Volume 659 Week 29 - Tuesday 17 November 2009 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 659 Week 29 - Tuesday 17 November 2009 
[Sitting date: 17 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7675. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 17 November 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Sue Bradford Green 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Susan Bradford resigning her seat in the House with effect at midnight on Friday 30 October 2009. 
List Member Vacancy 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 David James Clendon has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Susan Bradford. I understand that David Clendon is present and wishes to affirm. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right. 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to David Clendon who then took his seat in the House. 
Motions 
All Whites—Qualification for Football World Cup Finals 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating the All Whites on qualifying for the finals of the Football World Cup. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That the House congratulate the All Whites football team on its victory over Bahrain and its qualification for the 2010 Football World Cup finals in South Africa 
. Saturday night’s win by the All Whites was one of those rare sporting occasions that truly grip the nation. The largest football crowd in New Zealand’s history created a highly charged atmosphere that helped to get our team through an extremely tense match. Many thousands more Kiwis throughout the country and across the globe celebrated together when the final whistle blew. 
My congratulations go to coach Ricki Herbert a man who was in the All Whites team that played in the 1982 Football World Cup and who will proudly return to the tournament next year as coach of the All Whites. I congratulate captain Ryan Nelsen a man who led the defensive line superbly and brought his experience at the highest level of English football back to the turf of Wellington’s Westpac Stadium to lead this country. I congratulate goalscorer Rory Fallon who brought the nation to its feet when he leapt in the air and thumped a header into the back of the net. I congratulate goalkeeper Mark Paston who must have felt the weight of the country on his shoulders before he dived brilliantly to his right—it is always best when one goes to the right in my view—to save Bahrain’s penalty and keep the All Whites in front. I congratulate the entire team who ran themselves to a standstill and showed the kind of courage bravery and never-say-die attitude that New Zealanders love to see. 
Tragically I was not able to watch the match firsthand; I was at APEC in a meeting with amongst others Ron Kirk the US trade negotiator and the President of the Philippines. But I can report that at the time of the match I left my phone on vibrate. It was as if I had a pacemaker in my pocket. I looked down and there were 27 text messages all of which told me we had won. There was great celebration and I interrupted the meeting to tell them. I bring with me today the hearty congratulations of people from around the world. It was difficult being such a long way away from the event but people around the country have raised this victory with me and their sheer delight— 
Hon Member 
: Deloitte? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well Deloitte as well. I was pleased to be able to get a full report from Mr English who had been to the All Whites’ dressing room. 
As we share in the glow of this win the All Whites can look forward to competing against the world’s best in South Africa next year. We wish them all the best and we will be supporting them all the way. As we all know the Football World Cup is one of the biggest sporting events and New Zealand can be extremely proud that our team made it through the qualifying stage to take its place on the international stage. 
New Zealand is a country with the finest sporting traditions. Kiwis play hard but fair and we give it our all. I say to Ricki Herbert’s All Whites that we wish them well and thank them for their superb performance. They were great ambassadors for New Zealand on Saturday night and now they are true sporting heroes. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party I add our congratulations to the All Whites team its coach its management and New Zealand Football. Along with a number of my colleagues on this side of the House I was fortunate to be at the match at the Cake Tin on Saturday night. The record crowd of 35000 Kiwis dressed in white was a massive boost to the team that played on that night. I think the lads did us proud. I particularly acknowledge the goal scored by Rory Fallon—the winning goal—and the way that it brought the crowd to its feet but I also mention Mark Paston for the brilliant saving of the penalty goal that ensured our team will be on its way to the Football World Cup in South Africa. I acknowledge the work done by Ricki Herbert as the coach and mention in passing to the Prime Minister that Mr Herbert was an old boy of Papatoetoe High School along with David Shearer me and other notable people. 
On a serious note I think that the victory although it might have been a long time between drinks—it was 27 years in coming—will give a huge boost to the game in New Zealand. It will be a real inspiration to all of those young people who are thinking of taking up football as their sport and I note that it is the fastest-growing team sport in New Zealand. 
I wish the team well in its preparations for the Football World Cup in South Africa next year and I wish it every success. Adding to that I congratulate the national hockey team on winning the finals and also getting through to its world cup competition. I think those two teams make all of us here as New Zealanders proud of their efforts their determination their commitment and their skill. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 To some the football match against Bahrain on Saturday night was a matter of life and death. Actually it was much more important than that. Saturday night’s game was a Football World Cup qualifying game and in the world of sport it does not get any bigger than that. The record-size crowd that turned out to watch the spectacle had a sniff of something special in the air—history in the remaking. I offer the Green Party’s congratulations to Ricki Herbert Ryan Nelsen and all of the team and also to Bahrain for a fantastic contest. The All Whites played stunning football on Saturday night. They played with bravery and skill against their highly favoured opponents but they also played with spirit a spirit that never once doubted that they had it in themselves to win. 
That kind of spirit is infectious. It is the kind of spirit we all need: a playful optimism about all that is possible in life no matter what the odds. It is the kind of spirit that will capture our children’s imaginations too en masse. As the All Whites journey to South Africa to take on the great nations of football—Brazil Argentina Italy Germany and the others—Kiwi mums and dads had better get ready to be buying their kids some soccer boots this winter. 
I well remember the first time the All Whites made it to the World Cup; it is Movember and I am trying to emulate a style that was popular in 1982! Now we are there for a second time and that is something we can be profoundly proud of as a nation. As tonsils recover and life returns to normal we will not be forgetting in a hurry the magic that was there on Saturday night at the Cake Tin; or catching a glimpse of Rory Fallon’s header that Leo Bertos cross or that fantastic penalty save. We will know that this is the stuff of dreams only this was a dream that came true. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to stand and celebrate success in this House. I stand today on behalf of the ACT Party to join with other members of Parliament from all parties to recognise and celebrate the performance of the All Whites this past weekend and to congratulate them on their win over Bahrain. ACT as a party loves celebrating and recognising success in all its forms and today we express our admiration of and respect for the All Whites’ coach Ricki Herbert the technical staff and all others who contributed to this story. 
As we have already heard New Zealand last qualified for the Federation of International Football Associations World Cup final 27 years ago in 1982. Ricki Herbert was there then too but in a different capacity. This past Saturday night the All Whites entered the Wellington stadium carrying almost three decades of New Zealand’s hopes dreams and expectations on their shoulders and with the whole country behind them and much of the world watching they delivered. 
The current All Whites team is a bit different from the 1982 All Whites team in that the current one is a predominantly home-grown team and that helps enormously in terms of our national pride. So although a number of the All Whites do play professionally overseas this team delivered when their country needed them. As a Wellingtonian I am pleased and very proud to say that six of the All Whites team that won on Saturday night play for the Phoenix and as my children will attest to the Phoenix have done a huge amount to revitalise soccer as a game that will be as other members have said promoted heavily in the future. 
The ACT Party recognises the All Whites for their dedication and wishes them well for the Federation of International Football Associations World Cup finals in South Africa next year. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party joins with all other parties in recognising the outstanding success of the All Whites on Saturday night. As the 35000 crowd poured through the main entrance of Westpac Stadium on Saturday night they may not have noticed the traditional Taranaki designs incorporated at the front of the venue but if they looked closer it might well have given them hope knowing that victory would be within our reach. Central to the design is Rua Taranaki the mountain. Representing the challenge of reaching the pinnacle of achievement it symbolises to us the hurdles to be overcome by people as they strive to achieve their goals. At no time has this been more apparent than in this clincher match which qualified the All Whites for the 2010 Football World Cup finals in South Africa. 
This will be just the second time that the All Whites will appear at a finals tournament—the first since Spain in 1982. It is a wonderful reminder of whakawhanaungatanga. It should be noted that the champion of champions Ngati Porou striker Rory Fallon was born in 1982 and 1982 was also the year that Rory’s father Kevin helped to coach the All Whites through to the finals. We celebrate the role that families play in nurturing our champions the legacy of their talents being taken on and the vital support that whanau give in assisting our young in their training: the early-morning games the sports gear and the dedication that help to make a champion. At moments of great jubilation in our nation our unity is enhanced by the various connections we can make to the moment that binds us together. Tangata whenua have an overbrimming pride that a Maori boy kicked the ball to another Maori boy who scored the winning goal. And so we are full of aroha for Rory from Rangitukia and Tikitiki our Yorkshire Maori and for Leo Bertos our Maori Greek. 
This is a time when we all bask in the glory of our team who indeed reached the pinnacle of achievement for us all. We hope that with the stunning success of the All Whites our boys can come home and add to our international reputation as a nation of sporting prowess. Thank you. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I am happy to stand on behalf of United Future to complete this unanimity of support for the All Whites after their stunning performance on Saturday evening. It was an extraordinary occasion. It was a great privilege to be there to see this historic event. I have never been to a sports event where I have seen a crowd hang on every move as that crowd did right from that yellow card in the first few minutes through to the shot that hit the crossbar the brilliant save by the Bahraini keeper and finally the header that scored the goal then Mark Paston’s great save right the way through even to that last-gasp moment when it looked as though Bahrain might have scored only to have the referee rule it out. 
The crowd was with the New Zealand team every inch of the way. The real testament to the strength of that occasion was that unlike other sporting events of many types that have been played at that stadium when the full-time whistle went the crowd stood and applauded solidly for about 15 minutes the achievement of their heroes. I say that that was not just because of the result—and that was fantastic—but it was because of the way in which the All Whites played: the style they brought their unassuming commitment their dedication to the task their courage and their determination. When looking down on them we sometimes wondered how on earth they could get out of a situation but they always managed to do so. 
I believe that what they did on Saturday night was not only to secure their place in history not just secure their passage to the World Cup but also to put a marker in the ground for all New Zealand sports about how quality sport should be played and why quality sport attracts the level of support that it does. I believe that the entire team from Ricki Herbert through to Ryan Nelsen all of the players the management and Frank van Hattum from New Zealand Football should take a huge bow for what they were able to achieve. Now the challenge begins and it is to work with them and alongside them to make sure that they can do even better than their predecessors did in Barcelona all those years ago so that this team can win a game at the World Cup finals next year. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Iwi Leadership Group—Proposal 
1. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Will he table the proposal presented to him yesterday by the Iwi Leadership Group so that it can be open to parliamentary media and public scrutiny? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No. My discussions with the Iwi Leadership Group and the Maori Party are confidential in the same way that our discussions with the ACT Party and other parties in Parliament are done on a confidential basis. No agreement has been reached yet; an appropriate announcement will be made when it is. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why the secrecy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I hear the Leader of the Opposition criticising that. I understand that that was exactly the arrangement when the Green Party came to an agreement with Labour on its amendments to the emissions trading scheme. 
John Boscawen 
: Why will only iwi be compensated for their losses and not all forestry owners? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not the Government’s intention or the intention of the Maori Party to have specific amendments to the emissions trading scheme that would give any preferential right to Maori-owned or iwi-owned forests to anybody else. There is a very specific issue associated with Ngai Tahu and four other iwi that were involved in a Treaty settlement; there is a question over whether the Crown made available to them under the good-faith provisions of that agreement all the information. That is the issue the Maori Party has put on the agenda and this Government intends to constructively work with Ngai Tahu to try to find a solution to that problem. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware of any agreements between the Government and other parties involving carbon farming on Crown land? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The Department of Conservation is involved in forest management agreements with businesses that involve their planting trees on public lands and earning carbon credits. The Maori Party has raised with the Government the issue of iwi being involved in such partnerships. Given the huge role that it would play—and actually in one of the least-cost ways—in New Zealand’s contribution to climate change I think it is a good thing that the Government would work with iwi to plant trees on both Maori land and public land because I think there is potential for all to benefit. 
John Boscawen 
: Is the Minister prepared to tell the House what legal advice he has received regarding any additional compensation that may or may not be required? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. I have taken careful advice from Crown Law and have worked closely with my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. It is very important I make a point plain and it is this: Treaty settlements need to be full and final and Governments need to have the flexibility to respond to new issues like climate change without it reopening Treaty settlements but equally so this Government is committed to the integrity of Treaty settlements and if there has been misunderstanding about them it is proper that the Government seeks to resolve those issues—and not through the courts. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister tell the House what other amendments besides the Treaty clause that he has already signalled he will propose without parliamentary public or media scrutiny in his shambolic attempt to scrape together enough parliamentary support to pass his $110 billion taxpayer subsidy for polluters? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can assure the member that the number of amendments in our Supplementary Order Paper on the emissions trading scheme will be a fraction of the number of amendments that David Parker introduced to this House which were tabled in the morning and passed that night—a fraction of that number. I also say to the member that his claims about billions of dollars is Disneyland stuff and that the cost to New Zealanders of our modified emissions trading scheme will be less than the cost of Labour’s scheme because we do not want to impose on New Zealanders the large power price increases that that party opposite wants to impose. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In his negotiations with the Maori Party over the emissions trading scheme amendments has he been telling the Maori Party that the $110 billion estimate of the cost to the taxpayer in terms of increased debt of the Government by 2050 is wrong or right? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That number is a fantasyland number. Let me tell the member why. The member opposite wants to give great credence to what might occur in 2050. It is not rocket science that if in the assumptions one doubles the carbon price from $25 to $50 surprise surprise the cost goes up. I emphasise that members opposite want to impose huge costs on New Zealand households farmers and businesses and the Maori Party wisely does not want to cripple New Zealand industry in our efforts to do our fair share on climate change. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister stand by his previous railing against “pandering to Maori” and his statement that “The Treaty and race are irrelevant.” or do those views apply only when he is trying to pull together a shabby deal to get support for his $110 billion subsidy for polluters? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member very selectively quotes. If the member checked the record he would find that I was actually one of the Ministers—an Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—involved in the Ngai Tahu settlement along with Sir Douglas Graham. I am a member who is committed long-term to a process of full and final Treaty settlements and I am delighted that this Government is making damn sight more progress on that than members opposite ever did. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost of Changes 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he still stand by his comment that “I cannot see why the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about our emissions trading scheme” following the revelation from Treasury that the effect of his changes to the emissions trading scheme is to increase Government debt by $110 billion; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because I do not support that member’s view that the cost of the emissions trading scheme should simply be piled on Kiwi businesses and workers as a money-making scheme for the Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why has the Prime Minister suddenly decided that Treasury’s estimates of $110 billion are nonsense when he was quite prepared to accept the estimate from the same officials in Treasury that the cost of his proposals to the New Zealand taxpayer would be $50 billion; or does he accept Treasury advice only when it suits his own prejudices? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have been consistently of the view that Treasury’s numbers are fundamentally very difficult to predict. For a start Treasury cannot tell us what the deficit will be in December let alone what the price of carbon will be in 2050 or what the technological changes will be or what the international obligations will be. But I can say that on this side of the House we do not want to rip $110 billion out of the guts of Kiwi businesses and consumers and call it a profit which is what Labour is trying to do. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the consistency that the Prime Minister talks so proudly about the same consistency that led him a couple of years ago in this House to describe climate change as a hoax and 18 months later to say that he always believed in climate change? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If there are any changes in my position at least they take a few years—unlike the Leader of the Opposition. On Tuesday a couple of weeks ago he was saying that travel perks should be gone and by Thursday Trevor Mallard was at the airport. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I think the Prime Minister is on very thin ice—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is getting very untidy. I ask members to show respect. The Leader of the Opposition has been called to ask a supplementary question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What changes does the Prime Minister intend to make to the emissions trading scheme legislation now that he has been advised by his official advisers that the cost to the taxpayer will not be $50 billion but $110 billion or does he not care about the risk he is imposing on a future generation of New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let us just understand a few things. The difference between the Labour scheme and the one proposed by National which I am confident will be passed into law is this: members on that side of the House want to double the cost put on the New Zealand taxpayer. Members on that side of the House want to overcharge businesses and farmers to the tune of $110 billion. There is no more cost to the taxpayer. The difference is that members on that side of the House care so little about economic growth that they are prepared to gut the New Zealand economy to somehow feather their nest which by the way is completely different from what they were saying when they were in Government. They were saying that they would recycle all the money so there never was $110 billion. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why are ordinary New Zealand taxpayers meeting 84 percent of the cost of carbon emissions and the big polluting industries in agriculture meeting only 2 percent according to the analysis done by the  
New Zealand Herald 
; and how are polluters incentivised to stop polluting when the taxpayer is picking up the tab? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I will put to one side the factual inaccuracies in the question lodged by the Leader of the Opposition except to say— 
Hon Member 
: Blame the media. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: —and I am proud for them to have this on TV—that on this side of the House we care about jobs we care about keeping New Zealanders employed and we care about the country going forward. Members on that side of the House do not and that is why they are in Opposition and will be there for a very long time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Jeanette Fitzsimons. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called Jeanette Fitzsimons and I ask both sides of the House to come to order. I realise that members have passionately held views. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why does the Prime Minister think it is economically efficient to encourage future investment into carbon intensive and polluting industries rather than low-carbon clean industries by protecting industry from the cost of that carbon not just for its current emissions but also from the emissions of future plant it has not yet built? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The answer to that question is that firstly we are trying to send the right messages through the economy. That is the purpose of having an emissions trading scheme. Yes for the first couple of years there is a cap on the price of carbon but I think that is important in order to allow the economy to transition into a mechanism for pricing carbon. Secondly we are strongly in favour of trying to find scientific solutions. That is why we have the Primary Growth Partnership and have also around the world been promoting the idea of a global alliance. Thirdly where we have applied an intensity basis the reason is that we look at emissions on a global basis. If for instance Holcim Cement was to increase its manufacturing here in New Zealand but reduce its imports from overseas and do so on a less carbon intensive basis then that would be good not only for New Zealand but also for the planet. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice given to the select committee by its expert adviser Dr Suzi Kerr that the Government was proposing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per job in areas where jobs were not even at risk because of the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is he still relaxed about the emissions trading scheme that he is proposing when the figures suggest that what he is proposing will load on to each and every New Zealand family a debt of around $92000 based on the information provided by his official advisers in Treasury? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The answer to that question is no and the reason is that there is no basis to Treasury’s analysis. [ 
Interruption 
] I am prepared to bet quite sizable amounts of money that most of the people on that side of the House have not read Treasury’s analysis which I note for the record works on the assumption that we overtax the economy to the tune of $50 billion and we invest it and get $60 billion. According to Treasury that has no impact on the economy—but it is completely inconsistent with every other bit of advice that Treasury people tell us when they come into my office. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Are not many—[ 
Interruption 
]— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Jeanette Fitzsimons. Again I say to both sides of the House please show some courtesy to members at the back. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Are not many of those scientific solutions he says he is looking for to be found in technologies for low carbon production that are known now which other countries will be adopting and which will pass New Zealand by because we are providing no incentive for people here to invest in low carbon technologies? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I would not agree with that. I go back to the statements that I made earlier. If the member looks at things like the Primary Growth Partnership the global alliance or other areas where we are working on science and research and development solutions she will see that they are all aimed at trying to make sure we can develop technology. And where we can import technology from other countries and apply it we will. Ultimately when our industrial sector faces a carbon charge it will find the cost to be cheaper in some instances to adopt new techniques than to keep emitting. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that all forest owners in similar positions will be treated equally under the emissions trading scheme or in his desperation to get a deal from the Maori Party will he give special treatment to forest owners who have iwi affiliations contrary to the advice of the select committee that said there was no basis for doing so? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can confirm that everyone will be treated equally but I can also confirm that this Government is facing the same issue that by the way the previous Government did and that was a potential court case or an action through the Waitangi Tribunal from iwi who signed an agreement believing that they had full knowledge and may not have done so. The member knows that and if he wants me to point him to the advice he got I am more than happy to do so. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In respect of the lack of a price on carbon does the Prime Minister agree although he may say that it protects carbon intensive producers in New Zealand that it punishes those who are clean producers by not having a price on carbon and that it is those clean industries that are the future of the economy of New Zealand and that that is what we want to direct our economy towards? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If the member wants to vote with us on the emissions trading scheme the price of carbon will be in place in the middle of next year. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can the Prime Minister be relaxed about the process that was followed when his select committee chair tried to limit hearings to just 1 day when some submitters were given as little as 3 or 4 hours’ notice to present to the committee when Treasury described the process as inadequate and not commensurate with the significance of what was being proposed and when even his ACT ally described the process as bizarre and unacceptable? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Leader of the Opposition is right in that there is an urgency to pass the legislation. It is urgent for this reason: if we do not do it $400 million will be imposed on New Zealand consumers and businesses starting from 1 January 2010. That includes a 10 percent rise in power prices. On this side of the House we will halve the cost for consumers; on that side of the House members will double the cost for consumers. This is no different from their policies of the last 9 years. All they want to do is keep taxing people more. 
Exporters—Free-trade Agreements 
3.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What measures has the Government taken to assist New Zealand exporters? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 To assist New Zealand exporters the Government needs to reverse the policies of the last Government which encouraged consumption and too much borrowing at the expense of exports and investment. One way the Government is addressing these issues is through a number of free-trade agreements with Asian and Pacific economies that are doing relatively well. These agreements will open up the opportunities for our exporters. 
Craig Foss 
: What free-trade agreements has the Government negotiated as part of this programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In recent weeks the Government has signed a free-trade agreement with Malaysia concluded negotiations with Hong Kong and with the Gulf Cooperation Council and has made progress towards a free-trade deal with the United States through the trans-Pacific partnership of which New Zealand is a member. This follows the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement signed in February and the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement which was signed last year. Together these agreements could deliver many hundreds of millions of dollars of trade opportunities and most particularly thousands of jobs for New Zealanders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association that “The real economy will only continue to deteriorate while the dollar remains at these elevated levels.”; if so why does he insist he can do nothing when even the Reserve Bank is moving towards recognising and taking steps to solve the problem? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One of the reasons the real economy has been under pressure is the policies his party pursued when in Government which were reckless growth in Government spending far too much red tape and non-tradable inflation which represented a consistent tax on exporters. We have to undo all that damage. 
Craig Foss 
: What other steps has the Government taken to support New Zealand exporters? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In addition to the programme of free-trade agreements the Government yesterday announced an extra $200 million in trade guarantees to increase opportunities for exporters. The Export Credit Office has been in place for some time but because of the recession there is greatly increased demand from exporters who cannot get trade guarantees in the private sector but who need them to grow their businesses and keep New Zealanders in jobs as we emerge from the recession. The total guarantees offered through the Export Credit Office now amount to three-quarters of a billion dollars. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does it concern the Minister that the Sustainability Council has estimated that under his amended emissions trading scheme large industry will meet only 1 percent of the costs with the overall fiscal cost increasing by $110 billion according to his Treasury. Does he not think he is gambling away New Zealand’s clean green reputation along with the future of our kids? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. We are showing a much better understanding than his party of the balance between achieving desirable environmental outcomes and providing jobs for New Zealanders. I am surprised that Labour which used to represent working people does not seem to be concerned about jobs at all. 
Craig Foss 
: How do the measures announced around the Export Guarantee Office fit within the Government’s wider programme to lift New Zealand’s economic productivity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In general the economy can grow in the next 5 years only if we have less excessive consumption and borrowing—which has the been the pattern of the last 10 years—and more savings and investment in exports. The export credit guarantees provide opportunities for exporters who want to grow into new markets and who have trouble obtaining export credit but can provide more jobs. That is what this is all about. 
Accident Compensation—Role of Accident Compensation Corporation 
4.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his statement: “this Government is committed to the core concept of ACC being a 24/7 no-fault insurer for New Zealanders at work at play and on the road.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Despite the fact that this Government inherited the accident compensation scheme in a financial mess yes. The annual accounts signed by Maryan Street— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to resume his seat. If the member looks at the question he has just been asked he will see it was very simple. It did not ask why he stood by his statement; it just asked: “Does he stand by his statement …”. I do not think the House needs all that. Could the Minister answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The fact is yes but it is also true that the previous Government left this Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question did not ask why. If the member had wanted an explanation he could have asked why in his question. It is a question on notice. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: So we have to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. The question on notice simply asks the Minister: “Does he stand by his statement …”. I think the Minister has answered “Yes”. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister now agree that proposed increases in motorcycle levies are unfair and undermine the no-fault principle behind the accident compensation scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Accident compensation has long been established on different risk ratings for different groups. For instance in the work account there are over 400 distinct classifications. All employers do not pay the same but rather pay a different risk rating. In respect of the motor vehicle account it has long been the practice that there are different levies based on the different risk rating of different vehicles. The fact is that there has been a substantial increase in the number of motorcycle accidents and the pity is that for the 9 years of the last Labour Government the number of motorcycle accidents increased every year and Labour did nothing. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister regret exaggerating the accident compensation scheme’s woes and does he expect gratitude from motorcyclists when he puts up their levies by a lesser amount? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been no need to exaggerate the woes of the scheme because the numbers speak for themselves: a $2.4 billion loss in the annual report signed by Maryan Street and a $4.8 billion loss audited by the Auditor-General for the last year. I think— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Nobody believes that! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Goff says he does not believe it. I ask the member why Maryan Street signed the annual audited accounts saying the scheme lost $2.4 billion. 
Hon David Parker 
: Which other group will the Minister’s Government target next? For example has he dropped his plan to charge drivers of older cars higher levies than drivers of newer cars? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This Government has a very sensible plan to get the accident compensation scheme back to financial sustainability. That will have to involve some levy increases. It will also involve pulling back on some of the entitlements that the previous Government provided. I am confident with the changes this Government is advancing to the accident compensation scheme that we can make some savings and that the scale of the increases proposed by the Accident Compensation Corporation board will not need to be advanced. 
Child Welfare and Youth Justice—Whanau First 
5.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with American Humane in 2007 that the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 created world-renowned progressive social policy and the opportunity for system transformation in both child welfare and youth justice; if so why is she challenging the “whanau first” rule as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes we do have a good overall child welfare and youth justice system. However New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child homicide in the OECD. In the last year 75 children under 2 were assaulted and admitted to hospital. Almost 1800 children are re-abused within 6 months. The reasons are complex and contentious but that does not mean we will ignore those problems. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree that the child has a right to its family and that the whanau the family has the right to and the responsibility for its children and in the knowledge that children are also abused in placements with strangers why is she not compelling her department to go through the tribal authorities to identify suitable families to take care of their own? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I am doing is being very careful about making any assumptions about what is the best care for those children once they are placed with families. I have asked the department to go back to investigate what the results have been for those children. At the moment through the family group conference process whanau and families are heavily involved. I support that wholeheartedly. We should have the conversation to check that we are getting it right as much as we possibly can. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will this policy turnabout affect the whanau ora policy which is a flagship policy of this Government? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It will be taken into consideration in any changes that may be proposed but that is a long way down the track. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Long-term Fiscal Costs 
6.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Is he confident he is fully informed about the long-term fiscal costs of his changes to the emissions trading scheme; if so why? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. I have always said that figures out beyond a decade are very uncertain. For instance whether one chooses a carbon price of $25 $50 or $100 has an enormous impact on the numbers. I also believe that projections about what the international agreements might be in 10 or 20 years’ time and what the growth of industry might be have huge uncertainty which has always been acknowledged by Treasury. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why did Treasury fail to use up-to-date assumptions around the price of carbon when modelling the long-term fiscal costs of the Minister’s changes to the emissions trading scheme as was done with other climate change policy initiatives or is the figure that he originally included in his Cabinet paper just another example of his selective and manipulative use of different prices for carbon to justify whatever policy he is peddling on the day? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I assume members of the House would have sufficient common sense to work out that for costs based on a $25 price for carbon if $50 is put in instead the price will be double and if $100 is put in the price will be four times more. If members opposite cannot work that out for themselves heaven forbid that they ever appear again on the Treasury benches. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does he stand by his disparaging remarks about the evidence of Dr Christina Hood that he took his advice “from sources that are far more reliable.” given that it turns out that Dr Hood did a better job of modelling the costs of his changes to the emissions trading scheme than Treasury and that Treasury’s subsequent advice on the emissions trading scheme confirms Dr Hood’s original advice? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Quite the opposite. Anybody who thinks that Labour’s existing emissions trading scheme which is the most aggressive emissions trading scheme in the world in phasing out industry support at 8 percent per year— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister but he is simply not addressing the question I asked. I asked him whether he stood by criticisms he had made of a previous analyst and he launched into an attack on the existing emissions trading scheme. The matter is simply not being addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance on this. I invite Charles Chauvel to reflect on the questions he has been asking. They are absolutely marginal in terms of the Standing Orders but I have allowed them to go through. He has made unnecessary assertions about what the Government’s motives may or may not be. I allowed his questions to go through but for him to then seek my assistance to try to get a more precise answer is not on at all. If he wants precise answers he should get the assertions out of the questions and I will help him to get precise answers. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is very important to put on the record that all these numbers are being talked about on the assumption of the most aggressive emissions trading scheme proposed anywhere in the world. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That is rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite Mr Cunliffe says that that is not true. The reality is that the 8 percent phase-out rate—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite said that the 8 percent phase-out rate in their legislation was a figure they never expected to apply. The numbers are completely different if industry support is not phased out at 8 percent per year. 
Amy Adams 
: Has there been any change in Treasury’s estimates of costs of the emissions trading scheme for the first decade of the scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No there has not because it is possible in the first decade of the scheme to provide quite accurate data. Members opposite went out and said that the data were true. Despite the scrutiny of the select committee process the data were found to be the best possible estimate albeit—and I emphasise this again—there is significant uncertainty into the future around any costings of an emissions trading scheme when there are elements like a carbon price and the fact that the international framework around it is not yet resolved. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why does he continue to pursue harmonisation with Australia when that country has just announced that agriculture our highest-emitting sector will not be included in its emissions trading scheme and when more significant changes to the Australian scheme are possible? Does this not demonstrate one of the major failings of his harmonisation policy which is that it is all one-way in favour of the Australians? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That sort of silly trans-Tasman parochialism is underwhelming on an issue as important as climate change. If there is any issue on which New Zealand and Australia should work closely together it is the issue of climate change. I say to members opposite now that they want to somehow separate off from Australia that they are undermining the very real interests of the New Zealand economy and the future of our country. 
Accident Compensation—Claims for Motorcycle Accidents 
7.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: How many accident compensation claims have been made for motorcycle accidents in the last full year and how does this compare with a decade ago? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There were 5044 accident compensation claims for motorcycle accidents in 2008. This compares with 871 in 1998. This is an almost fivefold increase it is the single greatest increase in claims for accident compensation and it cannot be ignored. 
David Bennett 
: What data does the Minister have—noting the large increase in motorcycle accident claims—on the number of fatal accidents today and historically? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In 2008 46 motorcyclists or almost 1 motorcyclist per week were killed on New Zealand roads. This was the highest number in the last decade over which there had been a steady increase of 21 percent. I note that over the same period there had been a 27 percent decline in the overall road toll. 
David Bennett 
: Why is the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board proposing that the levies differentiate by motorcycle size? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been a significant social shift in motorcycle ownership in recent years. Ownership of small or 125cc-type bikes has declined and the number of injuries and fatalities amongst young people has been in decline. There has been a massive increase in large bikes owned by an older age group of riders. This is reflected in the accident data and in the costs of those accidents. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister persist in misrepresenting accident figures for motorcyclists by quoting the number of accidents rather than the rate of accidents per 10000 on-road motorcyclists? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Motorcycle numbers have increase by 60 percent over the last decade from 60000 to 97000 but that is insufficient to explain a fivefold increase in the number of accident compensation claims. To put it another way for the member in 1998 there was one claim per 69 bikes registered; last year there was one claim per 19 bikes registered. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that the section of an ACC report headed “Motorcycle Casualties and Crashes” states that crashes have decreased from 511 per 10000 on-road motorcycles in 1973 to 142 crashes per 10000 on-road motorcycles in 2008 a decrease of more than two-thirds? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is true that in the 1970s there were horrific numbers of both motorcycle and car accidents and it is also true that in terms of the number of car accidents we have consistently been able to improve road safety and reduce the road toll. But the fact is that over the last decade the number of motorcycle fatalities increased each and every single year that members opposite were in Government and they did nothing. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that in respect of the latest period—the difference between 2007 and 2008—the number of accidents per 10000 on-road motorcycles decreased from 152 per 10000 to 142 per 10000? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In 2006 there were 4265 accident compensation claims and 38 fatalities; last year there were 5044 claims and 46 fatalities. I say again that more people died in motorcycle accidents in 2008 than in any of the last 10 years and that should concern every member of this House. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table section 4 of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s own report which is headed “Motorcycle Casualties and Crashes”; it shows that the rate of motorcycle accidents has decreased quite markedly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave to table motorcycle accident statistics for 1998-2008 which list the number of claims made by motorcyclists and the number of fatal injuries over the last decade. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Local Government Minister—Management of Water Services 
8.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes when taken in context. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the 19 October Cabinet decision to endorse his proposal to “allow the new Auckland Council to determine”—from 2015—“the governance arrangements and asset ownership for the delivery of water services” still stand; if not when and how was this decision overturned? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Was he referring to the Cabinet’s 19 October decision to allow the new Auckland Council to privatise its water assets when he told ACT supporters that at Cabinet “you set the agenda” because “you turn up with your papers” and “they are too busy with their own stuff they’re not bothered” and was he disappointed when they woke up and decided to veto his plan to allow all local government water assets to be privatised? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I have never been disappointed in working with this Government getting on and doing the business and as that member quite rightly observed the Labour Government spent 9 years on it and did nothing. There are no plans to privatise water assets in Auckland. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he stand by his statement that privatisation of local government assets is a pretend debate in light of the Government’s decision to allow private ownership of water infrastructure for periods of up to 35 years? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me explain this one more time for that member: there are no proposals to privatise water in Auckland. The decision is simply this: to take what the Labour Government had in place for many years which was that one could enter a public-private partnership for 15 years and to shift it to 35 years to reflect the proper economic life of the asset. If this Government was privatising water what then was the Labour Government doing with its 15-years proposal? 
Health Care—Policy 
9.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better sooner and more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The Government inherited significant financial challenges but just as important we are dealing with a public health service that has some clinically vulnerable services. We have previously announced plans for shared board appointments to enhance cooperation and collaboration between neighbouring health boards in order to improve financial and more important clinical viability. Today the Government is announcing that from the beginning of next year Dr David Warburton currently the deputy chair of the Whanganui District Health Board will also serve on the MidCentral District Health Board; and that Mr Sunderland currently a member of the Midcentral District Health Board will also serve on the Whanganui District Health Board. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What other cross-board appointments is the Government making to deal with the substantial challenges that the Minister outlined? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The two district health boards in Wellington the Capital and Coast District Health Board and the Hutt Valley District Health Board also face significant challenges and they are highly dependent on each other. For example the Capital and Coast District Health Board does around 40 percent of elective surgery for Hutt Valley residents so both need to work well together to be successful. Mr Keith Hindle a member of the Hutt Valley District Health Board since 2003 has been appointed to the Capital and Coast District Health Board and Mrs Debbie Chin a Wellington resident and a former deputy director-general of health has been appointed as a member of the Hutt Valley District Health Board and a Crown monitor on the Capital and Coast District Health Board. The two appointees will work with the district health boards to accelerate collaboration. 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Timetable 
10.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements relating to the House timetable for the second reading and subsequent stages of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As the member will know the House timetable has always been subject to change. I note that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill was introduced on 13 May was reported back by the select committee on 4 September and had its Committee stage and third reading on 15 September. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell New Zealand that this bill had to be rushed through under urgency because the Minister of Local Government had to go overseas when it has been revealed that the timing of the Minister’s trip was organised around a personal engagement rather than any formal requirements to be overseas and does he believe that it was appropriate to put the House into urgency at a huge cost to taxpayers to facilitate a trip to suit a Minister’s girlfriend? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly it was important that the Minister was here when the bill was going through the House so that he could correct the misleading statements that the Opposition so often puts up. Secondly the member will know that the Minister had a very busy time when he was overseas but one thing I can confirm is that he was not at Twickenham watching football matches. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did Mr Hide tell the Prime Minister about whether any of his meetings in London Portland Toronto and Los Angeles were time-sensitive including his trip to a Los Angeles theme park or was the timing of his girlfriend’s family wedding the only reason the trip was undertaken at that time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The Minister told me in writing that he had a vast array of meetings that were pertinent to his portfolio. I can tell the member that I have read the Minister’s report and it was extremely thorough. I can absolutely confirm that I was not aware that he was going to any football matches unlike members on the other side of the House. He did not go to any as far as I am aware. 
Hon Annette King 
: Which statement is correct: the statement by Rodney Hide who said “I didn’t go into this trip lightly. I thought long and hard about it and knew I would have to justify it.” or the Prime Minister’s comments that Mr Hide’s going at the same time as a family wedding was simply “a happy coincidence” and that Mr Hide did not have enough time to plan such a thing? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Both of them are. 
Methamphetamine—Police Operations 
11.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Have there been any successful operations recently in the fight by this Government against the scourge of methamphetamine? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes I am very pleased to advise that Operation Rapid a joint operation between the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Customs Service last week resulted in the interception of a shipment of methamphetamine worth up to $6 million on the street. That interception sends a strong signal to crime bosses who want to bring drugs into New Zealand that we will be working very hard to put them out of business. 
Chester Borrows 
: What effect would those drugs have had on our communities if it were not for the determined efforts of those two agencies the Police and the Customs Service and their working so successfully together? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The effect on our community would have been devastating. Not only does methamphetamine ruin the lives of those who use it and their families but also there are many disturbing downstream effects which include identity theft corruption violence and drug-related property crime. The methamphetamine trade also pumps millions of dollars into the pockets of organised crime. Police expect that this seizure and the subsequent arrests will have a major impact on the supply of P across New Zealand. 
International Non-aggression Measures—Government Support 
12.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does the Government plan to support the incorporation of aggression as a justiciable crime in the International Criminal Court as envisaged in article 5 of the 1998 Rome Statute at the review conference of the States parties in Kampala next May; if not why not? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 New Zealand has been participating in negotiations among the affected parties on this matter. These are ongoing with further discussions to be held during the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court taking place in The Hague over the coming week. Before the 2010 review conference in Kampala the Government will review progress in order to decide on a negotiating mandate for the delegation. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In light of that half-hearted indication of intent to support— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member will sit down. Although I do not insist on members starting a question with a question word to make an allegation like that is simply totally unacceptable. The member will start his supplementary question again. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. In light of the Minister’s response which indicates a tentative intent to support the crime of aggression being a justiciable crime will the Minister confirm that the policy he envisages will be consistent with the Prime Minister’s statement to the United Nations in September that “It is a fundamental tenet of our domestic legal systems that wrong doers must be brought to justice. The ICC is the mechanism for applying that same principle to persons accused of the most serious international crimes.”? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: It might assist the member if I was to explain that I understand that in the negotiations I referred to good progress has been made in dealing with the question of a definition of “aggression” as a justiciable crime but not such good progress in dealing with the interface between the work of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council. That is where those discussions are centring at the moment. With regard to the latter part of the question the Government always acts to give effect to the Prime Minister’s wise words. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does the Minister in light of the policy that his colleague the Minister of Defence indicated during his speech on the first reading of the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill in September believe that the concept of responsibility to protect cited by the Minister of Defence as the reason to oppose aggression being a criminal offence—at least in domestic law—allows all permanent members of the Security Council including Russia and China to use force when the Security Council is paralysed by a veto? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am not familiar with that tract of the speech from the Minister of Defence; I normally would have read it slavishly which I am pleased to see that member has done. I undertake to rectify that matter immediately after I leave the Chamber. What I will say in relation to the responsibility to protect is that it is a concept that the Government does support. We have been engaged in discussions in various agencies and forums about how we might advance that concept and I am interested to hear of any comments or contributions that that member and others would wish to make in that respect. 
Questions to Members 
Healthy Food Guidelines—Petition 
1.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Has the Education and Science Committee received the petition of Sue Kedgley and the 15683 New Zealanders who have asked for the reinstatement of healthy food guidelines? 
ALLAN PEACHEY (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee): 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did he agree to hear submissions on this petition but refuse to give the same consideration to the 15808 signatories of the pay equity petition? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With questions to members supplementary questions must relate very specifically to the primary question. The member has just asked about a totally different issue. I will give her a chance to ask another supplementary question should she wish but I must warn her that the supplementary questions available on this question are very limited. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did he agree to hear submissions on this petition which had fewer signatories than another petition that he did not wish to hear submissions on? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see how that supplementary question is in order at all. I do not see how that is a decision of the chairperson at all. I am afraid I must ask the member to go on to question to member No. 2. 
Healthy Food Guidelines—Petition 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Has the committee scheduled hearings for Sue Kedgley’s petition of 15683 New Zealanders who have asked to reinstate healthy food guidelines? 
ALLAN PEACHEY (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee): 
 As this petition is still before the committee for consideration all matters relating to it are confidential committee proceedings at this stage. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why does he want to hear about healthy food guidelines but not about fair pay for school support staff and others? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That concludes questions for oral answer. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. This goes to the heart of our democratic processes within this Parliament. I am seeking an answer from representatives of the Government about why they shut down the voice of nearly 16000— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat immediately. She cannot use a point of order to litigate that kind of issue. She sought to ask under the Standing Orders a question of the chair of a committee. The Standing Orders provide very limited bounds around supplementary questions that can be asked in such circumstances. The information the member sought to elicit by way of a supplementary question was not within the Standing Orders provisions. If the member wishes to get that information she should put down a question to a Minister but while the matter is still under the consideration of the committee it is hard to imagine an appropriate question to the chair of the committee. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from me to the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee asking for an official response to a petition on pay equity from me and 15808 other people because the select committee has yet to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee that the committee finally report to the House on or before 17 March 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during the evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Tatou o NgaWairiki o Mangaw’ero o W’angaehu o Turakina. Tatou o Ngati Apa tena koutou i roto i tenei rangi w’akahirahira mo nga hapu. Kua roa nei te wa kia tae tatou ki tenei rangi. e tokomaha o nga tupuna i matemate ai i te pakanga mo nga whenua me nga taonga katoa. Kaore e kore kei te matakitaki ratou i nga w’akaritenga i tu nei ki mua i te aroaro o te hunga. No reira ratou ki a ratou tatou ki a tatou tena koutou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to us of NgaWairiki Mangaw’ero W’angaehu Turakina and indeed us of NgatiApa on this great day for the subtribes. It has taken us such a long time to arrive at this day. Many ancestors have passed on in the battle for the lands and all the resources. Without a doubt they are looking down at the settlements before the assembled. And so let them rest there as we celebrate here. Greetings to you all 
.] 
One hundred and ten years ago in November 1899 over 200 members of Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa met with the Premier Richard Seddon at Tini Waitara Marae. At that time at that meeting the people shared their concerns fearing that our fishing rights would cease if our fisheries were drained by the settlers. 
They asked for the remaining lakes and swamps to be reserved noting the impacts of the Europeans who were felling their forests. They described their lands as fertile as valuable and as yielding considerable taxes and profits to the Government. They spoke directly to the Premier impressing on him the urgency of passing law to restrict any more lands from being sold mortgaged partitioned fragmented or seized for debt. But the korero drifted into the wind ignored left to linger. 
This bill takes us back in time to the Crown’s purchase in 1849 of the 260000 acres of the Rangitikei-Turakina Block. It refers also to the subsequent failure to adequately protect approximately 35000 acres of reserve set aside from this transaction. This bill is a direct response to the operation and impact of the native land laws. These laws contributed to the erosion of traditional tribal structures and resulted in the gradual alienation of nearly all our remaining lands. Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa became virtually landless owning less than 1 percent of our traditional rohe—our lands alienated our people disenfranchised. 
Today is a chance to right the wrong to find our way forward. Despite the fragility of relationships between tangata whenua and the Crown and tangata whenua and others what settlements do is to refocus the tribe on its future. Knowing our history is crucial to our future. We must face our past front-on not putting it aside nor denying it but seeing it as a pathway into the future. 
We should never be afraid to speak of our past for our foundations as whanau hapu and iwi are the very essence of who we are. Our stories provide a context for the lives our people live today. It helps us to understand the full value of the battles our tupuna fought to help shape our journey onwards. The long road to justice was walked by my uncles Tokouru and Matiu Ratana before me and by my aunt Iriaka Ratana all of whom have served as members of Parliament. Like me they came here because they sought a greater future for the generations to come. 
As a child I heard the stories of my dad about the occupation of our lands. I knew the pain associated with the loss of names of our hapu the sadness as our marae fell into disrepair and we lacked resources to restore them. Such was our loss that almost all of our generation today no longer can speak te reo. 
In the 1970s the people rose up making a personal commitment to restore our marae to be a place to gather again as Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa. But the impacts of the loss our people suffered were really deeply felt. The journey in making progress towards settling our claims has been arduous but from the sorrow has emerged the strength of will and the firm resolve that we can fulfil the aspirations of all those who have passed before us. 
I think then of all those who have gone before us. I know that my Dad my tupuna my aunties are watching over us with a strong sense of pride that it has been our young people who have advanced the settlement with dignity with integrity and with purpose. To all those who have worked tirelessly to get us here today I thank you. 
I want to mihi to the leadership of our more recent generations including the members of the negotiation team. Their dedication and determination on behalf of Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa has been vital in the path towards achieving settlement. This has been a unique aspect of settlement: the leadership of our young people. I acknowledge them today for investing in a better future for their generation and for those to come. 
The settlement represents their commitment to a constructive relationship with the Crown to restore some of the balance of what was lost. It comprises an agreed historical account Crown acknowledgments and an apology. It includes commercial and financial redress totalling $16 million and a right to purchase approximately 6500 hectares of Crown forest licensed land and other Crown-owned properties and assets. 
One of the most exciting aspects is the cultural redress package designed around the aspirations of Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa. This settlement focuses on cultural revitalisation and cultural reconnection including the gifting of five papakainga properties and provision of resources to implement a strategy for the revitalisation of our tikanga. There is funding also to compile a comprehensive historical record and cultural reconnection in respect of the transfer of 12 sites of significance. This bill represents the hope the opportunity to build social and cultural capital placing it in equal importance with economic growth and development. It crystallises the ambition of Te Runanga o Ngati Apa to reach out to other Ministers and departments to extend right across the sectors for our long-term restoration. 
A novel feature of the agreement is the opportunity to develop protocols with the Minister of Conservation the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister for the Environment. I acknowledge the leadership of the Ministers who have been involved in this settlement: the Hon Chris Finlayson and before him the Hon Parekura Horomia the Hon Mita Ririnui and the Hon Mark Burton. 
This bill is an important marker in the restoration of our lands stretching from Motu Karaka south to Omarupako and inland to the upper Rangitikei. It provides us with the means to re-establish papakainga throughout our rohe; to prepare a cultural redevelopment plan; and to restore to ourselves our knowledge of our rivers lakes forests and wetlands our wahi tapu and our cultural and intellectual property. Most of all it provides us with a vehicle to grow our capital assets while at the same time re-establishing our iwi for the new millennium. I therefore consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Otira kei te Kaihautu he wahi tuatahi maku he tuku whakamoemiti whakawhetai ki te wahi ngaro mo ana manaakitanga i a tatou i nga ra ki muri tae noa mai ki te haora o tenei ahiahi. I runga ano i te tumanako ka tu tonu ana manaakitanga i runga i a tatou i te roa atu o tenei ra me nga ra katoa kei mua i a tatou. Tuku atu enei ki te wahi ngaro i te ingoa kaha o te Matua o te Tama o te Wairua Tapu ana karere nga Anahera Pono te Kahui Ariki Wairua a Arepa Omeka Piri Wiri Tua me Hamuera. Mana ano hoki e tautoko mai ai enei e awhina ae? 
Otira Ngati Apa ka roa koutou e hikoi ana i te huarahi mai ra i nga marae katoa o te hau kainga huri rauna i te motu a tae a-tinana mai ki te Whare o nga Raiona. Hai aha? He kawe mai i te aroha me nga moemoea o ratou kua ngaro a-tinana atu. Na runga i tenei ka mihi kau atu nei ki a koutou mo te maia mo te kaha a mo te maramatanga kei waenganui i a koutou. Me te mihi ano ra ki ta koutou pononga e noho nei i roto i tenei Whare ta koutou mema ta koutou Minita. E tika ana mana e panuihia tenei kaupapa ki te Whare otira ki te motu katoa kia marama ai ko te whaea rangatira kua tu mai i roto i te Whare nei no roto ra i a koutou. No reira na runga i tena Ngati Apa koutou nga kuia koroua tatu iho nei ki o koutou mangai korero te hunga rangatahi tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Indeed the first thing for me Mr Assistant Speaker is to give praise and thanks to the place of the hidden and for His care over us in days gone by right up to the hour this afternoon. The hope is that He continues to protect us for the remainder of the day and in the days ahead of us. These praises and thanks are given in the name of the Father the Son the Holy Spirit His Faithful Angels and Arepa Omeka Piri Wiri Tua and Hamuera. He Jehovah will indeed support and assist these yes? 
Ngati 
 Apa you have been on the road a long time. You have come all the way from your marae at home from around the country and at last here you are in person in the lions’ den the House of Parliament. Why? To bring the love and dreams of those ones who have since passed away. It is because of this that I acknowledge you for valour fortitude and the understanding within you. I also acknowledge your member and Minister who represents you in this House. How fitting it is that she should move the reading of this for the first time in the House and to the country as a whole to make it clear that the honourable member is truly one of your own. And on that Ngati Apa I acknowledge you the elderly women and menfolk right down to your spokespersons the younger generation greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all 
.]  
I do not normally begin speeches in this House in the manner that I have but this is indeed a huge occasion for Ngati Apa given the journey they have been on for a very very long time. Rightly so the Hon Tariana Turia the local member for Te Tai Hauauru who is a wahine of Ngati Apa descent and also a Minister in this House has taken the responsibility of speaking in the first reading of the Ngati Apa settlement bill this afternoon. That is very appropriate. Although it was a very emotional time for her I have to say that from the perspective of members on this side of the House and for me and my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia listening to that speech was also a very emotional time. But the Minister left a lot out and rightly so. She left out a lot because others should be speaking about what happened to Ngati Apa during those early years. 
Ministers usually categorise the nature of a settlement package. The Minister did not go into much detail today; the reason was I think that she would have found it even more difficult to touch on many of the aspects of the negotiations and of the particular components included in the settlement package. Like the Minister I also acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I acknowledge that he did a very very noble thing in handing that responsibility over to Minister Tariana Turia. 
I also acknowledge Minister Finlayson’s predecessors the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Hon Mark Burton and I acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomia and the many others who took part in the negotiations and the process leading up to the signing of the deed of settlement on the Ngati Apa Marae up the Whangaehu River in 2008. That was also a very emotional time not only for the Ngati Apa people the kaumatua and kuia but also for those Crown representatives who were there that day. 
I have to acknowledge at this point in time that this settlement was not carried out like many other settlements. This settlement was conducted by young people—very young people. Those of us who had been involved in the Treaty settlements process for a number of years even before coming to Parliament have had to acknowledge that this was different this was new. Unlike many of the settlements that we had been involved with in the past this settlement seemed to be much easier. The reason is that those young people came with a new attitude. They came with the understanding that the Treaty of Waitangi is not about grievances and it is not about breaches. For them this particular process of the Treaty of Waitangi promotion and development has been about settling the grievances of the past putting the grievance behind them settling the issues and allowing Ngati Apa and all its whanau to move on. Certainly they spoke about that right throughout the negotiations process. 
The history is interesting as alluded to—though “alluded” is probably not the right word—by the Minister who spoke before me when she spoke about Ngati Apa’s intentions when they entered into negotiations during the late 1800s. Ngati Apa entered into a process which basically began with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi for a simple purpose: they encouraged settlement but at the same time they wanted to be recipients. They wanted to be in the position where they could benefit from much of the technology brought here by the settlers. So they entered into many discussions with Crown agents many of whom are mentioned in the preamble to this bill. Certainly they are mentioned in the historical account. 
But that did not happen. In fact Ngati Apa went through a process of being subjected to land confiscation and land acquisition to the point as the Minister mentioned in her speech where they were left with simply 1 percent of their original land holding. For them that had a tremendous impact as the Minister said. It led to the undermining of their culture the loss of their language and the fragmentation of whanau hapu and iwi to the extent that they did not participate in the development of the Rangitikei area. In fact they were what we might call onlookers. The development of that area was undertaken at their expense and they at no time were able to participate in it. We can understand why the Minister gets very emotional when she speaks about the impact on her people. That is not new just to Ngati Apa and to the Rangitikei area; it is also something that many iwi experienced through the 1800s particularly when it came to issues around the dispossession of land and assets. 
So it is incredible that the young people of Ngati Apa could bring this settlement to the House without too many problems and I can say that what problems they did have were handled very well. They spoke to their neighbouring iwi and there were iwi who had shared interests with regard to much of the areas that are identified in the settlement package. That is very important because we have not always done that to an adequate level. I come from an area where that happened; it has happened a few times. I congratulate those young people. I could go through their names and mention them in the House one by one but instead I will acknowledge the chief negotiator Andre Rurawhe who was inspired by his mum I would say and who was left a very proud legacy from his tupuna. He was referred to by the Minister in her speech. The role of those young people was to get the deal done and they have done a very good job of that. 
From here on it is basically about where Ngati Apa wish to go in the future. We have now entered the final stages of the settlement of their historical grievance and we could say that from here on Ngati Apa will develop in many many ways in terms of providing services to their local communities whether those services be in health education housing or social services—you name it. But they are already there and they have been there for a very long time. This settlement will allow them to move forward on all those initiatives they have undertaken over a number of years without the baggage of grievance. This taniwha called the baggage of grievance is a very very difficult thing to describe because although it is invisible and has no being it has a huge impact on the people who are affected by it. I am sure that many members in this House will understand what I am referring to without my having to go into too much detail. Ngati Apa have a plan. They have had it in place for some time and it will mean that this settlement will allow them to proceed forward without the baggage that has been hanging around for quite some time and the grievance that they can well do without. 
I acknowledge their tupuna the founder of the Ratana Church and movement who went on a world tour in 1922 in the hope of having a meeting with the king. As we were told there were influences here in this House who prevented that from happening. So he never got his hearing but that did not prevent him from travelling the world and certainly the length and breadth of this country to talk about a way forward. That way forward is something that we have seen here today. Ngati Apa can be very proud that they are part of that incredible legacy which has taken not only them but also all of us as Maori into the future. I have to be honest; I am in this House only because of that mirimiri otherwise I would probably be somewhere else—probably fishing. 
I have no more to say except that I congratulate the Minister and I congratulate the Hon Tariana Turia. I acknowledge the presence in the House today of her iwi her hapu and her whanau and I wish them all the best in the future. Kia ora. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
:  
Ngati Apa rohe Ngati Apa tangata nga kanohi o te maunga tupunai a ParaeKaratu nga uri o nga hapu o nga wai rongonui mai i Rangitikei ki NgaWairiki rau rangatira ma tenei te mihi atu ki a koutou i tenei ra nui ra tino whakahirahira. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
I tenei wa e whakaaro ano mo te hunga kua mene atu ki te po. E nga mate moe mai moe mai moe mai ra. 
[ 
To the region and people of Ngati Apa to the representatives of the ancestral mountain ParaeKaratu descendants of the subtribes of the renowned waters from Rangitikei to NgaWairiki and indeed to the many chiefs I acknowledge you on this great day of real significance. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. 
My thoughts at this moment are with those who have passed away. Rest sleep and slumber on. 
] 
I welcome Ngati Apa representatives who have joined us today for this historic occasion. Just in case some of them were wondering why I had sloped off out of the House instead of listening to the speech of my parliamentary friend and colleague Tariana Turia I say that I did so because an odd rule of this place requires that the Minister in charge of the bill cannot be present in the House in those circumstances. That is why I had to listen to her speech in the lobby—but I was certainly listening. 
The grievances of Ngati Apa in the North Island are significant and longstanding. The Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill recognises and addresses those grievances. The bill settles all of the historic Treaty of Waitangi claims of North Island Ngati Apa. The iwi’s area of interest extends from the north of Foxton up to the south of Wanganui and runs east from the coast up past Hunterville. The historical grievances of the iwi relate primarily to the Crown’s purchase in 1849 of the 260000-acre Rangitikei-Turakina block including the subsequent failure to adequately protect approximately 35000 acres of reserve land set aside from this transaction. Their claims also relate to the operation and impact of native land laws which contributed to the erosion of traditional tribal structures and resulted in the gradual alienation of nearly all remaining North Island Ngati Apa land. 
Ngati Apa have travelled a long road to have their claims addressed by the Crown. The Crown recognised the mandate of Te Runanga o Ngati Apa in November 2004 and negotiations on the settlement package began with the signing of the terms of negotiation in July 2005. An agreement in principle was signed on 12 July 2007 followed by an initial deed of settlement in September 2008. During September and October last year Te Runanga o Ngati Apa undertook a ratification process for the deed of settlement and proposed a post-governance entity. Thirty-five percent of the registered adult members of North Island Ngati Apa voted on the deed of settlement and proposed governance arrangements. Of those 97 percent voted in favour of accepting both the deed of settlement and the proposed governance arrangements. The Crown and North Island Ngati Apa subsequently signed a deed of settlement on 8 October 2008. I want to acknowledge the efforts of previous Ministers including the previous speaker Mita Ririnui in getting to that very happy state. 
Settling the North Island Ngati Apa claims is an important further step in this country’s progress towards settling all historical Treaty claims. The bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown on the deed of settlement and includes an agreed historical account Crown acknowledgments and apology commercial and financial redress totalling $16 million and a right to purchase approximately 6500 hectares of Crown forest licensed land and certain other Crown-owned properties and assets. It also includes a cultural redress package designed around the aspirations of North Island Ngati Apa as articulated by Te Runanga o Ngati Apa during negotiations. It focuses on cultural revitalisation and cultural reconnection. 
Key components of the package are unique to the settlement and include cultural revitalisation in respect of the gifting of five papakainga properties and the provision of funding to develop and implement a strategy for revitalising tikanga funding to assist in compiling a comprehensive historical record and cultural reconnection in respect of the transfer of 12 sites of significance of which nine are public conservation land with public access and third-party rights protected for all but two sites. It also includes other cultural redress instruments over Crown-owned land and relationship agreements with certain agencies. 
Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Apa nor any claimant group for the loss their people have suffered the cultural redress in this bill seeks to recognise Ngati Apa’s longstanding cultural and spiritual association in the region. I am confident that the bill will settle Ngati Apa’s claims in a full and final manner it having taken into account all of their grievances and the rights of all New Zealanders. 
I want to acknowledge the Ngati Apa people who suffered the breaches of the Treaty and who carried the grievances. I particularly want to acknowledge those who are no longer with us. Ngati Apa is historically well known for visionary leadership and today’s leadership has sought to restore iwi unity and prestige. 
I wish to acknowledge Te Runanga o Ngati Apa including the members of the negotiating team. I agreed with the previous speaker who in a very gracious and generous speech described them as a young team and indeed they are a young and dynamic team with great futures. Their dedication and determination on behalf of Ngati Apa have been vital in the path towards achieving settlement. 
I also want to thank other Ministers in departments involved in this settlement. A number of people from across the political spectrum have made important contributions to this settlement over the years. The introduction of this bill begins the last stage of the settlement process which seeks to recognise what is important to the people of Ngati Apa and to provide redress for historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is one of the many settlements this Government is progressing towards its goal of settling historical Treaty claims justly and durably by 2014. I very much look forward to the bill returning from the select committee so that we can pass it as quickly as possible. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. No reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Ko Ross Robertson taku ingoa. Ko Gaeloc te waka ko Ngati Pakeha te iwi no Kotimana. Ko Tamaki te awa ko Hunua te maunga ko Tamaki-makau-rau te kainga engari kei te noho au ki Poneke. He mema Paremata ahau mo te rohe o Manukau mo te Pati Reipa. Tihei mauri ora. Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to us the House; the people; the languages; and the four winds. Greetings to you all. My name is Ross Robertson. Gaeloc is the ship and Pakeha of Scottish extraction is the clan. Tamaki is the river Hunua is the mountain and Auckland is the home but I reside in Wellington. I am a Labour Party member of Parliament for Manukau East. Behold the breath of life. Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to all of us 
.] 
It is an honour and a privilege to stand in this House and to speak on the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. I represent the electorate of Manukau East which is the home of 164 different ethnic groups. I am sure that in that electorate there is a significant contribution from Maori people and some of those people of course will be Ngati Apa. 
We support this bill and we acknowledge the leadership of Te Runanga o Ngati Apa for their able advocacy for their people. We acknowledge their determination their passion their commitment and their motivation for a better way of life for their future for their tomorrow and for their mokopuna. Together we serve and together we prosper both as a nation and as a people. I acknowledge the Minister in the House today Chris Finlayson and the Hon Tariana Turia and I also acknowledge my colleagues who signed the deed of settlement the Hon Parekura Horomia and the Hon Mita Ririnui. I thank them for the work they have done. 
In 1840 three members of Ngati Apa signed the Treaty of Waitangi near the mouth of the Rangitikei River. That is about midway between the Whanganui and the Whangaehu rivers— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: A lot of eels. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: A lot of eels says my colleague. They signed the Treaty there. In 1849 the Rangitikei-Turakina purchase stated that lands between the Whangaehu and the Turakina rivers would be reserved for all Ngati Apa to collect and settle on. But we know that later land native laws enabled those reserve lands to pass through the Native Land Court which awarded land interest to individuals rather than to all of the tribe excluding many Ngati Apa from ownership of the tribal reserve lands. In the 1860s more than 100000 acres of land in which Ngati Apa held interest were subject to native land laws in addition to the reserves from the Rangitikei-Turakina purchase. 
The operation and impact of the native land laws in particular the awarding of land to individual Ngati Apa rather than to iwi or hapu made the lands that Ngati Apa were able to retain more susceptible to partition fragmentation and alienation. This contributed to the erosion of traditional tribal structures of Ngati Apa which were based on collective tribal and hapu custodianship of the land. The Crown failed to take the steps that were necessary to adequately protect those structures. That had a prejudicial effect on Ngati Apa and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Ngati Apa have been raising grievances with the Crown for more than 100 years. On 8 October 2008 a deed of settlement was finally signed. 
The purpose of the bill is to record the acknowledgments and the apology offered by the Crown to Ngati Apa. The settlement includes a historical account the Crown acknowledgment of historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles and a Crown apology to North Island Ngati Apa. It also includes a cultural redress package featuring the transfer of a number of sites of cultural significance to North Island Ngati Apa including two lake beds. It also includes a quantum of $16 million including the opportunity to purchase four Crown properties in the Rangitikei region. 
The return of more than 6500 hectares of land as part of this settlement will have a positive impact on sustainable development. Financial and commercial aspects of the redress package should be considered within the context of the opportunities that it will provide for the people of the area. The cultural revitalisation package will be complemented by the development and implementation of a cultural redevelopment plan. 
This settlement is a historic moment in the relationship between the Crown and Ngati Apa. It will allow us to move forward into the future. It is important in doing so that we recognise the contribution of those who have gone before us and who have raised these grievances for more than 100 years. They are to be commended for their tenacity for their dedication and for never ever giving up. We in this House can be proud of those who are involved in bringing about the finalisation of this bill so that we can work together and in the true spirit of that word “community” serve and prosper together both as a nation and as a people. Tihei mauri ora! Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. He mihi nui ki a Ngati Apa. Finally after more than 100 years of raising issues of unfairness and injustice it is Ngati Apa’s day. The Green Party may lack detailed knowledge of their whenua and taonga but we do not lack respect for the struggle that they have survived. The acknowledgments in the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill recognise the consistency of their grievances and the failures of the Crown to address those grievances. 
Those grievances relate to the effects of the Crown purchase of 400000 hectares of Ngati Apa lands the aspirations and attempts of Ngati Apa to strengthen relationships with the Crown through land sales and through expressing loyalty to that Crown and they relate to the 1849 Rangitikei-Turakina purchase which included the reserving of 35000 acres for all Ngati Apa people. Those arrangements as people know were not given proper effect. Then of course came the highly effective colonising land laws of the 1860s which alienated more than 100000 acres of Ngati Apa lands. The cumulative effect of these Crown failures is finally acknowledged. This bill finally offers an apology and some important cultural and commercial redress. 
There is so much more behind this bill that the rest of us do not know and cannot ever know. There is so much history pain storytelling creativity and negotiation. All settlements are different but it is very good to hear that Minister Turia has been in such a powerful position in leading this process and that the young people who will take this forward have been so much a part of it in terms of participation. 
That is refreshing because sometimes settlements seem to be like a strange kind of negotiation that takes place in a car yard. When we try to get our heads around it sometimes it seems as if everyone’s cars have been stolen and placed in a car yard and if we want to get them back we are told we will have to prove ownership of the cars. The biggest groupings the large natural groupings will have their cars back first. Those who are ready will have their cars back first but then they are told that sorry they cannot have the whole car only the wheel because the car is no longer available to be sold back to them. That is what some settlements have felt like. They have felt as if tangata whenua were being offered the wheel or maybe only the hubcap and some of that hubcap has to be purchased at market price. 
It is really hopeful and positive to hear of a settlement where Ngati Apa are getting some considerable redress. It still sounds to me like it is not enough. There will never be enough; we cannot turn back the hands of time to those days when so much was taken with so little respect. It is hopeful to hear this constructive direction that Ngati Apa and its young people have developed with the Crown in this instance. 
The Green Party does not want to say much more but we want to acknowledge the good work undertaken through this House on this bill. I particularly want to tautoko the korero of the Hon Tariana Turia and her heartfelt expression of the meaning of the settlement to her people. I know that if all those in the gallery could speak they would have equally powerful and important things to say to me my party and my country that we as Pakeha need to hear. Although this bill is about settlement it is also about listening and my greatest fear is that Pakeha do not know the story and do not understand what settlement really means. It means that we know Ngati Apa’s story so that we can understand in some way what it has felt like to experience those losses and to be stepping out in a new direction. Our main role is to not get in the way and to allow this to happen without any barriers from our lack of understanding. 
I tautoko the Minister Chris Finlayson and the other members of the Maori Affairs Committee who have supported this process. I simply wish Ngati Apa all the best for the progress of this bill and the same to their tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake in their own rohe. Kia kaha; we will vote for this bill through all its stages and we wish its people well. Tena koutou katoa. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am honoured along with others to greet the Ngati Apa representatives who have joined us today for this historic occasion of the first reading of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill: tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. The grievances of North Island Ngati Apa are significant and longstanding. As with all settlements our tears flow with each injustice incurred. We are connected to Ngati Apa’s pain and we admire the courage of those people and their commitment in walking forward. This is a day to give effect to the deed of settlement and to set in process a final settlement of Ngati Apa’s historical claims but it is never as easy as all that. 
Some of us in this House may remember a 1960s classic: 
To everything there is a season  
And a time for every purpose under Heaven. 
A time to be born a time to die 
A time to plant a time to reap— 
[ 
Interruption 
] I am not going to sing it; no I am not! In many respects this bill as with other settlement bills gives life to those lyrics. We learn of the birth of this claim—learn that Ngati Apa has been raising grievances with the Crown for over a hundred years. I also want to acknowledge the people of Ngati Apa the people who suffered the breaches of the Treaty and who carried the grievances. I particularly want to acknowledge those who are no longer with us those who died with the hope of settlement still in their hearts. 
Over the century the Crown has failed to deal with the longstanding grievances of Ngati Apa in an appropriate way. From 1848 the Crown purchased over 400000 acres of land in which Ngati Apa held interests. The 1848 Rangitikei-Turakina purchase stated that that block would be for all of Ngati Apa to collect and settle on yet native land legislation enabled those lands to pass through the Native Land Court which awarded land interests to individuals rather than to all of the iwi. That essentially excluded many Ngati Apa from ownership of iwi lands which was a clear breach of the Treaty and its principles. The cumulative effects of the Crown’s actions have left Ngati Apa without land—a landless people—leading to the situation in which today most of Ngati Apa live outside their rohe. 
Ngati Apa have also lost control over many of their significant sites including wahi tapu which has affected their physical and spiritual relationship with the land—“a time to be born a time to die”. The bill is a clear recognition that grievances are long overdue for settlement. As I listened to my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia and the speaker who followed her the Hon Mita Ririnui it was again brought home to me the gnawing pain that can destroy the spirit and turn a people to despair. But with the strength of their tupuna behind them the people have risen up and stood to share their history with the nation while at the same time determining a pathway forward. That pathway lies in cultural redress and revitalisation—“a time to plant a time to reap”—so in this bill we have specific and strategic initiatives for the collective of individuals who descend from one or more Ngati Apa ancestors. 
A distinctive part of the settlement is cultural reconnection in respect of the transfer of 12 sites of significance. Of those sites nine are public conservation land with public access and third-party rights protected for all but two sites. In addition there is a full range of other cultural redress instruments over Crown-owned land and relationship agreements with certain agencies. It appears that Te Runanga o Ngati Apa and those involved in the negotiations have valued the experience and opportunity of having to be innovative and creative in relation to formulating the redress packages. 
As part of that the bill provides for the issue of protocols by the Ministers of Conservation Fisheries and Arts Culture and Heritage on how they interact with Ngati Apa on specified matters. It is a very significant development that specified departments and Ministers are invited to work closely with Ngati Apa to consider how their priorities align with issues emerging across tribal boundaries. Ngati Apa’s areas of interest extend from the north of Foxton up to south of Whanganui and run east from the coast along the Oroua River past Hunterville. It is a big area of land so the relationship with Government agencies along with the return of 100 acres of papakainga sites are vital steps to further enhance Ngati Apa ahi ka roa and cultural development of the iwi. The protocols with relevant Government bodies will assist Ngati Apa in being able to cooperate on freshwater fisheries on the export and identification of taonga tuturu on sustainable taonga fisher species and marine aquatic life on cultural materials on the protection and restoration of wetlands and on cultural and intellectual property. This is a very specific and tailored approach which demonstrates the willingness of Ngati Apa to work with the Crown and its respective agencies for the long-term aspirations of the people. 
But the relationships extend beyond the Crown to also encompass relationships with other iwi. There is a clear commitment to working towards ensuring overlapping interests from other tribal groups within the rohe. This is an important development of which we in the Maori Party are fully supportive. Indeed it is in the strength of our relationships that we can be assured of our ongoing strength as people. We have stood in the House in many settlement debates prior to this and have voiced our deep concern at the way in which the Treaty process has been used in many rohe to divide and rule. We have raised our belief that the framework within which Treaty settlements take place is seriously flawed. In effect the process cannot be supported while recognising the significance of iwi rights and their needs to settle. We are well aware that an apology assumes a promise not to breach again yet the Crown continues to do so by pitting iwi against iwi and hapu against hapu. Ngati Apa has fought the practice of divide and rule holding fast to its assurances that it would claim areas of interest as exclusively their own only as long as the available research was substantial and unopposed. This is an honourable position a stance that may well be influential in other settlements to follow. 
Another exciting innovation in this settlement is the cultural revitalisation package. The opportunity to re-establish papakainga is of significant importance to Ngati Apa and it will be proudly supported by the development and implementation of its cultural redevelopment plan. 
Finally I acknowledge the history that my colleague Tariana Turia has talked of which dates back to the Rangitikei - Turakina transaction of 1849. Despite a history of some 160 years—or perhaps because of it—the framework from whoa to go has been solidly impressive. I mihi to the young leaders of Ngati Apa who have given us all hope that our collective future lies in good hands. The bill seeks to recognise what is important to the people of Ngati Apa and to provide redress for historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. We in the Maori Party congratulate the people of Ngati Apa on their distinctive and practical resolution of the historical claims and we wish Ngati Apa well for the promise of a much stronger future. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 He mea tuatahi taku mihi ki a koutou nga morehu o nga aitua kai a koutou Ngati Apa tena koutou. Tena koutou i to haere mai i tenei ra ki te whakarongo ki nga korero mo ta koutou kereme. No reira ka mihi ki a koutou. 
[ 
Firstly I acknowledge you Ngati Apa survivors of misfortunes greetings to you. Thank you for coming today to listen to the debates on your claim; I applaud you. 
] 
I have been trying to figure out what I would say because everyone has basically said the same thing about how sorry they are and about what an apology means—and absolutely they mean it. I thought I might take a different tack; those of us from Te Tai Tokerau are known for taking a different tack. 
Paul Quinn 
: A tactful approach! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: A tactful approach! So first of all I want to pay due respect to Parekura Horomia the previous Minister of Maori Affairs who with his colleagues including Mita Ririnui signed off the deed. Secondly I pay my respects to Chris Finlayson who I think has done a pretty sterling job since he became Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not more than 12 months ago. Thirdly and to me personally this is most important I pay respects to my colleague Tariana Turia who as we all know has had a week from hell in the last 7 days—and no I will not be apologising to her on behalf of my cousin. 
There are people who come to the House carrying with them the hope that one day they will be able to stand in the House and talk about their own people in a way that tells a story that most if not all New Zealanders hardly know anything about. One of the parts of a treaty negotiation and settlement is the telling of a story. I have just finished reading a book which I picked up for nine bucks in a second-hand store called  
The West 
. The most interesting part of that book talked about how the First Nation people—Native American people Indian people; call them what you will—went through a lot of treaty-signing processes but said the thing that they never got right was to sort the issues out over a period of time. I think that we in this country before anybody else in the world have developed a way of having the story told the tears flow and people pass away during the process and finally there is a coming together of ideas on ways to start anew. 
The words “Treaty settlement” are good; the process settles I believe breaches of a treaty that was signed in 1840. But the process also has more meaning to that—as I said there is the telling of stories and the putting of them on paper so that people in the generations to come will know the history of our nation. But more important the process talks about and offers the opportunity to remember the past to not commit the same crimes as we did in the past to apologise for those crimes in the past and to step forth on a new path—not just for two people five people or 200 people but in this case for the whole “nation” of Ngati Apa. Now it is their decision as to which path they take and in this House we must be behind them 100 percent as they go about their business. In terms of business whether it is in terms of health education—you name it—it really is up to Ngati Apa with of course the help of the Government where necessary. 
On looking at the notes in front of me I see dates. One day someone in the future will do a chronology of when things happened and the dates that I am about to read out will most probably for Ngati Apa and for other iwi around the country stand out: 1840 1844 1849 1866 1867 1887 and 1957. Just by reading out those dates we can get some semblance of how long this has taken. I will not talk about the quantum of the settlement because as one of my colleagues has said it is never enough and how can we put a figure on all of the injustices of the past? The fact that we have arrived at this point in time is something we should be happy about. One of the things I have learnt not only in the House but also in the past 40-odd years is that we can remember what happened we can sympathise with people and we can feel aroha about what happened in the past but the true test is what we do afterwards. The true test is where we go after we have signed the deed. The true test for a Government is to figure out what to do after making an apology. It is not good enough to say: “Sorry folks we got it wrong.” and then just file away the apology in a cabinet somewhere. We have an obligation and an opportunity to make the nation’s lot better from what we do. 
As chairman of the Maori Affairs Committee I am not daunted by the fact that my colleague has given 17 March as the report-back date for the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. Even though we are getting near the end of the year I can assure Ngati Apa that all of the members of the select committee will work their backsides off to get this bill back into the House as soon as possible. That does not mean that we will decline to hear from everybody; we want to hear from everybody and we will take it upon ourselves not to meet here but in Ngati Apa. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Before Christmas! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Maybe. Let us just see how things pan out. 
I will say one more thing which might be outrageous to some people but then again it might not be to other people: where is the “h”? I just thought I would throw that in for the benefit of my friend and former colleague Mr Michael Laws. Although we can laugh about it—and the great thing about our country is that we can enjoy a poke at our whanau now and then—that issue goes to the heart of this nation as well. If we cannot bring ourselves to spell somebody’s name right then what are we doing when we apologise for all the other stuff that we did? That is a question I would like to leave for the House to consider. Maybe somebody somewhere sometime will sort that one out. 
No reira e te whanau e aku rangatira e aku teina me aku tuakana tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
So greetings to the family my chiefs younger and older siblings greetings to you all. 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
:  
E 
tautokotia atu nga mihimihi ki a koutou o te hau kainga Ngati Apa e tae kaha ake ki konei mo te tae tata o to tira ki tenei tino take tena koutou. Ki a koutou nga tupakeke ki a koutou te rangatahi pea e whai atu i tenei take e mihi kau ana. I rongo atu tatou ki nga mamae katoa mai ra ano. I timata i reira i oti atu i reira. No reira ki a koutou mo nga rere haere o nga pakeke e kore i konei e mate ana e tangi hoki te ngakau. No reira tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
I endorse the sentiments expressed to you of home Ngati Apa who have arrived here in great numbers on this important matter. Well done. I commend the adults and the younger generation who might in time follow up this matter. Congratulations. We heard all about the historical grievances. They began and ended there. The heart grieves the loss of the older people who have passed on so greetings to you and to us all 
.] 
I recognise the two Ministers: my ex-colleague Minister Turia and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson. I also remember the effort put in by my other colleagues: Mark Burton Mita Ririnui and Michael Cullen. At times I agree with Mr Tau Henare; I certainly make a bold stand in supporting him as a member of the Maori Affairs Committee but more so for the final points he made in his speech which I will come back to. The first major engagement between Ngati Apa and the Crown took place on 21 May 1840 and it goes on as has been mentioned. We must not devalue the numbers in this settlement. It has been 161 years not simply a bit over 100 years. That is a long long time and we need to remember that. I say that because I have marvelled at the way this settlement has been done having sat watched listened cried and ducked for cover amongst a whole lot of people. 
The performance of the negotiating team has been exemplary if we cite succession planning and talk about rangatahi being there. I know Adrian Pahia and the two wahine whose names I have forgotten—typical bloke—are a bit past rangatahi but they were there and I saw them and sat and talked with them. It is a great model and example of how we can move forward. I especially mention my and Minister Turia’s Auntie Poppy. That is the only connection I have to her: we have a common auntie. Auntie Poppy used to harass me all the time about this settlement. The beauty of this settlement was that the pakeke were behind it not just to tautoko but to mirimiri and keep the negotiations on the straight and narrow. That is why I say this is a wonderful example for other Treaty settlement groups to take cognisance of and I do not say that lightly. At the end of the day they did it. I know it is an honour and a privilege for Minister Turia to have her son play a key role. 
There were a host of issues when the Crown attempted to complete the purchase of the Whanganui Block—I say to Tau that it says “Whanganui” in here which is interesting. I thought it was important to remind people who have power in local authorities exactly what happened in those old days. The chiefs were not silly people. They saw an opportunity and they went after it. In 1848 during the negotiations over the Whanganui purchase Ngati Apa offered a large area of land in the Whangaehu and Turakina districts to the Crown. Ngati Apa rangatira spoke of a desire to form close relationships with European settlers. That is what they did. In September 1848 Aperahama Tipae wrote to Governor Grey asking that “there be many Pakeha for me a multitude so that my kainga be full.” If one listens to half the crap—please excuse my language—that has been coming out of the local council one would wonder because instead of being thankful they have been abusive in the sense of thinking that these damn Maori were annoying them. Similarly the prominent Ngati Apa rangatira Kawana Te Hakeke stated that his considerations in offering to sell land were the same as those of his elders before him—namely to ensure the security and the nurturing of his people. These people had just come out of the ao kohatu of the late 1700s and had never seen a Pakeha in their lives and they thought “By crikey this might be OK. By crikey we should forge a relationship.” These people went out of their way thinking they were doing a great deed and to put it bluntly they were terribly and shamefully ripped off. We will not go back to that but it happened. 
Te Runanga o Ngati Apa has really done well but I mention in particular how it has managed the settlement. Not many organisations can do that. We say as people who are pakeke like Paul and others that we will give the essence of the direction but they have to go and do it. In the Ngati Apa case they actually did it. The 6500 hectares and the redress are important but I broach an additional suggestion with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. The prices were based around what was fair. This settlement has happened through the negotiators’ belief in their ability to negotiate with senior Crown officials. That is what brought about the negotiations: their self-belief. In my mind that quite clearly epitomises how rangatira and their tupuna would have acted in those years long gone by. The reserves were cut up moved around and had their boundaries adjusted. Those are all relevant issues. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that in relation to return per hectare—dare I get commercial—a lot of that land had some of the highest returns in this country. Other people have benefited very very much while the Maori Ngati Apa have stood on the side and watched. I commend Minister Turia for leading this settlement and I commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for encouraging it. 
Nga Rauru has a paepae between it and the Crown. My perception is that it has not worked well. It has been devalued. I suggest that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations takes a clear role in facilitating the work of the Government agencies relevant to cultural revitalisation and reconnection. It is very very important. That is why I agree with Tau Henare. It is easy to have a good feeling and to bring this historic moment forward to get to finality but it is worse when some change is promised yet the situation continues in these contemporary times. I strongly recommend that to the Minister and if he needs advice I am more than happy to give it to him. Cultural reconnection needs to be seriously done and if the young ones or middle-aged people who have brought this to finality are keen on it then it needs to be resourced properly. It needs to be assisted and abetted. Cultural revitalisation is all of that. A lot of the nuances relevant to those two issues are not understood at times by people in the agencies Pakeha people who mean well but do not know or even Maori who mean well. But if the Minister is there steering the process and facilitating it it brings grunt to the tiller. I recommend that to the Minister wholeheartedly and congratulate him on continuing this process. 
Most of all I say “Well done.” to the Ngati Apa team. Whether we played a small part a great part or whatever it is great to be part of this historic achievement. Kia ora. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
Tena koutou nga manuhiri tuarangi nau mai haere mai. E kui ma e koro ma tena koutou tena koutou te Whare. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. 
[ 
Greetings to you the visitors from afar and the elderly women and menfolk. Welcome welcome. Greetings to the House and thank you Mr Assistant Speaker 
.] 
I join with previous speakers in welcoming Ngati Apa here today. In speaking to the first reading of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill I want to cover three points. Firstly I reflect that Minister Turia took the lead in moving the first reading on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. In my view that represents a trust a spirit of bonding and a spirit of understanding between the National Party and the Maori Party in acknowledging that we are a team coming together to join in celebrating the first reading of this bill. I look forward to continuing to work in a National-led Government that with the Maori Party will provide leadership to this country in a number of areas but particularly in the area of Treaty settlements which is dear to my heart. 
That leads me to my second point. One of the principal reasons that I stand here today is that I desire to see Treaty settlements expedited through the House. For too long these settlements have stalled and I believe that that has held back the development of iwi and hapu. If Maori put that behind them and act in a spirit of cooperation to reach agreements between the Crown and iwi and hapu then we will be able to move forward as a race. So I am proud to stand and join with others in speaking to the first reading of the bill. In doing so I offer my congratulations to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations who in my view is doing an outstanding job in expediting Treaty settlements. In the spirit of camaraderie I also acknowledge the work done by his predecessors Michael Cullen and in particular my friend and colleague Parekura Horomia and my relation Mita Ririnui which has enabled this Treaty settlement legislation to be brought before the House. 
My third point is that in relation to Treaty settlements it appears there are two principal activities on which the Treaty grievances are based. In the case of this Treaty settlement the historical injustice has arisen through improper land purchase arrangements that occurred as previous speakers have stated many many years ago. So this Treaty settlement rights that injustice. I join with my colleagues in congratulating those responsible on the leadership that they showed in the negotiations and most important in these sorts of challenges in taking the iwi and hapu along with them and getting their support in the arduous process of negotiating the settlement on their behalf. It is a very tough challenge to take the people along in the process. Ngati Apa leaders the runanga and the negotiators have managed to do that and they are to be commended for that. 
Finally I say Ngati Apa have been on a hard and long journey up until now but this first reading represents the beginning of the end. We are now heading for the home straight and the House can be assured that the Maori Affairs Committee will expedite its consideration of the bill without compromising due process and will report it back in the time nominated by the Minister just as the chairman of the committee my friend and colleague Tau Henare has said. With those few words it gives me great pleasure to support the first reading of the bill. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Kia ora. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It has been very interesting listening to the speeches in this debate and what is clear is that this is a settlement that has been advanced by Ngati Apa with dignity integrity and purpose. I have been heartened to hear as an outsider of the involvement of youth in this settlement—our future in this nation—who have not had a backward-looking or an overly backward-looking approach but have been resolutely future-focused in their approach to this settlement. On the other side can I like the other speakers congratulate the members of the Crown who played an integral part—the Hon Chris Finlayson and those before him including Parekura Horomia Mita Ririnui and of course Tariana Turia. It is sometimes hollow I think to wax lyrical in settlement bills about what has happened when one either is not affiliated to the iwi or has not been directly or even indirectly involved in Crown negotiations but can I simply say that this is I think another settlement moving this nation forward. It is another huge occasion for all those who are involved in it and it is a happy joyful day. I look forward to being on the Maori Affairs Committee that receives this bill shortly. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 17 March 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Waiata 
Third Readings 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill the Securities Markets Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill and the Securities Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These four bills were formerly part of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. Together they address three policy changes. First the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill provides settlement systems operating in New Zealand with the option of applying for designation. Designation will provide additional legal protections to support the integrity of the system in the case of a participant’s insolvency or default. Specifically it will provide the operators of a designated settlement system with priority under the Personal Property Securities Act 1999. At present New Zealand’s legislation provides for the designation of payment systems under Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. Settlement systems could also be designated under this part but without this bill designation would protect only the payment component of the transaction and importantly would not protect the settlement of the property component of the transaction. Second the Securities Markets Amendment Bill aligns the regulation of exchanges seeking to operate in both the securities and futures markets. The Securities Markets Act 1988 currently provides one process for registering a securities exchange and a separate process for authorising a futures exchange. This bill amends the Act so that an exchange registered under Part 2B of the Securities Markets Act may be registered either in respect of securities markets or futures markets only or in respect of both securities markets and futures markets. 
Currently only the Securities Commission may authorise futures dealers although there are class authorisations for the Sydney Futures Exchange and for the NZX. The Securities Markets Amendment Bill provides that market participants who have been approved by an authorised futures exchange under its operating rules are authorised to deal in futures contracts. This does not affect the ability of the Securities Commission to authorise futures dealers more generally but codifies the existing class authorisations granted by the Securities Commission and makes them available to any authorised futures exchange. 
Finally the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill and the Securities Amendment Bill clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units. This applies both to units issued as part of a statutory scheme such as the Kyoto Protocol and to units issued in the voluntary market. These bills give effect to this policy through several technical amendments to existing legislation such as clarifying that emissions units will be treated like other forms of property under the Securities Act 1978. As a result trading in emissions units will not need to meet the requirements of the regulatory regime for offers of securities or the relevant provisions of the Securities Markets Act unless they are part of an investment scheme. 
It is also worth noting that the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill amends the Personal Property Securities Act to enable persons to take possession of and security interests over emissions units. 
I record my appreciation for the input from the members of the financial sector who made submissions on this legislation and for the members of the Commerce Committee for their contribution not to mention the work of the former Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel who introduced the legislation. I commend these bills to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am pleased to see the final readings of these four bills the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill the Securities Markets Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Bill and the Securities Amendment Bill which were originally introduced as the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. As the Minister of Commerce has just said I had the privilege of referring that bill to the Commerce Committee as the then Minister of Commerce just prior to the election last year. I also had the privilege of hearing submissions on it as the chair of the Commerce Committee. 
I too place on record my congratulations to the members of the financial community who made submissions to the select committee. I think all of them did so with the desire to achieve a good outcome which I believe we have achieved here. I also place on record my thanks to the officials from both the Ministry of Economic Development and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Their detailed technical advice was absolutely necessary in order for us to get the regulatory framework right for clearing and settlement systems that will meet the expectations of domestic and international participants. I think that is the strongest point that I want to make in the final reading of these bills—the fact that we are talking about introducing a regulatory framework. I know we have now a Minister for Regulatory Reform in this country. We often hear regulation being spoken of in disparaging terms but in fact we need to have strong regulation in our financial markets as has been seen over recent times to an unprecedented extent probably. 
The purpose of these bills is to allow New Zealand settlement systems to apply for designation bringing them under a regulatory regime that in return provides additional legal protections in the case of a participant’s insolvency or default. That is probably the primary feature of the proposition contained within the legislation. Despite the provision for regulation the bills actually combine to reduce compliance costs by aligning the regulation of exchanges that seek to operate in both the securities and futures markets and by enacting that a person approved by the operator of an authorised futures exchange is an authorised futures dealer. So even though we are again talking about a new regulatory framework being put into legislation we are in fact talking about a reduction in compliance costs because it minimises the impact on those who are already regulated under different parts of our law. 
The bills also clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units. Given the controversy surrounding the Government’s approach to the emissions trading scheme I am sure that colleagues will expand on that further. But I will make one very strong point: this is legislation that came from the bottom up. This was not something that the Government designed in the abstract. The industry came to us and said it needed to be in a position to have a proper regulatory framework for the trading of emissions units whether they were Kyoto units or voluntary units. We have to have this platform in place in order for New Zealand to play whatever role it wants to play on the world stage in that regard. The use of an exposure draft process with an exposure draft bill having been made available to the market for considerable consultation before the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill was even introduced to the House I believe puts us in a very strong position to be able to say this is good legislation that is well supported by the markets it is designed to serve. 
I compare that process with the way that the current emissions trading scheme legislation has been dealt with by the Government: not allowing sufficient time to be spent on the bill at the select committee so the select committee then referred an unamended bill back to the House because there could not be agreement on how it should be reported back. That was done in the knowledge that the Government intends to table extensive amendments next week after it has reached an agreement with the Maori Party with which negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors. One has to wonder whether that process will serve the interests of the markets that the legislation is designed to serve. I am deeply concerned about that but I am sure others will have a lot more to say about it than I will. 
The decision also to separate these bills from a broader assessment of our settlement services in terms of the structure of ownership and governance was also a good one and I look forward to an update from the Government on where that is up to. I place on record my very strong personal point of view in relation to the platform. I believe that the platform should be treated as a public asset and a core item of infrastructure so I believe the Government ought to address that in the second stage of the review of the settlement systems. 
Rather than working through the detail of the legislation I want to provide a little background context. I think that was best expressed in the NZX submission to the select committee. It talks not about this legislation in New Zealand but about why we need to have legislation like this in an international context. 
The NZX submission reads: “Over the past year global markets have seen unprecedented declines in value and failures in over the counter and un-regulated risk management and settlement functions. Globally credit has contracted and corporates are more acutely analysing the counterparty risk that it takes against each and every counterparty in its ordinary trading patterns. What was once seen as a safe partner on the other side of the deal is now rigorously assessed for credit worthiness following a year in which names like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers failed. The completely un-regulated rise of off-exchange or over the counter products has now proven to have created serious short and long term uncertainty in global markets and an overall movement towards a more conservative outlook. 
Against this background New Zealand has a settlement system for its capital markets that is unique globally. Currently NZX Participants take counterparty risk against each other and settle trades bilaterally. The international norm is for a Clearing House to operate a central counterparty or otherwise novate net and clear and settle trades. This internationally prevailing model allows participants to easily assess the counterparty risk of a single institution that is prudentially and otherwise regulated by a key central government agency. 
In reviewing its settlement systems as part of a required upgrade NZX considered an internationally vanilla model was more likely to promote confidence and international participation in New Zealand’s capital markets and reduce risk for domestic participants. 
In order to promote confidence and participation in New Zealand’s capital markets including trading in derivatives of carbon products the clearing and settlement infrastructure must be operated in a way that is consistent with international best practice and illustrates soundness and efficiency in the underlying systems and regulatory framework. International best practice is reflected in the recommendations of the joint Committee on Payment Systems of the … IOSCO and Bank for International Settlements … in relation to Securities Settlement Systems and Central Counterparty Settlement Systems … . NZX has utilised the BIS/IOSCO recommendations is making changes to its settlement environment and where appropriate references those recommendations throughout this submission.” 
I do not normally read into  
Hansard 
 an exact quote from a submission of such length as that one. But the reason I have done so on this occasion is that NZX has encapsulated in those four paragraphs the essence of why this legislation is so utterly necessary in the current environment and why it will enable New Zealand’s capital markets to go forward. New Zealand’s participation in various forms of carbon trading is to be done now on an internationally accepted platform. I would like to thank the Government for pursuing this legislation. I express slight disappointment that it took so long to complete the passage of this legislation through the House despite the fact that our very good select committee had it back in the House by June and it is now November. On that note I would like to recommend the concluding reading of these bills as broken up into their individual components from the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 This is an opportunity for me to take a quick call on this legislation and also to commend the previous speaker the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was Minister of Commerce at the time the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill was introduced to the House. I also commend the Hon Simon Power for going forward and making this legislation the business of the new Government. The Minister has already commented on how the original bill has been separated into four bills and I shall comment briefly on the overview of what is behind the legislation. As the two previous speakers have alluded to it is designed to align New Zealand’s clearing and settlement system with international best practice and to facilitate trading in both futures and emissions units. It provides that in securities and other products so that they can be cleared and settled through designated systems that meet the expectations of our international counterparts as well as domestic participants in New Zealand’s financial sector. 
A lot of work was done in the Commerce Committee. We listened to and took into account the views of the 12 oral submitters that came to the select committee of which NZX was an important submitter as the previous speakers alluded to. Some of the key changes that we put forward in the select committee were around the definition of insolvency. The new definition “becomes subject to an insolvency event” is critical because the moment at which a participant becomes subject to an insolvency event is clear. Financial markets are pretty dynamic. They are pretty fast-moving. They are changing as we have seen in the past 12 to 18 months. Sometimes that causes and creates problems between parties and counter-parties. But it was important in our select committee that we looked at the event of insolvency and the finality of settlement. The committee proposed several amendments in this area to avoid potential problems. 
The bill as introduced provided that the finality protections extend until the earlier of 24 hours after the commencement of the insolvency or when the designation settlement system contact person had been notified or ought to have been notified of the insolvency event. We recommended as a committee that it be extended for 24 hours after the commencement of an insolvency regardless of when that contact person had notice. This was a particularly critical amendment that the committee assessed. 
We also looked at shortening the disallowance period. The committee recommended that the joint regulators could disallow a proposed amendment to the rules of a designated settlement system and this was shortened from 40 working days to 20 working days. One of the other key amendments that we assessed in the select committee was around the penalties. After comparing penalties in other jurisdictions the committee proposed a change to the level of penalty for corporate bodies. The maximum fine for a corporate body was reduced from $1 million to $750000. 
This legislation had multiparty support throughout the select committee process. Much was discerned by listening to the submitters but as the previous speaker alluded to we have to thank the expertise and the guidance that was provided by both the Reserve Bank officials and the Ministry of Economic Development officials. I think this legislation comes out with an A grade in terms of the assessment through the select committee process and the contribution of our Government officials. On that note I commend this third reading to the House. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I take a brief call on these bills which will see the implementation of what was the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill in the manifestation of this legislation in its previous stage in the House. I took a call in the second reading of the legislation and Melissa Lee pointed out then that I had not had the opportunity to sit on the Commerce Committee that heard submissions on the legislation. So I am delighted to be able to advise Ms Lee on this occasion that I will be rejoining the Commerce Committee this week. I can see that Jo Goodhew is equally delighted at that prospect. 
Jo Goodhew 
: No she is not there any more. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Oh well we will be ships that pass in the night again. The reason for my absence from the committee and the reason for missing out on the treat of hearing the submissions on this legislation—which going by the previous speaker’s contribution were really fascinating—is that I had to sit on first the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee which was probably an equal delight and second the Finance and Expenditure Committee with its deliberations on the most recent amendments. So I did not get a chance to hear submissions on this legislation but I do want to say that I think that this is the sort of legislation that should be promoted. I say that from the point of view of someone who supports emissions trading who wants to see a robust carbon market in New Zealand who wants to see us meet good international standards in this area and who sees real possibilities for wealth generation for New Zealanders if we can ride the wave of managing to make the transition to a low carbon economy in a good time rather than simply be dragged to the negotiating table in this area as reluctant participants—which unfortunately is the image of New Zealand that is emerging internationally. 
I want to say a few words—first to congratulate my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel who was the Minister who originated this legislation and introduced the original bill in September 2008. Later that month it was read a first time and referred to the Commerce Committee which appears to have done a diligent job. It reported the legislation back in mid-June. It is a bit of a shame that it has taken until now mid-November to get around to passing the bills that give effect to the original legislation which signals that trade in securities and other products can be cleared and settled in New Zealand through systems that meet the expectations of international and domestic participants. 
It was interesting to have been involved in a parallel process—the emissions trading scheme deliberations—in two select committees over the time that this legislation was being considered first by the Commerce Committee and now in the House. Perhaps it is instructive for the House to consider this idea of the emerging carbon market which will be facilitated by the legislation that we are passing now. I just happened to pick up today’s copy of the  
New Zealand Energy and Environment Business Week 
. It is a very reputable publication but it mentions in a number of places just how many influences there can be on the price of carbon. 
First of all it records the difficulties we encountered in the select committee when Treasury advised us on the last day of our meeting that the emissions trading scheme amendments being sponsored by Dr Smith were more likely to add between 13 and 17 percent of GDP by 2050—that is around $110 billion in additional debt—compared with the original estimate of 6 or 7 percent of GDP. Interestingly the reason for that mistake was a mistake around the calculation of the price of carbon. Instead of assuming a price of $25 a tonne to 2012 and that by then there would be the rudiments of an international agreement on how to deal with greenhouse gases so it would be a reasonable expectation that the price might have got up to $50 Treasury forgot to factor in that upward variable and that is where the massive mistake came from on the last day of the meeting. 
The price of carbon is influential across our economy. If one looks through the rest of the  
New Zealand Energy and Environment Business Week 
 one reads the news that Australia has decided to exclude agriculture from its emissions trading scheme. If one compares the two economies one can see why the Australians would do that. Fifty percent of our greenhouse gas emissions come from that sector. Only 15 percent of the Australians’ emissions come from agriculture. One can see the perils of harmonising the two schemes. One can see the distorting effect that harmonisation could have on our domestic price of carbon if we simply slavishly follow the harmonisation bandwagon as the Minster intends to do. 
There is news about the Lake Hayes decision in the South Island where Meridian Energy which wants to build a big wind farm was declined permission. That will obviously have a major effect on our forward price of carbon and on our price of electricity. Then there is a warning about the lake levels. Some people are very concerned about the South Island lake levels. There is some recent maintenance work stopping generation on the Waitaki scheme and people are having a think about what that will do to the power price on the spot market. Obviously when we have an active carbon market going when carbon is properly traded domestically—as this legislation that we are considering today will facilitate—we will see these sorts of fluctuations right across the board. 
I conclude by repeating the tribute that I have paid to Lianne Dalziel. It was far-sighted to introduce this legislation late last year. It was a good thing to have it referred to the Commerce Committee. It was good that the committee promptly progressed the legislation. But it is a shame that it has taken until now for the House to pass the empowering legislation. Unfortunately it does reflect the fact that we have a Government that is not sufficiently serious about the problem of global warming and climate change and consequently the developing of economic instruments including the ability to trade carbon which this legislation facilitates and which Labour supports. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I too was a member of the Commerce Committee that discussed the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. Unfortunately when we first started to hear submissions I was unable to attend all of the committee’s deliberations and the hearing of evidence but I acknowledge the work of the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel; the officials; and the submitters. It has been interesting to listen to this debate this afternoon. Charles Chauvel commented extensively on the process that we have just gone through in reviewing and hearing submissions on the Government’s proposed amendments to Labour’s emissions trading scheme. It is interesting that during the course of the last 2 or 3 weeks we have had a report from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development. It has done a survey of a number of issues in relation to National’s proposed amendments. If we looked at that we would read “Shock horror!”—that everything the Government is putting up is bad. But when we read down finally to the last paragraph of that three-page document we see that the council asked people how well they understood the emissions trading scheme. It is interesting to note that about 4 or 5 percent of the people surveyed acknowledged that they have a good understanding of the scheme. In effect 95 percent of the people in the sample who made submissions and expressed an opinion on what the National Government is proposing acknowledge that they do not properly understand the scheme. 
I will use this opportunity this afternoon to go back to first basic principles. We have talked about this scheme facilitating the trade in emissions units. We have heard from the Minister that emissions units will not be treated as personal property under the Personal Property Securities Act. I ask what an emissions unit is. It is the most basic thing that is traded and provided to be traded for under the provisions of the four bills before the House. An emissions unit is the right to discharge 1 tonne of carbon dioxide or its equivalent. I understand that one tonne of methane which is given off by animals by sheep and cattle is equivalent to 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. So 1 tonne of carbon dioxide is equivalent to one unit whereas 1 tonne of methane would be equivalent to 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents or 25 units. 
Under the Kyoto Protocol which New Zealand has signed up to and ratified New Zealand has committed to restricting our emissions of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalents during the 5-year period of 2008 to 2012 to 1990 levels. In 1990 the New Zealand economy was responsible for discharging if you like the equivalent of 61 tonnes of carbon. We have signed up to a commitment to restrict our emissions during that 5-year period to the equivalent of five times 61 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. That is 305 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents or 305 million emission units. 
We might ask what happens after 2012. Well we do not know. We actually do not know. We have been talking about a scheme that has projections for 2020 2050 and 2080 but the reality is that New Zealand has signed up to no commitment whatsoever beyond 2012. We may not sign up to that commitment or we may; we simply do not know. There will be a meeting in Copenhagen in the second and third weeks of December which is in less than a month’s time where this issue will be discussed and I am sure that it had been anticipated by the participants that formal agreement would be reached amongst the nations of the world. Well as recently as a fortnight ago we heard the news that no we will not be reaching any agreement in Copenhagen as the parties are too far apart. It may take a year. This afternoon we had the press release from the Prime Minister stating that he is not going to Copenhagen. He does not expect an agreement in 2010; he does not even expect an agreement in 2011. In fact I have it on good authority that the Government does not expect an agreement will be reached or entered into before the end of our Kyoto Protocol commitment period. 
But coming back to the emissions unit and the requirement to discharge 1 tonne of carbon dioxide or its equivalent New Zealand is being given essentially a free allowance. We have been given the allowance to discharge at our 1990 levels. Our existing levels of emissions in a gross sense are in excess of our 1990 levels but we also get credits for carbon that is absorbed into trees and forests. Since 1990 New Zealand has planted huge additional acreages of forests. Those forests have absorbed carbon and the current Treasury projections I understand are that the levels of our equivalent emissions will be below our 1990 levels. So New Zealand may have no obligation to pay money to anyone for the period from 2008 to 2012. 
It is a moving feast; it could change. The recession that New Zealand has suffered over the last 2 or 3 years has had an impact and we simply do not know what it will be. But let us say that New Zealand has to pay under this calculation. It might interest members to know that Canada has stated that it will not pay. Canada has made the bald statement that it has signed up to Kyoto and it has made commitments but it has no intention of paying. Well if Canada will not pay then I ask why New Zealand would pay. And if we do pay then whom do we pay? 
One of the countries that we would be likely to pay if we have a liability—but we may not and the projections are that we will not—is Russia. Why? The reason is that the levels of emissions in the Russian economy are less than they were in 1990. That is not because the Russian economy has become a whole lot more efficient. On the contrary the Russian economy has been in decline factories have closed and its levels of carbon emissions have reduced simply because products have not been produced. 
We have heard an awful lot from the Labour Opposition in respect of subsidies and the Labour Opposition has been very critical of the National Government’s amendment bill and the process that that bill has been put through by the Finance and Expenditure Committee over the last 7 weeks. Let me say to this House and to the Labour members in particular that I totally agree with Labour members with regard to the process. The process has been an absolute shambles. It has been reckless. It is a very complicated scheme that would impose liabilities and potentially billions of dollars either way. The select committee received 350 submissions on the legislation and it is a fact that the select committee report contains the very important detail that had the National Government had its own way the great bulk of those submitters would not have been given the opportunity to speak. 
It was only this afternoon when Rahui Katene—who sits alongside me in the House—Dr Russel Norman of the Green Party and the Labour members voted to hear all of those people who had a meaningful contribution to make and who wanted to make that contribution that the committee agreed to hear those submissions. I think it is a great indictment on this Government that it would seek to shut those submitters up. 
I totally agree with the Labour members on the process. Labour has talked about subsidies. We do not know what commitment we will make beyond 2012. It has been speculated that we will commit to reduce our emissions levels to 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050 but the scheme that the previous Labour Government passed into law last year phases out let us say assistance to polluters which is the transitional phase to zero by 2030. Essentially the Labour scheme was a massive tax grab and in that regard I totally agree with Minister Nick Smith and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that it was a massive tax grab that needs to be reversed. I have run out of time but I will be raising this issue as this debate continues. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third readings of the bills arising from the Settlements Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. Labour members will be supporting this legislation. It deals with mechanisms to ensure that we have the proper governance of trading in emissions rights in the future including as to futures. 
We cannot embark upon a discussion of that without considering what will be available to be traded in New Zealand. Those units in the main will be derived from Kyoto Protocol - compliant markets under the New Zealand emissions trading scheme and we cannot make reference to that without the consideration of the developments over recent weeks in New Zealand in respect of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. 
I agree totally with the criticisms made by the ACT Party member John Boscawen of the process that was run recently in respect of the changes being made to the emissions trading scheme. It was a terrible process. I think that everyone but the Government members agreed that the process was poor no matter what their views are as to the substantive merits of the changes that were being proposed. Legislation that has very serious consequences for the New Zealand economy was being dealt with in a rushed way. 
No matter what side one sits on the substantive issues one should be critical and concerned that we live in a country that could handle those multibillion dollar effects in such a contemptuous way. 
This has been pushed through with inadequate time for people to properly engage in the detail. The most egregious examples of that were the attempts to limit the rights of submitters to properly participate in the process. There was a proposal at one stage to require all submitters to present their submissions in only 1 day. 
Jo Goodhew 
: People listening are going to get muddled and think you’re talking about the actual bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That member might want to avoid the reality that as a consequence of what the Government has done the number of units that are able to be traded under the legislation arising from the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill is much reduced. But that is the reality so I am entitled to talk about it. 
The reality is that National tried to truncate the process and not allow submitters in respect of that major change the ability to talk to their written submissions. That was avoided only because the other parties including the Maori Party the ACT Party the Greens and Labour agreed that that was an abuse of the processes of the select committee. We stood our ground and made National listen to submissions. 
But that is but one part of the poor process. The regulatory impact statement that accompanied the bill recorded Treasury’s very grave concerns that the analysis that lay behind the bill was not adequate. The regulatory impact statement that accompanied the bill made it clear. The Cabinet paper that lead to the bill had that same regulatory impact statement but it additionally had a warning not just from Treasury but also from the Ministry of Economic Development that what was being proposed was wrong. 
The effect of the legislation has been to extend the period of transitional support to major emitting industries. I agree with Mr Boscawen that major emitting industries need some transitional support. If we do not give them free emission rights during that period of transition they would close up we would lose the jobs and we would lose the profitable contributions of those businesses to our economy. We might lose those industries forever. But with appropriate transitional support those industries might be viable long into the future for the benefit of our economy and indeed at no detriment to the world environment. 
But that does not mean that transitional support should exist forever and it does not mean that the transitional support should be tied to the rate of phase-out of transitional support in Australia the United States China or wherever. Those factors are relevant but New Zealand should do what is in New Zealand’s economic interests as well as what will achieve the environmental purpose of the scheme. 
There are examples that have been used by economists time and again including by the adviser to the committee Dr Suzi Kerr. She is currently a visiting professor at Stanford University. She is one of the world-renowned experts in emissions pricing. We are lucky to have her in New Zealand most of the time. She is a niece of Roger Kerr from the Business Roundtable. She normally works at the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust. There is no doubt about her credentials. She is a very clever woman indeed as evidenced by the fact that she is lecturing on these very topics at Stanford University in the United States at the moment. 
Dr Kerr makes the very clear and easily understood point that what is economically efficient for the country is not necessarily what is in the interests of the emitter. Of course the emitters want more and more free emission rights for as long as possible. But that does not make economic sense for New Zealand and we had some examples of why that is such a nonsense. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—who is a an officer of this good House; an Officer of Parliament—came to the select committee and quoted a study that had been overseen by a group that included I think Treasury representatives. Anyway it was one of the leadership forum papers during a prior iteration of the emissions trading scheme. That report found that the amount of subsidy or if one does not like the word ‘subsidy’ the amount of contribution of free emission units to Rio Tinto in Bluff is the equivalent of $100000 per employee per annum. That is a very real cost. If those free emission rights were not given to them the Government would have the equivalent of $100000 per employee per annum. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Would you close it down? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I would not close it down. But nor would I buy into the myth that it will. What I am saying is that we should not phase out their free allocation at the rate of 1.3 percent per annum the effect of which I say to Mr Joyce is that even after 50 years more than 50 percent of their emissions will still be being paid for by taxpayers. 
The proper analysis when applied by economists like Suzi Kerr is to make comparisons with tariff policy. New Zealand reduced our tariffs ahead of our trading partners. Not many people in New Zealand think now that that was economically wrong for New Zealand even though we did it faster than most of our trading partners. 
We can have a big debate as to whether we should have done that over 5 years rather than over 1 year or over 10 years but no one says we should have done it over 50 years. No one says that by 2050 if we were phasing out tariffs we should still have tariff protection equivalent to 50 percent of where they were when we started to phase them out. 
The economic principles that underlie that argument are exactly the same as those that apply to emissions pricing. It is what the economists say and it is what Treasury says and they are correct. Instead the Government is giving such generous free allocations to the likes of Rio Tinto to the farming sector and to Methanex so that by 2050 still more than half of their emissions costs will be borne by taxpayers. 
Taxpayers will be paying for all their own emissions in respect of their fuel and electricity. Taxpayers—me other taxpayers all the individuals in New Zealand—will keep paying the full cost of their emissions for their transport and electricity. They will also be paying for more than 50 percent of the emissions by the major emitters because those major emitters will not have been phased out of their free allocation. It is wrong and as a consequence Government debt cumulates to $110 billion more by 2050 than would be the case under the status quo. 
One hundred and ten billion dollars is the equivalent of between 13 and 17 percent of GDP. The National Government is doing what Sir Robert Muldoon did previously. We have a current account deficit as well as growing Government debt and through this one measure alone the Government is visiting on future generations another $110 billion of Government debt. Treasury’s estimate—which the Government now rubbishes; the Government feels free to rubbish anything Treasury says if it disagrees with it—is that New Zealand’s Government debt will increase by between 13 and 17 percent of GDP. 
The error that that was not discovered until the last day of the select committee was not even enough to cause the Government to take a breath. It did not think that maybe it should look at the issue for another month and get to the bottom of it. The Government just pushed on remorselessly and it is visiting on New Zealand’s younger generation an unaffordable bill which will see wealth destruction in areas like farming which occurred when supplementary minimum prices were withdrawn because they were no longer affordable. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 For a moment I thought I was in the wrong place. I thought I was here for the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill which in its new incarnation has been turned into the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill the Securities Markets Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill and the Securities Amendment Bill. The previous speaker David Parker was waxing lyrical about something completely different so I was a little bit lost for a minute. 
It is a great pleasure to take a very short call on this legislation because there is great support in this House. It is a complex set of bills but when one nuts it down one sees that it provides a way for trades in securities and other products to be cleared and settled through designated systems that meet the expectation of international and domestic participants in our financial sector. In this current economic climate where New Zealand relies very heavily on our trading relationships with our overseas partners it is crucial that New Zealand is aligned with international best practice. 
Previous speakers have spoken about everything else so I will move to some issues that were raised by the Commerce Committee and a couple of amendments that were proposed by the committee which are reflected in the legislation. One issue is the penalties relating to designated settlement systems. Two main issues were raised regarding penalties. The first issue relates to the many offences that exist under the new Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. The second issue relates to the level and nature of penalties available to remedy these offences. There were 12 submissions to the select committee. We also had advice from the Ministry of Economic Development the Reserve Bank and the Securities Commission. Submissions suggested that fines and imprisonment were unnecessary and that the remedy should be limited to revocation of designation. But the power of revocation is extreme and a less severe option needs to be available to provide regulators with ways of ensuring compliance. The level and nature of penalties were also debated and it was recommended that although all penalties in the legislation should be retained the maximum penalty for bodies corporate should be reduced from $1 million to $750000 to align it or make it comparable with other jurisdictions. 
Another issue is in regard to insolvency and the finality of settlement. Although it is rare and unlikely to avoid potential problems in the event that a participant becomes insolvent during a settlement transaction the Commerce Committee recommends that finality protection should extend for 24 hours after the commencement of an insolvency regardless of when the contact person had notice. This would remove uncertainty over receipt of notice while maintaining a 24-hour window after the commencement of an insolvency event to complete any settlements that were already in progress. 
Finally I commend the work of the select committee which is led by the Hon Lianne Dalziel very very ably supported by Sam Lotu-Iiga and the rest of the members. I also welcome the new member who went AWOL for a little while Charles Chauvel. I commend this legislation to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in the third reading debate on the four component pieces of legislation coming from the Settlements Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. Labour will be supporting this legislation. Indeed it was introduced to the House by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel last year. It was reported back from the Commerce Committee in June this year and I congratulate the select committee under the leadership of my very good colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was the committee’s chair. I thank the committee for the work that members have done on the legislation. I think it is good work. It is a shame that it has taken so long for this legislation to come back to the House; I think that it is far more important than a number of other pieces of legislation that have been progressed under urgency in this House. 
But I say to the member who has just resumed her seat Melissa Lee that if she does not see any connection between a bill that facilitates a carbon trading market and an emissions trading scheme then that may go some way to explaining the complete shambles that we have had to sit through over the last few weeks on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. If that member thinks that carbon trading and the facilitation of the purchase of international Kyoto-compliant emission units are in no way related to the emissions trading scheme and that Labour members should therefore not be allowed to talk about that scheme then I say that that is a very very worrying position that the Government is taking. At the moment it is a little bit as if the Government has its blinkers on: “Here is a piece of legislation that people support and so much is going on that people are opposing out there that we really just don’t want to think about it so could Labour members please not bring it up.” But we will talk about it because it is very important. 
This is the only stage of this debate where members have been able to stand up and publicly speak about what happened at the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Prior to this it has been in committee and we have been very careful about commenting. In my short time in Parliament and I have been here since 2003 this is undoubtedly the absolutely worst process I have ever seen for anything. 
David Garrett 
: Are you voting against it? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No no—for the emissions trading scheme. This bill went through a very very good process and it shows what would happen if legislation were allowed to go through due process in the House. 
Melissa Lee 
: Why don’t you talk about the bills? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am talking about them now; if Ms Lee just listened she would hear that. The Commerce Committee did a very good job. They made some good changes. I am particularly happy that they have been flexible about some of the definitions because there will be a lot of innovation in the area of carbon trading. 
We need legislation that does not continuously have to keep coming back to the House to be amended and that allows that innovation to be covered under existing legislation. The fact is that when we compare this legislation to the piece of legislation that is the most important when it comes to the carbon trading market—the emissions trading scheme—the contrast could not be more stark. On the day that we were deliberating on the emissions trading scheme amendment legislation we were still receiving advice from officials and our specialist advisers. We could not even consider that advice before we had to decide whether to support the emissions trading scheme legislation. That is absolutely appalling. We did not even have time to consider a revision-tracked version of the bill because the time frames did not allow it. We finished hearing submissions the week that we had to deliberate. We went through a departmental report that had no clause by clause analysis yet this was the most important piece of legislation when setting up any kind of carbon trading market. 
The Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee that was set up was nothing more than a smokescreen. We had no idea what we were meant to be doing. The terms of reference were so broad that it was clear that all it was there for was delay and that delay has done incredible damage to our prospects as a serious engager in international carbon trading markets. We had the opportunity in this country to create enormous wealth from being a country— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Vote for the National bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What bill—the emissions trading scheme amendment bill? We actually have an emissions trading scheme in place at the moment; we do not need to vote for National’s bill. 
Again I find it very disturbing that National members opposite do not seem to realise that this legislation is not the emissions trading scheme legislation. Labour is supporting the legislation that we wrote and that we put into the House. But we are raising serious serious concerns about passing this legislation when the most important piece of legislation to a carbon trading market the emissions trading scheme has gone through such a shambolic process. That has done so much damage in terms of the delay. 
We are now a year out from the election. We went through a review period on the special select committee set up to review the emissions trading scheme a committee that really was stumbling around blindly in the dark. We did not know what we were meant to be doing but then all of a sudden the Minister said we had to report back and we were not allowed to discuss anything more. We then had a process of something like 6 weeks to consider the most important piece of legislation in this area—the emissions trading scheme and why that is important. 
Dr Mapp can chip away he was not at that select committee and he does not know how shambolic that process was. He does not know that the National Party complained last year about the nearly 60 hours we spent in hearing submissions saying that it was not enough. This year it was about 20 hours of submissions but somehow that is OK. When the Labour Party restricts the hearing of submission to 60 hours then that is an absolute outrage to democracy because it is not nearly enough. But when the National Party hears those same submissions in 20 hours well that is fine— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Because it’s an amendment bill! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Dr Wayne Mapp says that that is because it is an amendment bill. Well the fact is that no one who came to the committee knew what the Government wanted to do. It did not give the Supplementary Order Paper to the members of the committee. We have not seen it and we do not know what will be in it. It will be dropped in the House—as they always are—just before we are about to debate it so that we will not get a chance to see it. I say to Dr Mapp because he said that it was just an amendment bill that it is an amendment bill for which Treasury we were told at the select committee this week was put under enormous time pressure. Treasury did not have time to do the analysis properly but the legislation will impose a $110 billion liability on the taxpayer—a $110 billion liability. Dr Mapp says that this is just an amendment bill so it does not need to go through a proper select committee process. Eighteen percent of GDP debt will be added; that is what Treasury said. But Dr Mapp says that it is just an amendment bill so it does not need to go through a proper process. Well I tell Dr Mapp that the submitters who were rushed through that process did not think it was just an amendment bill. They did not think that it was just an amendment bill. 
What the Government does not tell people and why the bill is so important—a bill that facilitates the purchasing of international emissions units—is that we will be buying a whole lot of units. When the Government decided that it would have an emissions reduction target of between 10 to 20 percent it did not say that it had no intention of reducing emissions. Officials confirmed this for us at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. When the Government says an emissions reduction target of 10 to 20 percent it does not actually want to reduce emissions; it just wants to purchase enough emissions units to pay for it. That is quite different. But when we look at the Government’s emissions trading scheme we clearly see that the emissions trading scheme amendment bill that has just been reported back from the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee will not reduce emissions. In fact ironically there are incentives in the bill to increase emissions. 
We will be buying a lot of emissions units on the international market. Treasury officials told us this week that they made a $50 billion mistake because they were under such incredible time pressure. They did not have time to do the work properly. It is not their fault; they were put under unrealistic time frames for one of the most important economic measures our country will ever see. I ask members what time the measure had. It had only 6 weeks at select committee and officials were not able to do the work properly—and they told us that. The Parliamentary Counsel Office told us it did not have time to do the work properly. Everyone said there was not enough time. The Business Roundtable said there was not enough time for it to do a proper submission. It was rung the day—the very day—it had to do its submission; it was asked to come in that night to do a submission. The Business Roundtable complained about the process as well. 
Although Dr Mapp may say that this is just an amendment bill members on this side say that it is $110 billion worth of liability that Dr Mapp is putting on to future generations. The bill had 6 weeks at the select committee which is an absolute outrage. It is just as well we are passing legislation here to facilitate the purchase of international emissions units because we need $110 billion worth of them. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see the final readings of this series of bills. It is vitally important to New Zealand’s standing in the international trading community to have sound best-practice systems so our export-orientated country does not have impediments perceived or real that would dissuade any traders from participating in our market. In regard to emissions trading it is very important to have a regulated framework. It is essential. The global market and its disruptions mean that safe partners can no longer be assumed and these bills work towards bringing that sense of surety regulation and framework. The bill also works to define the emissions units. The world around us is changing and a new commodity that markets need to come to grips with is emissions units. I am very pleased to commend these bills to the House. Thank you. 
Bills read a third time. 
Maiden Statements 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kei te mihi nui kei te mihi aroha ki te Whare Paremata tena koe. Ki nga rangatira ma nga kuia ma ki te hunga ora tatou hui mai nei tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Ko Ngatokimatawhaorua te waka. Ko Maungataniwha te maunga. Ko Hokianga te awa. Ko Ngapuhi te iwi. Ko Clendon te whanau. Ko David Clendon ahau. Tihei mauri ora! 
[ 
I extend a huge and fond greeting to the House of Parliament: greetings. To the chiefs elderly ladies to us the living assembled here greetings greetings and greetings to you all. The canoe is Ngatokimatawhaorua the mountain is Maungataniwha the river is Hokianga the tribe is Ngapuhi the family is Clendon and I am David Clendon. Behold the breath of life! 
] 
I deem it an honour and a great privilege to be in this House today to take up the duties the rights and the responsibilities of a member of Parliament. I offer my greetings and respect to those who have gone before to those here now and to those who in turn will follow us. Earlier today I took an affirmation of loyalty to the Crown. I now add to that a commitment to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding constitutional document of the country I now aspire to serve as have other Green MPs before me. However my commitment is far from being merely a token or a follow-the-leader statement. As well as an objective or intellectual respect for the relationship that the Treaty established I feel a close and very personal connection to it through the diverse strands of my own genealogy. 
My Pakeha tupuna James Clendon came to New Zealand as a sea captain in the late 1820s and by the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1835 he was sufficiently well known and trusted by both Crown and nga iwi Maori to be one of the two Crown witnesses whose signatures appear on the declaration. There is evidence that the final drafting of the Treaty document before it was translated into Maori was completed at James’ house in Okiato and later in February 1840 at Ngunguru he put his signature to the Treaty as a witness for the Ariki Pomare. After the death of James’ wife he remarried to Jane Kerenene the daughter of Takotowi Te Whata of Mangamuka and from that and successive marriages I trace my whakapapa that links me to this whenua and in particular to the Hokianga and it to me—far beyond the five Pakeha generations of my family. 
So I am in the unusual though not unique situation of having both Pakeha and Maori tupuna whose tohu appear on the two documents that underpin our constitutional arrangements. My Pakeha ancestor also shared with Maori the dubious distinction of having lost a large part of his fortune through being ripped off in a land deal with the Government but that is a story for another day. I believe that any failure of the kawanatanga to respect and fulfil the mana and authority of the Treaty also undermines the legitimate right of this House to assert its own mana and its own authority. This is one of the principles that will direct and guide my words and actions in this place. 
I owe to my father a debt of gratitude for among other things instilling in me a respect for my heritage both Maori and Pakeha and a deep affection for this country that we are so fortunate to call our home. Although his state of health prevents him from being here today I know he will take pride in seeing a son achieve such a goal as in his own way he has taken pride in the achievements of all his seven children and many grandchildren. Dad always worked hard and willingly to support his family. His job for many years and from which he retired was as a Public Service chauffeur driving one of the big Fords that were the forerunner of today’s fleet of BMWs that ferry our Ministers and other senior officials to their work. Recalling that my own father once provided with integrity and sense of purpose a service to members of this House reminds me to show due humility and respect to the small army of people who in a myriad of ways support the work of the members of this House and without whose efforts the work could not be done. 
My mother is here today and I stand in awe of her boundless aroha her ability and willingness to awhi and tautoko her children her family and indeed anyone in genuine need who has ever crossed her path. The courage and strength of character that enabled her parents to migrate from Wales almost a century ago and to make a life in what must have seemed such a distant and foreign land is very evident in their daughter. 
To my own dear daughter also here today I offer my unbounded love and affection. Watching you grow into the remarkable young woman you are has been the joy of my life and no parent could ask for more. To my partner Lindis to my siblings all of my whanau and friends I thank you for the support you have given me and that I know you will continue to give me as I face the challenges and difficulties that will inevitably arise from this role that I begin in earnest today. 
I thank my fellow Green Party members for the confidence they have shown in me by putting me in a position to take up this role and I commit to upholding the party’s values and principles and to working to achieve our shared goals and aspirations. In particular I acknowledge Sue Bradford whose remarkable dedication courage intellect and sheer endurance won the respect not only of her friends and those of like mind politically but also of many others from across the political social and economic spectrum. I say kia kaha to Sue; she has set a very high standard for me to reach for. 
There has been a deal of speculation that as Sue has departed from this House to return to the “Parliament of the Streets” that was the first forum for her political activism so too will depart the Green caucus’ commitment to social justice issues and our concern and willingness to advocate and fight for the most vulnerable and least well-off in our society. One commentator went so far as to suggest that we were seeing “the rise of the intellectual Green MP: cogent abstract and not as connected with how people really live their lives.” Although I have no difficulty associating Green MPs with intelligence cogency or the capacity for abstract thinking I certainly take issue however with the notion of disconnectedness from real people and real lives. Nothing in fact could be further from the truth. The Green choir has lost a powerful voice but as one leaves another will step up and the song remains the same. 
Some of the misapprehension may have arisen to the extent that it is known that one of my assigned roles is to demonstrate that existing Green Party principles and policies do not conflict with and indeed can readily align with the interests and aspirations of much of the business community in particular the small and medium sized enterprises that are at the heart of our economy which are collectively our largest employers and producers. Smart business people know that as employers it is in their interest to treat their employees decently and fairly; that a relationship built and maintained on mutual respect and hard-earned trust is one of the necessary elements of a business that will survive and indeed thrive in good times and bad. 
A recently published report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research suggests that “there is benefit in demonstrating progress towards sustainability but it is important to shine the spotlight on our policy mix to ensure policy programme priorities make both economic and environmental sense.” From the Green perspective it is impossible to do anything other than consider the environment when making economic decisions. The environment is the ultimate source of all the material wealth we may produce. The state of our ecosystems and the services they provide must be included in any genuine assessment of individual and collective well-being. Old-style economic and political systems focused solely on distribution of goods and wealth; the Green analysis looks closely at the generation of that wealth and the unique importance of not compromising the natural capital that is the source of that wealth. The economic decisions we take and implement need to be those that reduce our dependency on a long and increasingly threatened supply chain not least of all for the oil that literally fuels our economy. 
It is the realities of geology as much as the vagaries of politics or economics that dictate that we must as a matter of urgency effect the transition to a low-carbon economy. The business community and indeed the wider community are taking a lead in advancing this programme through such initiatives as the Transition Towns movement and through businesses using a sustainability framework to reinvent their business models reduce their resource use and enhance their productivity and profitability. These initiatives reflect a growing public awareness that we need to live our lives and conduct our affairs differently but we need not live any less well. It is past time this Government took a clear position and began to provide leadership and support for these necessary changes. Business as usual is an option but those who have seen the movie will understand that it is an  
Age of Stupid 
 option. 
The business case for sustainability is overwhelming. Our “100% Pure New Zealand” branding has been highly successful internationally which provides a powerful motivation to make the image real. A brand that oversells itself will eventually pay the price of such “greenwashing” and selling ourselves as “100% Pure” without ensuring the integrity of that brand is an exercise in digging a hole into which our major income providers our primary and processed food production and our tourism industry will eventually fall and eventually fail. 
Despite much of the rhetoric and its commonplace portrayal to the contrary the economy is not an independent being—a creature in its own right. The economy is essentially comprised of a complex set of social relationships with decisions made based on sets of values and assumptions. It is also usefully understood as being a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment and if the parent company should fail so too will the offshoot. Invariably every economic decision will advantage some and disadvantage others at least in the short term. A democracy will be imperilled to the extent that the same group in society is always winning while other groups are always losing. We need to focus our attention on reducing the income gap that has been widening for too many years as that way lies a nation made up of a minority with too much to lose and a majority with nothing to lose and that is not a recipe for stability or harmony. 
Other policy areas in which I will be working to advance Green ideas and practice are in tertiary education; research science and technology; resource management; and Auckland’s governance. With these and other portfolios it is clear that I will never lack for work. Of one thing I am sure and that is that I will make mistakes in this House. I trust they will be honestly made and not repeated. I look forward to engaging with sector groups with non-governmental organisations and with members of the public with an interest and expertise in these issues. 
I look forward also to engaging in the substantive debate that I sincerely hope occurs within the parliamentary precinct alongside or perhaps behind the somewhat formulaic and superficial engagement that is too often the public face of politics. My default position in debate is to always look first for the common ground the points of agreement and that which unites rather than divides. Consensus-seeking as practised by the Greens is a powerful tool for the resolution of conflict and I will always be willing to give ground where it will allow all parties to get some of what they need if not all of what they may want. What can never be compromised are points of core value core belief or core principle. A person or a party can sacrifice their integrity only once and that will not happen on my watch. 
I look forward to the work the opportunities and the challenges of what I hope is a long and honourable tenure in the career I begin today. Kei te haere ahau ki te mahi. 
Te toka tu moana ka tu ka tu ka tu. Ahakoa i awhatia mai e te rangi i whakapakakatia e te whitinga o te ra te toka tu moana ka tu ka tu ka tu. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
I am going to work. The rock in the ocean stands fast firm and resolute despite its being lashed by gales storms and rain from the heavens; baked burnt and dried by the rising sun the rock in the ocean stands fast firm and resolute. So greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all 
.] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We are about 2 minutes away from the dinner break. Accordingly I move that the House now adjourns for the dinner break. 
David Garrett 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are already on a point of order raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee and I must put that to the House first. Leave is sought to adjourn for the dinner break. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I regret that prior to the maiden statement we have just heard I actually called for a party vote on the vote that was held but my call was not heard. I regret to have to ask whether we can ask for a party vote at this time or at least record that the ACT Party objected to and was against that voting course. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid the honourable member should have made his position clear at the time. I looked around the House I saw no one call for a party vote and that is why I went on to the maiden statement. It is now too late to call for a party vote on that matter. We are now within 1 minute of the House rising for the dinner break. I am in the hands of the House. I wonder whether it is worth seeking leave again. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Ditto. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection now for that course of action? There is none. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The return of this bill to the House marks an important step towards implementing the Government’s policy to allow the contract management of New Zealand’s prisons on a case by case basis. The Government wants New Zealand to have a world-class corrections system. Allowing private companies to manage prisons will create opportunities to benefit from private sector initiative and expertise. In doing so we will encourage more innovation and we stand to achieve greater efficiencies and effectiveness in New Zealand’s corrections system. 
As this bill has now returned from the Law and Order Committee I take this opportunity to thank the select committee for its hard work in its consideration of the bill and of the public submissions it received. I especially thank the chair of the committee Sandra Goudie MP. I also acknowledge and thank those members of the public who took the time to make submissions to the select committee. The bill attracted submissions from a wide range of people and organisations and these were all taken into account during the committee’s deliberations. Many submissions acknowledged that the Department of Corrections is under enormous pressure. This has not changed. I recently announced that the prison population in New Zealand had reached its highest level ever. The department is fast reaching the point where the number of prisoners will exceed the number of beds available. Addressing this issue and improving the performance of the corrections system overall is one of the Government’s top priorities. 
Allowing for contract-managed prisons gives us an opportunity to create a corrections system that is modern effective and efficient. The Government is committed to achieving this in a way that is consistent with the principles of the Corrections Act 2004. These principles are to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society. This must be done through the safe secure humane and effective containment of prisoners. This bill does not contravene any of these important principles. 
Under the provisions of the bill the chief executive of the Department of Corrections will remain responsible for all prisoners in New Zealand and accountable for what happens to them. This includes prisoners held in contract-managed prisons. As a result we will expect contract-managed prisons to comply with the same obligations and standards as the prisons directly managed by the department. Contract-managed prisons will have to comply with all relevant New Zealand legislation. This includes contractual obligations to comply with the Corrections Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The bill also imposes contractual obligations on private prisons to comply with all relevant international obligations and standards. Failure to comply with the relevant New Zealand legislation or our international obligations would be a breach of contract and could result in its termination. 
The bill imposes further contractual obligations to specify the objectives and performance standards of each contract-managed prison. These include objectives and performance standards for the management of the prison as well as for the management and care of prisoners. The performance standards and requirements that we will expect will be no less than those we expect in our own prisons. The bill also addresses the concern that contract-managed prisons will attempt to increase profits by having fewer staff than a public prison. It will be a contractual requirement for each private prison to appoint and train sufficient suitable staff to enable them to carry out their statutory and contractual obligations. The bill requires every prison under contract management to provide rehabilitative and reintegrative programmes that will help prisoners address the causes of their offending and will assist their reintegration into society. 
In order to comply with these contractual obligations prison managers will be subject to comprehensive reporting requirements. These include regular reporting on staff training on incidents involving violence or self-harm and on the rehabilitation and reintegration programmes provided for prisoners. In addition prison contractors must report promptly all escapes and deaths in custody. Failure to comply with any of these requirements would be a breach of contract. 
The bill also contains a number of mechanisms to ensure that contractors are accountable and are complying with the terms of their contracts. Particularly important to ensure accountability and compliance will be the prison monitors who will regularly report to the chief executive. A prison monitor will be appointed to every contract-managed prison. The prison monitor will have free and unfettered access to all parts of a private prison. This includes access to all prisoners and staff. The primary purpose of prison monitors will be to oversee the contractors’ compliance the terms of the contract and the requirements of the law. Prison monitors will also be able to investigate any issue in a private prison at the behest of the chief executive or on their own initiative. 
I am pleased to report that following deliberations by the select committee the role of prison monitors has been expanded to enhance their functionality in two key respects. The chief executive will be able to appoint additional monitors to private prisons to assist the primary monitor. Additional monitors will be used in situations where increased surveillance may be required. For example additional monitors may be appointed to a prison to provide 24-hour monitoring or an extra monitor may simply be appointed to a particularly large prison. The chief executive will also be able to appoint specialist monitors for particular purposes. These monitors will investigate any matter related to a contract-managed prison at the request of the chief executive or on their own initiative. It is intended that their primary purpose will be to respond to specific issues raised by the monitors based in private prisons. This could include for example investigating criminal activity in prison. This will allow for a thorough investigation to be conducted while not interfering with the day-to-day role of the resident prison monitor. 
The select committee made other minor changes to the bill. It recognised the importance of providing prisoners with employment and skill development. The bill now requires specific reporting on the provision of employment and skill development to prisoners. The bill already has a requirement to report on the rehabilitative and reintegrative programmes provided for prisoners. However employment and skills development are also essential activities to help prisoners in their eventual reintegration into the community. It was agreed that these activities had to be recognised in their own right with separate reporting requirements. 
Additionally the bill has been amended to address the flow of information between staff at contract-managed prisons the Department of Corrections and other Government agencies. This amendment is to ensure that the current sharing of information on prisoners between the Department of Corrections and other Government agencies will continue notwithstanding that some prisoners will be in a contract-managed prison. This is because other Government agencies—such as the Police the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Labour—often need this information in order to perform their functions and duties. 
The changes made by the select committee that I have just highlighted will provide even greater protection for prisoners and will increase the department’s ability to monitor a contractor’s performance and compliance. These changes will enhance the effectiveness and functionality of the bill. As a result this bill will allow the Government to reap the benefits of private sector innovation in prison management while providing adequate safeguards for the secure safe and humane custody of prisoners. As the Minister of Corrections I firmly believe that this bill will provide an effective statutory framework for the regulation and control of privately managed prisons in New Zealand. As such I am committed to its successful implementation. I commend this bill to the House for its second reading. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Labour members will oppose the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill and we will do so on two main platforms. One is a core principle that I will come to in a moment and the other is centred on the objective of this bill which could be characterised as an attempt to distance performance from accountability. 
An offer was made to the Law and Order Committee to have the idea—that is that private is better than public in the prison service—tested in an independent way by agencies and commercial enterprises that do not have an axe to grind or a vested interest. The Minister of Corrections Judith Collins to this day will not submit this proposal to independent scrutiny and at that point we have to ask ourselves why. I know that other members from the Labour side will deal with this matter in more detail so putting aside for a moment the notion that it is the role of the Crown as a core responsibility to incarcerate and therefore be responsible for incarcerating its citizenry there are core responsibilities within the Crown portfolio. I suspect that we are not yet—or at least I hope not—talking about privatising other services like the police. Of course we would not do that—I hope. I am sure we would not I hope have a debate in this House about privatising core services—for instance our military capacity. I hope that we will not; I pray that we will not. 
The incarceration the rehabilitation and the responsibility for incarcerating our citizenry is indeed I put to you Mr Assistant Speaker a core responsibility of the State. This Parliament sets the laws the courts interpret those laws and pass sentence and then it is handed back to the Crown through the Department of Corrections to incarcerate administer and punish—because that is part of prison and one is soft on crime in my view if one does not believe that—but also then to rehabilitate and hopefully return to our society folk who will not engage in the heinous crimes they did to get there in the first place. That in my view and I submit this to you Mr Assistant Speaker is a core responsibility of the State. 
Yet I could be wrong. The Minister could be wrong in promoting the privatisation of the prison service. I put to this Parliament that that argument could well be alleviated if that Minister would submit her ideas and her proposals to independent accountability to thorough analysis by those who do not have a vested interest in order to test the argument and the idea. There has been no evidence put to this Parliament or the Law and Order Committee from anybody that justifies the privatisation of prisons. Members should remember that the original proposition for this bill was the potential privatisation and management of future new yet-to-be-built prisons. But that does not appear in this bill and we know from an email sent I believe in June of this year that Barry Matthews—and the chief executive of the Department of Corrections will be held to account for his comments in the select committee when he appears in the financial review—sent a threatening email to staff saying that there was no money for a wage increase and that if they did not toe the line he would recommend the privatisation of the management of prisons. 
The only justification for privatisation that has been put up is one of cost. We have just heard flimflam from the Minister sounding high and mighty but I will say that the principal goals about rehabilitation about skills training and about providing facilities where the game is lifted and where prisoners and dangerous folk are secured from our community are all valid and principled aims. But there is no reason why those valid and principled aims could not be brought to bear on a department called the Department of Corrections. 
Much was made of the only historical example of privatisation that we have in this country which was when the Auckland Central Remand Prison was privatised. That is the only example we have and that was reversed by the then incoming Labour Government. That is the only example we have. The Minister trumpeted that she will have the ability to if you will penalise a private company for instance for escapes by taking the money out of their kick. All those objectives I have outlined and a practical measure like that could well be exercised by this Minister if she had a will to do it if she had a will to make her department accountable because we move this bill through its parliamentary stages in an environment where the Department of Corrections is in industrial terms at war with itself by taking its own department to the Employment Court to try to protect its own members from a Minister who describes broken bones of prison officers as “minor injuries”. 
But let us for a moment consider the only justification that the Minister has trumpeted in an environment of economic recession for going private—that is cost cutting. The thesis is that the private sector can incarcerate rehabilitate and provide skills at a cheaper rate of course than the public sector. The Minister said as much in an answer to me in volume 656 of the  
Hansard 
 when she said: “I am aware of information from my own department that in 2004-05 the last year the Auckland Central Remand Prison was privately run the cost was $57280 per prisoner whereas the equivalent in the public sector cost $61796 per prisoner.” Well that is interesting because I also have in front of me the document that her own department submitted and this is the only real justification put up for privatising prisons. It states that the costs from the same period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 inclusive of property-related overheads were $57280 for the private provider and $50208 for the public provider the Department of Corrections. 
So I would like to know who is telling porkies because those figures raise the issue that the advice the Minister has from her own department as per the  
Hansard 
 does not match the advice that the select committee got from her own department which up until today we have not been able to talk about. So who is telling the truth because cost is the only justification that this Minister has used? Apparently one cannot rehabilitate prisoners under the Department of Corrections. Apparently one cannot take money out of Barry Matthews’ budget if there is an escape. Well I say they can if they have the political will. They can use all those motivational tactics such that they are with the Crown department running the show. 
I say this: there are nefarious motives of some and prison officers came before the select committee to advise us of what had occurred under the GEO Group. Prison officers who worked at the Auckland Central Remand Prison both when privately and publicly managed submitted to the committee that decisions were made on a day-to-day basis that were intended to protect the reputation of GEO and also to ensure that performance bonuses provided under the contract were obtained by GEO. They talked about prison officers who had erred but were asked to go quietly and resign rather than being disciplined. I think that is not on. 
The issue before this House is one I believe that is simple. This bill is about distancing as I said at the start the performance of a Minister—or lack of it—from his or her accountability as Minister. This is a Minister who cannot be accountable to this Parliament for the actions of her own department and we have had a litany of prison incidents through the latest Burton assault and through the attack with razor blades which she trumpeted she had got out of our prisons. Yet what happened in the Paremoremo maximum security prison quite recently? This is a Minister who cannot get accountability out of her own department but washes her hands of it and says that it is an operational matter. When we bring evidence that a prison officer’s bones were broken the Minister says it is an operational matter or a minor injury. So what will happen when the Auditor-General cannot penetrate a private company or when the Ombudsman cannot penetrate a private company? Not only will it be an operational matter but journalists and those who want to exercise an Official Information Act request or hold a select committee inquiry will have to go and dig even deeper and they will not be able to penetrate the private provider. The Minister will be able to say not only that it is operational but that it is a private matter and tell them to go away. This will be a sad day for the House and one that I believe this Minister will regret. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill which I see as an opportunity for innovation and new ideas. The previous Labour Government had that opportunity but trampled all over it and got rid of it as soon as it could. I thank my colleagues on the Law and Order Committee who did an outstanding job and I also acknowledge David Garrett from ACT who made a sensible contribution. Opposition members had plenty of time to understand how a private contract for the management of a prison might operate but their ideology prevents them from even considering it. There are not any principles involved; this is about ideology and about safeguarding the stronghold of unions. But unions by their very nature cripple innovation and new ideas. That is the ideology of the Opposition. But this Government believes that this bill will pave the way for innovation in a safe and effective way in terms of the management of the incarceration of offenders. 
It is crucial that we actually deliver the very best Department of Corrections service for New Zealand. To do that we should not limit our choices; we should have alternative ways of doing things so we have some way of measuring the performance of each one. In order to have a world-class corrections system we need that exposure to world-class innovation and expertise. We can get that by allowing private companies to provide those custodial services and create the opportunity to benefit from private sector initiatives and know-how. It is quite clear that the Auckland remand prison started that innovation when it had the opportunity before Labour squashed it in 2004. It was the first prison to have Maori involvement in its management and our understanding is that it was highly successful yet it was trampled over by the previous Government. It was not seen as something that was important. One of the most appealing aspects of private prison management will be the ability to build performance incentives and penalties into the contract but public safety is one of the top priorities. 
I see that the Opposition has been going on about the core principle of the Crown being responsible for the incarceration of criminals and that it should not contract out that responsibility. But the Crown contracts out its responsibility in a range of fields. The only one that I can think of is that it sets the rules by which we can drive a car but we do not expect the car to be driven for us. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: That’s ridiculous! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I could not think of another analogy quickly enough but that is pretty much it. Why should this be the only area of core responsibility that it should not be able to contract out? 
This bill is about new ideas and independent benchmarks but of course the Opposition is bereft of any of those. It is also about leadership and leadership makes that difference. Private prison managers will raise standards across the whole of the corrections sector. At least we in National are willing to provide the opportunity for that to happen whereas the Opposition is not open even to considering that as an option and that is a real shame. How can we move forward unless we have some innovation and new ideas? We are all for that. 
The bill which is about prison management contracts will set out a number of requirements the sorts of requirements we discussed at length in the select committee: objective and performance standards no lower than those of publicly run prisons staff training coordination of services and processes with publicly run prisons maintenance of insurance to indemnify the Crown avoidance of conflicts of interest provision of rehabilitation and reintegration programmes and dispute resolution and termination provisions. Of course there is an opportunity here for private prisons to do a far better job than prisons that are managed by the Crown. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Than they did last time? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: They did that last time. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No they didn’t. Look at the facts. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I think they did. This is a bone of contention. Perhaps under the previous Government they were not allowed to have that opportunity which is no surprise. Why are we not surprised? Opposition members talk also about the fact that there is no accountability. Well actually there is but they want it to go far beyond the reasonable inquiries of the actual contract management of the prison and into the financial position of the company that might have the contract which is far beyond the contract itself. Once again that is the whole issue of micromanaging nanny State ideology which is a hallmark of the Opposition is it not? 
National is absolutely delighted to progress the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. I heartily support the exceptional leadership of the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins and commend the National Government for bringing this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person. I have just gone through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I cannot find the right to drive a car. But the member Sandra Goudie has just sat down after saying to this House that she could not find a comparison other than that we set the rules about how people can drive a car and where they can drive a car but that does not mean that we have to drive the car for everyone. That was her response to our statement from this side of the House that the right to liberty is a fundamental human right and that only the State has the circumstances where it can deprive individuals of their liberty. That is something that sits only within the role of the State and I am firmly of the view that it is wrong to generate private profit from the deprivation of liberty. Yet that member thinks that driving a car is a comparison to undermining one of the basic tenets of our New Zealand democracy. I am quite appalled. 
What that member is challenging us to do is to set aside matters of principle. Never mind the fact that National members are driven by an ideology which is that public is bad and private is good no matter what. In response I ask members which sector caused the greatest global meltdown in the financial markets. Was it the public sector or the private sector? 
Hon Members 
: Private sector. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was the private sector. I think we are agreed on that. But members on that side of the House have this mantra: if it is public it is bad; if it is private it is good. The legislation that we are debating here in this House is ideological but that member has challenged members on this side of the House not to deal with the bill on philosophical grounds. 
Moving away from the right to liberty being fundamental and the role of the State in terms of the deprivation of liberty let us look at the costs. I think that member has not read her own report possibly because this particular piece of information came from the Department of Corrections. But is it to be found within the body of the report back from the Law and Order Committee as part of the general report back? No it is in the Labour minority report. 
Let us look at the information about costs. The Auckland Central Remand Prison our one experience of the privatised model was under private management from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005. When we look at operating costs only we see that they were $35700 per prisoner and it cost $57280 per prisoner if we include property-related overheads. Let us look at remand prisoners held in the public prisons during exactly that same period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005. Operating costs per prisoner were $32000 as compared with $35700 under private management and when we include property-related overheads we see that the cost was $50208 compared with $57280. The rest of the country did better than the Auckland Central Remand Prison. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Try comparing apples with apples. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That member says that we are not really comparing apples with apples because the Auckland Central Remand Prison had extra costs—it was Auckland-based and there were probably other pressures on in Auckland. So let us look at the Auckland Central Remand Prison under public management from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006. Costs have of course gone up because it is a year later. Let us see what the figures look like. Operating costs per prisoner were $33900 compared with $35700 under private management. When we include property-related overheads it was $55853 compared with $57280 under private management. So the Government’s proposition fails from first base. 
The evidence from the one example where we had the private management of a public prison shows that it was more expensive to privatise the management of the prison than it was to run it publicly. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why are we doing this? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have no idea. It is purely ideological from the Government’s position. It simply believes that it has to give those people who want to be involved in the privatisation of a core public function access to what essentially is the money that would be put into our public system anyway. There is no value to be offered to the New Zealand public in return for the opening up of prison management. 
I know that the Government likes to present this move as competition as opposed to privatisation but it is clearly the privatisation of a core State function and I do not think that the public will see it in any other way shape or form. Of course the Prime Minister was on record when he was the Leader of the Opposition as saying that there would be no privatisation in National’s first term in office. So goodness knows what it has on its table for next time— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: There won’t be a next time. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
:—but I suspect it will all come out during the election campaign. There will not be a next time because the public will know exactly what National means by the word “competition”. They know that that will simply be code for privatisation. 
There is another point that the member has not focused on at all and that is the question raised by my colleague—the separation of accountability from performance. We have very strict measures in place to ensure that there is proper accountability for the Department of Corrections to this place to Parliament. We have the select committee that gives oversight to the functions of the Department of Corrections. We have the Official Information Act. We have the use of parliamentary written and oral questions. We have the Auditor-General who at this stage has unfettered access to Government departments and to agencies to inquire into any matter where he or she feels it is appropriate to do so. Then of course we have the role of the Ombudsman which is a very specific role as it relates to prisons. What happens when the management function is privatised? All of these checks and balances go out the window. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Ha ha! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The chair of the select committee is laughing. She thinks that is very funny. I do not think it is very funny because I think one of the reasons why the Government wants to create this arm’s-length mechanism is to ensure that it does not have accountability for one of our most important public roles. 
I alert the House to the fact that when we come to the Committee stage my colleague the Hon Rick Barker intends to put forward three amendments. The first will re-instigate the role of the Ombudsman. It will give the Ombudsman complete and unrestricted access to any contracted prison and to prisoners prison records and prison staff to ensure that it can carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Ombudsman’s office in a similar manner as if the contracted prison was a prison run by the Department of Corrections. He will also propose that the Office of the Auditor-General have exactly the same rights in terms of complete and unrestricted access to all aspects of a contracted prison. 
The third amendment that the Hon Rick Barker will put forward is to ensure that there is no contract for the running of a prison under the Act for more than 3 years and certainly no automatic right or expectation of renewal. That is because we want to send a very strong message to those who wish to think about going down this track again: we will do what we did previously. It is not cost-effective to privatise this function. Setting aside all of the principled arguments that we would put to this House Labour will overturn the privatisation agenda of this Government after the next election. Therefore there is no point in any private business going down the pathway of taking advantage of any of these measures. With this amendment we will ensure that at the end of the contract period that contract will not be renewed and indeed we will not be in a position to see any future privatisation agenda take hold in this country. 
I think that the Government is being quite dishonest in terms of the lack of oversight and also in its lack of transparency in terms of the actual costs of the experience that we have had. We could use many overseas examples of private prisons where the costs are higher the rate of suicides is higher the rate of escapes is higher and the cost-benefit as well simply does not stack up. I think on every level this proposition fails and Labour will not be supporting the passage of this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party remains absolutely opposed to this legislation. It is not evidence-based. It is ideological it is dangerous to the community to staff and to prisoners and it will increase costs to the public purse. 
First I thank all of those brave souls who came to the Law and Order Committee to discuss with the committee their experiences of working within prisons and with prisoners. I pay particular regard to Pat McGill from the Napier Pilot City Trust who with his many years of service to his community talked of the importance of a community taking responsibility for its members developing an inclusive culture that respects all people and seeking non-violent solutions to issues of crime and poverty. 
I acknowledge the Corrections Association of New Zealand for its contribution from front-line staff in its submission to the committee. The association rightfully referred the committee to the many examples of private prison companies overseas that have reduced staff conditions and placed their staff in increasingly dangerous circumstances. Indeed the officials themselves reported that there were more escapes from the private prison in New Zealand than from prisons in the public sector. The Corrections Association talked about how the experience in New Zealand and overseas shows that private prison guards are paid less and have reduced conditions of employment and submitted that there is nothing in this legislation to protect current staff and their jobs and certainly no obligation on the part of the private prison to continue with their collective agreement. The association also raised very serious fears about the impact on staff of a combination of less experienced officers double-bunking and longer lock-up periods for prisoners all of which compound the serious and very real dangers to staff. 
I also thank the staff who had worked in the private prison in Auckland but who came to the select committee despite the risk to their potential future employment. They talked about how decisions were made by GEO Group management to protect the GEO Group’s reputation—this is the lived experience of staff in the private prison—and to ensure that performance bonuses were paid. That experience included the practice of staff not being disciplined but being encouraged to resign so that performance bonuses would continue to be paid. The staff said that emphasis on ensuring compliance with the contract meant there was an incentive not to find drugs in the prison as opposed to the practice in the public sector where there is a genuine wish to find drugs if they are present. Indeed the staff raised concerns about inadequate drug testing under GEO Group management so as to comply with the contract and retain the performance bonus. These are classic examples of that private company in managing the private prison massaging the compliance so that it could continue to make money off the public purse and thereby putting staff prisoners and the public at large at greater risk of harm. 
A similar situation also applied to self-harm incidents where under the GEO Group staff were encouraged to avoid reporting those incidents in order to protect their performance bonuses and to avoid penalties being imposed through the contract. Basic protocol was disregarded such as having prisoners escorted to the visiting areas by guards who were related to them. One guard was later allowed to resign and not prosecuted for breaching that protocol so that performance bonuses would continue to be paid from the public purse to the private company. 
Submitters were concerned that because prison officers worked in a high-risk environment it was vital that officers were of a high calibre but they said that under the GEO Group casual inexperienced staff were often employed in the private prison in Auckland thereby exposing officers to dangerous situations. Australian staff who did not relate well to Maori or Pacific Island prisoners were brought over to work in the private prison and those staff were paid better than their New Zealand counterparts and took jobs from New Zealand corrections officers because the GEO Group paid Department of Corrections staff significantly less than those brought over from Australia. 
This is the practical daily lived experience and it reflects the research around private prisons. The US Department of Justice report  
Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons 
 clearly shows that the privatisation models simply mimic the public sector. The promises to provide more than 20 percent of savings did not eventuate under private management and the modest savings that were made came as a result of staff reductions and other labour-related costs. Another report from Australia “Privatisation and New South Wales Prisons: Value for Money and Neo-liberal Regulation” again shows that privatisation of prisons there did not result in value for money or in a significant reduction in costs. In fact the paper shows that the rhetoric of cost-effectiveness undermines the alternative criteria such as safety educational outcomes or reduced reoffending. 
Of course we can see all that reflected in the practice of the GEO Group in the Auckland remand prison because by reducing those other criteria for safety like detecting for drugs and following basic protocols the company could maintain its performance bonuses and do a good job of trying to suck up public money. So we know that in a private prison conditions worsen for staff and money is made for the private company through its failing to provide adequate wages and conditions and its failing to report drug and violent incidents. 
National and its cronies however will continue with the fallacy that private prisons are cheaper. It is a fallacy; we know for a fact that it is not true. The officials to the Law and Order Committee told us it was untrue when they provided us with the figures that colleagues from Labour have been discussing in this debate. 
Jane Kelsey came to the committee and provided a very interesting economic analysis particularly about the economic issues facing private ventures into public services. That submission put a spotlight on the fallacy of the National Government—and the Maori Party if it feels it is supporting this bill. Her analysis clearly showed that having private companies running prisons is more costly to the public purse in a variety of ways. The global recession for example means that it is harder for private prison companies to get finance and there is an intense pressure on those companies to maximise short-term profits. If profits do not meet expectations then there are pressures to renegotiate the contract with the State. The State then potentially has to carry the risk of the private company’s failure; the legislation before us does not constrain the length of a private contract so that is a financial risk that the State could carry for many years to come. In addition as it happened with the private prison here in New Zealand the then Labour Government had to wait out the contract before returning the prison to public management because of the cost of closing it down earlier. That is a cost borne by the public—public money is used to prop up other businesses or private companies particularly international companies. 
This bill shuts out the public from knowledge of the commercial interests in the dealings of the private company even though it is public money that is being used to feed that private company. Reports of the monitors are not made public. The Official Information Act can be thwarted by using commercial sensitivity provisions. There is no accountability or at least accountability to the shareholders of the company and no accountability to the public whose safety is at heart here. There are a number of other issues that no doubt we will canvass during the Committee stage of the bill. 
Finally National and the Maori Party are trying to argue that this bill will be good for Maori business or Maori iwi because Maori will be able to get into the business of prisons. Those parties are wrong. Private prisons operate through corporate structures that limit their liability and that puts joint ventures with iwi very much at financial risk. Not only is it a bad deal for Maori economically but it is grossly unethical for Maori to make a profit from the incarceration of Maori in a legal system that has been demonstrably proven to be biased. We urge the Maori Party to oppose any profiteering from racism. Profiteering from racism will never be OK. We urge the Maori Party to oppose this legislation. Prison is the harshest penalty that our community imposes on its citizens. The use of that extraordinary power must remain in the hands of the State which is accountable only to the community and not to international private profiteering companies. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I start by saying that last Friday I had the opportunity to visit the maximum security section at what is now known as Auckland prison but used to be known as “Pare Max”. One could not say I had the pleasure of doing so because as Mr Cosgrove and others have said no one in their right mind would really want to go and live in C Block as it is now. I had several impressions of the place aside from the obvious. One of them was of how professional the staff were. They were not the inhumane brutes whom some have portrayed prison staff to be. They were clearly compassionate and professional—some might say too compassionate. I had good talks with several of them. They were not the opponents of private prisons that Mr Cosgrove talks to—Mr Hanlon and his mates get intimidated supposedly by someone speaking the obvious—but just ordinary guys. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You threatened him. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh yeah I threatened him. Hanlon was threatened because I mentioned the obvious fact having sat there in the Law and Order Committee and heard the evidence that Ms Turei just gave us that Mr Hanlon and his mates would not get a job in the private prison. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You threatened his colleagues. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I ask Mr Cosgrove whether that big tall joker was scared of me. I had a chance to talk to the ordinary prison officers up there—half a dozen of them men and women—and they were great people. I was very very impressed with what I saw. So I wonder why there is a feeling of such threat about the idea of a private prison. 
I walked into the Chamber towards the end of Ms Turei’s speech and I wondered whether she and I had been in the same select committee room because some of what she said simply parroted what those prison officers who were obviously union goons were there to say. Without any substantiation at all they accused a private prison operator of falsifying records. I will go through it again: shredding documents sacking people so they could not face disciplinary tribunals etc. Well in another life I was a lawyer and I say that in order to substantiate those charges—those very very serious charges—one would need to have evidence. We have not seen any of that except in the sacred protection of this House or in a select committee room. So I am very sceptical about that. I wonder why the union is so frightened of having competition in prison management. Ms Turei and the Labour Party members simply ignore the facts. 
Mr Tanzcos who used to sit over there once said in this House I am told that even though he accepted that on every measure—whether it be suicide violence on officers violence on offenders or whatever else it might be—when the Auckland Central Remand Prison was run privately it did better than the public prisons he was still opposed to it. That is still the “criminal apologist” attitude over there: those members are opposed to prisons being run privately. Just as the sky will fall in tomorrow because of global warming or climate change or whatever it is called now they say private equals bad. It does not matter what the evidence is; they say private equals bad. That is just not so. 
The Maori Party to my left has come in for a bit of stick from Ms Turei and I imagine from Mr Cosgrove as well about its support for the idea of privately run prisons. Well in my view that is a courageous move on the part of the Maori Party members. They have said—and I will be honest; I doubt whether they are right—that iwi can run prisons better than they are being run and that they can turn round the sorry statistics that show that 14 percent of our population is 60 percent or something of our prisoners. The Maori Party has said that iwi-run groups can do that better. I say we should give them a go. If they can do it better who can complain? I ask Mr Cosgrove whether he is frightened of iwi groups tendering successfully for a private prison and getting good outcomes. Is he scared of that? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Firstly I am not scared. Secondly I seek leave to table a document in which Mr Garth McVicar chief executive of the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Mr Garrett’s mentor opposes what Mr Garrett is supporting today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am going to put the leave but I say members do know that it is discourteous to break up a speech. [ 
Interruption 
] I am telling the member that I will put the leave. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should not speak to the Chair in that manner. I will put the leave. Members ought to be aware that leave should be put at the end of a speech. Leave is sought to table a document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I would be quite happy for Mr Cosgrove to table anything from Mr McVicar who by the way is not my mentor or my sponsor. I am not here as a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust as Mr Cosgrove has sneeringly observed from time to time. I am here as a member of the ACT Party and as a proud member of the ACT Party. 
But I do not subscribe to the kind of nonsense that Mr Tanczos said: that even if we have fewer suicides less violence fewer attacks and literacy classes that do much better than those in public prisons we should still oppose privately run prisons. That is idiocy—utter idiocy. So I commend the Maori Party and I really hope that iwi management will work. Overseas evidence suggests that it is unlikely to work but I hope that it has something to offer. 
In any event I do not see what is so bad and so scary about prisons being open to private competition especially when the very little evidence we have of what happened here is overwhelmingly positive. There is a weird fixation on the fact that no one should possibly make money from incarceration. Well I just do not get it. I just do not get it. If an organisation can meet the same standards as public prisons which privately managed prisons will have to meet and if that organisation can achieve better results than the public prisons which hopefully it can then who cares if someone makes some money? Who cares? I do not. I do not and our party does not. 
We take pleasure in supporting the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. It might not work; let us see. But we will certainly be voting for it and following its outcome with interest. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare kua hui mai i tenei po ki te wananga i tenei pire. The Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill starts with a very basic purpose: to amend the Corrections Act to allow for the competitive tendering of prison management. 
Different parties across the House will come to this debate with a variety of priorities that they seek for the bill to address. For the Maori Party we cannot ignore the reality that at this time we have record prison inmate numbers about half of whom claim to be Maori and we have an exceptionally high recidivism rate. No New Zealander can rest easy with the fact that about 50 percent of the people in jail come from 14 percent of the population and certainly the Maori Party does not rest easy with that fact. We also know that the State system is far from properly addressing the matter of the rehabilitation of Maori. We say that consultation with the Treaty partner must be a priority in developing an effective approach towards addressing the disproportionately high imprisonment levels of the indigenous people of this country. We would expect therefore that with regard to this bill as with any legislation relating to prisons it would be a priority to consider the difference that will be made for tangata whenua as a result of this particular bill. 
Yet there appears to be a silence in the provisions of the bill for Maori. I understand that in the course of the select committee process a number of the submitters were concerned that the bill does not require the chief executive to engage specifically with Maori in tendering for the management of prisons. They were also concerned that the bill does not require the successful contractor to involve Maori in decisions about the management and treatment of Maori offenders. It is therefore surprising that the Department of Corrections did not think it necessary to consult Te Puni Kokiri in responding to the committee’s report. At the first reading of the bill Te Puni Kokiri recommended that there be explicit and measurable performance objectives and standards relating to the rehabilitation of and a reduction in recidivism by Maori inmates. It saw that as being a key element by which accountability could be achieved so much so that it should be legislated for and regularly reported on. We recommend that such consultation takes place as a priority. Secondly we noted the response from the department with regard to the consultation with Maori: that the chief executive will consult with iwi and other Maori entities—and here is the catch—as appropriate. We say that this is unacceptable. Leaving consultation up to judgment as to whether it is appropriate is too tenuous a position to address a situation of such alarming proportions. 
We note the advice from the Maori Council that Maori should be given the opportunity to manage the prisons because State control has failed. Therefore we align our views very much with those Mr Garrett just provided in his speech. I place on the record of the House that the Maori Council has stated that the Auckland Central Remand Prison experience clearly demonstrated that the Maori management style delivered in that setting was appropriate for all ethnic groups. There is the positive. It should be remembered that after 150 years of prisons in New Zealand the Auckland Central Remand Prison was the first prison to employ a Maori general manager—namely Dom Karauria. Under his leadership the six iwi—Ngati Whatua o Orakei Te Kawerau-a-Maki Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust Ngati Paoa Ngati Te Ata and Te Waiohua—were the mana whenua tribes that signed a formal memorandum of partnership with the Department of Corrections with regard to the establishment and support of the Auckland Central Remand Prison. 
Before the Auckland example in March 1999 a Northland iwi Ngati Hine talked with the Corrections Corporation of Australia regarding a proposed site at Ngawha near Kaikohe. Their proposal was a joint venture to participate in the administration of a prison. The Australian corporation would run the prison for 5 years and then Ngati Hine would take over its management. Unfortunately however Labour scuttled the proposal. 
Our conclusion is that there is certainly a willingness among the people to be engaged in the running of prisons; the Auckland Central Remand Prison experience is a model for showing that prisons can be run and managed and Maori treated and rehabilitated in a way that is at long last effective for Maori. The standard set by the Auckland Central Remand Prison was about improving performance in service provision cultural safety community consultation and attitude right across all levels of management. We believe that the experience of best practice in the Auckland Central Remand Prison model is an important investment in success and at a minimum we recommend that the successful contractor must involve Maori in decisions about the management and treatment of Maori offenders. 
The overrepresentation of Maori in the New Zealand prison system has been of such longstanding concern that we want to see specific requirements written into the legislation to ensure that there are specific legislated provisions for Maori. We have three broad questions that we do not as yet have answers for. Firstly of course we want to know whether private management of prisons will be effective in addressing and reducing Maori offending. We ask how different it will be from State management and whether it will be profit-driven. Secondly we want to be assured that Maori management of the prisons will be effective. We know from the experience at the Auckland Central Remand Prison that we can be confident in the results but we ask how different it will be able to be from State management. We ask whether iwi will require profit to be derived from the activity. These are some of the questions that we put to the House tonight. Finally something else is required: whare whakaoranga or rehabilitation centres which will be consistent with the restorative philosophy and a kaupapa Maori approach. That is the question we ask. Can those facilities be available in these sorts of models? 
My colleague Dr Sharples has often talked with great enthusiasm of a proposal he is advancing as the Associate Minister of Corrections: a Whare Oranga Ake—a house of renaissance if you like. Such a centre would offer prisoners who are determined to make changes in their lives a pathway to reform. It will expect them to confront their offending to deal with the causes and to prepare for a life outside prison with courses in literacy and numeracy and a programme in trade or vocational skills. Part of the expectation is that support groups will help those prisoners make the transition and will monitor their progress. The broader goal will be repatriating prisoners back to society and to their whanau where appropriate placing emphasis on the restoration of healing to their victims and their victims’ families. 
So often in the House we address the entrenched problems: the pathway to offending and the difficulties that families find themselves in. Dr Sharples gives us confidence that there are other options. So too does Ngati Hine and the experience that those at the Auckland Central Remand Prison left for us to consider. We are serious about the need for the recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this bill and for specific legislative requirement to provide kaupapa Maori - based programmes for Maori prisoners. We want to ensure that there are measures to provide for and measure the rehabilitation of Maori and the reduction of Maori recidivism and we want to ensure that the chief executive will engage specifically with Maori in tendering for the management of prisons and will have a commitment to involve Maori in decisions about the management and treatment of Maori offenders. In the hope that the commitment of Dr Sharples will be respected with regard to all of the matters that I place before the House we will be supporting this bill at its second reading. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and speak in support of the second reading of the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. We have seen some very positive steps forward in making this country safer for all New Zealanders through this first year of the National-led Government. It certainly needed to take those steps because despite protestations to the contrary the previous Government oversaw the emergence of some extremely large social problems the greatest of which was the deterioration of the sense of safety that New Zealanders felt. Second only to the economy is the issue of law and order. It is not good enough to say that it is a 21st century problem. It is our problem in our country and we in this House are charged with the responsibility to address it. 
Although we grapple with difficult issues they can and must be redressed. Ineffectuality is essentially driven by indecision. Under the previous Government we saw services stretched thin in the corrections system by increasing community-based sentencing without sufficient Government support behind those services. When cracks were found particularly in our probation service those cracks were largely caused by the fact that services were asked to do too much with too little. The centre issue was the increasing demand upon our Department of Corrections and our prison facilities. Our capacity and capability failed to address those issues. The bill addresses the issues of both capacity and capability. Sadly we need to increase our capacity for prisons. That is an indictment on any society yet it is a reality. Such an ongoing increase severely impacts our ability to increase capacity. The bill addresses some aspects of the need to increase our capacity by making the management of prisons a contestable item in the Budget. It also brings in extra expertise beyond our own capacity but that is not the bill’s paramount reason. 
The bill is not just about cost effectiveness; more important it is about increasing capability. It is about making New Zealand safer and our society a better one. The intention of this amendment bill is to open up the prison service to innovation and improvement to make it even more effective and efficient and yes to grind down the costs of one of the most expensive aspects of Government. Let me ask members opposite why if what we have is so good are things also so bad in our society? Obviously we need to be open to change and we need to be open to innovation. With all those who work very hard and diligently in the service we also need to be open to new ways in which we can increase our capability. We must keep New Zealanders safe from criminals but we must also see fewer people committing crime and we must effectively rehabilitate those who do. On 21 September we had 8509 prisoners in our corrections facilities. Our record plainly tells us we need to lift our level in all three areas. If what we have is so good why do we face this indictment on our society? 
The contract management of prisons—something that the Opposition is extremely ideologically opposed to—is proving in many other jurisdictions around the world not only to be effective but also to bring excellence in the running of prison facilities to provide opportunity for innovation and change and to improve what we do why we do it and how we do it. Every person who enters a New Zealand prison will leave that prison and come back into society. We have a very high rate of incarceration. We have an extremely high rate of recidivism. We have problems and this bill enables different expertise—different ideas from different jurisdictions and from New Zealand of which my colleague from the Maori Party has spoken—to come in and create a climate of change in how we do things. We respect our corrections service but let us all be open to innovation and change. We need to find more socially effective solutions but we also need to find more financially effective solutions. 
I am very confident that this bill offers the New Zealand public a road forward that will bring positive change and improvement and with that safer streets and safer homes. Thank you. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to stand and speak in opposition to the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill and many of the speeches we have heard this evening highlight the reason why. When I look across the room I cannot believe there are people who would support this bill. The previous speaker Mr Jonathan Young went on about the fact that when National came into Government there was such a high level of incarceration. That is a huge contradiction when we know that a big part of the platform that the National Party stood on to win last year’s election was that apparently we were not locking up enough people. Yet today that member is saying that we had high levels of incarceration and we were locking up far too many offenders. This is the type of thing that shows the flip-flop nature of that Government. 
There are a few things I want to touch on with regard to what other people have spoken about tonight. One comment that I found quite offensive was made by the ACT member David Garrett and concerned one of the submissions made by the prison union the Corrections Association of New Zealand. He talked about the fact that the union representatives came to the committee and talked about this that and the other and he referred to them as union goons. Personally I find that comment offensive. As far as I am concerned the only goon in the room when they were presenting their submission was that member himself. 
That same member—that same goon—also went on about the fact that there was no evidence as to why private prisons would not work. I sat on the Law and Order Committee with my learned colleagues Clayton Cosgrove and Rick Barker and we heard much evidence to support our line that private prisons did not work the one time we ran that proposition in New Zealand. They have not worked overseas either. I found it difficult to listen to the ACT member go on about the fact that there has been no evidence that private prisons do not work. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Where is the goon? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I do not know where the goon is. He went on about the fact that they are safer cheaper and better and that we had no grounds for opposing what they were putting forward to us. Apart from the evidence that came from GEO Group the Australians who want to gain entry into our country to run our prisons and gain the profits from it I think every other submission basically proved the fact that it would not be cheaper safer and better for New Zealand. 
There are a couple of points I want to touch on that have not been brought up so far. One of them concerns the length of the contracts that this Government will be looking at when it does privatise prisons and when it lets GEO Group or maybe other companies run these prisons. The issue that came up during the select committee was that there was no time limit on the length of these contracts. Basically from what we could see how long the contract would run for would be at the discretion of the Minister. That is a real concern because if the Minister of Corrections ties us into a 25-year or 35-year contract and it does not work then it will cost New Zealand taxpayers a lot of money to buy our way out of a contract that is not working and is failing in our country. That is a real issue. 
It is important to mention that one of our members Mr Rick Barker put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on the issue proposing that we cannot be tied into a contract for more than 3 years so that the contract has to be looked at and we can decide to opt out. That is important because if it is not working we need to have that choice. 
Another issue that came up—apart from the obvious and it is the one thing I have not mentioned yet—is that incarceration is a core function of the State. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Here we go! Nanny State! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The chairperson of the Law and Order Committee says “Here we go!”. She may not realise it—and ordinary New Zealanders will—but incarceration is a core function of the State. When something goes wrong with our prisons we need to be able to turn round and hold our Government accountable. Unfortunately with the private management of our prisons which this Government is proposing we will not be able to do that. In many ways possibly it will work for this Government because then it gets to shift the blame and take no responsibility for any of the mistakes that undoubtedly will be made under its rule as Government. It will not have to take responsibility; it cannot be held accountable. But that is a very real issue and it is something that we have been pushing from the start. 
Labour’s minority report brought up the issue of the select committee process and this is another point I wish to cover this evening because it has not yet been discussed: “Labour members have serious concerns about the Government members using their majority on this committee to block our access to Ministry of Justice officials. The Ministry of Justice had input into the departmental report and we believe that the committee would have benefited from hearing the views and insight of the Ministry. We question the motive for not allowing the committee access to these officials and we are disappointed that this opportunity has been denied when we are considering such a significant shift in our justice system.” 
There was absolutely no reason to deny us access to those officials. At the end of the day National had the numbers. All we wanted was to make sure that some independent scrutiny was going on and that we could ask the questions we needed to ask. But instead the Government side of the House used its numbers to block us from being able to do that. 
More important—to mention another point carrying on from that—there are constitutional issues in respect of this matter. Government members as I have said used their majority vote to block Opposition members from making legitimate inquiries of a Government ministry that had specialist knowledge of the matters being considered. Just as members have rights to free speech we believe that select committee members must have rights of access to officials and information. What this shows is that the bill we have before us is already flawed because of the process that was followed during the select committee proceedings and because of the fact that Government members used their numbers to block us from being able to access the information that we needed in order to be able to make accurate decisions. That is a huge problem that arose from the Government side of the House blocking us with its majority. 
One thing that came up earlier and I do want to touch on this concerned the Maori Party member who was talking about the fact that Maori should have a right to manage prisons as well and that perhaps that would be a good thing. One of my colleagues Mr Kelvin Davis wrote a column on this issue and I think he made a really important point. He made the point that as a Maori he did not want to see his whanau being worth more to Maori being locked up inside than they would be outside. That is the issue that he had. We are not saying Maori should be the only ones not allowed to manage prisons; we are saying no one should be allowed to privately manage prisons. This is going back to the fact that this is a core function of the State and it is not something that should be so easily handed over to the private sector to take control of when we should be able to hold our Government to account. It should be that our Government is responsible for anything that goes on in those prisons not the private sector. 
Hon Members 
: Why? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Members on that side of the House are asking why and I will touch on a couple of examples before I end this speech. Even the members on the select committee were not listening when the submissions were made. 
One submission came through that basically told the whole story. I think this story was told by 30 prison officers. They talked about what happened when they were working in— 
Hon Members 
: Union officials. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: —not union officials; these were prison officers—a private prison and the difference between that and working in a prison that was run by the State. They talked about the cover-ups that went on and about the lack of reporting on issues because of the fact that these private companies wanted to be able to claim the bonuses and everything else that was available to them. They talked about all of the flaws that existed. These stories came from people who had worked on both sides—in privately run prisons and State-run prisons. Members on that side of the House asked about the evidence. The evidence is all in the submissions. The only submission that those members were willing to listen to was the one that came from the Australian company that wants to run our prisons in New Zealand. We are opposed to this bill and we will not be supporting it. We are opposed to private prisons. Thank you. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 After hearing that speech all I can do is echo some of the thoughts from this side of the House. What is the fear on the Opposition side of the House? Fear of change is irrational. All I can say is that because Labour has so much fear of change perhaps it will continue to languish in the bottom 2 percent. Is that right? Two percent? Well that rating will continue. I start with that point. Members opposite should remember that a new broom sweeps clean. 
If we listened to members opposite we would think that privatisation is what we are doing. We are talking about private management of prisons. We are not actually selling the prisons or the prison services—just the management of prisons. Members should just read the title of the bill—it is the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide opportunity for innovation and change—I know that might be scary for the Opposition—through independent prison service providers to ensure effective and efficient provision of prison services and to enable the Government to look for cost savings in the overall delivery of prisons. These are three purposes of this bill. 
Public safety is the top priority of the corrections system. We owe it to the public to provide the best practice possible and the best options to improve the safe and effective management of offenders. In different bills being debated in this House many have spoken—and I too spoke about this earlier today—about the need for New Zealand to align itself to the international best practice to make sure that we compete with the rest of the world on the same footing. 
I believe that the corrections system must also have a world-class standard. I am not talking about providing inmates with world-class hotel accommodation. I am talking about providing world-class innovation and expertise in order to deliver the very best corrections service for New Zealand. To do that we need to be exposed to what is happening around the world. We need to allow competition in the form of bids in order to provide the best possible outcome for our corrections service and the aim of this bill will in the end determine whether a local or an international bidder provides the service. 
Personally I want effective and safe prisons where inmates achieve better outcomes than they do now. During the select committee process—where we debated the issues quite robustly as one can imagine—one of the key points I kept coming back to was that the prison management contracts would demand objectives and performance standards that are no lower than for publicly run prisons. There will have to have better outcomes. Otherwise what would be the point? 
The other point that appeals to me is that when the private management contract of Auckland Central Remand Prison ended in 2005 many of the benefits and improvements of the management were retained by the prison services when they took back the management of the prison. They retained the improvements that had been made. 
The other point I would like to make is in relation to the very high number of Maori inmates in our prisons. Contract management of prisons and private prison services are as has been proven by past experience more open to direct Maori involvement and this hands a potential opportunity to Maori inmates to achieve better outcomes. Perhaps given the opportunity they may achieve the rehabilitation and reintegration process they have so missed out on. 
My colleague Sandra Goudie said earlier that Labour killed the Auckland Central Remand Prison private management deal. The Iwi Whanui o Tamaki-makau-rau publicly criticised the Labour Government’s decision to return it to public management: “Auckland Central Remand Prison is quite rightly regarded as the most innovative effective and culturally safe prison in New Zealand history.” That comment was made by the chair of Iwi Whanui o Tamaki-makau-rau Te Warena Taua in 2003. 
In 2003 Mr Taua also said: “We strongly believe that removing the ACRP management contract and preventing any further like it represents the biggest step backwards in terms of prison management particularly in the areas of inmate management and rehabilitation.” This bill provides that opportunity. What are we scared of? Let us give them a chance. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Let us be very clear about what the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill is all about. This bill is about an ideological position taken by the National Government that the private sector is better at everything and that the Government should be cut back. If there is one thing we have learnt about the National Government since the election it is that it will privatise something if it cannot cut it and it will contract it out if it cannot privatise it. So if National cannot cut it it will privatise it and if it cannot privatise it it will contract it out. This is an ideologically driven bill. It is part of National’s overall commitment to privatisation. National denied it before the election but since the election it is becoming more and more apparent that this is exactly the same National Party as was in Government in the 1990s which wrecked the electricity system the railways and everything else. That is exactly what it wants to do with prisons as well. 
As Clayton Cosgrove pointed out the Labour Party has two principal objections to this bill. We object in principle to the idea that the incarceration of prisoners should be a profit-making venture but also perhaps more important we object to this bill on accountability grounds. It is absolutely fundamental that the people who are locking up prisoners should be accountable to Parliament. They should be accountable through the Ombudsman the Auditor-General and the Minister of Corrections and the Minister should be accountable. 
We can see what will happen if this bill goes through. Unfortunately it looks like it will because the National Party will use its significant numbers in the House to ram it through. We can imagine what will happen when there are the first escapes or the first riots in a prison. I know what John Key’s position will be. He will be relaxed about it because John Key is relaxed about pretty much everything. Would it not be nice to have a Prime Minister who took the job seriously? I do not think that will happen under this Government so we have to get used to the fact that he will be relaxed about it whatever happens. The Minister will stand up in the House and say that it is not actually a matter for her; it is a matter for the private prison operator. I can already hear her saying that dripping with venom as she will be. Her saying that is one of the principle reasons why the Labour Party is absolutely opposed to this bill. 
However my colleague Rick Barker has put up three Supplementary Order Papers that make good sense if this bill is to be forced through by National. The first reinstates the role of the Ombudsman. I think that is incredibly important because the Ombudsman is the public’s watchdog. Giving the Ombudsman the role in a private prison that he or she would have in a public prison is critically important. The second of Rick Barker’s Supplementary Order Papers reinstates the role of the Auditor-General; that is important for the same reasons as reinstating the Ombudsman. The third of Rick Barker’s Supplementary Order Papers which we will support prohibits the Government entering into a contract for more than 3 years or into one that guarantees rights of renewal. That is absolutely critical. 
This bill is not supported on this side of the House. We know from previous experience that it does not work; in fact it will be more expensive. More taxpayer money will go into the incarceration of prisoners if the prisons are managed by the private sector. We know that because of the advice that was presented by the Department of Corrections. It says that the Auckland Central Remand Prison under private management from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 had an all-inclusive cost of $57280 per prisoner. During that same period of time remand prisoners held in public prisons cost $50208 each to hold. So the public sector was significantly cheaper per prisoner over the same period of time. How did the Auckland Central Remand Prison compare after it was brought back under public management? It was still cheaper than it was under private management at a cost of $55853 per prisoner per year. It does not make sense. It will not be cheaper; it will be more expensive. This is another way for the National Government to channel the money of hard-working taxpayers into the private sector. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: And overseas! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: And to the overseas private sector because it is very unlikely that any New Zealand firms will do this work. This money will go from hard-working taxpayers to Australian American or Canadian corporate companies. It will go out of New Zealand. It will not do anything to reduce offending or to make our communities safer. Anyone listening to National ACT and the Maori Party would think that the private management of prisons will somehow miraculously make everyone much safer. It will not make any difference; if anything it could make the situation significantly worse. 
The debate about the privatisation and contract management of prisons is the wrong debate to be having. We should be talking about how we reduce the number of people who end up in prison in the first place. 
Paul Quinn 
: What are your credentials? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I tell Mr Quinn that I—as opposed to him—actually managed to get elected in the Hutt Valley where we host the biggest prison in the country. The people of the Hutt Valley sent the carpetbagger from Wellington City well on his way. They did not want a bar of Paul Quinn. I will not listen to a word that Paul Quinn says on the private management of Rimutaka Prison. 
I tell him another thing. When we surveyed the constituents of Rimutaka and asked them what they thought about the contract management of Rimutaka Prison 67 percent were opposed to it. Those are the people Mr Quinn fraudulently purports to represent. The people of the Hutt Valley do not want Rimutaka Prison to be put into private management which is exactly what this bill would allow. It would allow Mr Quinn’s colleague Judith Collins to hock off the management of Rimutaka Prison to the private sector—to Australian American and Canadian firms—and to transfer the money of hard-working Kiwi taxpayers to offshore corporates rather than putting that money into the rehabilitation of prisoners and into crime prevention. 
That is what we should be worried about. The debate should be about how we can prevent people going to prison in the first place. We would not need more prisons if we did that. We will not do that by for example cutting the resources that are provided to the Police as National is doing. We rely on the police to help us keep our communities safe and to prevent offending. We would not do the things National is doing such as cutting police cars. That is a critical part of it. We should be focused on how we prevent offending and how we can keep our communities safe not how we make more money for the private sector out of the incarceration of prisoners. 
I come back to the point I raised at the beginning which my colleague Clayton Cosgrove raised about accountability. It is not at all surprising that the Government wants to shirk responsibility considering the long list of prison escapes assaults and deaths that have occurred on Judith Collins’ watch as the Minister of Corrections. That is one of the reasons why National wants to shirk responsibility by pushing it off to the private sector: so the Minister can stand up in the House and say that she does not know anything about it as it is a matter to raise with the private sector operator. 
The other concern I have is that when a profit-making company has the authority to restrict the basic civil liberties of ordinary Kiwis it leaves the system open to abuse. Profit motives could supersede the safety of the public of staff and of inmates. I think we should all be very concerned about that. There will be no incentive for private companies to report any failings at their prisons because they would be less likely to be awarded contracts or have them renewed. It will not lead to the innovation and the raising of standards that people talk about. In fact it will do the opposite. It will lead to prisons covering up mistakes so that they can have their contracts renewed. It will lead to them cutting corners so that their Australian American and Canadian owners can make more profits. This bill will not make New Zealanders any safer; it will boost the profits of the private sector. It is an ideological bill based on National’s fundamental view that the private sector has the best people to do it. We do not agree with that. We think this is a role for the State. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand and speak on the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. I thank the Hon George Hawkins for the very wise words he said to me here just a few minutes ago. 
This bill is yet another example of John Key’s principled pragmatic inclusive National-led Government keeping our promises. This Government recognises that law and order and concerns about personal security are uppermost in the minds of New Zealanders. We are addressing their concerns in many areas and at a number of levels. 
Paul Quinn 
: George said that? 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: No George did not say that but this is what we are doing. We are facing up to the myriad of challenges. I contrast this with the late unlamented lackadaisical Labour administration an administration where year after year an original thought was as rare as a burst of ribaldry at a vicarage garden party. It was an administration whose approach to any pressing problem or challenge was to dole out dollops of dross from a donkey dray of dogma—a tired terminally fatigued administration that became a loquacious lobbyist for lassitude languor and inaction. In stark contrast to that administration this Government is committed to finding solutions. 
I wish at this stage to acknowledge the excellent work done by many men and women in the corrections service. We believe however that this bill will encourage and enhance the exposure of our corrections system to world-class innovation and expertise. That is crucial if we are to deliver the very best corrections services for New Zealand. Encouraging best practice and the safe and effective delivery of correctional services would be facilitated under private prison management by the ability to build performance incentives and penalties into contracts. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee that all clauses in the Committee stage of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 to 8 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take the first call in the Committee stage of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. This is a bill that Labour will support. We realise that biosecurity is perhaps the No. 1 issue shared by both rural and urban New Zealanders given the concern that without proper biosecurity this country would come to a grinding halt. We are a biologically based economy. We produce a lot we sell a lot and it is on the basis that we have integrity of our systems protecting our natural flora and fauna that we protect the process of growing grass growing trees protecting bees— 
Paul Quinn 
: Not a bad tie Damien. A nice tie. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I thank the member very much. It is good that something is noticed by members from that side of the Chamber; there is not much that they notice otherwise. 
Hon John Carter 
: That’s very cutting at this time of night! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Carter is awake too. I note the flippancy with which the Government approaches this bill. This is a very serious bill; it is a serious issue. Effectively the bill lifts the level of penalty for infringements against the biosecurity legislation. We do not mind that if it gives a clear indication that we are serious about biosecurity—as I said our country and our economy depend upon proper biosecurity—but if legislation just penalises people who do not know how important that is then it begs the question of whether we have this right. 
Anyone who has come into the country—and I know that quite a few members on that side of the Chamber have recently come into the country after the adjournment we have just had—will have a passenger arrival card that people are required to fill out. It is full of fine print with a few really serious questions on it. The questions are well hidden I have to say but anyone who fills out this form erroneously does not understand it and is apprehended for something that they had no intention of ever doing or that they did not know that they were carrying or did not know that whatever they were carrying was illegal will now be subject to a fine of up to $1000. The Primary Production Committee recommended an increase from $800 to $1000. The bill originally shifted the penalty from $400 to $800 and now it has gone up to $1000. 
That is still a small fine if there is a serious risk to our economy but there is a point of principle that I and my colleagues raise; that is if people cannot understand the information they receive on the plane up in lights at the airport when they arrive or before they get on to a plane then we have to try harder to inform them. Reducing the biosecurity risk to this country is not about simply increasing the penalties. This is a Government that chopped $2 million off the biosecurity budget and chopped over 50 front-line positions from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. That is what this Government thinks about biosecurity. It thinks that passing this bill and increasing the penalties will create a big enough disincentive to more than compensate for the loss of front-line staff. I say that those members are kidding themselves. It is just a joke. It is typical of this Government. It wants to be tough and rough on law and order and then hands the responsibility to the private sector as we have just seen in the previous bill the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill. It does not want the responsibility; its members want to ride around on their high horse saying they are tough and mighty but then hand ultimate responsibility to the private sector. Those people who are penalised may not pay the penalty; they may not be able to afford to pay the $1000 fine. They may end up in a private prison because the National Government thought in its wisdom that we should chop the biosecurity budget increase the penalties and hand over responsibility to the private sector for ensuring that that penalty is carried through. 
It is a bizarre situation but it is typical of the philosophy that drives the current National Government. Labour members will follow through with these things and I look forward to the Minister for Biosecurity answering some of the points that I have raised here. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 The Biosecurity Amendment Bill came to the Primary Production Committee for consideration and we called for submissions on 22 September this year. We were all surprised that we did not receive any submissions at all. But that demonstrates I think that the general thrust of the bill was well accepted and well expected by the public given the amount of time that National members when in Opposition had spent talking about biosecurity. So there were no great surprises when we came into Government and introduced these changes. 
It was interesting to listen to the Hon Damien O’Connor who I think may have briefly been the Associate Minister for Biosecurity take a swipe at the Government on these changes because after 9 years of a Labour Government we saw no substantial increases in fines no substantial amendments to the Biosecurity Act and no steps forward. It has taken the National Government a very short time to introduce these changes which increase the instant fine from $200 to potentially $400 but that is not set in legislation as it was before. The fine is now able to be adjusted by regulation. 
The Primary Production Committee also considered the view of the Regulations Review Committee when it raised some issues about shifting what is now enshrined in legislation to a regulatory regime. Those issues were valid but these matters are more difficult to lock into legislation when we do not really know what level a fine should be at until we try it and of course we would have to come back to Parliament for further legislative changes if we had not allowed that to happen. 
The second thing that the select committee did was allow for those who go on to a prosecution—those who choose not to pay the instant fine or who are found to have breached biosecurity in a deliberate or intentional way—to face a fine that has been increased from $800 as it was before to $1000 as the previous speaker said. So all in all this is a great move that was necessary given the increase in traffic coming in and out of New Zealand in terms of both tourism and trade but obviously this affects people as opposed to goods. 
There are some unresolved issues in relation to digital imagery that has been sent from Australia in a photographic form. Those issues will have to be resolved before the bill receives its Royal assent so to that end the bill was given an extended period. Normally the Governor-General will have a timely look at when the Royal assent should be given but in this case the period was extended so that the unresolved issues around the property rights involved in the imagery of baggage that will be X-rayed in Australia which will help to speed up the process of passengers coming in and out of New Zealand can be resolved. 
I give members this example. A businessman going to Sydney in the morning with his briefcase and coming back in the afternoon could unintentionally be carrying an apple in his bag with painted apple moth or something like that. That businessman’s briefcase will be X-rayed in Australia and the images will be digitally transferred to New Zealand but the ownership of the digital image is still unresolved. Those things need to be resolved. 
Apart from that this is an excellent bill. The select committee considered it thoroughly and made recommendations to the House that have been accepted. I look forward to the passage of the bill. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I also rise to support this Biosecurity Amendment Bill. It is non-controversial legislation and that can be seen by the fact that no submissions were made on it when it came to the Primary Production Committee. 
I must say that the Primary Production Committee does a good job on the bills that come before it but I do have a concern about an issue that has just been raised by Shane Ardern and it is in relation to SmartGate vis-à-vis travel to Australia. It is a real concern to some of us because people who are travelling can have very good intentions but as we know mistakes can be made. In the past people have unintentionally brought in stuff they should not have brought in. When I recently came back from travelling overseas I was horrified to see two passengers bringing in such stuff one of whom was caught by the dog This couple said that they did not know that they had the stuff which was flowers actually in their suitcase. It was a dangerous thing to do and they were caught by the dog. Another passenger who had been sitting beside me said when she came into the airport that she had some biscuits. She had been eating those biscuits on the journey and she was going to bring in the half-packet she had left. I said: “Look you can’t do that. It is food that you are bringing in.” but she did not even declare it. I had to ask her about it and seriously pose the question as to why she had not declared it if she wanted to bring it in. In the end I made her throw it away in the bin. These are the kinds of things that can happen in our airports and people can unintentionally bring in stuff—in particular fruit of all sorts that could bring in fruit fly. 
This bill is a very important step towards good biosecurity. It is not the end-all for biosecurity but it increases the fines—in particular fines for erroneous declaration and also fines in relation to infringement fees which are increased to $1000. I think that sends an important signal a message to travellers that breaches are not acceptable. This country is a small island we are very much dependent on agriculture and we want to keep New Zealand’s clean green image. 
Sometimes I wonder though with all this stuff coming in intentionally and unintentionally why we have cut the number of front-line biosecurity staff. It is a real shame that 56 staff have been cut. Whenever we come into the country we see huge queues at our border which shows that there are not enough people doing the job at our border. I know that those people do a great job but there are not enough of them. I noticed this myself when there was a 45 to 50-minute queue waiting to get through the X-ray machine. It is clearly an issue. I think that cutting the number of staff in the biosecurity area by 56 is a real nonsense. Clearly it has been done in the name of balancing the budget over 3 years. The passenger clearance director Theresa Morrissey actually mentioned that this had been done in the name of balancing the budget and I do not think that that is good enough. 
Overall we support the bill as I believe everybody in the House does. I think it is important to give a signal to the travelling public that it is not acceptable to bring unwanted organisms pests or weeds etc. into our country which depends on agriculture. We cannot afford to have those organisms. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. New Zealand’s future—the future of its economy and the future of its agricultural products which make up two-thirds of our economy—depends on a secure and pest-free environment. I recall not so long ago being in Auckland and facing the threat of the painted apple moth and the enormous amount of aerial spraying that was required to eradicate that pest. It had the ability to threaten—and was doing so in Australia—not only our horticulture but also our farming and more important our forestry assets. It took an enormous effort and an extraordinary amount of money to bring that pest under control. It was a lesson I think in seeing what happens when our border security is not able to prevent those sorts of pests from entering New Zealand. The Reserve Bank recently provided some estimates of what it would cost New Zealand should foot-and-mouth disease break out and it came up with a figure of $10 billion. That would be an extraordinary cost to the New Zealand economy should something like that be able to sneak in across our borders. It has not but the threat is always there. The varroa bee mite another imported parasite caused extraordinary damage to bees— 
Shane Ardern 
: Who was in Government when that came in? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: The important thing is that when the Labour Government was in power it increased the funding to biosecurity efforts because it recognised the need to make sure that the borders of New Zealand were secure. That varroa bee mite is a hugely important pest and as one-third of all our plants are pollinated by bees just that one pest presented an enormous risk. We currently have a risk in the form of the imports that we are undertaking of palm kernel which is being brought in for animal feed when there are existing forms of animal feed available. We do not need to do this. Palm kernel comes in with at least 50 potential pests associated with it. All we are doing is increasing our risk for very little in the way of advantage. What is the point of bringing in a product that could carry 50 potential pests when they can do that sort of damage? 
My colleague Damien O’Connor mentioned the need to make the biosecurity regulations simple and straightforward and Ashraf Choudhary talked about his experience when coming into Auckland International Airport. We live in a hugely multicultural and diverse society; Auckland has 182 different ethnic groups many with their own language. Many of those regulations or instructions need to be very clearly communicated to those people—perhaps in their own language. I fear that although this legislation quite rightly raises the amount of money in terms of fines as a deterrent to people bringing illegal goods into New Zealand it may hit those people who do not understand our biosecurity regulations very well. There is a real need to increase the understanding of biosecurity regulations in the areas in which we source both migrants and our visitors and to make sure that those people are given every opportunity to be able to understand and to comprehend just exactly how New Zealand feels about people who bring in illegal products that could cause enormous damage. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As a member of the Primary Production Committee which considered the Biosecurity Amendment Bill I am very pleased to make it clear that Labour is in support of the bill. Obviously it is about the front line for our biosecurity. We are a trading nation and our world would be entirely at risk should any species take hold here that could damage our farming-led economy. In my past life I used to keep bees and I was one of those who suffered under the incursion of the varroa mite. I offered to put a hive into Wellington from my then home in Blenheim and when the varroa mite arrived over that summer I was unable to take either the hive or the honey back to Blenheim at that time. So that is a very relevant example to me small though it might have been of how rapidly a species or a pest can impact upon our productive economy. 
I want to comment a little further around the issue of the job losses in MAF Biosecurity New Zealand and I suppose that the Labour Party finds itself in an unusual alliance with Federated Farmers on this issue. They have expressed deep concerns about those job losses because they know what the cost of a single pest incursion can be for this nation—for instance to our $10-billion export dairy industry. I also note the comments made over the weekend by the  
Guardian  
science writer about New Zealand’s reputation for environmental management. A fellow called Fred Pearce commented that our “100% Pure New Zealand” advertising campaign is rather thinly based; something of a “green mirage” I think was the comment that he made. That presents a vulnerability for this nation. We are a trading nation and everything that we export contributes to our livelihoods but at the same time we need to maintain a reputation for food integrity and product integrity. 
I have a real fear around the issue of reducing our border control now that 50-odd staff have gone. In my city of Christchurch I think half a dozen staff have lost their jobs. Yes we acknowledge and accept there has been some downturn in the imported car industry but we are told by no one less than the Minister of Finance that the green shoots of recovery are emerging again and obviously that would mean a bounce back in that car trade which had diminished over the last year. So what short-sightedness it is for the Government to take out 50 staff who could well have been used to improve our record to make sure that we actually do have a rather thicker green line of biosecurity staff to stop our risk of incursion because the costs of such incursions are absolutely horrendous. 
I want to quote from the latest edition of the Federated Farmers magazine in which Don Nicolson says that sustainability is the competitive advantage of New Zealand farmers and that we must put up and stand by standards that go beyond the minimum. I think that comment could well be applied to biosecurity. We have a very very long border. We have a very small number of staff whose job it is to make sure we are able to protect our product integrity against incursion by pests and here we are in an environment where for the saving of a couple of million dollars the Government has taken the axe to that thin green line. I think that is an absolutely reprehensible move. 
The other comment I would like to make is that there is an opportunity in situations like this. I am thinking of our friends in the South Pacific who have been devastated by the tsunami quite recently. I was in Samoa at the time of the Prime Minister - led delegation and it was put to me that Samoa cannot export bananas to this country. We import them from Costa Rica and from other nations in South America. We should be importing bananas from Samoa—from our friends and neighbours. Samoans are a huge and proud component of our population in New Zealand as I am sure our colleague from Maungakiekie would agree. Yet the Samoans are unable to meet the biosecurity standards that we have because of the operations of the single facility that they operate to try to meet food standards in New Zealand. They simply are unable to get the facility into production in a way that meets our requirements. 
If we had 50 surplus staff surely it would make some sense if only in terms of the foreign aid budget to use some of those staff in places like Samoa Tonga Niue and the Cook Islands to help to grow their economies because in the final result that would be good for New Zealand. It would be good if we are able to import food more sustainably from a closer neighbour not from an international corporation like Dole or Chiquita. That has to be good for us and that has to be good for our Pacific neighbours. Here was an opportunity—and in fact it was rehearsed with the Minister of Agriculture in the select committee. He did not seem to take hold of the issue probably because the decision had already been made and it had been taken from a cost accountant’s kind of mentality. It did not take into account that we have opportunities as well as costs when it comes to well-trained biosecurity staff. I suspect we will have to recruit people back if indeed the economy is back into a growth phase. So that move was very short-sighted and it is a disappointment in the background to this bill. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I will deal with a couple of points with regard to the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. The first is the process around the accelerated procedure. A lot of people come into this country and fail to declare foodstuffs in violation of our biosecurity laws. This bill enacts a process whereby within 14 days action can be taken to take back money through the courts. That is very important because when we look at the set-up of things we see that the instant fine procedure has been very successful. It has not been changed for a decade and therefore we think that is very necessary. 
All in all once this bill receives the Royal assent—and I believe it will—in 12 months’ time we will have the regulations sorted and we will be looking at moving forward in such a way that the infringement scheme will be successful. I think that is a very appropriate action. This bill is a very good bill and I certainly commend it to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I will take this opportunity to have another call on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill to raise just a couple of other issues As I said Labour members consider this bill to be very important but we consider that the basic philosophy behind it is a little flawed. 
I will quote Federated Farmers which do not seem to agree with Labour on many things lately. But there are a couple of things on which they do agree with Labour and one is biosecurity. I quote Don Nicolson of Federated Farmers who occasionally has a moment of brilliance. He said that biosecurity is: “the one area of Government that needs to increase staff and not make cuts.” He goes on to say: “Last year almost 600000 sea containers passed through our ports with no physical inspection.” 
I raise that issue because the Government believes that passing this bill will improve the situation of biosecurity in New Zealand but that is a flawed philosophy. If we applied that philosophy we would say: “Why do we not just go around and increase the penalties for each and every crime in this country?”. But no the Government in the area of personal and property security has decided that it is more important to have more people on the ground. 
The Government has made a song and dance about appointing and recruiting more police. We understand the logic of where the Government is going even though we are not sure that it will get there. The Government is saying that more police on the ground will mean better personal and property security. But in the area of biosecurity the Governments says that fewer people on the ground will mean better biosecurity. That does not compute. It almost gets to the “h” word we are not allowed to use does it not? The Government is saying “Hold on. We have cut staff but we will increase the fines from $400 to $1000 and we will have better biosecurity.” 
I tell National members that they should not keep their heads in the sand for too long. If they are going to rest on this piece of legislation and let it ease their conscience—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Ardern who is taking no notice at the moment made a song and dance about biosecurity when he was in Opposition. The previous Labour Government increased funding and increased the fines only a little. What the National Government is doing here is cutting the funding for biosecurity and increasing the fines a lot. I tell members that it will not work unless we improve the way we communicate with people coming into and out of this country. 
My colleague Dr Ashraf Choudhary just told members of a firsthand experience where people coming into the country did not understand that they should not bring food past the border or bring fruit in. The communication methods we have are insufficient. It is about time that the Minister got off his chuff and instructed the officials to review the passenger arrival card. It is time that was done so that people who will possibly be fined under this new bill are given fair warning and know full well that bringing into this country unwanted food or hazardous organisms or material is a threat to our economy and that if they are caught they will face a substantive fine. 
The fine of $1000 is quite an amount for many people coming through our borders particularly those from Pacific countries; countries that we are assisting in most ways. We are trying to facilitate trade and tourism but we still have not got our communication methods right let alone in relation to all those other people particularly from China and Asia where we are promoting tourism and the opportunities to travel into the country. We are not backing that up with clear messages to those people when they get on the plane—in fact before they get on the plane. We need to say: “This is ‘100% Pure New Zealand’ and we really appreciate the environment—the natural environment and the economic environment in which we work—and we want to keep it that way.” 
This bill is basically flawed and as Don Nicolson said it is about time that the Government put more people on the ground not cut their numbers. The threat will not necessarily come from a few thousand containers inspected each year; it will come from the hundreds of thousands of containers that are not inspected because there are not sufficient people on the ground to do those inspections. 
I will finish by saying that it is the Minister’s responsibility to instruct his colleagues—and I hope the Minister takes a call to reassure us on this matter—that with the increase in fines there should be better communication with people and that the Government will in fact commit to putting more biosecurity staff on the ground moving forward. That is the only way that we will protect our borders. 
Mr Ardern is shaking his head because he knows that that is the only way we will protect our agricultural horticultural and biological economy. He is a smart man; it is a shame that he is suppressed and held back by his colleagues. He should be the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Biosecurity. If he were then I would know that this bill would not be a token measure for biosecurity improvement from the National Government. I know that he would have fought harder. He would have known that this was a token measure and he would not have allowed cuts on the ground. I say: “Bad luck.” to Mr Ardern. I am sure that some day his Government will appreciate his commitment to and understanding of biosecurity. In the meantime we will leave it to Mr David Carter who again will just cut slash and ignore biosecurity. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. The Green Party will support the bill as it did at the bill’s first and second readings through the Committee stage. We believe that the increases in fines that the bill proposes are overdue and are a sensible measure to be taken. In fact the Green Party would go so far as to say that we would have supported a bigger increase in fines. 
But the problem we have with the bill is the trade-off that the Government is effectively proposing with this bill. The reason that the Government is setting out to increase fines is to provide a disincentive for travellers coming to New Zealand to include material in their baggage that could pose biosecurity threats. The Government’s thinking is that because the fines are larger travellers will take greater care to check that their luggage does not contain items that might pose a biosecurity risk and our borders will therefore be more secure. It is certainly true that for some travellers that will be the case. There will be some gains as a result of these increased fines and that is why we support them. But the problem is that the Government is proposing to set off against that increased disincentive a lower standard of scrutiny at the border. The Government is intending in order that it can achieve an 8-minute improvement in travel time between Australia and New Zealand to set aside the universal screening we currently employ and replace it with risk profiling. 
Risk profiling as I think all members of this House are aware means that we do not now approach all travellers and consider whether they have any material on their persons or in their luggage that might pose a biosecurity risk. Instead we use characteristics—which perhaps the Customs Service has derived from past records or from its experience in dealing with travellers—about those travellers who are most likely to be carrying material that poses a biosecurity risk and those travellers are the only travellers we will actually screen. Of course that means there are travellers who pose a risk but who do not fit the profile who will not be subject to screening. Inevitably that means we will face increased biosecurity incursions. 
I again praise Shane Ardern and the members of the Primary Production Committee for their diligence in examining this matter. The committee is not convinced by that change of policy and I praise it for that. The committee is right not to be convinced. In the trial of the risk-profiling approach that was undertaken by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand of the 1186 items of biosecurity risk that were seized at the border 51 of them—certainly a minority but still a significant minority—were seized from travellers who were in the queue of people who would have been classified as low-risk and not subject to screening had this risk-profiling approach been used. 
Of those 51 items 17 consisted of fruit fly host material. I have spoken in the House a couple of times now about some of the risks of fruit fly incursions. If a fruit fly incursion which could occur from just a single piece of fruit in a traveller’s luggage were to arrive in the Bay of Plenty—and Rotorua is now receiving international flights—the cost to our primary industries of such an incursion could be astronomical. In the first year alone we are talking of a financial impact of some $800 million—nearly a billion dollars—and 5000 jobs. That is in the first year alone and in the Bay of Plenty alone. We are talking about a massive impact on industries that are of incredible importance to this country. It is an inevitable consequence. 
The risk we are taking is as a consequence of the profiling approach that the Government advocates. The explanation that the select committee received for the risk-profiling approach said that by not putting resources into those passengers who were deemed to be low-risk we would have more resource to dedicate to screening those passengers who were deemed to be of a higher risk. But if we are in the situation where we do not have enough resource enough money to stretch as far as we want it to stretch—to screen all passengers and do a thorough job of that—then maybe it makes sense to say “OK we don’t have enough to do the job we really need to do. What we will do is abandon our screening of passengers who are low-risk and dedicate that resource into passengers who are a higher risk because we believe that that will result in our detecting more of the high-risk incursions.” 
Well that would be all right except it really depends on where we are on the curve of diminishing returns. Are we at a point on that curve that says that if we put a bit more resource into these higher-risk passengers we will detect a lot more risks? Or are we at a point where we are already detecting most of the risks from that group of passengers so putting in a bit more resource will really not net us a lot extra? For the approach that has been advocated by the Government to be correct we would need to be further down that curve. We would need to get a decent return from our investment. If we are on a place on that curve where the investment of a small amount of extra resource will net a lot of extra risks then surely that indicates that the decisions—to reduce jobs and to actually respond to the situation we are in by cutting the resource available for screening at the border—that have been made within MAF Biosecurity New Zealand are completely inappropriate. 
I will also talk about the risk from footwear because out of the 51 seizures—I have talked about the 17 that were related to a fruit fly host material—another 18 were around footwear or footwear contaminated by soil. I have previously talked in this House about some of the risks associated with soil. For one we face some risks to our native bush to our native flora and fauna. Kauri dieback disease is a singular threat that our nation’s national and natural heritage faces from soil. If we are going to be in a situation where we will not be screening those passengers not picking up that soil-contaminated footwear and therefore potentially allowing into this country more and more soil-based pathogens then we are actually putting our unique natural heritage at completely unnecessary risk. 
I am trying to build here a picture of the kind of risk profile that we as a nation face in terms of a trade off for this 8-minutes-faster trans-Tasman travel. That is the bargain that the Government is trying to sell us. In exchange for these higher fines we will have to accept these increased risks. It is a bargain that the Green Party at least is not prepared to take. I notice that the Minister is shaking his head at that. I invite him to take a call to explain how New Zealand— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I am just trying to stay awake. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: —will not be facing these risks. Well it is interesting that the Government is struggling to stay awake in the face of discussion of some of these increased biosecurity risks because certainly for me and for my party these biosecurity risks are of fundamental importance to our nation. 
One of the other risks that our country faces as a result of soil contamination of footwear is around foot-and-mouth disease. I have spoken in this House and I have spoken in the media about the risks that we are unnecessarily taking around foot-and-mouth disease. Once again in relation to this approach of risk profiling—of taking only a tiny sample of goods and passengers coming into this country—we are hoping that by the use of this sampling approach we will detect enough of the risk to obviate the incursions the outbreaks of these pests in New Zealand. But I say that that is not adequate to protect our natural heritage it is not adequate to protect our primary industries and it is not adequate to protect our tourism industry that also trades on that clean green “100% Pure New Zealand” image—which I have to say in the last week has been exposed in the international media for the “greenwash” that it is. 
I have heard the Minister say that I am scaremongering by raising in the Chamber the risk around foot-and-mouth disease but with our importation of palm kernel to this country we are importing a product from a part of the world where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. We are importing palm kernel after the use of a treatment process in the source country that will not be adequate to eliminate the risk of foot-and-mouth disease. We know that the product is being contaminated with soil because farmers are reporting that when they feed the product out to their stock there is soil contamination in it. The only way that that contamination can be there is through exposure in the source country. I am saying with regard to foot-and-mouth disease that once again it is evidence of an unnecessary risk that this country is taking because of our selective and inadequate approach to risk management at the border and with biosecurity. 
Biosecurity is fundamental to the way that we protect not only our natural heritage but also the way in which we make our living in the world. It is not an area where we should be making cuts; it is not an area where we should be making trade-offs. We support this bill but we do not support and we do not accept the trade-off that comes with it. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call because I feel that we do not yet have some important information. As members know my colleague suggested earlier that a lot of nationalities and ethnic people are living in New Zealand and a lot of people are travelling to New Zealand from many other parts of the world. But we also have a bit of an issue in relation particularly to the source countries that some of these predators come from be they insects pests or diseases. I invite the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee to perhaps take a brief call to let us know whether he has a list of the regions or countries that are the main source of some of these potential hazards and biosecurity issues. I would be very keen for the Minister to take a brief call to let us know particularly which main regions and countries of the world are the sources from whence we have these potential problems coming into this country. 
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill repeals sections 169 and 170 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provide a partial defence for murder if the accused was provoked. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful consideration of this bill within a shortened time frame. In particular I thank the chair Chester Borrows the member for Whanganui who is proving himself to be an active and crucial part of the legislative process of this Government. The committee received 11 submissions and heard from 4 of the submitters. 
The committee recommended one amendment to the bill to make it clear that the partial defence of provocation in so far as it has any effect as a rule or principle of common law in New Zealand is abolished. This amendment minimises the ability for defence counsel to argue that the common law partial defence is revived or otherwise available despite the repeal effected by this bill. The partial defence of provocation is overwhelmingly used in cases where the accused has lashed out in anger. The law does not consider anger to be an excuse for resorting to violence in other legal contexts where the consequences are less extreme such as assaults or domestic disputes. For that reason alone it is inappropriate to allow anger to be a justification for murder. It is also a particular concern that the partial defence has been disproportionately successful in so-called homosexual panic cases. The sexual orientation of the victim should not be a relevant factor. 
Historically murder was punishable only by the death penalty and more recently by a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The partial defence was therefore considered necessary to ensure that some discretion was available to juries to acknowledge exceptional circumstances. The Sentencing Act 2002 abolished the mandatory life sentence for murder in favour of a presumption of life imprisonment which may be departed from where such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. At the time Parliament gave examples of circumstances when a lesser sentence may be justified including mercy killings failed suicide pacts and situations in which the accused may be described as a battered defendant. In addition section 9 of the Sentencing Act provides guidance on the types of mitigating factors that a court can take into account in issuing a sentence including a sentence of life imprisonment. These factors include the defendant’s mental impairment or diminished capacity as well as any history of abuse or whether the defendant is a battered individual. Battered defendants may also be able to rely on self-defence which will result in acquittal. For these reasons battered individuals and individuals with mental impairments or a diminished capacity should not be disadvantaged by the abolition of the partial defence of provocation. 
The threshold to displace the presumption of a sentence of life imprisonment for murder is a high one likely to be met only in exceptional cases. However we can all envisage circumstances of extreme provocation in which it might be argued that a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. I expect the appellate courts to develop guidance on how provocation-type factors are to be treated at sentencing as appropriate cases arise. 
I take this opportunity to thank all members and parties in the House for their support for this bill and for their ongoing expectation that its passage will be swift. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to of course support the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill. I just had to check the title because the bill that my colleague Charles Chauvel was involved in drafting and that I introduced in my name as a member’s bill the Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Amendment Bill was actually a bill that we withdrew in order to enable the Government bill to proceed as it has done. I too would like to join with the Minister in congratulating the Justice and Electoral Committee on the work it did and the small number of submitters on the bill. 
I know there are different views amongst different parts of the legal profession about the nature of the provocation defence but I am very much of the view that it is an anachronistic relic of New Zealand’s legal past and that it must be repealed. I am highly supportive of the legislation that we are debating here tonight. My issues around this particular defence date back to when I was a law student. I recall the case of Leigh Minnett. I want to again place on record the fact that in my view we need to pay tribute to people like her. Her life was taken from her and then the person who took her life was able to rely upon a defence that actually excused the most extreme response to the most minor provocation that anyone could imagine. In that particular case in the offender’s own words the provocation was that she was comparing his own prowess with that of her new partner. I remember at the time reading a women’s magazine that reassigned the letters of the word “manslaughter” to read “mans-laughter”. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.