about Maori leaders who represent heaps of Maori from Whanganui being there but also about local authority officials being there and Te Puni Kokiri officials being there and people understanding what the hui was about. That member should get his facts right. At the end of the day I am quite clear that he misconstrues the truth. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s own figures given in answers to parliamentary questions showing the attendance and costs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Since the legislation can the Minister tell the House how many new aquaculture farms have been established by and for Maori and where they are? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Since the moratorium has been lifted there is more participation by Maori in the aquaculture industry but certainly it is a complex issue where all parties like big fisheries companies and regional authorities have to work towards bringing them together. We are certainly on our way to making sure that Maori are more involved in that industry. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was very specific. I want to know how many new aquaculture farms have been established by and for Maori and where they are. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister elaborate on his answer to address that point. We will have it in silence please. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are none but in the local authority area there are issues about aquaculture management areas and new spaces. The growth factor has been in Maori taking more shareholding in a whole lot of big companies. They are the biggest fish-owners in this country and I know that that member has another opinion to try to put that asunder. 
Tariana Turia 
: Can the Minister inform the House who the Maori economic development manager of Aquaculture New Zealand is given that Te Puni Kokiri provided $70000 towards the salary and what expertise in aquaculture has this person and will the reports be publicly available? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Certainly and that is the commitment by Te Puni Kokiri to ensure alongside the new developing aquaculture forum that there was a Maori interest in there and we paid that salary. There are those issues in relation to slowness in opening new space and we clearly have three settlement options. That member knows about them. 
Phil Heatley 
: What did attendees say at the hui when Te Puni Kokiri told them that 2½ years after the Minister promised them 2000 hectares of space in the 2004 Maori aquaculture settlement not a single hectare has been found anywhere in the country; were they gutted? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I was not at the hui but I do speak to the staff generally. The Government and the settlement options have been quite clear—an additional 20 percent of new aquaculture management area space can be identified and allocated to meet pre-commencement obligations thereby providing Maori with up to 40 percent of new space in some areas and there will be purchasing of existing marine farms for transfer from 1 January 2008—that member is afraid of this—and paying an equivalent amount from 1 January 2013. I tell the House that I do have a lot of faith in Te Puni Kokiri staff but that member wrote me a letter on 17 July complaining—at about the Brash time—about how unprofessional those people were and that people were turned away from Te Puni Kokiri’s door because they were National Party supporters. That was a whole lot of rubbish. He went to the press saying that he damned those poor people who took a whole lot of umbrage at that and he kept on with the fib. At the end of the day he found out that it was not true. He knew it was not true and he carried on attacking that ministry. Shame on him! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister will recall that that is an unparliamentary term. We no longer use that term in this House. I know that it will take members a while to get used to it but you had better get used to it by tomorrow. Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister embarrassed that he ran hui on aquaculture right across the country and no one turned up probably because the Minister has not turned up with the space that he promised Maori 2½ years ago? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not embarrassed because that member is picking one hui. There have been a whole lot of hui over and above the information that he has. He is talking a whole lot of hooey because he has not been there. I tell him that Maori are the biggest owners in aquaculture and he had better get used to it. The reason the hui went on there is that we contracted with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research which has international experience and modern science putting out into the open the opportunities that Maori are really clear about wanting to be part of. He talks a whole lot of rubbish. 
Phil Heatley 
: Given that the Minister is concerned that I am talking only about the Whanganui hui where only five people turned up is he pleased that in Canterbury only 16 people turned up costing Te Puni Kokiri several thousand dollars for each of them; and is he pleased that for the 16 who turned up there were 11 officials to greet them? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am pleased the officials were there because that is how we need to sort this matter out. But those people who turned up represented thousands of beneficiaries and what Maori are getting used to is running their business by themselves not having people like that controlling it. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the very low attendance figures for Maori at the hui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the very high attendance figures for Government officials at the hui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s own very high costs for the hui. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Government’s unfulfilled aquaculture settlement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
167: I seek leave to table the reports on how Maori are participating at a dramatic pace in aquaculture and are adding value to this country’s economic status. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The phones are running hot amongst the backbench of the Labour Party. Those members want to know answers to serious questions such as why Maryan Street’s name is now appearing in the newspaper ahead of Shane Jones’ name. The latest theory is that it is because the Prime Minister’s office is pushing Maryan Street and not pushing Shane Jones. 
But Steve Chadwick is pushing herself in the Rotorua  
Daily Post 
. Now she is someone who missed out on Cabinet after the last election because she had almost lost her Rotorua seat. Now she is to go into Cabinet because she is certainly going to lose the Rotorua seat at the next election. What does she have to say in the Rotorua  
Daily Post? 
 “Speculation Rotorua MP Steve Chadwick will be promoted in the next Cabinet reshuffle is news to her.” That was in yesterday’s Rotorua newspaper—news to her. So she is not worrying about the media here; she is going around the back and promoting herself. Actually she has given a detailed CV—she was clearly caught on the hop! It lists her strengths in great detail and then of course states that she wants the Prime Minister’s favourite portfolio of the arts. Now that was smart; that was really smart! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about Judith Tizard? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it is Judith Tizard’s job I presume except that Judith Tizard does not do the job so getting it will not mean any effort is required at all. 
All those things are symptoms of the Government’s new strategy which is this: it needs to save the generals so it will sack the corporals. That is what the Government is doing—it needs to save the generals so it will sack the corporals. Let us take Mark Burton for instance— 
Simon Power 
: Someone’s taken him! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh someone has taken him because he has not been here for 2 days. I will not speculate about where he has been taken but it will be painful and he is not coming back. I think that is the answer. But is it his fault? The Electoral Finance Bill which has killed his ministerial career is not the bill that Mark Burton put up. The bill we have is the one Helen Clark wanted: the one that means public money can be spent at will without limit on campaigning all election year and no one else is allowed to spend money. The bill actually states that political opinion is banned except under particular circumstances such as registering with the Government before one can criticise it. I do not believe that Mark Burton thought of that. Helen Clark thought of that. She is the one who told New Zealand First and the Greens they must lock in behind the bill and jam it through before Christmas so that we can have the most restrictive campaign finance rules in the Western World where for one-third of the whole time the Government is in office its critics will not be able to criticise it—one-third of the whole time it is in office. But Mark Burton is going to get it in the neck and that is his fault apparently. 
Is it Rick Barker’s fault that his constituents are sick of Dr Cullen promising tax cuts and then taking them away? No Rick Barker believed the promise that Michael Cullen made in the 2005 Budget: that Michael Cullen would lift the thresholds in order to reduce the tax burden on middle New Zealand. Then Rick Barker made another mistake. He believed that promise when Dr Cullen repeated it in the 2006 Budget. Now it is no wonder he is to be sacked. Then Rick Barker found out too late the promise was never meant to be delivered on because in the 2007 Budget Dr Cullen said he would not do it. The effect of that is that someone on $39000 a year in New Zealand now pays the same marginal tax rates as millionaires did back in the 1980s and 1990s. Someone on $39000 a year pays at the rate of 33c in the dollar. That is the rate that Doug Myers and the Prime Minister of New Zealand used to pay as their top rate. Rick Barker has found out that Dr Cullen thinks that earners on $39000 a year in Hastings are rich and Rick Barker is going to be sacked when it should be Dr Cullen who is sacked. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I do think that that is a bit rich coming from the guy who led National to its worst ever loss in recorded history— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What was it—21 percent? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was 21 percent and falling under him. 
The reason I have my white camellia here this afternoon is that 114 years ago this Parliament granted New Zealand women the right to vote in general elections. This made New Zealand a world leader in terms of equal rights and it is a very proud day indeed that we get to stand in this Parliament it falling on the day of a general debate where we can talk about the advance of women in New Zealand over the last 114 years. Because of course that day marks the beginning of a time when gradually doors were opened and when gradually those glass ceilings were broken by women claiming equal rights with men. It is part of our identity as a nation that we commit to equality of opportunity for all our citizens. 
In a parliamentary sense when I became an MP in 1990 around a quarter of the MPs at that time were women. Today about one-third are women. So we have significant success in that area as well. Women have succeeded in achieving the highest positions and for a magic moment in time— 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise profusely for interrupting my colleague but David Bennett over there on the National benches just said: “Shut up you!” and I take objection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well I think this is part of a robust debate. There are a lot of interjections across the House. Just continue thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: For a magic moment in history the top four constitutional positions were held by women; now that number is three. New Zealand signed up to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1986 and as a nation we are of course committed to equality between men and women in the home in the workplace and in the community. In every reporting period since that first report in 1986 we have made advances except for one period in that time. That was in the 1990s. That represented a time when women suffered the most really in terms of a premeditated assault on their advance towards employment equity that was not signalled before the election in advance of the Government that heralded in those changes. The National Opposition at the time made no secret of the fact that it was going to change the industrial relations law. But no one could have predicted the wholesale demolition of a structure that had its origins in the same era as women’s suffrage. 
 But to introduce the Employment Contracts Act National first had to repeal the Employment Equity Act because there was soon to be no mechanism for delivering pay equity. The first case due to be heard under the employment equity legislation was that of public hospital nurses and police. What happened? Public hospital nurses ended up on 23 separate employment contracts scattered from one end of the country to the other with all the Crown health enterprises. Police whose pay the nurses were going to have their pay compared with of course stayed on a national award. Why were police still on a national award? Because they are not allowed to take industrial action. Were people allowed to take industrial action to have a multi-employer collective agreement? No they were not. So there was one rule for a male-dominated occupation and another rule for women-dominated occupations. National did not want to know the answer to the question about the pay differential between police and nurses because the Employment Contracts Act was going to abolish national awards. 
When we couple that with a virtual freeze on the statutory minimum wage over the 1990s it meant that our lowest-paid workers—overwhelmingly women—suffered as well. So nurses who were set back over 15 years in terms of their capacity are now at long last on track to pay equity. It has taken this Government’s election in 1999 the passage of the Employment Relations Act in 2000 the strengthening of the arrangements around multi-employer collective agreements—which were all opposed by National every single one of them—and a massive funding injection into the district health boards to deliver a pay jolt that has enabled nurses to be back on track for the employment equity journey they started before the election of a National Government in 1990. 
What is the common point in both of those times? It is a Labour Government—Helen Clark as the Minister of Labour in 1990 and Helen Clark as Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1999. That is what the women of New Zealand can rely on if they have a Labour Government. What they could rely on if they were ever to have a National Government would be going backwards to where the pay gap between men and women would again widen as it did in the 1990s. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 What does a Government do when the tide starts to run out as badly as it is on this current Government? Well if we listen to what Lianne Dalziel tells us today we discover that it simply goes back and starts fighting the battles of the past. 
We know that the Prime Minister is out there telling New Zealanders that Labour is on the come-back and that it will all happen because there is going to be a Cabinet reshuffle. There will be some magical stuff around climate change and apparently—in an age when it has never been harder for young New Zealanders to buy a house—housing affordability will be one of the Government’s things as well. Have we heard about any of that today? No. Government members have gone back over the old battlegrounds of the past the nice safe comfortable stuff that makes them feel comfortable and makes them feel good but frankly leaves New Zealanders sad and disappointed. 
This is a Government going nowhere. One has only to look at the Order Paper currently before the House. The Order Paper is the agenda that Parliament has to deal with and this agenda the Order Paper is set by the Government. It outlines the Government’s programme—the so-called cutting edge of Government policy. Well what is on the Order Paper today? There are only 18 bills on the Order Paper. Some of them have been there since 1998. Six of them cannot advance because the Government cannot get the numbers through the coalition. That leaves 12 bills on the Order Paper and do members know what? Only one of those bills has any heavy politics in it and is causing any reasonable debate in the House. The rest of it is just sort of common-sense stuff that Governments do as a matter of routine. No programme is evident in that Order Paper. Why is that? Well it is because every Minister over on the other side of the House has hunkered down in his or her office wondering whether he or she is about to get the chop. 
In this environment it is fascinating is it not that we are hearing the names that were mentioned by my colleague Bill English our deputy leader. Steve Chadwick apparently is one of the great hopes for the future. Maryan Street apparently is one of the great hopes for the future. Shane Jones apparently is one of the great hopes for the future. The problem with that of course is that two of those are on the list and the other is going to lose her seat. So there is no future for the Labour Party in those hopes. 
It must give Helen Clark an enormous amount of difficulty when she looks at the list and says: “I’ve got to make sure that when we come back after the election we are pretty tidy and we have a few people who can shore us up that we can be a pretty effective Opposition and that we have some guys who are well road-tested and well run.” She might look at people like Mark Gosche. We know that he has been a good Minister in the past but he does not have the interest to do that at the moment. She might look at George Hawkins but then of course others have looked at him and decided that he is on his way anyway. So she might look at Tim Barnett but we know that Tim Barnett is another man under siege in his seat so that choice is not possible. Then there is “Swainy”—good old Paul Swain the only smart one—but he has decided to get off the bus before it actually does have the road crash. 
So who does that leave Helen Clark with? Well in a safe seat for the Labour Party we have Martin Gallagher. Now there would be a great opportunity for a man. Why is he not being promoted as being part of the great future of the Labour Party? One certain thing is that he will be back. Another person who might get a bit of a look-in is Lynne Pillay who is sitting out there in a seat that means she will be back. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh no—sorry. Steve Chadwick just said no. Lynne Pillay is dog-tucker; National has that one in the bag. I am happy to be wrong about that. 
Then there is indisputably a gentleman who is coming back to this House—Mr Ross Valentine Robertson. So why is he not up for Cabinet promotion? After the election he will be back. Then of course there is that much much maligned current Minister outside Cabinet whose talents have not been properly recognised but who sits in a seat that Labour hopes to hold. That of course is the Hon Judith Tizard. I predict that she will be on her way into Cabinet because she will be back here after the election. I would mention Harry Duynhoven but we think there is a wee problem there. We do not want to say too much but we think there is a wee problem there. Then of course there is the Hon Winnie Laban who holds the Mana seat. Much as we might get close to taking that seat I suspect she may be back as well. So there it is—Labour’s future. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The question that is consistently raised in relation to that member is: why was he sacked as the National Party’s deputy leader? Why is he not the deputy leader? Time after time I have heard that question. Gerry Brownlee used to be the deputy leader of the National Party then it sacked him. I think we have just had the answer. I do not think we need to puzzle over that any more. I think we know the answer to that question. 
I am very proud to speak in this debate this afternoon because I am proud of New Zealand as a nation. I am proud of the fact that New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote because of their tenacity in representing their right to be given the vote. I am proud to live in a nation that supports and values women in the many roles we play in our society. I am proud of one of my predecessors Elizabeth McCombs the first woman member of Parliament who represented my electorate in this House. I am also proud of the fact that my electorate has had more women members of Parliament than any other electorate. I challenge all the men to think about their successors and supporting them. Bob Clarkson I know has already announced that he is not standing for Tauranga again. He has appointed his successor—a young lawyer. I urge him to think again over the next 15 months about his successor because we could have a woman standing for National in Tauranga. 
I am proud of Labour and of the achievements and progress we have been able to make in order to give better opportunities better support and better value for women in our society. I am appalled that not once has National said it is good for women good for families and good for New Zealand and that it will support such policies—not once. Consistently policy after policy vote after vote National comes into this House and puts on the public record its opposition to progress for women in our country. 
One of the most recent examples of that is the employment relations legislation. Our Government decided to get rid of the Employment Contracts Act—so well described by Lianne Dalziel in her contribution earlier—and introduce an industrial relations regime that was fair that provided a proper balance for employees and employers that recognised that workers have a contribution to make to New Zealand society through their paid work and should be supported to do so and that recognised that women are often amongst the most vulnerable people in our workplaces. National came into the House and voted against that legislation. 
We amended that legislation so that women who were particularly vulnerable—the women who clean and work in catering jobs in our public hospitals and who often have their employment situation changed because their employer changes—would be better protected against losing their hours or conditions every time their employer a contractor lost a contract. When we introduced that amending legislation National came into this House and voted against protecting those vulnerable workers. 
When we introduced parental leave in 2002—the Labour-led Government introduced taxpayer funding so that new parents would for the first 12 weeks of having a new baby in their family receive some financial support—National came into this House and voted against it. When we extended that financial support from 12 weeks to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a mess. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Nick Smith says it is a mess but that is because his colleagues who have children while being members of Parliament do not lose pay when they take time off. When they take time off they still receive their money. Mr Smith should remember what it is like for people other than members of Parliament—people who when they leave their paid job to have a baby lose their money as well. Our party and our Government say that we should give them financial support to help with the costs and the stress that occur as a result of leaving their paid job and having a new baby in their households. 
We amended that legislation so that the financial support for new parents went from 12 weeks to 14 weeks. We had reviewed the scheme and everyone was happy with it. Employers were happy with it and employees were happy with it. Families were saying: “Thank you. This makes such a difference. It really eases the burden on families.” And how did National vote when we extended that time? It voted against extending it yet again. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which is discussing and taking submissions on the Electoral Finance Bill. After hours and back home in Hamilton people whom I knew in the National Party—farmers businessmen and people like that—are saying to me: “Why is the National Party opposed to this bill? It seems to be fair. It seems to square up the playing field. Why is the modern-day National Party voting against it?”. I say to them: “Look you will not know this but I want to tell you something that’s just between you and me.” Such is the number of people who have asked me about this—I feel I should share what I tell them with this House. 
At the present time the New Zealand National Party has about $5 million lying around that it hopes to use on the election. We know that National members will start a billboard campaign within the next month or two. But why are they moaning about this bill? They are moaning about it because it puts a regulatory period in the year of the election that can extend out to 11 months. We think that is fair. We in New Zealand First have nothing to hide. We are happy that our money is counted. We are happy that everybody knows about it. But one may ask how the National Party got all that dough. 
We know from emails that under Don Brash National intended to run two election campaigns. It was going to run the election campaign that we saw then it was going to run an election campaign after it had destabilised the Government. We in New Zealand First know from email evidence that if National had gained enough votes for New Zealand First to support it at the last election—and this is the bit—it would have made that support fail. That was the plan and we have that information. That was the plan. It is not known by all the National Party MPs but the hierarchy of the National Party had a plan—and we have it—to collapse that agreement and fight another election. That is what it was going to do. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Harry Duynhoven whether he knew that. That is what National was going to do and we have the evidence. 
That did not happen so the National Party has all that money which it wants to spend at the next election. It wants to outspend everybody in town. As I said last week instead of the Brethren giving the money to the National Party National may well have to at the next election give some of its money to the Brethren so that the Brethren can run an alternative campaign and thus get around the spending caps that apply to the rest of us. National is very good at that as I outlined last week. But in New Zealand First and I think in other parts of the House we believe in the one person one vote principle. That is what this democracy is built on and that is what unfortunately—with clever deals with side deals and with all sorts of other mechanisms—people in this Parliament have spent a lot of money on getting around. 
We do not believe that money should be buying influence. We do not believe that money should be buying votes. We believe as old-fashioned as we are—and I will hand it to everybody; we may be altruistic and we may be old-fashioned—that the vote from the poorest person in the country is just as important as the vote from the richest person. That is what the Electoral Finance Bill is about. That is why New Zealand First is proud to support it and that is exactly why the National Party is opposed to it. National is opposing it every inch of the way and sadly it is opposing it on the basis of free speech which is not what it is about. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is an indictment on democracy that New Zealand First and Labour are backing a bill that the Human Rights Commission and Mike Moore—and Mike Moore—have described as a dangerous attack on the principles of free speech. Surrounding this Chamber are memorials to men who died in wars defending the rights of free speech and democracy. It is a shame that members on Labour’s side of the House backed by New Zealand First are prepared for their own political expediency to break the right of free speech that New Zealanders should have. 
This afternoon I want to talk about the attempts Labour is making to save its bacon in the area of climate change. My simple message is that after 8 years of failure the public of New Zealand cannot trust Labour on climate change and on the environment. First let us look at Labour’s record on emissions. It is not just that emissions have gone up under Labour but that they have gone up at record rates. When Labour came into Government it promised it would reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005. The record shows that emissions have gone up by 12 percent. Worse is that the rise in the preceding 5 years was just 8 percent. So emissions are going up by even more. During the same period in which emissions have gone up by 12 percent in New Zealand they have gone up by 8 percent in Australia 5 percent in the US and 2 percent in Japan and countries like Britain Germany and France have been able to cut their emissions by 2 percent. In fact the record of this Government is the 18th worst in the OECD. 
Also an important test of the Government’s record on climate change is the area of more sustainable energy. The proportion of renewable electricity in New Zealand has dropped every single year that Labour has been in office. In fact the big change that has occurred under this carbon-neutral Government is that we have increased the amount of power produced from coal by threefold. To put the growth of coal-generated power in context it is seven times the increase in power from wind farms. 
A further worrying statistic was developed yesterday by the Minister and that is in respect of forests. Every single year between 1951 and 2003 New Zealand planted more trees—in fact an average of 7 million more trees every year. In 2004 we lost 1.5 million trees in 2005 we lost another 3 million and last year we lost another 3 million. The Minister admitted yesterday that 4 million trees are expected to be lost this year which will make it the worst year ever in New Zealand history in terms of the loss of forests. 
It is not just in outcomes that Labour’s climate change policies have been an absolute shambles. We have had one announcement after another on which the Government has had to pull the plug. There have been 23 announcements by this Government on climate change and 19 of those the Government has had to withdraw or has had to collapse. I ask this House why there should be great expectations of the Government doing anything tomorrow on climate change that is useful when we have had one disaster after another over its past 8 years. We have seen for instance negotiated greenhouse agreements announced and scrapped. We have seen the carbon tax announced then scrapped. We have seen the animal emissions levy announced then scrapped. We had $100 million spent on the energy efficiency strategy and then the Government said: “Oops! Energy efficiency has actually got worse.” 
I say to members opposite that the Government has had 8 years of climate change failure and New Zealanders have lost faith. New Zealanders simply do not believe anything Labour says any more in the area of climate change. I have here on my desk a heap of all of the discussion papers that Labour has put out on climate change. There has been all this paper all the forests that have been chopped down yet we have not seen progress. That is why none are holding their breath for tomorrow. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. It is a bit rich for that member Nick Smith to talk about climate change and to be a strong advocate when his leader only recently called climate change a hoax. How do we wear that contradiction? 
However I am humbled to rise this afternoon and speak in this debate today 114 years after our women fought and won the right to vote. Suffrage Day is a significant part of not only the history of New Zealand but also the history of the modern age. I pay tribute to Kate Sheppard and the other early suffragettes for their participation and for gaining the vote for women. They achieved what was right and what was just: political equality for women. 
Politics is about participation and representation. That is the Labour-led Government’s way. As the first Pacific Island woman elected to Parliament and as a proud Labour member I—along with all our women parliamentarians—can trace my very presence in this institution back to these wonderful brave progressive women leaders. 
We all know that week by week day by day and without fanfare our women are largely doing the majority of the work involved in the raising of children the running of households and helping out in the community. This Government’s recognition of this very important contribution and unpaid work is acknowledged and appreciated. I am proud to be in a Labour-led Government that is serious and genuine about women’s issues such as more jobs affordable housing affordable health increased investment in education childcare and out-of-school services and that is committed to the policies of Working for Families. 
I also pay a special tribute today to all our Pacific and Maori women. Importantly the Pacific name for the ocean that surrounds our country New Zealand is Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa and that ocean is woman. She reminds us that we are all of the Pacific and that New Zealand is a Pacific nation. She connects us she sustains us she protects us and she feeds us. She is a constant ever-present force of life much like our Pacific women. 
Our Pacific women are the backbone of our Pacific families and communities. Pacific families and communities are built on the courage determination and wisdom of Pacific women. These feminine values are not made up; they have been passed down by our ancestors through our families and our communities. My world view as a Pacific woman was shaped by my heritage my family and my politics. These Pacific values—like those of Kate Sheppard and the early suffragettes—are closely aligned to the values of the Labour Party. These are the values of social justice responsibility collectivity reciprocity community and a respect for all members of our society. 
I have many role models to draw on for inspiration role models who act on these values and commit to leadership and working to make a difference. My role models are our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark; Labour’s Iriaka Ratana who became the first Maori woman MP in New Zealand in 1949; my mentor and friend the late Sonja Davies; my mother Emi Tunupopo Zimmerman Laban; and my history teacher Mother Pabst. 
There has also been a long history of women’s participation and leadership in the Pacific. One of my other role models from the Pacific is a woman called Salamasina. She was the first person 400 years ago to hold the four paramount titles and to be called O le Tafa’aifa. This was a colossal achievement at the time and it still is today. 
Our Pacific women have a legacy of leadership but at some point we stopped believing we had the right to lead and indeed that we could lead. I am concerned at the lack of Pacific women leaders in New Zealand today. To help overcome this our Labour-led Government recently launched the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan. The plan focuses on four key areas of development for our women: leadership education workforce development and business development. The overall aim is to increase the economic participation and the power of our Pacific women. 
Overseeing this plan is the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Board. The board is made up of highly talented New Zealand - born Pacific women who display leadership and intellect. Thank you very much. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I am particularly proud to represent the National Party which is the party that gave us New Zealand’s first woman Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley. The fact that Jenny Shipley was and is such a strong and dynamic force in politics is something that really upsets the Labour Party and its women. They cannot even acknowledge today without bitterness and shrill shouting that Jenny Shipley came into this Parliament stood there took control and said: “I am the first woman Prime Minister of New Zealand.” She gave us legislation like the Domestic Violence Act which that party over there did not. 
That party over there has said today that it is 114 years since women were first allowed to vote in this country for this Parliament. They have not however acknowledged the fact that not only were there trailblazing strong women but there were trailblazing strong men in this Parliament who voted for women to have the vote. That is one of the differences between the women in the National Party and the women in the Labour Party—who have to scream. The big difference is that we do not see men as the enemy. Men are not the enemy. Women in the Labour Party should understand that. People are better when we work together because that is how it is. We do not have to stand up and consistently congratulate ourselves on being women and attack men because they are not women. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When have I attacked any man? I’m married to a perfectly good one. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I understand from Lianne Dalziel that she is married to a man so she does not hate them. That is wonderful. I am thrilled. I have actually heard that argument from a lot of people for a lot of different reasons. I am sorry but I tell Ms Dalziel that it just does not wash. 
What we do know however is how in disarray the Labour Party is. All we have to do is look at the fact that it put Lianne Dalziel in charge of cleaning up the finance industry. This is the same woman who as a Minister of the Crown said on national TV—Television One in fact—that she did not know how that envelope got down there and that she did not know what had happened. A week later she had to turn up— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Liar! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows she cannot use that word. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: That member had to resign on the Friday when the evidence was there. She is now in charge of the finance industry. She is in charge of cleaning up an industry in which thousands of people have lost millions of dollars. Frankly that is as good as the Labour Party has got. 
When we look at the Labour Party we know how much in disarray it is because the Labour members are bagging each other. There is not a select committee that National members are on where we do not hear Labour members saying something. Clayton Cosgrove apparently has a terrible ego. That is what his colleagues are saying. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No. That’s not true. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The members are saying today that that is not true. That is not what they are saying at the select committees. They are bagging each other. All we have to do is look at what is in the newspapers. We know all about what is in the newspapers. We hear that it is a “Dangerous time for Govt”. That is from Tracy Watkins. We have John Armstrong writing “Changing the beds in Labour’s retirement village”. We have Bill Ralston writing—this is the best one I think—“Half-witted ministers a curse”. That is what they are saying about the Labour Party. 
If we ever needed utter and total proof all we have to see is “The prime of Helen Clark” which is the political obituary of Helen Clark. This is a woman who has been a disgrace to this country—first by the way she trawled through somebody’s emails. The next thing she did was let some driver take the blame for her when she was speeding through the Canterbury Plains. This is a woman who got Peter Doone out of his job and who told stories to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 to try to destroy somebody to destroy his credibility because she did not want him in the job. That is what she did. She destroyed good people like Kit Richards. She tried to destroy a good woman like Roseanne Meo. She went after people because they were not her sort. We have seen that time and time again with Helen Clark. All we have to do is look at what Mike Moore wrote about Helen Clark. I have to say he was pretty right really in most of it. There was a bit of a tongue in cheek but at the end of the day he was pretty right in what he said about Helen Clark. The fact that she would not let him go to the 90th anniversary of the Labour Party says it all. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article called “The Ministry of Wimmin’s Affairs—Time to Go?” which was written by one Judith Collins. It describes the Ministry of Women’s Affairs as a bunch of— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I seek leave to table “Dangerous time for Govt” from the  
Nelson Mail. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table John Armstrong’s article “Changing the beds in Labour’s retirement village”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table Bill Ralston’s article “Half-witted ministers a curse”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table the political obituary “The prime of Helen Clark”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 That speech was appalling. I do not want to be too critical about members on the other side of the House; I want to say something positive. I was really concerned that we were not going to hear one woman speaker from the National Party but we did. I acknowledge that Judith Collins despite some of her views is a woman. I say one teensy thing though while she is throwing around criticisms about emails or comments made. I refer to the comment made by Bill English in an email which stated that Judith Collins was promoted far beyond her capability and that she believes her own publicity. 
I am really proud that on Suffrage Day the Labour Party has such a great line-up of women speakers. I am proud to be part of a Government that has the first elected woman Prime Minister. You know I remember when I was a unionist—which is something that is always slagged off by the people opposite—campaigning for things like paid parental leave 4 weeks’ holiday fair employment laws early childhood education interest-free loans affordable doctors visits the return of apprenticeships health and safety laws equal employment opportunities pay equity and increased income for families. 
I remember working really hard under a National Government to get those things on the agenda. Did we get those things on the agenda? No we did not. The first act of the National Government coming in was to scrap the pay equity legislation that had been introduced by the Labour Government. It also scrapped the Apprenticeship Act. It then introduced the dreaded and horrible Employment Contracts Act. We remember those dark years under the Employment Contracts Act. 
What has Labour done for women in New Zealand? Labour has introduced the following: paid parental leave which was opposed by the National Party; 4 weeks’ holiday which was opposed by the National Party; fairer employment laws seeing wage growth particularly for women workers which were opposed by the National Party; improved health and safety which was opposed by the National Party; interest-free loans which were opposed by the National Party; the return of apprenticeships which was opposed by the National Party; cheaper health-care under primary health organisations which was opposed by the National Party; equal employment opportunities for women which was opposed by the National Party; Working for Families bringing money into families’ pockets which was opposed by the National Party; and KiwiSaver providing money for Kiwis homeownership and retirement which was opposed by the National Party. 
Then we see a report on the performance of this Labour-led Government that commends us for our women’s action plan for Working for Families and for 20 free hours’ early childhood education which—I did not mention before—was also opposed by the National Party. Why? Because National has no interest in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women or its reports which National belittles and degrades. Wayne Mapp stood in this Chamber and made derogatory comments about the convention. We know that Judith Collins does not even see a need for a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. It is appalling. 
Later today I want to commend Sue Kedgley for her Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. We are having a debate about flexible work hours. What a great thing to have on Suffrage Day. Who are the prime benefactors of flexible work hours? Women. That is what is so great about the bill. Guess what? The bill is opposed by the National Party. That is appalling. It is appalling that we stand in this Chamber look opposite and see a group of mostly tired tired men—and some women. They all support policies that do not promote or support women in this country. Members should compare that with the forward-thinking supportive policies of this Labour-led Government. I am proud on Suffrage Day to be a woman to be part of a union movement that has fought for the rights of women and to be part of a Government that supports their points of view. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 In all the fighting backroom deals and quiet talks to the media about the Labour Party reshuffle I have not seen Lynne Pillay’s name come up. I want to know whether the Prime Minister—Helen Clark—is going to roll out Lynne Pillay as a secret weapon during the reshuffle of the Labour Government’s Cabinet Ministers. It is the last gasp of the Labour Government. I also have not heard Darien Fenton’s name come up. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister will roll out Lynne Pillay and Darien Fenton as an item for the reshuffle of Labour Government Ministers as a last desperate gasp. I know that Steve Chadwick has rolled out her own name— 
Judith Collins 
: That’s been opposed by the Labour Party. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —but it was opposed by the Labour Party. I know that Steve Chadwick has rolled out her own name for the reshuffle of the Labour caucus as a last gasp before the election but I have not heard Lynne Pillay’s or Darien Fenton’s names come up. That is a huge disappointment to me because I believe that they may be an improvement on the very old and very tired top-twenty Labour MPs. For the sake of the House—I know most of the members in the debating chamber do not know who half of the top-twenty Labour members of Parliament are—I tell members that Lynne Pillay and Darien Fenton should be up there because if Steve Chadwick is up there then absolutely they should be up there. 
Apart from the Labour members having a reshuffle as the last desperate gasp for them before the next election they are also rolling out their policy on climate change because they think that will save them as well. They are to roll out their policy on affordable housing because they believe that doing that will save them as well. But as members have heard from Nick Smith of the 21 proposals that the Labour Government has put forward on climate change it has back-pedalled on 19—19! Those proposals were opposed by the Labour Government. It proposed 21 climate change initiatives and back-pedalled on 19. That is an incredible statistic. 
What I found fascinating was the issue of housing affordability and where the Labour Government stands on that. Chris Carter was in the House yesterday waxing lyrical about affordable housing in New Zealand and how much the Labour Government had done for affordable housing in New Zealand. I asked him just one simple question. If he has done so well in the 8 years that he has been Minister of Housing in this Labour Government then why has he overseen the worst housing affordability crisis in history? I asked the Minister why housing affordability is worse today after 8 years of a Labour Government than it ever has been before in New Zealand and he had no answer. In fact do members know what he said? He said: “Phil Heatley please explain it to me.” He wanted me to explain to the House why he had done such a bad job in regard to housing affordability. I can tell members why. Firstly the Labour Government has overseen interest rates at record levels because of Government spending. Interest rates are out of control. I can tell members that interest rates are very important to those people who are picking up a mortgage or who are trying to meet mortgage payments every week. 
Secondly take-home pay is the worst it has been for a long long time. Why? Because this Labour Government taxes people to death and will not give people any tax relief. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Members might be forgiven for thinking that I will comment today on some of the more hilarious comedic events that have been occurring around this building in the last 24 hours but I will not do that for a couple of reasons. Firstly this degenerating comedy is ongoing and I think there are better instalments to come. Secondly it is almost impossible to capture the sense of pathos and hilarity in the retelling of an event; it is much better seen in its original colour. So I will leave it at that and will talk instead about an issue that is far more serious and affects many more New Zealanders than the events of the last 24 hours. 
A couple of weeks ago three young girls were killed in Christchurch in a very senseless and sad road accident—three 15-year-olds. It brought into the public domain again the issue about the age at which young New Zealanders take to driving motor vehicles and whether there needs to be a change. I raised the matter by way of a supplementary question in the House last Thursday and the Minister of Transport in response said that maybe it was time the will of Parliament was tested. When we look at the situation in New Zealand and compare it with other countries we are out of line. In New Zealand one can obtain a learner licence at the age of 15 and the minimum age at which one can obtain a full licence is 16½. That compares with comparable ages of 16 and 18 in France 16½ and 19 in Germany 17 flat in Britain 16 to 18 in most states of the United States 16 to 21 in Victoria 16 to 19 in South Australia and so on. 
 People are simply too young to be driving a motor vehicle particularly the powerful vehicles we have today at the age of 15. The more we delay addressing the issue the more we ensure we will have more tragedies of the type that occurred in Christchurch a week ago last Saturday. More parents suffer more families suffer and more communities suffer. 
We have within our power as a Parliament the ability to address this. I am not suggesting that the carnage on the roads will be resolved simply by changing the age at which people start driving in the same way that the carnage will not be resolved by zero tolerance for alcohol intake. Both measures have their part to play. Neither is a silver bullet but that does not mean— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why don’t you ban the use of cellphones? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member says “cellphones”. He could raise some other issues as well but that does not mean we do not say— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Where do you stop? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Oh this is a fascinating insight from the National Party. The member asks: “Where do you stop?” as if road safety is something we can trade away. I tell Dr Lockwood Smith that it does not mean that we do not start and we do not make an attempt to do something better. 
I say to the House today that I will have a go at doing something better. I will seek leave tomorrow to table a Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill that would see the minimum age at which a learner licence could be obtained raised to 16. The consequent flow-on effect of that with a change to the period in which one can hold a probationary licence would mean that a full licence would not be obtainable until the age of 18. 
I say to the House and to all those members who over the last week or so as this issue has been around have said to me that we need to do something that I will give the House the opportunity tomorrow to test its resolve. It will be very interesting to see whether those who wax eloquent about the need for action deny me the leave I will seek tomorrow because that would be a signal to the people of New Zealand that those members do not really care. 
I am tired of hearing people say that we need to have a discussion and a debate about these issues. We need to do something but then we run for cover whenever the opportunity to put the issue on the agenda and to take some action is provided. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why penalise all the good 15-year-olds who are responsible? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I say to the parents who have lost their young people in these accidents that these bleating comments about why we are penalising this group or that group or why we are not doing something about cellphones or something else are an insult to the memory of the children whom they have lost. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: “Oh rubbish!” says the member for Nelson. In other words this callous indifference to the tragedy that is occurring means that nothing is being done. The member’s benchmate actually agrees with me. The member’s benchmate Mr Williamson is on record as saying that he wanted to lift the driving age when he was the Minister of Transport but could not get the support of his colleagues. I suspect that those same negative forces will be at play tomorrow. As a consequence we will see more tragedy more suffering and sadly more calls for action. When that comes home to roost then I want this House to remember who is responsible for the inaction and the tragedies and to take them to account. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I must say I am very disappointed at National’s contribution today. It is a very important day today and I noticed that some National members turned up to the Suffrage Day breakfast this morning to show that Suffrage Day is something that is important. But who do we have in the House today? We have mostly male speakers. There was one woman speaker who probably does not count because she is opposed to anything to do with women and with women making advances. This is a day when we pay homage to those who fought in our country and around the world for women to have the right to vote— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about your Government stopping creches in schools and gyms. Tell us about Herceptin. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This barracking that is going on is making it very difficult for me to hear myself. I ask that you— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well this is a place for robust debate. The member is entitled to make comments across the House but not a commentary under Speakers’ ruling 57/3. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: This is a day when women take stock of the progress of women in our own country and I am delighted to say that under this Labour-led Government with the assistance of other like-minded parties women have made real progress. 
Paid parental leave which other speakers have mentioned was only a dream for women until Labour became the Government and I want to acknowledge those women who campaigned for more than 10 years to make today’s 14-weeks’ paid parental leave a reality. It is very interesting that National has discovered paid parental leave quite recently. It has discovered that New Zealanders actually like it so—guess what—it has flip-flopped on that and now it is trying to pretend it has never voted against it but has really supported it all along. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Well we’re telling women what they voted. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right—we are telling women how National voted and that is what we are doing today. 
I acknowledge that women still have some catching up to do particularly in relation to the gender pay gap. But I can only imagine what the differential would be like today if we had not had the increases to the minimum wage that this Labour Government has brought in over the last few years. Members can just imagine if women were still being paid $7 an hour or if they were under 20 just $4.20 an hour. In the debate last week on the youth minimum wage it was interesting that David Bennett called that bill communist and he called all of us communists. I wonder whether he still thinks that the minimum wage is communism. 
Other members have mentioned the nurses’ pay jolt and the difference that that has made to nurses’ pay but I want to talk particularly today about caregivers. I have noticed National’s rather bizarre aged-care discussion document. If the document is to be summed up it says first of all that it will help for-profit privately owned—and in many cases multinational—residential care facilities to make more money by giving them more Government-funded increases. National says that it will contribute Government-owned land—public land—for private companies to develop residential care facilities. I wonder what taxpayers will say about that. But National’s plans for workers are very clear. It is so keen to give its mates large profits that it is prepared to let for-profit organisations pocket Government-funded increases at the expense of decent wages in the sector. 
In the last month New Zealand’s aged-care residential employers including some of the largest like Guardian Healthcare Metlifecare Qualcare Northern and Presbyterian Support Central have concluded collective agreements with aged-care unions covering approximately 4000 nursing care and support workers. These collective employment agreements have all established a minimum rate of pay of $12.55 an hour and have given all caregivers and service workers a pay increase of a dollar an hour. Caregivers employed by these organisations are now paid between $12.55 and $16 an hour. This is the biggest single one-off increase these workers have received in 20 years and the unions directly attribute it to the increased Government funding targeted to these low-paid workers. 
Around $400 million in this year’s Budget was to be spent over the next 4 years on residential and home-based care and that sum was targeted to the workers. National voted against it; it took a Labour Government to make it happen. Of course National is saying that this is compulsory unionism by stealth and its discussion document says that it will get rid of it. We have been determined to make sure that increased funding in the sector goes directly into the pockets of caregivers but you know the union-averse National Party just cannot help itself even though history proves that aged-care employers have not been good at passing on additional funding through wages. 
Last year when aged-care workers came to Parliament to petition us about problem wages National MPs lined up outside all sympathy but failed to understand the basic problem—that is the market will not deliver. If National members want to improve standards in the industry they have to improve pay in the industry and there has to be intervention to make sure that happens. Under National’s watch rest home workers went on hunger strikes to convince their employers not to cut their pay and workers were locked out to force them to sign individual contracts that stripped all their rights away except for the most basic of pay rates. That is what will happen again if National has its way. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill 
Second Reading 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a second time 
. I am delighted to move this local bill on behalf of the promoting councils the Waitakere City Council the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council. I warmly thank those councils for the privilege they have given me of taking charge of this bill in this House which is something I hold very dear. 
I introduced this bill to the House in 2005. Its purpose was to recognise the national significance of the Waitakere Ranges and foothills and to promote the protection of their heritage features. I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee which carefully examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with amendments. I support that recommendation. The amendments have significantly refined and improved the provisions of the bill. These changes result from the thorough consideration of over 200 submissions heard by the committee which was ably chaired by Steve Chadwick. 
I pay tribute to Steve and to the members of the select committee for their work on the bill and especially to those members who put politics aside and worked through the issues to ensure that the bill provides the best protection possible for the Waitakere Ranges. I also want to acknowledge the advisers and staff from the councils Parliament the Ministry for the Environment Local Government New Zealand the Department of Conservation legal advisers and select committee staff. Their contribution has been invaluable. 
The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is a nationally significant area of ecological historical and cultural importance immediately adjoining the expanding international city that metropolitan Auckland has become. The intensity of urbanisation pressures on public and private land here is enormous and unique in New Zealand. The select committee accepted the need for further protection for this beautiful landscape from the adverse effects of urban growth and development. 
The bill seeks to contain urban Auckland so that it becomes more compact efficient and sustainable and seeks to protect the natural and cultural values of the ranges and the foothills. But this is not blind protection at all costs. The bill does not lock up the area and throw away the key. The heritage area will continue to be a lived-in worked-in and played-in place a place with its own special communities and stunning diverse landscapes and a place separate from but highly accessible to urban Auckland and for all who visit this wonderful land. 
As the local member I am proud that the select committee has woven together the needs and interests of the social and economic well-being of the local communities with the wider national significance of the area and the need for protection. The heart of the heritage area is the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. These high rugged deeply dissected hills were originally acquired and set aside as a park the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park to commemorate the first century of development. The bill restates the management objectives for this now expanded parkland to ensure the protection in perpetuity of the land and the values of the parkland. But outside the parkland the heritage area includes 10000 hectares of private land home to some 22000 people who are living on farmland nestled in the bush and in coastal villages around our wild west coast beaches. 
 The bill is innovative in its protection not just of the natural character but of the distinctive bush-dominated urban areas and the farming and rural character of the foothills to the east and north of the ranges. The bill introduces local area plans that provide for the specific well-being of local communities within the heritage area. Local communities and councils will be able to establish a vision for the communities’ well-being and determine how their area should be managed. In one sense this is common old-fashioned planning but it is also an innovative location-specific means of working to assure long-term goals and a means of dealing with the difficult planning issue of cumulative effects. 
The bill operates within a framework of existing legislation particularly the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act 2002. The select committee has taken care to ensure that the provisions of the bill do not conflict with the Resource Management Act by giving clarity and certainty and recognising the superior position of that Act. 
Some members of the National Party have mischievously promoted the notion out there in the community that this bill will add costly layers and endless restrictions to the district plan. That is not the case and it never was the intent. However the select committee has ensured there will be no such confusion. A new clause ensures that the bill is interpreted and implemented within the regime of the Resource Management Act. The bill will in fact ease some development and consenting processes reduce costs and add certainty of requirements and acceptable development. It may also reduce litigation by creating a more certain planning framework. 
The National Party has created a sense of fear in some quarters and cynically traded on those fears. In reality those fears are groundless. The bill does not erode private property rights and it does not take private land; rather it enhances the rights of the vast majority of residents who do not want to see ad hoc development—development that was so appropriately described by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as “death by a thousand cuts”. 
I am a proud resident within the boundaries of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area which makes the bill so special to me. So many have campaigned for so long—over decades in fact. I acknowledge the enormous contribution of Ngati Whatua Te Kawerau-a-Maki the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society Forest and Bird and so many community groups and landowners. They love this land they have contributed much to its history and they want to protect it for generations to come. 
I commend the three councils’ strong leadership Waitakere mayor Bob Harvey Auckland Regional Council chair Mike Lee and councillors Paul Walbran and Sandra Coney Rodney District mayor John Law and all the Rodney District Council and Waitakere City Council councillors and community board members who supported this bill and also so many of the staff who did sterling work on this bill. I also want to recognise my very good friends and colleagues David Cunliffe Chris Carter Dover Samuels and Darien Fenton. They like me are enthusiastic advocates for this bill. This has been a long journey and today I celebrate what is for so many the realisation of a dream. It has been an honour to be part of this journey and it gives me great pleasure to commend the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 A key election issue in 12 months’ time is going to be the Resource Management Act. There is a deep feeling in the electorate that that well-intended Act is in need of reform—reform not to change the balance of the Act between the environment and development but to simplify and streamline the Act. What is so flawed about this bill is that it is going to add to the complexity it is going to add to the uncertainty and it is going to add to the bureaucracy of the Resource Management Act. It is so significant that the Ministry for the Environment opposed this bill. It said that this bill is bad law that it is against the intent of the Resource Management Act and that this bill only adds— 
Lynne Pillay 
: They did not! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member sponsoring the bill says that that was not true. I say as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and as my colleague John Carter will confirm the Ministry for the Environment made very plain that it does not support this bill. This bill should be called the “Lynne Pillay (Save Her Bacon) Election Bill”. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How populist is that! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it is! I have to tell Steve Chadwick this bill is bad law. It is more about politics than it is about doing the right thing for the environment and that is exactly why members on this side of the House will oppose it. 
Members will have heard often that we need to get greater clarity into our environmental laws. I would like to ask the House how a law that states: “this land is a fish.” is going to have a better result. What we are proposing in Lynne Pillay’s bill is to put into the law of the land the statement that “this land is a fish.” I am respectful— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The bill is not my bill; it is a bill from the local authorities in Waitakere and the Auckland region. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We listened respectfully to Lynne Pillay’s contribution but where members’ speeches are unnecessarily interrupted there is a practice of the member with the call being able to go back to the beginning of his or her speech and I suggest that that should be applied because that was a complete non - point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am the sole judge of that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bills states—and puts into law—the words: “this land is a fish.” I cannot believe that there are members of this House who think that that will somehow provide greater clarity for the administrators of the Resource Management Act in making good decisions about how we manage the environment. I am respectful of people’s religions and I in many environments am happy to have such statements made—on the marae and in other places—but it has no place in the law; it is garbage as is this bill. 
A further point with the Resource Management Act is the huge complexity of plans that we have within that Act. I remind members that for the Waitakere Ranges we have to have a district plan we have to have a regional plan we have to have national coastal policy statements and we even have to have a long-term community plan. What this bill attempts to do is to introduce a new layer of planning into the Resource Management Act. We are now going to have to have local area plans as well. So for an area included in this legislation we are now going to have to have local area plans a district plan and a regional plan as well as the national policy statements and one specifically for the coast. 
I have to ask members opposite: “Is not that a nonsense?”. This is a little country of 4 million people and we now have to have four tiers of planning documents to look after the environment. Members on this side of the House say we do not need more plans we do not need more tiers we do not need more bureaucracy; we need better environmental outcomes. 
 Then we come to some of the issues that have been raised by the member. There is in law right now the capacity for the Waitakere City Council to be able to rewrite its district plan. National is of the view that at the moment the time it takes on average to change a plan under the Resource Management Act is 9 years. That is a nonsense. For it to take 9 years for those people who are standing for election in Waitakere and other parts of New Zealand to be able to implement their policy as to what they think is the right protection for the environment is a nonsense and this bill will make it worse. 
I say to members opposite that there are rightly problems with the Resource Management Act about dealing with cumulative effects. But why are we going to fix them only in the Waitakere Ranges? What about in Queenstown? What about in Banks Peninsula? What about in Motueka? What about in Waipukurau? Why are cumulative effects to be taken into account only in the area of the Waitakere Ranges and not in any other part of the country? The real answer is that the member and the councils do not have the capacity to fix the whole Resource Management Act so they are going about it in a piecemeal way. 
Then let us look at the member’s management of this bill. This bill was reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee on 24 May. Why is it I ask the sponsor that it has not come up on any of the 6 previous members’ days? 
Lynne Pillay 
: Because we’re busy. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They say they are busy! I will tell members why. It is because the member has not had the support of the House on those occasions so she has manipulated the parliamentary process to try to save those members from an embarrassing defeat. What National says about this bill is that it says everything about the culture of bureaucracy the culture of more laws the culture of more plans and the culture of more uncertainty that is at the heart of the problems we have with our environment. 
I want the next speaker opposite to somehow explain how having another tier of plans will help. I commend Paula Bennett who I think is on the money. She has said: “Look we members on this side of the House think the Waitakere Ranges are a special place in Auckland and in New Zealand.” We also note that there is not a single national park north of Taupo. I am attracted to the idea that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park as Paula Bennett has proposed. Does that need a law? No it simply requires an application by the Minister of Conservation to the New Zealand Conservation Authority. 
I ask members opposite why if they really care about the Waitakere Ranges they have not lodged an application with the New Zealand Conservation Authority for that area to become a national park. That would make some sense and it would provide for a special protection for this particular area. 
What concerns me deeply about this bill is that submission after submission and advice from official after official said we cannot say with any level of definitiveness what this bill will actually do. It is so full of waffle so full of expectations and long words. We can ask basic questions like: “Am I going to be able to convert my land to a vineyard? Am I going to be able to include a new wine-processing facility? Am I going to be able to build a garage on my property? Am I going to be able to put a granny flat on my property?”. The advice from the officials is that they do not know. Members on this side of the House say they have had enough of sloppy woolly law that is designed for politics rather than for getting good environmental outcomes. 
I challenge the member opposite to give us a bill that will improve the environment and we will be happy to talk. Give us a bill that will improve the certainty of the Resource Management Act and we will be there to talk. But we do not want woolly laws that talk about the land being a fish and all sorts of other nonsense. This is woolly foolish law. It is no wonder that our own Ministry for the Environment advised against it proceeding. This bill has more to do with politics than with good environmental law. 
National says that the right way forward for the Waitakere Ranges is a national park as proposed by Paula Bennett and we should reject this bill. Steve Chadwick and the smarter members on the select committee know that it is political hogwash know that it is all about politics and know that those who really care about the environment are interested in good concise robust law and not this silly woolly-washy stuff that will only make worse the problems we currently have with the Resource Management Act. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am excited to take a call on the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Too right it is all about politics. Let us just examine the politics behind this bill. This bill is a local bill. This bill has been put up by three territorial local authorities and one regional council and it says everything about the two major parties in this House. On this side of the House is a party that supports local decision-making. This bill has been developed by these local authorities over the last 30 years and not once did any of those three territorial local authorities and the regional council ask for a national park—but of course the member opposite who lives in Titirangi and is a list MP Paula Bennett is a new member. I defer to my colleague Lynne Pillay who has worked alongside these authorities listened to them listened to iwi and found a resolution that matches and gets around both the Resource Management Act and the wishes of these authorities. 
This is interesting politics. This is exactly how we want to see this huge territorial area of Auckland working. We all know that in this House. We want to see local authorities working collegially with the support of regional councils. I say: “Bring on more types of legislation like this. Well done Waitakere.” This legislation is progressive it is really good thinking and it is so positive to see authorities that work together off the rank. I congratulate those authorities today on this work. 
The bill has certainly had a long gestation; it was under the original guardianship of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt who told us 30 years ago that this is what people in that region wanted when they saw the incremental creep of development and expansion from Auckland as the metropolitan city. They chose to live in the Waitakere Ranges. They chose to live out there for a lifestyle and for a love of the ecology and the environment. [ 
Interruption 
] He is now a great MP but not 30 years ago—it was Jonathan Hunt. He will be really thrilled to know that collectively today we are going to protect his beloved Waitakere Ranges for whenever he returns home. I am sure he will stroll around them with great joy in his heart. 
I also acknowledge the passion of my “westie” colleagues Lynne Pillay David Cunliffe Chris Carter and Darien Fenton who cajoled lobbied amended and determined progress on the bill. I say to the members opposite that yes we needed to get support to get this bill through and we were determined to wait until we did the groundwork with other parties as is the role of a good MMP Government to get the numbers to get such lofty legislation through to this stage today. I say to Lynne Pillay that that is no mean feat and I take my hat off to her as a colleague and fellow electorate MP. 
Let us just look at what Paula Bennett said about the bill. She was opposed to it. She is a new member and has no idea about the complexities of district planning or about regional council responsibilities with the Resource Management Act. She said: “Let’s just have a national park.” Well I do not think that member opposite ever wrote to the Minister of Conservation saying: “Let’s make Titirangi and Waitakere a national park.” 
Paula Bennett 
: That’s not true. I have tabled the letter. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: If the member did I say good on her. But this was our approach—supporting those councils. So there was a member going against the local authorities in the very region in which she lived and who had disclosed the idea of a national park. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee worked really well on this bill—and we had a challenge as my colleague Nick Smith says. It was complex for us. It was certainly very complex trying to work through the overlapping and making sure that we were not putting this bill above the precedents and order of the Resource Management Act. But when the select committee went out to Waitakere in Auckland we saw Opposition vehemence. Those who came told us about public meetings where the community was whipped up into a state of anxiety and fear by Opposition members with preconceived notions that people’s very lifestyles would be degraded by this bill. I found that really sad and it is not the way responsible members of the House should act. They should be showing leadership to find solutions for legislation that is before a select committee not sustaining bad feelings out in the community. 
I especially want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Marian Hobbs the previous Minister for the Environment who shared some of Nick Smith’s concerns. She also had an in-depth knowledge of the Resource Management Act and how it applied to the very lofty but cross-boundary approach that these local authorities were undertaking. Her contribution was enormously helpful when the select committee heard 200 submissions and considered advice from officials. 
The members of the select committee always understood that this area is of great significance. We heard about the significance of its cultural value and environmental value to the people of this region. We saw for ourselves the growing pressures of urbanisation on this very very fragile ecological area which has a very high rainfall. People have only to go there to see that for themselves. I believe we got the balance right in managing urban growth and development with the sustainable protection of the natural and cultural value of the Waitakere Ranges. The ranges are very very special; so are the foothills—and the ranges and foothills had to be taken as one. This area is the playground of Auckland people and this bill will strengthen their playground. 
We truly considered the social and economic aspects as well as the environmental aspects and that is what we were expected to do under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. I think this legislation is quite iconic because it encapsulates all the aspects of that Act. We took considerable advice to match the provisions of this bill with the provisions of both the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act—especially in new section 10AA inserted by clause 9 where we attempted to clarify and give certainty to this relationship. 
Opposition members did a very good job in building up fears and anxieties in that community. They said the bill would add costs and endless restrictions and cause delays in granting consents. But that is not the case. In fact this is rather elegant legislation. Through the use of local area plans and the consolidation of the local area plans of three local authorities we have simplified the Resource Management Act process. That is the very issue that the member opposite will take out to the community during the next election. That member will use rhetoric to say that the Resource Management Act is a load of old crock and needs to be fixed. Well it was fixed 2 years ago with 14 amendments to the legislation. Only 1 percent of consents have gone to the Environment Court. The legislation has certainly been amended and strengthened. 
In conclusion this bill is a local bill. It is what the people of the area want. It had 80 percent community support. The bill was promoted by the Waitakere City Council the Rodney District Council and the Auckland Regional Council. The bill will provide a long-term policy framework with statutory support and it will now address the cumulative effects—something the Resource Management Act cannot do on its own. We all acknowledged that fact in the select committee. At this time in the local body electoral cycle the bill will provide long-term certainty beyond the 3-year electoral cycle. The Waitakere Ranges will possess a nationally significant status under this legislation. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear little threats from the opposite side of the Chamber that my speech will be sent to wherever the members there like to send it. I say: “Good luck!”. I say to the previous speaker the chairwoman of the Local Government and Environment Committee if that was a promotional speech then it was not a particularly good one. As chairwoman she sat through the submission process and heard from both sides about just how hugely contentious this bill is in the west Auckland area and in Waitakere. I say that for her to stand in this House and try to blame the Opposition for stirring up a process is wrong. This issue was already well on the way before I came along as a candidate and was well on the way when there were meetings with over 600 people present where the things being raised were real concerns. The member thinks that if one has an opinion one is stirring up feelings out in the community. That is another example of how nervous Government members feel about having a debate on the actual issue instead of making personal attacks and doing everything else that they do. That is all good and all fine and I tell them to bring it on however they like quite frankly. 
Never before has a local bill in the experience of some of my colleagues who have been around Parliament far longer than I have been as contentious as this bill in a local area. The people who spoke in the submission process were heartfelt genuine and emotional about the bill and that came from both sides of the argument. That is the reality; both sides sat there. It was bad enough to read their submissions but to hear them speak—and we heard over 90 of them in the Waitakere area when we went there—really struck us. It would be fair to say members of the committee from both sides felt that way and we could see the issue was very personal for a lot of people on both sides of the argument. It was interesting though that the argument pretty quickly turned into one of the Government members of the committee trying to espouse the view as they were today as well that it was one between eco-angels and devil developers. Of course there is nothing further from the truth. I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see any sort of tight-fitting subdivision in either the ranges or the foothills. That is the reality. 
It is appropriate to hear about some of the problems and to give a voice to some of the people who are absolutely struggling under what they perceive this legislation will actually mean for them. One states: “My whanau owns a 6 acre property surrounded by an urban environment a long way from the Waitakere Ranges. We made an application to the council to gain consent to build a granny flat for our whanau.”—for the parents actually. The person goes on to state: “At the time of lodging our application we were advised that although a discretionary activity there was no issue from their perspective. It has now cost our whanau $9000 to try and meet the council’s existing RMA requirements.” So the whanau had got all the neighbours’ approval without any difficulty and it was easy to get the council’s consent. However the person then states: “We have since learnt that the proposed Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has been influential in stalling the application process in gaining resource consent and may prevent us from building suitable accommodation for our parents.” We heard those sorts of stories time and time again from people. 
Let us get some of the realities into this debate and talk about what this legislation means for people. It is easy to make legislation that will go across the area and be woolly in its language and it will be interpreted by lawyers at the end of the day because that is what happens. Government members can put up all the arguments in the world but this issue is about people and is about what this legislation means for them in their area. That is what is really important. 
I was really taken by one story of a family that had been in the area since 1860. The family talked about its forebears having been part of the milling process and said one could certainly see the changes in the area that have occurred in well over 130 or 140 years. The family said one would be almost ashamed to think one’s forebears were part of the milling process at that time. But that family is now very proud of the regeneration its members have been a part of. There can be as much research as one wants on the other side. One can certainly see the results of that and can walk around and see the evidence of the regeneration that has taken place because of the input of local people and what they are doing in the area. 
I put a challenge forward in all seriousness to my own colleagues and to all MPs including those in the Maori Party I say to Mr Sharples. I put a challenge forward to the House. I ask those MPs who are voting in support of this bill to demonstrate their understanding and appreciation of the effects of it by voluntarily covenanting their own titles to properties within their personal control those properties being anywhere in New Zealand with the same classification and restrictions that will apply to landowners in the Waitakere area covered under this legislation. If they are not prepared to do that their own consciences should direct them to vote against this bill. As my colleague pointed out many areas within New Zealand could come under provisions like those in this legislation. MPs who are prepared to support this bill should stand up and say they will have their own whanau and own land affected by the same restrictions that they are putting people under in the Waitakere Ranges area. So all MPs who support the bill should stand up—including Maori MPs—and be proud that what they are doing is putting in place a covenant that will have restrictions on the use of their land. If that makes us all feel better then I say good luck to us. 
Now there is no actual protection greater than that given to the land in a national park. There is no Act that gives greater protection than that so if we are truly serious about giving this land the greatest possible protection then that is what we should be doing. There are no national parks north of Taupo as we have already said and giving the Waitakere Ranges that status would actually lock in that sort of protection. The National Parks Act states in section 4(1) that its provisions are “for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit use and enjoyment of the public areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality ecological systems or natural features so beautiful unique or scientifically important that their preservation” should be covered. That covers the Waitakere Ranges without a doubt. 
We can look at the argument and see that it has been turned into one of groups being absolutely pitched against one another and we can look at the numerous surveys that have been done. It was quite interesting to find in the process of hearing submissions that when my colleague Mr John Carter asked every submitter whether he or she had been surveyed about the bill not a single one of them could stand up and say that he or she had. It was really quite fascinating to be unable to find the people who had been surveyed and there were questions about whether the survey was truly as representative as had been said. People choose to live in areas like the Waitakere Ranges because they absolutely love them. I think there is evidence time and time again of the care and protection that people give to this area. In all fairness when one looks at some of the properties and the way they are treated one sees they are treated better than the Auckland Regional Council and the local councils treat their properties. That happens because the owners care more about them than the councils do about their properties and they actually make sure they put their energy into them. 
I truly truly believe that it is a bad precedent for Parliament to bypass the checks and balances of the plan-making process in the Environment Court and impose what is an overriding plan. I fundamentally in myself think this bill is bad legislation. It is an absolute shame that it will not do what those well-intentioned people hope it will do. Some people have gone out and said that this is the way they want to protect the ranges. I unlike the members on the other side of the House am not going to stand up and lambaste those on the other side who have a different opinion from mine. I actually think that they are quite well intentioned and that fundamentally they are trying to protect the ranges. I think that is what the council is trying to do and that it is well intentioned. But it is our fundamental belief that this legislation will not protect the ranges and that its ramifications actually go far outside that briefing. 
This bill has been a learning experience for me—I do not make any pretences about that. I have learnt more than I previously knew about local area plans about district councils about councils and their own regional plans and about long-term council community plans. I have learnt about the process of going to the community and asking what it wants and boy at times I heard that it was a very very long process to achieve what it wants. Oratia is actually a classic example of a community with its own long-term council community plan. The people there were actually saying that they felt they had gone through a process that was long term and understandable and that to see legislation like this come in and cut through what they as individuals had already participated in was hugely hurtful and detrimental to them. 
In conclusion I say we just do not believe that this bill will protect the ranges to the same extent as such a process would and for that reason we will be voting against it. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Mention has been made that the Local Government and Environment Committee considered this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and improved on it but for the sake of people who are listening I just want to reflect upon the composition of the select committee. There were four National members four Labour members and one Green member. I think we have to recognise that the balance of power lay with the one Green member and that that composition is not necessarily a reflection of the composition of the House itself. Although it is not unusual in an MMP environment to have that sort of arrangement in our select committees it does not necessarily mean it reflects the House as a whole. 
I lived for a while up in Waiatarua. For people who do not know it it is right up the top. It is a word that has entered the international language—the language of international athletics—because Waiatarua is a long gruelling run and it came from when Arthur Lydiard used to train the likes of Peter Snell. One of the most unusual things that would happen up there was that one would get up in the morning and it would be bright and sunny. Then as one descended down through the Waitakere Ranges through the clouds there would be a misty moisty morning below them. 
Also I taught at Henderson Intermediate School and lived in Glen Eden. Every morning I used to go through Parrs Cross Road past Bruce McLaren Intermediate and through to Henderson Intermediate itself. That reminds me in fact of Dr Pita Sharples. He cajoled us at that particular time to go for a long march over the Waitakeres one Saturday morning to raise money for the Hoani Waititi Marae. Certainly I am very much aware not only of the ranges—the park and the heritage area—but also of the foothills. 
When I was teaching at Henderson Intermediate in 1974-75 a long time ago Lincoln Road was largely orchards and vineyards from the intermediate school onwards. Now it is just absolutely packed; it is the middle of suburbia. There is the Warehouse Mitre 10 Pak ‘N Save and you name it. It is certainly a completely different place. 
I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is no need to convince me of the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges and of how important they are to Auckland our largest city. In a way they dominate the city. If we sit at Eden Park what do we look out at? We see the Waitakeres in the same way as the Blue Mountains dominate Sydney. 
However I now live at a place called Ngunguru. That also has an iconic sand spit which is under the threat of development by a rapacious property development company. In Northland there is a whole pile of iconic places. In the Bay of Islands—for example the area around Kawakawa and Ohaeawai—there were a lot of significant battles as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith would know. Ruapekapeka is there. If one goes further north there is Doubtless Bay where Surville came into Brody’s Creek and dropped three anchors and there is Lake Ohia and the gumfields—whole piles of iconic places. 
This legislation is based upon the assumption or premise that our existing legislation is not working or that it is flawed. In fact the select committee report actually states this. It states quite clearly that it does not work. It states: “The bill reflects the promoters’ belief that further local statutory guidance is needed to provide sufficient long-term protection to the heritage area from the adverse cumulative effects of urban growth and development.” People cannot tell me that the Waitakere Ranges is the only place that is facing those cumulative effects. I can tell members that the coastline area around Ngunguru is certainly facing the same things and John Carter will also tell members that. 
It has always been New Zealand First’s position that if there is a fundamental flaw in the legislation that is supposed to be operating then one goes back and fixes up that legislation; we do not do it on a piecemeal bit by bit process. That is exactly what we did with the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Bill. We said that if there was something wrong with the planning mechanisms that are already in place that are supposed to be protecting the environment then let us go back and fix those up instead of fixing up something that is just in that particular place. So New Zealand First is not able to support this bill and we say that with regret because we recognise the sincerity of the person in whose name the bill is. However we believe that it points to something that actually requires a different answer. 
 The second thing—and this we believe is a real flaw—is that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area will encompass 27720 hectares of public and private land. Elsewhere we are told that the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park which exists now contains some 17000 hectares. That by the way is the playground we are talking about; not the 10000 hectares of private land which is not the playground of Aucklanders I have to say. Yet this heritage area will encompass 10000 acres and as has already been said 22000 people will effectively lose at least some of the property rights they have at the moment. Therefore New Zealand First has some real difficulties with this particular approach. 
New Zealand First thinks it is certainly worthwhile looking at the suggestion put forward by Paula Bennett although we believe it is even more important that we go back to the fundamental legislation around the Resource Management Act and get that sorted out so that we have adequate protections against the cumulative effects which the Resource Management Act does not take into account at the moment. In fact the Resource Management Act is an enabling Act which means that even if councils want to do something about the cumulative effects they are often restricted from doing so. Certainly we believe that we need to go back to the Resource Management Act and work on that. 
I will just point out that we concur with the National minority view in the commentary on the bill. I will read some of it out: “This bill adds a mechanism for the development of local area plans (LAPS). These will sit alongside district regional and national plans. Councils are also required to have annual plans and Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs). These multiple and complex plan processes add confusion and cost to local government at a time when the public is in revolt over rating increases.” New Zealand First concurs with that particular point. We believe that it is at the nub of the particular question we have here. 
Therefore New Zealand First will not be able to support this bill—as we stated in fact during the first reading debate. We will be voting against it. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is strongly in support of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It comes out of a long campaign generated by the people of the area of Waitakere City and people in the ranges in particular headed by the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society. I am proud that a number of Greens have been involved in that campaign. One Kath Dewar has held a leading office in that society and a long campaign drew support from the community MPs the Waitakere City Council the Rodney District Council and the Auckland Regional Council. They are all supporting this bill. 
I think what is happening here today through this bill is important for the whole country. In fact the term “national significance” comes into the bill as a back-up—the reason for implementing this bill. But it is important for the whole of Auckland. Aucklanders the people in our biggest city travel regularly into the heritage area either into the foothills the park itself or to the seashore environment on the western side of the heritage area. Solutions like a national park are not particularly appropriate because 30 percent of the heritage area is in private hands and that is the nub of a lot of the problem—that private land is under pressure for greater subdivision. That affects all of us not just the people who go into the heritage area but people like myself who as Brian Donnelly just mentioned can see the Waitakere Ranges from Eden Park. I live in Mount Eden and every morning I look out at that vista too and I do not want it to degenerate into just a backdrop of houses. I like that backdrop of the Waitakere Ranges. 
It is even more important to protect this area because of the expansion of Auckland in terms of population and geographical spread. We have to put restraints there. There are pressures for greater subdivision of private land. There are the normal pressures through the planning process where people look for all exceptional circumstances and creep around the regulations however strongly we try to put them in and that has been happening. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment called it death by a thousand cuts. Bit by bit the number of subdivisions expands and the lot size has gone down over the years. The average lot size used to be 20 hectares in that rural backdrop; now it is gone down to 4 hectares and there is pressure for it to go down further. There is in reality a creep through the existing plan and Resource Management Act system towards further subdivision to a disadvantageous extent and that is reinforced by the way land prices are now. As everyone knows housing prices and land prices have gone up hugely which brings that extra pressure for people to make money out of subdivisions. 
Then there is the population pressure in Auckland. That puts a lot of pressure on subdivision particularly when we have politicians like John Key suggesting that the city edge be extended out into green areas in the west. That would lead to more subdivision as well. We can have good and bad Governments and some of the Governments allow more subdivision that way and we can have good and bad councils. The problem is that we need only one bad council with a bad district plan that allows a lot of subdivision and that will muck things up for future generations. I think that Mike Lee put it nicely in a submission he made to the select committee. He said that this bill provides us with a long-term instrument for getting the right economic cultural social and environmental balance for the heritage area. The bill itself talks about looking at things in totality or holistically and in a long-term way. Sometimes unless we have that sort of framework for looking at things holistically and in a long-term way we will go wrong particularly in a heritage area such as this which as the bill points out is of national significance. 
All the important aspects of the heritage area are spelt out in 10 recitals in the preamble to the bill. There are a lot of ecosystems in that heritage area from the coastal ecosystem the ranges—the mountainous ecosystem—to the grasslands on the east coast and the wetlands on the western coast. There is a whole lot of biodiversity that needs to be protected. In fact the Department of Conservation is trying to put some of the bird life that has been developed on Tiritiri Matangi Island over into the ranges with I think some success recently. The department has been increasing the populations of birds such as the stitchbird the saddleback and the kokako and putting them into the Waitakeres. There are also the streams and the water systems which are important in their own right and also for a good water supply for Auckland. There is the scenic character obviously of the area both of the forest and of the landforms and grasslands below the park. The recreation aspects are pointed out in the bill as is the fact that the foothills are a buffer. It is good to have a buffer between the actual park itself and the suburban environment. 
The bill also talks about the cultural distinctiveness of the area and how in the eastern foothills there is very much a low-density lifestyle. On the western side there is a lifestyle that is trying to prevent too much development. There are a lot of fights going on around Piha and places like that over particular applications for three-storey buildings and the like. So having a framework to protect that low-density lifestyle is important. Also there is Maori cultural heritage which is extremely important. The bill has written very strongly into it the importance of recognising the rights of the tangata whenua in that area. There is a whole historical dimension in terms of the area being a very early area of settlement involving forestry and all the other things that went on there. The historical—the archaeological—dimension of the area is so important. 
As I said all this will be taken into account in a holistic way and the various regional and district plans and the Auckland regional growth strategy will have to take into account what is being provided for in this bill as also will resource consents designations local area management plans and recognition of tangata whenua. All that has to be taken into account within the framework of this bill. Brian Donnelly said that perhaps we should just change the Resource Management Act but I think there is room between the national park structure which has been talked about in this debate and is obviously very rigid and really for serious conservation areas and the Resource Management Act which is a bit more local to have a framework for an area like the Waitakeres to help protect it in a long-term way. 
The framework between the national park and the Resource Management Act processes is good and it helps the Resource Management Act processes to be appropriate. The population is very supportive of this bill too. A survey was conducted in the area and 92 percent of people came out in support of it. So the bill has very strong local support and it would do politicians well to support it. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. People north of the Bombay Hills will be hoping like mad that in terms of consultation with Maori the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill might strike it lucky this time—and they will not all be brown folk either. 
The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has particular meaning for the peoples from the ancestral lands of Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Te Kawerau-a-Maki and from Te Taou. They come to this bill focused on their precious responsibilities as kaitiaki seeking to protect their ngahere awa and puna from further degradation. They seek to have a voice. 
The stage has now been set for how mana whenua are likely to be recognised by the Waitakere City Council Rodney District Council and Auckland Regional Council in working with iwi to promote the long-term protection and enhancement of this area and its heritage features. We too the Maori Party came to this bill looking to see how the interests of mana whenua are to be respected in caring for the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. 
The importance of the Waitakere Ranges foothills and coastal areas is of special significance to two takiwa hapu and marae trusts of Ngati Whatua and they are Ngati Whatua o Orakei and the five south Kaipara marae represented by Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara. For all these groups the affected whenua wai maori and natural resources of taonga tuku iho identified in this bill are invested with much ongoing value in Te Rohe o Ngati Whatua. So it has been extremely positive to read and hear that the runanga and individual whanau marae and hapu within these two takiwa support the bill although they recognise that to tangata whenua cultural heritage is much more significant than is currently being portrayed in the bill. 
The runanga’s submission outlines specific and pragmatic recommendations to enhance the bill suggesting that the intent of clause 9 to adopt a precautionary approach be strengthened that tangata whenua participation in the governance of Watercare Services Ltd needs to be included in the criteria and that wai maori as a basis of its historic cultural and spiritual relationships with Waitakere be included in the deed of acknowledgement between mana whenua and the three councils provided for in the bill. So far so good. 
In fact one of the outstanding features of the separate submission from Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara Charitable Trust was its generosity in pointing out that the wai maori allocation and monitoring rights afforded to Watercare Services Ltd not only excluded Ngati Whatua but also deprived Kawerau-a-Maki of these assumed rights. 
That made me reflect again on the words of the Waitangi Tribunal which concluded that the process of settling claims was damaging more relationships than it was improving. The tribunal has stated particularly in the case of Tamaki-makau-rau that the process is creating divisions within Maori society that are very damaging—and I quote: “Damage to whanaungatanga to te taura Tangata is a great wrong: it affects Maori society at its very core.” 
In light of such division and damage it is important to point out in relation to this bill the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill how mana whenua groups are prepared to maintain our time-honoured traditions of valuing the whakapapa connections and preserving whanaungatanga through their commitment to working together. But it appears that that process has not been perfect from the start. 
We learnt that Te Runanga o te Taou initially opposed this bill and supported landowners in the Muriwai district. They spoke of “token consultation” taking place at “an extremely late stage”. Indeed their submission revealed the concern of Te Taou that not only had they not been brought into the frame of consultation until the first reading of the bill but also they had not been cited as having an interest as part of the tangata whenua relationship within the Waitakere Ranges region. Disappointingly they are still not named in the bill’s preamble alongside Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki despite evidence from the Waitangi Tribunal’s Kaipara report being presented to the select committee. 
This bill has many issues that give cause for debate—cultural heritage environmental protection local government relationships wai maori allocation and monitoring and resource sustainability. The Maori Party comes to this bill—as with all others—thinking how best to support the interests of mana whenua in upholding their rights defending their responsibilities and promoting their ongoing status in the best interests of the nation. 
We have heard the view from Te Taou that consultation has been unsatisfactory from their point of view and the concerns from Ngati Whatua that there are varying governance relationships with the three councils that in some cases exclude the two takiwa tribal constructs and traditional marae and hapu. We remind the House that local decision-making needs to involve mana whenua. We know that the mana whenua ropu is currently being established and it would be great to see that structure specified in the bill to ensure their inclusion by the councils. Of course I will be writing to all of those three councils sending them my speech and suggesting that they inform me of their relationships in terms of consultation with those iwi groups. 
Structures are already in place. Section 81 “Contributions to decision-making processes by Maori” of the Local Government Act 2002 is a pretty good place to start and should be highlighted. One of the issues that comes through loud and clear is that of kaitiakitanga and the huge strain created by the damaging impact on the environment of large-scale development. The view from mana whenua is their absolute commitment towards protecting their ancestral lands—commitment that they expressed in various recommendations to lock down and extend the regulatory protections. That is from them. 
The key impact of this bill will be in restricting further private-land subdivision so that environmental protection and sustainability objectives are given priority. In that respect mana whenua have viewed the bill as being helpful in protecting the area from the pressure of property developers. Cultural heritage should be protected by resource consents considered in a holistic strategic framework that includes all factors not just commercial investments but also as part of our response to climatic change. 
Mana whenua therefore welcome the opportunity that a strategic overarching framework would bring to this area mitigating against the effects of urban growth and going further than the Resource Management Act by providing for more long-term consistent planning monitoring and reporting by the three councils involved. 
 The Maori Party welcomes the advice and feedback of mana whenua and respects their wishes in seeing this bill as a means to continue to support their vital roles within the context of kaitiakitanga. 
When my colleague Hone Harawira spoke at the first reading of this bill he asked how the voices of Ngati Whatu Nga Rima o Kaipara Te Uri o Hau Ngati Rongo Te Kawerau-a-Maki Ngati Whatua ki Orakei and all those who share common whakapapa ties to this land will be sustained in an ongoing and meaningful way. Clauses 24 to 28 which provide for a deed of acknowledgment with all tangata whenua groups who have a historical cultural traditional or spiritual relationship with the land are a step forward in the right direction. We are pleased to follow that lead and to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Bill at this second reading before the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
Tena koutou katoa. Ko Titirangi te maunga ko Te Whau te awa ko Hoani Waititi te marae ko Ngati Pakeha te iwi ko Waitakere te wahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you all. Titirangi is the mountain Te Whau is the river Hoani Waititi is the courtyard Ngati Pakeha is the tribe and Waitakere is the place. 
] 
I welcome and support the reintroduction of this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House. With my colleagues I have been advocating the importance of the protection of the Waitakere Ranges since I was first elected—indeed before then—so I am very pleased to speak today in further support of this bill. I wish first to congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee led by Steve Chadwick on its report presented to this House. I am pleased to support my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay who is the member guiding this bill through the House and I recognise the tremendous work that she has done to bring it to this point. 
Before reflecting on the history of the bill and some of its key provisions as reported by the select committee I wish to offer a few brief comments on the contributions of other members. I express my deep respect and gratitude for the very considered approach to this bill that has been adopted by Maori Party members. They are speaking on behalf of and for tangata whenua they are expressing the rights and the mana of mana whenua and they are making a real difference to the protection of the Waitakere Ranges area. I acknowledge them and the mana they are displaying in the House today. I pledge my support for further improvements to issues of cultural heritage and for improvements to the governance relationship between tangata whenua local and regional authorities and central government. 
I wish that all contributions had been equally considered. It is my obligation to point out several inconsistencies in offerings made to the House by members opposite. On one thing I agree with Nick Smith the lead speaker from the National Party—that this will be a key election issue. Yes indeed it will. Indeed it has been a key election issue for every election in which I have run in the Waitakere area. I think it is notable that the only really scientific poll we have of local opinion showed that 77 percent of Waitakere City residents and 81 percent of Aucklanders support at least the intent of this bill. That is the best clue that we have. All I can say as someone who has plodded the pavements of the Waitakere area many many times is that that is about right. It is about three-quarters to one-quarter or four-fifths to one-fifth—certainly the overwhelming majority—of west Aucklanders and Aucklanders who want to see this vital area preserved. 
I think National is handing members on this side a great gift. Based on hearing Paula Bennett’s contribution I do not think she will run again because she is either saying that the bill does not go far enough and we need a national park—which would effectively exclude 21000 residents of Waitakere City and their property rights—or she is saying that the bill goes too far and should be scrapped. Either way it is hardly consistent logic and it hardly reflects the majority view of the area. So I take it that she will not run again but we appreciate the contribution she has made to date. 
Nick Smith came up with several completely illogical arguments. The first was that the bill adds to bureaucracy and he mentioned that there is a district plan a Resource Management Act a national policy statement and coastal policy statements. But the whole point of the bill is that it aligns and interprets the provisions within the boundaries of the area to simplify and to provide certainty and transparency for local residents as well as for territorial authorities. It reduces rather than increases bureaucracy and for that reason alone it commands the support of many people. 
Several members said that the bill contains so-called woolly drafting. I will not pretend that the bill as first introduced to the House on the basis of drafting from the local proponents rather than the Parliamentary Counsel Office was perfect—it was not. But it has had a very very thorough select committee process. Expert advice has been received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office the Crown Law Office the Ministry for the Environment and the legal resources of both the proponents and opponents of the bill. Democracy has worked as it should have worked. We now have a bill that the majority of the select committee has reported back with extensive amendment and that satisfies the concerns of officials and commands the support of our Government. This is a good bill and it is now in good drafting shape. 
The only example that National could come up with as being woolly was a reference in the bill to the cherished cultural heritage of Maori where it says that this part of New Zealand represents the tradition and the legend of Maui. National members criticised the reference to the fish and if the best they can do is to denigrate the history of the cultural area then I say to them that they should go back to the drawing board and enjoy at least another 3 years in Opposition. Until Opposition members learn to represent all New Zealanders and do justice to everybody’s cultural traditions that is where they belong. 
Paula Bennett suggested the national park idea. You know I remember Nick Smith in 1999 floating the idea of a marine park for the West Coast. That was an alternative to moderate reform that would have commanded support. Members can call me a cynic but I reckon that the reason National floated that whopper was because it knew that the proposal could never get through and that it could be only a substitute for real reform. That is what that shallow proposal for a national park is today—a substitute for the real reform that has the support of the select committee and the support of the legal experts and that will command the support of a majority of this House. 
So why is the bill here and what is the chief argument against it? The bill is here for one simple reason: it is impossible logically and in practice to determine the long-term future of any area simply on the basis of individual consents when there are long-term special features that must be considered in an overarching policy. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a national policy statement. If the issues are nationwide and sector-specific that is appropriate. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a coastal policy statement. But where the issues are inherently local and where they can be addressed without violating Resource Management Act process or concept—as this bill now does not—then it is perfectly appropriate that a local solution be introduced. It is the only way to fix the problem of cumulative effects—the death by a thousand cuts. 
Lest members opposite forget I remind them that the last time the National Party had influence of any measure on the Waitakere City Council which was around 1998 the then council overrode the district plan and was taken to the Environment Court because it was not prepared to abide by due process. Things like the Little Muddy Creek study—do we forget?—overrode the proper consultation process around the district plan. If their henchmen and henchwomen could do it then they could do it again in the future. That is why the majority of West Auckland people—and all New Zealanders—deserve a legal framework that will provide security certainty and transparency— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s waffle! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —for this cherished area until long after that noise box has ceased to spew his ridiculous drivel on to the floor of this Chamber. This land is the fish in the legend of tangata whenua and if the member had paid more attention to Maori cultural rights and traditions he might have had a majority for his bankrupt point of view. He did not. Shame on him! 
I feel very passionate about this bill. From the time I was first campaigning in this area I have campaigned on this issue and before me was the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt the former MP for New Lynn. For 30 years he foresaw a day when we could have lasting protection for our cherished ranges. Today is one step closer to that important day. I commend this bill to pass its second reading. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The first thing I want to put on the record is that the National Party recognises the Waitakere Ranges as being iconic. We made that clear in the minority report we presented to the House. I would be very surprised if there were anybody in this Parliament who is not of that view. They are a special set of ranges and it is unique in lots of ways in our country—and in any city in the world—to have a range of mountains behind our Queen City. We think it is important that that is recognised. Indeed that is one of the reasons why we want to put it in the annals of this House. 
The second thing we want to acknowledge is the fact that a lot of the reasons why the Waitakere Ranges are as they are today is because of the people who live there. If one looks back over the history of the Waitakere Ranges—going back 50 or 100 years—one sees that a lot of areas were burnt desolate raped— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Felled. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes whatever. They were used for a whole lot of purposes as was the wont of those times. What has happened is that over time people with absolute and keen interest in the environment and in the Waitakere environment itself have bought into the area. A lot of the people who live there have a long long history in the area. They have worked with the newer residents to re-establish the environment that is there today. They are to be commended for that. Those people can take great pride in the fact that the Waitakere Ranges as we know them today are primarily there not because of something the Government local council or regional council did but because they as residents and citizens of that area have taken pride in their own environment. They are to be commended for that. 
That brings us to the reason we are debating the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It is a view that there needs to be some special recognition of the Waitakere Ranges. But I ask the question that if they are as good as they are—and they are because the residents have made them so—why do we suddenly need to protect the ranges from the residents themselves? I would have thought having looked at the history and at what has developed over the last 20 30 and 50 years and longer that the residents have done a good job by themselves for themselves and are capable of continuing to do so. 
Then we come to the bill. It needs to be put into  
Hansard 
 that one of the first questions we asked of the officials who presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee was why we need this bill. We were told repeatedly—I kept asking the question as did other members of the committee—that the ranges could not be protected under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme and that we needed something special. Then we were told that the bill does not actually do anything more but we needed something special because we could not do it under the present Resource Management Act. 
Paula Bennett 
: And you asked again and again. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We kept asking again and again whether we could do it under the Resource Management Act. They told us we could but that the Resource Management Act does not do it and we need this bill because it can then do it. I kept saying that there was a conflict and that we were getting conflicting advice. On the one hand the officials were saying we need the bill because we cannot do it but then they were assuring us that we could do it under the Resource Management Act and the present district scheme. You know I do not know how many times I asked the question. In fact we got to the stage where we asked the officials whether they could tell us the status of this bill as opposed to the Resource Management Act. My colleague Nick Smith asked that question. We debated that issue and received advice that if the bill had continued in the form in which it was then it would have had a higher standing than the Resource Management Act itself. Paula Bennett Nick Smith and myself—and others on the committee—then had to get advice on how we could reduce that status because we cannot have a local bill that has a higher status than general legislation. 
So the bill was changed which brought us to the position where the question was that if it is now of lower status and if we can do what the bill intends to do under the Resource Management Act why do we need it? I have to say that having questioned the officials time and time again we finally got a concession from them that they had misinformed us. They had actually deliberately lied to the committee. That is the best way to put it. They had told us that we needed the bill because they could not do it. Finally they conceded that they could do all the things we needed to do under the present district scheme. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Who lied? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The local government officials. 
Paula Bennett 
: You were indignant. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I was seriously upset by that. I was so upset that I took it to the mayor and said: “Do you understand what happened? Your officials who came before us lied to the select committee.” He said he did not believe that. I said: “Well let’s go and ask.” At the local government conference I asked the officials and we had confirmation from them that they had misled the select committee. I say to this House that for that reason alone—the fact that the officials felt they had to go out of their way to lie to the select committee and to this Parliament as a consequence—we should not be passing this bill. We cannot have a local bill that is not based on the truth. I have to say that I was seriously disappointed upset and indignant as Paula Bennett has just said that officials came before a select committee of Parliament and misled us. 
The fact is that as the bill is drafted at the moment we have been assured by officials time and time again now that under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme we can do what this bill allows. One of the things I have always fought against in this Parliament is passing unnecessary legislation. If this legislation goes through today—if it goes through the process and is passed into law—then we will have passed legislation that is unnecessary. If this bill was as necessary as we have been told it is then there are other ways in which the matter could have been addressed and it should have been done that way. The local authority has the power under its district scheme to do the things this bill intends. The local authority has the power to change the district scheme to allow— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Make its rules. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely! Indeed another worry we have with this bill is that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of law. It is unnecessary. It will not achieve anything. But here we are today debating legislation that will put more bureaucracy and rate costs on to the local people but will achieve nothing. I say that for that reason this Parliament should not support the bill. 
The National Party supports the Waitakere Ranges. We think they are iconic. We have said so in our minority report. The caucus is fully of that view. But we do not support unnecessary legislation. Today I say to this House that that is exactly what we are doing here. For that reason—and that reason alone—I will vote against the legislation and I know my colleagues will join me in not supporting this legislation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I want to talk about where I live because I live at the end of the suburban railway line in west Auckland in a small village called Waitakere. The people in my street look out over farmland the foothills and the magnificent ranges in the background. They are not rich landowners. They are ordinary New Zealanders who like me have chosen to live in an area that is special and that has cultural historical and ecological importance to all New Zealanders. So I can confirm to the House as a Waitakere resident that the bill we are debating tonight reflects the desire of the local people in my community to ensure that the magnificent Waitakere Ranges foothills and coastal areas are kept for the enjoyment of future generations. 
A short drive up the road from my place is the wonderful Bethells Beach/Te Henga Beach. People have lived there for a thousand years. Te Kawerau-a-Maki cultivated the lowlands and lived in fortified pa sites along the cliffs above the shoreline. In the middle of last century European settlers came to fell the giant kauri trees and ship them out along the coastal rail line the remains of which are still visible today. They also dug for kauri gum they established farms vineyards and orchards and they made bricks and pottery. By the 1920s the lumberjacks had exhausted much of the kauri and the regeneration process of Auckland’s fantastic back garden began. 
The nearby village of Swanson used to be Auckland’s dumping-ground but the community has built on its settler history and along with the local council has revitalised it with new parks tree plantings and an iconic railway station. The Waitakere Ranges Regional Park is close by and is one part of the Waitakere ranges heritage area established under this bill. The parkland covers 17000 hectares and is an important natural area not only because of its nationally significant landforms landscapes and biodiversity but also because of its close proximity to urban Auckland. 
This is the heart of the heritage area and it had its origins as a protected area way back in 1895 when the Crown vested 1900 hectares of forested land in the Auckland City Council as reserves for the purpose of recreation and the conservation of native flora and fauna. The parkland was rapidly extended by purchases and by substantial private gifts. There has been intensive community activity—and we have heard a lot about that in this debate—and advocacy for the area ever since then and the recognition of the national significance of this heritage area which is the purpose of this bill and is outlined in the preamble has been with us all for a long time. 
This bill not only recognises the national significance of the park but also restates its purpose. It re-establishes a planning regime that is certain and is tied to delivering on long-term objectives. The Waitakere Ranges area where my family neighbours and friends live is also a vital asset for Auckland citizens who with a short drive to the west can walk in ancient forests experience new birdlife learn about our early history or escape to the wild west coast beaches; 2.5 million people visit the magnificent parkland and beaches every year. So this bill is of importance to all citizens not just those of us who live in the foothills of the Waitakere Ranges. 
Even National members recognise that the Waitakere Ranges are an Auckland and a New Zealand icon and they have called for them to be given national park status as provided for under existing law. But I think National has completely misread this bill and the reaction of local people. As a local person I can account for that. What those members do not seem to understand is that it is simply not possible to protect the ranges without protecting the foothills and the coastal areas. If we do not the whole area is at risk. Quite frankly as a Waitakere resident I have been appalled at the misinformation and deliberate scare tactics of some of the opponents of this bill including some in the National Party. We need to learn fast that interventions like this bill are essential if we are serious about our planet. Economics cannot always be the overriding concern; that is old thinking. Economics have to be weighed up alongside the environment and sometimes the environment needs to win. 
There are other concerns for Aucklanders. The Waitakere Ranges supply about a quarter of Auckland’s water supply. There are three concrete and two earth dams in the ranges and the story of how they were built in the early 1900s is worth a good study for anyone who does not know about it. If members have not been for a ride on the tramline that was originally built to haul in the materials to construct the Waitakere Dam I recommend it to anyone. 
Darren Hughes 
: How much does it cost? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is cheap very cheap so the National Party could afford it. Tram riders experience a bush-brushed ride through tunnels and over bridges and viaducts in a fantastic introduction to the remarkable rainforest growing right on Auckland’s doorstep. Watercare Services leases the 6600 hectares of catchment land from Auckland regional parks and today these areas serve a dual purpose as protected catchment supply areas and as recreational and biological assets managed within the regional park. 
 The bill acknowledges the historical importance of this supply in the development of Auckland and it identifies its operation as a heritage feature to be protected through its water supply and recreation functions. The ranges deliver services that underpin the Auckland economy and its emergence as a city region of international importance. The closeness of the Waitakere Ranges to New Zealand’s largest urban area contributes both to their unique value and to the risks proposed to them. They are under the intense development pressures of a rapidly growing metropolitan area. For example in the foothills 40 years ago the minimum lot size was 20.2 hectares at the beginning of the 1980s it was 5 hectares then more recently it was 4 hectares and now it is proposed that lots are to be sold at 1 hectare and less. 
One of the particular reasons why I support this bill is that in my area we have seen some disastrous attempts at development nearby in Swanson resulting in blocked streams and slips and a large scar on the hillside that is just starting to heal. The council has had to work very very hard to rectify the problems that this development has caused. Another reason I support this bill is that our back garden is now a bird sanctuary. Believe me we did not start out intending to make it that way; it was a matter of our not cutting down trees for a few years. But it has become so because of the restoration of the forest and the planting of trees in the foothills which has brought more birdlife into the area. Rare birds not seen on the mainland for decades have been introduced into the regional park. Hihi whitehead and native robins can now be spotted regularly. There are plans to introduce other species that until now have survived only in specific conservation protected areas offshore islands or forests. What a wonderful thing that has been for our local people—to have birds like that which we thought were almost extinct on the mainland. 
The Waitakere Ranges provide a beautiful backdrop to urban Auckland. This bill helps ensure that the ranges—including the foothills and coastal villages which are also covered by the heritage area created by the bill—are protected for future generations to enjoy. I commend the councils involved in promoting this bill the Auckland Regional Council the Rodney District Council and the Waitakere City Council for their foresight and their determination. I also commend all the citizens of Waitakere who have been so passionate about this and who for many years have worked hard to get us to the point where we are debating this bill. 
I also congratulate the able member in charge of the bill my fellow westie Lynne Pillay and I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee led by the very wonderful Steve Chadwick on its intelligent consideration of the bill. I know that my family and my neighbours will be celebrating along with many others as this bill moves through its remaining stages in the House. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could send a message to the people in charge of the speaker system because I did not hear most of the speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat. I wonder whether you could get somebody to turn the speakers up. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to hear that. If I had been aware of it earlier I would have. It will be looked into immediately. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is not a flippant point of order. I honestly could not hear and there was not a lot of noise in the Chamber. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No but it is becoming flippant by you simply saying that it is not a flippant point of order. I realise it is not I did not take it as such and the process is under way. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is all we need to hear from you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is all you are going to hear and you will keep quiet now. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you very much. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do not make a habit of that Mr Tau Henare—all right? Good. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time. 
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill be now read a first time. 
 I am delighted for the second time in my parliamentary career to introduce a private bill on behalf of a group of far-thinking and public-spirited Aucklanders—and in this case on behalf of a group of organisations—that will be of enormous benefit to all Aucklanders and I truly believe to New Zealand. As a new member for Auckland Central in 1996 one of the first calls I received was from Mr Grant Kirby the acting manager of MOTAT Auckland’s Museum of Transport and Technology. Mr Kirby along with the then councillor Bruce Hucker who was the chair of that trust board asked me to introduce a private bill on their behalf so that the Museum of Transport and Technology which is undoubtedly a museum of enormous benefit to all Aucklanders—and as I say to New Zealand—could get regional funding. 
I am delighted that that bill after a great deal of work and consideration was the first bill passed by the Labour-led Government in the year 2000. Indeed it was the first bill passed by this Government after the ignominious defeat of the then National Government. I am absolutely delighted on behalf of a group of Auckland organisations that includes the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust Surf Life Saving Northern Region WaterSafe Auckland the New Zealand National Maritime Museum the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium the Auckland Festival Trust the National Opera of New Zealand the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and the Auckland Theatre Company to introduce a bill that is modelled in many respects on that Museum of Transport and Technology legislation. 
Just to reassure members I will read a little from the 2005-06 annual report of that museum. The chairman of an enormous group of volunteers and enthusiasts Peter Drummond said: “I would also like to acknowledge the continuing support and encouragement given by the Auckland territorial local authorities to MOTAT not only for their vital financial contribution but also for their genuine interest and the support shown by elected Councillors council officers and staff.” The general manager went on to say: “The museum continues to gratefully receive the support of the members of the TLA Electoral College and the councillors and officers of the contributing Auckland local authorities without which most of the progress over the last five years would not have been possible”. 
I assure members of the House that the Museum of Transport and Technology is now regionally funded to the great acclaim of Aucklanders. Its ability to provide facilities around the astonishing collection of Auckland’s transport and technology heritage has been developed in all sorts of ways to the benefit of all of our children and indeed for the generations that are not yet born. 
The bill that has been brought together which has a website called www.together.org.nz—with the heading: “Creating a better Auckland for everyone” on its home page—has similar support from the extensive survey that has been done of many Aucklanders. Ninety-five percent of Aucklanders see benefits in the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust to Aucklanders with special interests and to most Aucklanders; 97 percent support the Auckland Zoo which is not included in this legislation but I hope one day will be; 93 percent support Surf Life Saving Northern Region; 75 percent support WaterSafe Auckland; 92 percent support the New Zealand National Maritime Museum; 91 percent support the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium; 83 percent support the Auckland Festival; 90 percent support the National Opera of New Zealand; 90 percent support the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra; and 92 percent support the Auckland Theatre Company. 
This legislation I believe is an extension of the partnership philosophy that this Government said was the only way that central government local government communities and businesses could work for the well-being of New Zealand. This legislation is the result of the challenges I have put to Auckland as Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. I have constantly been told by Aucklanders that taxpayers should fund the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra—a wonderful orchestra an absolutely marvellous orchestra which contributes an enormous amount to the Auckland region. 
My challenge to Auckland—and to every area in New Zealand—is to ask why taxpayers should support local and regional facilities when in many cases our local councils are absolutely niggardly in their response. I have to extract one local council in Auckland from that accusation and say that the Auckland City Council has routinely and generously supported regional institutions for an awfully long time. I want to assure the House again that the Auckland City Council does not see this legislation which it has supported and will support as a way of paying less. Indeed the Auckland City Council is making a commitment to pay more. 
The shape and form of Auckland is changing. Auckland is New Zealand’s major international city and we are seeing massive population increases coming very quickly. For example in the 1996 census fewer than 2000 people were living in the central business district whereas in the last census more than 29000 people were living there. One of my challenges to Auckland City and the Auckland region is to ask how we are going to change the recreational opportunities and the open-space opportunities. Where are those opportunities for kids who grow up in the central business district whether they are from Auckland City Waitakere City or North Shore City? As sure as change will happen the changes we are seeing in Auckland City will be replicated around other cities in Auckland. I will be fascinated to see how those cities and how the Auckland region are going to change the way we have traditionally provided opportunities for physical recreation for mental recreation and for community engagement. 
I am very proud that Auckland is leading the charge in this area. I am very proud to see that the contribution that the Government is making has inspired those organisations to look at what partnership really means. 
This legislation which should go at the appropriate time to the Local Government and Environment Committee will be controversial. But I do not believe that this House has the right to steer away from controversy just because legislation will be unpopular with some of our residents. I have heard from people who are vehemently against this legislation and I have heard from many many more who are vehemently in favour of it. 
I thank other parties in this House that have indicated their support particularly the very vocal member opposite and I thank the National Party for finally coming to the party—very grumpily and with lots of arms being twisted up backs but it is very nice to see. I particularly want to thank Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First and the Green Party. Many other people in this House have said that this is legislation that they would actually like to see in their regions. I have received that comment from National Party members as well as from other members. 
The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill I believe is the second bill in the wave of legislation that is showing communities standing up for themselves and asking that we provide clear regional opportunities and education. As some of the inspiring visionaries in Secondary Futures have pointed out not all education in the future will necessarily take place in schools or tertiary institutions. Places like the Museum of Transport and Technology and the Auckland War Memorial Museum clearly show that there are enormous opportunities to create the next generation of creative thinkers—people who are able to solve problems and who will be able to take New Zealand economically socially culturally and environmentally into a better future. Those people need these facilities now. 
I am really proud that these organisations have said: “Let’s help ourselves first.” There is an enormous volunteer contribution. A recent Statistics New Zealand report estimated that throughout the country volunteers give over 270 million hours of unpaid labour which is worth some $3.5 billion. It is time that local government with its purposes of regional economic social environmental and cultural well-being made sure that it provided the services that a modern international city and region needs. I commend this bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Microphones in Chamber—Fault 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call Dr Mapp I report back to the House and thank Mr Henare for raising the issue about sound. The matter was being actioned before the member even sat down. I hope it is better now. Members are entitled to hear proceedings as they go on but I would also ask members to speak as closely as they can to the microphone and into a line with the microphone. That would help members. If there is a little less talking going on that may also help. I thank Mr Henare for raising the issue. 
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National thought long and hard about the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I know that the promoters of the bill are fully aware that we had a very substantial debate in our caucus and indeed amongst the members of the National Party across the Auckland region. It is true to say that we were not immediately persuaded and the reason is that we were aware of the impact on the rates. This is noted to be in the bill itself 2 percent within 4 years on the total rates bill. Now in the last several years on average rates have been going up at a rate substantially greater than economic growth to the point in fact—and I know New Zealand First goes on about this—that there had to be a rates inquiry and some serious issues were noted there. So we are and have been concerned about the impact of this bill on rates. That is the first point. 
The second concern we had was that this legislation is somewhat of an ad hoc approach. I might say however that in some respects it is actually a reflection of dysfunctional local government and is a response to that. But of course the Government has established with broad support from across the Parliament a royal commission on Auckland governance and I certainly want to see this issue as one of the terms of reference of that royal commission. At most what we are doing here today is a temporary fix-up that covers the period from 2008 to perhaps 2011 when we would expect a different form of regional governance for the wider Auckland community. 
There are three particular issues I want to talk about tonight. The first is the process in the bill as to how organisations get included. This is a very serious issue; there is a lot of material in the bill on that. The second issue concerns what organisations should be included. Members would have to say it is a pretty eclectic group at the moment. The third and very important point is the question of who is the best local government organisation to charge the rates. There were choices for that and the answer in the bill although it explains why the Auckland Regional Council was not chosen perhaps ignores the reality that this Parliament has sovereign powers over local government and can make decisions accordingly. We can work out in Parliament how best to manage that particular issue. 
I want to go to that first issue: on what basis should organisations be included? That comes back to a really fundamental point about local democracy. This bill is effectively a first debenture charge on rates. The very first payment out of rates will be on these organisations. That is the very first impost because it is legislatively mandated. Other expenditure by local authorities is not legislatively mandated in this way. Yet the bill proposes that an unelected group of people will decide which organisations get funding and the level of funding they should get. Frankly that is wrong in principle. 
Surely it is the fundamental responsibility of elected officials—in local government in this instance—to decide what the rates should be and how they get spent. I have read a little bit about history. Was this not the issue that the American Revolution was fought on—no taxation without representation? Representation means people voting for their elected officials to decide how they will be taxed. So there clearly has to be a better way than what is proposed in the bill. I will just set that out. The bill proposes an electoral college. People might think: “OK fair enough.” But that college decides who qualifies and the level of the proposed rate. Those people as stated in the bill cannot be elected officials. Actually it should read the other way around; they should be elected officials. The structure of the bill on this issue is wrong in principle. 
 We do not get bureaucrats to decide what the Budget of New Zealand shall be. That is the responsibility of the Government of the day and it is accountable for that. Officials—whether public bureaucrats or essentially the grandees of the Auckland region—are there to administer the organisations not to decide who gets taxed. That is one issue that clearly if we follow democratic principle will have to be changed and Parliament clearly can do that. 
The second issue I want to talk about is the range of organisations. As the Minister has indicated they come in categories. The first is the lifesaving organisations such as the coastguard surf lifesaving and the rescue helicopter. I guess this also includes WaterSafe Auckland which is arguably more of an educational organisation. I know for a fact that they have the highest level of support amongst the community—not just in the survey that was undertaken by the proposers of the bill but in my own surveys. They clearly rank way above the other organisations and it is not surprising that they do. People expect those organisations to be there when they need them and when they need them they desperately need them. People are prepared to pay some of their rates for that purpose. So they clearly form a category of their own and I have to say that they were hugely influential in National’s decision to support this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
The second category is the cultural organisations. It includes the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the theatre the maritime museum and the opera which is ironically noted as the New Zealand Opera—we would have to ask ourselves why it is not being funded by Creative New Zealand which is after all there to fund the central cultural organisations—and the Auckland Festival. It is very much Auckland City - centred I would have to note. 
The third category is what I would call the scientific category and it includes the observatory. I happen to own a telescope of some substance. I have a bit of a scientific interest. But I am not really sure I would ask the ratepayers to fund that kind of endeavour. The other organisation I put in the scientific category is the zoo. I have to admit that the zoo is deeply loved by people right across the Auckland region. I was not at all surprised that that rated very highly in terms of support. 
I do want to note that the Auckland Philharmonia was the origin of this bill. It was the one who initiated it and then the group got together and expanded the range of organisations. The Auckland Philharmonia is New Zealand’s second leading orchestra. Parliament will have to very very carefully consider which organisations qualify. We are elected and we are accountable just as local politicians are. It is our responsibility to sort those out. People must make submissions on that. 
The third issue I want to talk about concerns what the best organisation is to undertake rating. The bill proposes a relatively complex system of every territorial local authority getting some sort of a bill—from the electoral college I guess—and then having to rate all its ratepayers individually. Surely there is a better way. Why do we have the Auckland Regional Council if not to deal with regional issues? It is quite within the power of this Parliament to say: “Actually we won’t deal with the territorial local authorities on this basis. This is an issue for the Auckland Regional Council. It is administratively far simpler to do that—one set of calculations for every ratepayer and resident in the region.” So those are the three fundamental issues. 
I conclude by saying that I understand the intent of the proposers of the bill. A number of these organisations are vital to the whole heart and soul of the city. They are things that make Auckland an international city. They are the sorts of things that people expect an internationally competitive city to be able to provide. They clearly have to be paid for and that is the question the select committee will have to consider—how best to pay for them what should be included and how those decisions should be accounted for democratically. 
National is supporting the bill’s referral to the select committee. We will take our responsibilities on that committee very seriously. We will be asking probing and searching questions of the promoters of the bill and the submitters to it. This is a bill where Aucklanders must make their voice known. This Parliament will be acting on that voice and it is one of our responsibilities as part of our democratic accountability to get this right. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to make reference to the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp who mentioned New Zealand First’s role in establishing the rates inquiry. I have to say that yes we do take credit for that. I also have to say that all Dr Mapp’s party would have done around the pretty complex issues of local government revenue raising would be to vote in favour of Rodney Hide’s bill. The outcome of that bill would have seen more road congestion in our cities and raw sewage floating out into the beautiful Waitemata Harbour; I just make reference to that. It was New Zealand First that instigated that report and I think it is such a quality report that it will become the manual upon which decisions will be made around local revenue raising over the next decade or two. The second thing I mention is Tau Henare’s contribution which demonstrates a fatal flaw in his character in that he believes every rumour he hears. 
Let us come back to the Auckland Regional Amenities Bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You are going to make a great diplomat aren’t you? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: New Zealand First will be voting for the bill to proceed to the select committee— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Here’s the great diplomat. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: —but we do so— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Leaving the sinking ship. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: This is the man who was complaining before that he could not hear. Now he is making so much noise no one can hear. A little bit of consistency would be good. 
I was about to say that the Hon Judith Tizard might have a bit more persuasive power than Lynne Pillay because we are voting for this bill but we could not possibly be persuaded to vote for Lynne Pillay’s one. I think it is recognised that we vote for this bill with severe reservations. New Zealand First has always believed that local government operational decisions should be made as near as possible to the location of the impact of those decisions. Therefore legislation that establishes through a centrally devised mechanism what a democratically elected council must pay for amenities within its larger region runs contrary to our fundamental philosophy. 
Having stated this however it is recognised that New Zealand First supported legislation for funding by all councils in the Auckland region of the Museum of Transport and Technology—MOTAT. In recommending such a course of action to the New Zealand First caucus back in 2000 I took myself back to my period of time spent teaching at Henderson Intermediate School. During that time—I mentioned the years in a previous speech; it was a long time ago—the school made very very full use of the museum as an educational resource. In fact I think that in the 2 years the students were there everybody went through the museum as part of a unit. Therefore it seemed to us at the time unfair that the students at that school could take full advantage of the museum yet their parents would not be charged anything in local government charges to maintain that entity. 
In principle we supported that particular legislation and that is the conundrum we face with this bill. At the heart of the matter it would appear that at least two of the activities seeking funding support through this legislation have very strong patronage by citizens of North Shore City for example. But in fact North Shore City pays absolutely nothing for the maintenance of those particular entities. There is justification for asking whether that is really fair. I think that is what this issue is all about. 
This bill will create a board that will be able to levy each local council for a proportion of the funds needed by the 11 groups each year. Elected councils will no longer be in full control of their own destinies. For example it is calculated that the indicative $12.7 million that this bill will cause to be levied in the first year in operation would add $2.51 million to Manukau City’s expenditure and $2.34 million to that of North Shore City. 
The bill creates some strange anomalies. Coastguard Northern Region is captured by the bill but this service stretches all the way to Cape Reinga. The Whangarei District Council gets to make its own decisions as to what sort of support it gives to the northern coastguard yet this bill says that the decisions of the councils in Auckland will be predetermined by some central legislation. 
Then there is the question of the Auckland Festival. Which council made the decision for this activity to take place? Were representatives of the people of Franklin for example involved in that decision? If they were not why should that council therefore be forced to pay for the festival? I raise some other important questions around that in respect of the Pacific culture festival. Why was that festival never included in any of the research? It seems to have much greater patronage possibly than the Auckland arts festival. 
It is unfortunate that most of the amenities named in the bill—although we have to note there are provisions for additional entities to be added and that raises questions in its own right—are basically located in Auckland. For example Franklin District Council Mayor Mark Ball argues strongly that the Glenbrook Vintage Railway should be included in these regional amenities that are regionally funded. Waitakere argues for the West Wave Waitakere City Aquatic Centre but that amenity has not even been included in the research. Moreover the legislation is made considerably less palatable to mayors and councils affected by the fact that the membership of this regional amenities club was determined by an Auckland City Council - appointed panel. 
It could be argued that the issues have been fully researched and certainly some detailed research has been done but the results are equivocal. For example only 16 percent of respondents in the 2005 study believe that Opera New Zealand benefits most Aucklanders. The figures for the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and the Auckland Theatre Company are 17.5 percent and 19.7 percent respectively; yet all three of these entities make the list. Aotea Centre with a vote of 67.8 percent on that same question does not make the cut. When respondents were asked about how different entities should be funded only 42.2 percent believed that the Auckland Theatre Company should be funded jointly by all councils together. The support for such a funding mechanism for the Aotea Centre was 57.8 percent. The theatre company makes the cut the Aotea Centre does not and the Pacific festival does not even get into the research design at all. 
The existence of this legislation demonstrates—and I think we need to take it on board—the woeful state of administrative and decision-making structures affecting the Greater Auckland network of councils. We are aware there is a royal commission of inquiry into Auckland’s governance structure and we applaud that commission. Of course the argument has been put up that we should wait for the royal commission report before we look at the issues behind this legislation. We are not swayed by this argument. We believe that public debate will expose flaws in the decision-making processes affecting Greater Auckland. There is no reason why a select committee should not be listening to arguments for and against this bill through a process of participatory democracy in parallel with the royal commission inquiry. I think the two will enrich each other. 
In Auckland we have the absolutely scandalous situation—I say “scandalous” and this is where the royal commission hopefully will come up with some solutions—where councils are having to use large sums of ratepayers’ money to defend in the Environment Court consent decisions they have made but the cases that are being brought against them are being brought by the Auckland Regional Council and the cases are being funded also by revenue raised by the same ratepayers. There has to be something wrong with a system like that. 
This is the reason why New Zealand First will support this bill being referred to the select committee. We do not believe that in this particular case the voices of the smaller councils have had an opportunity to be heard and we believe that a select committee process will allow that to happen. New Zealand First members have made it absolutely clear that we give no guarantee that we will support this legislation beyond this stage. We will however give a guarantee that we will listen very carefully to the arguments for and against and make as we always do sound and sensible judgments. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to support this Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill through its first reading and into the select committee process. It is there that I am sure we will hear submissions from all interested parties including those who are already out there vehemently opposing this bill. As a North Shore resident I am well aware for example of Mayor George Wood’s concerns that this bill will push up rates on the shore and that it may lessen the support available for local community organisations. Mr Wood has pointed out that his council also helps to fund seven of the 11 amenities named in the bill and does not see why North Shore residents should do any more than they do at present. The Waitakere City Council has also raiseed a number of objections and I will come to some of those in a moment. 
However I would first like to say that at the heart of the Green Party support—at least so far—for what is intended here is our belief that firstly these organisations do deserve to be supported secondly they are all genuinely of regional significance and thirdly it is only fair that the job of paying for their upkeep should be spread across the region and not just be the responsibility of Auckland City with whatever ad hoc and piecemeal assistance it can muster from other councils. To those who might not be aware I say the 11 organisations included within the scope of this bill are the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust Coast Guard Northern Region Surf Life Saving Northern Region WaterSafe Auckland the Auckland Zoo the Auckland Festival Trust the Auckland Theatre Company New Zealand Opera and the National Maritime Museum Trust Board. I am sure most Aucklanders who have lived in the city for any length of time will be aware of the critical part these bodies play in the life of the city and of its residents and visitors. I also know that we are likely to have our own favourites depending on the interests and prejudices that we hold. 
One criticism of the bill—for example from the Waitakere City Council—is that this is not the right group of amenities that should be eligible for regional funding. I agree that the list is eminently debatable and there could well be other organisations that should be on it. But it is at least a place to start and Waitakere like everyone else with an interest is totally entitled to make strong submissions to the select committee on the nature of this list and on the processes for future decision-making about who should or should not be included. 
Further the bill itself establishes a funding board that will become the mechanism through which the named amenities—or whichever ones survive or arrive through the parliamentary process—will liaise with the councils on funding plans levy rates performance evaluations and so on. One option that some in the Green Party were keen on was for the Auckland Regional Council to become the funding mechanism for these organisations as it already plays a clear pan-regional role and has rates-collecting powers. However given that the Auckland Regional Council itself does not want to take on this job that is not an option we are able to pursue. 
We agree with the proponents of the bill that fundamentally a measure like this is necessary to achieve some kind of long-term security for key regional amenities. I would like to see all these organisations being able to survive and flourish in a situation where they know what their base funding level is going to be ahead of time and in which they do not have to waste as much effort as they do at present on making multiple funding and planning applications and approaches to all the different councils on top of all the other funding work they have to do. 
There are regional equity issues involved of course—for example in the undoubted fact that residents and ratepayers from the Rodney and Franklin districts are unlikely to avail themselves of these organisations to the same extent as residents of the four central territorial local authorities. However this can be addressed at least in part by ensuring there is a lower differential payment from the outer-ring councils as I understand is intended. 
A further criticism of the bill is that it should be put to one side pending the outcome of all the work being done at present around Auckland’s regional governance structures. Originally I held that position too thinking it was common sense but once I realised how long it was going to be until there was even the possibility of a concrete outcome from the special commission of inquiry on Auckland’s governance I realised that it was not a good idea to wait especially as I do not think there are any guarantees that any particular outcome will resolve this problem. This question of funding for regional amenities should certainly be part of the mix of issues for consideration by the special commission on governance and perhaps in the end any outcomes from the process we are going through in Parliament with this bill will be fed into the special commission process. But I do not think that that should stop us going through the submission and consideration work on this bill. It may end up being a stopgap measure but if we do the work of fine-tuning and improving it now that will only help the whole situation in the long run. I do not think any or all of the Auckland councils can go on being completely parochial and isolationist in the current environment; Auckland faces too many problems. 
It is good to see MPs from across the House coming out in support of this bill at least at these early stages. I think cross-party and cross-regional goodwill should apply at city level too. As Brian Rudman so cogently pointed out in one of his recent columns in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 all of us should be keen to reduce bureaucratic and administrative costs to work for equity between different parts of the region and to provide a secure environment for organisations that serve the needs of our region in so many different ways. I am sure there will be much more that can be done to improve this bill including looking closely at the list of organisations being supported. The Green Party is keen to help with that work and I commend the bill to this House. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. I come to this bill knowing that neither the opinions of my constituency nor the opinions of the neighbouring constituency of Te Tai Tokerau have been canvassed about what Auckland-based amenities should reasonably qualify for funding through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill being debated today. I am wondering whether this is just par for the course—another example of policy prejudice operating for decisions north of the Bombay Hills. 
Of course lack of consultation in Tamaki Makaurau is not a new occurrence. We remember back in June of this year when the Waitangi Tribunal reported that consultation by the Crown with iwi was cavalier and unfair and conducted in a generally uncooperative manner. We read the depressing findings that Ngati Te Ata Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Te Kawerau-a-Maki Marutuahu the Hauraki Maori Trust Board and Te Taou had been explicitly excluded from the discussions leading to the Tamaki Makaurau settlement. 
So coming to this new bill which is to address the need for specified amenities in the Auckland region we are disappointed but definitely not surprised to find that there has been no specific consultation with mana whenua. Let us face it: this Government does not value the rights of indigenous people. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: This is not a Government bill. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: That member is from the Government. This Government sees the rights of indigenous people as incompatible with its policy. This Government opposes the rights of indigenous people to be aspirational—meaning of course to have hope or ambition to achieve one’s goal. This Government in voting against the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples voted against the right of tangata whenua to have hope or ambition to achieve for themselves. 
So I have to ask: who could possibly think that anyone would dare to have hope that indigenous rights will be protected by this Government? This bill the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill is yet another example in which there has been no inclusion and seemingly no consideration of Maori facilities and services. The bill has wilfully ignored the views of mana whenua and what they consider the priorities to be for the adequate sustainable and secure funding of facilities that promote the arts education rescue operations or community development. In fact even although I am the member for Tamaki Makaurau—and Maori to boot—which includes most of the region of Auckland the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues did not deem it necessary to consult me for comment from mana whenua. 
So it falls to us of the Maori Party to speak out here. During the Committee stage of the bill we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to include Maori organisations as specified amenities and thus as recipients of some of the funding. Two of the proposed organisations we consider worthy of inclusion are the Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society Inc. and the Auckland Regional Outrigger Canoe Association. The Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society has been considered a worthy facility to be included in this bill in order to ensure our high standards of kapahaka in the many adult kapa that exist in Auckland City. We believe also that the intention of this bill to make Auckland a vibrant and an attractive place to live in and visit can only prosper from its inclusion. Our Supplementary Order Paper will provide for support to that society to help with its annual competitions and festivals and also to run wananga to train new leaders and to assist in composition and Maori performing arts. 
I have to admit being astounded that the Maori cultural component has not been addressed in this strategy which is all about enhancing the well-being of this region. Cultural tourism is essential to the creation and shaping of our unique national identity. Quality performances that demonstrate cultural authenticity are a vital context for the international tourism industry as well as articulating our distinctive identity. In addition the numerous marae within the Auckland region are actively involved in providing traditional Maori powhiri hospitality and wananga services on behalf of the various Government agencies industry and all the local authorities. The Tamaki Makaurau Senior Kapahaka Society is a main source of education and skills training in the activities of marae operations. 
The other aspect that will be addressed in our amendment is the inclusion of the Auckland Regional Outrigger Canoe Association another significant resource in developing our young people in strengthening our whanau and in enhancing our unique cultural identity in that region. We will be recommending that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill include provision to ensure that waka ama be resourced for the Auckland City area. 
I note with some irony that the key facilities addressed in this bill—the planetarium the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the Auckland Theatre Company the New Zealand Opera Ltd and the Auckland Festival Trust—are institutions that are recognised as being more familiar to middle New Zealand than to the constituency and population of areas such as Mangere Otara Manurewa Otahuhu Te Atatu Ranui and Kelston. The information supplied to us by “Together: Creating a better Auckland for everyone” confirms that only 13 percent of the population of Manukau ever have occasion to use the 11 organisations included in this bill. Yet the proposal is that this same region through the Manukau City Council will be expected to bankroll the funding of these organisations providing 23 percent of the funds for the first year. The same region for which in June this year councillors voted to raise the rates for water charges by 4.9 percent and wastewater rates by 9.4 percent earlier this year faced the loss of 350 jobs with the closure of the Fisher and Paykel plant in East Tamaki. 
This is the same region in which between 1991 and 2001 rents shot up by a massive 68 percent for Maori households. This is the region that will feel the cost of recent hikes in butter and milk prices more dramatically than most other regions in the country. Yet it is this region that is being charged for almost a quarter of the costs for the Auckland-wide initiative. There is no justification to make the primarily Maori and Pasifika population of Manukau pay to a far greater extent than other regions within the Auckland metropolis particularly when there is little in the list of 11 organisations that reflects Aotearoa as a part of the Pacific. 
There are some serious questions about equity and fairness that need to be addressed at the select committee. We are extremely concerned about the impact of this bill on the region but we also want Maori and Pasifika populations to benefit should there be an opportunity for them to do so. So we will support this bill going through to a select committee in order to allow the voices of tangata whenua and our Pacific whanaunga to be heard in this Parliament. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I say this debate on the first reading comprises six 10-minute speeches. This is the last call and by agreement it will be split between 5 minutes to Dr Worth and 5 minutes to David Cunliffe. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 What a splendid speech we heard from my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. It had splendid content and I particularly liked the allusion he made to the grandees of the Auckland region. 
National supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill going to the select committee and as other parties have observed it is not to be assumed that our consent will necessarily carry any further. But it is significant legislation. I think an interesting starting point is that if Auckland were one city like Brisbane then this issue would never arise. The philosophical point is that regional facilities should be funded regionally. 
 As others have said there is precedent for this particular bill in two pieces of legislation one a private Act and one a local Act. The core provision of those enacted provisions is to create a differential factor that levies upon the constituent local authorities a funding share. Those constituent local authorities are Rodney District Council North Shore City Council Waitakere City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Papakura District Council and Franklin District Council. Two of those councils Rodney and Franklin have the advantage of having a lower differential factor. 
I would say there are really four issues that will occupy the time of the select committee. The first I have identified. It is the philosophical issue of the extent to which regional facilities should be funded regionally. 
The second issue which Dr Sharples has made mention of is that of who should be on this list of organisations. Clearly there is room for argument there. I certainly support what the member has said in connection with the inclusion of a kapahaka trust because the Maori cultural aspect has not been addressed in this legislation. In respect of some of the listed parties I can see that there could well be real and genuine argument but that is an issue for the select committee to look at. That is then the second proposition—what is to be in the list. 
The third question is what other funding mechanisms might be available to look after these particular entities. They range obviously from a type of levy which this bill contemplates to the opportunity that local authorities have to borrow funds perhaps using bond issues. When we were young it was a commonplace for local authorities certainly in the Auckland area to raise money by way of bonds. The third possibility is simply by rating. So I would say this is the third issue that needs to be considered. It is interesting that most of the local authorities in the Auckland region have very strong balance sheets but they are incredibly reluctant to borrow money against the strength of those balance sheets. The select committee needs to consider that issue before it launches into settling a funding mechanism based on the proposed levy arrangement. 
The fourth issue which I will touch upon briefly is who the contributing authorities should be. They have been identified in the two statutes I earlier made mention of. But there is a case I would argue for limiting those contributing catchments in the far north and in the far south. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I commend the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill to the House and seek the House’s support for its referral to the select committee. 
While many talk about the need for the kind of cultural amenities that this bill specifies I think we owe it to Judith Tizard to commend her for the initiative she has taken in putting this bill together and getting the support required to get it to the House. The bill addresses as our colleague Dr Worth has said some of the fundamental issues that must be considered in any attempt to fund regional institutions. I would not demur too much at the shopping list of issues he has put forward to the House. 
The first issue is whether it is appropriate to have regional funding for regional bodies. I think there is a fair degree of consensus in the House that it is appropriate that regional institutions receive regional funding. It is also appropriate as he has intimated that people understand the gap—which is required to be filled—between the revenue streams that are currently available for those regional institutions that are needed and the funding that is required to be able to provide them and that the gap might need to be closed by other means. That is a perfectly fair question to ask. The second issue is not just who should be on the list of members of the funding board but how the list should be put together and amended over time and what governance arrangements are appropriate. That of course bears upon questions of consultation which other members have raised and which will be important to members from the Auckland region and important to members from around the country as they seek to get a sense of whether the bill has any value as a precedent for other parts of the country. 
Auckland is to some degree at least a special case. It is our only super-city. It has a number of subsidiary full-scale cities and there is a need for coordination between them. Its future is important to all of New Zealand. We know from international research that an appropriate cultural setting is essential in order to locate the talented internationally mobile creative people who drive innovation and economic transformation as well as build our national identity. So we need to do this in some form. 
Without wanting to pre-empt the work of the select committee I say that this bill is a good start in terms of the criteria that are espoused in it and in terms of the mechanism involving the electoral college and the other bodies that will administer who is on the list and who comes off it. I know that the select committee will consider a wide range of input. That is perfectly appropriate and I think the Hon Judith Tizard would support consideration being given to whether the starting list is the final list or whether the criteria need fine-tuning. That is a job for the select committee and I look forward to the select committee’s report. 
I commend this bill to the House. I hope that some west Auckland views will be expressed at the select committee and we look forward to seeing how they are handled as well. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Where is west Auckland? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Just west of central Auckland I say to the Minister from Christchurch—not a city that requires much of a compass bearing but a lovely city none the less. I have said quite enough; I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I thank all members of the House for their contributions on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I would just like to remind the House that it is not a Government bill; it is a private bill that arose from the organisations promoting it. I would say in respect of Dr Pita Sharples that any consultation on decisions about the organisations included was indeed up to them— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No it’s up to you. You’re the person putting the bill forward as well. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: —and I look forward to their contributions at the select committee. Members who do not understand the nature of a private bill and the history of private bills before Commonwealth parliaments show their ignorance by their interjections. 
I say to the House that until 1992 the Auckland Regional Council funded a range of regional organisations. It funded Tourism Auckland Surf Life Saving New Zealand and the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and indeed it was how the Commonwealth Games facilities were developed including the cultural festival. I particularly remember a significant amount of funding going to the waka festival which included waka ama. 
I agree with Dr Sharples that it is sad that there is no regional Maori cultural organisation that could have taken the place of the Auckland Regional Council. I understand that that was one of the reasons why the mechanism—which has been described as being somewhat cumbersome—is in place so that organisations can come under this bill’s provisions and also leave them. 
The public were asked to rate the regionality of various organisations and the final 11 organisations were a group that met a range of regional criteria. That committee was chaired by Dr Robin Congreve a major philanthropist who has contributed to a huge range of Auckland and New Zealand organisations. 
The financial outcomes of this bill are set down in it. The funding would never go above 2 percent of the ordinary rates take which would exclude water and waste-water charges. That is partial funding for the organisations alone. The bill recognises that increasingly organisations have to employ people for fund-raising and have to first raise their own salaries. That is not good use of regional organisations’ time and money. They should get on with the services they provide and all councils including Auckland City Council would contribute more than at present. 
Any new organisations coming into the funding arrangement in the future would have to be accommodated within that 2 percent cap and further this would mean about $20 a year per ratepayer in Auckland. I do not believe that that is too big a price to pay for what are often absolutely crucial organisations. Surf Life Saving New Zealand undertook over 600 rescues on Auckland beaches last year. I believe that we would all be much worse off without that organisation. 
 When the Museum of Transport and Technology Act was passed Mr Wood the present Mayor of North Shore City talked of the embarrassment of holding on to the coat-tails and purse strings of Auckland City and feeling “a bit of a heel” when he went to events hosted by Auckland City. I say to all mayors councillors and candidates that I believe it is time that Auckland City and the Auckland region stood up for the things that make it a complex challenging and rewarding place to live in. 
I am delighted that these 11 organisations have the capacity optimism and vision to bring in this legislation because it was something that Parliament used to allow regional government to do. It was also this Parliament that took the power away. It is time we put these decisions back on to Auckland and Auckland citizens are saying that it is time we got on with it. 
I thank all the members in the House including Dr Wayne Mapp and Dr Richard Worth from the National Party Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First Sue Bradford from the Greens Dr Pita Sharples from the Maori Party and of course my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe who have agreed that this bill should go to a select committee. It is my pleasure and intention on behalf of those 11 Auckland organisations—and I believe on behalf of all Aucklanders and many other New Zealanders who will look at today as an important day and the bill as an important step forward for a good society and a good community now and for the future—as soon as the first reading of this bill is passed to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee 
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill in relation to clause 1 which of course is the title. The title to this bill has changed. It was originally the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. It has been expanded to deal with flexible working arrangements. Those arrangements are also defined further on in the bill. In relation to an employee—not interestingly enough in relation to an employer as well; it is only in relation to an employee—those flexible working arrangements mean flexibility either in terms of hours of work the days of work or the place of work at for example the employee’s home or place of work. 
Flexibility which is really the integral part of this bill is important. Flexibility in the workplace is important and National acknowledges that. We acknowledge that in order for employees to be successful they need flexibility in their working arrangements. But that does not mean that this needs to be legislated for and we believe that common sense can prevail. 
This bill the title of which has changed is as has been referred to in relation to other bills a solution looking for a problem— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but we are debating clause 1. It is very limited; it is just the title. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: The title—correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I appreciate that Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is a very limited debate. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is a very limited debate. The title is really about the flexibility of those working arrangements. We believe in flexibility and although we accept the title of the bill we do not believe that flexible working arrangements should be or indeed can be legislated for. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The title clause states that the “Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act”. The original title dealt with “Hours”. Clearly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee believed and many submitters believed that the title had to be more reflective of the types of things that people should be able to discuss with their employer. After all this is about making arrangements with an employer and having the right purely to request them. 
It is rather amusing to hear that the National Party is in favour of flexible working arrangements but does not think workers should have a right to request them in law. That is beyond belief. National says it is in favour of flexible working arrangements but oh no no way should workers have the right by law to request those from an employer! We heard a great many submissions on this very good bill from people who gave ample evidence of the need for flexible working arrangements. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member was straying a bit there. The title is what we are talking about. The member had been all right up to that point. I am sure that was Tau Henare’s point of order. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: It is just that I have to teach the Opposition how to do this. I have been in title debates many a time and I do not sit down after 2 minutes like the previous member who ran out of any sort of thoughts about how to debate the title. 
The word “Arrangements” is in the title because people want to be able to discuss arrangements. They may involve flexible working hours or they may involve flexible working days. They may involve all sorts of flexibility that the title seeks to actually describe by replacing the word “Hours” with “Arrangements”. I was just trying to illustrate—for the Opposition—that there is a need for a right in law which is why we are changing the employment relations legislation. Obviously we want to describe it in a way such that people will know they can discuss suitable arrangements for work taking into account the family obligations they have as caregivers for their children or for their adult parents or relatives who are disabled. 
So “Arrangements” can mean all sorts of things. They may in fact assist employers greatly to retain skills that would otherwise be lost from the workplace and from businesses. [ 
Interruption 
] Bob Clarkson agrees because he has been on our select committee and he knows the need for an employer to be able to sit down sensibly with a worker to discuss suitable arrangements that would keep that person in his or her job. That member knows from working in the construction industry how difficult it is to hold on to employees when there are other jobs elsewhere that might pay better. But people might stay in Bob Clarkson’s employment if they can in fact get flexible work arrangements. 
 So “Flexible Working Arrangements” is a very good description of this bill. That is why the select committee decided to change the original description which just narrowly described “Hours”. We want to give a clear indication to workers out there that they have the right to request changes to the original set of conditions and terms that were laid down in their agreements with their employers when they started out because their circumstances have changed. People’s circumstances change all the time in life sometimes expectedly and sometimes unexpectedly. 
I cannot imagine why any party in this House would be opposed to this title or to this bill or why any party would not like to alter the title. I am looking forward to Dr Wayne Mapp trying to explain why people should be afraid of this title and this bill which is purely enabling people to arrange things to suit their personal circumstances with their employers and giving them the right to request that their employers listen to those requests. What is scary about that? Why would anybody be afraid of that? It should not be something that anybody should fear. We will probably get a speech from the National side that this is communism. That is what one of those members said when we came to pass a law that dealt with the rights of workers to be paid for the jobs they do. This is just unbelievable! 
Paula Bennett 
: Is this about the title? Come on! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: There is another National member screeching in the back. She pretends that she knows something about employment. We have yet to see any knowledge come out of her mouth—only vitriol and stupidity. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 There is a fundamental reason why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill and it is contained right there in the title clause. The reason is that the title clause refers to “this Act”. Acts are things that are mandatory where State power is used to force people into arrangements they do not want. 
The members on the other side of course laugh about that—they laugh about it. They just love State power; that is why they are in the Labour Party. They want oppressive State power whenever they can get it. Their recourse of course on every little issue is in collaboration with the Green Party to introduce legislation. If something has to be done to give people the ability to talk to each other—that is what this bill is about—they do it with legislation. Well how about trust? What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with allowing employers and employees to voluntarily speak to each other? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Come back to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: If we did not have an Act that had mandatory State power all we would need is the ability for people to talk to each other on a freely negotiated basis. There would be no State coercion and State power and there would be absolutely no need for this kind of legislation. 
Our objection to this legislation is fundamentally because it imposes obligations by law and with sanctions. That does violence to the integrity of the employment contract which is a freely negotiated arrangement between employer and employee. You know in the modern marketplace there is actually a balance of power between the parties. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: But this Government and this Green Party think the solution—as is clearly set out in clause 1—is to have an Act. Acts are about forcing people to do things they would otherwise not do. That is the fundamental feature of any legislation. Acts force people to do things they would otherwise not do and they are required to do them only because they will face sanctions—fines penalties and other strictures. All of that means that Labour and the Green Party have to have an Act. And that really shows the fundamental difference between that side of the Chamber and this side of the Chamber does it not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Could I just remind the member that we are talking about a title of an Act. Please come back to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well the title of the Act is— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is all we are talking about. There is plenty of opportunity— 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —about arrangements that are forced on people by legislation. That is actually what the title is about. It is about forcing arrangements on people through mandatory legislation. I have to be as clear as possible on this. The title clause stated: “This Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Act” which sounded like a voluntary concept. But “Hours” has been changed to “Arrangements” and this is the kicker. It is State power and State coercion doing violence to freely negotiated arrangements between employer and employee in the modern employment environment. There actually is some level of equality of bargaining power in the modern contemporary workforce. 
You know we are not in sweatshops any more. We do not wear sackcloth any more. We are in the 21st century. We do not need this legislation. We do not need an Act. We do not need legislation that forces people into agreements they would otherwise not make. National is very clear on this. We tell people to voluntarily negotiate agreements. In truth that works virtually all of the time. We do not need an Act we do not need compulsion we do not need mandatory sanctions and we do not need these forced arrangements where employers have no choice but to agree to propositions put up by parties because if they do not agree there will be sanctions. Employers do not have the option to simply say no walk away and say it does not suit them. That is not a possibility because they are then forced into negotiation mediation and ultimately right through to the Employment Court. I see the promoter of the bill shaking her head against that but that is what is forced in this agreement. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I seek to speak briefly goaded by the previous speaker Wayne Mapp. First I would like to say that the reason that we have changed the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is so that we can accommodate people’s requests to change if they so wish the location as well as the hours and time of their work. That is the reason why we have sought to change the title of the bill and it is very simple. 
It is extraordinary that the previous speaker said this legislation is using State power to force people into an arrangement they do not want. This is arguably the most light-handed legislation to come before the House in recent years. All that it provides for is the right to request—the right to request—flexible working arrangements. And it is very fair legislation because not only does it give employees the right to make requests but it protects employers as well. Far from forcing employers to accept requests it gives them seven or eight grounds to decline them. 
The other point I would like to make briefly is that it is extraordinary that the National Party in New Zealand is opposing this most light-handed legislation when its equivalent party the Conservative Party in England is one of the leading proponents of flexible working arrangements legislation. The member Kate Wilkinson is shaking her head but I would like to quote briefly from David Cameron the leader of the Conservative Party in England— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: You are not speaking to the title. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Well I was just rebutting the comments from the previous speaker. I will quote from David Cameron later when we come to discuss the substance of the bill. But I say it is extraordinary that the Conservative Party in England embraces such legislation and sees it as a way a tool of modernising work places of helping families to balance the competing demands of paid work and families—that party is embracing such legislation—and the National Party here in New Zealand is opposing something as simple as the right to request flexible working arrangements. We have heard a lot from the National Party about how it is family-friendly and is supporting children yet it cannot even bring itself to support this bill. Really that is extraordinary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is plenty of opportunity to discuss the substance of the bill. At the moment we are trying to keep to a debate on the title. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. Tena tatou katoa i te Whare. 
Paula Bennett 
: Kia ora. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Kia ora Paula. I support the proposal to change the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. I would like to ask whether it is possible to backdate the bill to just before I went up to Alice Springs so that my working conditions and the location of my work could be moved from being in this House and I could continue with my parliamentary activities in Alice Springs. As an indigenous member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau I was doing my best to understand the needs of the indigenous people of the Northern Territory. I think that flexible working arrangements might also be a good idea to ensure that certain other members of this House can spend a lot more time at home and not bother us in this Chamber. 
Flexible working arrangements are something I myself have been very keen on in the last 20 years. Although I heard Mr Mapp talking about how they will mean death and destruction for businesses I know from experience that arrangements allowing people to work in a location that improves their productivity is good for the business. It has been good for business when freely negotiated with the employer and freely agreed upon by the employer. I know from experience that it works. 
I just want to say that flexible working arrangements are a step up from flexible working hours. They encourage people to give more to the businesses for which they work if they can see that the businesses are willing to give back. Whoever suggested that the title be changed from flexible working hours to flexible working arrangements must have been somebody incredibly intelligent. It must have been one of the two members here next to me Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia. It is a very good idea and will enhance the purpose of the bill. Thank you Madam Chair. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Speaking on the title of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill I think that some people have missed the point about the title and about what the amendment was about. Sue Kedgley has pointed it out but I want to repeat it. When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed this bill and discussed amending the title we realised that talking just about hours and days of work was not enough. If we are genuinely talking about flexible work then people need to have the right to request flexible work in other places. 
Many of us have grown up in the times when we were told that one day in our future life was going to be very different because technology would take over and we would all work shorter hours and we could work from home and so on. I am still waiting for that day. Certainly some of the more progressive employers that we see at the higher end of the market recognise that working from home is a productive way of accommodating flexible work needs for employees often after they have just had a baby and are still at home caring for the child or they have childcare responsibilities— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: After they’ve had 14 weeks’ paid parental leave. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Or when they have had 14 weeks’ paid parental leave which this Labour-led Government along with its partners introduced and the National Party opposed. 
Shane Jones 
: They don’t want parents to be assisted. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. 
We recognise also that there is a growing responsibility for our ageing population. Many many people are going to have to care for their older adults at home. I have just recently had that experience through my partner whose father was in hospital and his older mother at home. The responsibilities have fallen on my partner both for visiting his father in hospital and for having to take care of his older mother. He has a very good employer who allowed him to have flexible arrangements around his working hours— 
Paula Bennett 
: Is this about the title? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes absolutely—and flexible arrangements that allowed him to do his work from other places. The title is about that. 
The difference between arrangements and working hours is very significant. The select committee certainly took that on board in recommending that the word “Hours” in the phrase “Flexible Working Hours” be replaced with the word “Arrangements” because it is a more accurate description of what the bill is all about and what we are trying to do in introducing modernising legislation perhaps to catch up with some other countries and accepting that New Zealand has fallen a little bit further behind other countries in having legislation that enables the right to request flexible arrangements. 
The title is all about that right. It is about flexible working arrangements but it is also simply about the right to request them. I know we will get on to that in further debate on the substance of the bill. The title is absolutely about working arrangements working in other places being able to request different working hours and part-time or shift work and about being able to have genuine flexibility that meets an arrangement with employers. “Arrangements” is a modern word that is used in other employment legislation. It fits in with our current employment legislation which members would see if they took a look at collective arrangements and other things. As such I think the change in title is entirely appropriate. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The commencement date which is what clause 2 of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill deals with indicates some time for people to set themselves up to be able to comply with this new legislation. Those who look at the bill will see that the commencement date is 1 July 2008. That is a fair while away for anybody who is concerned about something being sprung on them all of a sudden. [ 
Interruption 
] Even David Bennett—who was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—will be able to read the bill between now and 1 July 2008. Apparently somewhere along the way he got a law degree. Therefore we suspect that even he will be able to understand this clause. The clause means that the Act would come into force on 1 July 2008. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Force? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yes that is right. That is how they write the laws nowadays. It may have been different in Bob’s time—when it was written in Old English. The reality is that when an Act gets voted on in Parliament—I say this just for the sake of the Opposition members—it comes into force. It is fairly standard wording which they would know if they had a look at bills before they came down here and made fools of themselves by showing to everybody their ignorance of how legislation is drafted. David Bennett might be able to explain it to Bob Clarkson because apparently he has a law degree. “Bob the Builder” does not have a law degree but even he knows that between now and 1 July 2008 there is ample time for people to prepare themselves for this momentous thing that will descend upon them as far as the National Party is concerned when a worker can go to his or her employer to say: “My old mum has had a stroke and I need to alter my working arrangements with you. Would you like to hear my request?”. Even employers like Bob Clarkson should be able to prepare themselves for a request from an employee who says: “I now have caregiver responsibilities at home for my old mum who has had a stroke. Would you like to discuss this matter with me because I have a very reasonable request to put in front of you as the employer? Would you care to listen to that request?”. 
Members on the benches on this side of the Chamber and on the benches in other parts of the Chamber think that is a good thing. They think that is a sensible thing for the law to allow. It is not onerous. It will not be sprung on people by surprise because this commencement clause states that employers will have until 1 July 2008 to prepare themselves for such requests. I do not seriously think that any member opposite who believes there should be flexible working arrangements would disagree with a time frame of that sort. It gives people plenty of time to get ready for it to read the bill— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Plenty of time to knuckle under to the coercion. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Oh the member says it is coercion. The National Party caucus must be a very strange place to work. Members must not be allowed to request anything of each other in case the person they were requesting it of had to make a decision. Of course we know that those members cannot make decisions or make up their minds. We know that at least the Tories over in the UK have the brains to figure this one out—this measure is family friendly. National members try to paint themselves as being family friendly and being all for family values. I am astounded that Gordon Copeland has given his vote to National members to vote against family-friendly legislation like this which will not come in until 1 July 2008. But he is on flexible working hours tonight! He has sent his proxy vote over to the National Party while he is off talking to the bishop— 
Hon Member 
: What’s going on? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: What is going on is that those members pretend they are for family values they pretend that they want families to be able to care for sick and elderly relatives and disabled children or children of any age basically— 
Paula Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Perhaps we could stick with the commencement clause as you have been quick to jump on this side when members have strayed from the place that we are up to in the bill and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. There was no call for the last remark. A lot of members on both sides in the debate on the first clause strayed and I tried to bring the debate back. The member will withdraw that last remark. 
Paula Bennett 
: I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. I remind the member who is speaking that this is a debate on the commencement date. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yes and that is why I am stressing that need for a lot of people to read the legislation before the commencement date. Some people can act quickly and some take a long time to come to grips with the law. That is why we amended this legislation because it used to state “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Now it states “1 July 2008.” That is for people who take a long time to get to grips with a law like this—like Ms Bennett over there who has not read the bill and who has not bothered to understand it but will get up and proclaim against it as being some terrible form of compulsion. We want to give those people as much time as we can. By 1 July 2008 they should have read the bill digested it understood it and realised that it is eminently sensible legislation which anybody in this country should be able to cope with by that date. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I think that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is critically important for families. I am sure that most political parties in this House totally support the right of families to have flexible working hours and if they do not then I think the question probably is why not? 
The date for the legislation to come into force is 1 July 2008. That really will give employers and employees time to familiarise themselves with the legislation and will enable employers to perhaps give considerable thought to how they might assist their employees to have flexible arrangements. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Close down. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: No I do not think that people need to close down because there are already employers who have been more than willing to have flexible arrangements. They have had increased productivity as a result of doing that and we support that. 
 One of the issues we want to raise tonight is the definition of a child whom one can take flexible working hours to care for. We support Minister Dyson’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 148 for that reason. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is in clause 6A. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: Sorry Madam Chairperson is that in clause 6A? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is in clause 6A. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: So I am not allowed to talk about that now? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. It is coming up; it is the major part of the debate. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: OK. Well I think the great thing about the legislation is that it promotes flexible working hours. I can speak about this issue because I was a young mother who had to go to work and I could not get flexible working hours. I know when I think back to having to leave my children and go to work that maybe they suffered because of the long hours I had to work as a young mother. 
But the commencement date is important I believe because of the change that has been made to the day the legislation will come into force. It will now be 1 July 2008. Thank you Madam Chairperson. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Clause 3 Purpose 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The purpose clause of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill gives a bit more meat to the debate than the previous two clauses we have been discussing. As members who have read the bill and understood it will have seen a significant change has been made in the purpose clause from what was originally quite a narrow group of people who would have been able to qualify. The replacement clause is the new majority clause and members will note that it is a majority clause because the National Party could not bring itself to support this very sensible proposition. 
The clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to insert a new Part 6AA into the principal Act to—(a) provide a statutory right to employees who meet specified criteria as to the period of their employment to request a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements because they provide care of certain persons; and (b) place certain duties on employers who receive those requests.” How could anybody oppose that? As the author of the bill Sue Kedgley said the clause is very light-handed. It will not bring down the world and it will not bring employers to their knees as the National Party likes to pretend. The clause provides for the right of employees to request of their employers a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements. 
I was sitting on a select committee the other day and I read some very interesting stuff from Business New Zealand about productivity in this country—the National Party should take note of it. Business New Zealand said that there is a greater need for part-time work and flexible working hours because they will assist an improvement in productivity. 
 Where is Dr Lockwood Smith when we need him in this debate? He has been going on and on about improving productivity for so long that I cannot remember when he was not talking about it. We had Business New Zealand in front of the select committee saying that we need to encourage the ability for more workers to have part-time hours and flexible working times. This bill will allow people to request that right from their employers. 
Anne Tolley 
: There is nothing stopping them now. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: If there was nothing stopping them—and we heard all about that during the something like 18 months the bill was with the select committee—we would have seen a massive change in employers’ approach to this bill. We offered them the chance by having an adjournment if you like on this bill of 1 whole year. 
We asked the employers who came along to the select committee and submitted whether they could show us the educational material they gave to their members of the Employers and Manufacturers Association showing them how to go about making a request because we had worker after worker and group after group coming and saying that it was extraordinarily difficult to get that simple request listened to. 
The evidence was from professional women and from workers in supermarkets factories and the many many industries that presented themselves but every one of them said that they had difficulty in getting their employers to consider their requests. They did not want a law change just for the sake of it; they wanted a law change because of their own personal experience. 
We had employers saying they wanted to improve productivity in New Zealand by encouraging flexibility of working arrangements and they asked for a voluntarist approach. We gave them a year and said: “Go ahead and do it. Show us your stuff.” but unfortunately they just did not bother. They just paid lip-service to the idea. As a result we have this very light-handed legislation that asks employers in New Zealand to please listen to the requests. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Certainly don’t say please! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: If it does not suit Bob Clarkson as an employer there are seven reasons why he can say no and legitimately say no. What is wrong with that? I ask what is wrong with that. Employees are given the right to request and employers are given a whole menu of reasons to say: “For this particular reason I am sorry but I cannot accede to your request.” And those employers would have obeyed the law. They would have listened to requests from people who after all have responsibilities in their family home to look after a child a sick relative a disabled person or an older person in need of care. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And people make those arrangements all the time. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: That shows us how heartless National members are. They do not even want to give a worker a right in law to make that request. They say: “Oh they have a right now.” Well I ask Dr Mapp how it is that so many people turned up to that select committee and said that that right did not exist in reality. The right might exist in some theoretical legislation that Dr Mapp would dream up but it ain’t in the reality of the workplace right now. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to set out in principle why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. In the 21st century everyone recognises that the modern workplace is dynamic and flexible. There are far fewer of the very large organisations run on very very hierarchical systems such as existed in the past when we had old-fashioned manufacturing systems that were very process-orientated. That is not the description of the modern world; it is not the description of the contemporary way of running a business. The Labour Party and the Green Party seem to be wedded to a 19th century approach to industrial relations—that the only way these sorts of things can be fixed up is to have legislation. What I have to say to the Government and what I have to say to Mr Gosche in particular—because he was really telling a fundamental mistruth before when he implied in short that employees do not have the right to ask—is that of course employees have the right to ask. People have the right as human beings to ask. That is what negotiation is about. You know it is more or less as if he had said that employees do not have the right to ask for a wage increase. That is frankly fatuous because of course people negotiate. That has been the case for quite some time and is increasingly the case in the modern flexible workforce. 
In the old days people felt they had to work for one employer for maybe 20 or 30 years. They felt somewhat locked in. That is not the contemporary experience. People change jobs much more frequently. Employers know that and they know they have to be competitive when they are negotiating with employees not just at the time of the initial contract but through the life of the contract. That is why in truth—and this was heard in the select committee because I was there and the evidence was clear—there are a great range of flexible arrangements freely negotiated between employer and employee. So when National says that we do not need the legislation we are saying that we do not need a set of rules that essentially end up with court involvement because if a person makes a request and the employer says that for one of these seven reasons it is not possible the next step is litigation. That is what we are against. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Mediation. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well actually the Employment Relations Authority does not have just a mediation role. 
I am not going to get up and say that this bill is going to be the great disaster of all time for the New Zealand workplace. Clearly people will cope with it. But it will be just one of those extra little points of legislation that crushes productivity in the New Zealand workforce and that is a crucially important point. One of the most serious challenges that New Zealand faces is declining productivity and we face it in context with Australia and the United States. Do members know that neither of those jurisdictions have this kind of legislation and both those jurisdictions are more prosperous than New Zealand? They have more effective working relationships they have higher incomes and New Zealanders are choosing to go—in particular to Australia. One of the fundamental differences why Australia and the United States have fundamentally faster growth rates than European countries—and this legislation is based on a European model—is that they have a lighter-handed regulatory approach to workplace law. That is simply a basic fact. It cannot be contested by members on the other side. They would have to argue against the actual facts and then do something we cannot do in this House which would be to tell a lie. I presume they do not want to tell a lie so they essentially avoid the truth and suggest that people cannot ask to have flexible working arrangements. But of course people can ask and if it does not work out they will make their own arrangements. Employers know that if they lose someone it might be damn difficult to get someone else so they are going to be in a dialogue. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The previous speaker was Wayne Mapp in case someone is listening at the moment. I think the last time Wayne Mapp took an interest in labour relations matters he had a bill before this House that said that any employer could sack any worker for any reason that employer liked without disclosing the reason why. Could anyone imagine what it would be like for a person in his or her first job to lose that job and not know why? What sort of future would a young person have finding that he or she was sacked totally unjustifiably and having no one to look after the situation? [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The point I am trying to make here is that there are many examples where people want a bit of flexibility but are nervous of asking for it. If Wayne Mapp was the Minister of Labour woe betide anyone who asked for flexibility within his or her first 3 months of employment. People who said they wanted flexibility would be down the road. The other thing is that if people waited until the 3 months were past and said they would like some flexibility now the employers would ask why they did not mention it before and why they were not able to have a conversation about it right at the start. Of course Wayne Mapp would not care about that because at the end of the day people would be able to be sacked for no reason whatsoever. So I do not think Dr Wayne Mapp is very credible on this issue at all. 
I am absolutely appalled that the National Party on women’s suffrage day is using the kinds of arguments that if they had been successful in 1893 would mean we still would not have the vote today. That is the stupidity of the arguments presented by the National Party. 
Let us say that those arguments had been used before the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1972. If the current members of the National Party had been responsible for that Act we would not have had it. They would have been able to stand up in the House and say that any woman had the legal right to ask for equal pay with the men she worked with and that would have been true—every woman had the legal right to ask for equal pay. Did women have equal pay? Did any of them ask for equal pay? No. Why did they not ask for equal pay? Because the request did not have to be considered at all. So we had to pass a law in this Parliament to bring about equal pay for exactly the same work. There used to be national awards—appropriately named—in this country that had one pay rate for men and one pay rate for women one for male clerks and one for female clerks. Richard Worth is nodding his head; he remembers the good old days. That is the way they like it over in the National Party—women knowing their place. What a surprise that that has not changed at all over on the National side of the Chamber! 
The law had to change in order to bring about a difference. But have we got equal pay today? The law says that we should have equal pay but have we? There is this stubborn pay gap of 12 percent and we know that in some areas it is actually far greater. Can anyone on that side of the Chamber explain to me why 5 years down the track after qualifying in exactly the same degree with exactly the same qualification and the same level of degree women are earning 20 percent less than their male counterparts in the legal profession? Law is one of the classic examples where women are paid on average much less overall than men. It is true in the accountancy profession as well. Guess what? These wonderful professions one of which I am a proud member—I am a lawyer myself—have also managed to develop gender segregation. Certain work within the law firms gets handed out to the women and certain work within the accountancy firms gets handed out to the women too. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. I have my tiki on so I would like to speak to the purpose of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Its purpose is really about the family and the family is a bit more extensive than the bill allows for so that is what the Maori Party would like to talk about. I see a new parliamentary party that is starting up has said it is going to be the first real voice for the family. That is really interesting because I think every party has the interests of the family at its heart deep down. We support the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s amendment to extend the coverage of the bill beyond young children under 5 years of age and disabled children up to 18 years of age and to cover other whanau members such as partners parents grandparents siblings and mokopuna. 
We are not just saying this; it is part of our culture. You see we have one word for “auntie” and it is the same word as that for “mum”. Whae whaea whaene koka—it is the same word. We have the same word for “cousin” that we have for “brother” and the same word for “cousin” that we have for “sister”. So our sisters are tuahine whether they are our first cousins or our real sisters. And the situation is similar for mokopuna. That is a reality of the way we live. I have several mokopuna who live with me. They are not all my own grandchildren but are my sister’s grandchildren and my grandchildren and that situation is not covered here. So not only do we support the widening of Minister Dyson’s amendment that extends the provision but we request that consideration be given to the Maori concept of whanau as well as broadening the provision generally. 
In terms of what Dr Mapp said about the bill we know about the 90-day wonder and that is the whole point. Sometimes we have to give security and support to people in situations the work situation in particular and that is why the bill is necessary. All it does is to give the opportunity for discussion to take place about more flexible arrangements. Accordingly it has to place some responsibility back on the employer. So the Maori Party at this stage certainly supports this bill. 
I would just like to quote from the report  
Puao-te-ata-tu 
 which was provided by an advisory group the ministerial advisory committee on a Maori perspective for the then Department of Social Welfare way back in 1988. We all know about John Rangihau who was the architect of that report: It states: “The Maori child is not to be viewed in isolation or even as part of nuclear family but as a member of a wider kin group or hapu community that has traditionally exercised responsibility for the child’s care and placement. The technique in the Committee’s opinion must be to reaffirm the hapu bonds”—that is the wider group—“and capitalise on the traditional strengths of the wider group.” 
So the customary preference for the children to be maintained within the context of the hapu is something that is of great value to the Maori Party. We are pleased to support the amendment that adds further flexibility to the flexibility already there in the bill. Kia ora. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call in relation to this part of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Most people including those in the National Party support the concept of flexibility and we appreciate that quality flexible work is important. We know there is a general consensus that flexible work is important to all New Zealanders not just to parents and not just to people with caring responsibilities. Quality flexible work is important for individuals organisations families and communities. But flexible working legislation such as this bill is an oxymoron. We support flexibility—of course we do—but employees already have an existing right under the provisions for good faith in the Employment Relations Act to ask for flexible working arrangements. This legislation is simply unnecessary. We value flexibility. We know that forward-looking businesses also value employees for the contribution they bring to the business not just for the hours they work. We value giving people choice about how they work if they deliver the same outputs because that is good for business. But what we do not agree with is legislation instead of education. 
The author of this bill is about to herald to us that the example to follow is the legislation in the United Kingdom. Comparisons I have to warn members although sometimes useful can also be misleading. If we look at the UK report we see there are significant differences and significant discrepancies. The official departmental report itself referred to methodological inconsistencies in the UK research stating that the results are not necessarily supported by research and that there was no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from. It further advised that the current set of labour market and economic and social conditions in New Zealand did not present a close enough match to any of the countries considered in the analysis for that country’s solution. So it is very dangerous to simply mimic the UK legislation and say it will work in New Zealand. 
In fact if we look at the UK report we will see some of the cautions in that report. It said that small firms may find it more difficult to accommodate some types of requests than larger firms in similar lines of work. It states: “It is possible that carers who are not covered by the legislation and whose employers do not open flexible working opportunities to other staff may resent employees that are entitled to make a request … This could lead to lower morale amongst these staff in the workplace.” This bill is limited in that respect. 
There is a compliance cost to employers. In the UK it has been estimated that on average it will take 2 hours of employee time and 3 hours of management time to process a request that is dealt with formally. At the moment it would take less than half that time to deal with a request informally under the provisions of good faith that already exist in our employment relations legislation. The proposal involves costs to businesses—implementation costs and procedural costs—and we will deal with those. These matters can go as far as the Supreme Court so it is not a light-handed measure it is not non-onerous and there are costs associated with accommodating such requests when they are accepted. 
Mr Gosche who is very very vocal talked about productivity. He talked about how flexible working arrangements such as these and strictly legislated flexible working arrangements will improve and enhance productivity. But he himself should read the UK report which said that overall only 44 percent of firms have experienced a net positive impact on productivity as a result of the flexible working arrangements that have been legislated for there. Fewer than half the firms have experienced a positive impact on productivity. 
We have had mention of Suffrage Day; we knew it would come up. It is a day that we do celebrate and one that we certainly should celebrate. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have listened to the debate thus far with interest. I have listened particularly to the National Party because as far as I can determine it is the only party in this House that is opposing the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. ACT which I thought would be opposing the legislation is working flexible hours already so clearly that party agrees with it. 
Kate Wilkinson made a point. She said that currently all employees have the right to ask for flexible working hours or something along those lines. That is true. I do not think anybody is arguing that it is not. But she is missing the whole point of the purpose clause. There is an obligation in the purpose clause for the employer to consider that request seriously. That is the whole guts of this bill. The employee can already make a request but under this bill the employer will have to consider it seriously. I compliment Sue Kedgley on being so amenable and so flexible on this bill. I have tried to work it out and I think just about every clause has been put under the microscope and has been either struck out and replaced or revamped in some way and Sue has taken it all on board. 
 That leads me to compliment the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of which I was a member on its determination and dedication to get the bill right. The purpose clause as introduced was totally unacceptable. It was too restrictive concerning whom it applied to—employees caring for children under 5 years and disabled children up to 18 years. It was bureaucratic insomuch as employers effectively could not refuse to change employees’ working hours or had very limited reasons for doing so. And it was very limited in whom it would apply to insomuch as the arrangement had to be permanent as I understand it. The select committee changed all that with Sue Kedgley’s agreement and dare I say blessing. That made the purpose clause much more acceptable. 
New Zealand First opposed the bill as introduced but we are big enough ugly enough and tough enough to say that the bill before us now has got it right. That is what National members should be doing. They should not sit over there and say that all employers are fair-minded people from the word go. In fact Wayne Mapp said the reverse. He said that far fewer employers were wedded to 19th century thinking. I think that is what he said and that implies that some employers would dismiss any informal request from an employee who wanted to look after a person who is ill—dismiss it without any regard at all. That is an admission by Wayne Mapp; I see he is nodding his head. The sole reason we need this bill is that some employers would deny such a request come what may. 
This bill is about the right of a person who looks after another person to request flexible working arrangements so that the person can do that. I cannot see anything wrong with that. Some employers have written to me and to my party implying almost that the world will come to an end if this bill is passed. That is not so. This is very dare I say it innocuous legislation. It fits into New Zealanders’ mainstream thinking. New Zealand is a compassionate country. It is a country filled with compassionate people. If there is anything sad about this bill it is that we have to produce it because some people are not as considerate and compassionate as they perhaps should be. Some people do not value their staff as they should. 
It is somewhat hypocritical of the National Party to oppose this bill because National members work under— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please withdraw that comment. 
PETER BROWN 
: I withdraw the comment. It is somewhat unusual for National members to oppose this bill because National members as we all do work under the Standing Orders of this House. We do not negotiate them; we sit around the table and agree to them. They allow the 48 National members to have 12 members away from the House at any one time for any reason whatsoever with no questions asked—unless the whip asks a question. Nobody else in the House can question where those members are. The National Party is allowed to have 12 members away and their votes still count. I want to prevail upon National members. I know many of them personally. I know Wayne Mapp; he has been here the same length of time as me. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: You have learnt a lot haven’t you? 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member. I ask the National Party to rethink its position. We are not bringing the world to an end with this bill. We are producing legislation that is fair-minded in the interests of firstly people who are looking after other people and secondly people who are being cared for. We are not making any great imposition on employers. We are giving employers until 1 July 2008 to come to terms with this. I think the National Party should rethink its position. I think this bill should go through this House supported by everybody here with perhaps the exception of ACT which is not present tonight and Gordon Copeland who is not present either. I know I should not say who is present and who is not but he is giving his vote by proxy. This is very reasonable legislation and New Zealand First supports it and supports the purpose clause. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 In speaking to the purpose clause of this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill I say there has been some incredible discussion here tonight particularly from the Opposition benches. It reminds me why it is really really important that we have parties in this House that understand the realities of the working lives of many New Zealanders. It is not all wonderful like the honourable Wayne Mapp would have us believe. 
As other people have said this legislation is very very light-handed stuff. It does not say that workers have a statutory right to demand flexible hours. It does not even say that they have the right to negotiate flexible hours. It says that they have the right to ask and that the employer must respond. I think Peter Brown made a very good point on the difference between this legislation and the right under the Employment Relations Act to be responded to with good faith. My question to Opposition members is that if they are saying we have current rights and if they are objecting to this bill on the basis that a case can allegedly go all the way to the Supreme Court how do they think the current rights under the Employment Relations Act are done? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Why do we need this? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well I would not be hiring Ms Wilkinson as a lawyer quite frankly. That could end up in the Employment Court as well. 
I thought it was really really interesting to hear Mr Mapp and I know he has never got over his 90-day bill— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Not interesting to hear Ms Fenton. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well no it was because— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Never interesting— 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No because that member does not understand the reality of the world. He really does not. He was saying that everyone has the right to negotiate. Well that is really nice; people have got the right to ask and they just have to up and say to the boss they would like a pay increase. Did that member not listen to the people from the Hospitality Association? They came along and said they are a very democratic organisation and if people want flexible hours and they say no those people go down the road. That is democracy and that is how it works for lots and lots of people. The fact is that there is a lot stopping people from asking for flexible working hours at the moment; if there was not then we would see it much more widespread than it currently is. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was certainly told by many many people that although some employers were responding many were not. There is very very uneven application of work-life balance after 5 or 10 years of talking about it and all the nice things that we hear and the various awards that employers get for showing that they recognise work-life balance in their employment. But it is often found in the big end of town—it is the lawyers it is the high-paid workers and so on. For example I do not know any cleaners in the country who have been able to ask their employer for flexible working hours and have been granted them. The cleaners in this workplace—Parliament—have to work at night and if they said to their boss: “Oh well my husband has to work during the day so I’d like to do the cleaning during the day.” do members think that under the current legislation they would have a prayer? I challenge the National members to stay up one night and talk to the cleaners about what life is really like for them and what it is like working for a contractor. I challenge them. 
Sue Moroney 
: The cleaners don’t deserve having to talk to the National Party. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is true. I think that the whole purpose and driving force behind this bill is the fact that we are working long hours. Wayne Mapp talked about productivity in Australia and the USA. I point out to him as I did in my second reading speech that Australia and the USA actually have working time regulation. They have it we do not and that is part of our problem. I certainly said that in my second reading speech and we need to do something about it. Those countries have working time regulation so that people who work more than 40 hours a week have to be paid overtime. That is even the case for people earning the minimum wage in the UK—if they work more than 40 hours a week they get paid overtime. That does not happen here and that is why people end up working very very long hours to make ends meet. They work very long and unsafe hours. 
This bill is being welcomed across the board apart from the National Party. I notice that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation is saying that many of its members in the nursing workforce have extensive family commitments that make working rigid rosters difficult and that that often deters them from re-entering the nursing profession once they have children. What we hear in this House day after day is whinging from the other side of the House about the lack of professional health workers and how we cannot attract them and so on. Here is an opportunity for the National members to show they understand. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.