Volume 648 Week 81 - Wednesday 30 July 2008 
Volume 648 Week 81 - Wednesday 30 July 2008 
[Volume:648;Page:17529] 
Wednesday 30 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Niue—Premier 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Toke Talagi Premier of Niue is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. I am sure that the House would also wish to welcome members of his delegation present in the gallery. 
The Hon Toke Talagi accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Questions to Ministers 
Endosulfan—Ban 
1. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will he act to ban the toxic insecticide endosulfan which has been prohibited in the European Union but which is still sprayed on tomatoes and other food crops as well as parks and playing fields in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 In order to ban it I would need to call the application in. The application does not meet the test highlighted in Justice Potter’s 2003 decision in the Mothers Against Genetic Engineering case. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that for the second time in 3 years New Zealand’s meat exports to South Korea have been rejected because of contamination with endosulfan residues; and even if his Government is not worried about our children playing in contaminated playing fields and sports fields or eating contaminated food will he not at least use his powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and act to protect our meat export trade and our clean green image? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can confirm that a shipment has been rejected by Korea and that that is an issue. The question is how we deal with the longer-term issue around the use of endosulfan. It is my opinion that the Environmental Risk Management Authority supplemented with expert scientific advice is the appropriate body to make that decision. I think transferring the decision making to a politician risks there being a lack of expert knowledge which was highlighted by the member herself when she called for a ban on water in 2001. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What extra resource has been applied to assist the management of chemical contamination? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government has appropriated $1.158 million extra in this year’s Budget for the Environmental Risk Management Authority of which almost half is to double the number of reassessments per year of chemicals of concern to the public of New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister seen reports that endosulfan has been linked to congenital physical disorders and mental retardation in and deaths of farm workers and villagers in developing countries in Africa southern Asia and Latin America; if so why on earth would his Government allow an insecticide that has been banned or heavily restricted in more than 50 countries around the world to be used on our sports fields on our playing fields on our golf courses on our bowling greens and of course on our food? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member is aware there is a process going on within the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make a decision as to whether this chemical should be more heavily restricted or banned. I am prepared to let the experts take it through that process. As the member is aware she can make a submission on the chemical as can every other New Zealander who wishes to. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that despite the Environmental Risk Management Authority process he actually has powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to override the Environmental Risk Management Authority decision and to intervene as he pointed out himself recently if there is a risk that the big picture as it affects New Zealand at a national and an international level may be insufficiently taken into account; and surely he would agree that the risk that endosulfan poses to our meat trade is sufficiently big picture even if the health of New Zealand is not that he should use his powers to override or call in the Environmental Risk Management Authority decision? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In order to call in the Environmental Risk Management Authority decision I have to indicate that I do not have confidence in that organisation to make that decision properly. I do have confidence in it. 
Foreign Affairs Racing Minister—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for Racing; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: What assurances did the Prime Minister seek and what assurances did she receive from Mr Peters at their meeting yesterday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I sought an assurance of lawful behaviour and I received that assurance. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the standard she now requires of Ministers is simply that they can assure her that they have committed no illegal acts; if not what other requirements does she have of her Ministers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Members would expect me to uphold the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which says that Ministers should behave appropriately and responsibly in their portfolios and generally maintain a good standard of behaviour. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: With regard to the questions about portfolio responsibilities that she has just been asked has she seen a report from Duncan Garner of TV3 that says: “National’s keeping a telephone book of ideas and proposals under wraps” in the hope that “news hacks with attention disorders move on quickly”; if so could this be the reason why National is not asking questions in this House about substantive policy issues? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The first part of the question was all right. As for the second part there is no ministerial responsibility for what other parties think in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is the first part in any way related to the actual question that has been asked which relates to confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister for Racing? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question is a very broad and general one and the supplementary questions tend to follow suit. I call the Rt Hon Prime Minister but ask her not to address the second part of the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I did indeed see the report referred to as I saw a report in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
by Colin James that said that— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just reflecting again on your ruling that the question is broad and supplementary questions tend to be broad etc. The honourable member over there asked a question about a report that Duncan Garner—great reporter that he is—had made on TV3 about some aspects of National Party activity. That can in no way whatsoever relate to this question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Of course if that were so then a very large number of questions that we have had about reports about New Zealand First activity would also be completely out of order. If members care to go back over many questions they have asked they would see that the Prime Minister is expected to be both omniscient and on occasion omnipotent. For her to be asked whether she has seen a report is a perfectly legitimate question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard enough. Thank you I think the member has explained himself well. I have always tended particularly with general substantive questions to allow very broad interpretations for those questions that follow up and are related. If in fact members wish me to have a much narrower interpretation then I will reflect on that and report back to the House. But Mr Brownlee I have ruled on this matter. If you wish to raise a different point of order that is fine; if it is the same point of order it will be taken as challenging the ruling of the Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I won’t do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
John Key 
: If getting an assurance from Mr Peters that he had committed no illegal acts was all that the Prime Minister achieved yesterday in their 1-hour meeting what on earth did they discuss for the other 59 minutes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think that is simply answered: I do not recall the meeting going for an hour. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm the explanation she gave at her press conference on Monday that “As long as Ministers are in their position I retain confidence in them.” and can we take that to mean that the strongest endorsement she can give the Minister of Foreign Affairs is that she has confidence in him because he is there? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will get caught up in his own tautology if he is not careful. It is perfectly self-evident that if a Minister is in the job I have confidence in that Minister. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she intends to apply the same test to Mr Peters as she applied to David Benson-Pope—that is when she said: “it’s not enough just to be capable you’ve got to be credible.”; and will she confirm that she finds all of the statements made by Mr Peters in the last week to be credible? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Certainly a lot more of them have been credible than the ones I have heard from that member who has taken every side of every issue. But I can say in respect of the comparison that the member is trying to draw that of course the issue of credibility I was drawing attention to in the case of the aforementioned member was one where I had been told one thing and another turned out to be the truth. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek the leave of the House under Standing Order 4(1) to suspend Standing Orders so that I can put a question to the leader of the National Party asking him to itemise every donation the National Party has received from secret trusts and how the National Party and its allies used that money. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Use Napisan. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Minister of Education— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would the member please— 
Rodney Hide 
: —has to be the saddest— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please Mr Hide be seated otherwise I will ask you to leave the Chamber. I was trying to ensure that the member could ask his question so I will ask that his question be heard in silence. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you Madam Speaker I appreciate that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you just ask the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the standard she has applied to the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ staying on as Minister is the same standard that she would apply to her own Labour Ministers; if so have her own high standards now slipped so low that it is simply enough for John Tamihere David Benson-Pope or Lianne Dalziel—any number of Ministers—to assure her that they have not broken the law? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can assure the member that I will give each case fair consideration on its merits. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are there any more supplementary questions? I will call question No. 3. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That surely cannot be it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. If we have any more of those sorts of points of profile I will consider them to be creating disorder in the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It might help the member if I tell him that that certainly is not it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Please be seated. The same applies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Perhaps we should seek leave to suspend the proceedings of the House using the same procedure Mr Anderton just asked for to allow Mr Peters to actually give the explanations to the House that he has been promising for some days now. He told everyone that today would be the day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A member cannot seek leave on behalf of another person; that is long since established. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We have a competition here. I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters was marginally on his feet first. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It goes on seniority Gerry and brains—sit down. I gave a press conference last Friday. I recommend you read what I said Madam Speaker as opposed to what those people up there in the press gallery thought I said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows members should not bring the Speaker into the debate or the discussion. There is a general debate where these matters can be fully expressed in the appropriate way. This is question time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I was unable to seek leave because you accepted Michael Cullen’s offering in his point of order why did you put Mr Anderton’s leave which was also an expression of the House’s will? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Anderton sought leave himself to ask a question. 
Rodney Hide 
: In which case I seek the leave of the House to explain what has been happening to money for New Zealand First and the shenanigans that have been going on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
1080 Poison—Review 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Will she undertake a comprehensive review of her department’s use of aerial 1080 drops following the news that seven kea have died after eating that deadly poison? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am advised that the Department of Conservation constantly reviews its biodiversity operations to take account of new information and improve the overall outcomes. The reason that we know about these kea deaths is because the Department of Conservation initiated research to see whether there was a problem. Now we are considering what adjustments can be made accordingly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that the killing of endangered and protected native birds is always illegal in New Zealand and does she expect her department to face charges or is it the case that the Department of Conservation now considers itself above the law? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: No deaths occurred intentionally. Deaths occurred in only one of three areas under this operation which affected only one population of kea. Kea are rare but are not critically threatened with extinction. We have to conduct pest control operations if we want to boost their numbers. Doing nothing is not an option. 
Moana Mackey 
: Are kea threatened by the pests being targeted in 1080 operations? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: A recent study showed that in an area that had not been subjected to any pest control the chicks and the eggs in 40 percent of kea nests were eaten by predators; 1080 operations kill possums and stoats both of which are predators of kea. 
Eric Roy 
: How can the public possibly have any confidence in the Minister and the Department of Conservation when in one week its officers shot a takahe mistaking it for a pukeko and in the next week we learnt that seven kea were killed in a botched poisoning operation? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: In reference to the first part of the question the Department of Conservation staff are devastated by the outcome of that experience and I reject the assertion of that member opposite. He was in a party that did nothing for 10 years about 1080 poison. If those members think that they knew those risks why did that member not speak to his Minister at the time and say that that operation should have been stopped? They did nothing because they knew the benefits. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister know of any viable option to 1080 in the control of possums in our forests? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: There are other options like bait controls on the ground with traps but the difficulty is that when there is difficult terrain—high mountainous terrain—people cannot be expected to get up there and put out traps. So 1080 is the only real option. Farmers know the benefits because of tuberculosis control. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: With reports that the water supplies of areas like Kumara on the West Coast and Levin are being threatened by aerial use of 1080 and with reports today that avian genocide of kea is now occurring as a result of indiscriminate 1080 drops what will it take for the Minister and her department to review the policy of aerial distribution of 1080 in favour of more ground-based and safer distribution? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I would not call the deaths of seven out of 29 kea in a survey genocide at all but it is of concern. We have to learn from our own research carried out by our own department. As to the water aspect of that question we know that 1080 breaks down once it is mixed with water. That is why no levels of 1080 beyond acceptable minimum levels have ever been found in drinking water. If we could find another option that was better than 1080 poison of course we would use it yet only last year the Environmental Risk Management Authority concluded that it was the best agent to use for pest control. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that the labelling of 1080 states: “May be fatal. Repeated oral exposure may cause reproductive or developmental damage.” and that some pregnant women feel forced to leave their homes—as recently happened in Karamea—and is it not time to bring an end to the aerial application of this deadly poison in favour of alternative ways of controlling possums stoats and weasels? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I would like to refer the member to my previous answers; I think his questions have all been answered. I reiterate that it was only last year in 2007 that the Environmental Risk Management Authority review concluded that the benefits of 1080 outweigh the risks including those of aerial operations. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave of the House to table the labelling that is contained on a 1080 container. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave of the House to table a paper by Clare St Pierre of the Waikato concerning alternative pest control methods that avoid 1080 at a cheaper cost. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electioneering—Government Departments 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement “Government departments are there to inform the public legitimately about what programmes are available for them. They are not there to electioneer on behalf of any political party.”; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was the Minister advised that after an investigation by the State Services Commission Commissioner Iain Rennie as recently as 10 July 2008 had to send out a memo to the chief executives of 120 State agencies telling them that the use of the term “Labour-led Government” in departmental material and on websites was not appropriate under the Electoral Finance Act; and was this the Government’s intention when it passed the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am aware that the State Services Commission has sent out guidance to its various agencies on a number of occasions including on 10 July. All of that information has been made available to the National Party in the interests of transparency I suspect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why when the legal advice on this matter was so clear the Minister of Finance left the term out of all the Budget material but the State Services Commission has found 13600 uses of the term “Labour-led Government” on Government department websites; and can she explain how this phrase which is extensively used by the Labour Party has found its way into departmental material when the legal advice was so clear that it was not allowed to appear in the Budget? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Why do I not actually read out the advice that the member refers to so that we can all be clear of its nature. 
Hon Members 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Are the members all right? The State Services Commission stated that “each situation needs to be examined by content”. It stated: “In general referring to the political composition of the Government of the day e.g. Labour-led will not be relevant or appropriate to include on websites.” It also stated: “In addition reference to the policies of a political party will usually not be appropriate.” etc. In other words they are guidelines and I hope that they are well followed. 
Hon Bill English 
: So can the Minister confirm that despite the State Services Commission advising 120 agencies that the use of the term “Labour-led Government” is not appropriate to use its words it has been used 13600 times on taxpayer-funded websites; if this is a breach of section 67 of the Electoral Finance Act which bars the publication of electoral advertisements by Government departments is she concerned that this law appears to be being breached so widely? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is of the view that somehow there is a brightline here and what I have tried to do in my response is to indicate that the State Services Commission has said that each situation needs to be managed by content. If it has gone on to say that it would not be relevant or appropriate to include that term on agencies’ websites then one assumes that as times goes by the agencies will take them all off. One thing is clear: they will not need to take off the words “National-led Government” because we have not had one of those for a while and we will not in my view for a while yet. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that Government departments appear to be ignoring the advice from the State Services Commission does that account for the fact that the Department of Internal Affairs through Ministerial Services is publishing these unauthorised election advertisements which were distributed by Labour MPs as recently as Monday containing not only the phrase “Labour-led Government” but also “two ticks”—which is definitely an electoral advertisement— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Bill English 
: —and which were published by the office of the Prime Minister; and can the Minister explain why this should be allowed to proceed under the law that was passed by the Minister and pushed by her Government to stop exactly this sort of activity? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It kind of goes without saying that I do not know about the piece of paper that the member is holding up. What I will say is that when that member was the leader of the National Party two ticks was just about a landslide. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the State Services Commissioner has told State agencies not to use the term “Labour-led Government” that the Minister of Finance and Treasury are the only people who have taken any notice of that direction because they did not put it in the Budget that despite that advice the term appears 13600 times on websites that are fully taxpayer-funded and that the term also appears in an advertisement produced by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet this week and that therefore the Labour Party is using Ministerial Services’ money to break its own law? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have been asked to confirm either four or five things. The first of them I confirmed in my answer to the first supplementary question. The third is a piece of data that comes from the member who asked the question and I am certainly not confirming that because he normally does not get his facts right. As for the bits in between I have forgotten what they were. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the results of a State Services Commission search of Government websites that record 13600 examples. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table 10 blanked pages which is the legal advice given to the State Services Commission on which it bases its direction to departments not to use the term “Labour-led Government”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Infrastructure—Reports 
5.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has he received on investment in health infrastructure? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Today I announced the approval of an $80 million revamp for Taranaki Base Hospital. This revamp is the latest in a large hospital development and rebuilding programme—the largest in New Zealand’s history. Since Labour took office seven new hospitals have been built and eight have had major upgrades. Ten specialist facilities have been built three more redevelopment projects are almost complete and a further four major capital projects have been approved and are under way. What a great Labour-led Government! 
Lesley Soper 
: How does spending on hospital capital upgrades under the current Labour-led Government’s tenure compare with the spending under previous administrations? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is more than three times the previous National Government spend. Over $1.5 billion has been invested in 33 building projects that will benefit patients from Kaitaia to the deep south including a major rebuild of Auckland Hospital a new base hospital for Invercargill a new base hospital in the Wairarapa a new women’s hospital in Christchurch a new hospital in South Taranaki a new hospital in central Otago the new Horowhenua health centre—the list could go on and on. How about the National Party fronting up and revealing its secret phone book - sized agenda for health so that the public can compare the difference? 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: When will the Minister deliver on the Government’s broken promise to rebuild and replace ward 27 Wellington’s inadequate and outdated psychiatric unit and how many more suicides in the community will there be before this Minister stops bragging and takes action? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government has invested significantly in mental health facilities around the country including the new facilities in the region of the member’s own district health board—the Waitemata District Health Board. The decisions about the Wellington-based hospital are a matter for the Capital and Coast District Health Board. 
Effective Interventions Package—Operation 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by the statements of the Prime Minister when launching the Effective Interventions package in 2006 that it was designed to “address the fast growing rate of imprisonment New Zealand has been experiencing” and to “make our communities safer”? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes; although if the member had quoted the Prime Minister in full he would have seen that she actually addressed the issue of how some offenders are sentenced and how some serve their sentences. One way of ensuring that our communities are safer is to have the most serious criminals in prison for longer. For example the non-parole period for aggravated murder now starts at 17 years rather than 10 years as it was under a National Government. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the initiatives to save prison beds was the use of electronic bail for those accused who had been denied ordinary bail and that it was expected to be granted to upwards of 1000 defendants per annum in order to save 120 prison beds a year; and can she confirm that after the first year only 99 applications have been granted saving just 26 beds? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot confirm the precise details but I can confirm that what the member says in general is true—that people are using electronic bail. But that is a judicial decision made in the light of the circumstances by those who are best placed to make those decisions. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm the contents of a briefing paper for justice sector chief executives which states that initial estimates for saving 120 beds by the use of electronic bail were “optimistic” because over two-thirds of those remanded are lower-level offenders who do not spend long enough in custody for them to realistically apply for e-bail meaning that “most defendants placed on EM-bail thus far have been facing lengthy remands on often serious charges”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot confirm that from off the top of my head. 
Simon Power 
: How can electronic bail “make our communities safer” when officials concede that it is primarily being used to release those accused of serious charges back into the community; and does not that explain why one in five have breached electronic bail such as the accused paedophile who while on e-bail allegedly held birthday parties and sleepovers for preschool children and why over one in 10 have simply run away? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I make the point to the member that defendants are innocent until proven guilty and that defendants being assessed for bail have to be assessed as to whether they are a real and significant risk. Those decisions are made by the judiciary. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the electronic bail scheme cost $5 million to set up and costs $3.2 million a year to run all to save 26 prison beds yet keeping those offenders in prison would have cost $2.4 million a year would have avoided putting public safety at risk and also would have saved the taxpayer nearly $1 million? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can explain to the member that putting people in prison even for a short term means there is a much higher risk of those people committing offences when they come out. People who serve a community-based sentence or who are kept out of prison are at a much lower risk of committing further offences. What does the member want—people put in prison for a long period of time and therefore a higher risk of their committing offences when they come out? 
Ron Mark 
: Why should the country be at all concerned about the fast-growing rate of imprisonment that New Zealand is experiencing; why should we care; why should we not just lock more people up? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because in terms of non-custodial sentences it is quite clear from the Department of Corrections’ figures that approximately 32 percent of those serving community-based sentences reoffend within 12 months compared with 44 percent of those who serve short-term prison sentences. The whole point of this scheme is that by keeping people out of jail for short periods of time we run a much lower risk that they will reoffend. Less reoffending means fewer victims of crime. What does the member want—more people in prison more reoffending more victims? 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree that Ministry of Justice officials were right when they warned that targeting electronic bail at those already refused bail “conflicts with the fact that such defendants are more likely to have characteristics or criminal histories that would make them unsuitable for release on bail with electronic monitoring”; if so why was Phil Goff rolled when he recommended to Cabinet in March 2005 that “I do not propose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail be reconsidered at this time.”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Coming back to the bail point I re-emphasise for the member that people are innocent until proven guilty and that in assessing risk one has to be sure that a person is not a real and significant risk. In the recent decision on bail one of the judges said there was a “need for a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork …”. Electronic bail has worked very well. 
Ron Mark 
: In view of the answer to my previous supplementary question has the Minister seen reports that show that 85 percent of all inmates paroled are back inside within 5 years that the cost of violence currently stands at $3.14 billion—and that excludes the personal cost to the victims affected—and that the cost of crime in general on our streets is now $10.33 billion although the cost of maintaining prisons is only $1.05 billion; if she has seen those reports why has she not come to the same conclusion as New Zealand First that it is far safer and far more cost-effective to lock them up? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I think we are hearing a new policy from New Zealand First which is that the moment someone is convicted that person is locked up and he or she will never get bail will never be released and will spend his or her whole life in prison. That of course means that that person will not have any chance to reoffend. At those rates the prison numbers would swell dramatically. Let us face it: people commit crimes they are sentenced and they go to jail. What we have found is that for people serving short-term sentences the risk of reoffending is much higher than for people serving community-based sentences. What this Government has done for serious offenders is to provide for longer prison sentences and we see people being sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment before they can apply for bail. We have got tough on those tougher crimes. 
Question time interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday I took offence at accusations made in this House by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that were designed to discredit my integrity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member presumably is raising a point of order? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Yes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please get to the point. It sounds like you are seeking leave for a personal statement. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: No I am not—one and a half sentences and we will be there. I did disprove those allegations by tabling documents— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a personal statement. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Madam Speaker I am going to request something of you right now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please request it and then explain what it is so that we have it in context. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: The allegations caused me great offence. I ask that you require Winston Peters to withdraw and apologise for those allegations. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member well knows that that should have been requested at the time. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have already ruled on it Mr Jones. You are a bit late. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First let me inform the House that it was quite unclear what Mr Peters was alleging yesterday during question time. Subsequent to question time after getting hold of a transcript from the television service it became clear exactly what Mr Peters had said. At that point a staff member from the National Party circulated material in the gallery to make it abundantly clear that Mr Peters had got it wrong. Mr Foss has just returned to the capital having been away from Wellington. This is his first opportunity to raise this matter. I do not think it is unreasonable—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Let Mr Brownlee finish in silence please. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not think it is unreasonable that he makes a request of you to require Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise for the allegations that he made which were totally untrue. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 In the first instance Mr Foss was given leave yesterday to make a personal explanation which he did. Mr Brownlee seems to be unaware of that fact. In the second instance Mr Foss is wrong in what he has been saying because I have in front of me a Companies Office search for Cynotech Holdings Ltd that indicates that Craig Foss is the holder of 2524750 shares. Further along in this Companies Office record there is reference to three people who held shares and that might suggest that those three people were trustees. That is the usual way in which one implies that there might be a trust. But as it stands on the Companies Office register the Rt Hon Winston Peters is absolutely correct. There is only one person who holds the shares and there is no indication that those shares are being held on the part of a trust. Of course the Companies Office register does not say that one is a trustee of a trust. So all we need from Mr Foss is an explanation to say that he is the sole trustee of this trust and that he has a beneficial interest in this trust and then the matter would be at an end. As it stands there is clearly an ambiguity. I would just ask Mr Foss to clarify that he is the trustee of this trust because we know that trusts are not disclosed on the Companies Office register. That would end the matter. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I took offence at the allegations made yesterday. I refuted them yesterday in a personal statement made when I tabled a document in the House. I am still offended by the allegations made yesterday Madam Speaker. I ask that you require the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member has got himself into a bit of difficulty now because if he made a personal statement yesterday and was seeking an apology he should have sought it from Mr Peters straight away. He should not come back into the House now—in the middle of question time—and raise another point of order. Apparently in the light of recent discussion he was in fact using a trust to cover his owning 2.5 million shares—not an insignificant amount. We have had very many accusations flying across this House over the last week or two about things being held in trusts. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The allegations that I made went with the documents and Mr Dail Jones has clearly explained what those documents say. We are prepared to give Mr Foss a chance to clear up the ambiguity referred to but he does not want to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will take Mr Brownlee’s point of order then I will rule. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 If New Zealand First members are so clever at working out for themselves Mr Foss’s arrangements around these matters and my noting also that Mr Foss did make a declaration on his pecuniary interests register why do they know so little about themselves? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on the matter but I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 19/3. I think it is important that if members take offence that fact is raised at the time. That Speaker’s ruling states that it must be raised at the time. If a member is not present in the House that is too bad; the House cannot go back to the matter just because a member was not present. As was also pointed out however the member did have the opportunity to make a personal statement and made it. I remind members that the general debate is coming up after question time and members may wish to raise these matters then. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the first two pages of a Companies Office search for Cynotech Holdings Ltd. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I need to call to your attention our observation that when Mr Foss first attempted to raise this matter you stopped him mid-sentence on at least two occasions inside a minute. But Mr Jones who completely ignored the convention that one does not go back over matters raised in a personal statement was allowed to drone on for quite some time without any interruption whatsoever. In fact it was only when an interjection was made during the point of order that he finally shut up. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Clearly what Mr Jones was referring to was the nature of the allegations made about what Mr Peters was supposed to have said. He was presenting documentary evidence to support Mr Peters’ claims; he was not in fact questioning the statement made by Mr Foss. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that the problem arose because Mr Foss did not stand and say “Point of order.”; he just launched forth on what sounded like a personal statement. I think we all learn from this kind of experience. I have referred members to the Speaker’s ruling and I have ruled on the matter consistent with it. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document that outlines the major shareholding of Cynotech Holdings Ltd. It is its annual report 2004 which lists the members of the Foss Family Trust as shareholders—a publicly listed company. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Disabled Students—Learning Needs 
7.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he aware that the IHC has taken a complaint to the Human Rights Commission claiming that Government action creates barriers to disabled students learning on the same basis as other students and how can such action occur when the Education Act 1989 requires that people who have special educational needs have the same rights to enrol and receive education in State schools as people who do not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. I have received a letter from the IHC advising me that it intends to lodge a complaint under Part 1A of the Human Rights Act 1993. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What response has the Minister made to the report  
Human Rights in New Zealand Today 
:  
Nga Tika Tangata O Te Motu 
 which found that the participation and achievement levels of some groups such as disabled children and young people are not known? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Ministry of Education is working with me at the moment on guidelines for boards of trustees and principals to ensure that every child has access to his or her neighbourhood school. The Labour-led Government put out our New Zealand Disability Strategy in 2001 which focused very much on ensuring that children have the right to go to their neighbourhood school. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that all students with disabilities can access educational opportunities that meet their needs? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In 2007 and 2008 the Government will invest $437 million in special education services which include school transport assistance targeted funding for special needs specialist teaching positions and school property modification for students with special needs. The Ministry of Education and the IHC will work together in mediation before the Human Rights Commission should the letter be lodged to identify those areas where the system needs to be improved. I assure the House again that the Government is absolutely committed to seeing that children can go to their neighbourhood school. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: In the light of the Minister’s last answer what action has he taken following last year’s submission from the Inclusive Education Action Group which advised him that disabled children and their families continued to experience discrimination and a second-rate education at school forcing some disabled children to move back to more segregated settings as a result of ineffective educational practices that do not meet the challenges of inclusion? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have twice met personally with the IHC to discuss those matters. I have directed ministry officials to work on legislation that we hope to bring to the House that will give greater clarity and guidance to boards of trustees about how they can ensure that children have access to their school if they live in their school’s area. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question referred to action regarding the conditions for intellectually handicapped children within open mainstream schools not to the meetings that the Minister has had. So could he respond to that question please. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I was trying to assure the member that we are taking very concrete actions. I laid out in one of my previous answers the work we are doing in providing teacher-aide support and physical modification of schools for children with disabilities. We are also looking at transport. Many of the students whom the member refers to are not able to travel on public transport so they are provided with special transport. What is most important is that we give guidance and advice to boards of trustees and principals about the necessity of making sure that their school is accessible to all of the students in the area. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What work plans has the Ministry of Education introduced to implement the New Zealand Disability Strategy—Making a World of Difference: Whakanui Oranga—with the objective to promote the participation of disabled Maori? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have made reference to the $437 million of special education funding that is currently going into our education system to ensure that the very point the member is making is addressed: that students with disabilities have access to the public education system. 
Truancy—Increase 
8.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Can he confirm that the truancy rate increased from 2.9 percent in 2002 to 4.1 percent in 2006 according to the Ministry of Education’s attendance absence and truancy reports; if so what are the reasons for this 41 percent increase in the truancy rate? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I can confirm those figures but I would like to remind that member and make clear to the House that had she read the document carefully she would have seen that it explains in very clear terms that taking a snapshot of a particular time period in the education system can distort the figures totally with the circumstances often compounded by particular events that are happening—weather conditions and so on. We are moving towards an electronic system now in place in every school in New Zealand which will give us an accurate account for the very first time of just how many students are truanting. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it that despite truancy increasing by 41 percent since 2002 under Labour we still have a Minister running a Ministry of Education who does not know how many front-line district truancy officers are actually out there dealing with truancy around New Zealand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Why does that member never listen to the answers; she just follows her script in front of her. As I explained a few minutes ago taking a snapshot year by year of how many students are away in a particular week is not an accurate way of reading truancy. In 2006 for example which the member makes reference to we had the tangi of the Maori Queen in that particular week and we also had a severe storm experience in Dunedin. Those events naturally distorted the number of students who were in school in that particular week. We are moving towards an electronic system. ENROL our new electronic system is now in every school. At the end of this year we will know for the very first time how many students have been away from New Zealand schools. We have invested an enormous amount of money in truancy support services. The member of course never gives any credit for that. All she does is read her script prepared by the National Party research unit. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like just to address the question of the number of truancy officers which was—I think—the substance of the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We have 89 district truancy services contracted to work in each of our territorial authorities. We have another six staff at the ministry who provide special support for schools. 
Hon Member 
: “Wassup!” Minister? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would like to say that what is up in our schools is that we are dealing with truancy. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What steps is the Government taking to ensure secondary students are more engaged in education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Very concrete steps have been taken. We have done a complete review of district truancy services and school-to-work programmes like Gateway and Youth Apprenticeships have come into our schools to engage students in learning. The Schools Plus programme announced by the Prime Minister in February involves fundamental changes in secondary education. This revolution in schooling includes developing a much wider range of pathways to keep students engaged and achieving for longer. It will create stronger partnerships between schools and their communities and provide better support for at-risk students. National’s answer might be boot camps; ours is education. 
Dail Jones 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is absolutely vital to reduce the truancy rate of students using all means possible because these truants tend to turn up in New Zealand prisons as inmates as early as their mid-teens at a cost of $80000 per annum each to the taxpayer? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can absolutely confirm that. We need to invest in services that provide support to schools students and their families to keep students in education; and we have to develop an educational programme and system for the 21stcentury that engages students in learning. Boot camps are not the answer; innovative interesting and effective programmes are. 
Anne Tolley 
: Is the Minister honestly telling the House that this Labour-led Government is fighting a 41 percent increase in truancy and spending $4.3 million on district truancy services every year yet he cannot tell us how many truancy officers are on the front line fighting truancy and he cannot give any indication as to how well the district truancy services are doing their jobs because they do not have to report against any performance measurement? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I thought I had already told the House how many truancy personnel we have out there. We have 89 groups contracted to our territorial authorities we have six officials at the ministry who are dealing with case by case support for schools we have put $2 million into the schools with the greatest risk of truancy and we invest $4.5 million a year in district truancy services. Why does the member never listen to answers? 
Anne Tolley 
: What sort of responsible Minister has truancy increasing in his own electorate but still does not require schools to report to the ministry the number of prosecutions they carry out each year which means that nobody knows how many prosecutions in total are taken against parents of truant children? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Prosecutions for truancy are the responsibility of boards of trustees. Look truancy is a serious business. That is why we did a complete review of the services that is why $4.5 million a year every year goes into district truancy services and that is why we have invested $2 million more in the most at-risk schools. We have the Student Engagement Initiative running in 100 schools for $1.8 million a year we have six full-time staff at the ministry working on this we have the electronic attendance register now in many schools so that we know instantly every day how many students are there and we have the $6.4 million ENROL scheme. What more does the member want? Truancy is a serious business; we are taking it seriously and we are doing something about it. Her party just wants to set up boot camps—that will really encourage kids to go to school! 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it that the Minister’s predecessor mused about raising fines for parents of truant children at the beginning of last year and the Minister himself said in December last year that we should look into this yet the Ministry of Education told the Education and Science Committee that there are no plans whatsoever to change the law and raise the fines from the ridiculously low level of a maximum of $400 for parents who allow their children to skip school repeatedly? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We will bring an education amendment bill into the House in August. Let us hope that that member and her party support it because it will address a whole range of issues primarily about making the school system more effective and engaging for students’ success. I remind the House again that we have done a full review of truancy services and we have brought in all sorts of programmes systems and resources to try to deal with the problem. We believe in actually doing something about the problem not giving out slogans like “Boot camps will solve truancy.” 
Anne Tolley 
: How does his ministry plan to reduce truancy by 20 percent over the next 5 years when although the Minister seems to know how many people are working on it in the ministry he does not actually know how many people are out there on the front line in the offices—that is the number of officers fighting truancy—does not know how well they are performing and does not know how many prosecutions any or all schools throughout New Zealand are undertaking and one can get a larger fine for littering in some areas than for allowing one’s children to repeatedly miss school? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I do know is that this Government has invested $4.5 million in district truancy services which are working in every territorial authority in the country; we have put $2 million aside for extra staff to work in the most at-risk schools; we have the Student Engagement Initiative running in 100 different secondary schools in the country; we have six full-time staff at the ministry working with those schools; we have the electronic attendance register going in schools so that we know on a daily basis whether the students are there; and we have set up for the first time ever an electronic system called ENROL which every school in New Zealand is now on. Why cannot the member just give us some credit for the actions we have taken? All she and her party have come up with is boot camps for naughty kids. 
Ron Mark 
: Why is the Minister speaking in such derogatory terms about military-style training for young people when currently Judge Becroft is hailing as a success the Youth Quest operation which is run along military lines in Paraparaumu; when Graeme Dingle who received so much funding from the Ministry of Social Development has been asked by the ministry to assist in establishing further such programmes; when the Canterbury Youth Development Corporation is working with the Ministry of Social Development right now to set up another military-style training facility in the South Island; and when I have just heard recently of another one being proposed in Auckland? Why is this Minister the only one out of all the Ministers who seems to have such a derogatory and negative view of the Limited Service Volunteers scheme and all the good work his people are doing out there in the community? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The initiatives the member has just raised are all excellent initiatives. Indeed in my own electorate of Te Atatu Kelston Boys High School runs a really good service academy. These are opportunities that students opt into. The sorts of students we are talking about here are opting out of school. These students are disengaged from learning; they have not chosen to go into the opportunities that the member raises. To drag those kids off the street and throw them into a boot camp as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested will not engage them in learning. We are talking about opportunities that capture the attention and interest of young people rather than punishing them. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table information that shows that Judge Becroft actually used Youth Quest as a sentencing option— 
Document not tabled. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table answers to written questions from May showing that the Minister of Education does not know the number of truancy officers who are currently employed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question showing that district truancy officers do not have to report against any performance indicators. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table answers to estimates questions showing that the Ministry of Education does not have any plans to change— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I would like to take the House back to question No. 4. I remind the House that the Hon Bill English tabled a thing with two ticks on it. I now have this thing and wish to table it myself noting in passing that it was produced in 2005. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Of course that does not make any difference. It is the distribution of it in 2008 under the current electoral finance law that makes it illegal. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the reply to a written question showing that the Minister admits that he does not know the number of prosecutions that schools are making for truancy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Employment Relations—Reports 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has he received on employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report showing that under a Labour-led Government incomes for New Zealand’s lowest paid have gone up by 71 percent—more than four times what they went up in 9 years under the former National Government. I also note that the increase in the minimum wage was opposed by the National Party. The report further states that since 2002 130000 parents have taken advantage of paid parental leave—again opposed by the National Party—millions of working Kiwis now have 4 weeks’ leave a year which is something that John Key has promised to abolish and the real incomes of New Zealanders have increased by 25 percent since 2000. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other reports has the Minister received about employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen recent reports that show the National Party in a partly secret agenda would review the Holidays Act especially the issue of relevant daily pay—even though Kate Wilkinson has said that would result in a reduction of pay for sick people—and that it would introduce “fire at will”. The National Party will not spell out all of the details of its secret agenda but it is plain to see who is to be trusted. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports about employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have seen an enormous debate and it goes to the length of the secret agenda. Yesterday Colin James reported that John Key said the agenda had 34 pages but yesterday John Key’s media people were running around the press gallery telling members of the press that it was only 14 pages. So what is the debate? Was there really a 34-page secret agenda which has now been edited down to 14 or was it just another case of John Key getting the details wrong again? The related question is why he was so scared to have the media at his Orewa speech. Was he outlining the secret agenda again or is he just generally a chicken? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is out of order. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very difficult to hear. Does the member take offence? [ 
Interruption 
] Would the Minister please withdraw his last reference. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Mapua Site—Contamination Clean-up 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he satisfied with the Government’s management of the chemically contaminated site at Mapua noting yesterday’s critical report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 As the House is aware I have very high standards and there is always room for improvement in the ministry’s performance. However if we look at the “before” picture and the “after” picture I think people would agree that significant progress was made at Mapua. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Government accept responsibility for this botched clean-up at Mapua noting that it was meant to take 18 months but took over 3 years that it was meant to cost $6 million but ended up costing over $12 million that the consents held by the Ministry for the Environment were breached and that there are ongoing pollution issues around contamination by both mercury and copper? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In answering that question I think one has to point to Dr Smith and ask him whether he supports the clean-up because he voted against the funding for it just as he voted against the funding to clean up the Tui mine and the Waiwhetu Stream. One has to ask whether the National Party has a secret agenda on contamination as well and that it is just to keep it all dirty. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought that this was question time where we asked questions of Ministers. The Minister chose to ask questions back and not to address the fundamental question which was very simple and asked whether the Government accepts responsibility for the failings identified by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Would the Minister like to address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are at least four reports yet to come: one Occupational Safety and Health Service report one report from the Ministry of Health a final validation report and a final report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment which has not yet been received. When those reports are received they will be considered by the Government and we will consider action as a result. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Could the Minister explain why the Mapua toxic site was left to contaminate the local environment without any attempt to remediate the problem under 9 years of a National Government while Nick Smith was MP for Tasman was Minister of Conservation and did nothing about it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report which states the decision to proceed with the clean-up was made in 1999 by me as a member of Cabinet. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I entirely agree with the member. There was a useless member for Tasman who could not convince the Government to spend the money— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows the Standing Orders and in future would he please just address the question without his superfluous comments particularly adjectives. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister’s ministry allow releases of DDT Lindane nitrate and ammonia nitrogen in excess of the limits in the resource consent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is some validation work to occur to see whether that happened at all and I think— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The parliamentary commissioner said yes it did. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the parliamentary commissioner suggested that it might have happened. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister think that the Ministry for the Environment should have advised that there was a conflict of interest in that the council that owned the land and stood to benefit from maximising the value of the land by cleaning it up to residential standards was also a decision maker as to whether it should be cleaned up to those standards—a process that increased the risk that the toxins would simply be transferred from the soil to the air and the water as it appears they probably were? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that it is even more complicated than that in that the local authority was the original applicant for the original consent. It is fair to say that this was more of a rescue mission on the part of the Ministry for the Environment. I think that it is something that could have been better managed right from the beginning. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What is his response to the president of the Mapua and Districts Community Association which accuses the Government of using residents as guinea pigs and a concerned neighbour of the contaminated site Annette Walker who trusted the Government to carry out the clean-up properly but says they have been betrayed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will supply both those people with the final reports when they are available. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To the—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I know that Minister has gone. This is the death of him. He is gone. Chris will be happy to take Damien’s job; this is the final nail in Damien’s coffin! What action will be taken in respect of the breach by the Ministry for the Environment of the resource consent by the adding of over 13 tonnes of copper sulphate to this fragile estuarine environment; if no action is taken what signal does this send regarding compliance with resource consents? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is an allegation that has been made and it is something that will be considered— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The PCE concluded. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has a report that is effectively an interim one which will be considered when it is finalised. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister approve of the resource consent being held by the ministry— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Because you’re hopeless. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: You did nothing. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We know that those guys have goofed. We know the community is angry. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is right. Oh so the Government is proud of Mapua? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes? My question to the Minister— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I think he’s going to blow. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is there a question? They are so embarrassed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I think they are a bit sensitive. Why did the Minister approve of the resource consent being held by the ministry when as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment concludes this resulted in a clear conflict of interest and put the local council into the impossible position of not being able to take enforcement action against breaches of the resource consent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I submit to the House that it is less of a conflict than it was originally when the local council was the organisation that held the consent. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister confirm that the outgoing Minister of Conservation in 1999 made a beeline to the incoming Labour Minister for the Environment in that year and advised her to halve the costs of the funding that was available in order to make sure the clean-up of Mapua could take place and that that former Minister was Dr Nick Smith? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I was right. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Dr Nick Smith claims that he was right. I find it hard to believe that any member of Parliament would be that stupid. 
Electricity Transmission—Investment 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports has he received on investment in electricity transmission? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Transpower reports that it will spend $450 million this year on grid improvements. That is part of the $3.5 billion of investment in electricity transmission projects due in the coming years. It is on top of the billions of dollars that generators will spend on new renewable projects. Transpower says that investment in electricity generation and transmission infrastructure is on a scale that this country has not seen for 30 years. Under a Labour-led Government electricity security margins continue to improve. 
Dave Hereora 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the Waikato to Auckland transmission project which all of those in the industry agree is necessary? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen an email which I will seek leave to table at the end of this question reporting on a meeting between a member of this House and the Waikato lobby group opposed to Transpower’s new pylons through to Auckland. This member has been telling the lobby group—and this is a quote from the email report of the meeting—“The only way to stop the pylons going ahead is to change the Government.” He has not said that to Aucklanders who know that the project is needed to ensure Auckland’s security of supply. It is a case of one story for Waikato voters and another story for Auckland voters—different stories for different audiences. The member is well known for telling people what they want to hear: it is Mr John Key. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister read the recent report by the Electricity Commission entitled  
Market Design Review—Options Paper 
; if he has how does he react to its stating in essence that network charges have remained relatively static since 1999 but in contrast the energy component of customers’ bills has been rising sharply with the largest increase being felt by residential users? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I first respond by thanking the member for that question. I am surprised that it has not been raised earlier by other members because as I said at the select committee I think it is a very proper concern to raise. I am concerned about prices and I am particularly concerned about the matter that the member referred to which is the ever-widening gap between residential and industrial prices. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that he just told the House that security of electricity supply has improved under a Labour Government even though we have had 4 years of very tight supply in the period that Labour has been in Government; can he further explain why there has been a 48 percent price rise for domestic consumers over the last 5 years; and given his previous answer to Mr Brown what does he intend doing about it? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of security margins there is absolutely no doubt that security margins are improving year by year. Indeed I would note that the worst electricity disaster in the last couple of decades was during the time of the National Government which oversaw a period when the lights went out in Auckland for 2 weeks. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister concur with the view that our electricity industry is in a sad state when the same report that I have referred to states: “in winter 25 per cent of homes had living room temperatures below 16°C (compared to World Health Organisation recommendations for adequate warmth of 21°C in the living room and 18°C for other rooms);”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do accept that there are problems with heating and fuel poverty for some people in New Zealand. I would note that that is one of the reasons why we have improved the minimum requirements under the building code—to make it more affordable for people to heat their houses. I would also note that in the last 9 years we have retrofitted approximately 42000 houses in order to improve their heating efficiency. We have ramped those programmes up and are expecting to do about 30000 homes in the forthcoming year alone. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document produced by the Electricity Commission showing that security of supply has been declining for the last 5 years during a period when the price for residential consumers has risen by some 48 percent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Leave is denied. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table an email from New Era Energy concerning a private meeting between John Key and New Era that states that he said that a change of Government was the only way to stop— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Surgery Elective Procedures— Discharges 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can he confirm that elective surgical discharges since district health boards began have been 108541 in 2001 105721 in 2002 102942 in 2003 106575 in 2004 106583 in 2005 107923 in 2006 and 114098 in 2007? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I can confirm that the number of people receiving elective surgical treatment has increased significantly under this Labour-led Government alongside increases in acute procedures capital investment and workforce investment and despite changes to clinical practice and definitions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is it that after 7 years and $5.5 billion of extra funding the amount of elective surgery in New Zealand has not kept up with our country’s population growth meaning that sick people have less chance of getting the surgery they need under Labour than they had previously? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I indicated in my primary answer much of the significant investment made by this Government has gone into other areas of health care such as capital investment district health board budgets workforce investment and a whole raft of improvements to the system. 
Jill Pettis 
: What steps has the Labour-led Government recently taken to increase the number of elective surgical operations actually undertaken? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This year’s Budget allocated an extra $160 million with that funding providing an additional 5000 elective surgical discharges a year. The money will also give approximately 24000 extra patients first specialist appointments diagnostic testing and community-based procedures. New Zealanders know that they can trust Labour to deliver on health—unlike the National Party which apparently has a phone book - sized policy agenda that it is hiding from the public. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that under Labour’s district health board model from 2001 to 2006 elective surgical discharges actually fell and despite the panicked injection of $60 million by Pete Hodgson elective surgical discharges under Labour have still not even caught up with New Zealand’s population growth? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What I can confirm is that the proportion of the total adult population getting elective surgical discharges in 2001-02 was 199 per 10000 and in 2006-07 that had grown to 207 per 10000. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does he respond to a Dunedin ear nose and throat surgeon who says in his words: “Many working-class people are struggling to borrow money to have operations privately because they know they would never get seen in the public system.” and is that how Labour treats the people whom it says it represents? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The feedback I get from my colleagues who actually hold clinics with working-class people is that they have not had cases of people fronting up to complain about a lack of hip operations knee operations or cataract operations in many a long month or year. That stands in vast contrast to the queues of crippled Kiwis who were lining up under that member’s maladministration. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If everything is so good why do his own officials say that patients have to be more sick in order to qualify for surgery and is that not more evidence of Labour using yesterday’s solutions for tomorrow’s problems? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would be happy to give that member a very specific answer to that question if he had asked anything specific in the question but if he wants to trot out pure rhetoric and vague references there is not much I can say. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Would the Minister explain why fewer operations were performed in the Waitemata District Health Board area in 2007 than in 2001 and given that the district health board population has increased by 14 percent over 6 years is he concerned that sick working-class people in Waitemata now have less chance of getting surgery than they had previously? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: How nice it is to hear from the next National spokesperson on health. What I know from visiting that member’s district health board is that there has been a considerable capital investment programme in Waitemata that has seen the addition of new bed space new wards and staffing new rosters vacancy rates going down and operation numbers going up. The feedback that I get from the people of the Waitemata area is that they are very happy in general with their district health board. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows that per head of population New Zealanders are getting less access to vitally needed surgery than previously. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a series of data summarising progress with elective surgery under this Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debate 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The great question of the day is: what did Helen Clark learn when she had her 1-hour meeting with Winston Peters earlier in the week? What did she learn? We know for a fact that the first thing she learnt was that she could not have a confidence vote in the House this week. Following that meeting she had to phone up Michael Cullen and say: “Change the programme. We don’t want the appropriations debate voted on on Thursday afternoon. We can’t guarantee confidence. We haven’t got it sorted with Winston.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We saw the Government scramble around and get the numbers all lined up for the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) which became a priority for the week. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is probably OK for some people to be referring to members of Parliament by their first names but not when that member has been in this Parliament for some time. I at least have given him the courtesy of calling him Mr Brownlee or some other name before Mr Brownlee but I do not call him by his Christian name and he should do the same honour to me. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I did call him to order and I hope that he noted that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to apologise for that. I was just so moved by the frequent reference to the name “Winston” by Condoleezza Rice on the weekend that I have been carried away. But I will now refer to him as Mr Peters. 
The issues here are extremely serious. We have had all these allegations swirling around for almost 2 weeks about the Owen Glenn donation about the Bob Jones donation and who knows what more and there are no answers. The Prime Minister caught in the headlights calls in Mr Peters has the meeting with him and simply says to Mr Peters: “Well was there anything dodgy in this?” He leans back in the chair and says: “No all fine and you’ll believe that or you won’t have my vote on Thursday.” That was the deal. So Helen Clark comes into the House— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What that member just said is totally out of order first of all because it is false and second because any such implication was bound to bring disorder in this House. He should be asked to withdraw and apologise for what he just said was blatantly false but worse than that what can be inferred from it needs to be corrected now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to Mr Peters that there was so much noise I did not hear. But if the member said anything that caused objection the member has asked for it to be withdrawn and I ask the member to do so. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have raised a significant debating point. In the vacuum of information that we have all we can do is to surmise. Am I starting again—I am not losing time for this I hope? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No you are not Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So here we are— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am doing quite well I think. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member was asked to withdraw. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes and he will. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: For what? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has taken exception to what has been said. It is leading to disorder and I am just asking the member whether he will withdraw. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can understand that you were trying to deal with the situation but Parliament would like a bit more clarity. As you said yourself you did not quite hear what was said but a member is being asked to withdraw on the basis that another member took exception. We all take exception to things that are said in here every day and certainly it would have been better if you had heard it before coming to a judgment about whether it was out of order and does merit withdrawal. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that the member— 
Ron Mark 
: Maybe I could be of some help. My understanding is—and you are well versed in the Standing Orders and I am pretty sure that you would quickly come to the relevant provision—that it is improper to suggest the corruption of a vote. It is out of order to suggest that someone is coerced into voting a particular way. That is a clear contravention of the Standing Orders and he should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Mark. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Firstly I would point out that there has actually been no vote and that was the point so there cannot be any coercion around that. But if it makes it easier I will withdraw and get to the substance of what I want to say which is simply this. Did everyone notice that after the meeting with Helen Clark yesterday suddenly the Order Paper changed and the confidence vote was gone? That was the deal so what is to be concluded from that? 
Mr Peters has repeatedly said in the media that he will clear things up and I think he should because there has been a crusade in this Parliament by New Zealand First for disclosure for transparency to expose influence to get rid of graft and to get a regime where people could know what is going on. New Zealand First members voted for that appalling bill that got passed last year—a bill that is totally anti-democratic. Now when they find themselves caught in the headlights they cannot explain two donations. So we need to have some answers from Mr Peters today. 
First Mr Peters might like to tell us whether he can deny ever giving the Spencer Trust or any agent of the Spencer Trust any instructions. It is a relevant question because we are told that there was a meeting with Bob Jones. There was a discussion and at a later time Bob Jones said: “I won’t give you $50000 but to get rid of you I’ll give you $25000. Send one of your people down to see me.” Then Mr McClay goes down there— 
Hon Member 
: Who’s that? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Roger McClay. A staff member of New Zealand First goes down there and asks Mr Jones—I am sure politely—“Please make the cheque out to the Spencer Trust.” Where did he get that instruction from—because apparently Mr Peters who is the beneficiary of that trust did not know it existed? So there is a question to be answered there. 
Then there is of course the issue of: if Mr Peters genuinely thought the cheque was for the New Zealand First Party why did he not declare it? 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting him but amongst all the noise I could not quite be clear whether the Roger McClay he mentioned is the father of the National Party candidate— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. Points of order are to be heard in silence. The member knows that is not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Why is it so hard for New Zealand First to answer the question? Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? What happened to the money? Why was it not declared either in the 2007 disclosures or in the pecuniary interests? 
Then there is the issue of the Owen Glenn cheque. This is truly puzzling. Here we have Winston Peters a man with 14 legal actions on the boil with lawyers crawling all over the top of all sorts of things—some against him some he has brought himself but clearly with very big legal bills. What are we being told? That he never looked at the invoice and noticed there was a $100000 credit on it? That he never bothers about what he owes in these circumstances? That he never bothered to find out whether there was a gift to him to help him out with his legal fees because if there was it needed to be declared? 
Then there is of course the question about the process by which it became known that Owen Glenn who gave half a million dollars to the Labour Party and $100000 to Winston got in line to be the consul. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Let us not worry about Winston Peters and what happened to the cheque that Bob Jones gave him or where it went. Let us ask this question. Let us ask why the National Party on purpose set up the Waitemata Trust and why on purpose it set up the Ruahine Trust not to receive one cheque and have it disbursed but to receive dozens and dozens of cheques over the years and launder them. Let us ask why the National Party set up two big laundering factories to receive all of the egregious blessings from its corporate mates—dollars for policy as far as we know because they were kept secret. Tell us what happened in the past with that party and tell us indeed why even last December those trusts got swept. The reason they had to be swept is that this House decided that the rules were too loose that the accountability was not good enough and that the workarounds were too easy. 
So the Labour Party the New Zealand First Party and other parties voted for legislation to increase accountability to reduce the workarounds and to make the whole process of financing for elections more transparent. And who voted against it? National members voted against it. They voted against it right through with feeling and with vehemence. They were vigorous and tireless in their opposition to the legislation because they did not want the workarounds taken away from them. National members have the temerity to stand up and spend the first 5 minutes of this general debate attacking one party over one cheque when they have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of dollars over many elections shamelessly—without shame! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just so we can get back on to the topic— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: This is a general debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a general debate—the member is right. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a point of order Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does that member go? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am listening to the point of order Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Firstly I point out that Mr Hodgson knows about all this because it was published in the document listing registered parties’ donations and declared by us. Secondly I seek leave to table the Electoral Commission’s 2007 register of party donations which makes it clear that many Labour members donated to their party last year. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee that is not a point of order. The member knows that it is common courtesy to seek leave to table those things at the end of a member’s speech. The member is very experienced and he knows that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: With all due respect you can refer to any convention that you like but the fact is that members can take a point of order and seek leave any time they like. I am seeking leave right now to table the Electoral Commission’s 2007 register of party donations which shows everything that Mr Hodgson is talking about all of the significant Labour member donations to the party and nothing from New Zealand First. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Notice how National members seek to break up the speech. Notice how they do not like it when someone reminds them that they have set up trusts or had them set up specifically to launder cash—specifically for that purpose. When legislation was passed in this House to try to stop that—and that legislation succeeded thanks to the support of New Zealand First—these people voted against it. There is a word for that. It begins with “h” and it is unparliamentary. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is unparliamentary. 
I want to know from the National Party where its policy is. Where is its policy? When will it stop creeping around the skirting boards hiding under the radar and trying to dodge the cameras? When will it stop failing to reveal its plans about any of its policy? How much longer can it continue to take the advice of Crosby/Textor that it should try to keep a small target and that it should say nothing and stay below the radar? How much longer? That is what I want to know because the National Party has less than 4 months to go yet National members sneak around saying they will tell us about their policy later. Well I say that sooner or later— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I cannot hear. Chaos may be the parent of creation but not in this place—we will have order. It is my duty to run the House according to the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings that have been crafted over 150 years of parliamentary democracy in this country. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is slippery behaviour. Those members think they can run down the clock; they say that it does not matter. I say to the National Party that before long the agenda will be the National Party’s secret agenda. Those members need to out themselves or the opposition parties—the parties that oppose them in this House—will do the outing for them. Of course on occasion they are outed unwittingly. Some guy who did not mean to outed the National Party on accident compensation policy recently—someone in Australia did it. The National Party responded with a policy that was 83 words long. Most radio commercials are longer than that. But even in that brief utterance we learnt of the agenda of the National Party. Can members guess what it was? It was that dear old 1990s policy “Let’s get it privatised. If it moves we’ll privatise it.” National members did not think they wanted to tell anyone about it before the election until the guy over in Australia let the cat out of the bag. 
The only policies that are released by the National Party are ones that are already part of this Government. John Key has been getting up and saying chapter and verse: “I hate this policy.” then getting up a year later—or in some cases a month later—and saying: “We’ll do it.” He has done it time and again. It is a Crosby/Textor technique to make sure that the National members find something that the people like and make sure that they support it even if they did not like it the first time when they were declaring what they really felt. Crosby/Textor says that if U-turns are needed they should get on with their U-turning. Boy have they been doing so! In May of this year John Key said that buying back the railways was a dumb idea. In the same month of this year the same man said National would have no option but to hang on to the asset. In November 2005 John Key said of student loans that they were “an unaffordable … and irresponsible cost to the country”. By January 2008 he said: “National will … keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students”—can members believe that? It goes on and on forever. National members are too slippery for their own good. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that outlines the procedure for donating to a secret trust that the Labour candidate had in Invercargill in 2005. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This afternoon I would like to start with a quote from  
Alice in Wonderland 
: “Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying’ she said; ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’ ‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice’ said the Queen. ‘When I was younger I always did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’ ” 
That is how I describe the media hysteria of the past few weeks about New Zealand First. Each day New Zealanders were being asked to swallow six impossible things before breakfast. For the past 2 weeks we have been assailed by innuendo and wild allegations. We have been expecting it. We are not surprised. And it will continue. The media will make frenzied allegations and we will bat them away with the truth. 
What the media do not know is that in May 2005 3 years ago we informed the Speaker of documentation the day we got it of allegations that are now appearing in the  
Dominion Post 
—3 years ago. Let me give some background. Some of the dirt came from Television New Zealand (TVNZ) via the  
Dominion Post 
. The rest comes from vested interests that have been offering big money for any dirt on Winston Peters. They do not want us around at the next election. TVNZ has had two private investigators detectives sniffing around since it was sued for defamation some years ago—an action that is alive today. Members will recall that the then chief executive officer Ian Fraser threatened me at a select committee meeting. He claimed to have more information. A reporter called Philip Kitchin from the  
Dominion Post  
was hired by Fraser’s then news chief Bill Ralston. Kitchin went back to the  
Dominion Post  
with documents and emails given to him by TVNZ. These documents were taken when a former part-time New Zealand First adviser went through an acrimonious split with his partner. She is also part of the defamation case. 
In this latest saga Kitchin went to Bob Jones and deliberately misled him about a donation—just to get a story. So far there have been at least six impossibly different versions of this story in different media outlets. To get some more dirt some branches of the media have been interviewing an individual whom I sacked in 1996. He is now being held up as an expert about something that was supposed to have been happening in New Zealand First. He must have been clairvoyant because what he has said now never existed back then. This is the same man who used to talk to young teenage girls on Internet chatrooms—like he has got some credibility? 
Over the past few months we have been warned about attacks coming our way. The last was given to me at my mother’s funeral. We were told that there is a pot of money for more dirt on Peters and New Zealand First. What we have seen in recent weeks is New Zealand’s neutron news—destroy the facts but keep the egos of the media intact. Some deeply sensitive journalists and talkback hosts were even ringing me during my mother’s funeral service. To be fair some journalists have tried to be objective but most have run round in circles like brainless meerkats. The result of this has been a flood of misinformation. One most disturbing situation arising from this is the constant reporting that I have denied something when I have simply refused to answer a stupid question. There is a serious difference. I totally accept being reported as refusing to answer stupid questions but I do not accept that means refusal or denial. But then perhaps some words in the English language have changed while I was not looking. 
We have seen journalists interviewing each other their computers my political foes and anybody who walks past. If we remember  
Alice in Wonderland 
 we will remember the Mad Hatter’s tea party. The Mad Hatter’s tea party was sane compared with what we have experienced during the past few weeks. So to end I would like to go back to  
Alice in Wonderland 
: “ ‘Really now you ask me’ said Alice very much confused ‘I don’t think.’ ‘Then you shouldn’t talk’ said the Hatter.” That is good advice. If one does not think if one does not know the facts even though they have been with the Speaker for over 3 years and worse still if one does not know the law applying to the facts then one should not talk. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 John Key told a National Party audience in Christchurch last year that he was going to say some things they would not like hearing over the coming months but asked them to hold their nerve. There were things that would have to be said if National was going to be elected to Government. However not even National’s strongest supporters thought this signalled a complete back-down on all of Labour’s policies but particularly on Working for Families. They cannot believe it. They have already heard Mr Key describe Working for Families as a complete complex bureaucratic and costly welfare monster a last-ditch election bribe and then finally communism by stealth and now he states: “National wants to offer New Zealand families certainty about the future of the Working for Families system. That’s why we intend making no change to it.” 
I am sure though that National supporters were heartened by the attacks on the employment rights of the most vulnerable of workers who do not have collective agreements and whose terms of employment are dictated by the employer not negotiated across a level playing field. However the decision to remove the mandatory employer contribution from KiwiSaver which we now know is the real deal has drawn a mixed response. Some employers have made their employees pay for their contribution while pocketing the tax credit. But those who really understand that we need a broad-based savings culture in New Zealand in order to generate depth in our capital markets—and KiwiSaver is already delivering on that—are deeply concerned about the uncertainty that National has created by having this coming and going position on KiwiSaver. They want certain messages and they do not want the messages they are receiving from National. I find it hard to believe but I truly think that National really would repeat the greatest single act of economic vandalism this country has ever seen which of course was the National decision in 1975 to reverse the Labour workplace savings scheme that was in existence then. 
Despite the trouble New Zealand faces in terms of the inevitable flow-on effects of the global credit crunch the international commodity prices the impact of the American dollar on our exchange rate the climate change challenge and the instability and conflict in many regions of the world we have nothing from National that offers any solution or any way forward. Labour on the other hand has taken a truly responsible approach to managing the economy including future-proofing New Zealand superannuation through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and seeding the savings culture needed in this country through KiwiSaver. That makes me wonder why anyone thinks it would be good to change to a party led by a former money market trader who happily traded against the future value of the New Zealand dollar when there was money to be had. 
What else would be for sale under a National Government? Crosby/Textor says: “Just don’t tell anyone what you are going to do and then do it anyway.” and of course that was the message that John Key gave his audience in Christchurch last year. 
I found a rather revealing insight into the attitude of those in the commodities market in a film called  
The Corporation 
 which I watched earlier this year. I have a quote from a commodities trader who said: “I’ve got to be honest with you. When the September 11th situation happened … It was a really bad thing. It was one of the worst things I’ve seen in my lifetime you know. But I will tell you and every trader will tell you who was not in that building and who was buying gold and who owned gold and silver that when it happened the first thing you thought about was ‘well how much is gold up?’ The first thing that came to mind was ‘my God gold must be exploding’. Fortunately for us all our clients were in gold. So when it went up they all doubled their money. Everybody doubled their money. It was a blessing in disguise. Devastating crushing heart shattering but in a financial sense for my clients that were in the market they all made money. Now I wasn’t looking for this type of help but it happened.” 
And then the commodities trader goes on to talk about the US bombing Iraq back in 1991 and that when “the price of oil went from $13 to $40 a barrel … we couldn’t wait for the bombs to start raining down on Saddam Hussein.” He carries on by saying: “There was not a broker I know of that wasn’t excited about that. This was a disaster. This was … catastrophe happening. Bombing. Wars. In devastation there is opportunity.” Why would anyone vote for a party led by someone like that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 There is a fairly simple issue at the heart of the controversy over what is now almost 2½ weeks around the New Zealand First donations and it is this: New Zealand First and Labour have run a campaign for a long time on the need for transparency for large donations because large donations suggest political influence. What has become clear is that those parties cannot meet the standards that they have set for everybody else. 
The system is simple. If one runs the risk of taking a large donation—and there is no doubt that that has happened; $100000 and $25000 are large donations—then one ought to be able to explain what happened with the donation and why it did not influence one’s decisions. Helen Clark has decided having spent 2 years ramming the Electoral Finance Act through this House that the standard now is one of criminal behaviour. After ranting about transparency and big money for a decade Helen Clark now says a person can be a Minister in her Cabinet provided that that person is not guilty of criminal behaviour and the way she will find out whether someone is guilty of criminal behaviour is to ask the person concerned. That is the standard. That is ridiculous. That is absurd. 
And that issue will not go away until the questions are answered because that is what every other MP in this House would expect to have to do. If other MPs had received a donation of $100000 they would expect to have to answer the question particularly if the donor is a friend of the Government that they are part of. Any Prime Minister should expect any member of the House to answer the questions. But what have we seen instead from Helen Clark? Last week in this debate I talked about the prevarication and procrastination of the Prime Minister. One week and many thousands of words later we are no further ahead. The Labour-led Government is paralysed by this matter. 
Let us measure Labour by its own yardstick. What is happening to the emissions trading system legislation? That was the main plank of Labour’s sustainability theme laid out by the Prime Minister as being the key to the 2008 election and her Government’s programme. It is going nowhere. It is dead. The Government cannot get the votes in this Parliament to put that legislation through. What about the legislation regarding the financial sector where today the Guardian Trust has frozen a further quarter of a billion dollars of funds after a billion dollars were frozen by Hanover Finance just a couple of days ago. The legislation that was meant to apply to that has had to be rewritten from clause 3—after 18 months of the Government saying it would solve the problem. So we are paralysed on that. What about the confidence vote that my colleague Gerry Brownlee referred to? What matters more than maintaining the confidence of the Parliament in the executive while the confidence vote has been put off? 
Judith Collins 
: Why is that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it must have something to do with the people who are meant to vote on confidence. It is an absolutely plausible explanation however offensive it might be to the Government that the deal between Labour and Winston Peters that has Helen Clark saying her new standard is one of criminality is about maintaining a confidence vote from New Zealand First till Thursday or next week—because if Helen Clark puts that to the vote and loses it the Government is gone. So what we do know is that the Government is paralysed by a matter of internal politics between itself and its coalition partner. 
The public are facing record high interest rates record financial collapses a collapse in house prices and a coming explosion in unemployment figures and Helen Clark has spent the last 2 weeks saying she has confidence in a Minister if he is still there. And then she says National is guilty of tautology! Today she said that if the Minister is still there then she must have confidence in him. The Prime Minister is parsing her grammar word by word to try to stay in Government while the public is suffering. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I reflect with interest on Mr English’s speech where he posed the proposition that there were a number of challenges for the New Zealand economy. He challenged the Government on what it has been doing for the last couple of days. I put this challenge to him and also to “Old Jelly Back” who is not with us today: what is his answer to the challenges— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whom the member was referring to—it might even have been his New Zealand First coalition partners—but he is not allowed to refer to any member of Parliament in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry; I have to say I was distracted at the time by the Clerk. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Speaking to the point of order I was referring to John Key doing flip-flops. I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The procedure is very clear. The member must withdraw and apologise and say nothing else. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is absolutely right. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I think I did so before I was asked actually. I pose a couple of questions to Mr English. Mr English is very good at asking everybody in this House for explanations. So will he stand in this House and account for every donation in the Waitemata Trust and in all the other trusts? Oh no. The gelatine creeps down the spine. Will he answer that question? Will Mr Brownlee who has risen from his slumber in his seat tell the media now about every donation that was received and whether—to quote Mr English’s words because he does make a good point that we need to know what happened to those donations—those donations influenced any political decisions? We know as “Burger King” walks out of the Chamber— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no no. The members knows that he cannot refer to the member in that way. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that was extremely unkind. It was hurtful. I much prefer to be known as a single-man rent-a-crowd. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for the humour Mr Brownlee but you know that was not a point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I quote Mr English’s words when he said that we need to find out what political influence if any was gained from those donations. We know how Mr English’s accident compensation policy was formed at the last election and who influenced that. Will Mr English actually get up in the Chamber now—I challenge him to do that—to tell us about all the anonymous donations from the Waitemata Trust and from various sectors of the economy so that we can then make assumptions or presumptions or remove any perception that his policy at the last election may have been influenced? Oh no! He is mute; there is silence. 
If we look at the National members over the last couple of days we see that they have been obsessed with this issue. But if we ask them about their policy and how they if they were in Government would meet the challenges of the economy we know what happens. They get out the xerox machine. Asking that crew on the other side of the Chamber to come up with policy is a bit like asking a xerox machine to write a movie script. It cannot happen; it will xerox it off. If we look at all the things that National opposed whether it be KiwiSaver interest-free student loans KiwiRail superannuation—I remember a debate with Mr English who got up and railed against the inadequacy of New Zealand superannuation—you name it we see that they have all been adopted. The xerox machine has just rolled off and those policies have all been adopted. 
One has to ask where the depth is and where the background papers are that Colin James asks for. Where is the depth? Where are the new ideas as we face— 
Rodney Hide 
: Where’s the money? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is the walking egg yolk. Do members remember old Ted Bovis from  
Hi-de-Hi! 
 He was the camp entertainment officer. We have Parliament’s own camp entertainment officer here. I have to say that that member is well suited to the colour yellow. I say no more. He is the man who got up yesterday and protested because he felt he had been threatened by another member— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise two points with you. Firstly the remarks I heard from the member on his feet that were directed at Mr Hide clearly suggested that the jacket he was wearing was in some way indicative of a lack of courage. You know Mr Assistant Speaker that under the Standing Orders that is not permissible. Secondly I draw your attention to the fact that this is the third offensive reference that this Minister has made in the course of this brief speech and it must be coming very close to the point where you Mr Assistant Speaker should be contemplating the terminating of that speech. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say with respect that Mr McCully can try to define in whatever terms he likes what he may have taken from what I said. What I did was identify the colour of Mr Hide’s jacket. Also I had a bit of a poke at Mr Hide because if he wants to interject on me he has to be able to hack it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I listened to the remark and after reflection I let it pass. Any member of course is entitled to rise and make comment and that has been done. I noticed that Mr Hide let the remark pass as well. As long as those remarks will not lead to disorder the member may continue. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to make it perfectly clear I like the rest of the country—and indeed the Labour caucus—have never listened to this member so I have no idea— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Mr Hide. Those are the sorts of things that lead to disorder. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There lies the fiscal genius who paid 1400 bucks for that jacket. I move on. I think that member wants to be a Minister of Finance one day; he cannot organise his own finances. 
I challenge the media and I challenge National members to front up and tell us what they would do. They have adopted damn near every policy that the Government has except of course its industrial relations policy which has gone down like a cup of the proverbial. 
Jill Pettis 
: ACC. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And of course there is accident compensation. This is a cracker. National says that it will not privatise it but will introduce competition. Sorry? This is a health issue that all New Zealanders should be very very concerned about. Accident compensation that has been undermined by that crew will undermine people’s fundamental health protections if they have an accident. Members should not judge what I say to be a fact; they should judge what National did last time in terms of the deterioration of cover for lost and lonely people out there who may not be able to afford to get in straight away and who are provided for on a no-fault accident compensation system. National’s accident compensation policy is one of the more innovative policies it has come out with that does not copy us; we are opposed to it. That is about the only thing we can say for that crew. 
National obsesses about those issues as it tries to build a sort of mist around its inactivity and as it announces one or two pages of policy. I go back to what I think David Farrar said—no friend of the Labour Party but a so-called independent blogger who was a National Party researcher. He came out and said that National should release all the background papers. Well two things arise. If it ain’t got any background papers it is hollowed out there is nothing there and there are no new ideas—or else it is hiding something. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I started to listen to what the honourable member on his feet was saying. My point of order is that although he is clearly interested in my jacket and what I paid for it what I am interested in to test his fiscal genius is what he paid for the plugs that he has— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Those are personal reflections. The member should know better. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just rise to say that I take no offence from that. Sadly Rodney my hair is all natural unlike the desert— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I will not get into a debate between you guys. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party asked a couple of questions today of Mr Peters. We asked whether he gave any instructions to the Spencer Trust. We also asked whether he having received all the legal invoices for all the legal actions that he has taken over the last few years ever looked at those invoices and wondered how come $100000 was paid off by Owen Glenn. We asked why Helen Clark has not asked those questions. 
What we got in return today is some talk from Mr Peters about  
Alice in Wonderland 
. We wonder what that has to do with the issue. Well quite clearly the trustees of the Spencer Trust are to be found in this story. Who will be Alice? We have the Queen of Hearts the Mad Hatter the March Hare and the Cheshire Cat. There is no contest at all as to who Alice is. That is Helen Clark. I would say the Cheshire Cat would be Winston Peters. He is sitting there and holding Parliament and the people of New Zealand in utter contempt. All we have seen today is yet another attack on the media and not one question answered. 
What we heard from Helen Clark today and yesterday is simply that she has judged the standard by which her Ministers will now be judged. She said: “Did you Winston Peters do something illegal?”. He is supposed to have said: “No I did not.” That is the standard she now holds for her Ministers. What we have seen from Helen Clark is a new low standard for her Ministers and her Government. Michael Cullen accepted it the other week when he said it was all about power and that is all it is about. It is all about power. This Labour-led Government will do anything to stay in power and we now have the sight of Helen Clark and Winston Peters sitting around for 60 minutes and all Helen Clark does is ask: “Winston did you do something illegal?” and he is supposed to have said: “Alice no I didn’t.” and that is it. 
Yet all this time the Government is paralysed. It cannot get legislation through and cannot do anything because it is being held to ransom by somebody who will not answer a question. Why is that? There is clearly something the Minister does not want to answer. We have asked in the media how $100000 can be paid into Brian Henry’s business account—not a trust account because he is a barrister—to pay a legal bill that had not actually been rendered. How did Mr Glenn in Monaco know to pay $100000 into Brian Henry’s business account for a bill that had not actually been rendered? My goodness Mr Glenn must be clairvoyant! It is amazing is it not? And how did Mr Henry know to get out the telephone book for Monaco to ring Mr Glenn and ask for $100000 when an account had not been rendered? It is amazing how clever Mr Henry is. It is a wonder that he has not yet been made a Queen’s Counsel. It is truly truly amazing. 
Then we have to ask about Sir Bob Jones. He said he paid $25000 after Mr Peters wanted $50000. It went to something called the Spencer Trust. Did Helen Clark ever ask what the Spencer Trust was and why the money got paid to that trust? Did she ever ask who the trustees of the Spencer Trust were? No we heard today that she did not. All she did was ask whether Winston did something illegal and he said: “No Helen—I mean Alice I mean Helen—no I didn’t.”; and she said: “As Prime Minister of this country well that’s OK with me Winston.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use the full names of members in the House. It is common courtesy. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Prime Minister is supposed to have said: “Well that’s OK with me Winston Peters. You must be so clever.” That is what she said. That is a new standard for Helen Clark. She previously stood there with Winston Peters and they said they would have this “new transparency” in electoral funding. They certainly did did they not? It was in fact put through as something called “legal fees”; that is the new transparency. 
That grouping of New Zealand First and Labour members has put up standards in terms of transparency in electoral funding that it is not prepared to meet itself and that is a travesty of transparency—an absolute travesty. Those members have said to other people: “You terrible people you need to meet the standards but we are not going to.” Helen Clark has the gall to stand up in this House and tell us that the best she can do as Prime Minister is to ask “Were you naughty?” and he said “No”. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Getting away from the references to  
Alice in Wonderland 
 on the other side of the House I say I once stood against Mr Bill English in the seat of Clutha-Southland. Even true-blue National people in that seat are starting to say they do not know what National stands for any longer. They do not know how they can trust a National Party and a National leader who will say anything and do anything at all in order to be elected. On climate change Iraq the ownership of KiwiRail interest-free student loans New Zealand being nuclear-free KiwiSaver asset sales early childhood education and superannuation Mr Key has flip-flopped so often on them all that his own supporters see him as being slippery. They do not know where he stands. When the latest flip-flop came Mr Key said he would keep Working for Families the policy he had previously called “communism by stealth” and a “costly welfare monster” and had said National members would oppose with “every bone in our bodies.” Well the bones have become very rubbery indeed. The only hope for some of those poor National Party members is that if a person can change his or her mind as often as Mr John Key does that person can always change it back again. 
The message for every other New Zealander is that Mr Key cannot be trusted to stick to a policy now let alone after an election. Although Labour actually plans for the future with “change you can trust” with policies such as lower doctors’ fees and prescription charges future-proofed superannuation 20 hours’ free early childhood education KiwiSaver providing more hospitals building more roads buying back KiwiRail delivering fairer options for workers and providing tax cuts that are affordable—real things that people in Invercargill appreciate in their lives—slippery National raises questions about its hidden agenda with every quietly launched “policy-ette” it sidles out with. 
What is the count on National Party skeleton policies so far? There is one page on industrial relations. But let us wait; that includes the 90-day fire-at-will probation period and—I alert any workers who are listening to this—National wants a holiday and it is their fourth week of annual leave that it wants. That was one page. There are 1½ pages on broadcasting; Television New Zealand is for sale. And let us look at this; there is a two-pager on accident compensation. It is only 83 words but somehow National has put them on two pages. It includes the line from Mr Key “Ah um almost ah ah certainly likely privatised”. There is one page on early childhood education boldly eliminating “free” from “20 hours’ free early childhood education” and reducing quality staff by 50 percent. [ 
Interruption 
] Well well let us look; there is half a page on outdoor recreation. 
That seems to be six pages of policy but we have it on very good authority that there are about 30 pages behind each one of those policies. What is National hiding? Some of the media would like to know. Could it be something like Mr Ryall’s revelation that National will remove the cap on doctors’ fees and let the good old market rule again? Could it be something like Miss Wilkinson’s revelation that compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver are just not a National Party thing? “Tell Kiwis the real plan.” I say to Mr Key and the National Party. All of us would like to know. Funnily enough I have just read another little one-pager that says Mr Key is about to announce the adoption of yet another flagship Labour policy—yet another one—that of having a female leader. In a one-page policy briefing apparently Mr Key has stated—or he plans to state—that under a National Government he would undergo gender reassignment in order to have what it takes to lead the country. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. I stand here today acknowledging the significance of this moment in time and celebrating the pre-Treaty whakapapa relationship that tangata whenua have with all our tuakana of the Pacific. I acknowledge the first official visit to Aotearoa of the new Premier of Niue the Hon Toke Talagi and we recognise the historic events taking place in Nuku’alofa this week with the coronation of King George Tupou V. 
The partnerships we have with the peoples of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa provide us with an enduring foundation from which to tackle the global challenges that threaten the sustainability of our world—issues like climate change the commercial overfishing of the high seas the peril of global economics and the rush for growth. The emphasis on manaakitanga as observed in hospitality and generosity on kotahitanga the sense of purpose and unity and on whanaungatanga nurturing positive relationships between peoples are all basic values that we will forever uphold. As the independent voice of Maori in Parliament we endeavour to influence through the promotion of kaupapa such as these. We stand strong in our responsibility to protect the natural world that our ancestors left to us to look after for future generations. 
We have spoken out against the current rate of increasing carbon emissions the ever-depleting energy supplies and the lack of viable alternatives because these are signs that we are in an energy crisis now. We do not believe that the emissions trading scheme will address the problem of unsustainable growth. All that it does is create a new currency that is disproportionately dispensed to business elites maintaining the status quo. Our solution instead has been to encourage our communities to look to each other to protect and preserve to restore and replace and to recreate and sustain our precious resources. At the level of Parliament we have repeatedly called for collaboration across the House to prepare for an emerging post-carbon world. Our focus is on using collective strength to underpin local control and self-reliance. 
Such a focus is also essential in the important task of caring for our communities and of supporting te pani me te rawakore the vulnerable and the poor. We are determined that this country can eliminate poverty. We are convinced that whanau ora is essential in restoring our land to being a country that lives by values of social justice. 
There is no more important challenge ahead for Aotearoa than the ongoing aspiration for Treaty justice. Unlike some other parties around this Chamber we will always respect the standing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this land. We recognise that the Treaty establishes our special status as tangata whenua. The Treaty also places particular obligations on us to look after and protect peoples whom we welcome to this land. The Treaty is a signpost to the nation to ensure that tangata whenua are able to continue to have control and authority over their treasures. 
In this time of pre-election generosity and the incredible pace at which the Government is speeding up Treaty settlements I would ask that this largesse be extended also to the advancement of Wai 262—the flora and fauna claim. 
We commemorate today the passing of Dell Wihongi as a profound loss to the nation. We think of her work and of the work of those who have passed on before her in striving to protect and preserve indigenous flora and fauna and the associated cultural and intellectual heritage. Only one original claimant to Wai 262 is alive today and her name is Saana Murray of Ngati Kuri from the Tai Tokerau. What a fitting tribute it would be to their leadership if the benevolence of the Government that has been extended to iwi in recent months could also enable Wai 262 to be advanced rather than waiting until all of the claimants have left this life. Tena koutou. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Those who have been listening to this debate this afternoon as I have and in particular those who have listened to the members opposite who hold the rank of Minister will be shaking their heads in wonderment. After listening to those contributions particularly those from Ministers one would imagine that this country is not confronted by any serious challenges and that this is a place where there are no serious issues to be debated and where all there is to focus on is the personality of the Leader of the Opposition and the internal workings of the National Party and its policy machine. One could be excused for overlooking the fact that something like 80000 New Zealanders a year—according to the Government Statistician—are departing these shores to live somewhere else. About 45000 people are moving to Australia every year because for them New Zealand is no longer the land of opportunity. 
It is hard to believe that debate such as we have heard can take place in an environment where finance companies and associated vehicles are collapsing virtually by the day and taking the savings of elderly New Zealanders with them. It is hard to understand when we listen to the debate that we live in a situation in which the cost of living—the price of filling up the car or going to the supermarket—places most average New Zealand families under serious pressure. It is hard to believe that this debate is taking place in an environment where the average income in Australia is now 35 percent more than the average income in New Zealand. Dr David Skilling of the New Zealand Institute tells us that at the current rate of progress by 2030 that gap will be 60 percent. At that point the game is all over—as Dr Skilling puts it New Zealand will be “Fiji with snow”. 
With that sort of challenge confronting the country it is hard to imagine that the people sitting opposite—particularly those with the flash BMWs the chauffeurs and the ministerial houses—have the gall to come into this House and focus on cheap shots directed at the leader of the National Party. It is hard to believe that they can come along to the House with nothing better to contribute than a few cute lines about the National Party policy machine. The Labour operation is focused now on one thing and one thing only and that is political survival and today political survival for Labour means taking whatever Winston Peters decides to give it. 
In the latter stages of 2007 Parliament was dominated by the passage of the Electoral Finance Act. The Labour Government assisted by the Greens and New Zealand First conspired to pass legislation that limited donations to political parties required disclosure of those donations and moved to constrain what parties could spend that money on. The National Party had accepted some time before that that the previous law needed to be changed and it offered to assist with those changes. The Labour Government rejected that offer because its mission was not really just to change the law in a way that might improve it; it was to try to ensure that the National Party and those who might support it would have to fight the 2008 election campaign with one hand—or preferably two hands—tied behind their backs. Labour instead of focusing on laws that would have made sense created laws that were draconian and it now finds itself hoist by its own petard. 
There are a number of matters that we should reflect on today in the context of the developments of the last week. The first of those is anonymous donations. After listening to the piety from members opposite one would imagine that no member of the Labour Party has ever heard of or seen an anonymous donation. I want those who are interested to know that according to the official returns of the Labour Party itself in 1999 it received $824000 of anonymous donations in 2002 it received $380000 in 2004 it received $85000 in 2005 it received $315000 in 2006 it received $100000 and it received $230000 in 2007—while it was writing the very law that would outlaw those sorts of donations. I want those who understand what is going on here to reflect upon those numbers and on the sort of gall it takes for members of the Labour Party to rail against anonymous donations. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. It is my pleasure as a member of team Labour under the leadership of Prime Minister Helen Clark to korero and take the final call in this general debate. Labour is a team committed to change and we are the Government that can manage the great changes that are happening not only in Aotearoa but also globally. I am talking about the need to prepare our country not only for higher global temperatures but also for higher fuel prices and higher food prices. Labour is the only Government for these difficult and changing times. 
Labour is the only major party that will work with and for hard-working Kiwis. For us those who are the most vulnerable are a priority; we make no apologies for that. One of our priority communities is and always will be working New Zealanders. We have raised the minimum wage five times in our time in Government to $12 an hour and I note that this rate can only change and increase under team Labour. 
National by contrast seems to have a secret employment policy document—apparently more than the 83 words that is its accident compensation policy—but John Key will not front up with this 14-page background document which he knows and we all know will scare the living daylights out of hard-working Kiwis. What specific policy might such a document contain? Well we can only assume by National’s actions alone that as a start there will be a reduction of the minimum wage back to $7 an hour given that National members have voted against every proposed increase. 
How about a policy from the mouth of John Key himself? In late 2003 when he was arguing against team Labour’s push for a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave for workers he urged Kiwis to “go and have a look at the United States of America which has a minimum of 2 weeks’ holiday a year and the economic prosperity in the US is so much greater than New Zealand’s.” Apparently his word is his bond and when he does not keep it and flip-flops he does not see anything slippery or deceitful in his change of language. They are only words after all. 
Actually from the free advertising in the  
New Zealand Herald  
at the weekend I noted a startling admission from John Key the wannabe self-proclaimed magician. Of his flip-flops he said: “My underlying philosophies remain the same.”—that is the only difference seems to be the language he uses. The real John Key is the guy who thinks that Kiwis deserve only 2 weeks’ annual leave. He is the guy who supported the coalition of the willing’s right to invade Iraq. He would have sent Kiwis to war because “blood is thicker than water”. He is the guy who rallied against the Superannuation Fund interest-free student loans early childhood education funding KiwiSaver KiwiRail etc. 
This lack of care for those who are most vulnerable is fairly typical of John Key and National and I think I can go further with a classic example of whom John Key really cares about. Youth magazine  
Tearaway  
recently interviewed both our team Labour leader—and New Zealand’s Prime Minister—Helen Clark and John Key. They were both asked what they would do if they suddenly received $1 billion. Do members want to know what they said? Team Labour’s leader said she would give to “development agencies offering education and opportunity and campaigns against HIV and AIDS in developing countries.” What did John Key say? It was something quite profound. He said he would like “a jet a personal jet”. There was then what seemed like an afterthought comment about donating some of it to charity. 
That is what the Opposition calls great leadership—it is all about John Key; forget about the people. It was not such a slip-up in this instance. John Key was being interviewed about himself after all. It is his goal to be Prime Minister lest we forget. There was no mention of serving the people or of being a leader by with and for the people—definitely not those from his National team. In fact John Key is fairly adamant that National must speak with one voice—that is only his—unless he has to explain himself and then any of the others will do because in his own words explaining is losing. His team must be losers then. 
A cold hard fact about the man who wants to be New Zealand’s Prime Minister is that he will do whatever at any cost. His word is his bond but it depends on whom he is talking to. Fundamentally he is a mirage an illusion at whatever place or time. John Key: what we get is what we do not see; what we get is what National does not want us to see or hear for that matter. If we contrast that with team Labour’s leader Helen Clark we find there is no comparison. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Over the years I have come to gain enormous respect for our Prime Minister Helen Clark. I do not agree with her socialist policies but I have respect for her intelligence her hard work and indeed her integrity. I think she has set a very high standard for her Ministers for her Government and for the country. But I have to say that I have been bitterly disappointed with what has transpired over the Winston Peters money scandal during which Helen Clark has failed to live by any standard that any Prime Minister has had in this country. I had thought it was because the Prime Minister needed the numbers but now I do not believe that that is the reason. I believe there is a concern that if an investigation occurred into how this money came to be the Prime Minister would be worried about where the investigation would end up. 
I do not for a minute think the Prime Minister has done anything wrong but we ourselves should consider this: we know Mr Owen Glenn to be a very wealthy man and a very generous one. He gave $500000 to the Labour Party. He loaned that party money when it was in dire need. He gave $100000-plus to Winston Peters and we understand offered a quarter of a million dollars to the Maori Party if it would support Labour. How would a man who does not live in New Zealand—he lives in Monaco—know to do this? Mr Brian Henry has forgotten who it was that suggested that he contact Mr Glenn. I had never heard of Owen Glenn. So who was the person who was in touch with Mr Glenn—saying it would be quite helpful if he would help out Mr Peters and New Zealand First and that it would be quite helpful if he would help out the Maori Party—and why did that person not suggest that Mr Glenn help the ACT party? It sort of all points to someone who is very close to Labour and to someone who knows Mr Owen Glenn who knows that he is generous with his money and who knows also that if he is provided with a little acknowledgement the money is forthcoming. I think that is what has shocked me most about this sad affair. 
New Zealanders know what has happened here. They know that a Minister of the Crown had $100000 appear in what was effectively his bank account—because that is what his lawyer was running for him—so that suddenly the amount of his bill dropped by $100000 while he was a Minister. If he were a police officer and $1000 appeared in his account he would be stood down and there would be investigations if he could not explain that. If he were a council worker overseeing a contract he would be stood down and investigated. If he worked in business he would be stood down until he explained how that money came to be. But we have a Cabinet Minister receiving $100000 effectively into his bank account and no questions being asked. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all we know that that statement is not true in fact. Clearly there is an implication here of corruption and I think the member has been warned about this before. He is not telling the truth in the House. As we all know Mr Henry has indicated that the money was paid to him that Mr Peters had no idea about the money being received by Mr Henry and that as soon as Mr Peters was made aware of the situation he notified the Prime Minister. Mr Peters has acted totally above board. What Mr Hide is saying is totally wrong. There is an implication there and I ask you to rule on it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that actually the MP Dail Jones raises debatable points and that is what we are having. If he wants to settle it and take it beyond debate Winston Peters would come down to the House and give a personal explanation. Then it would not be debatable.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I point the member to a couple of things including Speaker’s ruling 41/6. It is really up to the member himself to raise this but Speaker’s ruling 41/6 states: “If a member feels that repeated reference to some matter in the member’s private life is a reflection on the member’s integrity then the member is entitled to the protection of the Chair and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter.” The other ruling I want to reflect on is Speaker’s ruling 25/5 which refers to allegations of corruption and I mentioned it earlier when this issue was raised last week. I will share with the House as well Speaker’s ruling 25/5 which states: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” I think that is where the issue is at the moment so I ask Mr Hide to be very careful in how he conducts this debate. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me be clear that I think it does bring into dispute the integrity of the entire Parliament and indeed of the Government and the Prime Minister. I am saying that $100000 appeared and I accept that Mr Dail Jones says it was somehow in the lawyer’s bank account. But we know that Mr Peters’ bill payments dropped by $100000 so it was to the benefit of Mr Peters. We also know that Mr Peters was considering whether to grant Mr Glenn an honorary consulship and there has been no explanation about how all this transpired. But people—not me because I always think the best of people and I want to make that plain to you Mr Assistant Speaker—including some of the good people of Epsom and some people wider afield are a suspicious lot. They look at that and they ask an obvious question—but not me because I know that he is an honourable member—and they think that it is corrupt. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 2 July. 
Clause 4 Purpose ( 
continued 
)  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 is the purpose clause which is to provide for the best interests of the child by enabling young children of female prisoners to be placed with their mothers in prison until they turn 24 months’ old for the purposes of bonding feeding and maintaining continuity of care provided that certain criteria and conditions are met. I think it is fair to say that nobody believes that prison is the best place to bring up children but there are situations where this is a fair and reasonable thing to do. 
I would like to relate a situation a true story that happened in Central Otago that I think really endorses the purpose and good intentions of this bill. One of the local lawyers there told me that every court date the judge struggles with what to do with defendants who are really in the gaps. However the most recent court date was a very good example. The judge stated in his judgment that the defendant should have been given a sentence of community detention but because it is not offered in that area he could not give her that sentence. The defendant has a 3-month-old baby and a partner. She has no family outside Central Otago and because she has grown up there she has no support outside that area either. She was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. The law has changed and she now has to do the entire 4 months. Her baby has been left with the grandmother. She has a 3-month-old baby who has been left with the grandmother and the mother was still breastfeeding. The lawyer stated quite rightly that this situation is outrageous. 
This bill will go somewhere to ameliorating this exact situation. We could criticise that fact that community detention is not available in that area of Central Otago and that in some cases a lack of cellphone coverage means that those who should be serving community detention cannot have electronic bail monitoring. But this real-life situation demonstrates how this amendment bill could do great things for that mum who has a 3-month-old baby and a partner. The mother had offended admittedly but had offended to the extent that the sentence was 4 months’ imprisonment and her baby had to be left with the grandmother even though the mother was still breastfeeding. In this sense it is justice by geography. The judge had no choice. The judge admitted that it was a “deplorable situation” but he had no option. 
This example is from the area of Central Otago; there are other areas where a smaller sentence is warranted but because of those areas’ geography imprisonment is the only option. For mothers who have young babies it is as the judge said deplorable. We have situations where those community detention sentences are not available in rural Westland Buller or in the central North Island including places like Taihape Waiouru Ohakune Raetihi and the Coromandel Peninsula. So if the mums in those areas happen to offend even at that minor level and get a sentence of 4 months they cannot do community detention. They are in the same “deplorable situation” that that poor mother in Central Otago was in. 
I congratulate the member and author of this bill Sue Bradford. It is one of those bills that has been if you like non-partisan. The Law and Order Committee of which I was a member worked hard to get some of the wording right. There was not much debate or dispute about the bill’s intention or wording and it is a good example of the way in which this Parliament can work very cooperatively and collaboratively across parties to produce legislation that really is in the best interests of our society. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of clause 4 and I reiterate and support the words of my colleague Kate Wilkinson and her praise for Sue Bradford for bringing this bill to Parliament. No doubt many MPs come into the House are here for a while then disappear without leaving much of a trail. Sue is somebody who can point to a number of pieces of legislation and say she has done some stuff while she has been here. It was interesting to note that on this legislation she had unanimous support right across the House. That is something I am sure many of us would like to be able to tick off as having had in our time here. However I doubt that we will. 
The good sense behind this legislation is that it takes women who are frequently in a bad situation—hence the offending or the level of offending they are operating at that sees them go to jail—and allows for some good to happen while they are in prison. We know that the vast majority of people who go to prison in this country are there for a relatively short period of time—less than 2 years—and we also know that under the regime that is operating at the moment it is very difficult for any of those people in prison for less than 2 years to be able to obtain rehabilitation of any kind. 
When a woman goes to jail for offending frequently in the background to that offending is the protection or the support of a child and frequently there is some partner who is taking away from her the ability to support herself and her child. Often there is a situation where a woman is either taking the rap for someone else or offending at the direction of somebody else. 
My colleague Kate Wilkinson made the point that home detention is unavailable in some parts of the country. In respect of this legislation and these facts about mothers with babies going to jail I am quite pleased that it is not available in all places. If home detention were available I wonder where some of these mothers would be. Chances are that they would be in some dingy damp flat with some aggressive partner overseeing them dictating their movements and withholding their money—the benefit or whatever income comes into that household. 
This legislation allows the system to do some good for people in jail for a short period of time. Maybe that is by providing the skills necessary for mothers to be able to care for and nurture their children and set up bonds with their children that they would never have but for the opportunity to be able to hold their children with them until the children are 2 years old while they complete their sentences. 
There are so many intervening factors that make mothers of young babies completely vulnerable while they are out in the community. They are dictated to as to the associations they may have with others they are dictated to in terms of what they can provide for the nurturing of their children and they are dictated to in the activity they are able to be involved in—to the long-term detriment of the relationships they have with their children. 
The purpose of the bill is aimed directly at the best interests of the children. The purpose clause states: “for the purposes of bonding feeding and maintaining continuity of care provided that certain criteria and conditions are met.” Those conditions of course include remaining clean from drug abuse and being prepared to participate in a programme about parenting skills. 
I guess that the only shame is that when judges impose community-based sentences we do not more often see them imposing sentences that ensure that mothers of young babies attend these sorts of programmes. It is a shame that we do not see more young mothers attending such courses while they are on the outside—before they have to go to prison as part of a sentence—and recognising the responsibilities they have in dealing with the young ones who rely on them for life itself. 
I am pleased to be able to stand in support of this clause and to be able to report that National will continue its support for the bill right the way through the process. I look forward to this bill becoming law sooner rather than later. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to talk about the purpose of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues I congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing the bill to the House. It has unanimous support and why should it not? I think that it will achieve a significant change in a lot of people’s lives. 
The bill is not just about breastfeeding; I know that amendments have been made so that it can include bottle-feeding or other types of feeding. It is not exclusively about breastfeeding but breastfeeding is certainly a very important part of bonding between mother and child. Too often there is now a very poor percentage of women who continue to breastfeed and the women who are in prison and incarcerated with their babies will perhaps have a much much better chance ironically than women who are outside who go through district health board births and then have to get out of the hospital quite quickly because of the pressure on the number of beds. I think that that is one of the reasons we have such poor breastfeeding rates. 
The bill is also about allowing mothers to be with their children for up to 24 months and I think that it would be really interesting to do a prospective trial to look at the women going through. Once this legislation becomes enacted and we have the facilities built to cope with mothers and young babies we should do a trial to see how those women’s lives—and the lives of the babies for that matter—are affected coming out the other end and beyond. I went to a breakfast this week that was hosted by the Hon Tariana Turia. It was on models of positive youth development and there was a very interesting guest speaker from America Dr Larry Brendtro. He was basically saying that it is the bonding that is so important and it is the mentoring of an adult with a child that is so crucial in that child’s development. The same principle applies and even more so to small babies and their mothers. 
I think that this is a commendable bill. I wish that the bill goes speedily through the House and that the facilities are built so that we can see the good outcomes that come from this. Obviously not a lot of women would have young babies in prisons but this bill will accommodate those women who are pregnant and have children while they are in prison. The current law provides for mothers to be with their babies for 6 months and that provision has been in existence since 1961. This bill will change that and turn that length of time into 24 months. I think that there is an acceptance that in 24 months the child and the mother will be well and truly bonded and it gives the woman a chance to turn her life around in a way that she may not otherwise be able to do in the outside world. Of course it comes with strings attached. There have to be parenting agreements between the mother and the facility to make sure that she abides by the law goes to parenting groups cannot take drugs and so forth and that is fair enough too. But I think that this bill has potentially excellent outcomes for both mothers and their babies and I am delighted to speak to this purpose clause. Thank you. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to rise and support this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and to talk to the purpose clause. We in New Zealand First believe that this is good legislation. We believe that it gives an opportunity for these young babies to be cared for in the best possible way and that it gives an ideal opportunity for mothers to learn the parenting skills they would not otherwise learn. We know that it is very difficult to get along to antenatal classes and many of the mothers we are talking about would not even have bothered to go. Going to classes is hard enough when mothers are working and doing everything right let alone when they trying to fit it into a life that is not ordered or very good. We believe this will be a controlled environment so that children will not be raised in the same environment their mothers were raised in and will have a far better opportunity. 
The good part of this legislation is that mother-child bonding can occur and we think this is an important part of every child’s upbringing. We in New Zealand First do wonder whether the children should be older than 24 months when they have to leave this environment because it is still a very big wrench for a child—a baby—to leave his or her mother when in such a secure environment. Potentially in the future the age could be increased again. Bonding is really important and we in New Zealand First believe that that is an essential part of this bill which we are very happy to support. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 5 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 5 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 5 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 6 agreed to.  
Clause 7 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Waste Minimisation Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 298(1)(c) I would like to postpone consideration of Part 1 until after Part 7. The purpose of this is simply to give us a little bit more time to consider the interesting amendments proposed by the honourable member Nicky Wagner so I am exercising my right under Standing Order 298(1)(c) to put Part 1 at the end. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I understand there is no debate on that question. Therefore we are to consider Part 2. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wonder whether Dr Norman could just go through that again because I missed the start of what he was saying. There has been no dialogue on this side of the Committee about what he is proposing. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 298(1)(c) I am seeking to postpone consideration of Part 1 until after Part 7. Part 1 will still be considered but it will be considered last for the reason that we are in dialogue about an amendment moved by the member’s colleague and our views on whether we support that amendment. I meant to talk to Mr Guy earlier but he was on the phone. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: For the information of the rest of the Committee it is the right of the mover of the legislation to order that. Therefore we have accepted that Part 1 will be considered after Part 7. 
Part 2 Product stewardship 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As members know National members are supporting this bill. We are supporting this new iteration of the bill. We found that the original bill was excessively prescriptive but this new iteration has been absolutely gutted. We did a lot of work on it in the Local Government and Environment Committee and we believe that it is pretty rational and pretty reasonable. 
Part 2 deals with product stewardship and this is perhaps the most important part of the bill. We know that there are some very successful voluntary product stewardship schemes in existence already but the inclusion in the bill of the focus on product stewardship will highlight the need for these schemes and encourage more development. The big advantage of a product stewardship scheme is that manufacturers and distributors of a product are incentivised to think about the product’s whole life cycle. The manufacturers are in a position to redesign their product in light of its future use and final disposal. Too often we have seen products that have been created with no thought given to their final disposal and we need manufacturers to make smart decisions at the beginning of the design process. It is easy and cost-effective to make good choices about a product at the start—for example whether we use recyclable material or non-recyclable material. The very worst products that we come across are those that are a mixture of different materials that make recycling impossible. 
During the select committee process we visited Fisher and Paykel and its recycling and recovery operation. We were really impressed to hear how the company collected old whiteware whatever the brand and reused or recycled most of the componentry. The company was also proactive with recycling its packaging. We might be aware that when we buy a new Fisher and Paykel washing machine it is delivered to our house the old one is taken away and the packaging is taken away as well. The packaging is then reused if it is in good enough condition for another washing machine or if it is not believe it or not it is used to pack flowers for the export market. Fisher and Paykel is an example of an excellent product stewardship scheme and the sort of thing we would like to encourage with this bill. 
The bill also introduces the concept of priority products. The select committee was concerned that we actually deal with our most harmful products first and that they should be identified as a priority for a stewardship scheme. The Minister can declare a priority product but he has guidelines when he declares that product. The waste from the product must cause significant environmental harm there must be benefits from reusing reducing recycling or recovery of the product and it must be able to be managed effectively under a product stewardship scheme. The Minister cannot do this alone. He or she must take advice from the Waste Advisory Board consult the public and consider the effectiveness of any relevant voluntary product stewardship schemes. 
The bill requires that all priority products must be included in a product stewardship scheme. The scheme can use existing voluntary schemes as long as they are accredited or a new scheme must be developed. We were very conscious that there were some industries and some companies that have been proactive in managing their waste companies such as Resene Paints Ltd that has developed a paint recycling scheme Agpac which collects bulk plastics and companies everywhere that collect and recycle oil collect unwanted chemicals or chemical containers and collect packaging. We wanted to be sure that the bill rewarded those companies exhibiting good waste behaviour rather than punishing them so it was important that existing voluntary schemes could be accredited whether or not they involved priority products. 
We heard in the select committee that many companies and industry sectors were successfully managing their waste but that they were struggling to get all their members involved. It is the same old story that one hears everywhere. The majority of people and organisations were prepared to do the right thing but there were a minority of free-riders who were not prepared to contribute. In these cases a mandated scheme would ensure that everyone was included and would be beneficial to those who were already carrying the costs of managing their waste responsibly and there were a large number of organisations that supported this. 
The rest of Part 2 covers the details of the accreditation scheme its requirements and its regulation. It also gives details of the monitoring of accredited schemes. To be an accredited product stewardship scheme one must have a scheme manager and must provide a description of the scope of the scheme and measurable waste minimisation disposal objectives. It must list the people who are participating in the scheme and provide for assessing the scheme’s performance and reporting to the Minister. It must also outline how the scheme will be publicised so users are able to access it and how it will be funded. The teeth behind this part of the bill— 
Nathan Guy 
: What are they? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: The teeth are the significance of the product being declared a priority product. The teeth are that the Governor-General can prohibit the sale of priority products unless they are included in an accredited scheme. In other words all manufacturers or distributors of a product are forced to carry the same level of responsibility. There can be no free-riders. 
The final clause in Part 2 concerns the monitoring of imported products. The New Zealand Customs Service must provide information about priority products if requested by the Secretary for the Environment. The select committee was conscious that we wanted to keep the whole process of setting up and running product stewardship schemes as simple and as cost-effective as possible. To keep a sensible balance the Minister must take advice of the Waste Advisory Board and consult the people and the organisations that would be most affected by the scheme. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Waste Minimisation Bill. There is a lot of concern in our community about the management of waste and this bill has changed considerably from the bill as introduced to Parliament. I acknowledge that there has been a lot of work on this bill and although I sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee I made way for Nicky Wagner and I am quite glad I did because she has done an excellent job on this bill at the same time keeping the other members of the committee—from National at least—informed on how the bill was going. 
It is interesting is it not that in this instance the community organisations that have long been concerned about management of waste have in effect led to this bill. Although this is a member’s bill I believe that it is the small voluntary community organisations in the main who have really led the way in bringing the public of New Zealand along with them in their desire to be responsible stewards for our community on behalf of our environment. It is interesting to note that those community groups are incredibly successful and growing. For this legislation to come in to support and validate their work is I hope cause for celebration amongst them. 
The public now expect a level of waste stewardship and I believe that this bill begins to address that issue. I will turn to Part 2 “Product stewardship” in particular. What this bill does with product stewardship really is akin to when we used to return our milk bottles and get 4c for them. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Yes that’s about right. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: And beer bottles who would know— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Bottle drives; there used to be a lot of bottle drives. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes I did a number of bottle drives at intermediate school as did a number of others which was fantastic. It was unheralded I might say. Nobody knew it was good for the environment we just thought we were making a buck for our local schools and kindergartens but I guess that is the genesis of product stewardship. I understand that that issue was looked at as part of the examination process of this bill and discarded but in its place we have this clause in the bill under Part 2 which provides for product stewardship. 
This provision provides for an accreditation process and a regulatory process to encourage and foster product stewardship schemes. My colleague Nicky Wagner mentioned Fisher and Paykel as particularly good pioneers in product stewardship. I understand that the New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004 has also made good progress with product stewardship. These product stewardship schemes take responsibility for the environmental impacts and environmental harm of disposing of a product after its useful life. It is encouraging to see on the television news cellphones being voluntarily recycled—I understand that is part of a voluntary product stewardship scheme—and whiteware of course. Whenever we visit our local recycling depot there are always piles of whiteware. I do not mind paying a fee to drop off old whiteware knowing that it will be dismantled and the harmful gases captured. I think that is a fair trade. 
The spirit of product stewardship which is already done on a voluntary basis will be encouraged through this bill. Some other examples of disposing of products after their useful life would be the collection and disposal of used oil and other items. Thank you. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on this bill because when it came to the House in its original form it seemed to be layered with significant prescriptive matters that I thought were more about bureaucracy and involvement of officials than actually about finding solutions. So I am pleased after having a brief and cursory look at what is almost a total rewrite of the bill to find that there are some commendable aspects to it and National would certainly like to support it. 
We live in a world where the tendency has been to dress up and overuse packaging in a raft of ways as a marketing proposal. I am talking about Part 2—I think we are on Part 2 “Product Stewardship”—and I guess this bill is one step in what needs to be a bit of a montage of things needed in order to change consumer attitudes to the whole notion of wastage around packaging and the use of recyclable packaging. I think this bill is a step along that way. It is not a complete answer but it leads us down the road to some interesting proposals particularly in relation to product stewardship. I remember the birthday parties we used to have when I was quite a bit younger than I am now where someone would wrap up a very small item several times in boxes and with layers and layers of paper. When today I buy a shirt I am reminded very much of those pranks because of the wastage around its packaging so what is proposed in this part is a step forward. As my colleague Jacqui Dean said there is also the whole issue of whiteware and the need to change what we do; we live in a world where we can no longer rely on finite resources to be ever readily available. There is also the significantly negative impact on the environment of the creation of polystyrene and a whole lot of plastic packaging. 
I will also mention an issue that I note in my peripatetic activities around the electorate and the country at the moment. Because it is winter time significant baleage is being unwrapped and fed out through a variety of mechanisms. If there is one blight to be seen in winter agrarian scenes it is plastic polythene in a variety of colours—normally in green white and black but it can be in other colours—flapping around and attached to fences. I have to say we are making progress and there is a greater awareness that this needs to be managed. There also used to be a tendency for farmers to say they could destroy that plastic by burning it as long as the fire was a hot fire. I have no idea whether that is true and I do not know whether any farmer had a mechanism for actually measuring the heat of the fire to see whether it was destroying the particular chemicals that were given off when plastic was combusted in an open fire. It is very hard to keep such a fire hot enough to do whatever it is supposed to do. But there is an awareness of plastic wrap and I am pretty interested to see whether product stewardship can do some specific things in this area. 
I have seen a range of mechanisms for compressing bale wrap. There are others for washing it and cleaning it. There is a market for this stuff in Indonesia and in various parts of Asia including China. It does not have to be a hugely complex task to compress this stuff and make it into a marketable product. I have a redundant conventional hay baler valued probably somewhere between $150 and $200. It is perfectly good and it still works but we have moved on from making conventional bales. The hay baler gobbles up this plastic as if it is going out of fashion. We can screw the tension down and end up with bales of plastic and in Dunedin there is a recycling depot where this stuff can be taken. There the bales are cut and put into a super-high-density press for export so what we need is some stimulus to actually make this happen. At the moment a lot of this gathering up of baleage wrap gives only a small return—for example to schools and boards of trustees. I look forward to this “Product Stewardship Bill”. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 It is wonderful to have this opportunity to speak to the Waste Minimisation Bill and I do so because I sat through the deliberations on it in the Local Government and Environment Committee where I had the opportunity to hear all the submissions. I have been with the bill from the start and rise to speak to it for the first time actually feeling quite excited that it is here in its present form. I will be talking on Part 2 “Product stewardship” but I just want to acknowledge the bill as it is before us in its present shape. And it is right that it is because when the bill first came before the select committee in its original form I thought there was not a shiver show in heck we would be supporting it yet here we are now supporting it because of the select committee process. I applaud the process of the select committee but more important I applaud the officers and officials involved because they have done good work—a fantastic job. I say to the officials whom I see here that they did a marvellous job to get the bill into the shape it is in. 
The bill had to be put into shape. It was obvious through the 316 submissions we heard that something had to be done and product stewardship was a big part of that—just to keep the reference to Part 2 Madam Chair. The 316 submitters were passionate about waste and the need for the Government to be a leader in doing something about it and product stewardship was a big part of that. It is amazing actually how much the issue of container deposit came before us. I have to say that I like others who have spoken in relation to the submissions on product stewardship think that container deposit was a big part of it. Without a doubt this bill will when it passes make a considerable impact on waste and on where and how people behave in relation to it in generations to come. I applaud Mr Norman for taking over the mantle from Nandor. Again I am sure he will be making sure the bill goes through in its proper form. We are excited about where this will go. 
I return to Part 2 “Product stewardship” the cradle-to-grave aspect and say that the most important thing coming through the bill for me is that it is designed as a framework. That was one of the things I took on board quite early. It means that things can be worked on manoeuvred and placed in the best possible ways. It is not the Government saying: “This is the way to do it.” The bill in its present form and the design of the product stewardship provision in Part 2 also give the ability for the private sector for manufacturers—for those if you like from whom the waste is coming—to take on board the cradle-to-grave aspect themselves. As manufacturers producers or whatever they will voluntarily be able to design their own scheme in a way to suit them best rather than the Government saying: “This is the way it has to be done. We think this is the best way.” because we do not know—the Government does not know goodness me! The manufacturers in the sector should be able to handle their situation themselves. This legislation is a framework—a framework that needs to deal with many diverse situations—and it will provide regulatory support. 
There will be free-riders. We saw through the select committee process that there are free-riders out there. Not all of the voluntary schemes have got everyone on board. This legislation may force them to come on board which I think is very important. There are schemes out there that will after we pass this bill become a lot more relevant for those who have had the free ride and if there are industries out there or products out there that are not going to pick up the chalice of product stewardship then the Minister can force the issue. I think that is important. We have said out loud to the industries “You sort it out yourselves. Take the cradle-to-grave aspect seriously. We have and we are. We think it is important you find ways to reuse recover and minimise the waste. You sort out what’s best for your industry because you guys know. But hey if you don’t if you’re lazy if you’re free-riding guess what? We’ll change the playing field and we will make damn sure you do something about it.” I think that is more than appropriate. It is the role of Government and it is the role of the bill. I think we got there in the end. 
The bill is different from what we started with but I say again to the officials involved that I think they did a good job in helping us to wrap up something with the submitters that I think will make a difference and leave a nice legacy for Nandor. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to jump up and take just a quick call on this part. I feel that we are all on the same page here and I do not want this evening to be one of all of us getting up and saying the same things over and over again— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh no no! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —no matter how wonderful the speeches are I say to Jacqui. I endorse what has been said. 
This is an important part dealing with product stewardship and it is probably one of the most important parts of this bill. When we think about it logically it just seems sensible that when someone is purchasing a product it is probably the best time to make that person aware of the costs that come with disposing of that product and the packaging at the end of it. If we can all think about that up front then it will allow people to make choices about the products they purchase while realistically having a sense of the costs of that product both on them and on the environment at the end of that product’s life. 
We have seen this in the emissions trading scheme where we have been looking at the issue of products that contain refrigeration gases and the importance of product stewardship schemes. These gases are so greenhouse-gas intensive that if they leak into the atmosphere the effects will be far worse than many of the other gases we are talking about when it comes to climate change. But if these gases are contained then they have absolutely no impact on the environment at all so why should the people who produce them be penalised for that? It just goes to show the importance of product stewardship schemes not just when it comes to waste minimisation but also when it comes to climate change. 
I know that there has been some concern—and that Zero Waste in particular has indicated that it would like to see some kind of modelling or some kind of leadership taken—about directing the way in which these product stewardship schemes are run. Zero Waste is worried that if it is left to industry alone to deal with this it might be too onerous and it might not happen. Also participants like Zero Waste may not have the opportunity to get involved in it. We have talked about that a bit tonight. We have discussed the importance of leaving this to the industry to work it out. There are many good product stewardship schemes out there already and there are a number of voluntary schemes out there too. We have given them the ability to become accredited if they so wish and I think that that probably is the best way to go. 
I would mention to anyone who may be concerned about this issue that the Local Government and Environment Committee did consider this issue. We took it very very seriously. I think it can be seen from the agreement amongst members of the Committee of the whole House today about the importance of these schemes that probably all parties will be willing to monitor the situation and to come back to it if it becomes an issue. But I think we felt that the desire to do it was already out there and that perhaps we did not need to come down on schemes too heavy-handedly in terms of us directing what is best for them when they are already doing a pretty good job of doing some of those things. 
The priority list of products is very important. When we were going through it it became very tempting to end up with everything being a priority product so it will be a difficult task to make sure that we get up front those products that need to be dealt with first. 
Generally I think that the changes the select committee made were good. I acknowledge the work of Steve Chadwick the former chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee who took the bill through the first part of its consideration. I came in once all the hard work had been done and took it through its last part. I acknowledge of course the former member Nandor Tanczos for his work on the bill and also the current member Russel Norman. I hope that we get to see this bill complete its Committee stage tonight. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 This is an important bill and I want to make a contribution to the debate particularly in light of those people who are in their vehicles after finishing work and who are heading up the Kapiti Coast to Horowhenua where there has been no power today. There has been a major storm through that area and of course that will result and has resulted in a lot of waste all around the place. I have had a lot of calls to my office today about it. Trees are down and the phone lines are down and some roads up there are blocked. It will take some time to clear that debris or waste and I urge the community of Horowhenua to be patient. I have been in contact with the mayor and the chief executive up there and all the support services are on stand-by. A lot of destruction has been caused by this weather bomb that has headed our way. 
This bill is in a different form now and is back before the House. We had a very robust discussion in caucus as it made its way through the select committee process. I need to acknowledge the good work that Nicky Wagner has done. Some of her Supplementary Order Papers are on the Table this afternoon and I hope they will be endorsed by the Committee. This bill has come back in a different form because of the parliamentary process and the select committee has worked hard on it. I know that Mark Blumsky and the team have been going up and down the country hearing a lot of submissions on this bill. 
Part 2 “Product stewardship” will result in a scheme that hopefully will be flexible. Mr Roy made a very very good contribution when covering his rural background in Invercargill. He mentioned baleage wrap—the green wrap around bales that many members will have seen around the countryside. Of course the manufacturers and the people selling that product do not want it back because of the terrible smell. But we need to think about a programme for that product rather than having it just clogging up our landfills. So that is an important part of this bill. Its other aspect of course is the provision that when we purchase any whiteware component we will possibly be able to get a refund or discount for the longevity of that item at the end of its life. I think that is a very very important aspect. 
I look forward to Mr Norman making a contribution tonight on this bill. After Nandor Tanczos who was the proponent of this bill made his valedictory speech he produced a hammer out of his pocket and caused some waste to Parliament. He attacked his bench top. I am not sure whether this wood is New Zealand kauri or exactly what— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Rimu. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It is rimu. I knew I was close; it is a New Zealand native. So I want to know from Mr Norman in relation to Part 2 covering product stewardship whether the New Zealand rimu that was damaged by Mr Tanczos in this Chamber was able to be recycled. My understanding is that the damage caused by the former Green member to that piece of timber resulted in an invoice for payment going to the Green Party and so it should have done. I look forward to— 
Jacqui Dean 
: What about the watch? 
NATHAN GUY 
: I am not sure about the watch. That is a very valid point I tell Mrs Dean—whether the watch was able to be recycled under the product stewardship covered by Part 2. So I look forward to Mr Norman making a contribution. Members on this side of the Chamber have made several speeches now and we would like Mr Norman to respond to a couple of aspects of this very important Part 2. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Waste disposal levy 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 This is an interesting part as it relates to the waste disposal levy. I think this is probably the most interesting part of the bill because the waste disposal levy will have advantages but I believe that there also are some perils inherent in it. I do have some misgivings about this levy notwithstanding National’s support of this much-changed bill from the original bill as introduced by the former Green member of Parliament who did not recycle his watch. That is shame. It is not what I would have done. There are plenty of people who would like a second-hand watch. 
This waste disposal levy as introduced was to be set at $25 per tonne. A tonne of concrete would be clean fill I suppose so would it come under this waste disposal levy? [ 
Interruption 
] OK so concrete and I presume wood products would be regarded as clean fill and therefore not part of this waste disposal levy regime. I want to thank my colleague Nicky Wagner for the depth of her knowledge on this bill. Nicky has done a great job in helping to shape this bill which as introduced was a far different piece of legislation from the one we have now. 
So it was the Local Government and Environment Committee’s recommendation that the sum of this waste disposal levy be reduced to $10 per tonne. This figure will be used as an initial figure and I think it is in recognition of the fact that it will take time before worthwhile schemes in waste reduction attract funding through the levy fund. If I understand the bill that levy fund will be administered by the Waste Advisory Board which will advise the Minister and will then award grants on behalf of the waste disposal levy. 
It sounds great; it does sound good. But I have misgivings on two points. To make my first point I refer members for a moment to an area up in the Waitaki Valley towards Kurow where there is a spot along the Waitaki River that is used for “fly dumping” as we call it in the South Island. I do not what know what it is called up here in the north but we call it fly dumping and it is disgusting. People dispose of mainly household rubbish over a bank near a river—thanks very much for that folks; thanks for all that stuff going into our water! Introducing a waste levy of $10 a tonne does not sound like much but the question I have is whether it will encourage a greater level of fly dumping. 
Let us face it—those people are prepared to dump waste over the river banks thinking “out of sight out of mind”. We grew out of that thinking 50 years ago did we not? But there are still some people who think like that. My misgiving on that point is that it would encourage fly dumping. I would like some assurance from the member in the chair Russel Norman that he will address this item specifically. If the member was listening I am sure he will take it on board. Maybe I will repeat it because I would like some assurance from the member that enough thinking has gone into the development of this waste disposal levy so that fly dumping is not encouraged. I would like an answer specifically to that question from the member in the chair. 
My second misgiving about this waste disposal levy although I am in general support of it is that maybe it will encourage anti-competitive behaviour particularly within small local authorities although I would not discount it happening in some larger local authorities. The revenue of course from this waste disposal levy is split fifty-fifty with 50 percent allocated to territorial authorities on a per capita basis to be spent on waste minimisation as identified in their waste management and waste minimisation plans—and there is another wee plan for local government. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I wanted to speak just briefly to clause 24 and to an amendment that is in part a response to an amendment put forward by Nicky Wagner. In clause 24 there is an exemption from the levy if one does not store the waste material for more than 3 months. It is quite a sensible exemption but both of us and a number of other people are of the view that 3 months is too short. The member Nicky has moved an amendment to make that time period 6 months and the Green Party is proposing to make it 12 months. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member’s name is Nicky Wagner not Nicky. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: My apologies. We are suggesting that in clause 24(3) we change 3 months to 12 months. We think there is no reason why that time frame cannot be extended. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the amendment been tabled? 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: It has. We agree with the general intention of that member’s amendment to change it from 3 months to 12 months because it leaves more flexibility for those people who are dealing with recycling. 
I spent some of the day on the phone speaking with the original author of this bill Nandor Tanczos and looking at all the amendments that have been put forward. We are getting a little bit more up to speed from the former Green MP about the different amendments. 
Hon Member 
: He’s nice and relaxed. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Yes he is very nice and relaxed; he is back at home now up in the Waikato. Nandor was very much of the view that the amendment was sensible and that it would be good to extend that period to 12 months. So we will be suggesting 12 months instead of the proposed 6 months. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I will take a short call this time. I had several concerns about Part 3 and the waste disposal levy. My second misgiving is that perhaps there may be some nature of competition between local groups within a community be it large or small. In particular there may well be competition between the local authority the territorial authority and the community groups that are competing for this finite level of waste disposal levy moneys. I am not sure about this and again I would be interested in an explanation. I am still waiting for an explanation from the member in the chair Russel Norman as to whether he considers that the occurrence of fly dumping will increase because of the imposition of a waste disposal levy. I would very much like his view on that. 
I go back to my second concern which is about competition. Let us take the scenario of a territorial authority that has the community behind it is very committed to waste recycling and can see an opportunity in this legislation—and so it should—and then makes an application to the Waste Advisory Board for some of the funding for a waste minimisation programme. That is wonderful; it is laudable on behalf of the local authority. But there may also be a community group within that local authority—it does not have to be in the same town but it is in the same local authority—that would very much like to do the same thing. The concern I have—and I would like the member’s advice on this—is that we would now have communities working against each other. Surely that was not the intention in this bill. 
If this is an unintended consequence of Part 3 which creates the waste disposal levy I would like some discussion on it and I would like an explanation. I do need to say I was not part of the select committee discussion on this so I would genuinely like an explanation of those two matters. I would like to know whether fly dumping would be increased because of the waste levy at landfill—or disposal facilities as we call them now—and whether there would be some competition within the same or similar communities for that waste disposal levy funding. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I did not have the delight of sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee. When I picked up this version of the bill I thought it was a huge improvement but I did hope that my colleagues on the select committee had some things to say about Part 3. This bill is a curate’s egg. It is good in parts and bad in parts. In my humble opinion this bill shows a nanny State gone wrong in terms of the striking of a levy in the select committee that is to apply nationally as a waste disposal levy. 
In this little bill here we have nearly 10 pages of prescriptive requirements about the setting of the levy the way the load is to be calculated what happens if the load is calculated wrongly whether one can have time to pay the levy and a whole lot of stuff. If we want a levy then we should say to the local authority: “You shall collect a levy.” That is all we need—a clause that says something like that. This bill is an absolute disaster. 
I have a very modest investment in a property in the Te Anau basin. I stress that it is quite quite modest. I am in the habit of using a refuse facility at Te Anau. I now have to pay a levy when I take stuff to the collection point. The cost depends on whether it is green waste whiteware or whatever. Workers at the collection point now decide how much I should pay for what I bring. Are they doing it ultra vires? I would like to have an argument with them if that is the case. 
When we start doing this we gets into all kinds of mix-ups. For example if we load up our trailer and go to the refuse point at Te Anau out past the golf course and we get there and have not brought the coupons then we cannot unload our stuff because the people at the refuse site cannot be trusted. So we have to go back to the BP garage in town or another outlet and buy our coupons and go back. Then the guy at the refuse point makes an assessment. He might say: “That is an overloaded double-axle trailer. You will need six coupons.” But his normal rule is that a double-axle trailer is five coupons. We have to go back to the BP station to get another coupon and then we go back and find that the refuse point is closed. All of those rules are now operating in a fulsome manner in the Te Anau basin without this legislation. It is bureaucracy gone mad. 
Then horror of horrors I see there are some delegated responsibilities that would allow the Minister to make other regulations in relation to the collecting— 
Mark Blumsky 
: You’ll be a good Minister. 
ERIC ROY 
: I have to say to Mr Blumsky that I do not want to be anywhere near this legislation. It is a serious case of nanny State gone wrong where the Local Government and Environment Committee has said that the collection of a waste disposal levy should not be $25 a tonne but $10 a tonne. I would love to know how it worked that out but in case we get it wrong we have 10 pages for a Minister with delegated responsibilities to sort it all out so that we can collect the waste disposal levy. 
This bill is good in parts but for goodness’ sake this bit here is overkill beyond any expression that one would like to have. Yes there needs to be a waste disposal—I am not arguing about that—but here the principle of enshrining something in law is a case of serious overkill. I hope my colleagues had some serious things to say about this part on the select committee. I ask whether we are supporting this clause. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Yes we are. 
ERIC ROY 
: Oh my gosh! We should wait until the next caucus meeting. There will be a sorting out over this thing. This is serious overkill. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Whose side are you on? 
ERIC ROY 
: Well I have expressed that I want to see the provisions of this bill enacted but I have to say that this is bureaucracy gone berserk. Oh dear oh dear! 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on Part 3. I am one of the new members on the Local Government and Environment Committee so I did not have the opportunity to hear a lot of the public submissions on the Waste Minimisation Bill. But in the short time I have been on the committee I have found that it has by and large been very supportive of the aim of the bill. I am happy to say that Labour is also supporting this bill. 
It is important on this occasion to say that we have had a distinguished visitor from the Pacific region the Hon Toke Talagi who is the Premier of Niue. That is significant because we are talking about an issue that is to do with the overall environmental challenges that we now face here and in the Pacific region. Environmental issues are do-or-die issues for the people of the Pacific. 
The Waste Minimisation Bill is a significant issue. The bill shows great leadership from this House in terms of moving the issue forward. It is a starting point; it is not the end. This issue will not just go away. Some members may remember a cartoon that was on TV some years back about a man who kept collecting rubbish. The cartoon showed the rubbish pile getting bigger and bigger and covering the whole Earth. Well that is the reality we are now facing; that is the challenge. 
I come to Part 3 “Waste disposal levy”. Concerns are being raised about that levy by National members of the select committee and no doubt the member in the chair Dr Russel Norman will have a few things to say about that. But this is new territory and I suppose we have to explore places we have not been to before. In respect of the aim of this levy—firstly the levy can be increased so that people will be discouraged from disposing of rubbish or secondly it can be reduced which is what the select committee decided to do. It reduced the levy from $25 a tonne to $10 a tonne in an effort to try to cater for the concerns raised by some members of that committee. There will be a review by the Minister after 2 years. We have to have the kahunas—if I am able to say that—to take some leadership to go with this and to review it at the end of the 2 years. There is also the opportunity to review it every 3 years thereafter. 
I think that the beauty of this levy for me personally is that an amount of money will be made available for community organisations and local government to encourage the community and our local governments to look at ways in which we can minimise the rubbish we are creating. An assessment was made by Local Government New Zealand that on a 50-50 share the money could amount to about $50 million. That is not something to sneer about; it is a significant amount of money when we consider that some community organisations working in this area are already doing that work on the smell of an oily rag and by putting in their own resources. 
I fail to see why concerns have been raised; nevertheless they are concerns that need to be addressed. At the end of the day the select committee has agreed that this Waste Minimisation Bill needs to go forward and I for one join with my Labour colleagues in supporting it. As I said it is a starting point. We need to pursue this area for the sake of the future of our nation and for the region as well. Thank you. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the Waste Minimisation Bill. The legislation is a tribute to Nandor Tanczos. It is a shame that Nandor is not here to take part in the debate but I expect he might be listening. He was always great to work with. 
This is very useful legislation. Way way back in about 1979 Venn Young talked about putting a levy on Coca-Cola bottles and suchlike and getting a refund on them as is done in many countries. Some way of dealing with waste is long overdue in New Zealand. This bill is to be commended and New Zealand First supports it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I would like to take a very brief call on the Waste Minimisation Bill in part to support my friend and colleague Eric Roy because he is a rural dweller. I am sure we have had similar experiences. 
I have been fortunate enough to live in places like Devonport which was the first borough to start intensive classification of rubbish collection and to sort rubbish into biodegradable rubbish and that which could be reused. It was a good population there and it was very rare that at the end of a Saturday there was anything left at all except household rubbish fit only for throwing away. Everything else was recycled. It was a grand social event. It was beautifully tidy there was no smell and everything was categorised. A guy was imported from the United States to do it and rubbish was not a problem. One had to have a little sticker on one’s car to gain entry or exit. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: To cut to the chase and not use all the 4 minutes I have remaining I would like to express the sincere hope that the Committee really has given full regard to the implications of this part. 
I mentioned that my baptism in waste management was in Devonport which I think was the first borough to specialise in sorting rubbish—and it was very very effective. I then went to Moana—at Lake Brunner on the West Coast—which had a traditional old-fashioned dump. There was no problem with leachate because it ran straight into the Arnold River which ran into the Grey River which ran out to sea. It was appalling but it did not last too long. When I was chair of the community association we started to make some effective changes and we now have a very effective recycling centre. Indeed Greymouth has a very sophisticated tip—if we call them tips nowadays—that copes with all forms of rubbish. 
But I note that the Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard has insisted that there be no rubbish tips with a view on the West Coast. Therefore rubbish from Haast and Jackson Bay has to be dragged all the way up north to Greymouth. Let us remember that tourists going to that area produce 1.8 kilograms—those are the statistically correct figures—of rubbish per day. The Department of Conservation’s solution to having to empty rubbish bins was to take away the bins in the hope that tourists would take out what they brought in. Any rubbish collector who works for the Westland District Council will tell us that tourists certainly do not take out their rubbish. I hope this bill is designed for more than aspiration and I hope it will take into account the practical implications of rubbish collection and removal as well as the levies. 
As we are talking about levies let us remember that entrepreneurial people abound. Before we used the centralised dump at Greymouth near Runanga it was decided that each community could retain its own dump for the limited period of its approval from the regional council. An entrepreneurial young gentleman worked for a joinery company which was asked by Dobson ratepayers why it was dumping its rubbish for free in the Dobson dump when in fact it should have been paying to put it into the Greymouth dump. It turned out that the joinery company was paying the young guy $7 every time he took out the rubbish but because he lived at Dobson he knew he could dump it for free there. We have to take account of the entrepreneurial spirit of young guys who drive trucks. 
But seriously I would appreciate hearing from the bill’s promoter Russel Norman so we can hear that he appreciates the fact that the Buller District Council I think is considering a contract to dispose of its rubbish in Nelson. There are huge costs involved in moving rubbish. I would like to hear—and I am sure I will be able to take back—the Committee’s considerations on some of the distances imposed on areas that have a very low rating base. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak on Part 3. I want to make three or four comments. Although I was not in the Chamber I listened with interest to the debate this afternoon and I want to make two points that I think are important. First of all I thank all the members on the Local Government and Environment Committee. When this bill first came before the select committee I thought: “Oh bless my soul here we go again! It’s another Green tree-hugging leftie what-a-whole-lot-of-nonsense bill.” 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You did not! 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is funny; the member might think not but that is exactly what I thought. I thought: “Fancy having to put up with this!” 
Well as time went by and I got more and more into it I became a convert as I think every member of the select committee did. It has been a steep learning curve for someone like me with my black bush singlet from the back of the Hokianga. It has been great to have the opportunity to consider this bill—to the extent that Nicky Wagner and I took the opportunity at the invitation of Warren Snow to look at the system in South Australia and I will talk about that. But I have to say that all the members of the select committee—including the chair members of the Opposition as well as the Government and the Greens—have worked constructively together to make this a better bill for the betterment of New Zealand. The fact that the bill is before the Committee in this form is a testament to the fact that select committees work. 
One of the great debates the select committee had—as you will know Madam Chair because you were one of the erstwhile members of the committee—was about the title of the bill. The title is the first thing that New Zealanders need to start getting their heads around. When we have used bits of paper like the one I have here we screw them up and chuck them away—I hope I do not need this bit of paper now—and we call them waste. Well I might be finished with this bit of paper but it is not waste at all. It should be considered a resource. When I have finished using this pen and I chuck it in the bin it might not be of any use to me any more but it will be of use to somebody somewhere. It is a resource. 
The tyre on a car that someone has finished with can be a resource for someone else too. Indeed in that regard I make the point that car manufacturers come before the select committee. They said they wanted something called container deposit legislation. I know that a lot of people will tell me to wash my mouth out because those are terrible words to use in the New Zealand Parliament. But the manufacturers said that if a brand new car worth $30000 could be sold for $30500 they would put the $500 aside in a bank—not in one of those institutions that might collapse—where it would stay. The car would pass through people’s hands and finally reach its end-user whoever that may be—and it is likely to be someone impoverished like me from the back of the Hokianga. What I normally do with an old car is drive it into the bush and set fire to it where it becomes a pollutant and causes problems to the environment. But I could take that car back and claim the $500. It would be worth $500; it would have some value. [ 
Interruption 
] I could take the member’s car back as well. 
Hon Member 
: What about my bottles? 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is the point. I heard someone say earlier that Venn Young talked about putting a price on bottles. Well when I was a lad which was just a couple of years ago we used to collect 2c on each bottle. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Bottle drives. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes. The Scouts and the Girl Guides did bottle drives. A whole lot of us did. 
The point is that those bottles were not waste. They were resource because they had a value that was worth redeeming. That is why I bring our attention to this provision in the bill. Here we are talking about a levy. We have a levy because we want to put a punitive tax on people who are disposing of what they consider to be waste. We want to encourage them because of the cost to consider it not as waste but as something that is of use to somebody. The reason we do that is so that we can encourage them to see that the things they consider waste are actually someone else’s resource. 
In that regard I make the following point. What we are doing again—and I must say I am a little concerned that some local bodies have actually bought into this—is saying that the end-user is responsible for the disposal of that bit of waste. So whom do we turn to? We do not turn to the manufacturer we do not turn to the retailer and we do not turn to the user—although we ask the user to pay. Instead we tell local government that it is the last man standing that it is its fault and that it must get rid of the waste. We say: “Here is John Carter’s bag of rubbish—you get rid of it Mr Mayor.” The point is that we are continually loading stuff onto local authorities. They have accepted the responsibility. In fact because of the cost to a lot of local authorities they have asked for this levy so that they have a way to mitigate their expenses and actually find other alternatives. 
The issue is whether that is the best thing we can do with regard to what people call waste but is actually a resource. I say it is not. I say—and I am pleased I am in Parliament saying this tonight—that in time we too will adopt the system that Nicky Wagner and I saw in South Australia. It is too early yet and it will not happen tomorrow but there is some discussion of it in the bill. What will finally happen is that we will get to the stage where we have a thing called container deposit legislation or the like right across the country on every item that is brought into this nation. We will have it because it is a sensible way of making people responsible up-front for the end-use of the item. It means that people will automatically think: “This isn’t a bit of waste that I can just chuck away. It actually has a value in our society.” 
The reason why lots of people are opposed to it is that they think they will be disadvantaged because of the cost. Well if this country applies it correctly then there is no competitive disadvantage. If it is applied equally right across the board on every product at a proper level then it is paid for upfront but consumers pay for it as they purchase. Then they get it redeemed at the end and the person who actually turns it into another product gets the value for it. 
The final point we need to consider is that everybody pays for waste in this nation—everybody. It does not matter whether finally it is the local authority the ratepayer the consumer the retailer or the manufacturer. The way in which we deal with waste these days is a cost on society. But if we turned the issue round looked at it the other way and said: “This is not rubbish; this is actually a resource and we can get value from it.” then it becomes something we can value. Part 3 leads us part-way down that path. But I look forward to the day when this bill continues to strengthen and I look forward to the day when finally this nation accepts that we have a tremendous resource in the stuff we call waste. . 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am really thrilled that we have got to the Waste Minimisation Bill in the House tonight. I acknowledge Nandor Tanczos. This bill was indelibly branded with Nandor’s name and even though Dr Norman is in the chair tonight I would like to acknowledge Nandor Tanczos and the work that he did because this was a member’s bill and it is not often that a member’s bill becomes a Government bill. Even more spectacular it is not often that we reach unanimous agreement as we have on this bill—I am dying to see how we will all vote on this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee which I chaired was a lovely experience in relation to this bill. 
When we first received the bill it was quite cumbersome it was overly bureaucratic and complicated and it was overly complex. But we have worked through it. I then handed it over and I have watched what is happening under the new chair Moana Mackey; it is great to know that it has progressed through and that the committee worked so well. We also went over to Australia—as I heard the previous speaker John Carter talk about—and that was very experiential for us all because we saw that waste is not waste at all. I had hoped that this bill would be called the “Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Bill” because that is what we are trying to teach the next generation. Some of us are too old and we need to be grandparented out about seeing waste as a resource and as gold actually—where there is muck there is brass. We learnt that when we went around many sites in New Zealand too. We saw that if we look at waste quite differently as something that we do not just chuck in a hole in the ground and fill in we can manage it quite differently and significantly alter the way we deal with waste in New Zealand and also then look at the sustainable use of resources. 
Congratulations to the committee. I want to say too that because this Government picked up the bill as a Government bill—now in Dr Russel Norman’s name—the bill also fits in with a lot of the other work that we have led as a Labour Government on issues of sustainability and I am proud of that. The emissions trading scheme the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 and improving the framework for managing freshwater resources are all sustainable initiatives of this Government. I just want to talk about the levy here. I notice it has gone down from $25 a tonne to $10 a tonne—how disappointing! We need to find the right price-sensitive level so it is a disincentive rather than a punishment. It will not be a punishment at all because we will use that levy really well with a—I see it is not an authority now—waste advisory board. But it is about striking the right economic disincentive so that people decide that perhaps they had better have another look at their waste do source-point sorting and get recycling and all sorts of initiatives going that excite the community rather than seeing it as punitive. I think we will take a while inching up if it is an annual increase to the levy until we reach that right price-sensitive level to change behaviour. Congratulations to the select committee. I hope we all vote in favour of this bill. It would truly show that we are a sustainable nation and that we all want to make a difference. Thank you Madam Chair. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As members will have gathered from some of the comments of my colleagues the imposition of a waste disposal levy was a hot topic in our caucus. It was also top of mind during submission time at the Local Government and Environment Committee. But we eventually decided that if we considered a user-pays fee and an economic instrument designed to encourage waste minimisation it would be useful—the benefits would outweigh the costs. We wanted to reward people and companies for minimising their waste and penalise those who did not make the effort. As everyone is always looking for the cheaper way individuals businesses and organisations that make an effort to minimise their waste can save money. 
We are very aware that many of the present collection systems and payment methods for waste collection do not identify or reward people who manage their waste effectively. In the domestic situation people often pay the same amount whether they are conscientious waste minimisers or profligate with their waste. We hope that systems can be developed in the long term that recognise and reward people who put effort into waste minimisation. 
We were also keen to find a way to finance capital expenditure for waste minimisation projects. At present most of those projects are paid for by the ratepayer via local government and again everyone pays the same regardless of his or her waste behaviour. Proceeds from this waste levy will be split fifty-fifty between territorial authorities—on a population basis—and a centralised contestable fund for waste minimisation projects. The cost of administrating that fund and the Waste Advisory Board will come from the portion that goes to the contestable fund. 
Territorial authorities can spend levy money only to promote or achieve waste minimisation in accordance with their waste management and minimisation plans. That was a really important ring-fencing of the money. Many people who made submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee were nervous about the waste levy but were much happier if they thought it would be applied only to waste minimisation projects. 
My Supplementary Order Paper 221 includes a third criteria for territorial authorities which requires the territorial authority when funding waste services through the waste levy to treat private enterprise council-controlled organisations and their own in-house operations on an equal basis. This deals with an issue raised by waste service operators which were concerned that councils could use the levy to subsidise council services that might unfairly undercut private enterprise and those who have been early adopters and have proactively embraced waste minimisation. I do not think those operators deserve that. It would be wasteful and certainly not desirable to use the levy to create unnecessary new organisations. It would be far more logical for a territorial authority to have a contract with existing waste service operators whoever they are as long as their operations are cost-effective. 
Once we got through the philosophy of the waste levy the debate then turned to the dollar amount. It has been set at $10 a tonne for every tonne of waste that is disposed at a disposal facility. Originally as Steve Chadwick mentioned we were considering $25 a tonne on the basis that that amount would make people change their behaviour quickly and more significantly but finally we decided considering ever-increasing living costs that that amount would be excessive and that we would begin at $10. 
We were also concerned—and this is the issue Jacqui Dean raised earlier—that too big a jump in the waste levy could lead to more illegal dumping or fly dumping which would be bad for the environment. A levy at $10 a tonne will collect $30 million a year and that will be enough hopefully to see some new innovative and successful waste minimisation projects. The amount of the levy will be reviewed by the Minister within 2 years of the legislation’s commencement and every 3 years after that. 
I also have another Supplementary Order Paper on this part of the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 220 concerns the timing of a deposit in clause 24(3). This was really designed to ensure that waste was not deposited just to avoid paying a levy. When we discussed this in the select committee we felt that 3 months would cover this issue but since then we have had submissions from recyclers who say that often it takes them longer than 3 months to aggregate amounts of waste material before it can be transported. Those recyclers were concerned that they may be caught under this clause. 
Supplementary Order Paper 220 alters the time from 3 months to 6 months in order to give that flexibility. There had been some discussion about altering it to 12 months but we were concerned that might mean people might fly dump temporarily and we felt that 6 months should give them flexibility. The original clause was put in when we were alerted during the select committee process to the issue where some organisations actually stockpile recyclable materials that can be processed at a future time. We felt it was reasonable for them to do that but not unreasonable for them to apply to the Minister when they needed an extended length of time. 
I seek the support of the Committee on both my amendments which are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 221 and Supplementary Order Paper 220. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 3 of the Waste Minimisation Bill. This is a very important part of the bill and the Local Government and Environment Committee spent a long period of time discussing the pros and cons of many of these parts. A lot of these matters have been outlined but I want to mention again the reasons the select committee decided to change the waste disposal levy from $25 a tonne to $10. We heard a number of submissions and the concern was that if we started off lower we would probably be able to bring more people in without—as many members have said—running the risk of illegal dumping which would go against the entire intention of this bill as Nicky Wagner has already said. This amount will still bring in a significant amount of money to begin the levy fund. 
As my colleague Steve Chadwick said we felt that it was a question of balance. We do not know that we have got it exactly right. A lot of this tends to be a case of just picking figures out of the air based on one’s best estimate but in consultation with the sponsor of this bill Nandor Tanczos we decided that $10 per tonne was the best way to go to start with. It was a point of much contention on the Local Government and Environment Committee. Numerous committee members—and people may be surprised to know who they were—contended that it should be a lot more than that to start off. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Who was that? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I could not possibly say. As the chairperson of the committee I take my responsibilities very seriously. But it was the topic of much much discussion. 
All members of the Committee and all members of this House will be watching with much interest to see how this part of the bill develops and to see whether the revenue raised from the levy is enough to meet the demands of territorial authorities and private groups that are interested in waste minimisation initiatives. Certainly at the select committee it was amazing to hear from the wide variety of groups and from the territorial authorities about what they were doing in this area and what they wanted to do and about the fact that they felt constrained by not having a fund such as this to assist them to do that. 
The other issue we spent a lot of time discussing and it was another one where we were never going to please everybody was how the levy should be split between territorial authorities and private organisations and whether there should be a split. We settled on fifty-fifty as a split between the two. Again it was our best effort to find a compromise. One of our main concerns was that we did not want to penalise those territorial authorities that had already made great strides in this area at their own cost by saying: “We’re now going to pay for those territorial authorities that have not done anything to do what you are already doing but you yourselves cannot apply to this fund to pay for advances in what you want to do.” 
I take on board the comments made by Nicky Wagner about making it clear that the money is fairly distributed when it goes to the territorial authorities. My concern is around some of the wording. We need to clarify this because I do not think we have a definition of “waste services” in the bill. My concern is that when we do not put definitions in legislation we potentially open it up to an enormous amount of litigation. I think that is just a wording thing and I hope it is something we can sort through here in the Committee stage. But certainly when I looked at the beginning of the bill I saw that we do not have a definition of “waste services”. In an area like this where we are likely to get some contention between the numerous groups out there that do not want any money going to territorial authorities and that want it all to go into a contestable fund I think we need to be very careful to close off every loophole possible towards the matter going to judicial review or some kind of litigious argument about what a waste service is and whether a group is actually doing a waste service because our committee has not come up with that definition. I just flag that concern off the top of my head about that particular Supplementary Order Paper. 
The other Supplementary Order Paper the member mentioned relates to extending from 3 months to 6 months the amount of time waste can be deposited before it is considered disposed waste and subject to the waste levy. I think that is a good compromise. Although I could see the advantages of taking it out to 12 months our concern was that that could potentially mean there would be no funds in this levy fund until 2010 and that is certainly not what the select committee intended. I do not know that that is what would happen but given that it is a possibility I think that 6 months is a good compromise. It gives flexibility for the different groups to meet that concern and it also allows us to address the other concern. Thank you. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 Yes as the previous speaker and current chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee alluded to we made a lot of compromises through the course of this process—which has taken quite a few years I think to be honest. But they were compromises that added value I am sure. Much to the displeasure of some of my colleagues maybe I have to say that I am a fan of the levy. I think the levy is a wonderful tool. It is a tool to make the waste minimisation process better because I think funding is needed to make sure that there are initiatives that are proactive and effective in dealing with the issues ahead. We do not have enough money in the big pot of things—there is not the money around. I am well aware and submitters made it quite clear to us when they came through the process that initiatives are out there that could be funded and it would actually make a difference if they could be funded. I think the levy would address that. 
While Nicky Wagner and Moana Mackey are discussing the word changes I want to raise an issue about the Supplementary Order Papers. In particular I will refer to Supplementary Order Paper 221 put forward by Nicky Wagner which talks about funding waste services through a waste levy and contains the phrase “must treat private enterprise”. I will explain where that came from. Quite simply the other day I was made aware of the magazine I am holding which is called  
LeafTurner 
. The industry has come a long way. The whole area of composting biodegrading and everything else has come a long way recently. We are now at the stage where there are magazines that focus just on composting. I thought gosh I would never have thought I would even have had a glance through this magazine but I was nosy because of the Waste Minimisation Bill so I started glancing at it. I noted that some pretty clever companies have been set up that are doing good work in the whole green waste recycling industry. 
One company in particular called Green Fingers caught my eye. It is a company that is doing some very significant business and making quite a difference in the area of waste. I wanted to know a bit more about what Green Fingers were doing so I rang and had a discussion with one of its directors just as I said to learn a bit more. I congratulated the company on its initiative and on the fact that it was doing some pretty good work in this whole area. I asked the director how he saw the future. He said: “Look our future’s pretty good apart from that bill that’s coming through the House because we have a concern.” I asked him what he was talking about. He said “Well what you’re doing with the levy by giving it to territorial authorities as well is you’re actually giving them the opportunity to set up in competition to us.” I asked what he meant by “set up in competition” with his company. He said that he was running a business where operators went to the back of the house to collect the green waste but that if a city council set it up it would have the green wheelie bins at the front of the gate and the bins would be free. He said that his company charged for its service because it comes to the back of the house it is quite proactive and makes sure the waste is looked after appropriately. 
The company was concerned that a council using its percentage of the levy would set up a new waste business in recycling that was in direct competition with it. I bought into that argument; I thought that it was not fair that our use of the levy would fund someone to knock out some other company in private business that is doing a bloody good job. So this amendment that Nicky Wagner has put before the Committee says quite bluntly that if a council does get a levy then the council should not use the levy to knock out some other company that is already doing the business in that area and doing it well. I am quite happy if a council sets up but because it is being subsidised using levies or ratepayers’ money it must give the same environment the same set of rules and the same advantages to that private enterprise as well. That would be fair and that is in fact what this amendment does. It sends a signal to local government that it should not bust out some company that has been doing a good job in this area just because a local government organisation thinks it can do it use it as a little earner and use the levy. That is not fair so it should not take that path and this amendment is quietly ensuring that it will not do that. I never thought about it through the process but after I read this little magazine and spoke to Green Fingers that company made me aware of the fact that it was nervous that a council might knock it out of business and I did not think that that was what we actually intended the whole amendment to do. 
I like the levy; I like the fact that there will be funds for innovation. I am very comfortable that local authorities will add half of the levy but the issue I have is that they cannot use it to displace others. They cannot use it as an extra and if they are using it for existing services they have to take some of that money off the rates bill. I am pleased however that there is a 2-year review. I think that $10 is too cheap. I think that $31 million divided by 2 does not leave enough in the fund. I believe there are some very significant projects in waste minimisation that can be put on stream but they will need some capital. That capital I think should be from the levy but the $15 million for the other half is not enough. I am a fan of seeing it going right up to $25 and that is why I am hoping that the 2-year review will look at that address the fact see a bloody big list of initiatives that will make a difference and make the call to increase the levy. There is not huge unanimity in caucus for that but I hope that that is where it goes because this will probably be my last chance to speak before they drag me off the stage. Thank you. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 You see that is the problem—we just saw some waste. The member said he would take a minute extra and he took 2½. How much waste was that? The member in a way just argued against himself. He said he is in favour of the levy. I heard my colleague Eric Roy earlier arguing and worrying—as I think Chris Auchinvole is also worrying—about this part of the bill because of the compliance and bureaucracy it establishes. That is the issue that worries me. I just heard our member very correctly state that the amendment coming though will ask local government bodies to desist competing—unfairly because they will use ratepayer subsidies—against businesses that have already established themselves on a proper business basis. What worries me with this levy is that it is setting up more compliance more bureaucracy more control and more regulation. Somewhere along— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Are we in favour of it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes we are as an interim measure. As an interim measure we support it because it is a start. 
It is a punitive measure however. Basically it says to people that if they do not do it right they will be punished whereas we want to incentivise people to understand that what they call waste is not waste—it is a resource. And one day as I said earlier we will get to the stage where this nation understands that. In the meantime we will be spending a whole lot of ratepayers’ money particularly and probably some taxpayers’ money as well on a system that establishes more bureaucracy and a whole lot of people will then start making decisions rules and regulations about things they do not know about. 
Let me give members an example—it is a little bit off the point—in relation to the Building Act. I was talking to a roofer the other day. He told me that the Department of Building and Housing has just brought out a whole raft of new regulations. He said that if he has to build a roof exactly as the department has told him to and if he has to comply with its rules and regulations the roof is going to leak. Well I am afraid that we are going to end up with the same sort of thing here. We will have rules and regulations that actually prevent people from getting on and doing the recycling they are already doing and I think that is a great shame. We want to encourage recycling to happen. We want small businesses to get going. 
I think of the team of people we have in Kaitaia whom I am very proud of. They have been doing recycling there successfully for years now—and all credit to them. They have taken on the challenge against all odds and made it work. Those are the sorts of people we should be encouraging because they educate society. If we go and talk to people in Kaitaia now we will find that they have quite a different attitude to those in a whole lot of other areas who think that waste is just something they chuck in a hole in the ground. So we support this levy because it is one step towards the end goal. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Where’s the levy going to be stored? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well the levy is going to be spent—that is the problem. It will not be stored anywhere. This levy will be— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Put it in the Spencer Trust— 
JOHN CARTER 
: It will not be put in the Spencer account; the member can be sure of that. We will make sure it is put in a proper account where it is properly and adequately looked after and people can know what is happening. 
The point is that ultimately we want to get away from the situation where people are encouraged to do things for punitive reasons. We want to encourage people to do things for absolutely the right reason. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 It will not surprise members at all that I rather disagree with what the previous speaker John Carter had to say about bureaucracy and extra costs. In fact it is very interesting to see that he and the National speaker who spoke before him had quite a divergence of opinion. 
I will start my short contribution by greeting the South Coast Environment Centre in Riverton which is in my electoral area and the Invercargill Environment Centre Te Whenua Awhi. They have been waiting eagerly for this bill to be passed for some time. During one of the few times I served on the Local Government and Environment Committee some of the Southland people made a submission. It was good to hear their attitude because they said that this was a very eagerly awaited bill as some of my colleagues who spoke earlier have also said. In the time I was on that select committee there was certainly a great deal of discussion. 
There were two rounds of extensive public consultation on this bill. So to reassure the previous speaker I say that there has indeed been a great deal of public input and discussion about the question of having a levy and its uses. A wide variety of groups submitted to the committee—over 300 I believe—with many of them talking about the sorts of initiatives needing funding that my people in the south talked about for which this levy will be very useful. 
As my colleagues have said there was a lot of discussion in the select committee about the level of the funding. At the time I was on the committee the $25 levy was being discussed but it certainly seems to me that settling on a balance of a $10 levy is a very sensible decision for the select committee to have made in building up that fund. Having the fifty-fifty split will mean that the levy can be used productively by territorial authorities and others. 
After the short time I spent on the committee I can say only that I am very pleased to see us at this point with this bill. It has my support and the support of the many people in my community who have talked to me about it and I have been very pleased to take a short call on it. Thank you. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It has been great for me to listen to all of the members here talking about this bill. Obviously as a new MP I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee and it is just fantastic to hear about the level of cooperation and agreement. 
The idea of a levy is twofold. It is to create a price signal which is absolutely essential. We need a price signal in order to direct behaviour if you like and having a price signal is a key part of doing that. I think that a key aspect for those people who are enamoured of market tools is of course putting in the right kind of market signals so I think that is why the levy is really important. 
The other side of the levy is that it creates a fund that people can then apply to and use to get involved in waste minimisation activities. As was discussed earlier one of the things that councils with low rating bases will be able to do is apply to the contestable fund to access some of that money in order to provide them with some support in dealing with the waste they are facing. 
In the spirit of cooperation around this issue I am also withdrawing the 12 months amendment that the Greens had put forward and I tell the Committee that we will just go with the 6 months amendment. We are very happy to go with that as a compromise between the 3 months that is in the bill and the 12 months that we put forward. I think that is a really useful compromise. I hope that we can also find some compromise words on clause 30 as well. That would be great as part of the cooperation that has emerged over this bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: A new spirit. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Yeah! 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to step up to respond to that. This has certainly been a very interesting debate. I said in one of my first calls that the spirit of cooperation in this Committee tonight is quite phenomenal and that we all seem to be on the same page—except it now appears for the National Party caucus. We jumped from “Red” Mark Blumsky to John “Have I got another Building Act story for you” Carter in the space of about 10 minutes. Eric Roy did not seem to realise until about the last 20 seconds of his speech that his party was voting for the bill. After giving a devastating withering speech on the Waste Minimisation Bill he humbly sat down and said that National thinks it is a really good idea. It is good to see that there is still some inconsistency in this Parliament. The people who are out there listening can rest assured that we have not all had a big “Kumbaya” love-in here tonight—there is still debate going on here in this House; it is just a pity that it is all within the National Party. 
I know that it is not my place to do it so I hope Nicky Wagner will perhaps take a call on the rewording of her Supplementary Order Paper—it is her Supplementary Order Paper and it is not my place to take a call on its rewording. I think we might have been able to come up with some words because the Committee’s concern tonight is the same concern the Local Government and Environment Committee had—obviously we did not address it nearly as thoroughly as perhaps we could have. The concern is that we certainly do not want territorial authorities knocking out innovative independent private enterprise when it comes to waste minimisation. That is not to say that we think territorial authorities will do that but we know that that is a concern. To do that would be contrary once again to everything that this bill stands for. We do not want to create a monopoly. 
At the same time we need to recognise—and I think we have with the 50 percent split—that this is a core area for our territorial authorities and we do expect them to be leaders in this area. Some of them already have been and it would seem patently unfair to penalise them even though they can apply to the contestable fund as well. It was a matter of getting a balance—I agree in hindsight that when we went through the bill in the select committee we maybe did not address this enough. I am not sure whether Nicky Wagner has the wording now and is able to discuss it but I would like to pass over to her. I congratulate her on putting forward this amendment. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to make just one point before Nicky Wagner speaks about her amendment. I want to respond to the comment made by the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Moana Mackey about debate between National members. At least there is some innovation ideas and differences amongst us! At least we can work together within that unlike members on the other side of the House who all have to sing from the same song sheet and who are not allowed to have any ideas to have any imagination or to think for themselves. They get a script from “herself upstairs” saying that this is what they are to say today. Well at least we can come in here and show our individuality at the same time as showing Parliament and this country that we are prepared and in a condition to be able to govern because we can think for ourselves and will get on with the job. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to replace this Supplementary Order Paper with some new wording. I am pleased that we were able to come to some arrangement that could recognise the issues that some of the very early waste minimisation services were concerned about. 
This bill is definitely intended to encourage waste minimisation. It would be foolhardy and detrimental to slap around the people who have been doing this job. The wording is designed to make sure that the territorial authorities take into consideration the organisations that have already been doing this work and make sure that they are not disadvantaged. I thank members very much. It was good that we could get support from across the Committee. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I rise to talk in respect of Part 3. This is as other speakers have already signalled an important part of the bill in that it provides the mechanism by which the bill essentially works. It is through this part that money will be levied on those who are disposing of waste at landfills and money will be divided between councils and the Crown. The part that goes to the Crown—and indeed some of the money that goes to councils—will be used in order to recycle some of these waste streams that are currently going to waste but that with better coordination and a little bit of money spent could be recycled and reused. 
If there was ever a time in our history when it was obvious that we needed to take better care of the recycling of products and product streams in our environment then it is right now. Around the world oil prices are going very high iron ore prices are far higher than they have ever been in history copper prices are very high and zinc prices and the prices of all semi-precious metals have gone up substantially in price. That indicates that we have shortages of resources. We are putting increasing pressure on the resources of our planet. There is a burgeoning population around the world and people in developing countries are aspiring to the sorts of lifestyles that we in developed countries are used to and as a consequence we are putting more pressure on our natural resources. 
Not only are those natural resources increasing in price but the more of those natural resources that we drag out of the ground and mines the more environmental effect we are causing as a consequence of the mining. Mining can be conducted responsibly and its environmental effect minimised but some environmental effect cannot be avoided. There is always an environmental effect caused by mining. Similarly an environmental effect is caused by the use of the energy that smelts metals and turns them from ores into the solid metals we use in the products that we are trying through this legislation to recycle better or to reuse by separating them from the waste stream. Part 3 gives effect to this ambition. 
The levy provided for in the bill will be split and there has been quite a bit of debate as to whether all of that levy ought to go to central government with central government deciding where that money is to be spent. I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard views for and against that—that the levy should all go to central government that it should all go to local government or that perhaps it should be split between the two. I for one am quite comfortable with the position that the select committee took and that Russell Normal supports which is that there is a division of this money between local authorities and central government so that between them they can put this money to good use to start recovering more of the waste stream. 
Nicky Wagner has raised a particular concern and so have some others about not cutting across existing businesses that are recovering resource from what would otherwise be dumped. The first point I will make there is that of course if businesses get this material before it gets to the dump it will actually not attract the waste levy. The material will not be a waste stream so that part of the process is not a concern to me. As I understand it scrap-metal dealers and those sorts of recipients of product actually get material outside the dump process—or the landfill process as we are inclined to call it now—so they will not be detrimentally affected by this legislation. Indeed their own businesses are likely to be enhanced because there will be additional recovery perhaps at the landfill that would not otherwise have occurred. That will presumably improve the economics of their business because they will be able to bid for that material from the landfill or a landfill operator such as the council and perhaps it is more likely that they will have additional material to recycle and put through their business thereby improving its profitability which would be a good thing. That would of course also increase the amount of recycling. 
In terms of the rate of the levy again I say there has been some talk and I know that some in the National Party have frequently said that $10 per tonne is too much. They think that $10 per tonne is an unnecessary impost and that the sum ought to be far lower. In fact some within the National Party think the charge ought to be nothing. I think that $10 per tonne is a fair figure to start at and I congratulate the promoter of this bill on coming to that moderate view because I think it is a very moderate view. Members can argue that Mr Blumsky is right—that it should be a higher figure. I am one who thinks that when this levy comes around for review in a couple of years’ time councils people generally and central government will be comfortable that this is money well spent and they may well look at raising it. 
But the $10 per tonne is of course absolutely necessary. A tonne of rubbish is a lot. I take my own stuff to the landfill periodically from home and my load of rubbish going to the local landfill is mainly garden clippings that are well recyclable. With my modest contributions to the landfill it would take me many years to actually reach a tonne of rubbish so to have my family paying $10 for many years does not feel too much of an impost to me. I understand that if this is applied to a municipal rubbish collection at a levy of $10 a tonne and I have in earlier times seen that the impost on an individual plastic rubbish bag is I think 5c or 10c a bag—it was something like that—it is really not going to break the bank. Given the good that will come of it and given the consequence that we will start recovering some things like the toxic waste streams we have in computers and the like then from my point of view this is money very well spent. 
The next point I will make is in respect of the efficacy of this part of the legislation. It relies upon having a proper and broad definition of waste. I know that the definition of “waste” is not part of Part 3 we are now debating but the term “waste” is used throughout Part 3 so in order to make sense of this part we have to go back to the definition section and read what is within the definition of waste. Again I have heard it suggested by some that the definition of waste ought to be severely limited so as to effectively take out of the definition much of what we want to be recycled. I think that if there are people who have given that point of view to the select committee or if there are politicians of that view in this Chamber then they are severely misguided. If politicians from the other side of this Committee who were pretending to support the bill would none the less like to see the definition of waste amended—so as to restrict its ambit and render it far less effective—they would be wrong. It is important that we have economies of scale that we have the opportunity to recycle all that is valuable and that we have the opportunity to recycle and concentrate waste streams of things that are damaging to the environment unless we take better care of them. 
I would include in that definition something that is currently a little bit controversial which is the compact fluorescent light bulbs about which there has been a lot in the newspapers recently. There are people who are concerned that these light bulbs contain mercury and they do. They contain very small amounts of mercury—about one-twentieth of the mercury that was in the old strip light fittings that we had in schools for 50 years. None the less they do have some mercury and it would be better if that mercury could be recovered through a concentrated waste stream. Well this legislation provides the mechanism for the cure of that particular problem. We could in the future say that we need to have a system for recovery of those compact fluorescents so that that very small risk is further moderated through the appropriate collection and concentration of that waste stream and the sending of it somewhere so that we can recover the glass recover the mercury and reuse them. I think this is a very good part of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 24(3) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)When making a decision in relation to funding any matter to which subsection (1) applies the territorial authority must consider the effects that the decision may have on any existing waste minimisation services facilities and activities (whether provided by the territorial authority or otherwise). 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Responsibilities of territorial authorities in relation to waste management and minimisation 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: In this part the Committee also discusses some amendments put up by the Minister the Hon Trevor Mallard as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in his name. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Territorial authorities are already responsible for waste management and for promoting waste minimisation as part of their responsibilities for public health. This bill provides incentives for territorial authorities to encourage effective and efficient waste management and minimisation because in order to receive funding from the waste levy a territorial authority must either adopt a new waste management and minimisation plan or review its existing one. We made sure that we included in the bill the possibility for two or more territorial authorities to jointly prepare and adopt their waste management and minimisation plan. We believe that that is particularly important as during the select committee process we heard in the Local Government and Environment Committee from many councils that were working very well together and were getting valuable economies of scale for recycling their products and they were doing great waste minimisation work that perhaps would not have happened had they been working individually. 
Under the bill a territorial authority can undertake or contract for any waste management and minimisation services facilities or activities and they may sell any marketable product resulting from that activity or service. That probably takes into account things like green waste composting and the sale of that compost. But any proceeds from those sales must be used to implement the territorial authority’s waste management and minimisation plans. The territorial authority also has a large number of powers to make by-laws to deal with waste and it can contract or licence operators to collect reduce reuse recycle recover or dispose of waste. The final part of this bill also prescribes the relationship of this legislation with the Local Government Act 2002. 
I do have to say after reading all these rules and regulations I sympathise with my colleague Eric Roy because they do look excessively complex. However I do trust that common sense will prevail and that successful outcomes will be championed rather than slavish adherence to the rules. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call on Part 4 of the Waste Minimisation Bill. Firstly this is another part where we were very aware it was forming the blueprint from which territorial authorities would develop their waste minimisation plans. Secondly we were very aware that a number of them had already made quite significant tracks down this path. As someone mentioned earlier we certainly did not want to stop people in their tracks so that they would have to change the way they were doing things. We were very cognisant of the submissions of the territorial authorities when they came to the select committee to make sure that we aligned this part as much possible with the Local Government Act and to use it both as a guidance and an enabler for territorial authorities in order to give them the powers to do what a number of them want to do in the waste minimisation area but had not perhaps been entirely sure of their powers and ability to carry out certain functions or to take certain initiatives within their own area. 
One of the important parts of this legislation is that we have clarified that joint plans are a good idea where that is appropriate and that as long as territorial authorities meet the requirements under the bill there is nothing within the part that stops them from working together to carry out joint plans and to share overhead costs and initiatives as well especially across districts. We can think perhaps of the Bay of Plenty - Waikato area where there is already a lot of collaboration and we want to encourage that. We certainly do not want any questions being raised in this bill that that is not an appropriate thing to happen or that there is uncertainty about whether it is able to happen. 
I want to mention briefly Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard where he has clarified clause 54 which talks about the by-laws a territorial authority may make. Clause 54(1)(b) states that a territorial authority may make a by-law for regulating the collection and transportation of waste. Further on subclause (2) states: “Bylaws made under subsection (1)(b) may provide for the licensing of persons who commercially carry out the collection and transportation of waste.” Certainly the Minister has pointed out that he does not think it should be limited only to commercial transporters of waste. He thinks that non-commercial collectors—for example community groups and not-for-profit organisations—should also be included in this clause but we do want to rule out individuals for example from taking their waste to the landfill. So the Minister’s amendment to clause 54(2) just clarifies that if a territorial authority makes a by-law under the part then it applies to all organisations that collect waste commercial and non-commercial. That brings it into line as the Minister states in his Supplementary Order Paper with current practice in parts of New Zealand. Again in the select committee we certainly did not want to cut across what was already happening and already working and I am sure that is not what was intended here. It also makes it clear that the regime is not intended to include individuals who collect or transport waste for personal reasons. So we have drawn that line and I think it is a fair one to draw. The other part of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper—the substantial part—inserts new clause 97 which deals with nominations. 
Certainly as the member before me said this is an important part. If we do not get this part right then a whole lot of it can fall over because we do rely on our territorial authorities in this area—for public health reasons and now under this bill for waste minimisation reasons—to be leaders. We want this part to be enabling and to give as much guidance as possible to make sure that what territorial authorities are doing fits into that whole-of-government approach to waste minimisation. I think we found a good path through in this part. It tries as best as possible to emulate what is already happening as a result of those who are already doing it but at the same time it provides enough guidance and enough of a blueprint for those territorial authorities that have yet to go down this path and that perhaps need a little bit more guidance—an authority that perhaps is not situated near another territorial authority to leverage off ideas. This is an important part and the Minister’s amendments are sensible. I look forward to hearing the debate on this part. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I want to make two comments in particular on Part 4. The first focus in my mind is that Part 4 places more emphasis on the 1974 legislation in respect of territorial authorities “encouraging and promoting waste minimisation”. Clauses 50 and 54 allow territorial authorities to contract or license operators “to collect reduce reuse recycle recover or dispose”. Both of the comments I have made have the local authority “encouraging promoting or contracting or allowing others”. I suppose I want to reiterate that this bill is not a mandate or a licence for local government to do it all themselves; it is to make sure that the outcome is the focus. It is not their job to think that they now have to go and do it all. That I suppose is my biggest concern. Just reiterating the words and the meanings behind Part 4 puts that into perspective in my mind and I hope in the minds of local authorities. 
I actually want to give a challenge to local authorities too. Through the submissions process and having gone out and about and looked at a lot of what was happening I came across some outstanding local authorities in this area. One area that comes to mind is Timaru where the local authority is doing an outstanding job. Then there are the community groups. There are some wonderful wonderful things happening. In particular I challenge local government to really address best practice to have a look at what is happening out there and if you like to benchmark themselves against the Timarus of this world and to say to themselves: “Maybe there is work being done in local government that is actually pretty smart. Why don’t we put it up there and aspire to achieve in that delivery mechanism or in the way they do it?” because there are some useless local authorities in this area and they need to be shot! 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Name them. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: No I will not because that is not fair. They know who they are. 
Hon Member 
: Wellington! 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: No it is not Wellington. Who said it was Wellington? Those local authorities really need to say to themselves that they are not doing a good enough job. The tide has turned. There is a real public momentum around the whole area of recycling and compost. A real wave is quite rightly running through and local authorities have to pick up the challenge. Some of them are outstanding; some of them need to buck up their ideas. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this because it was a real stumbling block with the bill when it was introduced. We were creating here at the territorial authority levels these wonderful waste control authorities and we really did not need to do it because the territorial local authorities were doing it. That caused a real friction when we first went out and I am so pleased that this has been amended to be a much more enabling framework for local authorities. 
It was good to see how dearly they looked at waste management and waste minimisation. I do want to say that they did like the New Zealand waste strategy. They said they wanted to go faster on it but the variants around the country were simply amazing when we went out. Many of us had followed up with lots of other local authorities. It is great to see that the strategy is a bit more enabling now and there is much more flexibility. 
I am not sure about the amendment I heard the Opposition member Nicky Wagner propose because I have met many local authorities that are joining together anyway. They did not need the legislation. They were starting to work together. That is a classic example in Kawerau in my electorate where they are starting discussions with the Gisborne District Council Whakatane District Council Opotiki District Council and Rotorua District Council. We have had a couple of big meetings about this to see how we can have a central plant for minimisation of waste. What a great initiative! I do not think we need to enact legislation to make that happen. 
So I say “Well done!” on Part 4. It is so much better than it used to be and I like the guidance too. Every local authority said it needed some leadership from the centre and they wanted those standards that were aspirational for them to aspire to. They are great amendments. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and speak tonight on the Waste Minimisation Bill. I have just joined this debate and I would firstly acknowledge the officials who are sitting here tonight. I realise that it is quarter to nine on a Wednesday night and I thank them very much for coming along and listening to what we have to say. I also thank them for the hard work they put into the Local Government and Environment Committee because their work has given us the legislation before us for debate tonight. I thank them very much; we appreciate the time and effort they have put in. 
When I was reading the commentary on this bill I was interested to see that there were only 125 submitters on it which I found interesting. Waste is something that people are very emotional about and it is very topical globally not just in New Zealand. I would have thought that hundreds of submitters would be coming to the select committee or putting forward a written submission about their views on waste. I was surprised to see there were only 125 submitters on this bill— 
Hon Member 
: On the second bill; not the first one. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I have just been corrected. This is the second round. There were 300 submitters on the first bill. I would expect 400 submitters in total to come to the select committee and talk to this type of bill. It is a very emotive issue for many New Zealanders who are very passionate about preserving this clean green beautiful country that we live in as we are its custodians for future generations. 
Of the second lot of submitters who spoke to this bill I was interested to see that 8 percent opposed the bill 22 percent supported it outright and 61 percent supported it with some amendments. This bill has been well supported by submitters to the select committee. The local government sector and community groups were unanimous in their support and even 85 percent of businesses gave their cautious support. I think that is a great step forward for New Zealand and for where our mindset is with regard to our waste. 
I understand that Part 4 talks about local authorities and the role they have to play in waste in New Zealand. I am not a member of the select committee so I have not had the inside run on what has been happening or what submitters have said but when I was asked to speak on the bill tonight all I could think about for some reason was New Zealand’s tips dumps and landfills. When many people like me think of waste that is what we actually think about—the tips the dumps and the landfills. In fact we have reduced the number that we have in New Zealand. About 30 years ago we had about 300 or 400 tips and today we have about 60 landfills throughout New Zealand. Naturally New Zealand is becoming more and more aware of its waste and over a long period of time we have reduced the number of places where we can take it. That has been driven to a large extent by the local authorities themselves. It is a great step forward without central government even interfering in this process. We are putting up bills and local authorities have gone naturally in this direction. 
It was interesting to read in Part 4 about strategies and waste strategies in terms of reducing reusing recycling and the recovery of energy. When we talk about waste we talk about a pyramid of waste—about what we should do first as our priority to reduce the amount of waste we have. This bill goes a long way towards reducing the amount of waste and also towards encouraging recycling as opposed to everything going straight into waste. The waste we renew is obviously the second tier down which is talked about in Part 4. It talks about reusing our waste—what is waste to one person is not waste to another. Recycling is very important and the recovery of energy which is the fourth tier is also extremely important. I think this is a great bill and it is my pleasure to stand here tonight in support of Part 4. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on Part 4. Part 3 as we heard deals with waste disposal levies associated with products that are disposed of at a disposal facility. Part 4 goes a lot wider than that. It does not deal just with things that have been disposed of at the disposal facility; it also deals with the plans that territorial authorities are required to have to promote the effective and efficient waste management of waste streams within their district. It states that they have to contribute to measures that reduce reuse recycle recover treat or dispose of waste. 
I thought I would give just one example of some fantastic existing work that is being done by a council the Christchurch City Council which is beginning to do some very innovative things in respect of its sewage waste stream. The sewage waste stream is dealt with in sewage oxidation ponds and those ponds are a source of algae. The algae that is grown in the ponds can be converted into bio-diesel and the council is becoming quite sophisticated in its approach to that. Indeed part of Christchurch’s landfill produces gas as a methane by-product of the landfill. The council has a gas-fired electricity generation facility close to its sewage treatment oxidation ponds and it is feeding the carbon dioxide from the generation facility into the sewage oxidation ponds so as to supplement the production of algae in the treatment of the sewage. That cleans up the water reduces the carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and increases the by-product of the algae that can be used to produce fuel. This legislation will enable the council to put in a bit of the money that it collects from its waste levy in order to bring that sort of wonderful new event forward. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 It is interesting to speak on Part 4 of the Waste Minimisation Bill. There are several drivers for waste minimisation on the part of the community. It can be as simple as a desire to compost kitchen waste. It could be a desire to recycle bottles and glassware. It could be something as simple as a desire to on behalf of the community take responsibility for waste generated within that community. Those drivers are on the community’s side. As a result of that over the years a number of community groups have taken responsibility for waste on behalf of their communities. We should not underestimate the power of the communities that have taken those initiatives on board. Many of the constituency members of Parliament will be able to cite small communities within their electorates that have taken waste minimisation activities on board for a number of years. Those are their drivers. They are drivers to be responsible for our environment and to take charge of it. 
Local authorities on the other hand have maybe a slightly different driver. It is as simple as the fact that the landfill is filling up very quickly and the local authorities will have the responsibility of negotiating a new consent for a landfill which we understand is not an easy thing to do particularly under this Labour-led Government. So we have seen a number of changes in behaviour and a number of drivers for that change. For local authorities the spectre of a landfill filling up very quickly with a combination of clean fill dry fill green waste garden rubbish and domestic rubbish is a frightening prospect. Therefore it would be very true to say that the desire to become more efficient with waste management has the support of the wider community. It does not matter whether it is the small community of Opotiki which has been a leader in waste minimisation in New Zealand or another community that does not perhaps have that level of concern over waste minimisation. 
A number of colleagues have noted that some territorial authorities are lagging behind in this regard. One has to ask why that is. Is it because they do not care? I do not believe that communities and local authorities do not care. Maybe it is more a matter of not having the resources to undertake waste management provisions. Having said that I note that in Part 31 of the Local Government Act 1974 there are waste management provisions. I am assuming from memory—because it is a wee while since I was in local government—that every territorial local authority should have a waste management plan in action. So I am a little confused and I would be happy to hear comment from the member in the chair Russel Norman or even from the Local Government and Environment Committee chair Moana Mackey as to why a number of local authorities are lagging behind when Part 31 of the Local Government Act prescribes that each territorial local authority should have a waste management plan. I know that in the development of those plans there are always a number of submissions because there is always a high degree of community support for waste minimisation. 
I turn to Part 4 of the Waste Minimisation Bill which National supports with some misgivings. It is interesting to note that during the debate this evening one did not get the same line time after time from the National benches which is what one tends to get from the Labour benches. On the Labour benches one tends to get the same story again and again. One of the great things about the National benches is that we can have a rich diversity of views whilst still supporting a bill. We can be our own people yet stay within a position and in this case we are supporting the Waste Minimisation Bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Offences and enforcement 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 This part of the bill details the offences and the proposed fines. It also provides for the establishment of enforcement officers and details their warrant and their officer powers. The original bill would have allowed some waste offences to carry a sentence of imprisonment but the select committee thought that that was perhaps a little bit excessive. However in this iteration fines do range from $5000 to $100000 so we are still serious about expecting good behaviour on waste. Part 5 also itemises the defences available to anyone prosecuted under the bill and they are in line with both the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991. National supports Part 5. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Part 6 Reporting and audits 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Part 6 is about reporting and audit. The Local Government and Environment Committee was aware that if we are to make any real progress in minimising waste we need more knowledge about our waste streams and what we can do with them. Part 6 details the reporting and information requirements. However because we are concerned about excessive rules and regulations in this area we required that before any regulations were put in place by the Minister the Minister had to consult both the Waste Advisory Board and any parties that would be affected. We hope that through that process they will be able to create a simple and effective system. 
Part 6 also details auditing requirements and we hope that this part will achieve a good balance and that we can improve the collection of national data without being excessively bureaucratic. I have an amendment to clause 84(1)(b). The amendment has been reworded to make it simpler and to remove any confusion. I hope that the Committee will support this amendment. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 As far as I am aware we have two Supplementary Order Papers on this part—one in the name of Dr Russel Norman and one in the name of Nicky Wagner. I think they are largely very similar. Has this one superseded the member’s one? 
Jacqui Dean 
: Yes. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: OK. It is all go on the Supplementary Order Paper front tonight but I am sure it will all work out just fine in the end. 
One of the things that struck the Local Government and Environment Committee members when they were hearing submissions was that we often asked submitters who work in this area or who work for territorial authorities whether they knew the exact volumes that we were dealing with when we talked about waste and different waste streams and whether we knew what percentage of those were being recycled collected or reused. Consistently the answer we got back was that they had some idea and they could give us a ballpark figure but that there were severe limitations on their own ability to collect that information. Because a lot of it came down to an individual level and to a household level they were not able to correctly ascertain how much they were collecting. Because of the lack of product stewardship schemes in some areas they did not know how much was going out there and how much was expected to be collected at the end. As I said although they could make educated guesses as to exactly how much they were dealing with they were not really sure and of course it makes it very difficult when people are forming a waste minimisation plan if they do not know how much they are dealing with how much they are potentially dealing with and how much is likely metaphorically to come out of the woodwork once they start putting these things into place. 
The select committee decided that it would not be appropriate to wait and get all this information before getting things into action. We thought the two had to go alongside each other. But certainly this is a very important part of the bill because this really is a large unknown in some areas and of course we know much more about some waste streams than others. There are some waste streams that perhaps in the past may not have been prioritised so much in terms of collection. We may not have considered it a problem that we sent a lot of those waste streams straight to landfill without recording it. But certainly without this information it is very difficult to really have an impact on waste minimisation initiatives in New Zealand. 
As the previous speaker Nicky Wagner said we were concerned that we wanted to make this measure the least onerous possible on the people who were doing it. We wanted to make it as simple as possible to collect this information but I think it would be fair to say that around the select committee there was general agreement that this was something that did need to happen and that if we were really going to be able to make strides in this area then we needed to be able to collect this kind of information. 
So putting on more expectations to collect information is not something that a select committee takes lightly but as we can see from other areas where we have needed to do this it pays off in the end. We have managed to come up with a system that is as light-handed as possible whilst ensuring that we start to capture some of the information that for a very very long time has been missing and for a very very long time has required both private industry and territorial authorities largely to work on hearsay and gut feeling in some areas or to take this cost upon themselves and try to figure it out for themselves. I think we have done a good job on this part of the bill. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call to thank Nicky Wagner for her amendment to clause 84(1)(b). That shows another example of cross-party cooperation and finding another way through. It is great that the Parliamentary Counsel Office was able to come up with a new version. The key thing about this part is that we do not know a lot of the information. That is one of the key things: we do not know a lot of the information about what resources we are throwing down the tip. That is one of the things we are trying to turn round. This does not seem like a big thing but if we do not know what we are throwing away we are not as likely to do anything to stop throwing it away. Currently we are pouring lots and lots of resources down a big hole in the ground which is then leeching and polluting our waterways whereas it would be much more sensible to find out and record what we are doing and to then divert it and use it again. This part is a really important part of the bill and I commend it to the House. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 84 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) the words “(for example operators of disposal facilities or other facilities at which waste is received for reuse recycling recovery treatment or disposal)”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Part 7 Waste Advisory Board 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Part 7 deals with the Waste Advisory Board. It provides for the establishment of this board which could have four to eight members including the chair. It lists the board’s functions and terms of reference and it also covers details of the terms of office fees and expenses. The board’s role is to provide advice on waste minimisation to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister is required to seek the board’s advice on a number of matters. These include the declaring of products as priority products the making of guidelines for the product stewardship schemes and the setting of criteria for the allocation of the contestable portion of the levy fund. These are all complex and difficult questions and ones that require advice from board members who perhaps have their feet in the commercial world as well as in legislation. The board is appointed by the Minister but anyone is able to nominate members for the Minister’s consideration. We are hopeful that the board will consist of four to eight well-skilled intelligent people who have experience in waste minimisation and the business of managing waste. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 7 which deals as Nicky Wagner has said with the Waste Advisory Board. The Local Government and Environment Committee made quite a substantial change to the bill in this area. Part 2 of the bill as introduced to the House and brought to the Local Government and Environment Committee provided for the establishment of a waste minimisation authority. The proposed authority was to have been slightly bigger than the Waste Advisory Board but it had a significantly expanded range of responsibilities compared with the responsibilities in the bill that came out of the select committee. 
I know for example that the Zero Waste New Zealand Trust was very keen on the idea of a waste minimisation authority. It felt that it had the kind of gravitas that perhaps an advisory board would not have. Certainly the select committee considered all those opinions carefully. If I could summarise how the debate at the select committee went I would say it acknowledged that we have a Ministry for the Environment in New Zealand. We did not see the need to set up a parallel body with exactly the same powers and functions when we have a ministry that is already there that is mandated to look at areas of environmental concern and that is best placed to coordinate waste-related measures. We did not want to reinvent the wheel with all the costs that would come with that and with the potential problems that could come from having two authorities working in the same area but not working together. The other reason for the change was that we also looked at the potential costs and at how the money that comes into the waste minimisation area could best be used. All of us agreed that wherever possible we wanted that money to go towards waste minimisation initiatives not towards funding a body to do the work that one of our ministries is already doing. 
The other major area of debate regarding the Waste Advisory Board was about how much work we should give it. We often found ourselves going down the path of making the board do everything which was just creating a waste minimisation authority once again. We had to prioritise the areas in which we felt that the board could have the best impact. We gave the Minister the power to go to the board on any matters where he felt it important to engage with it and on areas where he felt he should get its advice but we did not go the other way round and say the board should be consulted on everything. Again we felt that to do that would be to go back to what the original authority had been mandated to do and away from the whole point of having a board as opposed to an authority. 
We decided that the Minister should be required to seek the board’s advice in a certain range of areas as has already been said. Those areas include declaring a product to be a priority product—which of course forms the basis of our product stewardship schemes and is important enough to make sure that the board is involved—making the guidelines about those product stewardship schemes and setting the criteria for the contestable portion of the levy fund. That is very important and it is one of the areas where it is very important to have a body that is independent of the Minister and staffed by people who are well regarded within the sector to make those decisions. Sometimes when we have a contestable fund and a Minister ultimately makes the decisions there can be claims of political intervention and of preferring certain providers or areas over others. 
We felt that having the board set the criteria for the Minister to use would be a very good compromise—and we are very big on compromises in this committee. We felt that would be a good balance that would help to ensure people felt that the contestable part of the fund would be allocated fairly. As we know that fund will not be as much as it would have been had the levy been set at $25 instead of $10. I imagine there will be a lot of competition for this fund and a lot of interest in it particularly in the first few years before the review. So we wanted to make sure that people would feel the fund was being allocated fairly and that there could be no questions about the criterias that were set. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Criteria. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What did I say? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Criterias. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sorry I am a science graduate not an English graduate. 
This is an important part of the bill because it is very significantly changed from that in the bill as it originally came into the House. These were not decisions that we took lightly. Again I think we found a good way through the issues and a good balance between ensuring that we have an independent advisory board there to provide advice and set criteria and which is seen to be separate from the Government and at the same time ensuring that we do not reinvent the wheel and create another bureaucracy that just duplicates what one of our ministries is already doing. We are also making it clear to the Ministry for the Environment that waste minimisation is one of its core areas and something that it should be engaging in. Waste minimisation should be core to the work that the ministry does and perhaps it would send the wrong message to the ministry if we were to take this area away from it entirely and put it under another authority. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 My two parliamentary colleagues who spoke earlier on Part 7 have covered most of it. I want to cover something that was in the bill but now is not and I think it is just as important as what made it to the finishing line. The organisational waste minimisation plans were a big part of Part 7 and were an aspect that most people were very very nervous about. The provision would have required all New Zealand businesses to implement waste minimisation plans by 2016. It was in the original bill but is not in the bill now. 
It was probably the most contentious aspect of the bill to be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee because people were very nervous about just what a bureaucratic nightmare it would be for them. I want to draw to the attention of submitters the fact that the aspect they were so concerned about is no longer in the bill—and the bill is better for it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 7 of the Waste Minimisation Bill which is in the name of my co-leader Russel Norman. It is particularly important that the Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard has the advice of a group of people such as the Waste Advisory Board which the bill provides for. It is particularly important when we are dealing with an industry that the Minister has independent advice from people who can be seen to bridge the gap between government industry and the community sector. 
The role of the Waste Advisory Board can be compared to that of the board of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority which advises the Minister on energy efficiency. I think of how carefully the Minister and I work on getting a real balance of experience on that board and of what a high-level board it is with expertise from every part of the energy efficiency industry and from its consumers. It adds much value to the work done under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act. 
This is the Waste Minimisation Bill and I hope that an equally broad range of experienced people will be appointed to the Waste Advisory Board. I hope there will be people on it from businesses that recycle waste into new products. I hope there will be people on it from businesses that collect waste for recycling and reuse. I hope there will be representation from manufacturers who design products and who understand how to design products so that they do not become waste in the first place which is a key part of the bill. I also hope there will be representatives from the community sector which has provided most of the grunt on recycling and reuse in this country ever since 1976 when I set up the first profitable local authority recycling system in Devonport. So that is the range of representation that this board needs and if those people are chosen carefully the board will be extremely effective. 
A key job for the board will be to decide on the priority wastes that we have to work on first. Clearly we must give priority to wastes that are toxic wastes that are severely damaging if they leach into groundwater or are burnt or wastes that contain materials that are very expensive or rare like metals. I think of batteries for example and of compact fluorescent lamps which contain valuable materials that can be recovered. I think of computers and e-waste generally of the problems that creates and of the lack of opportunities in many parts of the country to do anything sensible with e-waste when people have finished with it. So as well as the fine people in the Ministry for the Environment who advise the Minister as public servants a knowledgable group of people with direct experience in the community and in industry will be advising the Minister and that is a huge step forward. I think the Minister will need both sources of advice so this board will be very valuable. 
The other provisions in Part 7 are fairly standard. They are about methods of appointment remuneration and terms of office. I see that the term of office is only 3 years or less but I hope there will be provision in the bill for people who are doing a fine job to get a second term. It often takes people a little bit of time to find their feet in a position like this and it would be shame if they were to be cast out after 3 years just as they were proving very useful. So I hope the Minister will have the ability to reappoint for a second term in cases when people are doing a good job. I commend this part to the Committee and I look forward to it passing shortly. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will speak very briefly about a couple of things in Part 7. Firstly picking up on what my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons was saying it is really important that we get the right people on the Waste Advisory Board. That is one of the key things. We need people on the board with expertise in the area from the community sector as well as the commercial sector. We need a lot of them on the board so that they can provide great advice. 
My other point is around the terms of reference which provide the board with some ability to initiate its own work or ideas. I am sure—I certainly hope—that the Minister for the Environment in consultation with the board in developing the terms of reference will look at what kind of capacity the board has to initiate work. For example container deposit legislation was talked about earlier. We certainly hope that the board will at some point look at that legislation. 
I spent a number of years living in Adelaide which is the only Australian state to have container deposit legislation. It is a fantastic system and has worked incredibly well over there but as a result of lobbying by some very big beverage and container producers it has not spread. Container deposit legislation has been a very effective system. 
There has been a very lively debate around the role of container deposit legislation but I hope that the board will be given the power to initiate its own inquiry to look at container deposit legislation and its role. That is really important. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise again to support the Waste Minimisation Bill. As members know National voted against the bill at the first reading because it was excessively detailed and overly prescriptive but now that it has been gutted and reworked we support the bill because its provisions are mostly reasonable and rational and most important will be good for the environment. New Zealanders are conscious that disposal of waste however carefully managed harms the environment. Although modern landfills utilise new technologies to protect the receiving environment we still need to minimise the volume of waste we dispose of. Even transporting waste is destructive and increases our carbon footprint. We are also aware that there are benefits to utilising our waste stream better. There are economic benefits from recovering valuable resources social benefits from providing jobs and the cultural benefits of a cleaner and greener environment. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on the definitions required for this bill and we got it right in most instances. There was a large amount of debate about the definition of waste. It seemed very difficult to find a definition that was neither too wide nor too narrow. We finally decided on a definition that included not only anything that had been disposed of or discarded—what most people probably think of when they are describing waste—but also anything that was no longer required for its original purpose and but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities would have been disposed of or discarded. But on reflection our definition included resources in the waste stream that could be reused recycled or recovered even if they had never entered the waste stream and this proved to be a problem. Since the bill has been reported back we have had representation from several organisations highlighting unintended consequences of the original wider definition. They believed that the wider definition would actually create disincentives for recycling and could jeopardise New Zealand’s significant export of waste resources. 
When we designed the Waste Minimisation Bill we designed it to encourage the extraction of valuable commodities from the waste stream. But this wider definition could have a perverse effect as it includes materials that were never intended for the waste stream. There has already been a court case over the ramifications of the wider definition of waste: a recycler of paper who should have been rewarded for minimising the waste stream was actually disadvantaged by the wider definition. The company Carter Holt Harvey successfully challenged the wider definition in the Court of Appeal on 26 September 2007. The Court of Appeal decision says: “We prefer the definition proposed by Carter Holt. The test of whether a former owner has abandoned material does we think accord with common usage and common sense. It also provides a clear and practical way of distinguishing between what is  
waste 
 and what is not.” The decision goes on to say: “the word  
waste 
 … does not include material that is no longer wanted by its owner and which but for commercial or other initiatives to recycle it would be discarded;”. National and many of the other parties in this House agree with the Court of Appeal. My Supplementary Order Paper 219 reiterates that waste “means anything that has been disposed of or discarded.” and removes the clause that would include recyclables and other recovered materials. 
The recyclers are also concerned that the wider definition could unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for recycling businesses and could hinder the bill’s objectives of encouraging waste minimisation activities. Furthermore any suggestion that recyclables such as scrap metal are considered waste by the New Zealand Government has the potential to influence importers from other countries and New Zealand exports may become subject to more rigorous import controls. I believe that unless we rework the definition of waste in this bill we will cause problems for the very people who have been proactive in the minimisation of waste and have spearheaded the recovery of valuable resources from the waste stream. We want to attract businesses and operators to work in this area not kick them in the shins when they have been proactive. I seek the support of the House for this Supplementary Order Paper which I believe will solve the problem. Thank you. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 With regard to Part 1 I just want to make a small comment on the commencement. I think the decision of the committee—that the bill will be enacted on the day after it receives the Royal assent—is great. It seemed a pity when the original bill was referred to the select committee that it would take a year other than for Part 3. I accept that that is only practicable because it will take at least a year for the Ministry for the Environment to get the work going to set up the levy system. 
It is great news because around the country people want this bill they want leadership on this legislation and they are pretty keen to get going. I understand the need for definition but an issue that I think is quite interesting is that when we talk to young people when we go to Enviroschools we hear that they love the old definition of waste. They have it themselves and they know it. We all have a picture in our heads of what we are talking about here. Young people are telling us that we are not going fast enough either at local government level or us in central government. They will not get bound down by definition. Industry will require definition—I absolutely agree—but young people are saying to us that they absolutely agree with reduction reuse recycling and recovery. They know what it means. They are actually putting a lot of pressure on local authorities asking why they do not have kerbside recycling or recycling facilities in particular communities. They are putting on that pressure which is exactly what ought to come through. 
I think we will pretty quickly see a change in attitude from local authorities once this bill is enacted. They will jump in they will see the leadership from the Ministry for the Environment and I do not think they will get too caught on semantics here. They know it is coming. As Mr Blumsky said it has been a long journey and they have been waiting. They have watched for this bill to be a bit more refined but on the day of the bill receiving the Royal assent they will be ready to go. 
I think they will be delighted too at the way that we have made this a much more flexible bill. As managers of the best health interests and environmental interests for their communities they understand the economic social cultural and environmental benefits so they will be ready. They have been waiting for this bill and it will be gratefully received. The definitions will not bother them but I do think they need to be in there. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 We have now come back to Part 1 which deals with the purpose of the bill. This is another area where the Local Government and Environment Committee made significant changes to the bill as it was introduced. The purpose clause of the bill is extremely important because it sets out the intentions of the entire bill. If there were ever any contest or disagreement about what the bill was trying to do we would often come back to the purpose clause. 
We did not want to limit waste minimisation activities within that purpose clause and I think the general feeling at the select committee was that the way it was drafted—it mentioned so many things—almost excluded things by not mentioning them. We decided that rather than discussing the measures by which we may do waste minimisation and the types of areas we might do it in the best thing would be to focus in the purpose clause on the outcomes and benefits we wanted to achieve. So we went from mentioning “landfills cleanfills and incinerators” and all those kinds of things to simply saying: “The purpose of this Act is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to—(a) protect the environment from harm; and (b) provide environmental social economic and cultural benefits.” 
I think that really covers everything that is currently being done and everything that will be done. Mentioning “environmental social economic and cultural benefits” aligns the bill nicely with the Local Government Act as well which we have tried to do all through the bill. The last thing we want is to put in front of councils a bill that has differing expectations targets and priorities from their own Act. Given that they are the main bodies that currently work in this area it seems silly to set up a whole new level of expectations and priorities when the ones they already have fitted very nicely with the Waste Minimisation Bill. 
The definition of “waste” took quite some time. There were times when we thought we may have to get another extension of time on this bill simply so that we could get the definition of “waste” right because if we did not get that right then everything else could fall apart. It seemed like this was one clause where every single word mattered and had a potential meaning and a potential down-flow effect and could cut people out or bring in people that we did not want it to. So I really want to thank the officials for the work they did on the definition of “waste”. They came back to us many times and we would throw at them examples of things that we felt might fall inside or outside of that definition. They would go away and come back to us and in the end I think we were able to come up with a working definition of “waste”. I am sure we will hear more debate about that because that is a very important part of this bill. 
The member who spoke before me Nicky Wagner talked about the Carter Holt Harvey case which is a very good example of what can happen if we do not get these definitions right and do not make clear in the legislation what we are and are not talking about. In terms of the commencement date originally the legislation was going to come into effect 12 months after the day on which it received the Royal assent. The select committee has changed that and put in a fixed date. As my colleague Steve Chadwick said we certainly want to see the Waste Minimisation Bill progress. 
We have a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill and I want to thank all the officials who are sitting out in the lobby doing all the work for us and redrafting a lot of these things. This bill is still a work in progress as we go along getting all the wording right and we certainly appreciate the work of officials and officers of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who are taking all our great erudite and brilliant ideas and putting them into words that will actually work and not form part of a terrible judicial review that sees things fall over. I also thank the Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard for making all this available to the Committee of the whole House so that we are able to get this right because it is important. We have a Supplementary Order Paper here in the name of Dr Russel Norman which I am sure he will speak to soon. I will not pre-empt him as it is his Supplementary Order Paper. 
Again the commencement date might not seem like a big deal but it certainly was an important part of the bill for us. Because the bill took a lot longer than was originally expected and required a significant rewrite the select committee felt that it was appropriate to go back to submitters to ask them to resubmit on the bill. We heard all the submitters who wanted to be heard again at the select committee and although the member in charge of the bill at that time Nandor Tanczos was happy for that to happen the fear was that pushing out the select committee process meant that the date of 12 months from the Royal assent was getting further and further away. We felt that at some point we needed to draw a line in the sand as a select committee. We had a good sense that we were going to report back we knew roughly how long it would take in the Committee and we figured that by 1 July 2009 we would be able to have everything ready to go. 
Part 1 is an important part. As I have said the purpose clause is very important. I think we have managed to get a purpose clause that fits with the local government legislation which gives a clear direction as to the environmental benefits we want to get rather than simply talking about the ways in which we would get there. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I would like to make some comments on the commencement of the Waste Minimisation Bill. I did not discuss that in my last call. There was some debate as we have said on when this bill should come into force. The bill has been in Parliament for a very long time and we were very keen to get moving quickly to introduce it. However we were also aware that the work to be done by the Ministry for the Environment in establishing the systems to collect and allocate the waste levy would take some time. 
The compromise was to recommend that the legislation come into force on the day after the Royal assent with the exception of Part 3 which related to the waste disposal levy and clause 60 which will commence on 1 July 2009 in order to fit in with local government legislative timing. However as we are running late again and have missed the beginning of the financial year for 2008-09 my Supplementary Order Paper 218 proposes that the commencement date for the bill in total be 1 July 2009. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green) 
: 
 It is great to get back to Part 1 so that we can talk about the purpose of the Waste Minimisation Bill. Of course it is quite unusual for a member to be in this chair defending a bill within a few weeks of entering Parliament. Certainly I have to hit the ground running in order to do that—but this bill also has to hit the ground running. We have to hit the ground running because when it comes to waste minimisation actually we are still a long way behind. We need to create a framework to respond to the growing waste problem. This bill aims to speed up the Government’s response—and our response as a country—so that we can deal with waste and the growing waste problem. We know and we have heard here tonight about individuals councils communities and businesses that have already begun that process as best they can. There are lots of different groups across the country that are doing the right thing in terms of waste minimisation. The Ministry for the Environment has also contributed. It has made a positive contribution despite the absence of this bill and this kind of legislation. But with this bill we hope that Parliament and the Government can play catch-up. In a sense it is playing catch-up to the kinds of initiatives that communities have already initiated and we are trying to provide a bit of support to them. 
The purpose of the bill arises directly from Green Party policy. The Green Party policy on waste minimisation has been advanced through this bill by a number of members of my party. I am standing here today on the shoulders of my predecessors—the late Rod Donald who was a great campaigner on waste; Mike Ward in whose name this bill was originally put forward; and of course Nandor Tanczos who has guided this bill through the House over the last couple of years. I also add that we have had some incredibly able advisers during that period: Chris Teo-Sherrell who is now a councillor in Palmerston North Quentin Duthie who is here tonight as well as the Ministry for the Environment officials who have provided tremendous advice and support. The Green Party does not always see eye to eye with the Government on everything or with National or with other parties. Different parties do not always see eye to eye on different policies but with this bill we have collaborated with the Government the Opposition and with other parties to address the waste issues. 
We considered the purpose clause of this bill early on in our negotiations with different Ministers. The intention was to create an Act to implement the principles of the New Zealand Waste Strategy. Although the explicit reference to the strategy was removed for various reasons the Government and the Greens agreed on the purpose of the bill and streamlining the mechanisms it contained flowed from that agreed purpose. Some comments have been made here tonight about the original bill being slightly cumbersome. The Greens acknowledged those comments and we were very appreciative of the contribution from others for streamlining the bill. I think that the Government the ministry the National Party New Zealand First and other parties have contributed to making the bill much more streamlined. I thank all of them including the former Ministers for the Environment. My challenge to the Government to this Parliament and to future Governments is not to lose sight of the ideal of minimising waste to its absolute minimum. Why do we not have zero waste as our goal? This is not the end of it it is just the beginning. We look forward to collaborating with others in terms of implementing this bill and building on it in complementary ways so that we can head towards a zero-waste goal. 
The purpose of the bill is to encourage waste minimisation and to decrease waste disposal. One of the final campaigns of the late Rod Donald was to try to save the South Island’s iconic glass milk bottle. Of course the glass milk bottle is a reusable package. It is not just recyclable; it is reusable. At that time 25000 bottles were still in use but those bottles are now all history. Using this example the purpose of the bill is to protect the environment from the harm of un-reusable plastic bottles—or even worse un-recyclable mixed-material bottles; as I am sure members know some bottles are not recyclable because of their mixed materials—and at the same time provide benefits: economic environmental social and cultural. These are the benefits that arise from recycling and reusing in particular and I hope that this bill will see the return of the reusable glass milk bottle. Why not? We had it once so why cannot we have it again? The ubiquitous milk bottle! I also congratulate companies who are doing reusable bottles. We all know they are out there—Foxton Fizz and the Green Man Brewery. Producers out there are doing this now in terms of reusing bottles and not just recycling them. I think that that is a great initiative and with the passage of this bill I hope that we will see more of it. 
The purpose of the bill also contains within it a rationale for wanting to minimise waste in the first place—that is the aim is not just to deal with all the waste later; it is to minimise waste in the first instance. After all with our small population and a generous land area some people have argued that waste is not a problem for New Zealand. There are lots of places where we can go and dump it so it is not such a big deal. We can just—you know—dig holes. In fact we recently had a case in the Wairarapa where a family was simply dumping their waste into their local stream and were using it as a kind of landfill or a “waterfill” if you like. It was going down the side of the stream and then simply being carried out to sea and that is exactly the kind of thing that we do not want to do. Of course when we talk about burying waste and hiding it away that is how it seems to most of us. But that is not so to the residents of Kate Valley in Canterbury or even Happy Valley in Wellington who have to smell the waste hear it being disposed of and see it. 
One of the rationales for reducing waste in the bill is the protection of the environment from harm. The “New Zealand is big enough” argument—that is the argument that New Zealand is big enough just to dump all our waste wherever we want to dump it—implies that all waste is inert. A lot of people think that all waste is inert and harmless—as long as it is out of sight it does not matter. The problem is the tonnes of landfill methane that contribute to climate change and the leachate that pollutes our waterways. It is not just the individual items; it is the leachate that comes out of the bottom of them. I think that it is seldom understood how toxic a lot of the leachate that comes out of landfills is. We have problems in Horowhenua where the old dumps up there are leaching into the coastal environment. That is a real problem there. There are plastics that break down into smaller and smaller pieces which threaten wildlife and I am sure that people have heard about the great plastic continent in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. We also have toxicity which is an issue that has come up just recently as the Minister mentioned earlier with compact fluorescent light bulbs. But of course the problem is batteries treated timber and electronic goods all of which have toxic waste in them like mercury. 
We have come a long way from the days of being a tidy Kiwi by not littering. Not littering is really important but it is just the beginning of a consciousness around waste. Today’s society accepts that the three R’s—reduce reuse recycle—are the goal and this bill begins the process of our law catching up with people. It is catching up with the movement from simple waste management which of course has dominated our treatment of waste to actual waste minimisation and making that the goal rather than waste management by itself. Waste minimisation especially the eventual goal of zero waste is about more than being a tidy Kiwi or even religiously following the three R’s of reduce reuse recycle. This bill seeks also to encourage the redesign of products and packaging to reduce waste even before it is created. The redesign of packaging and products I think is one of the more exciting parts of the bill. The fact that we can intervene at the design stage to mean we get less waste at the end of the whole process is great and this bill seeks to encourage the redesign of products and packaging to reduce waste even before it is created. It enables the internalisation of the costs of recovery which we heard about earlier tonight and it creates the potential to set up a situation where a fee can be applied at the beginning of a car’s life and is then returned when the car finally reaches the end of the road so to speak—there are lots of roads these days—in treatment and disposal. 
The bill also seeks to get as much organic and green waste as possible out of landfills which we know reduces greenhouse emissions. When organic waste is put into a landfill the result is that it produces methane. Methane of course is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and some of our landfills have managed to tap that methane and use it to generate power which is great. But it would be better in the first place if that organic material had not ended up in the landfill. That would be a much better option. 
I believe that the purpose of this bill is one that almost all New Zealanders would agree with and the Green Party’s policy goal tied to this bill is that we will be waste-free by 2020—would that not be great—and we want to make clear and significant progress by 2010. We believe that this legislation will facilitate us to make that progress and the bill’s purpose is to achieve that—to make that kind of progress. We have confidence that the bill will mean we will reduce waste going to landfill in the next few years and head towards a zero-waste future. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to make my speech in two parts—the first as Minister for the Environment. I think it will then be appropriate to take that hat off and speak as the member for Hutt South. There are a few technical things I would like to check with the member in charge of the bill or possibly with the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee because I am somewhat of a perfectionist and I want to make sure we do have things right in these matters. 
The first question I have is whether the definition in clause 5 of “Secretary” which means the Secretary for the Environment under section 29 of the Environment Act must necessarily be the same person who is appointed under the State Sector Act by the State Services Commissioner as the chief executive of that organisation. I just want to make sure that in making these changes we are not doing anything that would in any way contradict the State Sector Act and the very important processes that we have for the appointment of chief executives under that Act. It is something that as a Minister formerly responsible for that area I took quite seriously. There are a lot of i’s to dot and t’s to cross in this area and I want to make sure that we are not by anything within this legislation interfering in that matter. 
In a similar way I want to ensure that the member in charge of the bill or the chair of the select committee is familiar with the relevant provisions in the Health Act. In clause 5 there is a definition of “Medical Officer of Health” that is cross-referenced to the definition of “Medical Officer of Health” in the Health Act. The definition in the Health Act includes a reference to “any medical practitioner acting under the direction of the Medical Officer of Health”. What I am not sure about is whether in fact the ability to delegate in that way and possibly even the ability to sub-delegate is appropriate for this bill. Clearly it is necessary for the emergency use of a lot of the powers of the Medical Officer of Health which I have recently become quite familiar with. But I am not sure that the sub-delegation powers and in fact the delegation powers are appropriate for this particular legislation. Therefore I would like to check that it is something that has been properly considered. 
Possibly more important though is the reference in clause 5 to the definition of “nuisance” which is to have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Health Act 1956. I am relatively clear in my opinion that there are parts of the definition of “nuisance” for the purpose of the Health Act 1956 that are entirely inappropriate for waste minimisation legislation. For example section 29(f) of the Health Act deals with overcrowding that is “likely to be injurious” to occupants of workplaces or residential areas. I am not sure that that particular part of that definition is appropriate for this definition. Therefore I ask the member whether that is the case. 
In a very similar way the key part of section 29(i) of the Health Act goes to lighting and to the nuisance caused by having a lack of proper lighting in workplaces. There might be a relevance to do with waste minimisation legislation but I am at a loss at the moment as to work out what it might be. The question around section 29(k) in the Health Act relating to parts of carcasses could well be relevant but I think it would be worth working that provision through. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Are you moving a Supplementary Order Paper? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think there is a possibility if there is not sufficient explanation on this for a Supplementary Order Paper to be put forward to pick out the relevant points of section 29 of the Health Act of 1956. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Is it on the Table? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. If there are satisfactory answers from either the chair of the select committee or others who have been involved or the member in charge of the bill or possibly officials over the next month or so before this bill comes up again then I think it could well be appropriate for it to be looked at. 
The question is also whether this does apply in fact to streets roads or rights of way as per section 29(o) of the Act. It occurs to me that it is pretty unlikely that premises related to the Waste Minimisation Bill would be situated on streets on roads or on rights of way but again some might be and if that was in fact the case it would be inappropriate. 
Another question is whether the funnels of ships or the chimneys of private dwelling houses are in fact relevant in relation to this particular clause—clause 5 the interpretation clause of the Waste Minimisation Bill which we are currently considering. Chimneys including the funnels of ships and the chimneys of private dwelling houses are included in the Health Act. There is reference to them in paragraph (m) of section 29 “Nuisances defined for the purposes of this Act”. 
So those are issues at a minimum that I think should be discussed. The member in charge of the bill might want to give us his views on the definition of “priority products”. I know that they were dealt with in clause 7 but the definition and the prioritising of the priority products is something I had substantial discussions on with his predecessor Nandor Tanczos. Whether we have a long list or a short list of priorities is important and I would be interested in the member’s opinion as to whether the interpretation of “priority product” is something that is important in that matter. 
I would now like to make clear that I am now taking off my “Minister for the Environment hat” although any of the comments I have just made could well have been made by any member in the Committee and did not require any special briefing. I now put on my “member for Hutt South hat”. I will talk a little about the effect of poor recycling and poor attempts at waste minimisation and about the dirty dirty antics of Exide Technologies Ltd in dumping very badly under-treated waste in the landfill at Wainuiomata causing an enormous stink for a period of months and leakage into the Wainuiomata stream which is alleged to have killed off a large number of very important trout. There were a lot of complaints and certainly some allegations from fishers who have fished the Wainuiomata stream at a point below the Wainuiomata tip. 
I commend the Wellington Regional Council for the work it has done in tightening up the conditions around the Exide plant but I also make it clear that twice already there have been prosecutions for breaching those conditions. I want to make it clear that I think that people involved in prosecutions need to be more prepared to prosecute individuals as well as companies. 
There was a case of that in the Waikato recently where someone who after repeated warnings burnt plastic and ended up with a jail sentence. That is appropriate. If there are gross breaches of the Resource Management Act then individuals as well as companies should be prosecuted. Companies like Exide a large international company just take the $50000 fine as part of doing business but if their individual managers ended up with a criminal record for the repeated breaches as well as the company having a record then— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come to report progress. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Waste Minimisation Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.