Volume 698 Week 71 - Wednesday 7 May 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 698 Week 71 - Wednesday 7 May 2014[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 7 May 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsAustralia—Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee SenateMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee from the Parliament of Australia led by the Senator the Hon Ursula Stephens is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.Questions to MinistersMinisters—Confidence1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes which is a lot more than Trevor Mallard can say.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “We have a lot to be proud of.” and if so does he include in that list his handling of Judith Collins’ massive and undeclared conflicts of interest a Minister who thought it was acceptable to call the police about an ongoing prosecution and revelations of ministerial “cash for access” programmes being run out of his Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes the first part of the question I do stand by. There is a lot to be proud of—so much to be proud of that Shane Jones left Labour for a National-led Government.Hon David Cunliffe: I guess he will have to ask the diplomats whether they agree with him.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: Is he proud to lead a Government that prioritises giving millions to big businesses like RioTinto does deals with companies like Skycity and Chorus but tells New Zealanders like the Pike River families that he has no moral obligation to help them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the last part of the question I really think it is a disgrace actually that that member would say that with all the things that this Government has done in relation to Pike River including funding to go up the drift which is in excess of about $9 million. I have personally been to the West Coast on numerous occasions. To play games actually with those families who have gone through an enormous amount shows how low that member is getting as Leader of the Opposition.Hon David Cunliffe: While the Minister is on his high horse he can go and find MrWhittall and bring him back.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Hon David Cunliffe to ask a supplementary question.Hon David Cunliffe: Is he proud to lead a Government where a senior Minister Maurice Williamson believed that it was acceptable to improperly interfere in a police investigation into domestic violence againstDonghua Liu?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am proud to do is lead a Government that has standards. If a Minister does not meet those standards then they pay a price. But you see if I was part of a Government that campaigned against secret trusts and the very first step I took was to establish one to set up what must be explosive conflicts of interest and not to declare them it is no wonder New Zealanders have such a low view of David Cunliffe.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection now coming from my right is unacceptable.Hon David Cunliffe: Do the Prime Minister’s high standards include the standards and values of his Minister Judith Collins who misled him and the public about her involvement inOravida attacked a press gallery journalist and made veiled threats against others and wants to drain every swamp but her own?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first thing is the Leader of the Opposition needs to get a better question writer.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Grant Robertson: I appreciate it was a political question but that was not actually an answer as such from the Prime Minister. He needs to at least attempt to address—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no assistance at all. The Prime Minister was asked a question that was very politically loaded. I allowed it to go forward. I certainly did not rule it out. The Prime Minister has chosen to answer it by addressing it in the way that he has. That is satisfactory to me.Hon David Cunliffe: As the Prime Minister so obviously cannot defend the Minister of Justice why does he not do what all New Zealanders expect as the inevitable and let her go?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from that the Minister enjoys my full confidence. I think that as a Minister in a number of portfolios for the last 5½ years she has done an outstanding job. What she has not done is set up a secret trust to hide donors. What she has not done is had the hypocrisy of being part of a Government that campaigns against trusts and then takes money from people—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is sufficient. [Interruption] Order! The Hon Gerry Brownlee—please tone it down a little.Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister believes in high standards does he believe that paying for access to Government Ministers including the Prime Minister whether it is through a so-called charity golf game or undisclosed attendance at the Antoine’s dinners whether it is throughOravida or the systematic abuse of the Cabinet club which contravenes theCabinet Manual—does the Minister think that those are the standards that New Zealanders have a right to expect of him or his Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If you will bear with me for a moment because this is a slightly longer answer but let me start with theCabinet Manual. Paragraph 2.54 makes it quite clear around what a Minister can and cannot do. They certainly cannot take additional remuneration unless I sign off on that and only one Minister so far has done that and that was Maurice Williamson. Paragraph 2.94 makes it quite clear that Ministers can go to fund-raising functions for their own electorate or for any other member of Parliament. If they are paid for that they are meant to donate that. They can also—theCabinet Manual makes quite clear—be at events where people pay political donations. They can talk about their portfolios interests and all of those things. That is because they fundamentally go in their capacity as an MP or a member of the party. But let me—if you will bear with me just for a second on these points—say that I am aware of a couple of interesting situations. I am aware of a situation where a market stand was established where a fee of $1250 plus GST was paid—Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No sunshine! Sit down!Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! If members on my right want to stay for the full question time I expect some cooperation. [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been raised. It will be heard in silence.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have actually got two points of order. The first of those is that for a considerable time after you were on your feet the Prime Minister continued to talk barrack and completely ignore your rulings and—Mr SPEAKER: And your second point?Grant Robertson: I hope that you will rule on both these points of order thank you. The second point is that the Prime Minister’s answer was very long was straying into highly irrelevant matters. He had dealt with the question. If he wants to do a speech he should do one in the general debate.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance. [Interruption] Order! As to the first point of order the Prime Minister should resume his seat immediately when I stand. I said that to him so I consider that matter closed but it had better not happen again. On the second point of order when I considered the allegations in the question I allowed a reasonable amount of licence in the answer given by the Prime Minister. I do accept the point that at this stage it had gone on for long enough and I do not expect that answer to now be continued further.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asked me a very loaded political question. As part of that I gave him the very straightCabinet Manual advice that is there for everybody. On the basis of the very political question that was asked I think I am quite entitled to point out that there are other examples that have taken place and I do not think I was given the chance to answer my question. The reason that Mr Robertson got on his feet was that he knew I was about to point that out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. The Prime Minister gave a factual answer referring to theCabinet Manual. I accept that. He then added quite a lot of political content and I allowed that. I consider the answer has gone on for long enough.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Supplementary question.Grant Robertson: To the rescue Gerry!Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members have a right to ask a supplementary question.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he seen any reports of interesting and innovative fund-raising methods deployed by political parties? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no prime ministerial responsibility for other parties. [Interruption]Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to clarify before I take the point of order that the member is not in any way attempting to relitigate a ruling I have given because if that was happening I would be tempted to ask the member to leave. If it is a point of order I will hear it but it better not be—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is always that temptation but what I am simply saying is that I asked the question whether the Prime Minister has received any reports.Mr SPEAKER: It is a matter of prime ministerial responsibility. It asked about any reports but then you went on Mr Brownlee about other parties’ innovative means of fund-raising or words to that effect. I ruled instantly that I did not consider that that had prime ministerial responsibility.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I seek leave to table a report that shows that a market place was established where $1250 was paid for an opportunity to meet one-on-one in a short meeting with your choice of MP. That was at the Labour Party conference last year—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been satisfactorily explained. It is in the House’s hands when I put the leave as to whether members want that document tabled.Grant Robertson: What’s the source?Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking what the source is. That is a reasonable question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Labour Party website. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! My patience is fast running out with members on the right-hand side of this House. If the source is the Labour Party website then that is freely available to all members and I will not be putting—[Interruption] Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Again can you just clarify whether this is a fresh point of order?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is a fresh one—yes. I seek leave to table a document that shows people had paid $500 to attend a lunch—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I want the source of the document.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I am not sure of the source but I am sure I can get it for you—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! The noise is coming relatively equally from both sides. On this occasion I will not be ejecting any member. But I have points of order raised. I call for silence; I expect silence.Dr Russel Norman: Mr Brownlee asked a supplementary question and you ruled it out of order. Then you said to Mr Brownlee that if he disputes your ruling you will be tempted to throw him out. He did dispute your ruling and you in—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. What I took from the second point he raised was that he sought clarification rather than to dispute. That is the way I ruled it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: From the source Scoop I seek to table—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Scoop is available to all members and if this sort of nonsense continues from the Prime Minister to restore order again I will have no choice but to ask the Prime Minister to leave the Chamber.Economy—Outlook and OECD Report2.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and how do those reports fit with the economic outlook to be presented in the Budget next week?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The OECD has just released its latest country report on New Zealand which says the economy is in good shape. Amongst other points it says that “economic growth continues to be strong but so far inflation pressures have remained muted thanks to renewed currency strength and moderate wage increases.” The OECD also says that the Government is on track to a small surplus next year. That follows the IMF making a favourable report on New Zealand recently. These reports are consistent with an economic picture that puts New Zealand back on its feet and delivering gains for New Zealand families.Simon O’Connor: What does the OECD’s latest country report on New Zealand say about the outlook for the current account and how does this outlook compare with New Zealand’s current account position 6 years ago?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The OECD paints a much-improved picture for the current account certainly compared with the record deficits New Zealand was running up to 2008. It expects New Zealand’s current account deficit to fall to 3.3 percent by December this year. It then expects the current account deficit to shrink further to 2.7 percent of GDP next year. I cannot help thinking that this improvement is directly related to the Labour Party saying it is a crisis. This is not only considerably better than deficits of around 8 percent of GDP in the years up to 2008 but much better than the situation that Treasury has been forecasting since Budget 2009 where it predicted a deficit of 5.5 percent for 2013 and it actually turned out to be about 3.5 percent.Simon O’Connor: How is the higher growth outlook for the economy translating into more jobs for New Zealanders and what will the Budget forecast be for jobs over the next 4 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Interestingly the household labour force figures released today showing that 84000 more people were employed in the year to 2014 indicate that we are on track to deliver the 170000 new jobs discussed back in Budget 2010. The quarterly employment survey also out today showed that average wages increased by 2.5 percent in the year well ahead of inflation of 1.5 percent. Labour market participation—that is the proportion of the working-age population available for work—increased to 69.3 percent which is the highest level ever recorded in this series. Alongside that high participation rate unemployment remained steady at 6 percent in March.Simon O’Connor: What steps will the Government take in the Budget to further support sustainable economic growth and keep interest rates lower than they otherwise might be?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will assist in keeping interest rates lower by being disciplined with fiscal policy—that is with Government spending and revenue—and by ensuring that we can get more houses built more quickly to prevent a runaway housing market. We would expect that if we can meet these conditions we will do much better than in the run-up to 2008 when first mortgages reached 11 percent Government spending was out of control and the housing market was running away.Tax System Changes—Impact on Revenue3.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to theMinister of Finance: For each of the years ending 30 June 2011 2012 and 2013 what was the reduction in tax revenue specifically in the top tax bracket as a result of the tax reductions in Budget 2010?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is not possible to give the member an exact figure because we can only measure it against assumptions about what tax would have been paid. However as a rough estimate if the top tax rate had stayed at 38 percent and all other things had remained equal income tax revenue would have been higher by around $400 million in the 2011 tax year and by about $1 billion in 2012. However members will recall that all personal income tax payers in all tax brackets had a significant income tax reduction in 2010 at the same time as GST went up. Analysis done at the time demonstrated that the combination of a reduction in income tax rates and an increase in taxes on investment property and increased GST weredistributionally neutral—that is it had roughly the same effect on income distribution across the income range.Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister mentioned 2011 and 2012. My question also specified 2013.Mr SPEAKER: Yes but the member will recall that the Minister started his answer by saying that it is simply not possible to answer the question accurately. The member has further supplementary questions. That is the way to delve into it.Andrew Williams: I seek leave to table from the Parliamentary Library a paper detailing each of the years 2010 2011 2012 and 2013 in terms of totalling $4 billion—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The point of tabling a document is to give further information to members. I am prepared to put the leave but it is not for the member to take the opportunity to make a political statement. Leave is sought to table that information from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Andrew Williams: If it was so vital to sell State assets for about $4.7 billion why did the Government—based on these Parliamentary Library figures—give away $4 billion to top income earners over the past 4 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package in 2010 did not give away $4 billion to top income earners. What it did was change the mix of taxes for the same total revenue. Higher-income earners paid more GST and the impact of about a billion dollars of extra tax collected on investment property fell largely on higher-income earners. The analysis done at the time by Treasury and Victoria University showed that the tax package was roughly fiscally neutral and that it was roughlydistributionally neutral—that is it had the same impact on income groups right across the income range. It is a tax package that this Government is proud of. We have a very good tax system and it collects revenue very efficiently. Among high-income earners there is much less tax dodging than there was under the previous Government.Andrew Williams: What is the estimated loss in the Government’s revenue stream in the 2014-15 Budget year as a result of dividends foregone due to the sale of $4.7 billion in State assets over this past year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give the member those numbers off the top of my head. However if he looks at the investment statements that were published for the electricity companies he will be able to see that. I must say though that from the taxpayer’s point of view these large risky businesses are now being managed and scrutinised by people who have much better capacity to deal with the complexities of the electricity market than the Government ever had.Andrew Williams: I seek leave to table and the source again is the Parliamentary Library a paper detailing the amount of dividends foregone—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Andrew Williams: Does he agree that had he not made the $4 billion in tax cuts over the last 4 years to top income earners and had he invested this and maintained Government contributions to the high-performing Cullen superannuation fund New Zealanders would all be much better off long term in terms of their retirement superannuation; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not agree with that.Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ended the question by saying “if not why not?”.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has been here a long time. He gets the ability to ask a supplementary question. If he puts two legs in it and the Minister chooses to answer one that is satisfactory.Andrew Williams: Does he accept that having already given up over $4 billion in tax revenue in the last 4 years—over a billion dollars per year—the 2010 tax cuts were misguided given next week’s anticipated paper-thin Budget surplus and critical areas ofGovernment spending such as conservation and biosecurity having suffered; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. The Government did not give up $4 billion worth of revenue. It reduced income taxes across the board which we are very pleased about because that means better incentives to work and to save and to exporting and we increased GST and the tax on investment property. If one can recall at the time New Zealand had been on a debt-funded consumption boom and we decided to do something about it. It was effective and now we have one of the stronger growing economies in the developed world. We are very pleased with those decisions. They were fair and they were economically sound.Budget 2014—Apprenticeships4.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What further steps is the Government taking to increase the number of apprentices in New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that Budget 2014 will contain an additional $20 million to expand the Government’s very successful apprenticeship reboot scheme by an additional 6000 places. The extra funding means a total of 20000 apprentices are now eligible for the reboot scheme. Under the reboot apprentices or trainees who sign up for training have been able to apply for a subsidy of $1000 towards the cost of tools and off-job course costs or a subsidy of $2000 for those in priority trades. Employers are also eligible for a similar payment. The reboot is proving successful in getting more apprenticeships under way especially in the priority trades we need for the rebuilding of Christchurch and the housing construction boom in Auckland. It is giving Kiwis vital vocational skills that will set them up for their working lives while meeting the needs of a growing economy.Colin King: What other actions is the Government taking to increase the profile of apprenticeships?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A big part of the vocational training story in New Zealand has always been apprenticeships but under Labour the importance of apprenticeships slipped in favour of more generic industry training which in many cases involved a lot of short courses and very low levels of completion. This Government has created the newNew Zealand Apprenticeships which are a premier vocational pathway into an industry-based career for New Zealanders. The new apprenticeships provide the same level of support and the same level of subsidy for all apprentices regardless of their age. We have increased funding support for each apprenticeship and boosted their educational content as well. This Government is very committed to raising the skill levels of New Zealanders as part of our Business Growth Agenda.Colin King: How does the Government’s work around apprenticeships feed into the wider employment picture in the economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well that is a very good question. Today’s household labour force survey confirms that the hard work of New Zealanders with the support of the Government over the past few years is paying off. Eighty-four thousand more New Zealanders are in jobs compared with a year ago. That is the largest growth in jobs in New Zealand in a decade. Labour force participation is at its highest level ever and is now very much higher than Australia. Through our comprehensive Business Growth Agenda the Government has a very strong focus on creating the opportunities for competitive businesses to invest and employ more people.Carol Beaumont: What specific steps has the Government taken to increase the number of women in apprenticeships given the appallingly low levels in industrieswhere there are significant skill shortages and where temporary migrant labour is consequently required such as in building and construction where only 1 percent of trainees in 2013 were women?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member raises a very interesting question in terms of the occupational preferences of different people. The reality is that she is right of course. There are less people involved in the construction trades who are women than men—Hon Trevor Mallard: Fewer—you’re the Minister for Tertiary Education; get it right.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are many things I do not take a lecture on from you Trevor Mallard and one is the English language. The good news though for the member is that there are many more women involved in some of the higher level university study courses than men so I am sure it balances out over time.Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That answer made no attempt to answer the question about specific steps around women in apprenticeships.Mr SPEAKER: It was a very long-winded question. The Minister has addressed it. I accept that it may not be to the satisfaction of the member. If the member wants to take the matter forward the way is to ask further incisive supplementary questions.Reserve Bank—Monetary Policy5.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree that the objective of the Reserve Bank in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 should be changed; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No I do not. It has served New Zealand well through three significant recessions and a global financial crisis. The second reason is that going soft on inflation is worse for those at the bottom of the income range. Thirdly if we keep it in place it means you will not end up with silly policies like cutting people’s net pay by 15 percent with no effect on interest rates as the Labour Party proposes.Hon David Parker: Does he stand by his statement that Labour’s proposed changes to monetary policy are “nothing new” or does he stand by his other statement on the same day that Labour’s upgrade of monetary policy is risky because it is untried?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I stand by those statements. There is nothing new about a policy that says that we will raise KiwiSaver contributions. If that is a big new idea well it is not that new. The risky bit is messing up the current monetary policy decision-making framework by basically taking it from the Reserve Bank and putting it in the office of the Minister of Finance.Tim Macindoe: Under the policy targets agreement the Minister signed with the new Reserve Bank Governor in 2012 what other objectives does the Reserve Bank have to consider in setting monetary policy in addition to price stability?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Interestingly the policy targets agreement that I signed with the new Governor in 2012 was very similar to the one drafted by the Minister of Finance under the Labour Government Dr Michael Cullen which says that in pursuing its price stability objective the bank—and it goes on a bit—shall have regard to the efficiency and soundness of the financial system and “seek to avoid unnecessary instability in output interest rates and the exchange rate.” That means that the Opposition’s view that the Reserve Bank Governor does not take account of things like the exchange rate or the impact on the current account is simply wrong. We have got an agreement that was actually largely written by the previous Government when we did have bipartisan agreement on these things.Hon David Parker: Why does he stand by his statement that no changes are needed to monetary policy settings given that New Zealand interest rates through the cycle are significantly higher than those in our competitor countries and we have not had a current account surplus for 40 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member wants to use interest rates and current account numbers as a measure of success then he should take account of this. Interest rates today are slightly higher than a 50-year low and they are half the level when the last Labour Government left office in 2008. The current account deficit is 3.5 percent—heading to 2.5 percent according to some forecasts. When that Government left office having tried all his theories it was 8 percent—the worst on record—for 3 years in a row. So all the problems are at least only half as bad as they were and getting better. We think that that is a recipe for sticking to the plan. Labour says that it is a crisis and that we should go back to making the same mistakes as last time.Hon David Parker: Is the reason our already overvalued exchange rate has increased recently even though dairy prices have fallen by 21 percent in 3 months due in part to the interest rate increases caused by out-of-control house prices in Auckland?Hon BILL ENGLISH: People can speculate on any reason they like why the exchange rate is higher but it does indicate that something is happening in this economy that is pretty important. Something is happening that is pretty important that is different from the analysis of the Opposition. The exchange rate has been at 80 percent - plus against the US dollar for a long time and last week we had record exports. No one would have predicted that 4 or 5 years ago nor would they have predicted that interest rates would have stayed at 50-year lows for 3 or 4 years. So it could well be that some long-term structural problems in the New Zealand economy are actually improving. I know that that is bad news for the Opposition but it is good news for New Zealanders.Hon David Parker: Is the Employers and Manufacturers Association wrong to say that our proposed monetary policy changes have merit is Westpac wrong to say that our policy is sensibly modest and is Brian Fallow of theNew Zealand Heraldwrong to say that our monetary policy looks good because it preserves the inflation control of the existing regime?Hon BILL ENGLISH: All those entities are in the same position as the Labour Party leader and the caucus and that is that as they ask questions about what it actually means like it is a proposition for a 15 percent pay cut for tens of thousands of low-income New Zealanders they too will change their minds. One has only got to see the comments made by the leader of the Labour Party to understand that he never read the policy before it was announced and he cannot answer basic questions like “By how much will New Zealanders’ pay be cut in order to try to keep interest rates down?”.Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Minister seen rejecting the idea of changing the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and particularly proposals to broaden its core focus away from price stability?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act has been examined a number of times and so have the mechanisms of our monetary policy over the last 15 years. There was one such report in 2008 by Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee which was helpfully chaired by the Labour Party’s most outstanding economic thinker in a generation Charles Chauvel! It made a number of important inclusions stressing that monetary policy remained the primary means of achieving low inflation and that New Zealand’s monetary policy approach is standard among small open developed economies. At the time the Minister of Finance for the Labour Government Michael Cullen sensibly agreed with the select committee and no major uncertainty was created through sophisticated globally-leading but inexplicable ideas.Ministers—Attendance at Cabinet Club Events6.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Is it acceptable for Ministers to attend events known as the Cabinet club where a few private donors pay thousands of dollars to the National Party for access to those Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Other than the fact that the member is making some assumptions on the last bit absolutely it is. TheCabinet Manualmakes it quite clear and has done for a very long period of time that it is actually totally appropriate for Ministers to go and attend these types of events. They are free to speak about their portfolios. What they cannot do is accept additional payment themselves unless they have my approval for doing that. It has been so much of a longstanding thing that I could if members wanted me to table an address to the New Zealand Labour Party fund-raising dinner by Michael Cullen which interestingly enough was actually delivered by the person who has been asking all the questions in this area Trevor Mallard.Dr Russel Norman: Does it corrupt our democracy for Ministers to grant access to individuals on the proviso that they donate thousands of dollars to the National Party?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I really think that member needs to recognise that his high horse went lame when he parked it up at the Dotcom mansion. But if he wants to carry on down this track just make sure he tells New Zealanders he has never met Phillip Mills he has never spoken about green growth and he will never be part of the Labour-Greens Government because boy is that hypocrisy coming into the House with that.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty direct question—a politically loaded question I give you that. The Minister—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to start his point of order again because I could not hear it and this time I demand silence from the Government side.Dr Russel Norman: Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a very simple point of order. The question was quite direct. It was a political question I give you that but it was a direct question. The Minister made no attempt to answer it.Mr SPEAKER: I thought the Prime Minister made an attempt to answer it that certainly satisfied many in the House. It may not have satisfied the member but it was certainly a very political question that was asked.Dr Russel Norman: How many Cabinet club events have his Ministers attended in this term of Parliament?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that information with me but it would not matter what that number was because theCabinet Manual is quite clear. It is absolutely thoroughly appropriate for Ministers to do that. They go in their capacity as an MP or a member of the party but they can absolutely go to those events. They can absolutely talk about areas of their portfolio and take questions. There is nothing wrong with that. It will not matter how many times Mr Norman gets on his feet and tries to claim something different; he is actually fundamentally wrong and he needs to go and read theCabinet Manual.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Prime Minister saying that it is acceptable in his Government for Ministers to engage in a cash-for-access scheme whereby members of the Cabinet club pay thousands of dollars to the National Party in order to get access to Ministers of the Crown?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely not but it is quite acceptable for Ministers to go in their capacity as MPs to a fundraising event and talk about their portfolios. That has been happening for a very very long period of time across parliaments. I could give you an example where for instance a political party ran an event it charged $500 and you could go with the leader and have an opportunity to pick your key MP and discuss “important issues”. I could show you an example of a political party that asked people to pay $1250 to have an opportunity for a one-on-one meeting of your choice on a subject of your choice with any MP or senior party official. I could give you examples where fund-raising dinners were done and held by a Deputy Prime Minister and released on public websites. They all come from the Labour Party and if you really want me to stay on my feet I can continue to do so—Mr SPEAKER: No; thank you for the invitation. The answer has been long enough.Dr Russel Norman: When the Prime Minister attended the Cabinet club luncheon in Dunedin on 3 September 2009 how much money was paid to the National Party in exchange?Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has no responsibility as Prime Minister for the fund-raising of his political party.Dr Russel Norman: When the Prime Minister attended the Cabinet club luncheon in Dunedin on 3 September 2009 who was present and what was discussed with the Prime Minister at that exclusive event?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those—Hon Bill English: 25000.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No there were not 25000; there should not have been! I know that 25000 wanted to get in. I am sorry; the place was not that big. I do not have those details. If the member wants to put that down in writing to my office I can give them to him. But I can exclude two people. Kim Dotcom was not there because he was too busy having the leader—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is now sufficient.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the diary from Michael Woodhouse describing the Prime Minister’s Cabinet club luncheon on 3 September 2009. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. It is for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table the diary of the Prime Minister on that particular day. Is there any objection to that being tabled? Is there any objection? [Interruption] The source was Michael Woodhouse. That means it is from the Prime Minister’s—I am putting the leave. You can deny it if you want. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Budget 2014—Cochlear Implants for Children7.JOANNE HAYES (National) to theMinister of Health: What investment will the Government make in Budget 2014 to assist children with profound hearing loss?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Last week the Government announced that Budget 2014 will include an extra $6.3 million to provide two funded cochlear implants for children with profound hearing loss. The current 100 percent subsidy is for only one implant. Also $2.1 million has been set aside to provide a funded second implant to children under 6 who have already received a single implant through the cochlear programme and were unable to get a second. These implants are a game-changer for young children and will help give them a great start in life.Joanne Hayes: What reports has the Minister received about this new funding?Hon TONY RYALL: I was very pleased to hear a report from the mother of a 5-year-old girl who was born deaf that when she got her cochlear implant she “brightened up became more confident curious and playful. Her world is much more open now. She does get tired at school having to listen so hard and to concentrate with just one hearing ear. That is why we are so excited”—said the mother—“about now being able to have another implant so it will be easier for her to hear and learn.” This is a great investment by the John Key - Government in the future of young New Zealanders.Ministers—Attendance at Cabinet Club Events8.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to thePrime Minister: Is he satisfied that all of his Ministers have fully complied with section 2.54 of theCabinet Manual; if so how does he satisfy himself that those provisions are being adhered to?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Ministers are not permitted to accept additional payments without my permission. Of course if any were accepted they would need to be declared in the register of pecuniary interests.Chris Hipkins: Can he guarantee that no members of the Cabinet club have used their paid access to Ministers at a cost of $10000 a year to lobby for changes in legislation Government policy or specific ministerial interventions; if not why not? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister may not have heard the question. I had trouble hearing it and the reason it is difficult to hear is the level of interjection coming from my right-hand side. I will ask the member to repeat his supplementary question.Chris Hipkins: Can he guarantee that no members of the Cabinet club have used their paid access to Ministers—at a cost reportedly of up to $10000 per year—to lobby for changes in legislation Government policy or specific ministerial interventions; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in answer to the earlier question what is quite clear is that Ministers can go to Cabinet clubs or other fund-raising events—actually Labour did those sorts of events the entire time it was in Government. What the Ministers are quite capable of doing is talking about their ministerial portfolios and areas of interest. The Government makes decisions based on its own analysis and its own decisions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just say to the member that if he is going to raise a point of order about whether that question was addressed I can assure the member the question was addressed.Chris Hipkins: A supplementary question then. Can he guarantee that none of the people attending Cabinet club meetings have a potential beneficial interest in the decisions of the Ministers they are paying up to $10000 to rub shoulders with; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Political parties right across Parliament attend events that are fund-raising events. People always have interests—of course they do; that is the real world. In the same way the Labour Party accepted $60000 from Phillip Mills—Labour and the Greens accepted $60000 and $65000 respectively—and very soon afterwards the Labour Party started promoting green growth. We know that Shane Jones for instance had his leadership bid funded in part by the oil and gas sector and again very soon came out and started talking about that. I have quite a long list. If Labour members really want to invite me to table all of those they are welcome to do that but I just make one little warning to them: do not go there. But if you want me to I am more than happy to.Chris Hipkins: Are Cabinet club events open to all those wishing to attend or only those who are willing to pay an annual subscription to be a member of the club?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: They are fund-raising events like many fund-raising events. As I said earlier they are quite within theCabinet Manual. The one thing that is a good point here though is that quite simply we declare our donations. People know where they come from. What do we know about David Cunliffe? He raises money and he will not say where that money came from.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was pretty specific. It was about whether the events were open to anybody or only to those willing to pay a subscription. The Prime Minister has not even addressed that part of the question.Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister was certainly addressing the question—maybe not to the member’s satisfaction. He has further supplementary questions and he should use them.Chris Hipkins: If the Cabinet club is such a legitimate fund-raising tool for the National Party is he satisfied with the answers his Ministers gave yesterday when asked about it such as Paula Bennett who said: “I’m not sure. I’m not sure.” and Anne Tolley who said: “I don’t know. What is Cabinet club?”. Why are they trying to hide it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: People are entitled to give their own perspectives. Not every electorate has a Cabinet club. Others call them different things—pizza and politics; a range of things. But what I do know is this and members on the other side will be interested to know. We declare our donations. Does the Labour Party? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! You can have the conversation afterwards.Budget 2014—Canterbury Recovery9.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) to theMinister for Social Development: What recent announcements has the Government made about providing support for beneficiaries to contribute to the Christchurch rebuild?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Yesterday the Prime Minister announced a new initiative and I was there as well called 3K to Christchurch which will help beneficiaries find much-needed work and will be able to assist with the rebuild. An amount of $3.5 million in new funding will go towards giving keen beneficiaries outside Canterbury a one-off payment of $3000 if they have a full-time job offer in Canterbury and are ready and willing to move there. The rebuild is creating thousands of jobs in Christchurch and unemployment there is down to 3.3 percent. I have just heard that we have had more than 50 inquiries already from people who are interested in taking this up.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How will the 3K to Christchurch initiative work and will it also apply to my own Waimakariri electorate?Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the second part of that question I am pleased to let the member for Waimakariri know that yes it will include her area. It is the Greater Canterbury region if you like where it goes to. We will target the 19000 beneficiaries aged 18 to 24 with work obligations who currently live outside of Christchurch although beneficiaries of any age can apply. The payment will help them with sorting accommodation travel clothing and actually getting there. We will work closely with employers to make sure that we connect them with beneficiaries who would be suited and would be willing to do the work. The job must be for over 30 hours a week and for longer than 91 days.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What other support for Canterbury has she announced?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Although the Christchurch rebuild is going at full speed the Government recognises that some Cantabrians are still struggling with the impact of the earthquakes. Yesterday I announced ongoing support for counselling services andhelplines as well as the Earthquake Support Coordination Service worth $13.5 million over the next 4 years which will pay for coordination support for up to 5000households. What the evidence tells us is that they can still be feeling the psychosocial effects of the earthquakes for up to 5 to 10 years afterwards. We want to continue with that counselling support and this money will do that.Hon Ruth Dyson: In light of the fact that there are currently 495 priority applications for Housing New Zealand homes in Christchurch and that since the February 2011 quake rents have risen by 34 percent what provisions for suitable affordable accommodation are being made for these additional 1000 new Canterbury residents let alone local people?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well of course there are a number of initiatives one being the accord that the Government has just signed with the council injecting another $75 million—[Interruption] You asked the question. Another $75 million is going into that to make sure that we can see that we are freeing up land and actually partnering with the council. But the point I will make is that we have seen students who can make amendments. Most of these are young people as I said they are likely to be single and they can go into flatting situations. I know the member herself said yesterday that you can see houses being rented for anywhere from $400 to $600 a week. If you took it on a room-by-room basis actually that is about $100 or $150 a room. They can board. They can go in with relatives. They are pretty inventive in what they can do. Employers themselves are there to help them with their accommodation. I just think it is a bit of a catch-22: if you do not have the workforce you cannot be building those houses.Justice Minister—Visit to China10.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Hon Judith Collins; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; because over the almost 6 years Judith Collins has been a Minister she has made a significant contribution to the Government and New Zealand in the portfolios she has held.Grant Robertson: When he and his office provided material to the Cabinet Office to assess whether Judith Collins had a conflict of interest did that include material from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about her visit to China?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There was a variety of different sources which I felt ensured that the Cabinet Office could make a fair ruling and we provided all that information to it.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question.Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question.Grant Robertson: When he and his office provided material to the Cabinet Office to assess whether Judith Collins had a conflict of interest did that include material from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about her visit to China?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot absolutely 100 percent say yes but I am pretty sure the answer is yes because part of what was discussed with the Cabinet Office was the name of the person the agency they worked for and their seniority. I assume that came from the ministry but I cannot be sure.Grant Robertson: Was the Cabinet Office provided with all of the material that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade held about Judith Collins’ visit to China including the change of the programme that led to the visit to theOravida headquarters?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was provided with all of the information that would have been relevant. The fact that a programme changes is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. But what is interesting is this. The paperwork shows right through this that not only did the Minister have a very busy programme which the member wants to gloss over all on judicial and justice issues but secondly all the way through it talksabout a private dinner. That was at a time when the information was never likely to be in the public domain. I say this to Perry Mason: “It’s time to sling your hook son.”Grant Robertson: What did New Zealand Ambassador Carl Worker tell him about that dinner and who attended it when he discussed it with Mr Worker on his visit to China in March 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: He told me it was a private dinner that he did not attend.Grant Robertson: Would the Prime Minister like to clarify whether that comment he has just made was the only thing New Zealand Ambassador Carl Worker told him about the dinner and who attended the dinner?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not tape ambassadors and everything they say but the broad conversation we had was that it was a private dinner and he did not attend it.Grant Robertson: Does he believe that it was appropriate for Judith Collins’ husband David Wong-Tung to have contacted the New Zealand Ambassador to China to lobby forOravida’s products to be showcased at events in China on his visit in April 2013 using information and contacts Mr Wong-Tung gained while accompanying the Minister on a trip to China in 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refute the last part of the question. In terms of the first part of the question lots and lots of companies contact embassies and say they want to showcase their products. There is nothing new about that.Oravida is a genuine New Zealand company that is building an export market in China. If the member does not want that he will—I can actually understand why he does not want that. Let me rephrase that. I understand that the member does not like economic development because that is exactly what Shane Jones said when he quit.Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to assist the member with his point of order.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an email from David Wong-Tung to the Ambassador to China Carl Worker which includes the statement talking about his visit in 2012: “I remember vividly your advice—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular email.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are not going to oppose the leave but I would point out that yesterday the House gave the opportunity to Mr Robertson to table some documents. Upon inspection those documents were not as he described. It would only be reasonable that he—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! First of all I am going to put the leave to table that particular email and then I will make a comment on the point raised by Mr Brownlee. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: As regards to the point raised by Mr Brownlee if any member seeks leave to table a document andmisdescribes it that is a serious offence and then there is an appropriate way to address that—not by raising it as a point of order; the matter needs to be raised rapidly with me as the Speaker.Grant Robertson: Don’t tell lies.Mr SPEAKER: Grant Robertson that sort of interjection will lead to disorder.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Gerry Brownlee stood up and made an accusation that you yourself have said is a very serious one. It is a complete lie—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is in danger of having to leave the House. That is going to create disorder. I accept the point. The member may disagree with what Mr Brownlee said but as I pointed out to Mr Brownlee if he believes it wasmisdescribedthere is an appropriate avenue for dealing with it. It is not something that is appropriate to be discussed on the floor of the House.Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you just for some clarification? If a document is released under an Official Information Act request is it then the practice of this House that those papers can be tabled one at a time? The opportunity was offered yesterday to table them all. Are we now going to expect that in this House? I thought the ruling was that anything that was publicly available was not able to be tabled.Mr SPEAKER: No that is not the ruling. It is a matter that I consider case by case and at the end of the day if I am in doubt as to whether to put the leave I will put the leave and let the House decide. So it is ultimately the House not me that decides as to when a document gets tabled. My intention with the tabling of documents is that when members seek to table a document I consider whether it informs the current debate before the House. If it is something that is freely available to all members such as media reports or from Scoop or some matter like that there is little point in even seeking leave. It will not be put. But with something like an Official Information Act release if members want to release it and they think it is something that would be valuable information to the House I will consider it at times to be appropriate to put the leave and then it is for the House to decide.New Zealand Defence Force—Budget 2014 and Upgrades11.Hon TAU HENARE (National) to theMinister of Defence: What will Budget 2014 mean for the New Zealand Defence Force?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): As we announced last week in Budget 2014 the Government will be investing $100.9 million of operating expenditure in defence for the 2014-15 year. This is the first stage of an allocation of $535 million in additional funding over the next 4 years. This new funding will enable the New Zealand Defence Force to deliver on theDefence White Paper 2010 to maintain and improve its current mix of capabilities and to sustain and grow personnel numbers over time.Hon Tau Henare: Why is investment in the New Zealand Defence Force needed?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government inherited a significant funding hole from the previous Labour Government. It had ordered new equipment that it could not afford to run such as the NH90 helicopters. TheDefence White Paper 2010 signalled that new money would be required over time to maintain and improve New Zealand Defence Force capabilities. The Government commissioned the Defence Mid-point Rebalancing Review to look at the costing of various combinations of capabilities that would enable the New Zealand Defence Force to meet the Government’s expectations. Budget 2014 provides the funding that the New Zealand Defence Force now requires.Hon Tau Henare: What new capabilities are on the horizon for the New Zealand Defence Force?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In the last year the Government purchased eight new Seasprite naval helicopters for $242 million 200 new state-of-the-art trucks and 11 new T-6C air trainers as part of a $154 million pilot training package. Just last week the Defence Force signed a $446 million contract for a self-defence upgrade of the navy’s frigates and a contract for a new battle-training facility for the New Zealand Special Air Service will be signed shortly.Hon Phil Goff: Will the problems disclosed in the Minister’s latest Defence Force annual report—which discloses that critical trade groups are “seriously degraded” that the Defence Force is unable to “meet all expected outputs and readiness” and that thereis “an increase in the risk of Army’s ability to sustain a deployed force”—be solved by his latest package where he is putting back in $100 million but since 2012 has been demanding cuts of $350 million to $400 million a year which caused those problems?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I can say is that the defence budget has not been cut. It is completely untrue to say that. We are putting extra money on top of that. We are solving the problems we were left by Phil Goff. When he was Minister of Defence the front page of theNew Zealand Heraldon Thursday 4 September 2008 said “Can’t sail can’t fly can’t fight” and that the defence chiefs presented a damning picture of the state of New Zealand’s armed forces under Phil Goff. We have been left with solving the problems which we are doing.Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table a statement from the Minister of Defence in 2012 that the Defence Force—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Such information is freely available to members.Climate Change—Government Position12.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to theMinister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree that climate change is a clear and present danger as highlighted by the landmark US Climate Assessment Report released overnight?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues) on behalf of theMinister for Climate Change Issues: In light of the fact that the report came out late last night New Zealand time and is some 841 pages I have not read all of it and I have not yet been briefed on it. I do however agree with MinisterGroser’s endorsement of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which concluded that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. The Government considers climate change to be a serious issue. This is why we are undertaking a range of measures over the short medium and long term to help mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave of the House to table a hard copy of the report which has only just come out. It is an overseas publication and I think it would benefit the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is for the House to decide. I will put the leave on the basis that this is the hard copy and it may not be readily available to members. Leave is sought to table this particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given the Associate Minister’s response that the Minister takes climate change as unequivocal and serious notwithstanding recent comments subsequent to that by other Cabinet Ministers will his Government be undertaking a national climate risk assessment as the US administration has done and as requested by the Wise Response petition tabled here last sitting week?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the member will be well aware that we commission numerous reports. We have officials doing numerous assessments and indeed through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process we are constantly assessing where we are at against the global position.Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the US President’s pledge to rely on the advice of US scientists to guide US climate policy will Minister Groser retract his statement in this House of 15 April where he dismissed the accepted findings of a leading New Zealand scientist as “complete and utter nonsense”?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think precisely what the Minister was referring to was that that academic was absolutely entitled to his opinions but he really gets deference only when he is talking from his expertise and not straying off that field of expertise.Dr Kennedy Graham: If the Minister agrees with the US report that the amount of future climate change “will … be determined by choices society makes aboutemissions.” will he change his Government’s policies which are currently on track to increase New Zealand’s emissions by 50 percent over the next 10 years?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well of course those figures are projections based on an extremely low carbon price globally at the moment. I do not think that anyone is predicting that that is where it stays. What is also true is that the Government has a policy and a strong set of policies to do our fair share both globally where we are pushing for a comprehensive agreement and also domestically through our emissions trading scheme and in numerous complementary measures where we are spending significant sums of money in bioenergy in the Pacific and in many other areas that if the member would like to know more I am happy to tell him about.Business of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for the second reading of the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill to be set down as Government order of the day No. 1 despite Standing Order 292 and for the extended sitting on Thursday 8 May to include Government orders of the day Nos 1 to 3.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. It will so happen.General DebateHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. Let us take stock of where things are as we head into the halfway point of the first week of the session when the Opposition once again is absolutely focused on the issues that matter: private dinners innovations in fund-raising and even this afternoon correct grammar. This Opposition is a million miles from reality and the people of New Zealand know it.Meanwhile on this side of the House we are focused on achieving things for New Zealand and today we had another example of it with more growth in employment—84000 more New Zealanders have got jobs this year than a year ago. It is the largest increase in employment in nearly a decade—nearly a decade—and there was not a word out of the Opposition on that today. Business and consumer confidence is at record highs manufacturing has been in expansion now for 19 months welfare reform is working more people want to move to New Zealand and fewer Kiwis want to leave. Last month we had a seasonally adjusted net loss to Australia of just 400 people. We heard nothing from the Opposition on that; those members are too wrapped up in their private dinners and their fund-raising events.New Zealand is doing better on all other economic indicators—economic growth the balance of payments. The Labour Party’s obsession about the balance of payments—maybe it is some sort of delayed apology for how appallingly it did with the export sector when it was last in Government. Our international liabilities are one of those things that boffin Parker likes to focus on. How much we owe the world is down to just 66 percent of our economy. It was just over 85 percent when Labour finished its handiwork in 2008. The export crisis that we know about—our goods exports have just had their biggest quarter ever. The goods surplus for the last 6 months is over $2 billion. But that does not stop the boffins on the other side trying to reform the economy with their wacky new monetary policy which they have no idea how it would work. And here we are 8 days into it and one David Parker—boffin in charge—cannot tell us at all how it would work and to what extent it would work.Hon David Parker: You don’t understand.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Apparently the rest of the world does not understand. It is very complicated. It is a very interesting alchemy of stuff that Mr Parker has concocted but he cannot answer the question. There is a very simple question—which neither he nor Mr Cunliffe can answer—that is very straightforward. How much would people’s KiwiSaver rates have to go up to avoid a 1 percent increase in interest rates? And if they do not know the answer to that question it is not a policy; it is a thought bubble. The problem for the Opposition is that it does not know the answer and the silence is deafening.The problem with that is that it is another example of a policy where you have to read the fine print. It is like Labour’s trucking policy that does nothing about trucks. It is like its baby bonus that does not provide a baby bonus. And this is the monetary policy that does not actually achieve anything. It does not actually deal with anything like interest rates. The public know that and the public say—actually it is not just the public. There is of course one late-lamented—again not mentioned in the House this week—Shane Jones. Ah he knows it too. He popped his head up and said that he was leaving and we all thought: “Wonder why that is.” The reason was that he believed that being an economic development Minister in a Government that is opposed to economic development would be an oxymoron. He is right—it would be—and so not surprisingly he started to talk about other jobs. He realised that it would be the worst possible job because Labour and the Greens together are opposed to economic growth.So here we have it. On this side of the House we are focused on the issues that matter and achieving great things for New Zealanders through the hard work of the Government and New Zealanders. On the other side of the House those members are obsessing about the silly stuff and then coming up with wacky policies that achieve nothing. It is no wonder the country is in favour of this Government. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): How desperate is that Government? The guy it puts up to deflect and dissemble could come up with only the unemployment rate on a day that it stayed the same—from 6 percent to 6 percent. As the Labour Opposition—why does he not listen to this—has revealed long-term unemployment under this Government has tripled since National took office. If that is the best it can do in a general debate it really is in trouble.Mr Joyce mentioned Labour’s monetary policy. He obviously did not like it. I will tell you why he did not like it: because the Employers and Manufacturers Association did Federated Farmers did the Manufacturers and Exporters Association did the bank economists largely did former Reserve Bank Governor Don Brash did and bank board members did. So that is why Steven Joyce did not: because New Zealanders did. They know that it means lower interest rates. They know that it means a better export economy with better jobs and higher wages.And ladies and gentlemen has not the last week just shown the contrast between these two parties? On the Government’s side—politics as usual. On the Labour side—a party of new ideas that wants to put people first. That is what Labour is about: putting New Zealanders first. This Government puts money first. That is the common theme of the sad parade of the last couple of weeks. It put subsidising RioTinto ahead of compensating Pike River families. It chose to help Skycity not to end child poverty. It chose the Cabinet clubOravida and Maurice Williamson’s call to the police about a donor. It is privileging wealthy donors and granting special access to Ministers. It is our duty though it gives us no pleasure—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —to point that out to New Zealanders. Well there is the laugh of the damned. There is the laugh of the damned. They are damned because John Key came to office 5 years ago promising to be a breath of fresh air. I think he wasbouncing from cloud to cloud at the time but that is what he promised. He promised high standards from his Ministers. He did not promiseOravida and draining the swamp. That is what he has got. He did not promise Ministers intervening with the police to help out wealthy donors. He did not promise Ministers taking wholesale donations and then forgetting that they had got them. Those are not the standards New Zealanders expect. That is sadly what politics as usual has become but it is not good enough and it is not what Labour stands for.What Labour stands for is putting New Zealanders first. We have a positive agenda that is about our children: the idea that every single New Zealand child deserves the best possible start irrespective of where they are born irrespective of who their parents are or where they come from irrespective of the size of their family’s wallet or home. Every child deserves the best start and that is why the Labour Party has been working so hard to bring in the Best Start package to end the fact that one in four of our children is growing up in poverty. One in four of our children is growing up in poverty and that Government is enriching itself and its members and their families not the most vulnerable children of this land.Every New Zealand child deserves to grow up in a warm dry healthy home. There are 5000 families in New Zealand on the waiting list for a State home. Is it not sad that the Prime Minister cancelled 500 State houses in his own electorate of Hobsonville? The same Prime Minister tells us how he came from a family that depended on a State house. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we do not pull up the ladder. We put all New Zealanders first. We do not mind hard work but we want every New Zealand child to have the opportunities that we had. Politics as usual or politics for people? It is an easy choice in 2014.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I agree that the past week has been a very interesting week in New Zealand politics—a difficult time for a member of the House. It proves the old adage that nothing in this game lasts for ever. What is here today can be gone tomorrow. It was an emotional week. Of course I refer to the impending retirement of Rajen Prasad. Attention from the very good work that the Government is doing for this country was diverted by the stunning news that Rajen is on his bike. But I am here to remind the House that life will go on without Dr Prasad. He may no longer be with us after the election but we will still have the lowest crime rate in 25 years. The OECD as we know from today says that we are in very good shape. Some say that we will have the highest economic growth in the developed world this year. We still have the extra $22 million boost for budgeting services announced by my good friend Paula Bennett this week and as Mr Joyce said an extra 84000 jobs created in the last year so we must continue.As Dr Prasad noted he has made his contribution to Parliament. His work is done. When earlier this year he asked three questions in question time he equalled the total number of questions he had asked in the previous 5 years. Little sadly did we know that this flurry of activity was really a death rattle.I want to tell the House a most interesting story. Last Sunday I woke up at 6.55 and as is my wont lunged for my radio so that I could listen to the news on Radio New Zealand National. After the news I thought the children’s programmes must have continued because there was a bizarre interview with a fellow called David Cunliffe. Wallace Chapman who has replaced Labourlovey Chris Laidlaw on the programme was asking him a question: “Who in your caucus Mr Cunliffe has experience as a manual worker?”. And Mr Cunliffe said there were many. As I look across the House I cannot see many but Mr Chapman said: “Who exactly?”. Oh Darien. I recognise Darien Fenton. But then Mr Chapman said: “Well who in particular?”.And Mr Cunliffe said: “Me.” Apparently Mr Cunliffe was a manual worker. Between secondaryschool and going to university apparently he was a shearer. I would very much like him to challenge Colin King to a shearing competition. So the bard of Harvard is really a son of the soil.As a man who works with his hands Mr Cunliffe will appreciate this week’s announcement of $20 million in the Budget for 6000 more apprenticeships which will give eligible apprentices or trainees an opportunity to apply for a $1000 subsidy towards the costs of tools and off-job course costs or $2000 for those in priority trades. So what we have with Mr Cunliffe is a very very strange person and Wallace Chapman is not the only person to have identified this. He is always secretive and always darting around the edges of the truth. We have the secret trusts we have those extraordinary statements about the whaling case which was a triumph for this country and he denied that we were there. As Sunday’s radio interview showed he is so adept at being tricky that when he has no one to deceive he deceives himself just to keep in practice. He is a very very odd fish indeed. When he talks about the stark contrasts in the next few months I will place the house on this fellow Key going head to head with Cunliffe and crushing him.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): I have some respect for the Attorney-General but a week out from the Budget as we approach an election I have to say that that was a very lightweight speech. As we head into the election season a few weeks away from the Budget you are going to hear less from the Labour Party about the other side and more about the difference that we are going to bring to New Zealanders’ lives. Of course we are still going to be exposing the cronyism that is rife under this Government. I do not have time to go into that any more today other than to say that it is the responsibility of the Opposition to hold the Government to account for poor practice in the interests of democracy.I want to talk about why it is that our revisions to monetary policy struck a chord with New Zealand. It is a topic that is not particularly sexy but it was well received by New Zealanders because they are now seeing the linkages between what the Labour Party stands for and the lives that they live. They see that our policies are connected to improving their lives in the way and in the areas that they worry about. They know that despite the fact that New Zealand had low general price inflation in the last quarter—zero percent excluding the increase in tax on cigarettes—house price inflation is out of control particularly in Auckland and that is why the Reserve Bank put up interest rates which in turn put up the exchange rate. They know that there has been a 40 percent increase in house prices in Auckland. The average is now $680000. Homeownership rates are at a 50-year low. That is one of the most important measures of rising inequality under this Government.New Zealanders know that because interest rates went up because of poor housing policy it has meant that people have lost their jobs in the forest processing industry that we export too many raw logs and that the problems of insecure work and of an unemployment rate still at 6 percent are related to housing policy and monetary policy. They know that the Government hides the lot of ordinary New Zealanders in its averages. It says average wages have gone up when it knows that 45 percent of New Zealanders did not get any wage increase last year and that even on average the average wage rate went up by only 1.6 percent which is exactly the same as the increase in inflation. They know that we are on to something and that we have got to align the objectives of the Reserve Bank with our export sector.We hear Steven Joyce coming in here and trying to minimise trying to dissect down to the littlest thing and trying to reject the idea that we have actually got some pretty comprehensive policies that work across the economy to reduce interest rates to get our interest rates down to lower levels which are always higher than the rest of the worldand which jack up our exchange rate and mean that we have not covered the cost of our imports in interest for 40 years. They know that those changes are complex but important. They know that it is better to save a bit more money than to pay it on interest. They know that the Australians have done that and that is why the Australians sustain higher income rates and lower interest rates. That is why they like universal KiwiSaver.New Zealanders know that there are lots of other tools that the Reserve Bank has got like macro-prudential tools that it could use differently. They know that a capital gains tax to tax speculators not the family home would take the heat out of the price of houses and would therefore have less lead from the Reserve Bank to jack up interest rates. They know that we should restrict foreign buyers buying existing homes. They can build a new one; they cannot just buy an existing one because that pushes up prices to the detriment of New Zealanders and their children. They know that the same thing is happening with farmland.The Labour Party is determined—it is determined—to bring our interest rates back to international norms. We have got a once in a lifetime opportunity as we transition to compulsory or universal KiwiSaver to get saving rates up and interest rates down to get people into their first home by helping them save for a deposit and to help people in our productive sector because our exchange rate will not be overvalued beyond its fundamentals. What was the Government’s response? Bill English said that it is bad that the exchange rate is too high but it is bad if it settles at realistic levels. He said there is nothing new in this but no one has done it before.On this side of the House we are determined to bring forward policies that will help people have secure work better-paid jobs lower interest rates more export earnings and better lives.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Finance): That speech made by David Parker really shows the problems that the Labour Party has. David Parker is a very nice pleasant naïve fellow trying to explain where Labour is at with economic policy. Frankly none of that makes sense to the person in the street. The fact is that it was a whole lot of garbage. In economic terms David Parker is like the bloke at the rugby club who still showers in his underpants. That is where he is at. He is totally naïve and out of touch. He has got this policy thing that he is calling the “big tool”. The problem is that no one out there in the real world can understand what the heck he is talking about. It is all academic mumbo-jumbo. It is no wonder that David Parker is not an electorate MP because quite frankly he has no connection with real people just like David Cunliffe his leader who makes out that he has been a guy who has sheared sheep and done all this sort of stuff.Hon Chris Tremain: He was a war hero.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yeah his grandad was a war hero or whatever. Well that was not true. In actual fact David Cunliffe hides out in his Herne Bay mansion pretending to be the New Lynn blue-collar man and it just does not work.I will tell you something very interesting. I do not know whether you listened to Radio New Zealand National this morning butGuyonEspiner asked Grant Robertson whether he thought that his leader should reveal the details of his secret trust. I will tell you what: Grant Robertson would not back up David Cunliffe. He would not back him up. Grant Robertson was one of the 68 percent of people in the Labour caucus who did not want David Cunliffe as leader.The problem they have is that the Labour Party leadership is now for sale. And who have they sold it to? They have sold the leadership to the unions. Basically 70 percent of unions voted for David Cunliffe. Now the Labour Party has to deliver on what the unions want. That is a real problem because what the unions actually want is not whatNew Zealand wants. So these people as Steven Joyce has said have been caught up in all sorts of distractions all week.Meanwhile National is delivering for New Zealanders. There is fantastic economic growth. There is 3 to 4 percent growth in GDP predicted over the coming year. There were 68000 jobs created over the past year. The balance of payments is extremely healthy. Terms of trade are the best they have been for a long long time. David Cunliffe was going on about interest rates but do you know what they were under Labour in 2008? For a first mortgage they were 11 percent. That party was crippling the average Kiwi. So those guys do not have the record to stand on.David Parker was also talking about overseas investment and how he is going to do this and that and that New Zealand is not for sale. Well David Parker—their finance spokesman—personally signed off much much more land in his 5 years doing the job than we have in our entire time in Government. So these guys talk one game in Opposition but they are totally different in Government. We are just focusing on getting on with the job. We are focused on health education the economy and law and order—the things that matter to New Zealanders.Tony Ryall today announced $6.2 million for cochlea implants so that kids can hear. That makes a real difference. Paula Bennett announced that there was $10 million for sexual violence counselling services in the Budget. It is so important. The Christchurch announcement was about paying $3000 to get beneficiaries off their backsides and down to Christchurch to work develop a career and add something to the economy. We are tackling real problems.Those guys over there are just making it up. We have not heard any policy from Labour apart from the “big tool”. But do you know how bad it has got over there? It has got so bad that Labour has had to promote Trevor Mallard to be its economic development spokesman. Labour has now had to put Trevor—who is finished whom the New Zealand public hate—at No. 15 because the only guy there with any economic clue Shane Jones has actually said: “I’m out of here. I’m not going to be part of any Labour-Green setup.” What did he say? He said that Labour and the Greens together will not be promoting economic development. Shane Jones knows which way it is going. Shane Jones knows that it makes sense to come and work for the Government of New Zealand because we focus on what Kiwis care about. And when it comes to the election people are going to put all the rubbish—Dr David Clark:Oravida.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh that is David Clark for Dunedin North. He is the guy who says that he will ban Google from New Zealand. What an idiot. That is the standard we have got. He is another “shower in his underpants” bloke—the vicar from Dunedin who thinks he can help run the economy. I tell you what: those people are in trouble big time. We are delivering in health and education. We have the lowest crime rate in 25 years. Kids are achieving at school and the Polynesian community is achieving. I can tell you what. Labour members can say what they like but the public know which side their bread is buttered on.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Yesterday the United States released its national climate assessment report. Its main message is that climate change is not a distant threat but a clear and present danger. To quote the report: “Climate change once considered an issue for a distant future has moved firmly into the present. Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter and periods of extreme heat last longer than any … American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours though in many regions there are longer dry spells in between.” This follows the latest UNFifth Assessment Report which advances the same conclusions at the global level. “Thedebate over climate evidence is over.” to quote one of the lead authors of the US report. Except that there never really was a debate over climate change—or at least there should never have been.Climate science is not a matter of subjective political judgment. It involves natural processes where the scientific method applies with hypotheses and evidence self-correcting to a higher level of confidence. The scientists sounded the alarm in 1988. The international community formally identified the danger in 1992. It launched its first response strategy in 1997. Then in 2005 the then Opposition leader John Key advised the world that he was sceptical of global warming. Coming to power in 2008 he began weakening New Zealand’s response strategy assisted by a cohort of troglodytes determined to undermine any purposeful climate policy.New Zealanders would be able to report similar experiences with climate change as those of the Americans—recent storms and floods droughts and fires and sea level rise that is already occurring. But there is no report. The Government has no interest. Last sitting week an eminent group presented a petition to Parliament urging the Government to undertake a risk assessment of New Zealand. Not one National MP was on hand to receive the petition. The petitioners above all appealed for a cross-party accord on climate change. An hour later I highlighted the petition in general debate. Not one National MP acknowledged the petition.Judith Collins spoke about the economy law and order health and welfare just as Jonathan Coleman has just now—pretty much everything that matters to ordinary Kiwis as she put it with exquisite ignorance of the petition that had just been tabled. The ever-prescient David Bennett contented himself with the humble view that the Green Party represents a vision that has gone. It represents he said a vision of the past. IanMcKelvie enthused that it was another great day for provincial New Zealand because it was raining everywhere except he cried the lowerRangitīkei. Significant rain he warned again with unwitting irony will be needed very soon. And he was kind enough to explain why “For those who do not understand this …”tupping will not be as productive with less rain.What has to occur to bring this ideologically blind Government to its senses? During the last dismantlement of the emissions trading scheme in this House I accused John Key and TimGroser of the moral crime of ecocide. I make that charge again today because these leaders are wilfully maintaining a response strategy that condemns New Zealanders to a future that undermines our economy including agriculture.Last weekend the UN Secretary-General said this: “The planet is sending us clearly a message that nature is now sick. We must listen. That is why I am saying to world leaders: ‘Don’t be on the losing side of history. Change is in the air. Solutions exist. The race is on. It’s time to lead.’ ” John Key and Tim Groser are in fact leading on the losing side. New Zealand’s net emissions are projected to triple between 1990 and 2030. The rate of increase is higher than global emission projections. Global projections are expected to breach the 2 degree threshold and land us in danger territory—somewhere between 2.6 and 4.5 degrees. But if the world emitted at the rate New Zealand is projected to the global temperature would rise by 5 to 7 degrees—truly catastrophic. This is how New Zealand under John Key is doing its fair share. The man should be ashamed of himself and his Government.Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): I have a really good feeling about the Budget. I have got a good feeling about the Budget because it is absolutely focused on the things that matter most to New Zealanders and their families. It is about opportunity it is about economic well-being and it is about providing a good quality of life for everyone.Firstly and so importantly we are moving back into surplus. It is not a huge surplus but we are on the way to ongoing surpluses and the opportunity to strengthen our economy by paying down debt so that we can keep our interest rates down as low as possible and put something aside for the next rainy day. It is so good to see our economy growing. Now we have to lock down that growth so that everyone—our families our households and our businesses—can benefit. Yes we have all worked pretty long and pretty hard and pretty smart to get here and we have managed to survive really tough global economic times and survive them well but now we have to manage that economic growth equally as intelligently so that we can continue to benefit into the future. We want more jobs and we want better incomes and the only way to get those is by sticking to our very successful economic management plan and focusing on our Business Growth Agenda.Canterbury and the Christchurch rebuild are a key focus of this Government and a significant amount of the new Budget money is targeted at supporting our community—firstly supporting our very resilient but by now pretty tired and stressed families. The Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett has announced $13.5 million in operational funding over the next 4 years to continue the Earthquake Support Coordination Service. It is a great service. It includes counselling and the Canterbury 0800 support phone line. I know of dozens of people who have benefited from the free counselling and hundreds maybe thousands who have got support on that phone line. This money will provide ongoing earthquake coordination to support 5000 households and about 250 new people every month to go through counselling services. It is estimated that the 0800 number will handle nearly 13000 calls in the next year. International research tells us that the third year after a major disaster is often the worst. It is very stressful for our families so we really need and appreciate this support.I am always very pleased to see the $20 million allocated for 6000 new apprenticeships and the incentives for beneficiaries to come to Christchurch to take up pre-arranged jobs. I am really pleased because in the past adjournment I have had several businesses talking to me about desperately needing more workers. I have spoken to construction companies that have thanked us for the apprenticeship reboot scheme and they say that it has been a real breakthrough for them and has increased the number of apprenticeships that they can take up and that is great for our young people.Carol Beaumont: Where are they going to live Nicky?NICKY WAGNER: Also to the interest of Carol Beaumont who questioned earlier I recently visited the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology women’s trade training course and I met a fabulous group of women—about 60 of them—who are working hard and just itching to get out and work on that rebuild. Although we are getting through the repairs we are only about 10 percent through the construction phase so there is plenty of work for them once they have graduated.Other businesses that I visited are also very short of staff. I met one that was short of 40 full-time semi-skilled workers. It wants to continue to expand and this is what is stopping it. It pays well it is family friendly and it is flexible but it still cannot get enough employees. There was also a smaller company that was short of only a couple of workers but for that size of company it is crucial if they want to continue to grow.There is work in Christchurch—all types of work—and I welcome people who are keen to come to our city and add to the rebuild and our city’s prosperity.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I think it is pertinent when we come to a Budget to ask a really simple question. It is a question that I think we should ask every Government when it is in office and it is whom the Government is here for. When judging a Government on a question like that actions will always speak louder than words or the rhetoric that we have had from that side of the House this afternoon. Let uslook at the Government’s action. Let us look at its record since it first came into Government.It may brush over this but one of the first things that it did was reorder our tax system so that tax cuts—significant ones—meant that 40 percent of what it redistributed went to the top 10 percent of New Zealanders. When this Government claims that it is moving back into surplus we need to keep in context that it is borrowing up to $10 million worth of interest a day in order to pay for tax cuts like that which went to people who just did not need them. That was the trade-off that the Government was willing to make. At the same time it cut things like the training incentive allowance. It scrapped adult and community education. It has poured $40 million into private schooling and established charter schools. Whom is that Government here for? Actions speak louder than words.It is not just about policies; it is about the way the Government acts when it comes to individuals who are in positions of wealth or power. We have seen some examples in recent weeks of this Government’s attitude towards certain New Zealanders. We have seen it with Judith Collins. We have seen it with Maurice Williamson. In fact we have seen it from almost all of the Government members with their exclusive Cabinet clubs because what the Prime Minister did not acknowledge today when he tried to bandy around that these were just simply innocuous forms of fund-raising is that the people who belong to these clubs are not told they are part of a fund-raiser; they are told they are part of a club. They are told they are part of a club. A Government should never be elected to serve for the exclusivity of the few or for the members of a club.For the Labour Party our driving force has always been very very simple. Our ethos has been simple. It has always been very clear. We have always been here because we believe in serving on behalf of people. It is always what we have been about and we are proud of that. I do not care if the National Party members want to mock us for having a value set. I am proud of it—ever since Kirk was in this House and he simply articulated it as all that people need is something to do somewhere to live someone to love and something to hope for. If you want to distil down what we fight for every single day on this side of the House it is exactly that.I have had from that side of the House questions over some of the policy ideas we have raised. I am happy to outline all of them. Starting in January was Best Start. Best Start is a $600 million investment in children acknowledging that if we want to move forward as a nation the best thing we can do is invest in the early years of those children by giving their parents choices by ensuring that they have access to early childhood education and by increasing support for parents who need it most. That is what that package was about and that is something we are really proud of.Secondly what about housing? That simple issue of somewhere to live is not a simple issue in New Zealand any more. It is increasingly unaffordable for families and particularly families with newborns are moving more and more often. That impacts on children’s education. That is why we have boldly said we will build 100000 houses. We will introduce a capital gains tax. We will introduce monetary policy that is focused on families interest rates and employment. That is why we have boldly said we do not care if we are having to be world leaders in monetary policy if it means doing things on behalf of people and putting people first in a market economy.We have always been proud of our history. We are proud of our ideas because they are positive. They are about focusing on what matters most. It is not about a club. It will always be about people.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Next Thursday our Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English will be presenting his sixth Budget and like our newly minted Minister Nicky Wagner—congratulations—I have a good feeling about thisBudget. Already we have seen some good initiatives coming through and that is only the start of what is to come.For my part I would like to concentrate in this call on what this John Key National-led Government is doing for senior citizens in New Zealand the people who are very vulnerable at the last stages of their lives. This year for example we are going to invest more than $1.55 billion in aged care. This is an increase of over 60 percent under Labour—$1.55 billion. So we are spending more on respite care carer support day programmes for older people and a lot of other initiatives that really will make a difference to the quality of life of our seniors.One example is that we have developed a new clinical assessment tool for aged care providers. This ensures that each resident in residential care will get up to two nationally consistent clinical assessment tests twice a year or more if their health suffers. That is the kind of thing that really is important because older people’s health does change quite dramatically and quite suddenly so that is an important initiative as is in this space a national minimum standard which will mean the same level of care is going to be expected from providers across New Zealand. Again this is a very important initiative and we have tightened up on a lot of the regulations around residential care. Across the board across this country in every electorate and in every home you can relax in the knowledge that New Zealand seniors are going to be better looked after.Elder abuse in my opinion has been a shameful secret for far too long and this John Key National-led Government is very committed to confronting elder abuse. We are actively encouraging police to work more closely with partner organisations such as Age Concern which already does a very good job but there is not enough sharing of information. There are too many silos around this kind of thing so we are breaking those down. We want to improve the responses to elder abuse.The new Crimes Amendment Act for example which came into effect in 2012 makes it an offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison to not take reasonable steps to protect a child or a vulnerable adult. We are focusing on older New Zealanders’ health and well-being. In my own North Shore electorate I have seen plenty of examples of that. We have invested in the past few years more than $200 million in new facilities and new services. Gone are the dark days under Labour’s incompetent Minister of Health Annette King when we saw long waiting lists people going to Australia for cancer treatment and just horrific situations—terrible situations. But under the Hon Tony Ryall that has all changed.In North Shore Hospital for example we have just put in a state-of-the-art elective surgery centre. We have a new emergency department and a new cardiology centre. Last week I opened up a $3.5 million community dialysis centre. This is the sort of thing that makes an enormous difference to people’s lives and it is complemented by the dialysis centre on the North Shore Hospital site which the Minister of Health Tony Ryall opened a couple of years ago. So there has been a lot of spending—some $200 million on that one example of one hospital—but it does not stop there.There are indeed a lot of things happening in terms of superannuation. In just over 5 years of a National Government the married rate of superannuation has gone up by $183.88 a fortnight and the single living alone payment has increased by $125.10 a fortnight. That equates to a 25 percent increase since April 2008. We stick with a plan. We make one we stick with it and we stick with our promises. Our Prime Minister John Key has undertaken to the people of New Zealand that we will maintain the married rate of superannuation at 66 percent of the average wage and under our watch the age of eligibility will remain at 65.TheSuperGold card started out with very very humble beginnings and now we see that there are more than 10000 outlets in New Zealand that are involved inSuperGold. Businesses range from pharmacies and dentists to transport and utility services.Denis O’Rourke: It’s not a National Government achievement. That’s a New Zealand First achievement.MAGGIE BARRY: So from extremely humble beginnings we have managed to crank it up. It is also now across Australia as well so New Zealand seniors can go across to Australia and receive a range of commercial discounts that are the same as those that Australian seniors receive. So since 2010 our Government has not justmithered on about it and sort of suggested it and then left well alone as one of the members who was heckling before was indicating—he was trying to claim the credit for it. We have invested $68.6 million in theSuperGold card scheme and next week in the Budget we will see even more exciting initiatives that will mean a brighter future for New Zealanders. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour): National Party members have just spent the last half an hour or so trying to convince New Zealanders that they are interested in the issues that matter to them. Well tonight in the House they are going to get a chance to vote for an issue that matters to New Zealanders. They can choose to vote to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. So the question is whether they will. Will they put their money where their mouth is and deal with that issue or will they do what they have been doing for weeks now and filibuster to try to delay the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill from having its vote in Parliament tonight? I think that is the sort of issue that New Zealanders are going to judge this Government on.National Party members would have us believe that they want to do things that are relevant to people but we are going to see whether that is true when they debate tonight. Are they going to spend a lot of time talking about the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill a tiny little bill that really does not impact anybody at all or are they going to let the House get on and vote for extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks? The Government has a problem. It has got a problem. This bill defeats the Government. The only thing that stands between families and 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is the Government because the majority of members in this Parliament will vote for that. I thank all of those parties that really are dealing with the issues that matter to people because if families can get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave with their newborn babies then that will make a huge difference to people’s lives. If we can get the bonding and attachment right which we know now from all the research and evidence is so important for helping children develop well then we will have a much better future in this country. The only thing that stands between now and that future is the Government. So we will get to see tonight whether those members are going to do that. They have gone very quiet.Government members say that they are going to deal with the issues that matter to people. Well what I want to know is which people. Are they the people who are in the Cabinet club? Are those the people they are talking about? I believe they are. Someone sent me a tweet today that I think said it all. They said: “Sue do you know what a ‘Cabinet club’ handshake looks like? Of course you don’t because it’s done in very deep pockets and you don’t get to see it.” That Cabinet club handshake is done in very deep pockets and with people who have the money to buy influence. That has been the theme of the last week.While we have been addressing issues that matter like extending paid parental leave the Prime Minister has been spending his time trying to defend all of his colleagues andall of his Ministers from being donkey deep and dealing with people who have the money to buy influence. So—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I just remind members that when we are having a debate people may interject on the speaker but they cannot interject on each other if they do not have the floor. It is very discourteous.SUE MORONEY: Thank you. I have obviously touched a nerve there. What is the theme here? Judith Collins was working withOravida with people who have the money to buy influence. Maurice Williamson went and phoned the police to defend somebody who has the money to buy influence. Then we find out that they are all doing it—all of the Ministers are involved in these Cabinet clubs.I would like to know from the members opposite—could the next person who gets up and speaks for the Government please tell us all of the electorates where these Cabinet clubs operate. Where are the electorates where these Cabinet clubs operate? Well maybe in 5 minutes you are not going to have time to list them all. Maybe it is going to be quicker to name the electorates where there are no Cabinet clubs in operation because I think this is happening up and down the country. In every electorate I am guessing there are going to be these people who belong to these exclusive clubs. They pay money to belong to these exclusive clubs for one reason and one reason alone and that is to buy influence with Ministers in the National Government. I want the members opposite to name any of the electorates held by their MPs that do not have a Cabinet club. I think that will—well Tau says he has not got one. There is one member who is going to be honest about it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member’s full name.SUE MORONEY: Oh Tau Henare—the Hon Tau Henare says he has not got a Cabinet club but he is on his way out anyway. I want to know from each one of those members opposite which one of them has a Cabinet club who is in that Cabinet club and what influence people are buying when they join up to the Cabinet club. I think that those are the issues that we need to hear about before we see the Government’s Budget.HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Kia ora maianōtātou katoa. Way back on 14 September 1972 a petition with more than 30000 signatures was presented to Parliament spearheaded by the Te Reo Māori Society andNgāTamatoa calling for Te Reo Māori to be taught in schools. That petition led directly to the creation of Te Tau o te Reo Māori—which later became TeWiki o Te Reo Māori—and to Māori being included in the school curriculum. That love for the language also led to the establishment of the world-leading initiative to teach Māori to preschool children that is thekōhanga reo movement. Fromkōhanga we got kura kaupapa and from kura we got wharekura and eventually we saw the establishment of TeWānanga o Raukawa TeWānanga o Aotearoa and Te WhareWānanga oAwanuiārangi.In fact the 1980s was a big time for Te Reo Māori. The Māori language claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1985 byHuirangiWaikerepuru andNgāKaiwhakapūmaui Te Reo Māori which sought official recognition for Te Reo Māori in places as diverse as the courts Government departments local authorities and even Parliament itself and for the Reo to be made compulsory in schools a claim widely supported by all corners of the Māori world. The tribunal ruled that the Crown had failed to protect the Māori language and recommended that Te Reo Māori be legally recognised as an official language that a statutory body be established to foster the use of Te Reo Māori and that a broadcasting policy be formulated to help promote the language. In 1987 the Māori Language Act was passed making Māori an officiallanguage and Te TauraWhirii te Reo Māori was established to promote the use of Te Reo Māori as a living language.Those initiatives were further enhanced by another claim led byHuirangiWaikerepuru andNgāKaiwhakapūmaui Te Reo Māori stating that the Māori Language Act had failed to address radio and television broadcasting and a claim from Sir Graham Latimer and the New Zealand Māori Council calling on the Crown to recognise Māori interests in the radio spectrum. The Crown opposed both claims and Māori were forced to take their case to the High Court the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Privy Council where they won support for an amendment to the Broadcasting Act in 1993 to establish TeMāngaiPāho to fund Māori language television and radio programmes under the Minister at the time the Hon Maurice Williamson. Today we have 21 Māori radio stations around the country and Māori Television finally went to air on 28 March 2004. But in case anyone thinks that things are all OK with the Reo now please note that just 2 years ago the Waitangi Tribunal ruled that the Government had breached the Treaty of Waitangi by systemically failing to fund and support thekōhanga reo Māori language strategy that the Government should apologise for its failings and that it should appoint an independent adviser to oversee an urgent programme to overhaul policy increase participation improve quality increase funding and provide the support necessary for the upgrade and maintenance ofkōhanga facilities.That is just a snapshot of the last 40 years of the struggle that Māori have been through to get Te Reo Māori recognised and to get resources committed to keeping it alive. In all of that it is worth noting that the struggle was led by those who cared for the Reo those who had a deep and abiding love for the Reo and that they often did so at great personal cost to themselves and their families. Many of those early pioneers either could not even speak Te Reo or were themselves just taking their first tentative steps along the pathway of Māori language revitalisation. They were often castigated by older more conservative native Māori language speakers for daring to lead the charge for the Reo. But their passion and their commitment and their refusal to take a backward step marked them out as true champions for the language.And that is the reason Mana opposes the Government’s plan to take the language away from those who care for it and to give it to those who would corporatise it. The plan led by the Māori Party is to scrap Te TauraWhirii te Reo Māori and TeMāngaiPāho and to put the language into the hands of corporate iwi leaders. We oppose its plan because the grim reality is that iwi leaders at that level are simply not capable of managing such a taonga. They were not there when the people needed them to lead the fight for the Reo. Their corporate statements speak glowingly of the importance of the Reo but their financial statements suggest that they have other priorities.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): We have been hearing a lot from the Opposition members today around Cabinet clubs and their great concern about what might somewhat transparently be happening in the Government over here. Well I have been fascinated as they have talked about money and influence and access to think about what is the world’s largest Cabinet club. Ladies and gentlemen the largest Cabinet club of money and influence and access is the unions—the unions that behold that crowd opposite every day. Do you know what makes it worse? Do you know what makes it even worse? The constitution and structure of the New Zealand Labour Party allow the unions—the unions of New Zealand—to decide who the Labour Party leader is and God forbid who could be a Labour Prime Minister. That is buying access.Do you know what makes it even worse? Even worse is that the unions are taking the money from the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders particularly in the Civil Service. I remember it well. They take money from hard-working Kiwis push it on totheir union hacks and then pass it on to the hacks who sit on the other side of this House. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am very reluctant to interrupt a member who is in a 5-minute speaking slot so I am going to allow him to start again. I am going to allow him to start again because I have two members who do not have the floor who continue to interject on each other. It is totally out of order. The member can start again.SIMON O’CONNOR: I will not continue on this line of vitriol per se but I think the reminder is there: if the party opposite wants to talk about money and it wants to talk about access and it wants to talk about influence then it must begin and end with a conversation about the Labour Party and the role of the unions. I go back to that other point that it is money taken from hard-working ordinary Kiwis channelled through the system. Once again you see it in the constitution of the Labour Party which gives effective majority control to the unions to decide the leadership. That is just shocking.I am looking forward to this Government’s sixth Budget. The fine electorate ofTāmaki is looking forward—Maggie Barry: Magnificent.SIMON O’CONNOR: —the magnificent electorate ofTāmaki thank you to the member.Maggie Barry: Almost as good as the North Shore beaches.SIMON O’CONNOR: Almost as good as the North Shore. And why are we looking forward to it? Because we are a positive party looking for a brighter future. We know that we sit on great news like 3 percent growth. Some economists are forecasting even higher. We know that over 1500 people a week are coming off welfare. Unlike the other side who are a lot of sort of theoreticians those of us who have worked on the front line—in fact within the likes of Work and Income—know that for those 1500 individuals going into work changes their lives. This Government is committed to that. To the Labour Party that is just a number and something to be heckled at but again for the real hard-working experienced people on this side of the House it makes a difference. There were 84000 more jobs added to the economy in the last 12 months. Unemployment is at 6 percent and it is forecast to go even lower. Contrast that with the OECD rate of 7.6 percent. We are on our way to surplus. This National Government promised it and we will deliver it.What about the other side though? What about the other side? They are completely distracted never focused on the issues that matter. All we heard was rambling rhetoric. I think there was a promise of unicorns fluffy bunnies and rainbows in there somewhere. In fact when Opposition members even come to try to do a policy it really is sort of being akin to atheomachist in an apothecary. Most people will not know what that means and that is a good analogy because no one understands what Labour’s policies mean.Maggie Barry: Or care less.SIMON O’CONNOR: Or care less. Well actually I quite like the word “apothecary”.Dr Cam Calder: What policies?SIMON O’CONNOR: What policies? It is a shocker. What we do know is that there would be higher taxes from Labour and the Greens and more taxes through their emission trading scheme. Have no illusion New Zealand things like the emission trading scheme capital gains taxes and changes to KiwiSaver are costs to you. They want to nationalise the electricity system. I heard the other day that I think the Greens in particular now are against milk products and logs. What are we left with in this country? They really also want to spend like troopers. Well we are a prudent Government. Weare a prudent Government. We have capped it effectively at up to $1 billion of new spending because we know that that is the prudent and right thing to do. The majority of Kiwis understand this and that is why the Labour Party and its union mates are polling under 30 percent—Maggie Barry: And down—going down.SIMON O’CONNOR: —and continuing to go down. That is why a certain Mr Jones jumped.But what about the wins? We are seeing someprefigurations—[Interruption] Or he was pushed as my honourable colleague notes. We are looking at some really serious positive wins for Kiwis at the moment like $6.3 million over 4 years for bilateral cochlear implants. As someone who has worked with them—Dr Cam Calder: How much sorry?SIMON O’CONNOR: $6.3 million. As someone who has worked in the health system what a difference that makes. I would like to suggest though we probably cannot find the money that we probably need some implants for the Opposition members so they can truly hear the wants of New Zealanders. We heard from Paula Bennett that there is $10.4 million in new operating funding to support sexual violence services. That is absolutely critical absolutely important. As someone who has worked in the community for years—and I think particularly of working as a chaplain at Mt Eden prison—and seen the abuse and the violence that happen to our most vulnerable it is critical to get in early to make a real difference.As I turn towards the end because I am conscious of time I want to turn toTāmaki. There are many many local wins that this Government has delivered to the people ofTāmaki—Dr Cam Calder: And continuing to deliver.SIMON O’CONNOR: —and it will continue to do so like $3 million to the St Thomas School for new buildings and ultra-fast broadband to our schools. We have theTāmaki Transformation Programme an agreement between the Government and the council working with the Auckland chamber of commerce around a Career Start programme. The Career Start programme is a cooperation of theTāmaki Transformation Programme the Government and the council to help young people into jobs. There is new housing in Glen Innes and Panmure and the electrification of rail.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.VotingCorrection—Urgency MotionEUGENIE SAGE (Green): I seek leave of the House to have a correction to the record of the voting on the urgency motion yesterday for the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill. The Mana party’s vote should have been recorded as supporting that motion not opposing it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member’s request is granted.New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering BillSecond ReadingTE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a koeitēneirā. I moveThat the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee the fine committee that is chaired by theHon Tau Henare for the very prompt way in which they have dealt with the bill and recommended back to this House that it be passed with amendment. I note that the select committee received 14 submissions. The committee heard eight submissions and we held all of our hearings in Tauranga. Today this House moves history along with our debate helping to advance the goal of eventually transferring land in the Tauranga area from the New Zealand Mission Trust Board to the newly created Ōtamataha Trust.Just over a week ago I stood with other members of this House at the 150th anniversary of the Battle of GatePā—Pukehinahina. During the course of the day we attended the military memorial service at the Ōtamataha Mission Cemetery. At that sacred site surrounded bypōhutukawa and bordering on the highway north there is a sort of solemn reminder of a history that so many of us so many New Zealanders have yet to actually know about. There are headstones representing young lives stolen from their family tree. Both British soldiers and mana whenua were buried side by side. That day added another story of the Waikato War alongside the battles of RangiririWaiari andRangiaowhia followed byŌrākau at the beginning of this month. In June of this year the last major battle in the sequence TeRanga also in the Tauranga area will be commemorated.I wanted to set the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill in this sort of context because when the select committee attended the hearings in Tauranga it was evident that the submitters had lived this history and they brought theirtūpuna with them into the room. They continually told us: “The history is well-known. Those events have been talked about among our people since they occurred.” Stories were shared from the descendants ofKōraurauHikaraia andHōriTūpaea. We were told about the legacy of the koroua rangatira such asHēnareTaratoaHōriNgātai andRāwiriPuhirake all of whom lie there at Ōtamataha—thewhānauKohu thewhānau Te Kane thehapūNgāiTūkairangi Ngāti Tapu and tewhānau aTauwhao.The Māori Party believes that a nation can be only as strong as its collective memory allows. Our past builds our present and if we do not understand our history we are pretty much like a leaf that does not know it is a part of the tree. We come to this particular history the history and the story of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board and its benevolent intentions in establishing a trust for the purpose of spiritually benefiting and instructing local Māori. At the time 1852 no doubt the Church Missionary Society had noble intentions and indeed many of the submissions noted that although the church and its missionaries brought what they described as “many good things to the tangata whenua of Tauranga” the so-called purchase of the land at Tauranga including Ōtamataha was never regarded by Māori as giving up their rights to the land.The Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board spelt out the situation really clearly in its submission. It said: “As the result of defending their lands at the Battles ofPukehinahina and TeRanga tangata whenua were considered rebels and vast tracts of land were confiscated by the Crown. Included in the confiscated lands was the Ōtamataha site. The Crown at its total discretion (indiscretion) vested the Ōtamataha lands in the Church Mission Society.” Forty-four years after that land transaction executed by Archdeacon Brown the residue of the land including Ōtamataha was transferred by the Church Missionary Society to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board. Fast forward another century and then in 1998 the trustees of that board in recognition of the mana and the process by which the land was acquired from tangata whenua all resigned en masse.It is a fascinating story that deserves to be told. It has all the elements of a great thriller—a land-grab at the time of settlement under the authority of the missionaries; legislative stealth via the Religious Charitable and Educational Trust Boards Incorporation Act 1884 a remorseful Church that seeks the pathway for reconciliationthe mandate of the Waitangi Tribunal which in 2004 found that the Crown was in breach of the Treaty principle of active protection and the generosity of thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho in seeking to work with the Crown to put right the wrongs. Today we open a new chapter in that thriller. The purpose of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill is to extinguish the New Zealand Mission Trust Board and to discharge its trustees. To effect this purpose legislation is required to mandate the change in the trust and the beneficiaries namely that of thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho.There is one other key element of this bill that requires some explanation. There was a call within some of the submissions forNgāiTūkairangi to be considered one of the beneficiaries alongsideNgāiTamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu. The submission fromNgāiTūkairangi outlined their support for the progression of the bill while also noting their close whakapapa links toNgāiTamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu. They told the select committee: “we believe it is fundamentally necessary to include NgaiTūkairangi as one of the beneficiaries. To not address this issue leaves ourhapū members distraught …”. The select committee took on the commitment to address this issue in good faith. We noted that when membership of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board had been given tohapū in the 1990sNgāiTūkairangi had chosen to withdraw its involvement within that trust.We are also informed by the Waitangi Tribunal findings that the strength of the customary interest in the land had not been determined. Our recommendation to the House therefore recognises that the interests ofNgāiTūkairangi must be balanced against the needs of the existing trustees and the deed of the new trust. The Ōtamataha Trust board was amended in March 2014 to allowNgāiTūkairangi members to benefit through their whakapapa links to the historicalhapū of TeMaterāwaho whose connections to the land are now recognised in the trust deed. A definition of Ngāti Tapu has also been expanded to take this whakapapa into account. The select committee therefore recommended that the bill should be amended to align it with the changes made in the trust deed.Finally I want to leave the last word on this bill to the TeKohinga the reconciliation network of Tauranga Moana. It was its contention that the bill will make a further contribution to the reconciliatory healing between Māori and the Crown and Māori and the Anglican Church in Tauranga Moana. TeKohinga shared with the select committee a statement on the record from Archdeacon Brown made prior to the Land Wars. He said: “I am between the devil and the deep blue sea. In time the Government will require more land … to steer clear of giving offence ‘to the powers that be’ [Government] and at the same time to sustain our character as Guardians of the Natives will require much of the ‘wisdom that cometh from above’.” On the face of it 150 years ago the interests of the original owners were sacrificed compromised and extinguished in favour of the powers that be.Today we sanction an important move in restoring the Ōtamataha land to its rightful kaitiaki and in doing so offer the potential for reconciliation and resolution of the wider Te Papa block issue in Tauranga. Under those conditions I thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee and the officials for their help. We know that there is one more reading to go and it will be done and dusted. I appreciate the help of all the Māori Affairs Committee and I commend this bill to the House.Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I just want to read first of all from the Waitangi Tribunal reportTe Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims of 2004. After considering the manner in which a Crown grant for the land including Ōtamataha was awarded to the Church Missionary Society in 1852 it concluded at page 218: “we find that Godfrey failed to ascertain andacknowledge the conditional nature of the transactions under … customary law and that he wrongly concluded that the [Church Missionary Society] had fully and fairly purchased the whole of the area. The Crown in accepting Godfrey’s recommendation and finally awarding the [Church Missionary Society] a Crown grant for the whole area was therefore in breach of the Treaty principle of active protection.”You see I suppose a little-known fact is that the Treaty was there to protect and this did not do it. So what you see in the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill and what you see in a whole raft of Treaty settlement bills stems from the lack of protection that came out of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. I know that there will be people in our country who say: “Well you were conquered. You should just move on.” It is very difficult to use that principle when we are a law-abiding country and as we move together down the path of nationhood.The bill transfers land in Tauranga and other property from the New Zealand Mission Trust to the Ōtamataha Trust so that it can be used for the beneficiaries of the Ōtamataha Trust: thehapū of Ngāti TapuNgāiTamarāwaho andNgāiTūkairangi. The return of the land is highly significant to thehapū. It re-establishes their connection to the water. It provides income to thehapū to finance other activities including allowinghapū to participate in the downtown economy of Tauranga. It comes with the 150th anniversary of the Battle of GatePā which was only last week.The Ōtamataha Trust has been established by thehapū of the Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho to own and manage land and other property acquired through the historical common interests of thosehapū in Tauranga. It is not a charitable trust. The Church Missionary Society was established in Tauranga in 1835. In 1838 the society bought two blocks from tangata whenua—and when I say “bought” I mean “brought”. In its view it purchased it on the site where the city of Tauranga is today. The transaction has never been accepted by tangata whenua as a sale of the land to the Church Missionary Society so you can now understand why since 1838 there has been an issue there has been some raruraru and there has been some significant hard feeling by the aforementioned iwi andhapū.In 1867 the Crown again “acquired” by the gift of the Church Missionary Society four-fifths of the land that had been vested in the society by Crown grant in 1852 and military settlers were settled on it. This land was surrounded by confiscated Māori land which was also settled.I want to just deviate for a minute and talk about back in the day when soldiers were asked to come from England Ireland New South Wales—from wherever. One of my ancestors on my full-bloodedPākehā side was a guy called Andrew McMahon. He came out and the price of his coming out—I would not call him a mercenary; I would say he was just looking for a job like most of us or some of us will be after 20 September. They called him afencible. He had a little plot. If anybody knows Onehunga just right where the Onehunga fire station is is where Andrew McMahon was given a piece of land to come and secure Auckland against those rebels from the other half of my ancestry. Basically that is what we are talking about here and what happened in Tauranga is similar to what happened to one of my ancestors.In 1896 the remaining land including Ōtamataha was transferred from the Church Missionary Society to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board which “held the assets of the Board on trusts for the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Maori people in the North Island of New Zealand or failing that the evangelisation of the heathen races in any part of the world:”. Those are not my words; those are the words that were used back in the day and I do not think that local Māori needed any schooling in spiritual instruction or even in the evangelisation.Moving forward in 1996 New Zealand Mission Trust Board handed the control of the land back to the new trustees appointed by Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. This was done in recognition of the manner and process by which the land was originally acquired from tangata whenua. The land involved in this was the 7863 square metre waterfront site where the Trinity Wharf hotel now sits. The trust collects the ground rent from that hotel.Though the new trustees had control of the land they were still obliged to use the money in investments derived from the land “for the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Maori people in the North Island of New Zealand or failing that the evangelisation of heathen races in any part of the world:”. Up until 1996 the money was used for the purpose of the spiritual instruction of Māori in the North Island and if that did not happen it was used to evangelise throughout the world. So it has some significance—albeit in terms of its financial commitment most probably very small—in the evangelisation of heathen races around the world. It has always been the intention of the two trusts that it be changed so that the twohapū could benefit from it. However the conditions cannot be changed in any way other than through new legislation—hence our speaking to this bill here today.A similar issue arose in 1986 with money and investments derived from land held by the New Zealand Mission Trust in Port Waikato that was to be transferred to NgātiKārewa and NgātiTāhinga. The result was the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Port Waikato Maraetai) Empowering Act 1986.The Māori Affairs Committee I think did a wonderful job in listening to the concerns of the folk from Tauranga and it is with great pleasure that we see another part of New Zealand’s unfortunate history. It is history and it did happen but we are seeing the righting of those wrongs. We are seeing the righting of those indiscretions for the rest of the nation and in particular for threehapū in the Tauranga region so that they can move forward and certainly not at the expense of those people who hold the lease who are the people running the hotel.Phil Twyford: Bring back Tau—much better than Alfred.Hon TAU HENARE: I do commend this bill to the House. You caught me on the hop there brother. I thought you were going to be nasty to me. But why should I think that? The Māori Affairs Committee has done a great job and I commend my colleague from Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnātātou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and support the passage of this bill the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. I assure the local member sponsoring the bill Te Ururoa Flavell that it is our intention to see the speedy passage of this legislation through this House so you may not hear us take the full extent of our calls in order for that to happen.I do note that both the local member TeUruora Flavell and the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee the Hon Tau Henare amply stated the history in relation to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. Can I just point to one small part of the submission process that the committee considered at length to assure itself that the provisions contained in here addressed I think a substantial concern that was put byNgāiTūkairangi.In the final summation we had considered that when the property transferred from the Church Missionary Society to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board it was quite clear in the letter of transaction that the twohapū stated were identified. We did pursue questions forNgāiTūkairangi in terms of why they thought in that earlier transactiontheirhapū was not recognised and stated by the Church. We had some deliberation around that and got some information.I am drawing the attention of the House to this matter only because I suspect thatNgāiTūkairangi may see that the solution we got to might fall short of their expectation. However can I say that in asking Ngāti Tapu to change their trust deed they were only too happy to do so in order to give an absolute assurance toNgāiTūkairangi that any descendent ofNgāiTūkairangi had an avenue and a mechanism with which to claim benefit under the provisions of this bill.Mention was made ofPukehinahina and lands across New Zealand have a very chequered history in terms of how they came to be an estate of various churches. Can I say that that being the case this is a historical type of example where you can rectify the ownership of lands that have gone to the Church and repatriate them back to tangata whenua as kaitiaki of those particular areas.I am really pleased to be able to support this bill. I am really pleased that the local member persisted and made sure that it would progress in a way that would give resolution to something that had definitely been long standing amongstNgāiTamarāwaho andNgātiTapu. I am also pleased that the select committee was able to consider fully the representation ofNgāiTūkairangi and address that by changing some of the provisions within which the bill applies.Tēnā koutou katoa.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Kia ora.Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. It is sponsored by Māori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell who is a very positive contributor to the Māori Affairs Committee. It was very interesting when we went to Tauranga a place that I think is full of history. I lived there myself for a number of years. We went there to hear the submissions regarding this bill that came in from the surroundinghapū. I guess it is an interesting fascinating mix of events that contributed to the dilemma that this bill is now bringing repair and a sense of justice to. This bill transfers land in Tauranga and other property from the New Zealand Mission Trust Board to the Ōtamataha Trust so that it can be used for the beneficiaries of that trust thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. So this land has got a fascinating history.One of the submitters Mr Alistair Reese brought what I thought was a very interesting perspective on the history of it. If I can I will just read out some aspects of his submission. He said that the Church Missionary Society which was founded in 1892 “acquired the Te Papa peninsula including the land under consideration by this Bill for several reasons. Primarily as a location for their missionary endeavours but also in the words of Brown to establish a land bank to mitigate the newPākehā settlers’ appetite for land and as a symbol of [Church Missionary Society] commitment to Māori. He said ‘it seems necessary in the present excited state of the [people] to show them by this act that we have no present intention of leaving them.’ ” So what he was conveying was that the purchase of this land or the receiving of it was in fact a sign of their long-term commitment. That is an interesting perspective.Also significant is that the land was received in order to create a land bank because of the appetite of settlers who were coming in to buy up parcels of land—so in order to protect it for the future benefit and use of the surroundinghapū. This view seeing it as an investment to be held in trust for Māori was evidenced by the following statement by the society’s parent committee in London. The submission says: “In 1865 the Society stated that the Te Papa land had been ‘[a]cquired and is retained under a solemn Trust that it should be applied to the benefit of the [Māori] race & Church & that it should never be bartered or sold for the mere purpose of raising money. [Those] who gave the land for the benefit of themselves & their posterity would have just ground ofcomplaint against us if we sold that land for a Military Settlement.’ ” We can see that there were altruistic motivations around the receiving of this land yet there was dispute and disagreement around this to the point that the tangata whenua never acknowledged agreed to or came to any sense of acceptance that this land was sold. It will be seen that this land was received to be held in trust.The submitter whom we had heard Mr Reese also in his submission wrote these words which I believe are important to read out as well. He said that “Following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi Archdeacon Brown like many other missionaries agonised over his ‘split’ allegiances as the following quote suggests. Prior to the land wars he stated: ‘I am between the devil and the deep blue sea. In time the Government will require more land … to steer clear of giving offence ‘to the powers that be’ [Government] and at the same time sustain our character as Guardians … will require much of the wisdom that cometh from above’. Similarly to other [Church Missionary Society] missionaries Brown initially opposed the Crown response to Māori resistance over land sales in Taranaki and the Government’s subsequent confiscation policies. However his position changed after the rise ofKingitanga and the armed response by Waikato and Taurangahapū to Grey’s invasion of the Waikato.” This is a very interesting analysis of history. Mr Reese said: “Brown viewed this as a ‘rebellion’ against the ‘divine’ and sovereign authority of Queen Victoria and her delegated representatives.”So we see that the wheels are falling off what was happening here in Tauranga. All sorts of different perspectives and views were now being taken and they were changing in a sense what was an altruistic and perhaps noble position as it could be described to be a guardian and a protector of localhapū and iwi. He saw these responses by Waikato and Taurangahapū to Grey’s invasion of the Waikato as a rebellion against the divine and sovereign authority of Queen Victoria and her delegated representatives. There was a major conflict of interest—or conflict of loyalty and allegiances essentially—taking place.Mr Reese’s submission went on to say: “His subsequent allegiance to the Crown over and against his parishioners in Tauranga Moana”—because this is what was happening; he was now shifting his allegiances—“was considered a betrayal by many Māori. This ‘betrayal’ was epitomised for tangata whenua when Brown hosted a dinner and the Eucharist with Government officers at the Te Papa Mission Station the night before the Battle of Gate in 1864.” That is something that we have commemorated in just this last week as the member Te Ururoa Flavell has highlighted. Mr Reese finished by saying that “Perhaps the resulting estrangement between Brown and local Māori is best encapsulated by aBay of Plenty Times report on his death in 1884: ‘and it was noted in the account of his funeral that there was but a poor attendance of members of [Māori] to which he had devoted his life.’”I think this is a story of not just external conflict but internal conflict. We can see the human aspects of this story and what has taken place. Something that was intended for good became an issue of disenfranchisement for localhapū. What happened was that the Government came in took four-fifths of that parcel of land and let the Church retain one fifth of it and so disenfranchised the localhapū. So it moved from being a caretaker situation or a responsible noble beneficial situation to one where iwi were certainly disenfranchised from their land which was far from the original intention of Archdeacon Brown.Finally I say that here we now come to this point in time and history where these matters are being resolved to the best of our ability as parliamentarians. I have to acknowledge all the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the collegiality and respect that we obviously show to one another to try to bring the best result possible foriwi in our nation who have been aggrieved by the history of the past. Let us hope that the history we set in these days is going to be of benefit to them. Thank you.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnā koutou e te WharePāremata. I would like to start by acknowledging the member in charge of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill Te Ururoa Flavell—tēnā koe Te Ururoa—because every time somebody brings something like this before the House it is an opportunity for others. Quite a lot of complex mahi has gone into many of the bills including this one and it is great to have got to this point. I acknowledge the other speakers so far because I think it is an importantkōrero that is very interesting. I also want to acknowledge Ngāti TapuNgāiTamarāwaho andNgāiTūkairangi because all of thesehapū have had strong interest in the Te Papa lands through mairānō.I would like to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. I sat on the select committee for only brief periods of time. I did not get to go to Tauranga Moana—which I would have loved to do—to hear thekōrero firsthand but I want to acknowledge the select committee because I felt that there was a lot of really genuine commitment there to try to resolve the issues and to go back to the people of Tauranga Moana who are associated with this bill and find solutions. The select committee was not trying to tell them what the solution was; the select committee was trying towhakamana them if you like to make their own solution and that is never simple. In some ways it is particularly complex because we are using parliamentary instruments through law and a select committee etc. to attempt to resolvehapū issues that are about whakapapa and ahikā and relationships with land. We are using instruments that are not really designed for that purpose. There were and are traditional ways of resolving these things. But at some point something had to be done and so the Māori Affairs Committee has done something with the best of intentions and to the best of its abilities.As others have said we are in the context of the 150th anniversary ofPukehinahina—the Battle of GatePā—and the raupatu of Tauranga Moana. It is very interesting to think about those times and to think that we hope to do differently as Jonathan Young has just said. In order to do that I think we really need to be honest about the driving force of the history here and we have to recognise that the evangelisation of the heathens which was the driving force of the Church Missionary Society missionaries was—essentially from the context of the individuals it may well have been conducted with deep conviction and goodwill from their perspective but in the end it was a paternalistic and colonial mind-set which did harm.What is interesting about the Church Missionary Society is how much land it got out of it. All rhetoric aside the Anglican Church has done bloody well out of colonisation and in actual fact it has not been that keen to give it back. It has been quite a noticeable struggle with a number of the churches that they have acquired wealth power buildings and status at the expense of tangata whenua and it is only through these challenges that some of them have been forced to look in the mirror at their own behaviour. I enjoyed hearing about Alfred Brown and his conflicted contradictory emotional landscape but what I feel is that with the hindsight of history this was paternalistic. This was fundamentally racist because there was no respect for what I believe is article 4 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi which is the principle ofritenga.So it depends on whether you acknowledge “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” or whether you are talking about “the Treaty” and that comes up in many bills. But it is equally true in the Ōtamataha bill because actually by 1852 the articles—not the principles that have been invented by lawyers since but the articles—of te Tiriti were beginning to be undermined through a series of acts raupatu and legislation from 1852 onwards that undermined the goodwill that was present in that short and more cooperative era after1840. So it is definitely important for us to understand this and to recognise that this bill does take small but positive steps.Each one of these moments is important. Maybe it is a series of bills before this House but in the end for the mana whenua it is very important that we do this right and that in doing this right we acknowledge the actual history of marginalisation and raupatu that is represented here and that although the Church did not give the land to the military for settlers to develop the Church kept it for itself. The Church argued that it was doing this to protect the interests of the so-called natives but in fact it protected its own interests. When the chips were down Alfred Brown sided with his own people—understandably—and he sided with them to the detriment of the people whom he said he was there for and would make a total lifelong commitment to stand alongside. That is the difference between power with and power over because what actually took place in Tauranga Moana was the crude exercising of dominance. It is great now that finally in 2014 we have got to the point where there has been a renegotiation of what happened in terms of the Ōtamataha mission. It was a mission all right but it was not a mission that actually benefited the tangata whenua or the mana whenua.I think that one always has to ask the question as to who has benefited from these processes and clearly the churches have benefited and clearly the settlers have benefited. But again we were in a difficult place while discussing this because conflictinghapū claims are outside the realm of understanding and experience of many of us. This is not so for Māori members of Parliament but for those of us who are not Māori members of Parliament it is quite difficult to know how to act with authenticity integrity and good faith around issues that are beyond our understanding and yet that is sometimes what these bills require. They require that we take decisions about who is going to get what and again that does raise for me the issue of the contemporary context being as equally fraught as the context was in 1852. We are still in a very fraught era and that era requires us to have more than just new legislation. It requires us to have new education.It is interesting that the Constitution Conversation that has taken place in this country in the last couple of years talks about te Tiriti education. Clearly I think it is obvious that we do not have a robust te Tiriti education system. We do not have many people understanding the principle of contraproferentem which is the principle whereby the only Treaty that should be accepted as the fundamental one is the one that was signed at Waitangi in Te Reo Māori. That is what the international principle of contraproferentem means. It means that the indigenous version as understood by the indigenous people is the legal te Tiriti. If you acknowledge that then it is pretty clear that the Church Missionary Society and others were not in the spirit of te Tiriti.So it is good that we stand here today and that the member has brought this bill through the House and that the select committee worked so positively with it. We welcome this bill but we do remind everybody that if we are going to talk about Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the articles—let us go back to what international law and tangata whenua know particularly those who have read the bookNgāpuhi Speaks which outlines that tangata whenua have been trying to deal with the culture of immigration and settler issues since 1808. Since then they have been havingkōrero about that. We need to hold true to Te Tiriti o Waitangi to the articles of the Treaty and to acknowledge the painful and difficult history that took place at Ōtamataha and many other places.We recognise that the Church did not develop the land in the same way in the sense that it did not become private property. The huge issue that we have with many of the Treaty settlements is that so little land is available because of private property. It hasbeen a very good strategy since the 1850s—to bring in private property and prevent people from being able to get their land back—but we really need to acknowledge that the churches need to be more generous and more responsible for what they have done. They have made a lot of money out of Māori land. It is time to recognise that this country is not a huge continent. It is a small country. Every inch has a story. Every maunga every awa every piece of whenua has a history and we need the courage to work through issues of justice as we are trying to do today. Kia oratātou katoa.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I would like to firstly acknowledge the member for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell for promoting this New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill because were it not for his sponsoring of this bill we would not be in this position today.This is a really joyful time to be able to speak on legislation that as I describe it is like a reverse engineering happening here or a reverse privatisation whereby lands that were originally lost—yes lost—by the tangata whenua are now coming back albeit small residues or remnants of the original blocks but at least it is good. I am very very pleased to be able to participate with fellow Māori Affairs Committee members in ushering this piece of legislation through the House because it is historic.I would like to pay acknowledgments to the other members of the committee who have made contributions thus far in particular the Hon Tau Henare and in particular his pronouncements of “evangelising to the heathens” which was in the original 1896 trust. I think the Hon Tau Henare could find a good role as aRātana minister after his career in Parliament has ended. He gives a good kupukauhau from the pulpit.Can I also acknowledge Mr Young for his thoughtful contribution which was very respectful to the submissions that we heard particularly from the church groups. I guess there are many many different sorts of reasons or motivations behind why the land was purchased or acquired and the Crown actions that subsequently meant that the land was permanently out of the original owners’ reach.I do acknowledge the trustees who in 1998 came to the realisation that “Hey this is wrong. We shouldn’t be hanging on to this land. We need to give it back to the original owners whom we acquired it from.” So I do acknowledge the trust for handing the reins over to the haukāinga to thehapū who are now going through this process whereby they can actually set up their own private trust to look after their lands.Unfortunately I cannot carry on with my contribution. I am going to have to curtail it but I do acknowledge the work that the committee has done thus far and I look forward to awhi-ing the passage of this bill through the House. Kia oratātou.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege to stand and take a call to support the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill in its second reading. I hear from quite a few of my colleagues here in the House that bills like this as well as the bills around Treaty settlements are a really good reminder of our history. I would say that the member who brought this bill to the House Te Ururoa Flavell would be very well placed to understand that a lot of our history in terms of Māori andPākehā interaction was not taught in our schools whether they be mainstream schools or like the one that Mr Flavell taught in St Stephen’s College. Interestingly schools like St Stephen’s and Queen Victoria School and Te Aute College—Meka Whaitiri: Hukarere.CLAUDETTE HAUITI: —Hukarere Girls’ College too—were a result of the relationship that the churches had with Māori.I heard what my colleague Catherine Delahunty said which was in those days although the missionaries might have had a very real and genuine desire to contribute ina Christian fashion to the people whom they came to deal with and meet with going forward in these very modern and contemporary times it is perhaps now seen to be fundamentally—I think my colleague used the word—racist. That is with the benefit of hindsight. However having said that it is legislation like this that can redress those types of issues and the Treaty legislation as well can address some of those indiscretions and discrepancies.This bill will transfer land in Tauranga and other property from the New Zealand Mission Trust Board to the Ōtamataha Trust so that it can be used by the beneficiaries of that trust—those being thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. The return of the land is highly significant to thathapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho because according to them it re-establishes their connection to the water. It provides income to thehapū to finance other activities including allowinghapū to participate in the downtown economy of Tauranga. I think that one of the significant features of this bill and also other settlements is the social and economic development of thehapū and the iwi in which they are placed.The bill comes to the House at around the same time as the 150th anniversary of the Battle of GatePā as well as we have heard from our colleagues. That too is significant to the introduction of the bill and that auspicious occasion.The Ōtamataha Trust has been established by thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho as we have heard to own and manage the land and other property acquired through historical common interests of thosehapū in Tauranga. It is not a charitable trust as my colleague the Hon Tau Henare mentioned earlier. The bill declares the new trustees to be a leasing authority for the purposes of the Public Bodies Leases Act of 1969. The land being transferred will be subject to a lease granted under that Act and this allows the transfer to happen without affecting the lease and lessee rights. I think it is very important to note that as part of the technicality of the bill.The Church Missionary Society was established in Tauranga in 1835 as we heard earlier as well. Several years later the Church Missionary Society bought from tangata whenua the two blocks on the site which is where the city of Tauranga now stands. That transaction was never accepted by tangata whenua as a sale of the land to the society.In 1867 the Crown acquired by the gifting by the Church Missionary Society four-fifths of the land that had been vested in the society by a Crown grant in 1852. Military settlers were settled on it. This land was surrounded by confiscated Māori land which was also settled. Again I want to raise these issues because they are part of not just TaurangaMoana’s history or Māori history but New Zealand history that should be for ever mentioned and put in the books so that we can refer back to it in future years.At that same time in 1896 the remaining land including Ōtamataha was transferred from the Church Missionary Society to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board which held the assets of the board on trust for the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Māori in the North Island or failing that the evangelisation of heathen races as we heard earlier in any part of the world. Alongside that and at around about the same time we saw a lot of the sons of our rangatira being shipped to or travelling toPoihākena in Sydney Australia where they worked in the market gardens to be trained in horticulture by Samuel Marsden. So in terms of the global thought and reach Māori saw the missionaries as a conduit or a platform to reach out globally and the Church Missionary Society was one of the vehicles by which they could see the possibility of global exports. So even back in those very early days we can see that Māori were very entrepreneurial in terms of trading internationally.Coming forward to 1996 the New Zealand Mission Trust Board handed back control of the land to the new trustees appointed by Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. Thiswas done in recognition of the manner and process by which the land was originally acquired from tangata whenua. The land involved is the 7863 square metre waterfront site that the Trinity Wharf hotel sits on currently and the trust collects the ground rent from that hotel. Although the new trustees had control of the land they were still obliged to use the money and investments derived from that land for the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Māori in the North Island or failing that the evangelisation of heathen races in any part of the world. That will no doubt probably be an ongoing discussion point for the tangata whenua. It has always been the intention of the two trusts that it be changed so that the twohapū can benefit from it. However the conditions cannot be changed by any other way than through new legislation.A similar issue arose in 1986 with money and investments derived from land held by the New Zealand Mission Trust Board in Port Waikato. This was transferred to NgātiKārewa and NgātiTāhina as a result of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Port Waikato Maraetai) Empowering Act 1986. The return of the land is highly significant as we have all discussed and—Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re using the same speech in some cases.CLAUDETTE HAUITI: Well no I think if you listen very carefully I have—Hon Trevor Mallard: Well I have been listening. Heard this one before.CLAUDETTE HAUITI: Well thank you very much for listening to me. It is wonderful that my colleague in the House Trevor Mallard is actually listening to me. Kia ora for that. I think it is very pertinent to emphasise that thesehapū are saying that the return of these lands is highly significant. Each and every one of us understands that and fully appreciates that. I do think that it is incumbent upon us to reiterate the significance of the return of those lands not just spiritually but also economically. So although we might find that for some in the House economic development for Māori by Māori might be anathema to them in actual fact economic development is part and parcel of the social and spiritual development of iwi going forward. This bill is one such bill that achieves that so I commend this bill to the House.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe.Tēnātātou katoa. I am honoured to stand in support of my fellow Māori Affairs Committee members in supporting the second reading of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. Like my colleagues on this side of the House I am committed to a fast and swift passage of what is an important bill for thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho of Tauranga Moana.Just to remind us all the aim of the bill is to transfer certain assets of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board in Tauranga to the Ōtamataha Trust to be held on the trusts set out in the Ōtamataha Trust deed so that the assets and any income derived from them can be used for the benefit of thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho.Every Treaty settlement or related bill is unique. They do share some similarities but each and every one of them has their unique characteristics. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee it was no surprise that when one of our submitters presented it was clear that the issue of inclusion came up. That was thewhānau fromNgāiTūkairangi. As we see in a lot of Treaty bills somewhānau or somehapū do not see theirhapū named in bills and feel excluded or left out.On this particular occasion when we travelled to Tauranga Moana we were presented with a submission urging the select committee to includeNgāiTūkairangi as beneficiaries of the Ōtamataha Trust. I want to go on record as saying that the select committee did give this significant consideration in terms of what we would present back to the House. I thought it would be useful to just feed back what the select committee said in relation toNgāiTūkairangi’s submission for inclusion in the trust.Essentially the select committee considered whether the bill should be amended to includeNgāiTūkairangi as beneficiaries of the trust. That was important to those who submitted. We understand that when membership of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board was given tohapū in the 1990sNgāiTūkairangi chose to withdraw from involvement in the trust. The Waitangi Tribunal has found thatNgāiTūkairangi hold interests in the land in question but the strength of their customary interests has not been determined.We considered the inclusion ofNgāiTūkairangi as a thirdhapū beneficiary of the new Ōtamataha Trust but we believe that their interests must be balanced against the wishes of the existing trustees in the deed of the new trust. The Ōtamataha Trust deed was amended by the New Zealand Mission Trust in March 2014 to allowNgāiTūkairangi members to benefit from the Ōtamataha Trust through their whakapapa links to the historicalhapū of TeMaterāwaho whose connections to the land are now recognised in the trust deed. The definition of Ngāti Tapu has now been extended to include any person with the above whakapapa. So the point around its inclusion in this particular bill was I felt like I mentioned earlier given enough consideration and the conclusion of the trust is that the uri ofNgāiTūkairangi benefit from the trust as they share whakapapa with Ngāti Tapu.The second point that is unique to this particular bill or that this bill brings to mind—and it was mentioned by a member in the House Catherine Delahunty—is the role of churches in our history as a nation and not just historically but also in the economic make-up of this nation. It was touched on in terms of how many churches and missions have benefited economically from Māori land and Māori whenua. In thinking about this particular bill we see it gifting back to the rightful owners and thehapū mentioned but it did bring to mind the many other trusts and mission societies out there that are sitting on what was considered very fertile and prosperous Māori whenua and that I also encourage to participate.One that comes to mind is the Te Aute Trust Board. I do want to mihi to my fellow members who mentioned our Māori boarding schools. I have two in my electorate Te Aute College and Hukarere Girls’ College—sorry I do not have two; I have three. I have the Turakina Māori Girls College outside my electorate but I also haveSt Joseph’s Māori Girls’ College in my electorate. They—particularly the Hukarere and Te Aute boards—were gifted a huge set of land Te Aute endowment land and to this day the state of both Te Aute College hostels and those of Hukarere leave a lot to be desired although I know that the leases of the land are doing very very well.I know that there is another bill coming through this House in terms of the settlement around Te Aute lands but I was just picking up the point with a plea to our church leaders to practise I guess the sharing and the aroha. If you are sitting on major assets then a lot of Māori boarding schools are in need of repair and support. I really just needed to make mention of that and try to convince our churches to participate in the education of our Māori students.It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge thehapū ofNgātiTapu andNgāiTamarāwaho for their pursuing this bill. Way back in the 1970s we had stories by different submitters so I know that it has been something passionate for the people of these particularhapū to see the return of this whenua.I want to pay tribute to the local MP for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell.Tēnā koe Te Ururoa for your shepherding this bill through and championing it on behalf of the people of Tauranga Moana.Nō reiratēnei te mihi ki a koe.Lastly the role of the Māori Affairs Committee—we work as a very good unit. Our chairman the Hon Tau Henare does crack the whip. It is proven by the amount of Treaty bills that come into this House that we do work very collaboratively together asmembers of the Māori Affairs Committee. But it is throughTau’s leadership that we get through as much as we do and that we treat all our submitters with the dignity and respect that they all deserve.So again I stand in total support of this bill and I commend it to the House. Kia oratātou.JOANNE HAYES (National):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am privileged to stand and take this call to support the second reading of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. I want to acknowledge the co-leader of the Māori Party and member for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell. I want to thank you for bringing this bill through and for shepherding it through the second reading and through to the third reading no doubt.I want to stand here because I was not here when this bill had its first reading. I came on to the Māori Affairs Committee at the beginning of this year and have been privileged to hear the submissions from thewhānau ofNgātiTapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. This bill returns the land this highly significant land to thehapū. I want to reiterate that according to thehapū the bill re-establishes their connection to the water. The water is a key component of who we are as Māori. It is something that we not only drink and replenish our body with but cleanse ourselves with spiritually as well. It is very key. I have been privileged to be part of Māori traditional healing groups in Aotearoa New Zealand and the power of the water we use is significant to us. So it is really key that thehapū acknowledge that this bill does re-establish their connection to the water.It also provides income to thehapū to finance other activities that they can get involved in. We all know about the dashboard that was released just recently to do with Māori business. We are looking at a growing Māori economy worth $38 billion to this country. It is all congratulations to the National Government on allowing that to happen and the claims process. It is a great feat for all iwi to be able to participate but especially for thishapū. It also marks the 150-year anniversary of the Battle of GatePā which happened on 29 April and is very significant for thehapū.I want to talk just a little bit about the missionary history because you are looking at somebody who was christenedRātana who was a Sunday school participant in a local Methodist church inRangiwāhia in theManawatū and who was sent to an Anglican boarding school. You know when you start looking at that I must be just about one of the holiest people in this room!Hon Tau Henare: A troubled child.JOANNE HAYES: No. When you start looking at that back then when you are young you think that it is great to go to Sunday school and it is fun and we go off to camp. But I started to look at the history of how missionaries came to New Zealand. Back in 1814 Samuel Marsden brought them and even further back than that in 1799 the Society forMissions in Africa and the East was founded. I think of the long history and the long time it has taken to get toAotearoa New Zealand. And then I hear things about the Church Missionary Society being established in 1835 and then in 1867 the Crown acquired four-fifths of the land and I read how in 1896 the land was transferred from the Church Missionary Society to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board which “held the assets of the Board on trusts for the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Maori people in the North Island of New Zealand or failing that the evangelisation of heathen races in any part of the world:”.I want to talk just a little bit about that because this is a discussion that I had with my father before he passed away in 1997. We talked a little bit about that because my father was deeply religious. I said to him that for Māori we had our demigods and our history and our stories. We start looking atPapatūānuku and we start looking at all of thosegods that made us who we are. So the transition that we have made through to Christianity has been quite an amazing transition for Māori. It is amazing that we have still been able to hold on to the very crux of who we are as a Māori culture in Aotearoa New Zealand. We used to have these little discussions and I am sure he used to get a bit brassed off with me for challenging everything but that is what children are there for is it not?In 1996—I am going to reiterate this—the New Zealand Mission Trust Board handed back the control of the land to the new trustees appointed byNgātiTapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. This was done in recognition of the manner and process by which the land was originally acquired from tangata whenua. The square metreage was 7863 square metres on the waterfront site where the Trinity Wharf Tauranga hotel sits. Even though the trust does collect ground rent from the hotel soon it will be able to participate much more than that.I see that as a Māori people and as an iwi these twohapū have been very very—I am not going to say fortunate; what I am going to say is that they have been working very very hard to get to this stage in their claims process. I take my hat off to them because it is not easy. It is not easy to place your history in front of people to get the member here to bring it through and then to sit and explain it to all of us in the Māori Affairs Committee. It is a select committee that is very collegial and a select committee that has a chair as Meka Whaitiri has said and as other members have said who does crack the whip who does get the work done and who gets us all into a mode where we are all agreeing to move these through. I think that the committee has done well in being able to get this far. We are a hard-working committee and I thank everybody in the committee for the work that they do.I want to talk a little bit aboutNgāiTūkairangi.NgāiTūkairangi came and put their submission to us. It was very compelling for us to listen to theirkōrero their history of where they saw themselves in this. It was so compelling that the Ōtamataha Trust was amended by the New Zealand Mission Trust Board to allowNgāiTūkairangi members to benefit from the Ōtamataha Trust through whakapapa. I can tell you whakapapa is deep and it is so historical. Nothing breaks whakapapa. That is why as I stand here today I am very proud to be commending this bill to the House and I look forward to the next part of this process. Kia ora.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading debate on the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. Can I acknowledge my colleague and fine member of this House Te Ururoa Flavell. This bill obviously addresses some of the outstanding interests of iwi in the Tauranga Moana area that still need to be addressed. As others have gone through the history of that I feel no need to do so. It is great also to hear about the very cooperative manner in which the Māori Affairs Committee works. Thank you.MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise in the second reading of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill.Claudette Hauiti: Fabulous!MELISSA LEE: Thank you. Thank you. I am glad that my Te Reo actually passes muster today. I would like to congratulate my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell whose bill it is that is receiving its second reading today. This bill transfers land in Tauranga and other property from the New Zealand Mission Trust Board to the Ōtamataha Trust so that it can be used for the beneficiaries of the Ōtamataha Trust thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho.Claudette Hauiti: Very nice.MELISSA LEE:Tēnā koe. Thank you very much.Hon Tau Henare: Ka pai “Kori”.MELISSA LEE: Let me just say he just called me “Kori”. That is a nickname that I actually recently acquired. “Kori” stands for “Koreanhori”. I do not know if it is actually derogatory or not but recently I travelled with the Māori business delegation to Malaysia to promote Māori business. I feel very honoured to be called something by my “brother” over there but I am not so sure if I should actually take offence at that.The return of the land is highly significant to thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. Thehapū say that it establishes their connection to the water and provides income to thehapū to finance other activities and all of that stuff. For me it is actually really important because to my culture in Korea the country where I was born the water the land and the blood ties are so significant. I guess it is sort of like the Māori community. So even though we do not actually have the name ofhapū or whakapapa genealogy is so important in Korean culture as well that we are divided into our distinct surnames. I am a Lee. In Korean it is “ee” often spelt as “Yi”. I belong to theGyeongju Lee.Gyeongju Lee are very different to theJeonju Lee. Often they are enemies because we come from the warring factions like in Māori history.Going back our history is about 5000 years old. There were three distincthapū who killed each other and eventually it became one country. To them land and water is so important and even to this day there is a major dispute with our neighbouring country about the water because for Koreans for more than 2000 years the Sea of Japan that we all know as the Sea of Japan was always the East Sea. For us it wasDonghae. So I can understand why the establishment of the connection to the water is so important to thishapū.I will talk just a little bit about the background. TheŌtamataha Trust has been established by thehapū of Ngāti Tapu. If I can understand this background—because I was not part of the Māori Affairs Committee—the Church Missionary Society was established in Tauranga in 1835 and it bought two blocks of tangata whenua land which is where the city of Tauranga is now today. However the transaction has never been accepted by tangata whenua as a sale of the land to the Church Missionary Society. I guess it is sort of like the South Koreans never accepting the fact that North Korea is now the owner of the land that actually belongs there now because we are still technically at war—the 38th parallel is just a demarcation that there are still disputes over what belongs to what part of which country. In 1867 the Crown acquired four-fifths of the land which had been invested in the Church Missionary Society by Crown grants in 1852 and military settlers were settled on it. This land was surrounded by confiscated Māori land which was also settled.In 1996 the New Zealand Mission Trust Board handed back control of the land to the new trustees appointed by Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. This was done in recognition of the manner and process by which the land was originally acquired from tangata whenua. The land involved in this is 7863 square metres of the waterfront site that the Trinity Wharf Tauranga hotel now sits on. The trust collects the ground rent from that hotel.I believe the select committee considered 14 submissions. Knowing my colleagues who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee they would have given due process to this and I believe that they have done a good job. The thing that interests me is that although the new trustees have control of the land they are still obliged to use the money and investment derived from the land “for the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Maori people in the North Island of New Zealand or failing that the evangelisation of heathen races in any part of the world:”. It has always been the intention that the trust would be changed so that the twohapū can benefit from it. However the conditions cannot actually be changed by any means other than through new legislation. I commend the work of the select committee and I commend this bill to the House.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora.Tēnātātou katoa e te Whare.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I have not been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee that has worked on the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill but I do want to begin as others have done by acknowledging the very fine work of a very fine MP the member for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell. It is always significant to be the member who is sponsoring a bill and particularly as the local member. Given the historic significance of this particular measure I know that it will be a matter of some pride to him to have reached this point and I acknowledge his very fine effort in the area.I also want to acknowledge the members of the select committee—as others have done—who have worked tirelessly on this bill. They have considered the submissions that were made on it and they have referred the bill back to the House with the recommendation that it should be passed with certain amendments that reflect the submissions that they considered particularly up in Tauranga where they met with a number of the submitters or submissioners. I noticed that MPs in days gone by were always referred to inHansard as submissioners rather than submitters.Particularly I would like to acknowledge the Hon Tau Henare who has I think been a very fine member of this House. He has done a very good job as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee which has worked on this bill and of course—Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s a statesman now he’s retiring.TIM MACINDOE: Yes. I think that is a wonderful acknowledgment from the Hon Trevor Mallard—that the Hon Tau Henare is indeed a statesman; one of the statesmen of his era. I am sure that the Hon Trevor Mallard will be happy to tweet that now so that the Hon Tau Henare canretweet it and it will go to a cast of thousands. I do agree with his acknowledgment.In all seriousness I think it is worth acknowledging that the Hon Tau Henare entered this House 21 years ago. He has served as both the Minister of Māori Affairs in a previous administration and as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee under the administration of the Rt Hon John Key. He can be proud of what he has achieved. He can certainly be proud of what he has contributed to the excellent work of this Government on Treaty settlement issues and of course we will be back here in the morning doing further work on that. This bill is related very much to the sentiment of what is at the heart of the Treaty settlement.I do also want to acknowledge those groups and individuals from the iwi who made submissions on the bill. As I have mentioned the committee travelled to Tauranga and heard from eight of those submitters during the hearings in Tauranga. The committee took seriously what they had to say and a number of amendments which will be considered in more detail at the Committee stage of this debate have arisen as a result of those deliberations. When the bill carries on through its second reading today its Committee stage its third reading and its final enactment and when it receives the Royal assent that will be a very significant and mana-restoring achievement for theŌtamataha Trust and thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho.There is also added significance to this particular development this year 2014 because just last week—as members in the House no doubt are aware and many who may be listening to or watching this debate at this moment will have seen on the television—there was the 150th anniversary of a very significant event: the Battle of GatePā was commemorated by iwi and the Crown. I was not able to attend that particular commemoration but I did have the privilege just a few weeks earlier of attending a similar event marking the Battle ofŌrākau nearKihikihi in the Waikato region.The significance of that event—and I think that most of the people I am about to mention were also at the commemoration of the Battle of GatePā last week—was underlined by the presence that day ofKīngiTuheitia; our Governor-General Sir JerryMateparae; the Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key; Her Excellency the British High Commissioner; the Māori Affairs Minister the Hon Pita Sharples; many civic leaders; the sponsor of this bill of course; and other dignitaries. That was a very memorable dramatic and hot day. Waikato at that stage was still in the grip of the drought that we experienced over the summer and I have to say it was one of the most moving and intimidatingweros I have ever seen—there was a re-enactment of the challenge on that day. The dust was being kicked up everywhere it went on for a considerable period of time and as I say it was one of the things I will remember long after I have left this House.Back to Tauranga and to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. It is an area for which I have a particular affection having resided there for a period back in 2002 and 2003. In fact our family lived very near Tauranga Hospital which is just a very short distance from the site of the Battle of GatePā and there is of course a historic monument there around which the commemorations last week took place. My younger daughter attended GatePā School before going on to join her sister at Tauranga Intermediate School.We all have very fond memories of our time in that city and the region although I have to say I do not have quite such fond memories of the reason why I was there. As you will well recall Mr Assistant Speaker it was when I was the National Party candidate for Tauranga in the 2002 election which was not a great time to be a candidate for National in any part of the country but in particular in Tauranga. I think there is a certain irony because I am effectively taking the New Zealand First call in this debate and I think that it is sort of payback because the New Zealand First candidate who won—W Peters—effectively took my votes in that election. So I do want to say well done to both Bob Clarkson and Simon Bridges for repaying my debt to society.To summarise this bill transfers land in Tauranga and other property from the New Zealand Mission Trust to theŌtamataha Trust so it can be used by the beneficiaries of that trust. It is not a charitable trust but the beneficiaries are effectively thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. It comes as I said at a significant time—the 150th anniversary of the Battle of GatePā. TheŌtamataha Trust has been established by thehapū of Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho to own and manage land and other property that was acquired through the historical common interests of thosehapū in Tauranga.The Church Missionary Society or CMS was established in Tauranga back in 1835—5 years before the Treaty of Waitangi so it has had a very significant role over a long of period of European settlement in this land. In 1838 the Church Missionary Society bought two blocks from tangata whenua on the site that is effectively where the city of Tauranga is today. But that was a transaction that was never accepted by tangata whenua as a sale of the land to the Church Missionary Society.In 1867 the Crown acquired as a gift from the Church Missionary Society fourth-fifths of the land that had been vested in the Church Missionary Society by a Crown grant in 1852 and military settlers were settled on it. The land was surrounded by confiscated Māori land which was also settled. So it is right that these historical grievances are now being recognised in this particular measure.In 1896 the remaining land was transferred from the Church Missionary Society to the New Zealand Mission Trust Board which “held the assets of the Board on trusts for the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Maori people in the North Island of New Zealand or failing that the evangelisation of heathen races in any part of the world:”—extraordinary and just over a century ago. It was exactly a century later that the New Zealand Mission Trust Board handed back control of the land to the new trustees who were appointed by Ngāti Tapu andNgāiTamarāwaho. This was done in recognition of the manner and process by which the land was originally acquired from tangata whenua.The land itself is now the land on which those who are familiar with the area recognise the Trinity Wharf Tauranga hotel and the trust collects ground rent from that hotel. It has always been the intention of the two trusts that it be changed so that the twohapū can benefit from it. However the conditions cannot be changed in any way other than through this legislation.So that brings me back to the point where I started where I acknowledged the fact that it is the member for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell who has done that work who has liaised with local iwi who has liaised with the Crown and who has brought this bill ultimately to the point where today it looks as if finally this matter is going to be resolved. So it is a privilege for me to be able to speak on it and I have great pleasure in supporting this bill.Bill read a second time.Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment BillThird ReadingPAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I moveThat the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It gives me great pleasure to speak at this third reading of my member’s bill here a bill over which many words have been spoken—Carol Beaumont: Far too many.PAUL GOLDSMITH: —most of them of them by me I am bound to admit. But nevertheless clear and predictable laws governing commerce are some of the foundations of the success of the modern economy upon which our prosperity depends.The fundamentals of business have not changed over the years. Trading is the most natural of all the activities of men and women. It is a civilising activity because ultimately you only succeed in business and in trade if you give other people what they want at the price they want it; otherwise you go out of business. Most of all trade flourishes in an environment where there is a shared understanding of the rules so contract law and contract formation has been fundamental to the progress that we have seen in global terms over the past few centuries and in particular in this country since its formation. I trust this bill will go some way to add to that shared understanding and on that basis I commend it to the House.Clarity and certainty lead to confidence and confidence leads to greater investment. That is why it is so important that this Government over the past 6 years has demonstrated the stable predictable Government policies that have led to business confidence levels being so high. We see right now very high levels of business confidence and commercial confidence which are buttressing the economy and are so important in getting us back into growth. Once businesses have confidence they have the confidence to invest to employ and create jobs and to grow their businesses. So our laws need to be constantly maintained and adapted to respond to changing technology. This law comes into that category.Although I said at the start of the first reading that on its own this bill is not going to bring about the brighter future to which we all aspire and to which this Government is so committed it is a small and useful addition to the lattice-work of our contract law formation. This bill tidies up one small area of uncertainty and will go some way toincrease the flow of business. Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today—including emailssmartphones and the use of social media—it is useful that the current Act be amended to cover such areas.If we can just drill down the primary purpose of this legislation is to clarify the legal position on the time at which a contract is formed if the acceptance of the offer is sent by some form of electronic communication. The bill recognises the need for contractual transactions to join the electronic age. The general rule of contract formation is that a contract is formed at the time that acceptance of the offer is communicated to theofferor. So when somebody says “Yes I accept the offer.” or theofferor and the accepter shake hands then the deal is done.However as we know and as has been recorded in some of the earlier speeches but does bear repetition here at this important third reading an exception to the rule was created for acceptances created by post. This goes back to the famous case ofAdams vLindsell of 1818. It is worth just quickly going over the details of that case to remind the House. That case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell certain fleeces of wool—I will not be pulling the wool over—and required an answer in the course of the post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. In the meantime the plaintiffs had posted the acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. Meanwhile on 8 September the defendants having not received an answer by 7 September as they expected sold the wool to somebody else.The defendants argued that there could not have been a binding contract until the answer was actually received and that until then they were free to sell the wool to whomever they wanted. The judge said that if that was true it would be impossible to complete any transactions through the post. If the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received then the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had received word that the defendants had received their acceptance and this would go on indefinitely. So it was considered that theofferors were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post. Then when theofferee has placed his acceptance in the post there is a fictional meeting of minds—and that is the phrase that the judge used “a fictional meeting of minds”—that concludes the offer and gives effect to the acceptance.The problem is that that longstanding rule relating to postal acceptances started byAdams vLindsell and enumerated in many other cases and laws consequently is not appropriate to electronic transactions. This has already been recognised. There is no clear authority yet on transactions by way of email. The point of this bill is to serve to clarify the law.When we go through the details how I intended to remedy this in the draft law was by inserting a new section 32A into the Electronic Transactions Act—Carol Beaumont: This has to be the most boring speech ever. This is a personal best in boring.PAUL GOLDSMITH: Look it may not be the most exciting topic but it is an important topic. So I was introducing new section 32A which said that an offer accepted by electronic communication is deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt of the acceptance by theofferor. I thought that was a rather neat way of getting the idea across but the Commerce Committee heard a lot of submissions on this topic led by Jonathan Young the MP for New Plymouth. The committee members thought in their wisdom that it could have been more elegantly handled. In truth this reflected some of the submissions.The concern outlined during the course of the select committee process was that there could be a misapprehension that a hard-wired rule applied and that the offer couldbe deemed to be accepted electronically only at the time of the receipt. So the suggestion during the select committee process was to abandon the new section 32A approach and instead insert a new section 13A into the Act which was indeed what was done to make it clear that this was a default rule instead of a rigid approach from which the parties would be able to contract out if they wanted to.So we have here section 11 of the principal Act the Electronic Transactions Act which already establishes a time at which an electronic communication is taken to be received. So what we have is a new section 13A which says: “(1) For the purpose of the formation of a contract an acceptance by electronic communication of an offer is taken to be communicated to theofferor at the time determined by section 11 …”. So I think this is a more elegant way of solving the problem that I set out to solve to bring clarity to the situation. As a result I think we have an effective law that will make a small but important difference.Interestingly this bill nicely dovetails with my next member’s bill in the ballot which is all about freedom of contract over employment contracts. That fits very much with my principles that people should be able to arrange whatever contracts they want and have them enforced by the courts which is the very foundation of all our commercial activities.What we have as a result of the good work of the select committee—for which I am grateful to the efforts of Jonathan Young and my colleagues—is a facilitative piece of legislation that ensures that negotiating parties are free to specify their own mutually agreed conventions but in the absence of that everybody knows the rules.Stepping back from that I know that this piece of legislation is a modest one. It deals with only a very small piece of the law that had been somewhat vague. But it is important more in the sense that it is an example of this Government’s determination to work to ensure that every little piece of contract law is well tended and kept up to date with changes in technology. On that basis I am thrilled at the broad measure of support that we have had from across the House and many parties. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to the support of other parties. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): There is a four-letter word that could be used to describe the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill and it begins with “s”. That word is “spam”. This bill is a nothing bill. It is a time-wasting bill. It has wasted the time of Parliament in the long-winded debate. It has wasted the time of the Commerce Committee. It has wasted the time of officials.Our opposition to this bill because we clearly oppose this bill is on a point of principle. That principle is that such a bill should never have been brought before the House. It has ended up coming back to this House with no purpose.At best this bill could be described as a clarification of the law; it adds nothing to the law. It is a massive waste of time for this Parliament particularly for the Government on the other side of the House which is clearly displaying that it has run out of energy it has run out of ideas and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): It is my pleasure to stand and speak on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This might be a small bill—in fact measured by words it is very small and is crafted by such a wordsmith as Paul Goldsmith. Its size could leave us perplexed except it takes far greater acumen to say something in fewer words than it does in many. Mr Goldsmith a legislator can be proud of his accomplishment in this law. Let me givesome context to that. Creating law in such an important field of human endeavour and activity as contract law is important. Contracts are so important to the healthy development and growth of not only economies but society. They are like the sinews that hold so much together. “What is a hand without an arm?” somebody might ask. Each separately has little use or function but together they have mobility leverage and usefulness. What is a foot without a leg? What is a mouth without a mind? Perhaps some members on the other side could answer that question.But contracts are those that connect disparate parts of our economy and our society together. They socialise people. You have what I want and I have what you want—that is the nub and centre of a transaction. So let us talk and let us see if we can come to an agreement. Let us do an exchange of value.Contracts also connect countries as we know with the free-trade agreements that are benefiting our nation in these times. They are agreements that have sheltered us from the global financial crisis perhaps more than most countries. Such is the power of contracts. They are built upon international understanding and agreements that connect us for mutual benefit and that is good. They create degrees of dependency and that is OK because you look after those whom you depend upon. They create bridges of trust and respect value and inclusion.A few years ago I visited an integrated circuit manufacturer that has its factory between New Plymouth and Mount Taranaki. It makes dozens if not hundreds of components. One of the components it makes is a small integrated circuit of an onboard computer system of an F-16 Fighting Falcon made by General Dynamics for the United States Air Force. How a small North Taranaki business can supply a single part to the United States Department ofDefense baffles me but it was a contract that makes it possible.I am a space buff. I love science fiction. I always watch everyStar Trek movie that comes out and I followed the progress and development of the space shuttle. The statistics are simply mind-blowing. It is the most complex machine ever constructed with 2.5 million separate parts and 370 kilometres of wiring. Its three main engines are together more powerful than 60 Clyde Dams and the pressure of their turbo pumps can send a column of liquid hydrogen nearly 60000 feet into the sky. The space shuttle programme was supported by over 1500 active suppliers some of whom are the only known or certified source of a particular material part or service. What brings all these suppliers together all these parts together is contracts. What we are looking at tonight is a component a small component of a wider body of contract law. As every single one of those parts is important so every component part of contract law is important. Contracts are the sinews and the ligaments that bind all their collective creativity and intelligence into detailed design manufacturing and quality assurance that back with the space shuttle programme enabled them to make one of the most complex and daring machines known to man.Contracts are what grow countries. They are vitally important. They connect people and their ideas with outcomes and advancement. Any law that strengthens our contract law is not only good for business but it is good for our society. This bill is a single component of a bigger body of law known as contract law. It has a part to play in our social and economic well-being.A very important part of why this bill has come to the House is all about when a contract an electronic transaction takes place. What is the timing that is critical for that to stand its stead? That is a very important thing because we know that when it comes to disputes often timing is the issue. To have some clarity in the law about the timing of when an electronic transaction or contract takes place is clarity that is going to benefit the wider body of contract law. The example that Mr Goldsmith used was a case thatgoes back a couple of hundred years back to 1818—the case ofAdams vLindsell. It was an English contract law case regarded as the first case towards the establishment of the postal rule for acceptance of an offer. Ordinarily any form of acceptance must be communicated expressly to anofferor. However it was found that where a letter of acceptance is posted an offer is accepted “in the course of post”. When it came to an offer and an acceptance of an agreement that transacts through the post you have this period of time where it is an unknown entity of whether the offer has been accepted. Of course these days we do not do postal contracts that often. We do electronic contracts. They are the norm and increasingly will be so in our modern society.The case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and requiring an answer in the course of post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day in good faith but it was not received until 9 September. Meanwhile on 8 September the defendants not having received an answer by 7 September as they had expected sold the wool to someone else. Here we have this beautiful conundrum happening. The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received. Until then they were free to sell the wool to another buyer.The court said that if that was true it would be impossible to complete any contract through the post. If the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received then the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had received word that the defendants had received the acceptance and this could go on indefinitely. Instead it must be considered that theofferors were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post. In essence it is like sending an email offer that when you send it is open and alive for all of that period of time. In this case it was a matter of days because the letter was misdirected and received late.Then when theofferee has placed his acceptance in the post there is what is called a fictional meeting of the minds which concludes the offer and gives effect to the acceptance. All of this had to be worked through in law 200 years ago because what was happening was that trading was starting to happen in distant places—similar of course to what we do all the time. The acceptance did not arrive in the course of post strictly speaking. All parties understood the course of post to refer to 7 September but because the delay was the fault of the defendant it was taken that the acceptance did arrive in the course of post. In conclusion this bill is about determining the time.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): As members opposite will know Labour opposes the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. It is a spam bill designed to clog up the members’ bills ballot process. It should have been a Government bill or part of a Statutes Amendment Bill.We are also extremely concerned about the amount of time that has been wasted on this bill. It is clearly an attempt to block the passage of SueMoroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill or to have that bill put before the House. I will leave my comments there.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Like the previous speaker Carol Beaumont I have to say that this bill is clearly a waste of the time of the House. We have members’ days so that all members of Parliament even if they are not in Government can submit bills. I would like to just note that the Green Party has 14 excellent bills in the ballot at the moment that would make a positive contribution to New Zealand. That is what we are here for—to come up with constructive solutions that are going to lead to a fairer New Zealand one that is greener and smarter and has an economy that works for everyone.So instead of debating bills that might actually make a substantial difference to the lives of New Zealanders we are stuck here taking up the time of the House with a completely trite bill like the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill which clearly should have been in a Government bill or part of the statutes amendment process. That is all I have to say. Thank you.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): At 7.18 this evening just before we resumed this debate in the House the Hon Tim Groser released a press release. The heading of that press release said: “OECD ranks New Zealand’s service sector amongst most open”. The previous speaker Julie Anne Genter talked about the importance of having a green and smart economy. Well the service sector is very much a part of that economy and at the heart of the service sector are the financial transactions that drive that economy. This bill takes a step forward to improve financial transactions through contract law and I think that it does make a not insignificant step forward in that regard.The Hon TimGroser’s press release said: “New Zealand’s service sector ranked amongst the most open in a recent survey of 40 countries conducted by the [OECD]. … The OECD’s new Services Trade Restrictive Index aims to quantify the restrictiveness of policy measures …”. What we are talking about here is a change in policy that actually improves the ability to conduct business online and in the service sector. This survey adds to a number of international comparators that have recently been received by this country ranking us globally as one of the best countries in the world. That makes for an exciting future for New Zealanders particularly for young New Zealanders in this country.So I rise to speak on this third reading of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. Can I congratulate Paul Goldsmith on having had his bill drawn from the ballot and being able to progress it through the House before Parliament rises at the end of this term.You will be aware that the Government has set four priorities—four objectives—for this term of Government. They were to return the country’s books to surplus to rebuild that beautiful city of Christchurch to build a stronger and more competitive economy and to build better public services. The Government has undertaken hundreds if not thousands of initiatives to take positive steps towards achieving these objectives. The reality is that there is not one silver bullet that will achieve these goals. However the combination of many individual initiatives such as Mr Goldsmith’s together make significant progress towards lifting the bar in New Zealand and building a brighter future for our country.The Government has made huge progress over this term and this bill adds in a not insignificant way to that progress. To reflect on that progress the Government will release a Budget that charts the surplus in the 2014-15 year. This is a huge achievement in itself and is the result of many different initiatives such as Mr Goldsmith’s. At the same time the Australian Government will release a Budget that will paint a very different picture of its Government accounts. Through the tough decisions we have made over the last 5 years we now have choices to extend funding not to contract it. The announcements made just this week in regard to a $22 million increase for budgeting services a $10.4 million increase in funding for providers who support victims of sexual violence and a $20 million increase in funding for apprenticeships are no accident. They are the result of a very considered approach to bringing our Budget back to surplus and thereby providing us with choices going forward.The Government has made huge progress with the rebuild of Christchurch. Literally thousands of large and small initiatives have been delivered to progress the rebuild. Just yesterday the Government announced a $3000 incentive for 1000 beneficiaries to aidthem in securing jobs in Christchurch to help with the rebuild. We are committed to that rebuild and to seeing it through.We have made huge progress with our third goal which is to build a stronger and more competitive economy. The Business Growth Agenda has provided the foundation for hundreds of big and small initiatives to advance that objective. Outside the Business Growth Agenda there have been thousands of initiatives made by businesses local government and many individual New Zealanders to help make the New Zealand economy grow. Thank you to all those people.Paul Goldsmith’s bill makes as I have said a small but significant contribution to making the boat go faster. The Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill clarifies the legal position on the time at which a contract is formed if the acceptance of the offer is sent by electronic communication. The reality is that we now live in a digital age with more and more contracts being offered and accepted through digital mediums. This bill advances the law in this area once again modernising our economy by improving the productivity and competitiveness of our nation.The results of the wider suite of initiatives including Mr Goldsmith’s have been stunning with New Zealand now showing huge signs of recovery. Our growth rate now puts us amongst the best-performing economies in the Western World. Interest rates remain at all-time lows inflation remains within the target band business and consumer confidence are at record highs and employment continues to grow. As we heard from Minister Joyce today manufacturing has been in expansion for the last 18 months and in just the last few days we have seen very positive news about record highs in exports and employment growth with 68000 new jobs in just the last year alone.Most particularly—and it a huge sign of the strength of our economy—has been the turn-round in migration numbers. New Zealand has had net positive migration to New Zealand of in excess of 30000 and there is a huge turn-round in the numbers migrating across to Australia. Young New Zealanders will always want to explore the world—I have no doubt about that. My own children I am sure will want to explore the world and I welcome that. But with this Government Kiwis are starting to return in their droves. This if not anything else is the proof of a strong and a competitive economy in action: Kiwis returning in their droves and foreigners lining up to get work visas. If it were not for all the hard work that has gone in to achieving this some would start calling us the lucky country not Australia. But luck has nothing to do with it. Millions of Kiwis are contributing to this effort and today Paul Goldsmith takes another small step.The Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill also links strongly with our fourth objective in Government which is to build better public services. For the first time ever we have seen a Prime Minister not just talk about improved public services but hold the Government to account on key targets. From health to law and order to education the Public Service is being held to account to deliver better services. As a result of this we now have more children than ever in early childhood education and more teenagers passing National Certificate of Educational Achievement with significant improvements in Māori and Pacific Island communities. We have more elective surgeries than ever before significantly better access to cancer treatment and hugely improved immunisation levels—once again particularly in Māori and Pacific Island communities. In law and order our police have delivered the lowest crime rate in 25 years. Once again my thanks go out to the entire Public Service for its commitment to delivering better services in very tight fiscal times.One of the Public Service targets that has a lower profile but is extremely important to a modern economy is result area 10. This Public Service target requires that for 70percent of New Zealanders their most common transactions with Government will be completed in a digital environment by 2017. Kiwis are increasingly turning to their digital devices for information and services. They want their Government to be available online. They do not want to wait in queues. They do not want to have to replicate their details time and time again. Paul Goldsmith’s bill will assist with the achievement of this target because it clarifies the legal position around when a contract is formed online. It modernises the law for our burgeoning digital economy.At the heart of the result area 10 target is the Department of Internal Affairs led by Colin MacDonald and TimOccleshaw. Central to the Department of Internal Affairs’ delivery is the Government’s information and communications technology strategy and action plan and its digital-by-default strategy. It is an exciting strategy that leads agencies across Government to continuous improvement in their engagement with citizens over the internet.One of the best examples of this has been the roll-out of passports online with over 100000 Kiwis having renewed their passports online within a 3-day turn-round period. This is an incredible result and it sets the benchmark for many other Government services across New Zealand. These initiatives will be leveraged by yet another digital initiativeRealMe which is a national solution to establishing identity online.Across New Zealand Kiwis are stepping up to drive a better country for all of us. Today Mr Goldsmith takes a small step towards achieving that and to taking the country forward as well. I congratulate him on his bill. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a brief call on behalf of New Zealand First on this member’s bill the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill simply to say that it is again somewhat disappointing. This is the second time in 2 weeks that we have experienced National members filibustering to ensure that they drag out this process so as to avoid other more worthy bills that have real significance to New Zealand particularly to working families in this country and that will have a benefit for them.It is interesting in my experience over many years in local government and central government to watch many of the Government politicians in the last number of months stand up and give 30-second 60-second or 2-minute speeches when it suits them when they want to get on with Government business and when they want to ram and push the legislation through the House at lightning pace and where they give absolute lip-service to democracy and the democratic process. But here where there are members’ bills waiting on the Order Paper waiting for New Zealanders to respond to and for us to get on with they completely filibuster and have 10-minute speeches obviously prepared by their research units. Most of them would not have prepared those speeches themselves.I am just going to say this to the Government on behalf of New Zealand First: start being a bit more responsible start putting aside some of your own political agendas and start thinking about the benefit and the good of New Zealanders rather than your own political outcomes.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I would like to start by congratulating my colleague Paul Goldsmith on this excellent bill the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill which was drawn from the ballot.I want to talk about the last speaker Andrew Williams who said that this Government is not looking after the public. I would like to say that this Government has delivered so much in the last 5½ years that the country can be proud of. The bill that we are discussing here today may seem small and compact like the technology that most of us in New Zealand use today. However its impact on all of us is likely to be very important. I would like to clarify here that with changing technology things are gettingsmaller and smaller and this bill is small but will have a huge impact on the business community.If we look at the number of postal deliveries in the last decade or so they are decreasing because of technology. Nowadays everyone is communicating through emails through SMS and through other resources available today that were not available a few years ago. There is little doubt that our reliance on the internet is increasing day by day. We use the internet for almost everything—from checking our emails to paying our bills to completing our banking and for other business transactions. It is essential to ensure that the new technology being used to do business is rooted in the time-tested way of transacting and running businesses.What I mean to say is that the technology is here to help us do business at a faster pace. However it is our duty to ensure that all due diligence is employed before using this technology. This bill specifically does that for consumers. It removes the uncertainty around the legal position on the time at which a contract is offered and accepted via electronic communication.As my colleague the Hon Chris Tremain mentioned a lot of things nowadays are being done electronically. One of those is the renewal of passports. About 125000 people have renewed their passports online and the turn-round is 3 days.Hon Member: How many days?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Three days’ turn-round. It is renewed in 3 days and 125000 people have used this facility since it was introduced in 2012.Contracts are an essential part of doing business. Contracts form the legal framework that facilitates trade and commerce. Contracts are evidence for all the parties that a transaction has taken place. All parties who are part of this transaction have certain obligations to fulfil as part of their contractual agreement.A contract as we all know from our experiences also acts as a hedge against any surprises or misunderstandings that may occur after the product or services that that contract pertains to have been delivered. Therefore this piece of paper protects all the parties in all transactions.Hon Ruth Dyson: You should be able to do it spontaneously on this bill.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: What is that?Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re not allowed to read your speech.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: No it is allowed. There is nothing stopping me from reading a speech.Hon Ruth Dyson: I know—I wish there was. Complying with the rules would be good.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes you need to do that. You need to object to the Deputy Speaker about that. Every member speaks in this House by reading.As I said during the first reading of the bill times have changed and we are living in a digital world. So our laws are to be updated. We have to update the laws that are obsolete.Hon Hekia Parata: Speak Hindi.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Sorry?Hon Hekia Parata: Carry on in Hindi.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I can speak for 10 minutes or half an hour in Hindi. Can that member understand Hindi? I do not think so. So for her convenience I am reading. I am making sure that she can understand what I am saying. This bill from my colleague Mr Paul Goldsmith does that. A clause of the bill amended the Electronic Transactions Act by inserting new section 32A. The amendment clarifies the formation of the contract when the acceptance of the offer is made through electronic communication.For example currently as soon as a contract is posted the law states that a contract has been established. At present this rule does not cover a contract accepted electronically. For example if a person accepts a job offer by email then there is no legal certainty over when the contract was created. In bygone eras before emails there was a term postal acceptance rule. This rule created a directive whereby an offer was deemed to be accepted when the acceptance was posted. Over the years the rule has been extended to include telegraph but has been held not to apply to acceptance by telephonic means telex or fax.In this modern time when emails andsmartphones are in regular use it is important that the current legislation is amended to cover such areas. Currently there is no mandate on acceptance by email which is practically immediate and the person who sends the email is usually in the best position to know whether it has been delivered or not. With the Government focus on building a more competitive and productive economy in the 21st century in the global world we live in there is little doubt that all of us will use the internet to do business and to transact online even more than we do currently.With this in mind this National-led Government is working to ensure that our Public Service makes the most of online services and we are rolling out ultra-fast broadband. However our law needs to ensure that all parties who are involved in an electronic transaction be it a business or a consumer know their obligations after they have electronically offered and accepted contracts for the product or the service.The Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill recognises that we live in an internet age. It amends the Electronic Transactions Act to allow certainty to those who choose to accept a contract electronically. I support this bill and I congratulate Paul Goldsmith on his initiative in bringing this bill to the House. With this I conclude my speech today.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I think that the importance and complexity of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill is best understood in light of the team of officials sitting to your right Mr Deputy Speaker—the usual Government squad here to unpick the complexities that come out in the debate in case the member needs to cover them off in a press release afterwards!Look we went to the Commerce Committee. We heard the nonsense of it all. I was there. I do not think the officials could believe they were there. Mr Goldsmith would be better off spending his time in his electorate—Hon Ruth Dyson: He hasn’t got an electorate.Dr DAVID CLARK: —or the electorate he would like to have—campaigning for an local exemption to the Resource Management Act as the ACT Party which he supports would like to see happen.One serious issue before I sit down—I do not want to hold this bill up—is that right now in Karitane in my electorate of Dunedin North there are real digital issues. The one shop in town has itseftpos machine crashing over and over again because of terrible coverage. This is another example of where the National Government has been too hung up handing out corporate welfare to its mates in Chorus due to the stuff-up of the ultra-fast broadband roll-out and has not concentrated on the basics. Karitane cannot run a web-based business. This is the kind of real issue that should be being addressed rather than the nonsense that is in this bill. Labour will oppose this bill and I stand to speak to that effect.Dr JIAN YANG (National): It is a great privilege to speak in the third reading in support of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. I want to thank my good colleagues the chair of the Commerce Committee Mr Young and alsoof course the National MP Paul Goldsmith for bringing this member’s bill to the House. I also thank the other committee members for their hard work.Before I talk about the bill I would like to talk about trade relations between China and New Zealand. I understand that when I became an MP in 2011 China was our second-largest trading partner. Now China is the largest trading partner of New Zealand and we should not take that for granted. We still need to expand our trade with China. There are many ways of doing that but online trading is a key part of expanding trade relationships with China. For that reason I understand that the Minister of Trade Tim Groser has been working very hard to expand online trading with China. I actually worked with Minister Groser to try to set up a virtual New Zealand house in China and we did that. In March this year when Minister Groser was visiting China he launched a website that is called “Fresh New Zealand”.Alibaba is the largest online company in China basically.Alibaba is so important that on 11 November each year for a single day online trading throughAlibaba is about 20 billion in Chinese currency—in 1 single day. That is how much—$20 billion in just 1 single day—is going throughAlibaba. That is how important online trading is in China.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How much is that in New Zealand?Dr JIAN YANG: That is about—if you divide it by five—Hon Kate Wilkinson: Huge.Dr JIAN YANG: Yes of course. It is very very big trading in 1 single day. Look at this. This is the picture in China. The online trading market is basically—we believe we cannot miss this particularly important market. That is why we say that we need to provide facilities and infrastructure for the future and this bill will simply improve our infrastructure for the future for trading.As we have heard from the previous speakers the purpose of the bill is to clarify the legal position on the time at which a contract is formed. This is important because for business we need clarity right? If the acceptance of an offer is sent by electronic communication when is the contract formed? That is very important and this bill will clarify that. This bill will amend the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. The Commerce Committee of which I am a member recommended that the bill be passed with amendments. This is a good bill. It clarifies uncertainty around when contracts are formed if the acceptance of an offer is made through electronic communications like email. Clear and predictable laws governing commerce are some of the foundations of a successful modern economy. This bill will deliver clarity and certainty which will lead to confidence and confidence leads to greater investment. Very clearly overseas investors are very interested in New Zealand not only because we have good opportunities but also because we have very clear rules. We have a very clear environment—very transparent. So this is very important.Under current legislation when a contract is accepted by post a rule applies that means that the contract is formed as soon as the acceptance is placed in the post. However this rule does not cover contracts accepted electronically—for example emails. So if someone accepts a job by email then there is no legal certainty over when that contract was formed. This bill tidies up a small area of uncertainty. It will amend the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 to follow the postal acceptance rule relating to electronic communications. Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today including emailsmartphones and social media it is good that the current Act is amended to cover such areas. Basically in today’s world it is hard to imagine not having electronic devices. For exampleiPhones are very important in our lives and we work and also do transactions using them.The National-led Government is committed to operating online in the 21st century. It is about making the Public Service work better for taxpayers businesses and consumers. This will result in a more competitive and productive economy which will support jobs higher wages and first-class education and health systems and help New Zealanders and families to get ahead in New Zealand. Here education in particular is also important. Why? I have a kid who is 13 years old. Every day when she does homework she goes online to research all these things. Basically the younger generation is more literate in terms of using electronic devices. It is important that we do have this clarity for future generations. These are the things that matter to New Zealanders and that the National-led Government supports and is working hard to deliver for New Zealanders.We have set a target that an average of 70 percent of New Zealanders’ most common transactions with the Government will be completed in a digital environment by 2017—that is 70 percent. This includes among other things renewing adult passports applying for visas financial assistance Inland Revenue Department numbers and paying for vehicle licensing. But there are many more options of course. We have many things that can be done via electronic communications. The National-led Government is also investing $1.65 billion to deliver faster broadband to 97.8 percent of all New Zealanders where they live work and study by 2025. We believe that ultra-fast broadband is vital. It will promote innovation create jobs and grow the New Zealand economy. Actually I was talking to someone the other day. He was working online basically doing overseas transactions from New Zealand. He found that currently it is quite difficult because we do not have ultra-fast broadband.National is focused on building a more competitive and productive economy. New Zealand’s unemployment rate continues to be lower than that of most OECD countries. Through our comprehensive Business Growth Agenda the Government has a strong focus on creating the opportunities for competitive businesses to invest and employ more people. Our results so far are reflected in strong growth increasing employment improved trade balance stronger productivity growth and real wages rising faster than the cost of living. We are working to ensure that our public services make the most of online services. The Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill recognises that we live in an internet age and that is a good thing. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. I am advised this is not a split call.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): No it is not a split call Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to use the time that is available to both the Greens and the Labour Party. The first point I would want to make—sorry I am just trying to look through the non-transparent member standing there—is to acknowledge the mover of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill Paul Goldsmith. He did pick up something that should have been in a Statutes Amendment Bill. He used aGestetner or a photocopier or something to copy it out and he put it into Parliament and it is a bit of action.But I would say it is a waste of that member. That member is much more intelligent than Nicky Wagner who has gone into Cabinet. He should have got in. I just want to say to him after the news that we have got over the last few minutes that I am sure that he is headed to a ministerial post because Judith Collins is “gone-burger”. Never before has the National Party dropped 6 percent in the polling in less than 2 weeks. The National Party is in free fall and Judith Collins is going to be blamed for that.We already know that she has been practising because she is going to be singing the theme song for the National Party at the next election. Do you know what it is called? It is called “Don’t Cry for meOravida”. Judith Collins is going to be leading the song.She is going to be leading the song. National is down 6 percent in under 2 weeks as a result of her chicanery and the lies that have been told around the country on this issue. As a result no little diversion like this silly little bill which should not have been in this Parliament will make any difference whatsoever.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. I want to open with an observation. We were lucky enough to listen to the Hon Chris Tremain speaking for 10 minutes and he was uninterrupted. The Opposition benches were quiet. They had nothing to say. Then I listened to my colleagueKanwal Singh Bakshi and my colleague Jian Yang get up and make two very good contributions of 10 minutes each. The whole time they were making their contributions they were being laughed at they were being abused they were being interjected on by Ruth Dyson and they were being abused by Trevor Mallard. So what I would ask people and viewers at home to do is to take their own observations from that. The Hon Chris Tremain got up for 10 minutes and made a speech uninterrupted. My colleaguesKanwal and Jian then got up to make their speeches two thoughtful contributions and they were abused the entire time and heckled by the Opposition benches. People at home can make up their own minds about that one but I felt that it was a disgrace and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.Jami-Lee Ross: Because they’re ethnic.MARK MITCHELL: I do not know whether it is because they are ethnic. People can make up their own minds about that. I am not going to accuse anyone of anything but to me it was a disgrace and it was a smear on this House.If you want to talk about how important the digital age is we have to ask ourselves what Clare Curran was doing up at the Kim Dotcom mansion. What was Clare Curran doing up at the Kim Dotcom mansion having the—what was it—digital bill of rights legislation delivered to her by Kim Dotcom? Who was sitting in the getaway car out the back? Probably Mr Mallard. Mr Mallard was probably sitting out there in the getaway car ready for Clare to sneak away in the dead of the night with the new digital bill of rights legislation that Kim Dotcom had given her. Got anything to say now Mr Mallard? Got any comments to make on that? Yes it had to be a getaway car because you would fall off a bike. There is no doubt about that. There would be no doubt about that.This is a very good bill and I want to commend my colleague Paul Goldsmith for bringing this bill to the House. It is an excellent bill. We do live in an age of the internet and technology and—Hon Trevor Mallard: Minus 6 percent and falling.MARK MITCHELL: Oh well you want to talk about polls; let us talk about your prospective coalition partner the Greens. Let us talk about what Mr Norman has been doing Mr Mallard.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member should be careful not to include the Speaker by the use of the inappropriate pronoun.MARK MITCHELL: You are right. I am sorry. I apologise Mr Deputy Speaker. So Mr Mallard let us speak about your future—Hon Trevor Mallard: I refused to do that yesterday. You’re a wimp.MARK MITCHELL: —and who you proposed to be your Deputy Prime Minister. Yes we are used to your abuse Mr Mallard. We have just seen Mr Jian Yang andKanwal Bakshi be subjected to your abuse over the last half an hour. But let us talk about your prospective coalition partner and what he has been up to. He has been up at the Kim Dotcom mansion too. He was probably high-fiving Clare Curran on the way through and being tasked by Mr Dotcom to stop his extradition. And this is aGovernment in waiting? This is meant to be a Government in waiting up there talking to someone who is currently under a Department of Justice indictment for theft of intellectual property? To me it is an absolute travesty.Let us talk about Shane Jones. You know I have been very fortunate and lucky to get to know Shane Jones in my time here in Parliament. I am involved in the Parliamentary Rugby Team. It is an honour to be the co-captain along with Damien O’Connor. I have got to know Shane Jones very well. I will tell you right now that he is a man of integrity and he is a man who is focused on economic growth for New Zealand. I will tell you now that the reason he is not sitting over there with you guys and why he is not going to stay with you is that he sees no future in terms of economic growth and that is what he is about. He has got aspirations for the people of Northland—yes he has—but he understands clearly that especially with your coalition partner the Green Party there is no aspiration for economic growth. It is as simple as that.I will get back to the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill because it is a good bill and it does actually fold neatly into what the Government is trying to achieve and that is economic growth and a future for our generations. We are a small country. We are a country of 4½ million people. We will not get ahead by trading amongst ourselves. We have to make sure that we position ourselves globally to continue to be a real global player and to continue to grow our exports. To do that there has to be attention to detail and we have to be seen to have the best global regulations and systems in the world. To do that we actually have to have bills like this to make the changes and to make the tweaks that are necessary in order to allow us to keep growing and moving in that direction. So it is with great pride that I stand and take a call to support this very good bill from Mr Goldsmith this Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. Thank you.Bill read a third time.Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 9 April.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koutou katoa. This is our vision our hope and our commitment—a river is not a drain. “Exceptional circumstances” do not include the permanent use of a river as a drain because it is cheap and it is convenient. What about jobs—I hear the mantra. Well let us ask the FIRST Union—it submitted on my bill—because we can have clean rivers and we can have jobs. Crime can create jobs. Environmental crime can create jobs but not good jobs. We can do a whole lot better than that.This bill is about section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act which is arguably breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi in terms of its abuse of rivers and river peoples especially when you are comparing up to 150000 tonnes of black foaming sewage-contaminated chlorinated pollution from the 1950s with the current dirty brown effluent now contaminated only with pine resin acids and bleach chemicals of unknown effects in 2014. Therefore this bill represents the Greens’ commitment and my personal commitment to cleaning up the law and to cleaning up rivers. We have waited a long time as have the people of the Bay of Plenty and the people of TaiRāwhiti to make sure that section 107(2)(a) is amended to put a time limit on the phrase “exceptional circumstances”. We are committed to pursuing this irrespective of the outcome—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One and half minutes has been consumed. The member’s time has now expired.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I welcome the opportunity to stand and speak to this member’s bill in the name of Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I thank her for bringing this issue to Parliament and indeed to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We do have some bad news for her though. Although she put this bill tirelessly to us—and the select committee certainly did a tremendous amount of work on it hearing 27 submissions holding hearings inWhakatāne and Wellington—as a committee we came to the majority belief that in fact this legislation is not necessary. So National will not be supporting it in the second reading here this evening.National does not support this bill. We understand that the purpose of this bill is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued when a permit to discharge is deemed necessary due to exceptional circumstances to 5 years. Those circumstances were exceptional in all the cases we investigated. The Environment Court confirmed this and we see no reason to change the law.People understand pretty clearly in New Zealand that National does know how important the environment is to New Zealanders and to our quality of life. It is central to our international reputation our primary sector our growing tourism market and of course our economy. We are delivering on our promise to make the Resource Management Act a law that better balances environmental protection and economic growth. The Resource Management Act is not a tool for extreme environmental activists to stop growth to rid the country of jobs and to involve themselves in economic destruction. It is an important law. The key factor behind our ongoing Resource Management Act reforms is a drive to ensure enduring outcomes while reducing the time costs and uncertainty involved in the process. That is of course what we are doing.So we came to this bill as a select committee and we received and considered 148 submissions from interested groups and individuals as well as three form submissions comprising 18 individuals. The committee heard 27 submissions as I said in bothWhakatāne and Wellington. We have examined the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill and we recommended that it is not passed. That is where I will be casting my vote this evening.In regard to the water quality issues which were the sort of high-level issues that we examined we were not persuaded as a committee that this bill is the most effective way in fact of improving water quality. Rather initiatives at a national level such as the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management are more likely to be effective in driving regions districts local communities catchments and individuals into making good decisions about what they do in their environment which eventually leads to effects on water quality.On the exceptional circumstances issue that was raised at the select committee and by the member Catherine Delahunty it was questionable whether exceptional circumstances were a good reason to allow discharge permits. Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act has been used only a few times and in each case the Environment Court has actually applied a stringent test and considered time frames. Each case has also involved detailed discussions about what constitutes exceptional circumstances including these considerations: something out of the ordinary or unusual or not typical a substantial investment projects that involve a regionally or nationally significant resource projects that of their nature rely on the use of a waterway and projects that will contribute to resilience to national hazards.That gives a very broad scope of consideration indeed. To narrow these things down simply to direct environmental consequences is not wise particularly when many of these discharge permits are brief and due to unforeseen circumstances. The committee also believed that a shorter duration for exceptional circumstances could adversely affect the ability of companies to raise capital and ensure adequate long-term investment.In summary the Government’s resource management reforms are about ensuring that we manage our resources more effectively and efficiently to deliver both economic and environmental benefits for future generations. It is a balance. That is why we are a centre-right party. We look at both sides of the argument. We are looking for a way through to solutions and a balanced approach. We are not part of sort of an extreme movement on one side driving only one agenda. We are the type of party that you would like to run your country or your business or your family. We are not sort of mad-out on one side.The Government is currently in the second phase of its Resource Management Act reforms and addressing whether this particular section needs to be amended should be part of a well-thought-out Resource Management Act reform package. Section 107(2)(a) which this bill seeks to amend is rarely applied in discharge or coastal permits as I discussed before. There is no evidence that this section is being used inappropriately or in a widespread manner. I mean case law examples of where the permits have been brought before councils and the courts are very few. It was so easy for our committee to dissect them because they were so few in number.Where section 107(2)(a) has been applied there have been only limited instances where permits issued under the section have resulted in appeals to the Environment Court. In each case the Environment Court has applied a rigorous test to validate the exceptional circumstances definition and reaffirm conditions of the permits issued to minimise environmental effects. In other words when the permits issued were tested on appeal to the courts by litigants concerned about what was going on sensible people sitting in the judicial hierarchy looked at all the information and arguments and the science and took it upon themselves to make a decision that essentially said that all was well.In addition this proposal to limit the time frame for consents issued where section 107(2)(a) applies would have no effect on current consents. So there is no way to use the legislation in looking back retrospectively to consents that are already granted that the member claims there are problems with. This is not the tool for Catherine Delahunty to fix problems that she perceives to be in existence at the moment under current permits because it cannot do that. It cannot do that retrospectively. In addition it is not likely to affect many consents in the future given the current limited use of the section. As I expressed historically consents under these permit conditions are not often sought and not often given.National’s reform programme has been about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act processes providing stronger central government direction and addressing problems in areas such as infrastructure water aquaculture and agriculture. We are not in the business of making resource management law more complicated and more difficult for environmentalists businesses and Joe Kiwi to understand. We want the process to be simple and accessible not more complex. I am afraid that introducing legislation like this to the House makes things more complicated and difficult for people. That is not what this Parliament supports and certainly not what voters supported when they put this Parliament together to form a National-led Government with a particular view. I do say that we will be voting against this bill inthe second reading. I cannot commend the bill to the House although I acknowledge CatherineDelahunty’s work.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Contrary to what the previous speaker Phil Heatley just said I do not think that the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill is a very complicated piece of legislation at all. I do not think that changing a time frame in a piece of legislation is particularly complicated. It might be complicated for Mr Heatley but in fact it is quite a simple change in that regard.This bill does amend section 107 of the Resource Management Act and it aims to limit the period for which a consent can be issued in what are called exceptional circumstances to a 5-year maximum from the current maximum of 35 years in the Act. Thirty-five years is simply the default position in the Resource Management Act so if you do not define another time frame then in the Act it is automatically 35 years. So 35 years was not chosen for any particular special reason; it is simply just the default provision of the Resource Management Act.As Phil Heatley said in his speech the way this particular section 107 of the Resource Management Act has been applied has been upheld by the Environment Court. I find it very interesting that Minister Heatley said we should therefore never ever pass legislation where a court has made a determination because I sincerely hope and my colleague Ruth Dyson would agree with me that the Government continues to uphold the board of inquiry decision on theRuataniwha Dam which would have turned the Tukituki River toxic. I sincerely hope that it is going to abide by MinisterHeatley’s comments—Hon Ruth Dyson: No no he’s not a Minister now.MOANA MACKEY: —oh sorry the former MinisterHeatley’s comments that we should just stand by these decisions and not overturn them and that we will not see any legislation from the National Government in this House that overturns the board of inquiry decision onRuataniwha in much the same way as it overturned the court decision on paid family caregivers. But consistency has never been one of MrHeatley’s strong points so I am prepared to let that slide.This bill came about—and I want to commend the member Catherine Delahunty not just for the bill but for the years and decades of work that she has actually put into the issue of the Tarawera River in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Of course this bill if it passes will not impact on the consent that the mill on the Tarawera River has been given. It still has another 21 years to run of a 25-year consent. It applied for 35; it got 25. That was 4 years ago so there are still 21 years to run. This bill will not impact on that consent but it could potentially impact on future applications for consent.It should be acknowledged that the Tarawera River has gone basically to hell and back really in terms of what a river can cope with. In 1954 there was an Act of Parliament that was written that actually had the explicit purpose of enabling the mill to discharge waste into the river. It really is unthinkable that Parliament would pass that kind of legislation today but it did in the 1950s. Before I came into Parliament I was a team leader of a persistent organic pollutants laboratory. We tested organochlorines and we tested a lot of product from mills around the country to make sure that the kinds of chemicals that were being used in the past that persist in the environment for a long time—which are very expensive to remediate and which are damaging to human health and to the health of animals and to anyone who uses the river—are not being used again.In 1954 that Act of Parliament was passed and the river did basically as it was called become a “black drain”. In 2004 the Bay of Plenty Regional Council actually came up with a catchment plan for the river because of the concerns. It was not just themill actually in this river; there was the Kawerau waste water which was all going into the Tarawera River at the time. There is geothermal on the river as well as natural geothermal vents in the river that do affect water quality. There were still broken pipes leaching into the river from the Edgecumbe earthquake. There was runoff obviously—nutrient runoff and also forestry. So all these things were impacting on the health of this particular river.In 2004 a catchment plan was developed. The health of the Tarawera River is very different today from when it was considered a “black drain”. Even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that it is no longer really valid to call it the “black drain” any more because there has been significant improvement in the river although as with all these things there is still a way to go. In 2004 the catchment plan was put in place. In 2010 the mill applied for its consent under section 107 of the Resource Management Act.Members have talked about—and I just want to put it on the table that I was very sorry that I could not get to the submission hearings inWhakatāne as were members of the Labour Party. We were not able to have any members there because that was of course the week of our colleague ParekuraHoromia’s tangi so all of the Labour members were inŪawa. That was actually very unfortunate because I think we would have benefited enormously. We acknowledge that we were not able to be there to hear the submissions and so that has made it more difficult for us to make a determination on the bill or to hear all the points of view particularly from those people who live around that particular river.Sorry I should have said at the outset that we will be supporting this bill at the second reading. I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper 422 in my name for the Committee stage around the time frame and I will come to that when I discuss the time frame a little bit further on.This bill is not about whether or not there should be an emergency discharge provision in the Resource Management Act because this bill does not get rid of the emergency discharge provision. This bill is about the maximum allowable time frame for that provision to be accessed. As we have said before it takes it from a maximum of 35 years down to 5 years.As environment spokesperson I have to say I get a little bit nervous around a piece of legislation as important as the Resource Management Act and about making wholesale changes to it from Opposition particularly when we were not able to hear submissions because there may well be unintended consequences. We went to the member in charge of the bill Catherine Delahunty and said to her that we are a bit nervous that 35 years to 5 years might be too strict but we would be prepared to go to 15 years as a maximum right now because that allays our concerns that there might be unintended consequences. It gives us that wiggle room when there is uncertainty. So Supplementary Order Paper 422 in my name is to change the maximum time frame in the legislation from a maximum of 5 years to a maximum of 15 years. We believe that going from a maximum of 35 years to 15 years actually is a significant improvement.The member in charge of the bill does not agree and that is absolutely her right. I completely respect her decision and I thank her for engaging with us and negotiating with us in really good faith. We were not able to come to an agreement but this is an issue. The health of our waterways is an issue so we did not want to just vote against the bill because we did not come to some agreement with the member in charge of the bill. We want to be able to support it at second reading and say that in the Committee stage we will test the House on my Supplementary Order Paper 422 which extends that time frame out and allows more time for those resource consent conditions to be met.I also want to point out that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who supports this bill did make the point in her submission: “Clearly there can be cases where it will take time and a great deal of expenditure to treat discharges to an acceptable level. But if it is not practicable to meet a particular standard at the end of 5 years there is nothing to prevent an application for a second consent.” That is absolutely correct and that is really I think kind of the crux of where this bill is at. It is possible that there will be times when a 5-year consent period is too strict. Sure a company could come back and apply for another 5-year consent. Our concern with that is that it may actually be cheaper for it to up sticks and leave and leave a polluted river for ratepayers and taxpayers to clean up than to potentially go through the process of trying to access the capital that it needs often from overseas to remedy the problem.That was one of our concerns—that the 5-year time frame might actually result in us being left with rivers to clean up ourselves if it is easier and cheaper for a company to say: “Well you know we can go and invest this money in New Zealand on these environmental matters and then within 5 years we may have to apply for another consent which we may not get. Part-way through we may have spent money that ends up being stranded.” So from our perspective we thought that if you went to 15 years you do not have that issue as you do with a 5-year consent period.Again I would say we were also nervous about just plucking a time frame out of the air without being able to from Government actually look at all the reasons why you might pick a certain time frame. So we have gone from 35 years to 5 years. I note that when the Green Party made its submission on the resource consent it called for 10 years as a maximum for that particular consent. I get a bit nervous about just plucking figures out of the air and saying that this is the magic number particularly when it comes to a piece of legislation as important as the Resource Management Act. But as I have said I congratulate Catherine Delahunty on bringing this bill to the House and for her work on the Tarawera River.If this bill is to pass tonight through its second reading as I said my Supplementary Order Paper 422 is on the Table. It takes the maximum consent period from 35 years to 15 years which I think is very reasonable. It allays a number of the concerns the National Party was outlaying but it also would give far more certainty for the environment and so I urge members to support that Supplementary Order Paper.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I too commend Catherine Delahunty for bringing the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill to the House. I think the member brought the bill to the House with an obviously genuine desire and love for the Tarawera River a love for the communities and a deeply held belief that the current regime around perhaps the practice of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill and the legislation as it stands was failing that particular waterway. I hope I am encapsulating what Catherine Delahunty brought to the House.I have to say that National will not support this bill and I will seek to set out my interpretation of the reasons why. I think the member who has just resumed her seat Moana Mackey with her comments around the time frame really came to the crux of the matter. We believe as the National Party that a 5-year time frame inserted into section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act where discharges are allowed under exceptional circumstances—if that time frame were narrowed down to 5 years that would place those companies affected by it in an untenable situation.Again we can have that discussion about whether economic activity outweighs environmental concerns. Yes absolutely we can have that discussion. I would argue that that discussion is very much part of this Government’s work around reform of the Resource Management Act and is very much at the forefront of our thinking. In fact wehave made several legislative changes to make the Resource Management Act more responsive more timely and more efficient and its operation smoother so that we can address concerns like this.But we have got to come back to theKawarau River because that is the genesis of this member’s bill and it is a good member’s bill because it has been brought to the House with a genuine desire to make a situation better for the water quality of that river. A number of members of Parliament as well as the normal procedure that we go through when considering a member’s bill received and heard submissions in various places around New Zealand. A number of members variously took visits to have a look at the river. I with a number of colleagues spent some time on the river having a look at water quality and discussing with representatives of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill its response to those concerns around water quality and how it was dealing with those concerns both as a company in terms of the company practice but also in terms of compliance with the permit it had under the Resource Management Act.I acknowledge and agree that the Tarawera River was formerly described as a “black drain”—have I got the terminology right? A “black drain”—and I believe that it was. I believe that all sorts of toxins were being discharged into the river from the various industrial activities along the course of that river as well as some other naturally forming pollutants further down the river from the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. I recall there was an outfall as you head looking up the river on the right-hand side—some geothermal discharges. I might not be quite right but there are some other natural pollutants going into the river.Catherine Delahunty: Yeah that’s right.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you. The member is helping me from way over on the Green side. So it is acknowledged by everyone that formerly that river was very much abused as a result of industrial activity but also by human habitation and some natural pollutants. Yes it was a “black drain” and yes the water quality was appallingly bad much to the detriment of the local communities along that river. The river is their home. The river is where they live their lives and they have their familial ties. The local communities feel very strongly about their river where they catch eels fish and have their recreation and swimming. It is their river. Of course they had been concerned about the previous state of the river but I also believe that that was a long time ago and that steadily over the years water quality in the Tarawera River has been improving.We also observed on our trip from the mill down to virtually the mouth of the river and then back up again the varying levels of water quality which are largely these days down to the amount of tannins occurring as a result of the industrial activity at the mill but also occurring naturally because of the nature of the surrounding countryside and theleachates going into the river. There was certainly a colour variation. The water was at various stagesyellower than at other stages but it was explained to us and demonstrated to us that those colours were tannins and non-toxic. However—Catherine Delahunty: Ha ha! Non-toxic!JACQUI DEAN: —yes the member is laughing at me; OK. They were naturally occurring tannins but still of concern to the local community. So we saw for ourselves that yes this stretch of water—possibly not unique in New Zealand although luckily not common in New Zealand—absolutely has been badly affected by the economic activity which by the way has also provided many jobs to the local community over a number of generations. So although we are considering water quality in this bill let us not forget that the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill has provided jobs for a number of generations in that community as well. Let us just keep that in our minds. It is not a reason not to clean up the river but it is something we should always keep in our minds.To the bill itself—section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act which allows discharges into water under exceptional circumstances is a provision that has been very rarely used in New Zealand. It is not a provision of the Resource Management Act that is in common usage and indeed the number of years for which there can be exceptional circumstances allowing discharges is never very clearly defined. In fact permits can be for as long as up to 35 years which generally is about the common term in a discharge permit.In this bill Catherine Delahunty seeks to narrow the length of time for a permitted discharge down to 5 years and that is a laudable aim except for a couple of things. In the case of the Tarawera River the current Resource Management Act permit and the conditions imposed on the owners of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill require them to have a constant steady and aggressive programme of improving water quality. So if the aim of this bill is to improve water quality then yes it does but so do the current provisions in the Resource Management Act. For mainly that reason it was believed on this side of the House that this bill laudable though it is in its aims would do more harm than good.Let us go back to those jobs. Let us go back to that economic activity that has been carried out for generations in that small part of New Zealand that is working so hard to attract business into its area. I say and I believe that it has to be acknowledged that a focus on water quality is happening now under current rules around the permit that the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill has. So on balance we could call it 15 years and there is a Supplementary Order Paper for that on the Table Supplementary Order Paper 422 but actually even 15 years does not give enough certainty for anyone who wishes to start up a business and has this provision in the Resource Management Act hanging over their head. Well hang on a minute. You might invest $10 million into an activity but in 5 years’ time that is it—you are going to have to pack up your bags. That is a disincentive. I do not believe that we should do that because I do not believe that it is necessary.The National Party does not support this bill but does congratulate the member on bringing the bill to the House with a genuine desire to do what we all want to do and that is improve water quality in New Zealand.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnātātou katoa. I join to take a short call in support of this member’s bill presented by Catherine Delahunty the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I join this side of the House and our spokesperson Moana Mackey who lay out her contribution in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 422 around amending the permits from the 5 years proposed in CatherineDelahunty’s bill to what we believe is a workable solution which is a 15-year target.No one is going to argue that the quality of our waters is not one of the critical issues facing everybody in this country. We all have memories and enjoyment of swimming in rivers or in the sea. I hope to do that and my grandchildren hope to do that. The issue of water quality is a responsibility for all of us and more so as we make legislation in this House. So I do want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for her intention to bring a bill to the House that at the heart of it is addressing water quality particularly around the awa of Tarawera. I do want to pay tribute to her for that move she has undertaken. But like I said my colleague Moana Mackey has made it clear that Supplementary Order Paper 422 is our attempt to support Catherine’s underline by allowing a bit more wriggle room in terms of the permit period.I want to say that I am not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. In reading the select committee’s report I do note that there was a decision by the select committee not to pass this piece of legislation but obviously there was aminority view in there presented by obviously the Green members about why the committee should pass it. Can I just make an observation about achieving consensus in select committees and acknowledge the role of the Māori Affairs Committee as maybe a model for the Local Government and Environment Committee to try to tackle what are really critical issues like water quality.I do not want to go too much into the detail of the bill because that has been ably covered by my colleague Moana Mackey. Suffice it to say that we are supporting this bill with the Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee stage where we can debate it more. Rest assured that on this side Labour totally supports water quality. In fact we want to assure people in the House and those who are listening that we support a comprehensive adoption of the Land and Water Forum recommendation to improve water quality throughout New Zealand along with looking at resource rentals to ensure that our rivers throughout New Zealand are improved. Kia oratātou.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Ah! It is the honourable member Andrew Williams.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. It is always a delight to see you in the Chair.New Zealand First is taking a call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill brought to the House by Green Party member Catherine Delahunty. We too commend her for her efforts with this and for her intentions in terms of the quality of the rivers in New Zealand but we are also unable to support the bill. In fact I very much thought that Jacqui Dean had written my speech because the comments that Jacqui Dean made just a couple of speeches ago were very much in unison with the feeling we have that the Resource Management Act adequately provides for this process already. The Resource Management Act is well known internationally and regarded as a very fine piece of legislation. Other judiciaries around the world and other legislative chambers often refer to our Resource Management Act as being a very fine example of covering resource management issues.In that respect I was very pleased to sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee which looked at the submissions on this back in 2012 which included some members visiting the river that was particularly referred to in terms of this the Tarawera River in the Kawerau District. It was most interesting going there. I would like to thank the hospitality of the Kawerau District Council and Malcolm Campbell the mayor there and the councillors who met with me and gave me a rundown on the whole situation. I would also like to thank members ofNorskeSkog and other local industries who were very forthcoming in terms of providing useful information.I went on the Tarawera River from the bottom right up to past the mill. I looked at the river and we took physical water samples as we went and looked at them on the completion of our journey. We also looked at scientific analysis that was provided to us in terms of the river quality. It was most interesting looking at the history of the river that indeed in the last decade and back into the 1990s and 1980s this was a very very polluted river. The old Kawerau pulp and paper mill had considerable discharges into that river which was known in those days as the “black drain”. However that is not the case today. Going up the river it was very noticeable that the river quality today is significantly hugely different from what we saw recorded in the past.It was also interesting to note a side tributary river that came down from Edgecumbe. At the point there where samples were taken the water quality was significantly worse at that junction of those two rivers where the water came down from the Edgecumbe river because Edgecumbe from its earthquake back in the last 1980s had a huge amount of its sewerage system and other piping very very badly destroyed as a result. To this veryday there is still leaching coming from the Edgecumbe area that has been undetected—and it is virtually impossible to find it all—and that is getting into that tributary river and into the Tarawera River. So as a result where often the mill is blamed for some of the past pollution and the state of that river in fact a lot of it is coming out of the Edgecumbe tributary.It is also interesting to note that in terms of this the mill meets the incredibly high standards of the review process specified by the Environment Court in terms of its consents. When the mill applied for its 35-year consent but was given a 25-year consent by the Environment Court the court set very stringent requirements on regular reviews. Those reviews require a constant downward movement in terms of discharges into the river by the mill. We saw again scientific data that showed how that had significantly reduced over the years down to a fraction of what it was back 10 15 or 20 years ago.It was also interesting to note that the mill used to provide the sewerage system for the Kawerau township and that the Kawerau township itself was a major polluter in terms of putting contaminated discharge into the mill’s treatment plant which was then discharging into the river. The mill through good corporate social responsibility built a new sewerage system for the township at its own cost a number of years ago and provided it to the township in conjunction with the district council. So its sewerage system is now completely independently handled by the district council sewerage system. Again that had a marked effect on the overall amount of discharge that was going into the river.It was also interesting to note that very big signals were given in terms of the potential impact that this bill would have on the wider New Zealand economic development situation. If resource consents and permits of this nature were restricted to only 5 years for exceptional circumstances it would have a very adverse detrimental effect on investment and industry in this country. In the situation withNorskeSkog it had just in the last few years invested $50 million in a major new machine at the paper plant there—a very significant investment in a major piece of equipment. HadNorskeSkog not had the extended permits the parent company internationally would probably have made the decision not to invest that $50 million in New Zealand.We heard from the mill management that it was up against equivalent mill management in many other countries that were similarly looking for support from the parent company for investment in their plants and equipment. The investment will certainly not go to somewhere the parent company feels it is going to have the potential for only a 5-year permit and then be required to shut down meaning it would not continue. The parent company would therefore not make the initial investment.That very grave signal to the wider New Zealand industry was certainly alarming for New Zealand First. We are a party that supports economic development and we want to see growth around New Zealand in a controlled and very responsible manner. We see that controlled and responsible manner being via the likes of the Environment Court and via the likes of the Resource Management Act which can put in place the right controls and processes to ensure that such industry and such investments are monitored in the correct way and are reported back on in an ongoing way in terms of the requirement to meet those standards.So New Zealand First will not be supporting this member’s bill. This will not have sufficient votes to be passed by this House. However we do acknowledge the member and her efforts to highlight the issues of water quality in this country. It is certainly commendable and we are all looking to improve the quality of our rivers to improve the quality of our marine environment. But at the end of the day it does have to be done in a responsible manner and it does have to be done in a holistic manner that alsoensures that we do it responsibly. New Zealand First believes that the Resource Management Act will meet that adequately. Thank you.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. As others have said this is a member’s bill that is commendable because the member who has brought it Catherine Delahunty has done so with enormous conviction and with a lot of energy and application. Also as others have mentioned this is not a bill that is being supported by the Government. There are a number of reasons for that and I will go through them. The purpose of the bill just to reaffirm is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued to 5 years so limiting it to a 5-year duration when a permit to discharge is deemed necessary due to exceptional circumstances. I will go on to look at what “exceptional circumstances” means how it is being defined and the attitude of the Environment Court to that. It is a very well-intentioned bill but in the opinion of the Government it will not deliver on its aim. That is why we are not supporting it.The Local Government and Environment Committee of which I am a member received a number of submissions—148 of them from various interested groups and from individuals as well. The committee heard 27 submissions and then heard hearings inWhakatāne as well as here in Wellington. Having examined this in some detail it was the view of the committee that this bill was not to be passed. I acknowledge that that is a great disappointment to the member who has presented it but let us look at why.When we look at water quality as other speakers from all sides of the House have indicated it is a very important priority to many of us. National in particular has spent a lot of time effort and money since we took the Treasury benches on ensuring that our water quality and safety and so forth have been properly looked at and examined. As the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams has said many times if you cannot measure it you cannot manage it. So we have put a lot of money into that sort of thing and a lot of rigorous processes around that as well.When we looked at the initiatives that are being looked at on a national level there is the Land and Water Forum as well as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management back in 2011. It was the view of the committee and certainly the Government that those were more effective vehicles to achieve the outcome. Nobody wants to have the dirty water and the long-standing problems that some waterways have had. But when water goes wrong it goes really wrong. It takes a very long time to put that right. It is not a quick fix in any way shape or form.Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act which this particular bill seeks to amend is very very rarely applied in discharge or in fact in coastal permits. There is no evidence that this section is being used inappropriately. Where that section 107(2)(a) has been applied there have been only very limited incidents where permits issued under this section have resulted even in appeals to the Environment Court. In each of those cases when the Environment Court has heard them and applied a rigorous test to validate these “exceptional circumstances” which by its nature is a very narrow definition the Environment Court reaffirmed the conditions of the permits issued to minimise environmental effects. So when various cases did get to the Environment Court and were tested under exceptional circumstances it was still found to be not applicable. When we look at limiting the time frame for consents issued where that section 107 applies as proposed by this bill the feeling the belief and the analysis was that this would have no effect on the current consents and in addition to that it is not likely to affect many consents in the future given that current limited use of the section.As members of this House know only too well the Resource Management Act is progressing. We are addressing as a Government the problems in areas such asinfrastructure water and aquaculture. There are a number of initiatives coming through at this time. The Land and Water Forum frankly when it was first established under the Hon Dr Nick Smith many thought would be a complete and abject failure. How could you possibly get all of the warring factions together in one place and have them agree? These are people who barely spoke to each other. The notion that they could sit together in one room and constructively work a solution out together was considered a fanciful notion. But as it turned out it has been an outstanding success. The underlying thing is that the people who are passionate about water and believe in the purity and the sanctity of it and the use of it and its long-term sustainability and all the rest of it actually believe that more than they believed in their own political silo positions. So they were able to come together very well and that is why LAWF as it is known—the Land and Water Forum—had resulted in such outstanding achievements including that first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.The recommendations from the forum have worked very well to provide a national scientifically based framework. You always have to come back to the science on things like this. We need to deliver a reform of freshwater management in New Zealand. Yes science is something that this Government believes in very much. That is why we introduced the first-ever National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and we have spent around $101 million on water clean-up. That is just in the first 4 years of the Government compared with I think $17 million in Labour’s last 4 years. It is a fivefold increase. As well as that we have committed an extra $350 million to water clean-ups of various iconic New Zealand waterways. Those are progressing very well when you look at the other areas of New Zealand. Others may think it is not working well but a lot of this is politically motivated. We are doing a very good thing.Getting back to this bill—this bill would not solve the problem either in the local area where it is suggested and mooted for or in any other way. The Environmental Reporting Bill does represent this Government’s commitment to a step change in the way that we monitor and report on the conditions of our natural environment and that is a key manifesto that we fought the 2011—Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought we were talking about the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill not the Environmental Reporting Bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think the member makes a very valid point.MAGGIE BARRY: Can I speak to the point of order Mr Assistant Speaker?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You most certainly are entitled to speak to the point of order but you have to call for a point of order.MAGGIE BARRY: Speaking to the point of order the reason I am elucidating on these policies is that these are the measures that are working and the select committee that considered the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill did not deliver a solution. The measures I am talking about have so that is why I am talking about them.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that she should try to speak as closely as she can to the intention of the legislation. You can draw inferences from different parts but in the main you must try to speak to the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill.MAGGIE BARRY: Sure. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will take note of that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Refer to the legislation.MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you. When the committee heard the submissions surrounding this particular piece of legislation there were certainly people in the areaand supporters of the member who put this bill forward who believed that this was the solution. But as I said we looked at the number of submissions particularly the 27 submissions and held the hearings inWhakatāne and Wellington. As the Labour members pointed out it was at the time of the funeral of the late Parekura Horomia so they were not able to be there. New Zealand First I think did attend and our members as well. I think Jacqui Dean went toWhakatāne and there were a number of our people who went. But they remained unconvinced. I think when you look at the select committee process and recognise how rigorous it is and how seriously many of us who have members’ bills before the House take the process we can fairly say that we all did our best on this but it was still not possible within the frame of reference that was put forward for us to agree to this. As I said the committee was not persuaded that this bill was the most effective way of improving the water quality but the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management did deliver and would get us around that.Section 107(2)(a) is something that has been used a few times. As I said there are a number of reasons why it should not be repealed. I think that the committee believed that a shorter duration for exceptional circumstances could adversely affect the ability of companies to raise capital and also to ensure adequate long-term investment.Catherine Delahunty: What companies?MAGGIE BARRY: Well there are a lot of companies involved. You were at the select committee and recognised and acknowledged this although of course you were the one person—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! When the member uses the word “you”—MAGGIE BARRY: Indeed. I do not mean to drag you into this Mr Assistant Speaker. But certainly the committee with one exception believed that the shorter duration was not actually going to deliver. When we look at projects that involve regionally and nationally significant resources it is important that we look at something that will work. There has never been any evidence that the section that this bill seeks to repeal has been used inappropriately. Where it has been applied there were only very limited instances where permits issued under this section even got to the Environment Court. As I said when they got there they were not passed or upheld. I think that the findings of the select committee although hurtful to the member who put the bill forward are none the less where democracy sits. We did not agree with it. I do not support the bill the Government does not support the bill and nor did the select committee so I cannot therefore commend it to the House. Thank you.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I have seen a lot of people saying on social media this evening: “Why is the National Party filibustering? Why did those members all speak for 10 minutes on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill?”. The reason is very simple. It is that National Party members do not want to get to SueMoroney’s bill that extends paid parental leave. It is extraordinary that they are not prepared to do that because I think they are going to lose the vote when it gets to that bill and it would be a fantastic thing particularly for the parents of young children.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members opposite were very concerned to bring the previous speaker back to the purpose of the bill. This member has not even begun to mention the bill and the point she has just made is totally incorrect.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise the House that whenever there is any debate it is generally the convention that the Speaker willallow the person a minute or a couple of minutes just to respond to the previous speaker. I think that is what the member was doing. And then she will be coming to order.Hon RUTH DYSON: I will come immediately to the bill at hand because I want to commend the member Catherine Delahunty for her work on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill which has a very snappy title. I commend her not just for the work that she has done in bringing this bill to the House but for the work that she has done over decades to promote conservation and environmental values not just in her own community but throughout the country.Labour supported this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee and unfortunately as my colleague Moana Mackey said we were unable to participate in a critical part of the hearings that were held inWhakatāne because they were during the tangi of our colleague Parekura Horomia which means it was a year ago. It has been almost exactly a year since this bill was at the select committee for those hearings. We had some difficulties with some parts of the bill most particularly a very important part and that is the length of time that you might allow for a discharge to be permitted. It is on that particular issue that our support hangs or falls and that is why my colleague Moana Mackey has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 422 which extends the time to 15 years. If that Supplementary Order Paper is supported then Labour will be able to support the bill and hopefully further progress it. I certainly hope that that Supplementary Order Paper is passed and we are able to continue our support.Another point that was made earlier in the evening was again from my colleague Moana Mackey when she talked about the broader issue of water quality. One of the hot topics of debate over recent months has been that of Plan Change 6 by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in relation to theRuataniwha Dam on the Tukituki River. One of the rumours that is running rampant around Wellington is that there have been significant lobbying efforts made to National Ministers for them to change the law to overturn the determination of the board of inquiry that considered that Plan Change 6 in Hawke’s Bay. I just want to put it on the record that it would be an outrage if this Parliament considered in the dying days of the current Government a change to the law that overturned a determination of a board of inquiry. The board of inquiry was really concerned about water quality which is the whole point of this bill and to have a process that is being undertaken in another part of the country but completely parallel to the intentions of this bill that some National Ministers are considering overturning by law would I think be a breach of the morality if not the process of the Environmental Protection Authority and the board of inquiry.I just want to conclude by again commending Catherine Delahunty. She has consistently progressed matters such as are outlined in this bill. I hope that Supplementary Order Paper 422 which has been proposed is passed and we are therefore able to continue our support for this bill.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to speak on this bill the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill for the second reading. I am afraid to say that I find this rather a strange bill because it purports to reduce the effect on the Tarawera River but of course it would not have any impact for at least 22 years because it is not retrospective. Tasman Pulp and Paper got a 25-year consent only recently so for 22 years it would not have any impact. A lot of the submitters whom we heard at the Local Government and Environment Committee seemed to think that if this bill was passed something substantial would change within 5 years and were confused. This bill sets out to do something in 22 years.The other thing is that ultimately the select committee was convinced that the bill was trying to provide a solution to a problem that does not really exist given the utility of section 107(2) already in the Resource Management Act. The advice we were given was certainly that the 5-year limit on consents granted under section 107(2) would not provide sufficient time for investment certainty for businesses especially in the situation where technology to reduce the pollution further does not yet exist such as in Tasman Pulp and Paper. The advice we received was that the current ability of the Environment Court to assess each consent on its merits and tailor the consent solutions accordingly is more flexible and fit for purpose than an arbitrary 5-year limit.It was interesting hearing some of the submissions. One of them was from Contact Energy. The committee was intrigued and very concerned because this bill does not relate just to the Tarawera River and Tasman Pulp and Paper; it would apply right throughout the country. We were interested that Contact Energy had relied on this provision in section 107(2) in the consent ofWairākei geothermal power developments. We asked Contact Energy what it would have done if it had not been able to use section 107(2) and the reply was very illuminating. It said that it had really only two other options. One was greater discharge into the Waikato River as a result of its geothermal power generation and given the environmental policy of reducing those discharges that would have been difficult to achieve and not really an option.So the only other practice was to increase its level of planned re-injection into the field. The problem with that is that it would have put the reservoir at risk of premature cooling because of the likely returns of coolerinjectate intersecting the hot production fluid before theinjectate had travelled a sufficient distance through the hot rock to reheat it. The net effect—and I will not go into the geothermal details of it—would be the risk that the productive life of theWairākeiTauhara geothermal system would have been shortened perhaps by many years had all theinjectate been required to go back into the field. Of course if that was the case then indeed the whole economics of the project would have been put into question.Similarly if this bill had been passed and there was a 5-year limit on any future consents we asked what impact that would have on geothermal developments. Again we got a pretty clear response that because each geothermal system is different and responds differently then it is very difficult in the undeveloped systems of theTaupō volcanic zone to have any great confidence that the elimination options to respond to the characteristics of particular systems would be able to be worked out within a 5-year period. The net result of that would be that a 5-year grace period would be insufficient to enable an alternative to be developed to reduce discharges so a 5-year limit would effectively be a decline of a consent.I go into this detail because I think it is very interesting. What we heard here today were speeches by New Zealand First and for the first time since I have been in Parliament I found myself enjoying listening to one of Andrew Williams’ speeches and I thought he spoke very well on this topic. New Zealand First members were quite strong in their conclusion that they could not support this bill because first the current regime was adequate and second they did not want to be stopping development in this country. But the surprising thing is that the Labour Party which generally—certainly in the past—was more mainstream in its thinking about these things seems to be chasing the Green Party further and further into the extremes of New Zealand politics in support of this bill. So it is not surprising to me that Shane Jones has left. Why would you want to be an economic development Minister in a coalition that does not believe in economic development?Then you have this extraordinary contradiction in what they are talking about. So we hear a great deal about the Labour Party policies for example around power. Memberssay they are very keen to reduce the cost of power and yet here we have them red-handed supporting a bill that would quite clearly increase the cost of power generation and make it far more difficult to come up with renewable electricity in the geothermal space because they want to follow everything that the Greens come up with. So I find it hard to reconcile those two sorts of things. On the one hand you are keen to have cheaper electricity but here again is another example of being willing to pass all sorts of legislation and regulation that increases the cost of power. They do not seem to see the contradiction in what they are saying there.National does not support this bill. We stand strongly behind good environmental regulation for New Zealand. The Resource Management Act is quite detailed in its law. It balances the protection of the environment with economic growth and streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act is important. But the most important thing in regulation is that businesses that are looking to create opportunities for jobs and economic growth in this country upon which we all rely have some measure of certainty and have some ability to cope with complex situations such as those that you face with geothermal developments. If politicians come in and pass laws that put a straitjacket around all potential development and reduce that flexibility then the consequence is obvious. It is going to be less investment fewer jobs more expensive electricity and fewer options for New Zealand workers. I do not support that in any way shape or form.I finish by just reminding everyone however that although this Government has made a huge amount of progress on water quality issues generally across the country through such initiatives as the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 yes it takes a long time. These things do not happen overnight because there is a lot of talk and the issues are not easy to resolve but at least we are making some progress. Beyond our shores I would like to in the ocean’s sense—this is the party that brought in the exclusive economic zone legislation where there had been none and again we receive great lectures from the other side about oil and gas exploration. Well when other parties were previously in Government they had nothing in place when they were passing all sorts of exploration permits. So I think this Government has a very strong record to stand on in terms of environmental legislation and the contribution that we have made. But this bill unfortunately would not affect anything in the Tarawera area for 22 years. It would affect potential investment in geothermal power and we do not support it. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the—Su’a William Sio: Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh you have to be quick. Is the member seeking a call?Su’a William Sio: Yes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Su’a William Sio.Malo lesoifua.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):Malo lesoifua Mr Assistant Speaker. I apologise for that. I will not take too much of the House’s time in terms of this particular bill the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the author of the bill Catherine Delahunty and accept the fact that the view she is advocating through this bill is genuine. I think that on this side of the House Labour is also of the view that it is important that as a country we do protect our nation’s rivers and our waterways and that we ought to be aiming to ensure that the quality of our water is improved. This is one of the reasons why Labour supported this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.I note that a total of 147 submissions were made from industry from Māori organisations from NGOs and from professional groups. A significant number of those submissions were from individuals but we also had submissions from five local government regional councils. By and large the two areas of concern that were raised in those submissions were the Tarawera River and the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. The Tasman Pulp and Paper mill which this bill focuses directly on received resource consents under the Resource Management Act under section 107(2)(a) on two occasions: first in 1995 and again in 2009. In 2009 the consent went to the Environment Court and the High Court. I just want to read from the report: “The Environment Court’s decision took into account the assessment of the effects of a discharge on the river the long-held and positive economic and social importance of the pulp and paper mill both regionally and nationally the critical dependence of the mill on the river for water and as a discharge medium the significant capital outlay in the industry including measures to improve the volume and quality of discharges to the river and that the initial setting up of the industry on that site had been under a special enabling Act of Parliament.”It seems to me that although there is general agreement on most parts of the bill the one area that seems to be a bone of contention is really the term or the years that the bill attempts to try to address. Although it argues that it should limit the discharge rights to 5 years the present situation with the bill is that the pulp and paper mill is able to discharge for 35 years and that has been approved through the courts. So from a Labour Party perspective I totally agree with the aim of the need to protect our rivers and our waterways but we also need to balance that out with the needs of the communities in terms of jobs. That is why Labour is proposing a compromised option of a limit of 15 years and has submitted Supplementary Order Paper 422 to reflect this.As this bill is not retrospective it will not deliver in our view the result that most people in favour of the bill were seeking—that is a restriction of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill permit which will still have 22 years left to go on its permit if this bill is passed. As I said earlier presently there is a limit of 35 years on the amount of time this permit may be issued for in exceptional circumstances under section 107(2)(a). It does not seem in keeping with the intention of this section that exceptional circumstances include permits of 35 years. However as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said when she submitted on this bill 5 years would not be a sufficient period of time for all potential users of this section. Although we would regret it if a compromise of 15 years is not accepted through the Supplementary Order Paper we would obviously then vote against the bill.Finally I just want to say that Labour supports the comprehensive adoption of the Land and Water Forum recommendations to improve water quality throughout New Zealand along with looking at resource rentals to ensure that our rivers throughout New Zealand are improved. Thank you very much.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):Tēnā koe e te rangatira Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege and an honour to stand to take a call on the second reading of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. However this bill came in prior to my arrival in Parliament. But along with my colleagues I would like to congratulate the Green Party member Catherine Delahunty on bringing the bill into the House. I would like to remind our colleagues here in the House that CatherineDelahunty’s mahi amongst the Māori communities is extremely well known and the mahi that herwhānau have done too is also extremely well known and very much appreciated and quite revered. So mihi atu ki a koemōtō mahi me te mahi otōwhānau hoki.[So I acknowledge you and your work and that of your family as well.]It is however unfortunate that National will not be supporting this bill. I agree with my colleagues that the support for this bill is not forthcoming on a number of levels and those have been explained and clarified and reinforced by my colleagues. The purpose of the bill is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued to 5 years when a permit to discharge is deemed necessary due to exceptional circumstances. However National knows how important the environment is to all New Zealanders. At present we have a very good working relationship with a number of iwi includingNgāiTahu and Tainui to name just two around this very issue and around the environment and around conservation. Therefore the policies that we currently have in place are very well suited for iwi in order for them to determine and to define what is relevant for them in their contextual areas and in their space and on their rohe.We are also delivering on our promise to make the Resource Management Act a law that better balances environmental protection with economic growth. Streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act is an important part of the Government’s programme. A key factor behind our ongoing Resource Management Act reform is the drive to achieve enduring outcomes while reducing the time cost and uncertainties involved in the process. We know that to be effective because of the feedback that we are getting from many of the iwi around the motu.The Local Government and Environment Committee as we have heard received and considered around 148 submissions from interestedrōpū and individuals as well as three submissions comprising 18 individuals. The committee heard 27 submissions and held hearings inWhakatāne and here in Whanganui-a-Tara—inPōneke. The select committee has examined the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill and as my colleagues have said earlier we recommended that it not be passed. The committee was not persuaded that this bill is the most effective way of improving water quality. Rather initiatives at a national level such as the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 are likely to be more effective vehicles.Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act has been used only a few times and in each case the Environment Court has applied a stringent test and considered time frames. Each case has also involved detailed discussions about what constitutes exceptional circumstances including the following considerations: something “out of the ordinary” or “unusual or not typical” a substantial investment projects that involve a regionally or nationally significant resource projects that out of their nature rely on using a waterway and projects that will contribute to resilience to natural hazards. The committee believed that a shorter duration for exceptional circumstances could adversely affect the ability of companies to raise capital and ensure adequate long-term investment. The Government’s resource management reforms are about ensuring that we manage our resources more effectively and more efficiently to deliver both economic and environmental benefits for future generations.The Government is currently in the second phase of Resource Management Act reform. Addressing whether this particular section needs to be amended should be part of the full well-thought-out Resource Management Act reform package. Section 107(2)(a) which this bill seeks to amend is rarely applied in discharge or coastal permits. There is no evidence that this section is being used inappropriately.Where section 107(2)(a) has been applied there have been only limited instances where permits issued under this section have resulted in appeals to the Environment Court. In each case the Environment Court has applied a rigorous test to validate the exceptional circumstances and reaffirmed conditions of the permits issued to minimise environmental effects. Limiting the time frame for consents issued where section107(2)(a) applies as proposed by this bill would have no effect on current consents. In addition it is not likely to affect many consents in the future given the current limited use of the section.I would also like to just reiterate here for some of our colleagues who come and champion on behalf of iwihapū andwhānau around the motu—could I just emphasise that iwihapū andwhānau are quite capable of championing their own issues their own take and their own kaupapa. We—and I say “we” meaning Māori—are more than capable of championing our own kaupapa within the parameters of legislation. In fact the Environment Court is very well represented by Māori interests. Therefore I think we should be very careful when we put ourselves forward as amāngai of those iwi when in actual fact iwi are quite capable of representing themselves. Therefore I stand to debate this bill; however we do not support this bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next honourable speaker I just wish to advise the House that this is a split call that the Greens have agreed to.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. It is a beautiful 2-hour walk through mixedrātā andpōhutukawa forest from the source of the Tarawera River at Lake Tarawera to the Tarawera Falls. The river has shaped spectacular gorges and deep pools for swimming. Above the falls a torrent of water suddenly disappears underground to re-emerge out of fissures in a 60-metrerhyolite cliff. It creates a very spectacular waterfall. The Tarawera Falls is one of New Zealand’s natural wonders. It is part of a scenic reserve and the water here is clean and clear. You can see to the bottom. From the falls to some distance downstream the Tarawera is all that New Zealand rivers should be: clean clear and beautiful.Closer to the sea at Kawerau the Tarawera is a national disgrace rather than a natural wonder. It is a national disgrace because we continue to allow the Tasman Pulp and Paper mills now operated by Carter Holt Harvey andNorskeSkog Tasman to pollute the river. The mills are responsible for the longest-running industrial pollution in New Zealand. They have turned the river into a “black drain”. Yes it is improving but it is still totally unacceptable and it is what this bill is remedying.The Green Party wants all of our rivers from their sources to the sea to be clean and healthy. We want an economy where businesses use modern technology to reduce their impacts on the environment. There were 148 submissions on this bill; 128 of those supported the bill. Those submitters wanted the river to be cleaned up so people can collect kai so they can swim in the river and so the Tarawera River is returned to its pre-1955 state. The Green Party cares about these places and it cares about people.I am very proud of my colleague Catherine Delahunty for standing beside the community of Kawerau beside NgātiTūwharetoa Ngāti Awa and NgātiRangitihi and working hard for a clean river as well as jobs at the Tasman mills. There is a well-known Māoriwhakataukī: “Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au.”—I am the river; the river is me. Catherine Delahunty lives thatwhakataukī. She came to Parliament to clean up the Tarawera River and this bill is part of her huge mahi for the river and advocating for the community for a clean river.As others have said the bill amends the Resource Management Act to put a 5-year time limit on the term of a coastal permit or a discharge permit that was issued under the exceptional circumstances section in the Act. The Tasman mills have operated in Kawerau for more than 50 years. Section 107(2)(a) was inserted into the Resource Management Act specifically to provide for the discharge. It allows the discharge even if it impacts on fish and other aquatic life and even if it causes a conspicuous change inthe colour of the river. Thanks to section 107(2)(a) in claiming exceptional circumstances the mills have twice got resource consents that allow them to continue the discharge of pulp and paper effluent including organochlorines into the river. The Resource Management Act does not contain any definition of exceptional circumstances. It contains no limit on how long exceptional circumstances can apply. There is no restriction on it being used more than once in relation to the same activity.This bill would apply considerably more certainty by limiting exceptional circumstances to 5 years. That would provide time for a transition and it would provide a strong incentive to consent holders—in this case the Kawerau mills—to reduce their impacts sooner rather than later. The submission ofNorskeSkog Tasman and Carter Holt Harvey was that they were working to improve the colour of their discharge but there is no commitment to doing that in a timely way or to significantly reducing the other impacts of the mills’ discharge. This bill would change that. It is a stand for a clean river. The work of the Land and Water Forum is not going to change the state of the Tarawera. This bill would and that is why it should be passed. Thank you.Catherine Delahunty: Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry—the member has already spoken?Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was there just speaking to the Clerk of the House and I referred this to you too to confirm that Catherine Delahunty could take the second 5 minutes. The Clerk of the House confirmed that that was the case even though she had spoken initially in the debate.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is fine—there is no objection. That is fine. There is no objection to that course of action and of course the House is the master of its own destiny anyway. I call the honourable member Catherine Delahunty.Tēnā koe Ms Delahunty.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I would just like to finish the debate on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill by clearing up a few of the misconceptions and arguments we have heard. One is that I am in any way trying to be amāngai for iwi. This is not about them; this is about the people—particularly Māori but not only Māori—who submitted on the bill in support of me and who have worked so tirelessly since 1955 for a different outcome. That is for whom I am speaking here tonight. I would like to refer to Paul Goldsmith’s uninformed comments on Contact Energy. If he had been aware of what was going on he would know that we negotiated with Contact Energy for a Supplementary Order Paper to protect its right to geothermal discharges but obviously he did not know anything about it. However that is what was about to happen in order to protect its rights to deep-water aquifer discharges. I would also like to talk about the argument that the Resource Management Act is adequate and that hearings have set high standards through Environment Court appeals. A commissioner from the Environment Court who had been involved with some of these river hearings approached me at another hearing and said to me: “Thank goodness for your bill because we did our best but we were incapable of delivering under the law the protection for the river that is needed.” I found that very interesting.However my final comments relate to the debate tonight. I thank people for their kind comments to me personally but this is not about me. This was never about me. This was about the people the river and the rivers across Aotearoa. And I have to say this about the arguments presented: what a load of bollocks. Let us just be completely honest about this for a minute. The parties that want to oppose my bill or want it seriously modified are undermining the future of the rivers because they are worried about upsetting vested interests and losing votes from the business sector or localgovernment leaders who have given up on the environment in exchange for agreeing with everything corporates do. That is the truth of what has happened in Kawerau since 1955. It is corporate blackmail. Since 1955 at Kawerau the companies have always said that if anyone dares to limit their ability to externalise their cost in a serious way they will shut down the mills and the jobs. Again what a lot of disingenuous bollocks. But they have won it every time because people are too scared to stand up to them. Still the Green Party the awesome tangata whenua people who have stood up for the river the environment groups that have cared and the unions that support us will not give up. And just because Parliament has been gutless again those who support us will not give up. We in the Green Party will stand for all rivers. Our connection to water is so intrinsic to our being alive. Our obligation to rivers is not some optional or rhetorical strategy. If the water is healthy and sustained we will be healthy. If it is polluted and degraded so are we.I would like to point out that this debate has indicated the lack of scientific knowledge in a modern context. This is not about whether the river is black or brown—but at the moment it is brown—it is about the invisible and subtle pollution that occurs when resin acids are released from pulp mill effluent when they have been crushed up to make paper and when they have been bleached and they have been put into the river with mill chemicals. If any of the people in this House knew anything about this issue they would know that the synergistic effects of these chemicals are subtle and particularly dangerous in seawater. This is way beyond the understanding of the Environment Court when it never hears from witnesses who know about this but it is also obviously way beyond the MPs from all parties except Mana and the Māori Party which have consistently understood what this bill is about. I would like to thank them very much.I did come to this Parliament to stand up for this bill and I want to honour the commitment and honour the people who came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and told their truth. Whether people attended or not the submissions were available to be read. It is very important for us to remember that people with nil resources have since 1955 through a series of incredible campaigns forced these companies to reduce their pollution. This occurred not only in Kawerau but also in theTaiRāwhiti where section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act was used to allow raw sewage from 40000 people to pollute the bay. I have lived the issues alongside those people. They gave up their time money and hearts to defend this environment. And to talk about the Land and Water Forum and other initiatives has absolutely nothing to do with this and is a convenient excuse for ignoring the reality that virtually everyone in this House except Mana and the Māori Party is unable to support the truth of this which is that rivers are not drains. I would just like to say that this is not over. Kia kaha to all the people who supported this most reasonable and fair piece of legislation and shame on the rest of you who have failed it.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 51New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.Noes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.