Volume 675 Week 82 - Tuesday 16 August 2011 
Volume 675 Week 82 - Tuesday 16 August 2011 
[Volume:675;Page:20597] 
Tuesday 16 August 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Obituaries 
Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of former Governor-General of New Zealand Sir Paul Reeves. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there are objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That the House express its sympathy and condolences to the family of Sir Paul Reeves and pay tribute to the outstanding contribution Sir Paul made to this country 
. The Rt Rev. and the Hon Sir Paul Alfred Reeves passed away in Auckland on Sunday 14 August at the age of 78. It is with great sadness that I heard of Sir Paul’s passing for he was one of the country’s greatest statesmen and admired by so many. I had the privilege of meeting Sir Paul on a number of occasions and he was a fine man. 
Sir Paul trained for the Anglican priesthood and in 1980 became Primate and Archbishop of New Zealand. In 1985 he became New Zealand’s first Maori Governor-General. His tenure as Governor-General was one of inclusiveness and compassion. He modelled his governorship on the life of a bishop saying: “A bishop travels. A bishop stands alongside his people and searches for common ground.” 
Sir Paul’s contribution to New Zealand did not end when he left Government House. He spent another two decades serving at the highest level and for this the people of New Zealand are forever indebted to him. He was Anglican Observer at the United Nations he observed elections in Ghana and South Africa he helped write constitutions for Fiji and Ghana and he chaired the Nelson Mandela Trust. He was awarded New Zealand’s highest honour the Order of New Zealand in 2007. This was New Zealand’s chance to formally recognise his outstanding dedication to this country. 
The thoughts of the Government are with Sir Paul’s wife Beverley Lady Reeves; his three daughters Sarah Bridget and Jane; his six mokopuna; and his whole family at this time. A State funeral for Sir Paul will be held this Thursday 18 August in Auckland and I will be attending alongside a number of members of this House. I am sure we will be joined by many New Zealanders wishing to pay tribute to Sir Paul’s life. Sir Paul’s life was a life spent giving. His contribution to this country was simply enormous and New Zealand is a poorer place for his passing. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Today in this House we mourn the loss of a great New Zealander Sir Paul Reeves. In his 78 years he contributed hugely to his people to the community and to his country and he still had so much to give. To Lady Beverley and their children Sarah Bridget and Jane we extend our sympathies for your loss. But we also celebrate today a life of remarkable achievements. He was a boy of humble beginnings who rose to lead his church to be the Governor-General and to represent his country and the Commonwealth with distinction. He was the youngest-ever priest to become an Anglican bishop. He was the first church leader and the first Maori to become Governor-General. Later he served internationally with the United Nations and the Commonwealth. He headed the Nelson Mandela Foundation and he was the Commonwealth Secretary-General’s envoy to Guyana and Fiji. 
Sir Paul mixed easily with world leaders but he was equally at home with New Zealanders from all walks of life. He was a man of considerable principle and integrity. Sir Paul always expressed himself in a calm and measured way but underlying that was a real passion about the things that he believed in. He was not afraid to take a stand on issues that were important to him. He was one of the Citizens for Rowling in 1975 and in 1981 he openly and strongly opposed the Springbok Tour. That led some including the then Leader of the Opposition to express doubts about him and to oppose his appointment as Governor-General. But the way that Sir Paul carried out his role as Governor-General was in fact exemplary. He was a man of decency and strength of character. He spoke quietly but with deep conviction. As a Minister in the fourth Labour Government throughout his term as Governor-General and later as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the next Government I had many discussions with Sir Paul. He always expressed his views in a considered manner but he expressed them forthrightly. He had enormous compassion and an unwavering commitment to social justice. When his viceregal role came to an end he continued to contribute in education as the chancellor of AUT Auckland University of Technology in the diplomatic and international arena and as an advocate for his Te Atiawa people. 
With Sir Paul’s passing we have lost a very special New Zealander a man who gave so much to his community and a man whom we will remember as being true to his principles. We will miss him greatly. Ta Paora haere haere haere. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 This nation mourns the death of Sir Paul Reeves. Put simply a totara has fallen in the forest. But the occasion of his passing although deeply sad to us all is not tragic; rather it is a cause for national celebration of a long life uniquely well lived. Sir Paul led as large a life as was possible full of fun laughter love and achievement. His personal fulfilment and thus his contribution was both spiritual and secular. 
Sir Paul saw himself characteristically as a child of the nation he loved. He once said: “I was a product of this country at a time when there was social mobility or educational opportunities available to everybody. I didn’t have the benefit of any material assets either personally or in my family. We were what you would call poor but yet I was able to go to secondary school and university. It is that question of access and the ability to match opportunities with an innate desire to achieve which is vital.” 
With the passage of time Sir Paul proved himself to be a vital person. Leadership is a subtle and elusive thing. When it is naturally present it is effortless; when it is absent it is laboured. Sir Paul had the gift of effortless leadership. He was humble yet dignified in style. He was genuine and authentic in person. He was fearless in expressing belief. He was truly a man of integrity. Sir Paul embodied all the values for which our parties in this House strive—freedom and aspiration equality and justice cultural harmony and ecological wisdom. In so doing he united us all through simply being himself the symbol of a nation as a whole. 
I first met Sir Paul in New York a few weeks after his arrival. He was virtually unknown in that huge anonymous preoccupied city after having just been head of State in his home country. Such a transition might have grated with some but not with Sir Paul who found it I think to be something of a liberation. Once over lunch for example he told me of a courtesy call he had just made on the ambassador of a close neighbour. Sir Paul described his assigned mission in the new Anglican office to the UN his hopes and aspirations and the various challenges he was anticipating. The ambassador heard him out patiently and then cut in and said: “Well that’s all fine Paul but tell me: what was your last job in New Zealand?”. 
Sir Paul did my wife and me the honour of assisting with our marriage some 20 years ago. He facilitated the arrangements for our wedding in Christchurch Cathedral and then officiated at our New York marriage celebrations shortly thereafter. He gave a special homespun dignity that day to what was a cosmopolitan and multi-faith grouping of friends in New York. We walked from the chapel through the streets of downtown Manhattan to our apartment across the road from the twin towers. I recall that moment in springtime as clearly as if it were yesterday. 
New Zealand has been well served with leadership over the years. Our leaders tend to be of the rugged individualist type—they who climb mountain tops and sail the Southern Ocean crawl into crushed buildings to hold a hand or rescue mates under military fire. Sir Paul gave us a different vision of leadership. It was a refined softer leadership that appealed to our better selves. It combined spiritual inquiry with secular wisdom. This type of leadership is rare in this land and we are the poorer for having lost him. Yet Sir Paul would admonish us if we were to lionise him beyond what he would take to be his natural measure to which I would reply: “All the more reason to respect and remember you Sir Paul.” 
Let us lay to rest this great New Zealander this humble man of our land who spoke so thoughtfully who stood so tall who loved so much. Let us pay our deep respect which we as a nation owe to Sir Paul Reeves. Let us then honour him in the manner he would wish by resolving to live up to the standards he set. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand today along with all my colleagues in the ACT Party and in this House to pay tribute to one of our great statesmen. Sir Paul Reeves was a great New Zealander who served his country with distinction throughout his life. He served as Governor-General from 1985 to 1990 and was the first Maori and the first cleric to fill that position. Sir Paul lived a life of service to his congregation and to this nation. He was a deeply faithful man who took humble pride in his position within the Anglican Church. Sir Paul is remembered as an inspirational leader with a great sense of humour and wit—a man who was respectful compassionate and inclusive of others. 
In 1990 as Governor-General he hosted the first open day at Government House—a tradition that continues to this day—paving the way for greater transparency and inclusiveness in the role of the Governor-General. Following retirement as Governor-General Sir Paul continued to serve his country at the highest level for over two decades. He served his church as well as his country as the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in New Zealand and as assistant Bishop of New York. 
His life of dedication service and compassion holds lessons for us all. The thoughts and prayers of the ACT Party this House and indeed all New Zealanders are with his wife Lady Beverley Reeves his three daughters and his six grandchildren. Our nation is the poorer for his loss. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Whatakaka te hau ki te uru 
Whakataka te hau ki te tonga 
Kia makinakina ki uta 
Kia mataratara ki tai 
E hi ake ana te atakura 
He tio he huka he hauhunga 
Tihei mauri ora! 
Kua tanuku te toka i te whenua. Kua hinga te totara o te wao. Kua ngu te kaiwhakarite o te Hahi. E Paora e moe. E te ringa raupa o te iwi e te kaituitui i te tangata e te kaikauhau o te rongopai e te kaiwero i nga Kawanatanga o te motu e te kaihapai o Te Titiriti o Waitangi e te kaikorero o Irihapeti e te tauira o te whakaiti me te rangimarie e te uri o Te Ati Awa e te kaikawe o te raukura ki nga topito katoa o te motu o te ao takoto mai takoto mai takoto mai. Whai atu koe e koro ki te ahuatanga o Tirikatene whai atu i a Te Atawhai Taiaroa a te Haunui whai atu i nga pihopa a te Manuhuia a te Whakahuihui whai atu i nga mate o na tata nei o tera o nga uri o Kahungungu a Meagan a Te Heikoko. No na tata nei te uri o Ngati Tuwharetoa haere koutou haere koutou haere koutou katoa.  
Ara no te korero o roto o Taranaki. He ngeri mana whenua te korero. Anei te korero: “Titiro titiro ki te maunga Titohea runga o Parihaka Waitotara. Ngati Moeahu Ngati Haupoto. Ko te takiritanga i te kahu o Wikitoria kaitoa kaitoa. Ko Tohu ko Te Whiti nga manu e rua i patu te hoariri ki te rangimarie kss aue kss aue! Ahakoa te pahuatanga o Parihaka ue ue ue ha!”. He korero tenei no roto o Taranaki ara no te whakapapa o te pihopa e takoto mai ra ki Tamaki-makau-rau.  
He pai tonu tenei rarangi korero i te mea ara no nga korero e pa ana ki a Ta Paora. I korero na tera o nga korero mo te maunga titohea ko Taranaki tera kakahutia e te hukahuka e te hukapapa. He tohu tera o te mate. Koia tenei whai i nga mate o Taranaki. Ko te Meringa Hohaia tera ko Lindsay MacLeod tera ko Matarena Rau-Kupa tera ko Tom Ellison tera nga uri o Te Atiawa tonu kua mate ina tata nei i te tau kua hipa ake. Kai reira ano hoki te korero mai mo Parihaka te kainga o te koroua nei te wahi i huihui ai nga iwi i nga tau kua hipa ake. Ara no nga marae tapu ko Parahuka ko Toroaanui ko Takitutu. Ara no te korero ko Waitotara te wai tuku kiri o nga matua nga tupuna e rere atu ra mai i Parihaka a ki te takutai moana. Ara no te korero mo te kahu o Wikitoria. He korero tera mo te ahuatanga o Ta Paora i te wa i a ia i mau nei te kakahu o Wikitoria hai Kawana Tianara mo te motu.  
He korero kai reira mo Te Whiti o Rongomai raua ko Tohu Kakahi. Ta ratau ko te kawe i tenei korero he honore he kororia he maungarongo ki te whenua he whakaaro pai ki nga tangata katoa. Ara ko te tauira tera o tenei mea o te rangimarie na Ta Paora tera i kawe ki nga topito katoa o te motu. I whai ia i te ahuatanga o nga poropiti nei. He aha he korero i tua atu atu? E ki ana te korero i patu te hoariri ki te rangimarie. Mena ka ata tiriro ki enei korero ka noho taupatupatu nga korero. Patu i te hoariri ki te rangimarie ara te korero nui. Koia Ta Paora i kawe nei te ahuatanga o te rangimarie ki te ao.  
Na te korero whakamutunga ahakoa te pahuatanga o Parihaka—ue ue ue ha! He whakamarama ake i te rangimarie o Taranaki ahakoa i patua ratau e te raupatu e te muru o te whenua he aha ta Taranaki? Kaua ki te hiki i te pu kao. Ko ta ratau ko te kawe i te ahuatanga o te korero o te Whiti o Rongomai raua ko Tohu Kakahi he rangimarie he rangimarie he rangimarie. He aha ta Ta Paora? He rangimarie he rangimarie he whakaiti. Koinei te korero nui ki a ia koia tena e takoto mai ra i Tamaki-makau-rau.  
Ko ta te Pati Maori he tautoko i nga poroporoaki nui ki a ia. Koia tera kua riro ki ona matua ki ona tupuna. E te Papa o te Motu e te ringa raupa o te iwi takoto mai takoto mai e moe. Ki te whanau e tautoko ake i nga ahuatanga o nga korero o te hunga kua tu ake i mua i a au ko te ki atu ki a ratau kia kaha kia toa kia manawanui. Kai wareware i a tatau Ta Paora koia tenei e whai i nga tapuwae o ratou kua ngaro. E koro takoto mai takoto mai takoto mai e moe. 
[ 
Cease the winds from the west 
Cease the winds from the south 
Let the piercing cold winds blow over the land 
And the intensely cold winds blow over the ocean 
As it heralds a red-tipped dawn  
With a sharpened air a touch of frost a promise of a glorious day. 
Behold the breath of life! 
The rock has crumbled to the ground. The great totara of the forest has fallen. An archbishop of the Anglican Church has been silenced. Sir Paul rest. To the worker with chafed hands of the people the challenger of the nation’s Governments the one who raised the profile of the Treaty of Waitangi Queen Elizabeth’s representative the epitome of humility and tranquillity the descendant of Te Ati Awa the bearer of the legacy to all extremities of the country and the world lie there rest there recline there. Sir your death follows the deaths of Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan Te Atawhai Taiaroa Tione Haunui bishops Manuhuia Bennett and Te Whakahuihui Vercoe; the recent ones of Ngati Kahungunu Meagan Joe and Te Heikoko Mataira; and only a few days ago a descendant of Ngati Tuwharetoa Dean Stebbing passed away as well. So to all of you farewell. 
There is an aphorism in Taranaki. It is derived from a rhythmic chant with actions. Here it is: “Gaze towards the barren mountain above Parihaka and the Waitotara River Ngati Moeahu and Ngati Haupoto. It is the casting aside of Queen Victoria’s cloak; good riddance good job. Tohu and Te Whiti were the two prophets who defeated the enemy with peace. Kss oh kss oh! Despite the plundering of Parihaka the blows have landed the blows have landed. Ow!”. This is a maxim from within Taranaki and from the genealogy of the bishop who is lying there in Auckland.  
The line that this saying takes is a good one because so much of it is about Sir Paul. It speaks about a barren mountain which is Taranaki being cloaked in snow. That is a sign of death. This death then follows the deaths of Taranaki in regard to Te Meringa Hohaia Lindsay MacLeod Matarena Rau-Kupa and Tom Ellison actual decendants of Te Atiawa who have passed away over the past year. It mentions Parihaka the home of that elder the place where people gathered in past years. There were other sacred marae mentioned: Parahuka Toroaanui and Takitutu. It describes the Waitotara River as being the conveyor of the ancestors from Parihaka to the sea. It mentions the cloak of Queen Victoria which pertains to the time when Sir Paul was the Governor-General of the country.  
The maxim also mentions Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi. Those two preached the message of honour glory peace on the land and goodwill to all people. Sir Paul was the epitome of peace and carried that message to all extremities of the country. He followed the example of these two prophets. What more can be said? According to the proverb the enemy was defeated through peaceful means. If one looks closely at these words the message contradicts itself. Defeating the enemy through peaceful means is the important message. And Sir Paul carried that message to the world.  
The final statement is that despite the plundering of Parihaka—“the blows have landed the blows have landed. Ow!”—to further demonstrate Taranaki’s peace it should be noted that even though they were hurt and affected by the confiscation of land what did Taranaki do? They did not pick up the gun no. What they did instead was to pick up what Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi preached which was peace peace peace. What did Sir Paul advocate? Peace peace humility. This was the greatest thing to him. He who lies there in state in Auckland is an epitome of that.  
The Maori Party endorses the great farewell tributes being made to him. He is the one who has gone to his forefathers his ancestors. To the Father of the Nation the worker with chafed hands of the people lie there rest there sleep. To the family I endorse the tenor of the tributes expressed by those who stood before me. I urge them to be strong courageous and stout-hearted. Lest we forget this is Sir Paul the one who now follows the footsteps of those who are gone. O elderly one lie there rest there recline there sleep. 
] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a contribution to this debate by the Hon Jim Anderton leader of Jim Anderton’s Progressive party and for the contribution to be included in the parliamentary record given that Mr Anderton is currently delayed in Christchurch by the weather. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
I join with the House in expressing our sadness at the passing of Paul Reeves and in expressing condolences to his family. 
As our Governor-General he helped to bring New Zealand into a new era because he was so obviously different to those before him. 
He was the first Maori to hold the position and the first to come to the job from outside the customary establishment diplomatic and legal circles.  
And more than that he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and he was not afraid to express his thoughts.  
He was our first Governor-General to have grown up after the Depression of the thirties and like so many others who came of age in that time he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves.  
Throughout his life he identified with the cause of social and economic justice. He came from a modest family background and never allowed himself to forget that.  
He knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply and that we owe it to everyone born into our communities to give them as equal as possible a start in life the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in and which is one of our most admirable achievements.  
He spoke out against division—between rich and poor and against racial divisiveness.  
He was not afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.  
I’m sure too that often his words would have irritated politicians and yet he spoke always with such charm and good humour that they couldn’t possibly take public issue with him even if he was subtly but effectively chiding them.  
He was always able to make his point effectively and to cause those he was addressing to pause and to take stock without giving offence.  
But above all he wore his talents lightly because Paul Reeves had that one thing above all else which marks out those who serve us best—his modesty.  
Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 There was an awesome dignity about Sir Paul that struck one the first time one met him. At times it could be taken to perhaps belie the force of personality and the force of conviction that came with Sir Paul but in many senses he was the perfect choice to be the Governor-General of New Zealand during the 1980s. 
At a time when this country had gone through periods of great division and tension he showed that it was possible to hold strong views and to promote strong views not only forcefully and courageously but with a dignity and an honour that would garner respect from even his most bitter opponents. So it proved to be during the time he was Governor-General of New Zealand. He spoke out fearlessly on many issues. He provided the leadership he had spoken of—courage with dignity—and he brought New Zealanders with him to become one of our more revered figures in that role. 
But there was another side to Sir Paul. There was a fearsome sense of humour and an extraordinary laugh that would break out when a joke was cracked or some funny situation had occurred which showed that this man not only possessed dignity and a very serious side but had a very warm and personal side as well. 
I want to recall for the House a particular incident which I was privileged to be part of that I think demonstrates all of these things. Members will be familiar with ceremonies in which ambassadors come to present their credentials. One such ceremony occurred with three ambassadors from countries not connected to each other. The only common link between all three was a minimal knowledge of English. We worked our way through the official ceremony and the luncheon that followed. Sir Paul was at his best trying to make small talk with people who understood very little other than that they were in Wellington New Zealand. He tried every known tack imaginable with dignity and courtesy and got solid smiles of rebuff from across the table. Finally at dessert he said to them: “My next appointment is to go to a bird sanctuary”—which mean absolutely nothing to the audience—“to name two new kiwis.” 
The word “kiwi” triggered a reaction in the three diplomatic officials. It was the one word of English they knew and they sparked to life and said: “Ah; kiwi kiwi.” Sir Paul then turned to the New Zealanders present and said: “Yes. I’m going to name them after two famous New Zealanders.” The signs of blankness reappeared on the faces of the audience and he said: “I’m going to call one ‘Kiwi Te Kanawa’ and the other ‘Kiwi T James’.” which got a huge reaction from the New Zealanders but obviously did not really register on the faces of his audience. 
It summed up for me what Sir Paul was—this man who had carried out his solemn office with dignity and responsibility. He had shown extraordinary courtesy and tolerance to people who were really struggling on the occasion but at the same time there was a massive sense of humour that he could not resist employing; having a good laugh at the end of it. 
When we think about Sir Paul’s contribution to our national life over the last several decades—because it really has been a very long contribution—we have to recall with pride the vision the leadership the integrity and the commitment but also the fact that he remained throughout it essentially himself. He never took on airs and graces. He never succumbed to that great Kiwi disease of being up himself. He was a simple man who was confident in his views confident in his abilities and sought to do his best for his fellow New Zealanders. 
We have truly lost one of our greatest citizens. I extend my sympathy to Lady Reeves and the family on their loss and hope that they can derive some small consolation at this time from the knowledge that their husband and father was held in near-universal regard across this country. And that is the ultimate tribute New Zealanders can pay to him. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 Tena ra e te Kaiw’akawa. Hoi ano he korero ki te kaiw’akamarama ki te w’akapakeha i taku korero tuatahi he tauparapara mai i te kainga mai i Muriwhenua. No reira:  
Ruia ruia opea opea 
Miria miria tahia tahia 
Kia hemo te kakoakoa 
Kia herea mai i te kawau koroki 
Kia tataki mai i roto i te pukorokoro whaikaro 
He kuaka marangaranga 
Tahi te manu i tau atu ki te tahuna tau atu tau atu tau atu. 
Ko to tatou pihopa kua tau atu ki tena taha e te iwi kua tau atu ki tena taha o te moana. Kua tau atu ki tua o te arai kua tau atu ki roto i a matou o Muriwhenua a kua tau atu ki Te Rerenga Wairua. Kia rukuhia i nga rimurimu kia ngaro atu ki Hawaiki nui Hawaiki roa Hawaiki pamamao. No reira haere a te pihopa haere haere ngaro atu.  
Tautoko kaha ana au i tera o nga poroporoaki a taku whanaunga a Te Ururoa i huaina mai i nga ingoa o ratou kua ngaro atu i mua noa atu i to tatou pihopa i te ra nei. E tika ana kia mihi atu ki to tatou pihopa i te mea ano hoki hara tana tohu rangatira i te tohu o te kaha o te reo o te kaha o tona whawhai engari ko te kaha o tona humarie. He tangata aroha ana ki nga iwi hakoa ko wai hakoa no hea. He tangata aroha ana ki a matou nga tangata hikoi ana runga i te mata o te whenua. He tangata tautoko ana i te kaupapa kia whakakahoretia i nga mahi kaikiri i roto o Aotearoa i nga wahi katoa o te ao. He tangata e tautoka ana i tona iwi ara ko te pani me te rawakore. No reira e tika ana kia mihi atu tatou katoa ki a ia mo ona ahuaranga.  
Hoki mahara atu ki te wa tuatahi i tutaki au ki a ia. Ko te ra i korowaingia te pihopa hei Pihopa mo Tamaki-makau-rau. I tenei ra kua hoki ano ra a ia ki tera o nga wahi i raro i te maru o te whare karakia o te marae o te Tatai Hono i Tamaki-makau-rau no reira e mihi atu ki a ia e hoki mai nei ki roto i a matou o Tamaki mai i aua wa ki tenei wa. No reira e te pihopa takoto mai takoto mai takoto mai. Takoto mai ano ra roto i a ratou kua hoana ke takoto mai ra ki roto i tera o nga whare o te Tatai Hono.  
Me te mihi ano hoki ki taku w’anaunga a Shane Jones e noho ana ki te taumata i tenei wa e w’akarangatira i nga korero mo tenei o nga tino pou o te hahi Mihinare nga tino pou o to tatou whenua o Aotearoa. No reira mihi atu ki te whanaunga e kawe ana i tera o nga kaupapa.  
Hoki mai ano ra ki a tatou e te Whare tatou katoa e mihi ana ki te rangatira o te motu kua ngaro atu i a tatou. Tena koutou tena koutou huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. I need to advise the interpreter that the first part of my address is an incantation from home from the far north and it goes: 
Scatter scatter move together move together 
Hug the coast run in sweep it 
Let us rejoice 
Tie up the chattering shag 
The rope has been stretched out and fastened 
The godwits have risen and flown 
One has landed upon the beach 
Others follow and land as well. 
Our bishop has landed on that side people on that side of the sea beyond the divide. He has landed amongst us of the far north at the departing place of the spirits at Cape Reinga. There he will plunge into the tide the seaweed and disappear to great Hawaiki long Hawaiki and distant Hawaiki. So farewell o bishop. Depart go forth and be lost from view. 
I strongly endorse the farewell tribute today by my kin Te Ururoa Flavell who mentioned all those who had preceded our bishop. It is appropriate that I pay a tribute to our bishop because he did not stand out for being an outspoken person or a fighter but rather because of his humility. He was one who loved all people regardless of who they were or where they were from. He sympathised with those of us who marched in protest across the land. He supported the cause to rid New Zealand and indeed the world of racism. He supported his people the alienated and the dispossessed. So it is fitting that we acknowledge everything about him.  
I remember the first time I met him; it was the day when he was appointed Bishop of Auckland. He returns today to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre's Tatai Hono Marae in Auckland so I acknowledge his being amongst us in Auckland once again after all that time. To the bishop I say lie there rest there and recline. Rest there once again amongst those who preceded you. Rest in that building on Tatai Hono Marae. 
I acknowledge my relation Shane Jones as well who is back at the top at this moment and adding to the tributes to this great pillar of the Anglican faith and of our country. My acknowledgments go to my relation for what he is doing.  
I come back once again to us in the House to all of us as we pay a tribute to the esteemed one of the nation who is lost from us. So greetings to you greetings to you collectively and greetings to us all. 
] 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Children Welfare—Policy Priorities 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that the needs of children should be balanced with the needs of other New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not wrong to pit the needs of our children against the needs of other New Zealanders because children are the future of our country and every dollar spent on children is a dollar spent on our own future? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because the Government actually raises an enormous amount of revenue through taxes and part of the job of the Government is to allocate those resources as and where it sees fit. If every dollar of Government resources was to be spent on children no resources would be spent on pensions no resources would be spent on rest homes no resources would be spent on the environment no resources would be spent on the health system no resources would be spent on police and no resources would be spent on the military. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that no one is arguing that every dollar in Government spending should be spent on children; rather that we should not be pitting the interests of children against other New Zealanders because every dollar spent on our children is a dollar spent on our future? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was simply answering the question I was asked. But the Government puts a high priority on young people and that is why an enormous amount of resources are applied towards young people. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the economic consultancy Infometrics that the cost to the country of child poverty is around $6 billion per year in increased spending in health welfare education and justice and as a result of decreased productivity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Speaker can I just ask the member to clarify that the work he is referring to came from the Every Child Counts research done by Infometrics right? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The work was done by Infometrics; that is right. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It was done for Every Child Counts. Actually largely I thought the report was rubbish. For a start-off the data in it was simply wrong: six of the indicators were not available; two of them it got wrong. The data was an indictment on the then Labour Government because the data was from 2003 to 2005. By the way although Infometrics was looking at the spending on children the report did not include health spending Working for Families payments or domestic purposes benefit funding. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members had not been interjecting so loudly they may have heard that a point of order was called. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: My question was specifically about whether he agreed with the estimate of the cost of $6 billion per year. There were many other points he could disagree with but the question related to that cost. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Prime Minister indicated what he thought of the report and therefore of the cost. I think that was pretty clear. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister find it acceptable that under his Government there are still 270000 children living in poverty? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is not my preference. My preference is that those numbers are considerable lower—in fact my preference is that the number is zero. That is one of the reasons why in the weekend we made announcements in terms of reform of the welfare system and there will be more reforms to come. The reason for that is that if one analyses that figure of the 270000 children who are in poverty one will find that the vast bulk of them are growing up in welfare-based homes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In reference to his welfare announcements and given his admission yesterday that the Government cannot provide enough teen parent skills for every mum will his new policy to force sole parents to be in education not involve the forcible separation of 18 year-old mothers from their babies? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. As I pointed out when I made a substantial number of remarks in relation to that issue we can work with teen mums for solutions that may be in their homes. It may be that a group of mothers gets together with an educationalist providing them with support or it may be that they go to a number of other courses. Frankly I am a little surprised that the member does not think it is a good idea that we are asking teen mums if they are in need of drug or alcohol counselling to attend those courses or asking them to attend parenting courses if they would benefit from that. I am also surprised that the member does not fundamentally think that 16 17 or 18 year-old teen mums should get an education. I am sorry; he might have that view but it is not shared on this side of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given the Prime Minister’s new-found love of education for poor people will he support the reintroduction of the training incentive allowance so that young mums can get a degree-level course because we know that when young mums get access to education there are better educational outcomes and better welfare outcomes for their kids? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the member needs to reflect on how much this Government is actually spending on education and the steps this Government has been taking to make sure that that spending where it can targets at-need at-risk young people. One of the things we did in Budget 2010 was cap the amount of expenditure going into early childhood education facilities in terms of their being 80 percent teacher-led so that we could put $500 million into targeting at-risk young people. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about whether the Prime Minister would support the reinstatement of the training incentive allowance. He did not address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to have a look at what he actually asked. The start of his question was not in order but I was not going to stop it because it gave the Prime Minister almost free licence as to how he answered the question. If the member wants to have a particular answer he must ask only what he said he asked because he included a whole lot more in his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Green Party’s policy priority for addressing child poverty in New Zealand. It was produced by the Green Party this year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Youth Unemployment—Trend Since October 2009 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
 on behalf of  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Since the Prime Minister said in October 2009 that “we are particularly concerned about high rates of youth unemployment” what has been the trend in youth unemployment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In October 2009 there were 19444 18 to 24-year-olds on the unemployment benefit. This peaked in January 2010 at 23545. In July 2011 the figure was 16530 so since January 2010 the figure has fallen by 7000 which is pleasing. In December 2009 the household labour force survey unemployment rate for young people aged 15 to 24 years was 18.4 percent and it was 17.4 percent in the last quarter. Under either definition youth unemployment has been reducing. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she sufficiently briefed the Prime Minister about the high rates of youth unemployment? Because he transferred a simple question about his own statement to her he obviously does not feel sufficiently confident to answer the question himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think the Speaker does need to get his head out of the sand. The last part of that question was totally out of order. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was totally out of order. I just invite the member to look at the relevant Standing Order. Members are not meant to include statements of opinion in questions like that. But the first part of the question was answerable on whether the Minister had briefed the Prime Minister. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes of course if members opposite will put questions in my portfolio area I am more than happy to answer them. Mr Goff sort of scuttled out of the House a few minutes ago but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. One out of order part of a question should not provoke an out of order response from the Minister but given that both were out of order I will leave the situation to lie there. The Minister knows that that was totally out of order but so I am sure did the questioner know that the last part of the question was out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that it is belated and after the fact now but I ask you to examine and get back to us possibly privately and indicate since when it has been out of order to indicate that a question has been transferred when a Minister does not want to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are skating on thin ice here. The first part of that point of order was fine. The last part was totally out of order. To suggest that a Minister may not want to answer a question is totally out of order. It is totally out of order to claim that in a point of order. This exchange will stop or there will be some consequences. I will leave it at that but I am serious about it because points of order must not be abused like that. I allow a lot of licence in questions being asked. There have been a couple of questions asked today that were not compliant with the Standing Orders but I let them go because I do not want to be intervening too often. There is a limit to what can be allowed by way of a question. That is where I will leave it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I would like to reiterate my request. The question very carefully did not go to questions of reasons for the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question did go to reasons. The question did allege a reason for the question being transferred and that is not in order. I invite the member to look at the relevant Standing Order—forgive me for not remembering it off the top of my head—371. That is simply not in order. It is Standing Order 371(1)(b) if the member wants to look at the relevant Standing Order. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can she confirm that the Government declared that the New Zealand recession was officially over on 31 March 2009; and if the recession was over what has caused youth unemployment to grow by 8.5 percent or 7000 since that announcement? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to indicate to you that there appears in my copy of the Standing Orders to be no Standing Order 371(1)(e). It stops at (c). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said (b). 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What we have seen is that those in the age group of 15 to 19 years are still feeling the lags of the recession. They are the last to get into a job and often the first to go off employment unfortunately. They have low skills. Hence we are putting even more of an emphasis on making sure that they have employment and training opportunities. We want to see them get sustainable jobs; hence we made the announcements that we did on Sunday putting investment in that area. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she told the Prime Minister that long-term youth unemployment has trebled for young people between the ages of 15 and 19 under his watch and why has the urgency about this huge waste of young life become a priority only 3 months out from the election? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government has invested a huge amount of money into 18 to 24-year-olds in particular in making sure that we give them work opportunities and we have seen successes with that. For example in January 2010 we had more than 23000 on the unemployment benefit and that figure is now down to close to 16000. That is 7000 people coming off the unemployment benefit. Now we need to look at the transition from school into further education and training and that is certainly what this Government was concentrating on with its announcements on Sunday. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she agree with commentators who have said that the number of young people not in education training or employment could now fill Eden Park and that the situation has reached crisis point; if so why has the Government announced a policy at the weekend for only 1600 of the 58000? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member is actually incorrect. It is not 1600; it is more like the 13000 who are in the 16 and 17-year-old age group. [ 
Interruption 
] Actually it is. It is those who are in the Youth Transitions Service programme as well and it is also those who are on the independent youth benefit. Members need to go back and look at the actual announcements that were made. They are the young people who will get older and keep having unsuccessful lives and careers unless we do something at that age group. It is most definitely the age group to concentrate the most on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 3 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. I beg your pardon Hilary Calvert; is this a supplementary question? There was no way I could hear the member call for a supplementary question because of the interjections. It is no use pointing the finger across the House because they started on my left. Admittedly they were added to but I was watching very carefully and there will be no more argument about that. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does she believe that increasing the minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-old people by 33 percent would increase youth unemployment; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In all fairness I have seen a number of different reports some saying exactly that and others saying it is not having an effect. So it would be fair to say that there is a middle ground there and that the jury is still out. 
Hilary Calvert 
: How much would increasing the minimum wage by 33 percent raise unemployment by: dozens or hundreds? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am afraid I do not have that kind of analysis in front of me. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does she then accept that the abolition of the youth rate which increased the minimum wage for young people by 33 percent contributed to the youth unemployment rate skyrocketing to an all-time high of 27.6 percent nearly double what it was when the rate was abolished? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I do have concerns about is the education and training level of some of the 16 and 17-year-olds who are leaving school too early and who have not even got National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. It is very difficult for them to even get into the workforce and then when they do they are often the first to drop out when we see the kind of global recession that we have seen of late. That is what this Government is concerned about and that is where we are putting our investment. I think that is a great thing. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a very specific question. Although she expressed a concern about education she was specifically asked whether she believed the abolition of the youth rate had contributed to the rise in unemployment. She avoided that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite Hilary Calvert to repeat her question because it seemed that it was not actually answered at all. Hilary Calvert may repeat her question. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does she then accept that the abolition of the youth rate which increased the minimum wage for young people by 33 percent contributed to the youth unemployment rate skyrocketing to an all-time high of 27.6 percent nearly double what it was when the rate was abolished? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is possible but I actually think a lack of education and training and being left on the scrap heap for many years by the previous Government which did not pay attention to that group of young people has had more of an effect. 
Economic Position—Financial Market Signals 
3. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on what financial markets are signalling about New Zealand’s economic position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Financial markets are signalling a growing aversion to continuing to lend to borrowers who have accumulated excess debt. Indebted countries are increasingly being sorted into the strong and the weak with the weak facing significantly higher interest rates. In New Zealand our longer-term interest rates have declined steadily over the past 2 years indicating that we are regarded by the markets as being in a relatively strong position as one of the more creditworthy countries with a sound fiscal plan. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How much have interest rates declined over the past 3 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are any number of measures one could use but interest rates have declined by large amounts across the board. Since August 2008 5-year Government yields—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get to his feet and withdraw and apologise for that kind of interjection which he knows is totally out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does not make the job very easy for the Speaker when I deal with one situation and another one almost as bad crops up. I ask members to be a little more reasonable please. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Interest rates have declined significantly across the board. The overnight cash rate has declined from 8 percent in August 2008 to 2.5 percent today and floating mortgage rates have almost halved down from 10.9 percent in 2008 to 5.9 percent today. It looks as if the trend towards lower interest rates for longer will be maintained as long as we stick with our sensible plans. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What benefits have lower interest rates brought to New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Lower interest rates encourage investment and therefore help to sustain growth which will give us higher incomes and more jobs but they also bring direct benefits to borrowers. A family with a floating $200000 mortgage now pays about $10000 a year or $200 a week less in interest than it did just 3 years ago. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What are the policies that put New Zealanders’ financial stability most at risk? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What is becoming clear is that financial markets are becoming increasingly sensitive to both the debt levels countries have and whether they have control over those debt levels. The biggest danger is getting into a spiral of borrowing more money which helps drive up interest rates which makes it harder to service that debt and requires borrowing more money. So we would not expect that the world that has lent us so far $170 billion would welcome any economic plans that propose more debt. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for question No. 4 to be set down for questioning after question No. 10 today so the Prime Minister can answer it when he returns from his urgent public business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Simon Power 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. The Hon Trevor Mallard will leave the House. We will not tolerate that kind of accusation in the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber. 
Children Welfare—Policy Priorities 
4. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 on behalf of  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that he agrees that the future of some children is at risk but it is a balancing act? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I will wait for the Prime Minister to answer the question he should— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and this nonsense will stop immediately. We will not have any more of this. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has he failed that balancing act when New Zealand’s teenage unemployment rate has trebled under his watch and when the Human Rights Commission reports that having 58000 young people not in education employment or training threatens New Zealand’s social cohesion? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: With the unemployment rate amongst 15 to 19-year-olds increasing from less than 10 percent when he the Prime Minister took office to nearly 28 percent why has he cut funding for industry skills training by $145 million this year? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: He has not but what we have done is insist that there be quality. Recycling young people into substandard education and training opportunities is not doing anything for them. That is something the Opposition was quite happy to see when in Government but this side of the House is not. We will insist that training is meaningful and that it opens up young people to opportunities. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is he denying that his Government has cut $145 million from industry skills training this year when he acknowledged that fact last week in the House? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are insisting on quality. The other side of the House was interested in quantity and whether young people were sitting on seats and being there. We are— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will recognise that I asked why the Prime Minister is now denying that he has cut $145 million this year when he acknowledged that fact in answer to a question last week. The Minister has not attempted to answer that part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Paula Bennett. The question repeated by the honourable Leader of the Opposition is what he asked. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think the member needs to look at how he asked those questions both times and see that they justified different answers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As Speaker I have accepted that the repeated question seemed to me to be a reasonably accurate representation of the first question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I was referring to his question last week not to the two questions today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon. I understand the answer. That is a perfectly acceptable answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the cutting of 31000 industry skills training positions and having 1000 fewer young people in Modern Apprenticeships reduce young people’s risk of unemployment and disengaging from the community? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I will go back to the original answer. As I was explaining we need to look at the quality of the training that these young people are seeing. We have repeatedly seen young people being recycled because the incentives have been wrong. We will demand more from those organisations and more for these young people and we will make no apologies for it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he count his young unemployment policies a failure when Statistics New Zealand records that the nearly 28 percent unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds is the highest since the Great Depression; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Because when one looks at it in bigger terms one sees that for 15 to 24-year-olds that number has gone from 18.8 percent on 11 March to 17.4 percent now. In January 2010 we saw that there were more than 23000 on the unemployment benefit; there are now just over 16000. Investment into things like Job Ops has made a difference with more than 90 percent staying in those jobs and not going back on a benefit. That is a success. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that Statistics New Zealand has it wrong in saying that the rate of unemployment for 15 to 19-year-olds is the highest since the Great Depression? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No we are saying that there are a number of factors. We are putting the investment into young people where it is needed; 43000 are going to new jobs created in the last year. There is a lot further to go but we will get them education and the right sort of training so that they can take up those jobs as they come up. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he accept that his unemployment policies for young people have failed when the New Zealand Institute reports that youth unemployment rates in New Zealand are the highest of any developed country? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is room for celebration in some of this. For example Maori youth unemployment rates have gone from 30.3 percent in June 2010 to 24.8 percent now. That is still too high—it is still too high—but we are tracking down. There is a long way to go but 43000 new jobs last year—15000 of them for young people—is a good start. We will continue to celebrate and recognise the contribution those young people can make. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it really a cause for celebration that the youth unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds is the highest since the Great Depression and the highest of any developed country; if so how is that a cause for celebration? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That is not what I said. But I will say that this Government is doing something about it. We are putting the investment where it should be we are recognising that those 16 to 17-year-olds—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] It is lucky I did not hear that. The member must not interject while I am on my feet. We will not have any more of that. A question was asked and an answer was being given. It was a perfectly reasonable answer and the level of interjection made it impossible to hear. If a question is serious members should want to hear the answer. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school and no one even knew who they were or where they were. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want members on both front benches please to cease this carry-on that we have had today. It is unhelpful. I have already dealt with one member and I do not want to deal with any more. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school whom no one can track. In all the years under the Labour Government nothing was done about them. We saw them leaving school unable to be tracked. We were unable to know where they were and we were unable to make contact with them. We are doing something about that. 
District Health Boards Targets—Shorter Stays in Emergency Departments 
5. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress have district health boards made towards shorter stays in emergency departments for patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The latest quarterly health targets to be released shortly will show that a record 92 percent of emergency department patients were admitted treated or discharged within the 6-hour target. This compares with the endless stories of patients languishing in hospital corridors for days on end only a few short years ago. For example 2 years ago the Auckland District Health Board was at 70 percent of the target and it is now at 95 percent. The average time for a patient to get a bed at the Auckland emergency department and go into the ward has dropped from an average of 7 hours and 48 minutes to 1 hour and 18 minutes. Congratulations to the team at the Auckland District Health Board. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What benefits do shorter waiting times have for patients in hospitals? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: How long patients wait in an emergency department has a direct impact on the outcome of their care and their recovery. Hospitals around the country are being innovative in how they make waiting times shorter. The Canterbury District Health Board for example has met the 95 percent target despite losing 100 beds as a result of the earthquake and the ongoing challenges the board faces and for example a minor injuries clinic at Hutt Hospital has freed up emergency departments for more serious conditions. This is in stark contrast to just 3 years ago when patients waited to be seen for days and days and days. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that the criteria for his 6-hour target was met when Chris Kennedy from Timaru waited for 6 hours at Timaru’s emergency department and was seen by a nurse who took his temperature and then left; if so does he think that might make his target somewhat meaningless? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would have to check the veracity of that claim. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members please; the House is getting very messy. 
Grant Robertson 
: I could clarify that I think if I could seek the leave of the House to table—and I know this is unusual—the article from the  
Timaru Herald 
 of 10 August that outlines the case I raised in my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document. I do not normally allow tabling from newspapers but the Minister in answering said he would need to check the veracity so I will put the leave to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would have to check that because I recall that only a few weeks ago the member tabled letters saying that they showed people had been cut from waiting lists when in fact in researching the cases it was shown they were never even on a waiting list. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You allowed me to seek to table the document because of the Minister’s answer. I do wonder what is available to members when having done that they hear the claim repeated by the Minister—which is what he did. I do not know what members on this side of the House can do when Ministers repeat something that is out of order—when they question the word of another member. It is also out of order to interject— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. That is it. Let me just warn members. It is just possible the House may go into urgency. A member thrown out may be out of this House for a long time this week so I just suggest to members they think about that and behave a little. Grant Robertson has raised a point of order and the only advice I can offer the member is that it is possible to think of a supplementary question that could tie the Minister down. That is the way in my view to deal with that situation. But I acknowledge the frustration—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. As Speaker I cannot be held responsible if there are not sufficient supplementary questions but that is the way I would deal with that situation. But I do not blame the member for feeling frustrated. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Projected Revenue 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he asked Treasury to re-estimate the projected sales revenue from his proposed privatisation policy in light of Contact Energy’s share price falling 20 percent so far this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 First can I correct the member: it is a policy of Government control of these energy companies with a sell-down of up to 49 percent. Secondly the change in the Contact Energy share price highlights the risks to taxpayers from owning commercial assets. As a rule Governments are poor at managing these risks. Part of the reason for the share price weakness I am advised is that Contact Energy made a rights issue to raise $350 million for a new geothermal plant. This is a key benefit of the mixed-ownership model because it gives companies access to capital to expand without having to come to the Government and compete with schools and hospitals for capital investment. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has not addressed the question which asked: “Has he asked Treasury to re-estimate the projected sales revenue?”. He did not go near that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister could answer that part of the question it would be helpful. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister either sought or received any other advice in respect of either the timing or the total value of the proceeds of his part-privatisation programme in light of the carnage in international equity markets in recent weeks; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No because the Government is not getting ahead of itself. We have always said to the New Zealand public that we would pursue this policy if we were re-elected. In the context of an upcoming election there is no point in the Government taking advice about whether to float those shares now. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table page 159 of the Economic and Fiscal Update of the Budget which shows— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member cannot use that tactic to try to make a political point. He must ask a question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm whether the cash flows shown on page 159 of the Economic and Fiscal Update which show $100 million capital transferred from the balance sheet into new capital spending in 2011 as a result of asset sales $650 million in 2012 $800 million in 2013 $1.6 billion in 2014 and $3.6 billion in 2015—estimates of cash flows that in part derive from his partial privatisation programme—have been changed in light of the carnage in international markets or had he not noticed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Treasury will no doubt update its cash-flow statement in line with its statutory obligations in the run-up to the election. But the member cannot have it both ways. Either these are gold-plated assets with absolutely certain value and dividend streams that he is counting on for the next 10 years or as he is pointing out today they are risky assets whose share prices could fluctuate because their custom has disappeared. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the following two positions the Minister has just taken is in fact true: that there is no timetable for realising the proceeds from State-owned enterprise asset sales and that therefore there was no need to take advice from Treasury on the impact on those sales of the carnage in financial markets; or that there is a timetable represented by the page I have quoted in his Budget and that therefore he should consider those matters which he now says Treasury will update? Which of those two positions does he hold to? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has stuck to one timetable which is that if it is re-elected it will then set out a programme for the retention of 51 percent control by the Government of these companies and the sell-down of 49 percent of these companies to Kiwi mums and dads. The events of any particular week in respect of fluctuations in the markets over the next few months are pretty much irrelevant to that timetable. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What other implications has he drawn from recent volatility in markets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The volatility in sharemarkets shows that it would be risky to borrow to invest in share markets because although that looks like a sound proposition when markets are going up it does not look quite as sound when markets are dropping or showing considerable volatility. That is one of the reasons why the Government suspended contributions to the Superannuation Fund a couple of years ago because we did not believe that it was appropriate to be borrowing money in volatile financial markets to invest in volatile share markets. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it correct that New Zealanders therefore have three options in regard to his part-privatisation programme: spending thousands of dollars and risking money on the stock market to buy assets they already own; not buying shares and seeing those assets sold offshore leaving the country more exposed to international markets; or voting out his Government on 26 November? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They will certainly have the opportunity to vote for or against the Government in an election in November and I expect they will at that time take the opportunity to vote for or against—probably against—plans for higher taxes more spending and excessive borrowing which is what he is proposing. 
Welfare Reforms—Youth Initiatives 
7. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What announcements has she made that will invest in young people who are not in education training or work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have announced radical changes for young people aged 16 and 17 and teen parents aged 18 as well which will transform the way the Government provides not just financial assistance but also services to these young people. We have anywhere between 7000 and 13500 young people aged 16 and 17 who are not in education training or work. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of this group will end up on an adult benefit unless we intervene. We will be intervening. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What will be different for those receiving benefits particularly for teen parents and especially those living in the electorate of Te Atatu? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The other group we are concentrating on a lot are teen parents including those in Te Atatu. We are moving to a far more targeted supportive approach. It is of real concern to me and to this Government that we have young people with very small babies who are quite isolated on their own and need our support. We are determined to wrap more around them and also help them with financial assistance budgeting parenting courses and the like. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What arrangements will the Government recommend to enable tertiary institutions and training providers to take on more students in order to truly invest in the potential of all of our young people to succeed in education training and work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Actually work for teen parents is of particular importance for their education and training—and is also important for young Maori and young Maori mums. We are very keen to work with wananga polytechs and other organisations to make sure that some of those Youth Guarantee places are used for teen parents and that it is a wraparound service. We see some of it being in homes but I know that the Minister of Education and the Minister for Tertiary Education have a number of initiatives also encouraging more places for those most vulnerable. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How will providers be working with these young teens especially in areas such as west Auckland? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: How non-governmental organisations work with these groups particularly these teen parents will really be the measure of the success of the initiatives we announced on Sunday. We can envisage organisations such as the Waipareira Trust for example Presbyterian Support New Zealand or some iwi-based organisations having a wraparound service particularly with young mums ensuring that they have education and training. When it comes to the Youth Transition Service and making sure we have those organisations working with it we see that very much as an investment approach. Less is spent on those who are lower risk and we are spending more money on those who are higher risk to make sure there is value and to make sure that we do not see organisations just picking off the easy kids but that they are wanting to work with the more difficult ones as well. Those relationships are vital. 
Health Services—After-hours Medical Treatment 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all the statements he has made in relation to after-hours medical services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Within the context in which they were made yes. I also stand by my comment that tomorrow I am travelling to Nelson—or I am planning to travel to Nelson—to inspect the potential site of a new after-hours joint venture in that city. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did he say to Temuka Grey Power president Shirley Gilmer that cuts to after-hours services in Temuka “might not happen” when in fact after-hours general practitioner services in Temuka and Geraldine have ceased from today; if so why? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I did have a conversation with that lady. I cannot remember the exact words but I can say that I spoke to the district health board chief executive on Sunday about this issue. I am told that the district health board is keen to get back around the table with the general practitioners as soon as possible. There is a difference of opinion about the funding that is required for this service which is not uncommon. In fact Timaru general practitioners raised problems about after-hours funding in 2007. I can assure the member that people seeking after-hours care in Temuka and Geraldine can access a comprehensive nurse-led telephone triage service and there is still a doctor providing after-hours care in Geraldine. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Minister aware that there are now no after-hours general practitioner services available in Temuka and Geraldine from today? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The information I have received is that there is still a doctor providing after-hours care in Geraldine. It is being provided by one doctor who is not in with the Temuka doctors. I can assure the member that alternative arrangements in terms of the nurse-led telephone service are in place after hours. There is also a need I think for ongoing discussions between the general practitioners and the district health board. The district health board is very keen to see whether it can address the issue in relation to the money and what the expectations are. This is not uncommon in these sorts of negotiations. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister guarantee to the people of Temuka that they will have after-hours general practitioner services given that from today those services are not available? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not in a position to be able to guarantee that the general practitioners themselves will provide that after-hours service. Nor can that member guarantee that there will definitely be a general practitioner after-hours service. What I can guarantee is that arrangements are being put in place in order to meet the needs of those people. There is still an after-hours general practitioner available in Geraldine and the district health board is very keen to meet with the general practitioners in terms of addressing this issue. We have put quite a lot of extra money into the South Canterbury District Health Board and I am sure that it is investing it wisely. 
Youth Unemployment—Job Creation 
9. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does the Government’s policy announcement on Sunday regarding youth unemployment include plans to create large-scale quality employment for youth in Aotearoa; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This policy focuses on two main groups of young people as we have discussed. Firstly it focuses on those 16 and 17-year-olds who are completely disengaged 90 percent of whom are at risk of ending up in the benefit system. These 16 and 17-year-olds by virtue of the fact that they have left school early are unlikely to be work-ready. The focus is clearly on getting them into education and training so that they are able to get good jobs that will sustain them long term. Forty-three thousand new jobs were created last year. More are coming so let us make sure that these young people are ready to take them up. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree with the comment that policies that concentrate the wealth of the nation in the hands of the few driving people into poverty and then penalising them for being poor are the reasons behind the riots in London; and how long does the Minister think it will be before disillusioned youth in this country take to the streets like their mates in England have done? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What we are doing is spending more money on those young people because we see them as being valuable. We see them as having potential and we want to realise that potential. That is actually putting the focus on them and making sure that we see that there are those kinds of employment and training opportunities. In fact we are kind of making those young people valuable because we are saying to a non-governmental organisation that we will pay it to actually take a special interest in them and connect them into that training and education. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree with the comment that the Government does not have a policy on full employment because wide-scale unemployment enables it to push for greater cuts in the rights of unemployed youth; and how does she think that forcing young mothers off the benefit and into work will solve the problem of unemployment when there are no jobs and no plans to create them? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No I do not—not at all. I do believe that what we are currently doing with them is actually abandonment. We are saying to 16 and 17-year-olds and 18-year-old teen mums: “Here is a few hundred dollars a week and good luck out there.” I think we can do better than that. I take responsibility for them and as such I will step up put a focus on them and make sure that we wrap the right kind of support around them. 
Early Childhood Education—Playcentre Funding 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all of his answers to Oral Question No 12 on 9 August 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out funding cuts of up to 80 percent for home-based early childhood education proposed by the Government-appointed Taskforce on Early Childhood Education as he did for Playcentre recently; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government is in the process of digesting all of the information from the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education but it is fair to say we will not be accepting all of it. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out funding cuts of up to 78 percent for kohanga reo as proposed by the Government-appointed Taskforce on Early Childhood Education as he did for Playcentre recently; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said the Government is in the process of digesting all of the recommendations of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education but I would not read anything into that report. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has been asked two very specific questions now about whether he could rule out funding cuts from the recommendations made by the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education. He has failed to rule out those funding cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have had this issue raised before and the member will recollect that it is difficult for me to insist that a Minister gives a different answer if in fact the Government has not made decisions in relation to a task force report. If I heard the Prime Minister correctly I think he said the Government was digesting the recommendations and had not made any final decisions. I think he went on to add some views about some things being unlikely. I cannot insist on anything more precise than that at this stage. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will the Prime Minister give a commitment then to the existing rate of subsidy for 20 free hours’ early childhood education for all the children to whom it currently applies in light of the proposal of the Government-appointed Taskforce on Early Childhood Education to cut funding by up to $50 per child per week? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes as I said last week we support having the 20 free hours. We are just considering the recommendations of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education. I am not actually expecting major changes. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just a point of clarification with the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no such thing. It is a point of order if the member wishes to raise a matter to do with the order of the House but there is no such thing as a point of clarification. The member can ask a further supplementary question if she wishes though. 
Resource Management Act Reforms—Role in Infrastructure Upgrade and Economic Growth 
11. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How have the Government’s amendments to the Resource Management Act assisted in upgrading New Zealand’s infrastructure and how have they supported economic growth? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A major change was made with the introduction of national consenting which enabled major projects to be considered by a single time-limited robust process. The new process has worked successfully for the $1 billion Tauhara stage two geothermal power station the $2 billion Waterview Connection project and the $420 million Wiri Prison. I contrast this with projects like the Northern Gateway Toll Road project which took 10 years and the Wellington inner city bypass which took 15 years. The Environmental Protection Authority yesterday received two further significant applications. The first is from New Zealand King Salmon for a plan to double its production in the Marlborough Sounds which would generate over $100 million extra in export earnings. The second application received yesterday by the Environmental Protection Authority was for the $1 billion Transmission Gully motorway north of Wellington. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has the Minister received any feedback from submitters or objectors on the robustness of the new national consenting process? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. A letter to the Environmental Protection Authority from the Auckland Volcanic Cones Society was very complimentary of the process saying that the Environmental Protection Authority had done a thorough and fair job and “a fairer hearing has been achieved than under the old system”. I also note that both cycle advocacy groups and local residents affected by the Waterview project were also quite complimentary saying that the board listened fairly and understood their concerns and that although they had preferred that the project not proceed they accepted the decision. These comments are a tribute to the two respective boards. These positive comments also reinforce how the new process is fair and is delivering timely results for infrastructure and economic development. 
Youth Unemployment and Job Creation—Prime Minister’s Statements 
12. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to job creation and young unemployed people that “the most important thing is to not necessarily link the two because they’re quite different things”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I do because I think the statement was actually in relation to job creation vis-à-vis welfare reform for young people which we were talking about in the weekend. They are in one sense different. But I stand by my full statement which said: “We need to create jobs and that’s all parts of the economic reforms for which we have a plan everything from the tax system right through to investment infrastructure but the most important thing here is not necessarily to link the two because they’re quite different things.” 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What part of his announcement on Sunday included investment in “sustainable jobs” as stated by his Minister for Social Development and Employment in the House today? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: One of the things is ensuring that young people—and we are talking about the 8500 to 13500 people who leave school between 16 and 17 are not in education work or training and not engaged in any of those activities—have a wraparound provider and get those skills. That is the clearest way to make sure they can actually go into work because if we do not do that as we know 90 percent of them will go on a benefit. The member is now part of an Opposition that supports keeping those people in that way and putting them on a benefit; this side of the House does not. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister for Social Development and Employment said today that the Prime Minister’s announcement on Sunday included investment in sustainable jobs. I sought clarification from the Prime Minister about what part of his announcement included sustainable jobs; he did not make any reference to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty in my trying to intervene with a question like that is that I cannot be expected to adjudicate whether that is a fair reflection of what the Minister for Social Development and Employment said so the Prime Minister picked up on the part of the question he could make sense of. My dilemma is that I cannot adjudicate on that. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What is the time line for Cabinet’s consideration of a youth wage rate which he indicated on  
Firstline 
 this morning would occur? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Within the next 2 months. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What advice has he received on how many of the 27.6 percent of unemployed young people will move into work as a result of his announcements on Sunday? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure of the answer to that at this point because I have not seen any analysis but I think it is worth doing a couple of things—that is to make sure we fully understand what we are talking about here. If one looks at those on an unemployment benefit in New Zealand one sees that that number for young people aged 18 to 24 has actually dropped from 23545 in January 2010 to 16363. The member actually quotes the household labour force survey which relates to people who are indicating they are looking for a job. The member nods and I appreciate her agreeing with this point. Sixty percent of unemployed people listed in the household labour force survey aged 15 to 19 are at school or university. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I seek leave to table a spreadsheet from Statistics New Zealand which shows that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Jacinda Ardern 
: —23900 15 to 19-year-olds— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member heard me calling order because I wanted to identify for the House the source of the document from which this table comes. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Statistics New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Statistics New Zealand has regular publications and if it is a publication that is readily available to the House we do not table it. I am just trying to make sure that the member is not trying to get around a convention we have established. Is the member assuring me that this is not part of the regular Statistics New Zealand releases? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: It might be an early publication. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The thing is: how can we seek leave for a document if we do not know the source of the document? When the member says it might be an earlier publication either the member knows what document this table is from or she does not. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Just for clarification it came via the Parliamentary Library. I cannot be sure whether it has been published publicly as yet via Statistics New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s explanation. Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Points of Order 
Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you the issue of Mr Mallard’s being asked to leave the Chamber. I have no difficulty or problem with your decision. You asked him to leave. I accept that he transgressed the rules and that for that there should be an appropriate punishment. But what I would ask is for you Mr Speaker to think about the time for which Mr Mallard has to be out of the Chamber. There are things that some people know and others do not and it will be a difficult week. The point I would like to raise Mr Speaker is that you contemplate setting a specific time for Mr Mallard’s return. It is not unreasonable for the Speaker to do so; it has been done on a number of occasions. Standing Order 85 says that the member can be excluded for a period “up to the remainder of that day’s sitting”. It does not mean that you are obliged to have the member excluded for the whole of the day’s sitting; you can impose a time at your will and at your discretion. 
I would suggest to you Mr Speaker that it would be appropriate for Mr Mallard to be excluded until say 4 p.m. today after which he would be free and able to return. I do so because I believe that there could be some unintended consequences and unforeseen consequences if he was left out of the Chamber for the whole day. To support this I say the House has an agenda for this week which I am sure everybody wants to get through. I would suggest to you the words of a former President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson who made reference to the fact that it was better to have people inside the tent than outside the tent because that made life a bit easier. So I would just suggest to you Mr Speaker that it would be very helpful if you were to set a particular time. I am sure that Mr Mallard is contrite is remorseful and would be sufficiently well punished if you said that he could come back to the House at say 4 p.m. today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the goodwill in which the member the Hon Rick Barker raises the point of order. Let me make it clear that up until now I have not asked many members to leave this Chamber—only three in fact—and they have been out for the day. That is why the period is a sitting day of the House. I do not muck around. I tolerate a lot of what I consider to be unacceptable behaviour but when the limit has been reached so far every member whom I have asked to leave has been out for the day. That is why I warned members that the day may be a little longer—may—than they might have anticipated. I will reflect on the matter because that possibility may have escaped the member’s attention. I will reflect on the matter but I will not make any decision right now. At the moment the member is excluded for the day. But I will reflect on the matter and advise of any change to my decision in due course. 
Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
The Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill marks the next step of the Government’s legal aid reform by addressing the financial sustainability of legal services paid for by the Crown and of course directly by the taxpayer of New Zealand. New Zealand’s current legal aid system is unsustainable and unaffordable. Legal aid expenditure increased—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members leaving the Chamber please do so and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the House. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Legal aid expenditure increased by 55 percent between 2006-07 and 2009-10. Over the 5 years to 2014-15 this growth was expected to result in a $402 million gap between the forecast and the baseline funding. The Government had to act to bring this growth under control. In April I announced a balanced package of changes that would begin to bring legal aid expenditure under control. The package involved changes to how legal aid services are purchased the eligibility criteria for legal aid and payments received from legally aided persons. This bill implements those changes. 
Part 1 of the bill will strengthen the legal aid eligibility test by tightening the merits tests for family cases reducing the discretion to grant legal aid to people whose income and assets are above the financial eligibility thresholds ensuring that people who can afford to pay for their criminal defence do so and removing the requirement to index financial eligibility thresholds to movements in the consumer price index. The bill will increase the contributions received from legally aided people and better incentivise the repayment of legal aid by introducing a $100 user charge for most family and civil cases and charging interest on outstanding legal aid debts. Furthermore family and civil matters for which legal aid can be granted will be put into a schedule that can be amended by Order in Council. This will provide the Government greater flexibility to manage legal aid eligibility in the future. 
Part 2 of the bill will make changes to lawyer for the child and youth advocate schemes to ensure that there is greater consistency across Government-funded legal assistance schemes. The changes include extending the quality framework for legal aid providers to child and youth advocates and requiring parties to contribute to the costs of the lawyer for the child services. Extending the quality framework will ensure that lawyers providing lawyer for the child and youth advocate services maintain and continue to provide high-quality legal services. It will ensure consistency between the Government-funded legal aid lawyer for the child and youth advocate schemes. Requiring parties to contribute to the cost of lawyer for the child services will help ensure that the services continue to be available and are financially sustainable into the future. This change is expected to recover approximately $15 million of the cost of providing these services over the 4-year Budget forecast period. The bill also makes small changes to the Legal Services Act 2011 to improve its operation and address issues that have arisen during its implementation. 
These changes along with other changes that do not require legislation will reduce forecast legal aid expenditure by $138 million over 4 years. However they will not meet the full funding gap. The Government will consider further changes in the coming months to bridge the remaining gap. 
The legal aid budget is under extreme pressure. The changes in this bill are vitally important to secure the financial sustainability of the legal aid system. They will ensure that legal aid is sustainable and will continue to be available for the people who need it most in the future. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I hope that the Minister of Justice does not have cause in the years to come after he has left this House permanently to regret the last paragraph of the speech he has given. He gave us an assurance that the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill would not deleteriously affect those most in need of assistance from the Crown when they are accused of a crime. 
I want the House to be very clear about what we will be doing today if this bill is read a first time. The bill is couched in very comforting terms. It sounds innocuous: “We are just reviewing thresholds.” “We’re applying the civil threshold to minor criminal matters.” Nonsense. We are doing something much more Draconian than that and I will spell out what this bill will do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Ooh that’s scary! I’m shivering in my boots! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Henare might like to read the Crimes Act because when his constituents come to him in his office and say that they cannot get legal aid because the Government has removed their entitlement to it I wonder what he will tell them. 
Here are some of the offences that will now be put beyond the entitlement that people have to legal assistance. All that needs to happen is for someone to be accused of one of these offences and there will be no entitlement to assistance if they earn more than $22000 a year. That is National’s new definition of the rich. Most of the offences in the Summary Offences Act are covered. Crimes Act offences covered include distribution of indecent material indecent acts in a public place criminal nuisance misconduct in respect of human remains concealment of the dead body of a child injury by unlawful act aggravated assault assault with intent to injure assault on a child or by a male on a female common assault possession of offensive weapons or a disabling substance unlawful use of interception devices unlawful disclosure of private communications and the making possessing and publishing of intimate video recordings. The list continues: theft of property worth under $1000 attempted conversion of a vehicle being in disguise or in possession of instruments for burglary the receiving of stolen property worth under $1000 and the making selling distributing or possessing of software for committing a crime. There are many more offences under the relevant legislation. 
These are serious offences and if somebody is accused wrongly of one of these offences—and we all know that it happens—and they are earning over $22000 a year then they will not have anywhere to turn as of right for assistance with their defence. What will they do? They will plead guilty. They will go to jail. Innocent people as a result of this legislation will go to jail—as if we were not locking up enough people in this country already. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Another conspiracy theory by the loony left. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I ask Mr Henare again what he will say to his constituents when they come to him and say that they do not have a bean that they are accused wrongly of a serious offence and that they cannot get any help. That is what Parliament will be doing today if we pass this legislation. Let us not be in any mistaken frame of mind about what this proposal will mean in practice. 
It goes further than the criminal side because it deals with civil matters as well and it imposes that savage threshold of $22000 a year in income. Again that is the definition of rich according to Mr Power—I myself think that that is pretty rich. If Kiwis are earning $22000 a year they will not be eligible for legal aid in civil matters unless there are exceptional circumstances. What will happen if someone’s neighbours are sued and they do not earn very much? They will need a lawyer to help them out. If they are wrongly sued if they are named in a civil action but they should not be a party to that civil action they will not be able to get assistance to defend themselves. Again that is what the effect of this legislation will be. It is unconscionable. People who through no fault of their own are caught up in civil proceedings and who do not have enough money to defend themselves will be in no position to avail themselves of the services of a lawyer to get them out of that position. That is not a position that this Parliament should ever countenance putting any fellow Kiwi into. It is shameful and we should reject the propositions contained in the legislation that will advance that position. 
There is another matter that I am troubled about in respect of the civil justice provisions in this legislation. It is in respect of applications for personal care protection or welfare issues when there is a vulnerable person like a child at risk a person at risk of domestic violence a mentally ill person or a refugee. The restrictions already discussed will apply to those people as well when they need to seek legal aid in order to make an application in respect of their personal care property or welfare. Admittedly there are some hardship provisions in the legislation but again let us be in no doubt about the effect of this legislation. Vulnerable people who need to instruct a lawyer in order to seek the protection of the courts—a fundamental right of anybody in New Zealand—will be prevented from doing that by this legislation. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Thanks mate. Sit down now. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: No amount of yelling screaming and interjecting by Mr Henare will change that sad fact. I hope that he does not vote for this legislation because we all know which most vulnerable New Zealanders will be adversely affected by these provisions. 
If that were not enough a user charge is contemplated in this legislation. We heard from the Minister that it would be $100. The bill provides that if people cannot pay $100 then they will be able to pay interest until such time as they can. In the calculation of people’s net value to determine their entitlement to seek legal aid from the Government guess what will be taken into account under this bill. It is people’s personal items of clothing their household furniture their household appliances and workers’ tools of trade. They will all have to be put into the mix when people fill out the form used to decide whether they are poor enough to get legal aid from the State when they have been accused of a crime and want to defend themselves they have become party to some civil litigation and want advice on how to get out of that or they are vulnerable people who need to seek the protection of the court. I think we should be ashamed of these provisions. Applicants will have to say what their vacuum cleaner is worth what their couch is worth and what their jeans and jackets are worth. This is the sort of level that we have sunk to under this Minister and this Government when it comes to something as fundamental in this country as access to justice. 
Finally there is a provision concerning family law. As members will know when there is a relationship dispute and a child is involved the court appoints counsel to represent the child. This bill will require the parties to family law disputes to contribute to the costs of that counsel. What if they cannot afford to do that? Does this mean that they will have to suffer substantial hardship or alternatively that the child will miss out on representation a fundamental part of the system as we know it in family law cases? 
The Minister talked about a crisis in the funding of legal aid. I sat in the former Minister of Justice’s office 4 years ago when she was meeting with the president of the Law Society after the previous Government had increased the legal aid entitlements available to lawyers for the first time in 20 years. It was not a lavish increase; it was a modest one. It just about kept enough providers in the system to continue to provide the services that were required. 
We can do better than this. We can do better than make savage cuts to the rates of entitlement at which people who need access to justice can with assistance from the State access that assistance. We can do better at recovering grants of aid by treating that aid as more of a loan than a grant. There are many many other ways that we can be fiscally responsible while ensuring that we retain people’s access to justice as a fundamental right. I implore the House to consider those alternatives rather than to pursue this bill. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. Drawing on experience as a police prosecutor and later on a criminal legal aid lawyer it is interesting to see a tension between wanting to live in a country where we supply people accused of crimes the ability to draw on legal services free of charge so that they can make an adequate defence and at the same time recognising that those costs come at a cost to the taxpayer so there needs to be some control on them. Decisions that are made from time to time in respect of policy mean that some of those costs blow out. It is also true to say that probably no one is more unduly maligned within the criminal legal aid system than the lawyers who are prepared to work as criminal legal aid defence counsel. 
It is though timely for the Government to take stock of where legal aid is going in this country and to try to account for the Budget responsibilities it has. National wants to make sure that legal aid is available for those who need it while ensuring that it remains affordable in the future. Budget 2011 included $103.5 million in short-term funding while longer-term sustainability issues were addressed both through this bill and through a wider review of the Family Court. 
The previous speaker Charles Chauvel made a number of very salient points in respect of the delivery of legal aid in the society in which we want to live. There is a huge disparity for instance between the amounts of money that are supplied for Crown legal representatives and for those who are supplied on behalf of the taxpayer to those accused. Both bills are met by the taxpayer but for some reason there is a huge disparity there. That is just one of the many issues that will need to be investigated. I also accept that there are many creative ways in which we can do it. This bill seeks to do a number of those things and I commend it to the House. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleague Charles Chauvel has said we have concerns about the Government’s overall direction in respect of its justice policy which inhibits access to justice and creates the potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. For that reason—and I will explain in more detail why—we will not be supporting the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. 
Labour believes in an accessible justice system and we have serious reservations about the direction of the reforms in the justice system under this Government. This bill essentially rolls back the expansion that was made under Labour in 2007 making it harder for people to access lawyers. At that time legal aid had not been reviewed in two decades and the then National Opposition criticised the Labour Government for not making enough legal aid available. Labour introduced a new repayment and debt management scheme which is where the focus on sustainability should be rather than on penalising people on low and modest incomes who genuinely need a lawyer and need to be able to access legal representation. 
The changes encourage legal aid applicants to consider whether they wish to proceed with litigation. This may dissuade people from pursuing a justified case limiting a person’s right to access justice. The current means test will be modified in the case of offences that are not punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment above 3 years. The Minister of Justice has indicated that the threshold will apply to those earning $22000 for a single adult and $51000 for an adult with two dependants—and $22000 is not a lot of money. To deny that access to anyone who is earning $22000 or over does not seem to anyone on this side of the House to be very just. In fact we fear for the ability of those people to get representation for themselves in respect of the legal matters that they may be confronted with. We are concerned that this may force people into representing themselves in court increasing the chances of miscarriages of justice. I am sure that other members in the House would agree that our general everyday Joe Bloggs would not necessarily have the skill set to represent themselves effectively in court if required. 
The cut to legal costs by significantly expanding the Public Defence Service at the expense of independent lawyers providing legal aid is a concern for us. The latest review of the Public Defenders Service in England and Wales showed that the Minister’s solution to expand the Public Defence Service will cost the taxpayer considerably more than it does currently. 
Simon Bridges 
: We’re not in England or Wales. This is New Zealand. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Mr Bridges probably does not recognise that often in these matters research is required and we look overseas for examples. I was just citing those examples. Although Labour supports the existence of the Public Defence Service as it was initiated under our Government we believe that independent lawyers should provide the bulk of criminal defence work. 
The lack of balance in what the Minister is proposing will lead to a lack of quality in terms of legal defence options for Kiwis facing charges. The quality of our justice service is certainly in question after 2½ years of the National Government being in charge. Furthermore the Government’s plan for the Public Defence Service along with the denial of those charged with category 1 or 2 offences to choose their own lawyer restricts choice for individuals. Those who have a history particularly in mental health issues may be forced to have a lawyer who does not know them the disadvantages they face or the full state of their circumstances and perhaps will not have enough time to investigate in order to provide a comprehensive defence. 
The Minister Simon Power has not made available the figures for actual costs including all administration set-up and expansion costs. There needs to be greater transparency to improve access to justice for all New Zealanders and unfortunately we are not seeing that under the National Government. The Ministry of Justice asserts that criminal legal aid is the highest expenditure area and that it is steadily increasing. However criminal lawyers are rarely the initiators of legal actions; therefore if there is increased use of legal aid lawyers arguably it is also because the number of charges in summary and indictable offences has increased. 
When the legal aid reforms were announced Mr Power said: “We cannot continue to ignore the substantial cost pressures the system is facing particularly at a time when New Zealand is being forced to borrow an average of $300 million a week.” The Government gave $2.5 billion in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of earners. I think we need to keep that in mind in light of Simon Power’s statement. The Government gave $2.5 billion in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of earners. Meanwhile people earning over $22000 will now find it tougher to access legal aid even if faced with a criminal charge. 
I think we are seeing again where the Government’s priorities lie. The money could have been put in place to ensure that justice is accessible to all Kiwis—to all New Zealanders. Instead the Government now cites financial difficulty and the fact that we are currently borrowing so much money as reasons to cut access to justice for the vast majority of New Zealanders yet the Government can still give $2.5 billion in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of earners in this country. Again I say that that really shows what the National Government’s priorities are. 
Implications for those charged and facing bail are that duty solicitors will apply for bail on behalf of a defendant only in a category 1 offence; if a defendant is waiting to get legal aid or cannot get legal aid then he or she may not be able to have successful bail; and innocent people may have to spend some time in jail because of the timing of the application while their access to legal aid is being examined. 
The purpose of the merits test for granting family legal aid is to encourage parties to resolve more minor matters themselves. Most parenting applications already require parties to undergo counselling and mediation before there is a hearing in court. Legal representation ensures that parents are aware of all of their legal obligations. The changes to legal aid provisions to deal with the rising cost of family legal aid grants disregard the changing landscape of families in New Zealand. So we have some major concerns with the legislation that we have before us. 
As I said at the beginning of my speech Labour will be opposing this bill because of the concerns we have about the Government’s overall direction with regards to its justice policy which really does inhibit access to justice and creates the potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. That is what we will be looking down the barrel of going into the future if this legislation is passed. 
Overall the bill amends the Legal Services Act 2011 and other Acts to limit the number of legal aid grants and to increase the amount legally aided people must pay. The bill also limits eligibility for legal aid reintroduces a user charge for civil and family legal aid and enables interest to be charged on legal aid debts. Our concern is that at a practical level in terms of people’s real-life experiences we will see people who earn $22000 or over which is really not a lot of money losing what in this country they fundamentally have a right to and that is justice. They will no longer be able to afford it and there will be cases where because a person cannot afford it that person will be forced to represent themselves in court. That in turn will increase the chance of a miscarriage of justice. 
We oppose this bill and we hope our colleagues across the House will see some sense and join us in opposing it also. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill purports to be about sustainability. By that the Government means financial sustainability not the sustainability of justice. The bill seeks to amend an Act that the Government passed into law this very year. The bill is unique in my experience in this Parliament in containing no statement of purpose; the purpose is set out in the explanatory note and in the regulatory impact statement. 
The thrust of the bill is to curtail the burgeoning cost of legal aid. The cost has grown substantially in the past 3 years and the current level is held to be unsustainable in the long term. 
Simon Bridges 
: Shame on Labour. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: The level of legal aid expenditure we are told has shot up in the past 5 years. Since 2005 it has increased 13 percent per year with a 23 percent increase in 2009—shame on National. The gap between forecast expenditure and the Budget baseline is widening—further shame on National. The bill would amend the Legal Services Act 2011 to ensure that the legal aid system remains affordable in the future—good on National—and available to those who need it. 
We heard Chester Borrows mention the need to strike a balance between justice and efficiency and that that was a difficult balance to strike. He spoke about creative ways of trying to find that balance and then fell silent. 
There are three major drivers of legal aid costs pertaining to a grant: the price the number and their repayment. The options for managing future expenditure were assessed by the Government in its preparation of this bill according to three criteria: cost efficiency impact on recipients and impact on services provided. We have gone through the bill rather hastily since it appeared on the Order Paper only last Thursday—shame on National. 
Simon Bridges 
: What were you doing all weekend? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is what I did among other things. As we see there are eight specific provisions and they are as follows. Clause 5 relates to criminal matters eligible for legal aid. The effect is to bring the representation of the offender in eligible proceedings before the New Zealand Parole Board within the class of criminal matters. Clause 6 addresses the threshold of eligibility for criminal cases. It applies the means threshold that already applies to civil and family cases to cases in the criminal summary jurisdiction. In such cases the Legal Services Commissioner must refuse to grant legal aid if the applicant’s income or disposable capital exceeds a certain threshold—and we hear it is $22000 which is very low—with only a few exceptions. 
We move to clause 7 which adjusts the special circumstances for consideration of the means test for family and civil cases. The effect of the change is to focus on expensive cases. Then we have clause 8 which pertains to vulnerable parties and which tightens the merits tests for family cases by removing the criterion to take account of the interests of other vulnerable parties. Clause 9 ensures that eligible civil cases can be amended by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister thereby diminishing the prerogative of this Parliament. Clause 10 reintroduces a user charge of $100 for family and civil cases thereby imposing further financial strain on litigants—shame on National. Clause 19 specifies the nature of the user charges. Interest can be charged and the clause removes inflation in the form of the Consumers Price Index as a factor in assessing eligibility levels of income and disposable capital. So the ability to keep pace with the cost of living as a factor in eligibility is removed. What dare we say? Finally clause 20 addresses a defendant’s disposable capital that can be factored into determining eligibility for legal aid. These factors are now to include household furniture household appliances personal clothing and tools of trade. So in the Government’s shameful notion of a compassionate society a defendant can literally lose the shirt off his or her back to pay for a legal defence. 
In short the bill will have the result of limiting eligibility for legal aid limiting the number of legal aid grants increasing the amount of legal costs eligible people must themselves pay reintroducing the user charge for civil and family legal aid and enabling interest to be charged on legal aid debts. 
What are we to make of these changes in the name of judicial cost-cutting? For the sake of budgetary constraint the defendant in the New Zealand judicial process will have less access to legal assistance than before. I note the conclusion in the regulatory impact statement: “The introduction of income and asset thresholds for the criminal means test will be in tension with section 24(f) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act providing for the right to an affordable defence. It could also delay some court cases if judges defer proceedings because of inadequate representation.” 
Apart from that judgment the bill might be seen as also impacting on other sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 23(1)(b) requires that we shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and be informed of that right. Section 25(a) refers to the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court. Section 27(1) states: “Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights obligations or interests protected or recognised by law.” Mr Bridges might do well to refresh his memory of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Simon Bridges 
: Which section? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Sections 23(1)(b) 25(a) and 27(1). 
Simon Bridges 
: What are those ones about? Remind me. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: The member was not listening. Mr Bridges needs to listen as well. 
In the Green view the need to cut budgetary cost does not justify the measures envisaged in this bill which will have the effect of depriving people in tough circumstances of their traditional legal rights of access to justice. It is in fact no laughing matter. It is in short a punitive bill. We shall be opposing this bill and assuming it is referred to a select committee—which is not guaranteed—we shall be following it to see whether and how improvements can be made. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. There is a Chinese proverb that suggests that if we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. In the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill it is very clear that the Government is dramatically changing the policy direction but it is unclear exactly how this will change outcomes for the people who matter most: everyday New Zealanders. 
There is no question that expenditure in the current legal aid system is not sustainable. As other speakers have noted expenditure on legal aid rose from $111 million in 2006-07 to $172 million in 2009-10 which is a massive increase of 55 percent. Ostensibly this bill is designed to prevent such gross expenditure. It is designed to save $138 million over 4 years but of course the fiscal costs are but one aspect in the debate on social justice and how it is experienced by all groups of New Zealanders. 
This bill limits eligibility for legal aid reintroduces a user charge for civil and family legal aid and enables interest to be charged on legal aid debts. In doing so it amends the Legal Services Act 2011 and other Acts to limit the number of legal aid grants and increase the amount legally aided people must pay. As a general principle the Maori Party cannot support the move made in this bill to apply the guillotine to certain aspects of eligibility without bearing in mind the advice of Dame Margaret Bazley and her observations on how legal aid is used to support the claims and cases of Maori and Pasifika peoples. The Legal Services Agency report into legal aid applications reveals that a significant number of applications for legal aid were received from Maori—a total of 37337—and also from Pasifika peoples at over 8000. When we compare this number with the 40000-odd applications from Pakeha it is evident that Maori and Pasifika families have seen much value in the support offered by legal aid. An overriding major concern for the Maori Party in coming to this bill then is that Maori and Pacific peoples feature strongly amongst those most likely to experience problems that require legal assistance. Arguably if the legal aid system fails Maori then it fails altogether. 
I am acutely aware of the wisdom gained in the report  
Transforming the Legal Aid System 
 by Dame Margaret Bazley. In this report she identified that Maori and Pacific peoples appear to face barriers in accessing legal aid in addition to the barriers faced by other eligible people. She also recommended that the legal aid system needs to focus on the legal needs of Maori and Pacific peoples and the barriers they face in accessing legal aid with a view to enhancing their access over time. 
I return to the proverb I referred to earlier: if we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Is the direction we seek to reduce the numbers of Maori and Pasifika peoples eligible for justice? Or is it about the creation of a fairer and more just legal system that would respond equally well to the needs of Maori and Pasifika New Zealanders as it does to any other group of New Zealanders? If the latter direction is what we seek for ourselves then surely instead of restricting eligibility criteria and limiting eligibility to only that referred to in accordance with new schedule 1A we might be looking more broadly at what is preventing Maori and Pasifika peoples from benefiting from due access to justice. Specific concerns we might then turn our attention to would be the barriers Maori and Pasifika peoples face including a narrower merits test for family cases. We might focus on the reintroduction of the $100 user charge for certain cases and whether this will in practice act as a barrier to all groups being able to access legal aid fairly. 
As a former lawyer I am of course aware that Maori are overrepresented as legal aid users but I am just as aware that far too many of our whanau are limited by affordability issues. So although the suggestion to require parties to contribute to the cost of lawyer for the child services to encourage the early settlement of cases might look good on paper it will not be easily enacted in a way that makes sense for whanau. 
It is somewhat ironic that in a bill supposedly promoting justice—and therefore access to justice—measures are being introduced that could actually be counter-productive. I refer to the introduction of compulsory repayment orders and the proposal to charge interest on all debts which in effect will mean that many of our families will go further into debt. 
The Maori Party recognises that there are some useful parts of the bill which we support. In particular we support the opportunity for certain recipients of grants to be exempt from the requirement to pay a user charge. The exempted recipients are certain claimants to the Waitangi Tribunal parties to proceedings under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 applicants for protection orders or orders relating to property of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 patients or proposed patients in proceedings under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 care recipients in proceedings under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 victims in respect of inquests or hearings before the Parole Board and applicants for recognition as a refugee or a protected person. 
We support this list of exemptions of what might be more commonly referred to as cases involving vulnerable parties. The nature of cases referred to—including mental health matters the care and protection of children and domestic violence—are legal aid areas that Maori tend to be overrepresented in so we welcome the opportunity for their needs to be considered. However as a general focus our commitment as the Maori Party is to support the human rights of all people by ensuring their access to justice. We cannot be confident that this bill achieves that. 
We promote restorative justice systems where victims are empowered and where community involvement in the justice process is enhanced. We do not consider that the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill enables these goals to be realised. As such at this first reading we will be voting against the bill. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill is a very good illustration of what was wrong with Labour in Government and what is right with National in Government. We see in this bill a Labour Government that wanted and paid for champagne while living on a beer income that took legal aid costs in this country up 55 percent since 2006 and that left us with a funding gap in this country if we do not do anything of $402 million over 5 years. That is many schools hospitals and other social services that this country needs. So I say shame on Labour. 
National has an approach to make this sustainable so that the people in need who need legal aid in this country get what they need and we make the legal aid system sustainable for the long term. As we have done in other areas like accident compensation as we are doing in the early childhood education sector and as we are doing in welfare we are making sure that these important social services are sustainable for the long-term betterment of New Zealanders. 
We are responsible in this Government. We are not trying to have champagne while living on a beer income; we are trying to cut our cloth to suit the circumstances of this country. In this bill as I say we have an illustration of a National Government that is making very good stewardship of what it has as opposed to a Labour Government that increased all the costs without any clue as to how to pay for them. I commend this bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I join colleagues in rising to speak against the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. I will comment on some of the points made by the previous speaker Simon Bridges. Given the level of Government debt that National inherited when it came into power—that is zero Government debt—I think that for him to say that the previous Labour Government had a champagne lifestyle is somewhat ironic. Particularly ironic are his comments about having to make important services sustainable because of tough economic times when the Government has cut taxes for the wealthy which has led to blowing-out debt problems in this country. I honestly think it is absolutely extraordinary that that speaker can get up and make those sorts of comments without flinching. 
Labour members oppose this bill. We have concerns about the Government’s overall direction in the justice area. We believe that this bill will inhibit access to justice—that is a very real risk with very significant consequences—and that it has the potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. My colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Charles Chauvel have outlined that very carefully as has the Green speaker Kennedy Graham. This Government has one response to issues. That response makes it look like it is reacting to particular problems but it is actually not about substance; it is all about image. Instead of dealing with the reason why legal costs may be increasing which is probably that more people are being charged with crimes—and I ask what is underlying that—this Government says that costs are blowing out. It needs to be seen to be doing something so it will cut access to legal services. Well that is just unbelievable. 
There are other alternatives and I want to touch on some of those but first and foremost I say that all members in this House should all be concerned about accessible justice systems. Every citizen of this country has the right to fair legal representation in order to defend themselves to ensure that they are not unjustly convicted or unjustly imprisoned. That should be something that each and every member of this House is committed to. Concerns about tensions with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which Kennedy Graham outlined are very serious matters that again every member of this House should be worried about. 
Essentially the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill will introduce higher levels of means testing and limit what can be covered by legal services. If the bill passes its first reading—and a number of parties are saying they will vote against it—it will go to the Justice and Electoral Committee which I am on. I along with my colleagues will certainly be scrutinising the bill very carefully and encouraging people to make submissions on it because there are some very serious risks with it. 
When Labour was in power it introduced a new repayment and debt management scheme which is where the focus on sustainability for legal aid should be. The focus should be on making sure that we can manage repayment and debt management so that it is sustainable rather than penalising low and modest-income people who genuinely need a lawyer in order that people can access legal representation. It is a fundamental part of our justice system that people have the right to representation. 
I want to talk about the Public Defence Service as well because that was initiated under Labour and has been used by the Minister of Justice to justify some of the changes here. We are very concerned that this has been done in a way that is not transparent not evidence-based and not looking at the real costs. At the heart of the so-called reform that we are talking about here is the proposal to ramp up the Public Defence Service to take up over 50 percent of criminal legal aid cases in Auckland Hamilton and Wellington and later extending to Tauranga Hastings Dunedin and Christchurch. 
As I said that scheme was initiated by Labour so it is not that we do not support the Public Defence Service. We believe in a balanced system and that must continue to include access to legal aid and legal assistance from private lawyers as well as the Public Defence Service. It needs to have those checks and balances in the system. We are concerned that the Public Defence Service has been looked at as a cheaper system that will be a way of managing costs but in fact nothing could be further from the truth. 
Looking at the figures from the Legal Services Agency annual review it seems that in fact the average cost of a case under the Public Defence Service was $1612 whereas the average legal aid bill per case from a private practice lawyer over the same period was $1343. In other words the Public Defence Service cost $269 more per case than a private sector lawyer. Labour members support funding the Public Defence Service as well as resourcing private sector lawyers and bodies like community law centres adequately. If the right balance is struck between each of these they can provide a useful check against each other in terms of cost and quality. We need to ensure that everybody irrespective of their income has access to fair representation—good-quality legal representation—to ensure that they are not unjustly prosecuted unjustly convicted or unjustly imprisoned. So it is really important to get this right. 
There was reference earlier to England and Wales and one of the members opposite scoffed at that and said: “Well we’re in New Zealand.” but evidence-based lawmaking warrants us looking at what is happening in similar jurisdictions with similar services. The latest review of the Public Defender Service in England and Wales shows that Minister Power’s solution of a vastly expanded Public Defence Service will cost the taxpayer considerably more than it does currently. There needs to be proper transparency around the costs of the Public Defence Service which is what we are seeing muddled here. 
I also agreed with Charles Chauvel when he said that the provisions in the bill are being presented using very comforting terms such as “maintaining access to service” and “balance” and all of that and I have heard them from members opposite. Charles Chauvel listed a number of very serious offences that would be beyond assistance for offenders earning more than $22000. Nobody in this House could argue that that is a substantial income. That is an absolutely pitiful level of income and it would be very difficult for someone earning that to afford legal assistance. Some of the examples he gave were various assault cases offensive weapons cases and concealing dead babies—very serious offences. 
He also talked about—and I thought this was really important to repeat—this bill potentially seeing children missing out on representation because it requires the parents in those cases to contribute to the cost of independent legal representation for children. We all know sadly that in many cases when children get in the middle of legal disputes adults are not doing the best thing for children. For Labour children are at the centre of what we are doing. We must get it right for our children and that includes ensuring that all children have independent legal representation irrespective of the income of their parents. 
Other things in this bill that worry me are the ability to further change and restrict by regulation—that is outlined in the provision about placing additional civil matters on the schedule—and the removal of the requirement to index means thresholds so that over time they will become even lower if you like. 
Labour members believe in justice and opportunity for all. We think it is important to get a balanced package whereas this bill is a short-term response. It is the Government being seen to be doing something in the same way that it has reacted to things like industry training. The Government is being seen to do something rather than dealing with the real issues. That was also the case with loan sharks. Again 3 months out from the election the Government suddenly needs to be seen to be doing something. It is a short-term response by the Government having done nothing of substance. 
I think there are some very serious matters here. Again I repeat the concern about tensions with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I would say that the consequences are important. I acknowledge Rahui Katene for raising the issue about potential consequences for Maori of this legislation going wrong and limiting people’s right to justice. I recently visited Arohata Women’s Prison and was absolutely appalled and shocked to find out that 84 percent of the women in the prison are Maori. There is something wrong in our justice system and making it hard for people to get good representation will make that worse. We need to be serious about dealing with the causes of crime and with issues like poverty jobs and training. Thank you. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The purpose of the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill is to amend the Legal Services Act 2011 and other Acts. The bill makes changes to the provision of legal aid services by the Crown including aid and lawyer for the child and youth advocate services. The legal aid system helps to uphold the principles of and access to justice. It helps to uphold equality before the law and natural justice which helps to build and maintain public confidence in the legal system. This Government led by the Rt Hon John Key is committed to ensuring that the legal aid system remains affordable in the future and that legal aid is available to those who need it and to the victims of crime and domestic violence. The current system is unsustainable. The cost has increased by 55 percent since 2006. If no action is taken now then the gap in legal aid funding will grow to $402 million in the next 5 years. It gives me pleasure to commend this bill to the House on its first reading and I look forward to working on it in the select committee. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It will come as no surprise that along with my colleagues I too oppose the Legal Services (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the sterling speeches made by members on this side of the House and also the contribution from the Green Party. It is really sad that a former speaker—and I am not attacking him because I know he was speaking from speech notes—used the term “sustainable”. That seems to be the chant and the cry from National. We know that the definition of sustainable which is not the definition we would find in the dictionary in terms of this Government is just clearly about cuts. Why would I say that? Let me tell you why Mr Assistant Speaker Roy—well not just you but I want the whole House to know why I would say that “sustainable” means cuts. 
Paul Quinn 
: We’re all ears. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much. Paul Quinn is all ears and usually is when I am speaking. That is very good; he shows respect so that is really good. When do we hear the term “sustainable” from the Government? We hear it when it is justifying its cuts to ACC. When we see its cuts to ACC it says that the current form of ACC and services that it provides are simply not sustainable. So what did the Government do? It ruthlessly cut the services to ACC whether it is relating to victims of sexual abuse the most vulnerable people whether it is getting people back to work whether it is assisting people in terms of avoiding injuries—all of those things were cut because they were unsustainable. 
When again do we see the cuts? We see the cuts to KiwiSaver because it is no longer sustainable. We see the early childhood education cuts. The building blocks for our children’s future have been cut. Why was the Government not just honest by saying: “We don’t want to put our money in this particular area. We just want to give it in tax cuts to the wealthy.”? No Government speakers used that term again: “It is not sustainable.” 
I acknowledge that Simon Power will be leaving Parliament and I would have thought that his swansong his final action before he leaves would have been something really progressive; that it would have been something members on this side of the House would celebrate. We know that Simon Power is certainly by no means amongst the worst on the Government benches. In fact I would go so far as to say in this House that he would be up there amongst the best of what some would say are a motley lot but certainly I know that others on the Government side would not say that. He is certainly not someone whom we would expect to use the term “sustainable” to cover what are actually cuts. 
When we talk about cuts in terms of legal assistance it is really serious. All the cuts in the name of sustainability that I spoke about before were serious and have a very dramatic effect on people whether it is children’s ability to have access to quality early childhood education whether it is about people’s ability to save or whether it is about people having their rights and entitlements as were originally designed under ACC. All of those things are really important. But what we are talking about in this case in the name of sustainability is cutting access to justice. That is at the very heart of our democracy. If we ask any New Zealander what they hold very dear it is the ability for anyone of no matter what means to have access to justice. Unfortunately this bill takes New Zealand backwards in that regard. 
We note that there is more expectation of community law centres. I acknowledge as I have many times in this House the work that community law centres do throughout this country. I do not think anybody would argue and I do not think there would be any dissent about the work they do. We see a Minister who wants a greater role for community law centres but it just cannot happen if those law centres do not get the resources they need to handle more work. We already have the Minister on record telling community law centres that there will be no more money. We see community law centres—such as the one that I know of in Waitakere and I know it is the case in most places throughout New Zealand—that operate on the sniff of an oily rag. They provide a fantastic service. This Government is saying that yes they are doing a great job and it wants them to do more but by the way there is no more funding. So that will not work either. 
Whilst we are talking about this I see Chris Finlayson in the House and I know he will not be surprised if I relate a couple of things. The Domestic Violence Reform Bill which was introduced under Labour is still languishing on the Order Paper very near the bottom and I think that is a severe disservice. That is another area where the Minister has let us down. That bill is still on the Order Paper and instead we have seen some measures that certainly improve conditions for victims of domestic violence but they have been introduced in a piecemeal way that do not complement each other and do not give complete protection. So that is another area that we are very disappointed in. 
I refer to the Sentencing Council. Members on this side of the House know that if under Labour there had been a Sentencing Council as Labour was very keen to have and as was recommended by the Law Commission then we would have enhanced sentencing processes in this country and that would be a very good thing. But instead no this Government instead of working on improving the justice system has rolled back the expansions that Labour did in 2007 making it harder now for people to access lawyers. I remember that when Labour was in Government we were criticised by National because we were not making enough legal aid available. It seems pretty bizarre that following that National gets into Government and in the name of sustainability introduces a new repayment and debt management scheme that penalises low and modest income people in terms of accessing legal aid. How is it that a single person who earns $22000 a year or an adult on $51000 a year with two dependants will not under this regime have access to legal aid? That is appalling; that is absolutely appalling. There were high-income earners who received $22000 in tax cuts a few months ago yet this Government— 
David Bennett 
: Rubbish. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is not rubbish. This Government is now saying that $22000 is ample money for somebody and that they do not need access to any legal assistance. I think that is very very unfortunate. 
I want to talk about the public defence scheme because as members of this House will be aware Labour initiated that trial—initially in Auckland—and we support the concept. But there is a lack of balance in what this Minister is proposing. We are concerned that by cutting access in the name of sustainability to people and then putting more resource into the public defence scheme which Labour does support there is going to be an imbalance there. We are hearing information from countries—quite recently there were some reports in terms of England and Wales—that a vastly expanded public defence scheme will cost the taxpayer considerably more than it does currently. What worries me is that if that is the case then what else is this Government going to do? It has already considerably lowered the threshold for people’s access to legal aid. My concern is that this is going to deprive New Zealanders of their access to justice in this country and that is not a good thing. Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 There is much on the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill that I could talk about but I will take just a short call because as Opposition members have alluded to this is a starting point. From here the bill will go to the select committee and at the select committee we will listen with intensity to any issues that are raised and consider those in our deliberations which I am sure will improve this bill. 
With those few words I say that I look forward to receiving this bill before the Justice and Electoral Committee—a very hard-working select committee where the work never stops and the candle never goes out. Thank you. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a slightly longer call than Paul Quinn on the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill because I think that member summed it up really when he said that the select committee will consider this bill at great depth. I am proud to be part of a party that opposes this bill. I think this bill is simply dreadful. I say too that I am sure that in Cabinet there have been vociferous debates about the great reformer of the legal and justice sector Simon Power who until this bill and another one that is now languishing well down on the Order Paper tended to get most of the reform agenda in law probably pretty well on the button. But we on this side of the House are really opposed to this bill. The reason why is that it inhibits access to justice and then creates an incredible potential for substantial miscarriages of justice. 
I know that the Attorney-General who is very focused on proper access to law and due process is probably very disheartened by this bill slipping in before the election. He knows with his great criminal law mind that lawyers around the country are saying of the great crusader for and reformist of legal justice that he has gone too far—that he has gone too far with this bill. It will impose substantial miscarriages of justice and I am really worried about that. Justice must not be denied to those who are going through the court process. I think even calling this bill the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill is absolutely a crock. This bill is about capping access to justice and capping access to legal aid because of the cost implications for this Government. It is not about sustainable funding. If it was about sustainable funding it would have put a focus on the front end. Those who go before the courts need advice on debt management and how to actually manage their finances rather than to have their access to justice capped. 
One of the aspects of this bill that I feel most incensed about is the means test which will be modified in the case of offences that are not punishable by a maximum imprisonment term of 3 years. The Minister has indicated that this threshold will apply to those people who earn $22000 a year. Wow! Are people who earn $22000 a year really going to be the bar so that people earning above that level can no longer have access to legal aid? That will rule out many people in the communities in which I live and work who find that through access to legal aid they are encouraged to pursue their right to a robust justice appraisal of their case. It is ridiculous to say this means test will encourage legal aid applicants to consider whether they wish to proceed with litigation. For goodness’ sake! People who earn $22000 a year want to prove that they are not guilty. They cannot afford to engage a lawyer so they go first to the community law centre. They go there first and say: “What do I do? I have got a charge. I can’t defend myself. I don’t have the means to speak for myself and defend myself though many do. I must have legal aid to help me.” To put that bar at $22000 a year for a single adult is offensive and to put it at $51000 a year for an adult with two dependants is absolutely outrageous. 
The bill talks about affordability and I understand what National is really saying: that people should do more for less and that legal aid is a “nice-to-have” not a “right-to-have”. Justice needs to be seen to be done and to say that there could be a user-pays element in terms of justice provision is offensive. This is as offensive as user-pays was in the decade when National brought it in for the health system. Now it has a user-pays philosophy for access to justice and on this side of the House we find that to be absolutely offensive. 
I also say that the cut to legal costs by significantly expanding the Public Defence Service at the cost of independent lawyers is a concern. It has pressed a button right around the country. When we go around meeting lawyers they say that this service is offensive to trained professional lawyers who are not rorting the system. They can see that a public defender service is a way of saving money. Already we have the example that when such a service was reviewed in Wales and England the review showed that it actually cost the taxpayer more. So when is the National Government going to look at what are effective justice measures? What are cost-effective justice measures? They are about paying for experienced lawyers who know how to work the system for their client so that justice can be seen to be done. They are usually the most experienced lawyers in the country not junior lawyers who are learning through taking legal aid cases. 
I find this bill absolutely offensive. Family court lawyers are going to find it is offensive. The Government’s introduction of this bill 12 weeks before an election in the hope that it can just slip it in on the Order Paper and get it off to a select committee so that its members can go out there and say “We members of the National Government are doing great things about reforming the criminal justice process in New Zealand.” is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment of riches for us in the Opposition to now go around the legal fraternity and say “Have a look at this bill. See what they are proposing now.” Lawyers are already offended. They are already offended by the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill which I see is another bill of the great reformer Simon Power that has slipped down to No. 18 on the Order Paper. Why is it at No. 18? Because National cannot get the numbers needed to get that bill through the House. It does not have the support of the Maori Party the Greens or Labour and National knows that. It has lost on that one and it will lose on this one. 
This is another offensive bill. It is not a little bill; it actually has huge implications for access to justice principles in this country which we in Labour hold dear. We will be making sure through our networks of lawyers around the country that they know about the provisions proposed in this bill. As Mr Quinn said yes it will go to the select committee and I think the Government members will be astonished at the reasonable and outraged response they will get on this bill. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 57. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. I am pleased to see that this important bill is back with the House because it will help to strengthen the biosecurity system in New Zealand. I start by thanking the Primary Production Committee for its work. The committee received over 40 submissions on the bill and I thank submitters for taking the time to provide their input. 
One of the key areas for submitters was new Part 5A of the Biosecurity Act. This part contains the enabling provisions for the development of the Government-industry agreement for readiness and response. This is an agreement under which the Government and primary industries will make joint decisions about harmful organisms that are of concern to an industry. The decisions can cover how best to prepare for the possible arrival of a harmful organism and how best to respond if the organism does appear in New Zealand. The parties will also agree on how to share the costs of their jointly agreed activities. 
I acknowledge that a number of submitters expressed concern with the overall proposal to develop the Government-industry agreement. It is important to understand what the benefits of the Government-industry agreement are. Introducing joint decision-making and combining it with cost-sharing will ensure that the resources that are available for biosecurity readiness and response are used to address the highest priorities. It will also improve the level of preparedness for a biosecurity incursion and increase the capacity to deal with such incursions. 
I am pleased to see that the committee has recommended a new purpose statement for Part 5A. The new purpose statement is contained in new section 100S and it captures a key point: that the Government-industry agreement is all about working together to achieve the best possible outcomes from readiness and response activities. The agreement is also about sharing the costs of agreed activities. This is important because meeting some part of the costs ensures that decisions reflect the true priorities of the decision makers. Although this principle is important the Government is aware of industry concerns about the affordability of some activities if the cost-shares are based strictly on the breakdown between public benefits and industry benefits. 
The Government does not want cost-sharing to lead to a decline in this country’s state of readiness or capacity to respond. For this reason we have agreed that the Government will pay at least half of the costs regardless of the exact split between public benefits and industry benefits. If analysis shows that public benefits are significantly greater than industry benefits then the Government share would obviously be more than 50 percent. This approach will greatly simplify how costs are shared as for many pests and diseases the cost-share will simply default to a fifty-fifty split between Government and industry. 
I turn now to another area where the bill deals with important relationships between different players in the biosecurity system. This is the area of pest management. The pest management amendments in the bill emerged from a significant project that involved the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and other interested parties including the Department of Conservation regional councils industry groups and Maori. The project produced a national plan of action for improvements to the pest management system and these improvements include amendments to the Biosecurity Act. One of the most important amendments is the new requirement for the Crown as a landowner to meet its obligations as a good neighbour. The Government has carefully considered the position of the Crown and accepts that pest management programmes should not be undermined by the Crown being exempt from them. 
“Good neighbour rules” are defined in the bill and one part of the definition is that the rules must comply with the national policy direction. The national policy direction is a new measure that the bill provides for. It will set out some key requirements that will help to ensure that pest management is carried out effectively and efficiently and that the “good neighbour rules” do not impose unreasonable costs on the Crown or on any other landowner for that matter. 
The bill also introduces a number of new tools that will help to provide for more effective and efficient border biosecurity. One example is the new duty for importers to take reasonable steps to ensure that risk goods comply with the requirements set out in import health standards. This will help to promote the idea that biosecurity risk should be managed by those best placed to manage it. Another example is the clear legal framework for the use of information for risk profiling purposes. This will help to ensure that resources are used to best effect in dealing with the most significant biosecurity risks. 
Some of the new provisions relating to the border when seen in isolation caused nervousness to some submitters and the select committee has responded to these concerns. I am happy to see the changes that the committee has recommended in relation to outcome statements in import health standards and post-clearance requirements. In both cases the recommended changes provide more clarity about when it is appropriate to use these tools. 
The bill makes many other important improvements that I can note only briefly. These changes relate to areas such as marine biosecurity the new FarmsOnLine database and the options for dealing with non-compliance. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It is interesting that in a recent KPMG report—a survey of all of the key agribusiness leaders across the country asking them what were the issues ahead of them into the future—the No. 1 issue all of them identified was biosecurity. So it is important that whatever changes we make we improve the system because this economy still relies on biological production for its wealth. Any threat to that production has to be taken seriously. 
This bill has been in the development stage for a long time; it goes right back to when Labour was in Government. When there was the incursion of varroa mite we identified a lack of planning and coordination between industry and Government. So the concept of a Government-industry agreement was developed then and that concept has been carried forward into this bill. What concerns us of course is that the first Budget that the incoming National Government put in place cut $2 million from the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand front-line budget. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: How much? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It was $2 million and 58 to 60 front-line jobs. We thought that was pretty dumb I have to say. The Government put up the argument: “Well we’re facing a recession and the number of imported goods is reducing.” In fact because of the value of the dollar a fairly steady stream of imported goods was coming into this country—in fact far too many—at the same time as the Government had cut front-line border security. The Government has relied on— 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Cut out 55 of them. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It was 55 exactly. I think there was some debate at the time as to how many would lose their jobs. We had assurances from the Government that things were OK and that we had less volume of goods. Well the Government has said for some time that the recession is over and the economy is on an upward trend. But we have not heard of one more person being appointed to front-line border security services. Since that time the Minister of Tourism who is also the Prime Minister has put forward SmartGate which is a passenger clearance system between New Zealand and Australia. So people can just walk off the plane from Australia straight through into New Zealand the theory being that there has been a risk assessment done while those people are on the plane; the officers have even worked out whether their bags should be checked. So those people can walk off the plane and straight into New Zealand. 
There have been major concerns in areas like Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty where the new air services into Rotorua could potentially bring a fruit fly straight into Rotorua over the hill and into some of our key regions. The fact that they are facing another huge biosecurity risk through  
Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae  
(Psa) does highlight the fragility of our economy and the Bay of Plenty is reeling under the threats and the reality of Psa. We are not quite sure how far that threat might go. 
The Minister in his speech went through the bill and identified a number of key areas. I also acknowledge the chairman of the Primary Production Committee Shane Ardern—who I have always said should be the Minister. He did a very good job and there was non-partisan analysis of this legislation. The one thing we agreed on was that in too many cases the legislation that came before us was very very permissive—that is in my simple assessment the trade boffins in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had ruled over the biosecurity boffins. So we had to tidy up a number of areas. The Minister acknowledged that changes were made by the select committee and that is great; that is the way the process is supposed to work. My question though to the Minister and to his biosecurity boffins is why did they put before the select committee a bill that without amendment would have seriously threatened front-line biosecurity in this country? We have made some adjustments and improved the bill but my suspicion of the thinking behind it begs the question of how they will interpret this legislation when it is applied. There is much left to interpretation. 
We come back to the question of what is driving biosecurity thinking under the National Government and under that Minister. I would say it is a softly softly “touchy-feely” approach. They do not want to offend the Australians because they want to let them in. They do not want to check their bags and they do not want to ask them the hard questions. So they do some kind of risk assessment analysis on some computer screen. 
We need the toughest highest level of biosecurity of any country anywhere in the world because we rely on biological production for our well-being. God help us if foot-and-mouth got into New Zealand. We would be struggling as an economy for so long. We have already faced a very serious threat with Psa in the kiwifruit industry. Foot-and-mouth would be that threat times 10. Fruit fly would be that threat times five. In fact we have identified a fruit fly larvae in this country and who knows how it got in. We have identified honey that has not been checked. It was found right inside our economy available to bees that might fly in and out and it is potentially a serious risk. We do not have the best front-line system in the world but the Minister and his officials say that we do as they go around the world. They say we have a very high level of control but if we identify the incursions that we have on a regular basis one would have to say that all is not well. Although it is impossible to have an absolute position—that nothing will come in—we have to try harder. 
Although supporting the legislation into the House and voting for it at this particular time the Opposition flags that we will continue to talk with industry people to make sure that any amendments if necessary can be put back into the House in the Committee stage and improvements made. We do not believe that this bill is as good as it should be. We do not believe that Government-industry agreements—GIAs—will provide a fair go for small sectors of the primary industries whose total gross export earnings are not huge but have the potential to grow. It might be feijoas avocados small industries perhaps at this point but with the potential to really grow. A risk assessment by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand under this bill might deem them to be insignificant and therefore the obligation of the Government to step in and help fund measures to combat an incursion might disappear. The Government might walk away. We do not want that. 
We need to ensure that we have a robust system but without changes this bill would not be robust. I think it is better but it still has some way to go. We are in active consideration of the bill as reported back by the select committee. We will be working with industry players and bringing some amendments to the Committee where we think that improvements can still be made. One of the industry players emailed me and said they would like to slow this down and anything we could do to hold it up would be great because they still want to go through a double and triple-check. 
If it takes longer for the bill to go through the House I make no apologies for that. I do not think that anyone on the select committee—although I am not sure about those within biosecurity or about the Minister—would want to make a mistake with this legislation. I do not want to get into the technical details of outcomes objectives and who an importer is—all of these little things the committee changed to make the system more robust. The overarching question that arose from that was why the officials put up such limp legislation in the first place. Why could they not see the dangers that each and every one of us on the select committee saw? We made changes and that is great but maybe we missed something. I for one do not want to be held responsible for passing legislation that leaves open the door to a major biosecurity incursion in this country. Although supporting the legislation at this point the Opposition flags its intention to investigate amendments that might improve the bill even further and we lay at the feet of the Government the challenge to put more money into biosecurity. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Primary Production Committee as has been mentioned by the Minister and the Opposition spokesman Damien O’Connor received 41 submissions and heard from 27 submitters. A lot of the concerns that the previous speaker has alluded to were addressed. In fact the select committee made nine substantive alterations or recommendations to the Government which have been accepted. So I am interested in where that member is heading with his comments about what may still be out there that is unattended to. We will watch with some interest as to which way the Labour whips intend to go in regard to which bills they will support and which ones they will not. We will watch that space with interest. 
The substantive change that is worth mentioning is the fact that for the first time the concept of a Government-industry agreement between the stakeholders and the State in regard to how to best address biosecurity incursions was introduced into this legislation and the select committee had some reservations about that and considered that fully. The committee discussed widely with those who submitted. It was an interesting concept that on one side were the small industry players such as the kiwifruit industry which recently had a major incursion with  
Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae 
 (Psa). They had experience. They were actually more receptive to the notion of having a predetermined agreement with the State about who pays and what happens who holds the intellectual property as it were in regard to addressing a particular issue and who is likely to have the biggest stake in the debate. The small industry players were more receptive to it than perhaps some of the older more traditional industries such as dairy meat and wool. 
I guess we can understand the concern that exists out there among the stakeholders in this debate. On one side one could argue that the Government was backing away from its traditional position that the State should fund. On the other side one could argue that those who know how to respond best and have the ability to advise need to be at the table and be there not only in terms of discussion but also in terms of funding. So there is an element of a debate still going on there. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister for Biosecurity came out and said that the bottom seal if you like of who pays what would be 50 percent. Negotiations go from 50 percent up as far as the State is involved in the incursion whatever it might be. 
The second issue which I am very pleased to see is introduced in this bill for the first time is the ability for a neighbour to be a neighbour regardless of whether that neighbour is the State or anyone else and clarity around who that is. The term “adjacent or nearby” is significant along with the case law that goes with that term. It is a major step forward. Up until now there has been one set of rules for the State—the State being whatever piece of Crown land it might be whether it is Department of Conservation land school land railways reserves whatever—and another set of rules for the private landowner. The private landowner had to meet a far higher standard than the State in regard to pest management and weed control and any other biosecurity potential breach. That was unfair. It always has been unfair. Obviously we did not want to reach a position where we put undue cost or unnecessary cost on the taxpayer but we wanted fairness and I think the position that the committee reached—and the recommendation that has been accepted—was fair and just. I think that is a step forward for us. 
So I will be interested to listen to the debate as it goes through the House. We will find out what it is that is concerning the Opposition—what new material may have come to light since the select committee finally reached a position and deliberated on this bill and reported back to the House. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Primary Production Committee had 41 submissions on the bill and we heard 27 of the submitters. As I saw this bill coming through the select committee I noted that we had a number of very passionate submissions on this issue. A number of submitters were not quite convinced that this bill would fix their biosecurity concerns but the bill is another step in the long fight against potential biosecurity issues for this nation. 
As I see it this is an ongoing struggle because when we are dealing with biomass the kind of work we are doing in New Zealand—we have plants animals meats wool and all that—involves potential risks to animals and plants. Over the years we have had a number of issues of concern.  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv 
. Actinidiae 
 (Psa) has been mentioned as well as the varroa mite and didymo. Clover root weevils were a big problem in the north some years ago. These are the issues as we open up our markets to the rest of the world as we have more free-trade agreements and potential concerns that will be of a nature that we have to continuously safeguard our borders. 
Although the intention of this bill is very good I am really concerned. The Minister for Biosecurity said earlier that this bill will increase capacity in terms of biosecurity. Given that the ministry already lost 54 or 55 jobs a couple of years ago I am not sure whether we are ready for example for the Rugby World Cup. We will have potentially 80000 to 100000 people coming to New Zealand and as my colleague Damien O’Connor said we will have a whole lot of people coming from Australia. 
We have the so-called SmartGate system. Although I agree that we need something like SmartGate for people I am not convinced of its use when there are biosecurity concerns. When people can come here bag in hand and not go through the screening and all that I am really concerned. People might be in nice suits and all that but people do make mistakes. There could be an apple here or a banana there in a bag they have not declared. That is a potential concern. 
Last year we sought some figures about how many incidents there had been after SmartGate was implemented. We are still awaiting that information from the ministry and I hope that the next time we have the opportunity to hear from the ministry we will find out how successful SmartGate is in terms of biosecurity. I have concerns about people coming through our borders because although they may have good intentions there is no way of knowing what sort of biomaterial they may be bringing into the country for example from Australia. 
As our business improves the number of cars coming into the country has gone back up to 2008 numbers and there is a lot of ballast water in the ships that bring cars into this country. With the number of biosecurity staff coming down I am unsure whether we have been able to keep up with the volume of trade coming in. We really need to increase in my belief the number of staff because the number of people coming into our country has gone back to the old numbers and we have the Rugby World Cup coming. There will be a need for more biosecurity staff at our entry points. 
As my colleague said we will be supporting the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill at this stage but certainly we are in discussion with industry which has concerns particularly with the Government-industry partnership or agreement that the Minister talked about. Some industry representatives are saying it is not good enough and they are talking to the Opposition about their potential concerns and we are working on a possible Supplementary Order Paper for this bill when we come to the Committee stage. 
In terms of the current issue Psa I recently had the opportunity to talk to my former colleague and friend from Massey University Dr Bruce Campbell. He is the chief operating officer of Plant and Food Research. I happened to meet him last week at the airport—as I often do—and he told me that Psa in the Bay of Plenty area is still a serious concern and will be for years to come. I had a good discussion with him about what the status is now and how he foresees the future. Clearly they are still doing research on this because they still cannot figure out how the bacteria came to New Zealand or where it came from. Nobody is sure yet and they are looking into it and he tells me that it will be years before we will be able to overcome this issue in New Zealand. 
In Italy for example there was a big loss of vines. We have the concern of the total amount of rain in the Bay of Plenty area and the topography in the area so there are a number of issues that we will have to look at. Dr Campbell was certainly concerned that the issue will be a serious concern for the growers in that area in the years to come. 
It is a real concern for me that the Minister thinks this bill will increase the capacity of the Government. On the one hand he is saying that but on the other hand we have lost a number of front-line staff and we have an increasing volume of trade. We will potentially get a lot more problems in the coming months and years because— 
Colin King 
: OK Ashraf that’s enough. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: No no. This is something we have to address. My colleague on the other side is really saying that this is an issue we normally work very well on in the Primary Production Committee. The committee spent quite a bit of time on this particular bill trying to make it better as Damien O’Connor said earlier. When the bill came to the committee it was a very very weak bill. We have improved it quite a bit but still there are concerns and some of the representatives from the industry are not very happy with it. Certainly we will look at some Supplementary Order Papers and I am sure the chairman of the select committee as he said here will be discussing this bill and the details of it. 
Overall the intention is there and I can appreciate that. The intention is there to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of biosecurity but in reality is the Minister going to do it? That is my concern. With those words I commend this bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be opposing the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. We do so because we are concerned that on the one hand we are reducing staff and funding in biosecurity—we got rid of 55 staff and chopped off a couple of million from the front-line budget for biosecurity—and on the other hand we are reducing biosecurity protections particularly to industries and I will illustrate that by focusing on the pig industry and the bee industry. So we are reducing budgets we are reducing staff we are reducing biosecurity protections and then we are turning around and telling industries they will have to pay 50 percent of the costs if there is an incursion. If an incursion occurs because of a policy that one of these industries has completely opposed it will nevertheless be required to pick up 50 percent of the costs. 
I will illustrate this with the pork industry and the bee industry because both of these industries are at war with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Government. It is ironic to say the least that we have a department namely the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry which is supposed to be protecting our primary producing industries yet two of these industries are at war with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry because of the ministry’s failure they believe to protect their industries from biosecurity risks. The Pork Industry Board has spent up to $1 million fighting the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. They are going into the High Court I think on 25 August because they are opposing the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as it is insisting on lowering biosecurity standards. It is now going to allow raw pork into New Zealand from countries that have this devastating pig disease referred to as pig AIDS. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will allow raw pig meat to come in from those countries whereas previously this meat was not allowed unless it was treated to inactivate the virus. 
I ask why the Government would be doing something as foolish as allowing raw pig meat in from countries that have a devastating virus if the industry and a whole lot of experts are saying this could bring a devastating pig disease into New Zealand or indeed why the Government would agree to bring in honey from Australia when Australian honey harbours diseases that could devastate our bee industry. Why would it do that? I have discovered the answer by looking at the import health standard that is being lowered in respect of pig meat. The reason we are doing this is free trade and because of our obligations to the World Trade Organization. It says that we are required under article 5 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures to not have any more trade restrictive measures than are required to achieve “an appropriate level of protection”. That phrase has become the new definition of biosecurity at our borders. 
When we look at the rest of the statement we see that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has done all of this. It is lowering the import standards because it believes that this will achieve an appropriate level of protection from the introduction of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome the devastating pig disease. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is saying it will lower standards to meet our World Trade Organization obligations never mind that some of the industry experts such as Professor Roger Morris say that if we do this it is inevitable that within 3 to 5 years we will have an incursion of this disease. 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry thinks it will happen only once every 1200 years but our local experts say it will happen every 3 to 5 years. I could go into all the details as to why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry analysis seems to be completely flawed but my point is if what the pig industry is warning happens—that this pig disease comes into New Zealand—then the pig industry will be expected to pay 50 percent of the costs of dealing with this devastating disease that it has vehemently opposed in the courts. For many years now it has opposed the lowering of these standards by the Government and the Government has pigheadedly gone ahead ignored all of its concerns and is doing it for the World Trade Organization because of its obsession with free-trade agreements. The disease will come in and under this bill the industry will be expected to share the costs. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. 
Similarly the bee industry believes there is a very serious risk of diseases coming in if we allow Australian honey to be imported into New Zealand. Once again it has been vehemently opposing the Government and begging the Government not to lower biosecurity standards to allow Australian honey to be imported. The Government is ignoring those concerns and going ahead with the legislation. What will happen if one of these diseases which would devastate our bee industry comes in? An effect of one of the diseases would be that we would have to treat our bees in New Zealand with antibiotics. We are one of the countries in the world that do not have to treat our bees with antibiotics. It is one of our points of difference and one of the reasons why we attract premium prices around the world but the Government is lowering the biosecurity standard putting our bee industry at risk. If the bee industry’s fears are realised it may require into infinity our bees to be treated with antibiotics—what a disaster—as well as being treated with miticides and pesticides. 
To us this measure is completely foolhardy. We lower the biosecurity risks because we now have this new definition of what a biosecurity risk is and against that we require simply anything that provides an “appropriate level of protection”. So we are no longer trying to keep these diseases out we are just trying to provide an appropriate level of protection. Then we lower the numbers of staff the budget for biosecurity and our standards and turn round and tell the industries that they will have to pick up the costs. It is the industries that will have to foot the bill not the importers. At the moment we already have anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of pork in New Zealand being imported but if we have an incursion of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome the devastating pig disease it will not be the importers who have to pay for the disease which will devastate—indeed wipe out—our pig industry it will be the New Zealand pork producers. The $700 million pork industry will be put at risk by this absurd decision to lower the biosecurity standards. 
Similarly the honey industry will be put at risk by the lowering of biosecurity standards. Yet against all of the advice if these pests and diseases come in the industries will have to pick up the bill. This is complete madness. I cannot understand why the Government would do this and the Green Party is completely opposed to it. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party in its founding statement expressed our commitment to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for everyone and for future generations. Within this the Maori Party is also committed to assisting whanau hapu and iwi as tangata tiaki to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. Both of these commitments lead us naturally enough towards a position of support for this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. There are five key areas identified in this bill: border risk management marine biosecurity readiness and response pest management and compliance and enforcement. Sustainable success in these areas will depend on the level of decision making and that ultimately leads the operational side of biosecurity. It is for this reason that we believe it is important to look at the decision making for biosecurity before delving into minute details of the bill. 
At the very core of the Treaty of Waitangi is the principle of equal partnership. This means real involvement by tangata whenua at the decision-making level regionally nationally and at a ministerial level. As kaitiaki and Treaty of Waitangi partners Maori have a particular interest in ensuring there is an appropriate delivery and integration of matauranga Maori me ona tikanga into biosecurity science. This integration must occur in a way that maintains the cultural integrity of these knowledge systems and cultural practices. Constant communication with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand would allow Maori to build capacity and capability in this field. 
But this House is also considerably better off at this point of the second reading of this bill than we were when it first came before the House last year given the wisdom contained in the report on Wai 262. What that report tells us is that Maori have diverse interests in the management of taonga such as indigenous flora fauna and resources as both kaitiaki and developer. These dual roles oblige Maori to be involved in decisions that may impact on taonga. Wai 262 informs the House that iwi have relationships with species that are emblematic and have a spiritual element to them and their connection to the wider ecosystem particularly with regard to native plants such as harakeke koromiko pohutukawa kowhai puawananga poroporo kawakawa manuka and kumara. Also as uri of Ngati Koata of course I am proud to speak of our direct relationship to the tuatara. The relationship is underpinned by our own knowledge of these species or matauranga Maori. Yet the understandings of New Zealanders with regard to the environment today are largely based on the Pakeha relationship with the environment the Maori relationship being overlooked. Eventually this will cause the traditional knowledge and approaches to be lost. 
The interests of kaitiaki and those involved in the advancement of scientific and economic knowledge need to be managed so that a balance between the two can be achieved and both interests can be recognised and respected. How that relates to this legislation is quite simple. There is an expectation that Maori cultural spiritual environmental and economic values will be explicitly reflected in the decision-making processes of MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. We believe that Maori are well positioned to identify biosecurity issues and research needs that are important to Maori. At a national level we would like to see tangata whenua values and interests incorporated in the management of biosecurity as it is an effective way to recognise the customary use of indigenous biodiversity according to tikanga. This would mean a real partnership between tangata whenua and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. 
Too often Maori are brought into the fray by Government departments too late in the process. More often than not the fundamentals of a decision have been made already. It is largely a box-ticking exercise at that point which benefits no one especially iwi. The Maori Party believes that the Government can and should do better than that. Maori need to be involved when the decisions are being made not after a decision has been reached. The relationship with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand therefore would have to be one between tangata whenua and the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to be of any real substance. Such a relationship would also ensure that Maori have the opportunity to debate and table reports such as the one on Wai 262 before the director-general as one would expect from a Treaty partnership. At the very core of the Treaty of Waitangi is the principle of equal partnership. This means real involvement by tangata whenua at the decision-making level regionally nationally and at a ministerial level. We would like to hear from the Minister about how a formal relationship between iwi and the director-general can be enhanced. 
It is also important for Maori to be aware of potential impacts from incursions of pests and diseases associated with taonga and resources in their rohe. At the regional level we believe that the legislation should provide for the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki when developing and implementing regional policy statements and regional and district plans associated with biosecurity. A blueprint of how this partnership could work is the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010 which sees iwi have equal representation on decision-making and management bodies as well as allowing for mana whenua iwi to develop their own strategies for the river. This will eventually be incorporated into the  
Waikato Regional Policy Statement 
. During this significant week for Tainui Waikato with the koroneihana in progress it is fitting to pay tribute to the visionaries behind that legislation. This is a true Treaty relationship at a regional level and it goes beyond cursory consultation which has proven to be ineffectual for Maori. It is indeed a model that we would hope this biosecurity law reform legislation could benefit from. 
We also believe that an arrangement whereby iwi have an equal say in decisions that affect them would address the need to ensure that there is regular and informed consultation with tangata whenua as it relates to protecting and enhancing areas and habitats that have particular significance for Maori. The key requirement is that tangata whenua should be involved and be given equal decision-making status in the development and implementation of regional policy statements and regional and district plans associated with biosecurity. 
Finally at a ministerial level we believe that it is in the best interests of iwi to be extensively represented on the Biosecurity Council of New Zealand which plays an important role in strategic biosecurity policy development as well as in advising the Minister for Biosecurity. The council has representatives from each of the primary production sectors from environmental organisations and from regional councils and yet there is no iwi voice. The Maori Party believes that that needs to change in order for there to be a lasting Treaty partnership in relation to biosecurity. We want to see the active involvement of tangata whenua in the protection of cultural values to protect the native plants animals and other resources that are taonga to Maori. In order to achieve this very important goal Maori need to be involved in decision making at all levels and the Government needs to be bold. We believe that the provisions we have sought are sufficient for that. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the second reading of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill which the ACT Party is supporting. It is pleasing to see this bill come before the House and we look forward to its speedy progress through Parliament. 
The bill as we have heard from other speakers before me is in two parts. Part 1 makes amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 to improve and modernise the biosecurity system. It is quite right and proper that we see this sort of process happening often. In fact ACT’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill—or Regulatory Standards Bill as it is now named—which is before the House talks about reviewing legislation on a 5-yearly basis which is very important so we have up-to-date techniques and information in place. Others have mentioned in more detail the changes that will be made in this particular part. 
Part 2 of the bill amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to implement the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004. Again we are very pleased to see this review and modernisation of the biosecurity system in place. It is dependent on all of us not just those authorities that we take these measures very seriously. I reiterate many of the points that the previous speaker from the Maori Party Rahui Katene made about the importance of having engagement from all sectors of our community in upholding these biosecurity arrangements. The first role of Government—and we should always go back to first principles in law of this type I think—is to provide for the safety and security of New Zealand citizens. Biosecurity measures fall firmly under that wider umbrella. I often talk about the need for national security measures as opposed to individual silos that seek to look after our safety and security as citizens. 
It was very pleasing to see at the Primary Production Committee that changes were made relating to border risk management. I will mention two in particular: firstly the improving of the legislative framework for collaborating with other agencies. This is hugely important. We are a small country and our agencies and our departments often find it difficult to cover the huge breadth of areas individually. But when we look to all areas of security we find that with cooperation and collaboration firmly in place we can achieve so much more and actually get real protection for our borders. That legislative framework allowing collaboration with other agencies is hugely important. 
The other area that was dealt with at select committee was the amendments relating to readiness and response. If we are going to tackle some of the issues we have heard about from other speakers—in particular the Green speaker Sue Kedgley—we need to make sure these agencies are well equipped to respond very quickly to any threats that arise. New provisions authorise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to enter into agreements with industry organisations to take joint decisions on readiness and response. Again we should not always rely upon just Government agencies to provide that protection at our borders and elsewhere within our country. It is very wise that we have agreements with industry organisations so that everybody takes seriously their role to provide the protection that should be there. 
I will leave it at that. The ACT Party supports this bill and we look forward to its speedy movement through the House. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the second reading of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I would have liked to address the bill in some depth but I think that has been done very adequately by previous speakers. 
I will spend a bit of my time rebutting some of the Opposition’s comments. I will take people back down memory lane. It was 11 or 12 years ago that Murray Sherwin on being appointed as the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry pointed out to the people of New Zealand that a foot-and-mouth incident in New Zealand would cost about $10 billion. Further along the way we had the Waiheke Island experience and we learnt that nothing substantive had been done from 2000 through to that incident. So I say to members of the Opposition that they are lions in Opposition and lambs in Government. The Primary Production Committee spent 3 years sitting on its hands waiting for work to come from the then Labour Government and nothing was forthcoming. 
Having said that I say on behalf of the select committee that the major risk is from importers. With the Government-industry agreement for biosecurity readiness and response we are putting in place a very appropriate measure to manage the outbreak of an incursion but the question we cannot answer is how we penalise a person who breaches our border control and brings in a biosecurity incursion. That is the $64000 question. 
This bill is very good. The Government-industry agreement is very appropriate and is overdue. We have seen so many cases where an ounce of prevention would have prevented a pound of cure. This is good legislation. It should have been in law 10 years ago but because of the procrastination of the previous Labour Government and the difficulty it had in making the hard calls we are dealing with it today. It is very good legislation. I commend it to the House. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 After listening to the member speaking before me Colin King I want to assure members that we on this side of the House the Labour Opposition take seriously the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. When one takes these things seriously one has to acknowledge the fact that we rely on our farming industry. We rely on our horticulture our viticulture our orchards our pork industry and our honey industry. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. I have to disagree with the previous speaker who said that the importers should be our concern and our priority. Well it is really our farming industry that we need to be looking to secure and protect. That is the reason why we have biosecurity legislation. We need to recognise that we rely on our farming on our green and clean image and we have to protect it. I think it is foolhardy simply to say that this piece of legislation will protect everything. 
Let me read part of the report: “The bill seeks to amend this Part to allow the biosecurity system to respond to an increasingly challenging environment by providing for more effective and efficient risk management and for clearer roles and responsibilities and better collaboration and partnerships.” That says there is a lot of work we have to do in order to protect our borders and protect our environment. It also says we need to rely on exchanges of information within the various Government departments that service and protect our borders. But it also means we have to work in partnership with the industry itself. I have to say that it is still very much in the memories of many farmers that not too long ago we had a problem with the  
Pseudomonas syringae 
 pv.  
Actinidiae 
 (Psa) leaf blight outbreak in kiwifruit. The potential $75 million cost of Psa to our kiwifruit industry should be a reminder to us of how important it is that our biosecurity services are well resourced and operating effectively. 
So it is no credit whatsoever to this Government when it cuts the budget by $2 million as my colleague pointed out and when it gets rid of 55 jobs as my colleague pointed out then expects us to still be able to protect our borders. I think what Sue Kedgley from the Green Party said earlier makes sense. There is no politics in this. Nobody wins. I think we have to take seriously the fact that we have an economic advantage in terms of our farming industry and our clean and green image. We will lose that all of that is at risk if we attempt to bully our way through by passing legislation and saying that that will fix the problem. I reiterate what Damien O’Connor our spokesperson on biosecurity said. Although Labour will allow the passage of this legislation in its second reading we will continue to engage with and talk to the industry out there and will decide from there whether we will support the legislation in the Committee of the whole House and the third reading. We do need to take seriously that we depend very much on protecting our borders and protecting our biosecurity. We hope the more-targeted approach to border checks will make the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s operation more efficient. 
When we look at sharing information and sharing intelligence between Government agencies we see that they can only do so much with the resources given to them. If the Government continues to cut funding from important areas and cut jobs from significant areas then who is to blame if our biosecurity is put at risk? Labour members would like to acknowledge the good work that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Horticulture New Zealand and all the New Zealand kiwifruit growers have done in handling the Psa outbreak. 
I think we have to feel quite nervous when we look at what happened there because we certainly do not want a repeat of that occurrence. We do not want mad cow disease here. We do not want a tax on our bee or honey industry. We certainly do not want to put our wildlife at risk or our flowers our fruit and our wine industry. Not only will the industry be at risk; there is much much more. It has a ripple effect. There are jobs. There are livelihoods. It has an impact on the prices of some of these products and that is one of the reasons why we are quite keen on ensuring there is a robust inquiry into milk prices. If that sort of thing is happening in terms of what is being sold overseas and the price of what is being sold here we have to ask those particular questions. 
The Minister for Biosecurity claimed that the job cuts were needed as the recession had resulted in a fall in car imports and international arrivals and thus the Government was left carrying the cost of staff that levies no longer covered. Well that is an extremely short-sighted approach to biosecurity management. Key imports such as used cars have already rebounded to near-2008 levels and international arrivals have been at a record high this year. So why will the Minister not reinstate the 55 jobs that he cut and does he expect MAF Biosecurity New Zealand to provide the same effective services and nationwide coverage with fewer staff on hand? 
I was not present in the Primary Production Committee when submissions were heard but I have heard from colleagues from the Greens and the Maori Party that the public made serious submissions which this Government will hopefully take into consideration. As I said it is a serious issue and we do need to take care. We need to protect our clean and green image. Labour members will continue to talk to the industry individuals and constituents involved before determining our final decision on the bill in the Committee of the whole House and in the third reading. Although I am not presently a farmer I grew up around farms. I know what farming is like. I know how hard people work to try to protect their livelihood. I think the Government owes it to this country to ensure that we are doing all we can not only to protect the livelihoods that this economy depends on but also to protect future generations. 
In closing I take the liberty to endorse the statements that were made earlier the condolences and the commendations towards Sir Paul Reeves and Lady Beverley. I count myself as a close friend of Sir Paul and he will be terribly missed by the Pacific communities and by people in Manukau. Sir Paul was a good friend of ours. He was a steadfast champion of the young people in Manukau. He was somebody we looked upon with deep respect who attempted to connect people irrespective of their background. In the role that Sir Paul had with the Auckland University of Technology he made sure that many of our young people from the schools in Manukau were able to perform in front of audiences that they would not normally perform in front of. That was a manifestation of Sir Paul Reeves’ attempting to connect the people of Manukau with the people of Remuera the rich with the poor the old with the young Pakeha with Polynesian. I add my respects to Sir Paul Reeves’ family. It is my prayer that they will be comforted and that the dark clouds that hover over them will dissipate. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 This has been a good debate in the House today on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It is a good bill. I commend it to the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Other members in particular Labour members have traversed the value of our exports to other countries and the importance of the security of those exports. I will read just a few figures here. “New Zealand relies upon primary production more than any other developed country exporting around 80 percent of our primary production produced here each year.” In figures for the year ended March 2009 agriculture and food exports accounted for just under $20 billion horticulture exports $3.2 billion and forestry products exports $3.4 billion which accounted for 64 percent of New Zealand’s total merchandise exports. The combined contribution of agriculture food and beverage forestry and logging to New Zealand’s gross domestic product was 12.5 percent in the year ended March 2008. 
It is vital that we have a biosecurity system that protects those exports and our primary productions. That is why I am astounded to hear yet again that the Government has allowed what Sue Kedgley described as pig AIDS to come into the country. Why on earth would we intentionally introduce a disease that has the potential to affect an industry of ours? I am absolutely bewildered by it. It is an absolute nonsense that that sort of thing can happen. Instead of protecting biosecurity that is in fact jeopardising biosecurity. 
I want to go back just a bit and tell a story about ship ballast. I see that the bill “amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to implement the international convention on ballast water.” Where I come from up in the Bay of Islands our river the Taumarere River is inundated with Pacific oysters. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I will recap the korero before the break. It is no secret how important biosecurity is to protecting our primary production industries. Therefore we need to invest in it.  
Hon Nathan Guy 
: You were talking about ballast before—the ballast story. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Yes; I say to the member for Otaki that I was just getting on to the ballast story. I was talking about our ancestral river the Taumarere River up there in the Bay of Islands.  
Some 60 or 70 years ago my uncles told me they could walk 4 or 5 miles along the mudflats from the village right up to where the fishing grounds were. They could do that in bare feet as kids in those days were wont to do. However that would now be impossible to achieve because the mudflats are inundated with Pacific oysters. The Pacific oyster industry in the Bay of Islands has benefitted from ballast. However unfortunately the dumping of ballast rocks in water has had an effect on the environment. These days people’s feet would be absolutely cut to ribbons if they tried to walk those 4 or 5 miles that my uncles walked some 60 or so years ago. I do not think even gumboots would last the journey.  
The Taumarere River was quite a busy port many years ago. In fact it was one of the main trading routes from Sydney to the Bay of Islands in New Zealand. When ships started come up the river the depth of the water got a bit shallow and they had to dump their ballast and ballast rocks. One can see the ballast rocks on the side of the river. They had oyster spat which has since grown and spread and overtaken the mudflats. So it is good to see that this bill will amend the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to implement the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments so that we do not have that situation happening again. I know that ballast water has been dumped in various ports around the country which has led to various sea creatures settling. I know also—although I cannot remember the report where I read it—that some ports have been taken over by anemones and those types of marine creatures and that MAF Biosecurity New Zealand has basically given up on trying to eradicate them from the ports because they have just gone out of control. 
This bill also amends the scope of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 so that possums and wallabies may be managed solely under the Biosecurity Act 1993. Just as fate would have it yesterday I had a constituent in my office in Kaikohe who is a possum trapper. He is at his wits’ end trying to deal with a lot of red tape and bureaucracy around the culling of possums. He is a possum trapper; he poisons possums. All he wants to do is get out in the bush and kill possums. That is all he wants. He has to deal with the Department of Conservation the Ministry of Health and other organisations just to go and kill possums.  
One may ask what the link is between the Ministry of Health and possum trapping. The fact of the matter is that this guy who just wants to get in the bush and kill possums actually has to go in and identify where river courses and waterways are. In fact it is only river courses that lead to drinking reservoirs for towns. He has to identify where schools are. This guy goes way up in the bush—miles away from anywhere—and he has to fill out a plan that shows all these things that happen to be miles and miles away when he is using cyanide which breaks down in the water in next to no time and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on any wildlife 3 kilometres downstream.  
Hopefully this bill will speed things up and make things easier for this poor possum trapper. He is just trying to earn a living but is inundated with bureaucracy. He is not a person who likes to get behind a computer or use a pen and do all that sort of stuff; he just wants to get out in the bush and kill possums.  
Manuka honey was another issue that Sue Kedgley from the Greens brought up. Up north the manuka honey industry is a fledgling industry with a lot of potential for export. In fact I was at the opening of the beekeeping school in Kaitaia not 12 months ago. They showed us these products that manuka honey can be used to make. Most people think honey goes just on your toast. In fact there are bandages that are infused with manuka honey because of its antibacterial properties. The only machine in the world that can produce these antibacterial manuka-infused bandages I am told is in London in England. The demand for this manuka honey is 2000 tonnes per annum just to make these bandages yet we can fulfil only 300 tonnes per annum. So there is massive potential there for the economy.  
We have to make sure that we do not get more little critters like these varroa mites that have got into New Zealand and are now infecting hives all around the country. We have to make sure that we do not have these biosecurity threats getting in at our borders which is the reason we have to ask why 54 front-line jobs have been culled from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. It is absolutely ridiculous that we are removing staff from a front-line industry that will protect our primary produce being exported overseas. I would like to think that part of this bill would be to return those front-line staff so that we have those protections at our border.  
I want to touch quickly on the Wai 262 claim because the Crown has an obligation to protect our indigenous flora and fauna. If we allow these pest invasions and incursions to come into New Zealand and damage our native flora and fauna then I do not believe that the Crown is fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I do not believe that the Crown is fulfilling the intent of the Wai 262 report that has come out recently. I know that the Crown will have a look at that and see what it can do in terms of Wai 262. I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to produce legislation that will protect our borders and the whole biosecurity industry. Kia ora. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and to commend the bill to the House. I also commend the previous speaker Kelvin Davis on his speech particularly for the way he focused on compliance costs. It was great to see Mr Davis focusing on one of the six key strategies of the National Government’s plan. We welcome him to come over to this side of the House at any time to work on bringing down those compliance costs for businesses in New Zealand. It is a fantastic thing and we support that initiative. I commend the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to the House at this point in time. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Voting 
Correction—Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Earlier today when the House was considering the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63 and Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 62 and Noes 58. 
Urgency 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Freedom Camping Bill the Student Loan Scheme Bill the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill the Maori Purposes Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and of any bills into which those bills may be divided and the introduction and passing of a Government bill 
. 
As noted in the business statement last Thursday the Government has moved that urgency be accorded to items of business that require timely implementation. As members will know the supply of House time has been reduced this year from the normal 30 weeks or so to just 23 weeks due to factors such as the Rugby World Cup and the general election. Including this week there are just 5 sitting weeks remaining before the dissolution of the House for the general election. On the demand side some of the bills in today’s motion require immediate action due to the impending Rugby World Cup such as the Freedom Camping Bill and the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Other bills require passage as soon as possible to enable implementation to commence in advance of looming deadlines such as the Student Loan Scheme Bill which is due to come into force on 1 April 2012 and the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill which is due to commence on 1 October this year. Similarly the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) formalises the restructuring of three agencies one of which is due to be defunct by 1 September 2011. 
The Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill is a slightly different case. The Government made the decision earlier this year that the census scheduled for 2011 would not be held due to the disruption caused by the Canterbury earthquakes. By law the Government must hold a census this year so amending legislation is required to reflect the decision to defer the census. Cabinet subsequently decided that the census should be held in 2013 instead. 
The swift passage of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) is desirable to provide much-needed certainty to the industry. 
Motion agreed to. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House or if in Committee of the whole House for the Committee to suspend at 11.45 a.m. and for the House or Committee to sit again on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 17 August to enable members to attend the State farewell luncheon for His Excellency the Governor-General. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Business of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 17 August and Thursday 18 August and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Freedom Camping Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 1 is clauses 3 to 9. The debate includes schedule 1. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Where to begin with the misnamed Freedom Camping Bill? It is a bill that has so much wrong with it and I am hoping we will have enough time this evening to tease out the many defects in it. 
Labour has set out in its minority report and in the second reading debate its opposition to the bill and members of the House and members of the public who are interested and listening to the debate will know that we went into this debate with an open mind. We recognise there is a problem in certain parts of the country with people fouling the side of the road leaving litter and waste in a way that no one wants to see. But in the process of the Local Government and Environment Committee discussions and from listening to public submissions we formed a very clear view that this bill is a punitive and heavy-handed response to this problem that it is bad law and that it should not proceed. 
We believe that giving councils and the Department of Conservation the power to enforce compliance under this bill for people who freedom camp in prohibited areas and for littering and waste is a step too far. The net result of this bill is to threaten freedoms that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed—that is the freedom to move around the country and enjoy the great outdoors. This bill raises the possibility that people who go into the countryside on a Friday night for a weekend of fishing climbing hunting surfing or tramping and camp beside the road after they have driven from their homes—with the idea that they will get up early on a Saturday morning to hit the waves to go tramping or to go hunting—could easily find themselves on the wrong side of the law. 
There is no compulsion under this bill for local authorities to establish a minimum requirement for signage in certain areas. It will be very easy for people who are freedom camping—responsible freedom campers—to park on the side of the road and find themselves woken up in the middle of the night by some council official banging on the window of their campervan and moving them on let alone slapping a $200 instant fine on them. 
The debate has flushed out a lot of concern from New Zealanders about the threat to this freedom and I want to quote from a couple of them. This quote is from Grant and Smillie Henderson who live in Pakuranga Auckland. They wrote: “there are thousands of us retired hard working ordinary grey haired Grey Nomads out here. Many of us have self-contained rigs worth as much as a small apartment. We have gone to considerable expense to ensure that our motor homes are fully certified and self-contained”. That allows them to camp away from other facilities for many days. “We leave any place we stop tidier and cleaner than we found it. We leave nothing behind but tyre imprints in the gravel. Many of us spend a worthwhile amount of money each month in the smaller centres in NZ …. We enjoy the slower pace of the country areas the quieter surroundings the simpler way of doing things.” They say they prefer to freedom camp at times for the solitude and serenity of the remote places they find. 
They go on to say that in its present form the Freedom Camping Bill criminalises everyday law-abiding New Zealanders because they own a motor home and enjoy the freedom of the outdoors. They say that this bill is a huge step backwards for this country. They say it will give local councils a licence to target and fine everyone rather than target those who actually create the problem and I think they have touched on the nub of the problem here. This bill targets an entire category of person—those who enjoy freedom camping and who go out to the countryside and do it. It targets a whole category of activity freedom camping without focusing on the activity that actually does the damage. 
Members on the other side of the Chamber who are supporting this bill railed against the phasing out of inefficient light bulbs which is happening all over the Western World—they said it was an example of the nanny State. Yet the very same members now in Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. They are criminalising everyday law-abiding New Zealanders—as that submitter wrote—simply to solve a problem of people littering and leaving waste on the roadside. It is a travesty and they should not be allowed to get away with it. 
I note that the bill is also supported by the ACT Party which loves to trumpet its claim to be the great liberal party—the great defender of our freedoms and liberties. I know that many members of the ACT Party in this House do not support this bill but they have been dragooned into it by the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. 
We want to propose in the course of this debate a number of amendments that we think would improve this legislation and we look forward to debating those. In particular we would like to see the deletion of the provisions that criminalise the act of freedom camping. There is no need for it. We could actually achieve the objectives we all have in this matter by bringing in an enforcement and infringement regime that deals with littering and the dumping of waste on Department of Conservation land or on council land. That would be sufficient along with the kind of powers that are set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to allow the owners of the campervans to recover the fines from the people renting those campervans. 
We were told at the select committee that the great majority of problems in this area are caused by international visitors using campervans that are not self-contained—they do not have self-contained toilet facilities. I submit that a much more focused and targeted approach could actually solve much of this problem as well as local authorities in this country investing more in the provision of toilets and rubbish bins in the places that are most vulnerable to this problem. 
In Part 1 there is a definition of “freedom camp” and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to it. Clause 5(1) states: “freedom camp means to camp … within 200m of a motor vehicle accessible area or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour or on or within 200m of a formed road or a Great Walks Track”. All a person has to do is be in that area and be using a tent a caravan a car a campervan house truck or other motor vehicle and they are freedom camping—and they may not know it. They may not have seen the sign in the darkness but they have broken the law. 
I say that this is an infringement of a really important freedom that New Zealanders have enjoyed for a long time. I have spent a good part of my life hitchhiking climbing tramping and fishing around the country and more often than not trips away for those sorts of activities involve camping on the side of the road in situations that would likely leave someone to cause an infringement under this Draconian and punitive bill. 
Clause 3(2A) really illustrates the absurdity of this bill. One of the concerns that many people expressed at the select committee was that the bill would effectively allow councils to institute a blanket ban in their territory. Clause 3(2A)—and I think clause 11 further on in the bill—states that the powers of regulation under the Act do not allow blanket bans. Well just saying it does not make it true. 
A council can implement a ban over 98 percent of the territory or over 97 percent. How much I ask the Minister is not a blanket ban in her book? I invite the Minister to take a call and explain to New Zealanders the logic behind inserting into the bill a provision that says that councils cannot use it to blanket-ban when that means that they cannot outlaw freedom camping on all of their territory. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Freedom Camping Bill in the Committee stage because I spoke in the first reading of this bill. Having seen some of the effects of the people whose behaviour we are trying to alter in this legislation firsthand in Nelson—in fact very close to where I live—the legislation is of great interest to me and I supported its introduction to the House. What we have now however is legislation albeit somewhat amended by the Local Government and Environment Committee—and I welcome some of those amendments—that does not get the balance right. This was always going to be a matter of balance. In fact if one looks at the submissions as members of the select committee did it is possible to see a whole range of views about just what is required here and what is going over the top. 
I think that this legislation needed to balance a number of things. It needed to balance our attractiveness as a tourist destination. It needed to balance the care and protection of our environment which makes us an attractive tourist destination. But the kinds of provisions that exist in this legislation have in the end gone too far. They have not balanced the need to address a particular problem that is created by a very few—particularly those who camp in vehicles that are not self-contained. So instead of looking at how infrastructure might be developed or how the situation might be avoided the legislation will simply come down with all the force of a sledgehammer on to people who will be criminalised for doing something that is part of our national identity habit and way of being. We are as New Zealanders intimately bound up with our physical environment. We love it we generally take care of it and we do not like it when people abuse it. But suddenly to criminalise people in the way that this bill does does not serve a useful purpose. 
At the risk of seeming to sound somewhat irrelevant to the case at issue here I really want to draw attention to the fact that once upon a time under the previous Labour Government there was the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme which provided a Government subsidy for small communities to put in place toilet facilities and dump stations. That scheme has been done away with by this Government and there is now no subsidy at all. So those small local authorities that have difficulty in providing the infrastructure and facilities that might well address this problem are now offered no assistance at all to do that. Instead we are going to turn people into criminals. 
I will refer to the meaning of “freedom camp” which is found in clause 5(1) of the bill. It refers to people “using 1 or more of the following: (a) a tent or other temporary structure: (b) a caravan: (c) a car campervan housetruck or other motor vehicle.” I have to say that in the Nelson region particularly in the wider Nelson region quite a few people live in campervans housetrucks or other motor vehicles. It will be very difficult if anything like a partial or certainly a complete ban is exercised by the Nelson City Council or the Tasman District Council on the areas they are responsible for. 
If they do exercise this right to designate places as banned areas then it will be extremely difficult for ordinary people—New Zealanders or tourists it does not matter which—who are going about the ordinary task of enjoying our extraordinary environment to know exactly where those places are. Saying that a sign will go up will not be sufficient particularly if people have been doing that for years—if they have been going back to the same place for years and parking up their housetruck or campervan. For some people in the Nelson area these become places of residence. These clearly are not usually the people who foul the environment but the problem with this legislation is that it does not discern between those guilty of behaviour that none of us like—leaving waste or litter behind—and those enjoying our outdoors in a way that does no harm at all. The bluntness of this legislation is its very problem and it is not sufficiently nuanced; it is not sufficiently progressive. There is not sufficient support for local authorities to invest in the kinds of facilities they need in order to ensure that those who are legitimately camping in beautiful parts of the country can do that without fouling the environment. 
This legislation is coming in under urgency tonight because everybody wants to get it through in time for the Rugby World Cup. Quite frankly there will be a huge problem when the Rugby World Cup comes along. I refer to a reported statement in the  
Nelson Mail  
of 20 May in which one of the councillors of the Nelson City Council said there were likely to be a thousand extra campervans in the city that would park during Rugby World Cup events in Nelson this year. That was said by Rachel Reece who is a Nelson City Councillor. I am not sure where a thousand extra campervans will be parked in Nelson. If the Nelson City Council starts to exercise some bans and to say that places everywhere are banned except the end of Sovereign Street which is one of the areas close to where I live and which has been problematic it would make much more sense if the council were to invest in installing some facilities at the end of Sovereign Street or in Neale Park and to say: “Come and park your campervan down here and we will provide some facilities.” 
Other councillors were concerned that the council would in fact overreact and prevent people from enjoying some of the freedoms particular to New Zealand and some of the enjoyable things we can do in moving around the outdoors with freedom. This bill as it stands at the moment gives the Nelson City Council and the Tasman District Council the power to overreact. That is our concern about this bill. It does not get the balance right. It tries to address a real problem certainly and I acknowledge that there is a problem but it is a problem created by a minority. To bring the legislation down as it is with the force it has is nanny Statism of the worst kind. I think members opposite ought to reflect on that a bit because the moment they had the opportunity when they were in Opposition they tried to use the label of “nanny State” to prevent just such legislation as this. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I follow on from my colleague from Nelson Maryan Street who rightfully points to the reality of there being issues in and around New Zealand and I do not think anyone would deny that but the Freedom Camping Bill is bizarre legislation that is attempting to kill what is part of the culture of New Zealand. In fact I was just at Copperfields grabbing my coffee from a young man in there called Robin. I said I would quote him because I said I was going back in to speak and he asked what the bill was. I said it was the Freedom Camping Bill and he asked what it does. I said it effectively stops people going and camping wherever councils put up a sign and he said “Well isn’t that the fun of New Zealand?”. In fact that is exactly right. That freedom we have that people from the UK Ireland and all around the world come to New Zealand to enjoy—the ability to go into the outdoors that is not owned or controlled by anyone and to enjoy nature—is something that goes right to the heart of what Kiwi culture is. This legislation—look at it; this bill this nanny State legislation—will stop that. 
Well I have Supplementary Order Paper 272 here from my colleague Phil Twyford which is at the heart of it. It is at the heart of this and it is what we will support. It says that it does not determine what people should do—that is it does not outlaw freedom camping—but that if people deposit waste interfere with things or do damage then they are liable for prosecution. It is a kind of Resource Management Act approach really. It does not specify exactly what we should do. Let it be noted that the parties in this House that are telling us what we should do—where we should poo and what we should do—are National and ACT. I hate to think of the number of times that I have been in this Chamber and heard rantings and ravings from members on that side and from Rodney Hide in particular about compliance costs about nanny States and about telling us as Kiwis what we should do. Do members know what they are doing? They are telling us where we can poo—they are telling us where we can poo. 
I have always been told that—not in the cities but in the greater outdoors—if people get caught short and have to exercise their natural feelings then they should take a shovel. That usually addresses it. I have to say that that is not telling people what they should or should not do or where they should or should not do it; it is saying that people should minimise and reduce the impacts of it. It is Resource Management Act bottom-line stuff. It affects base legislation. Why would you bring it into this House? I will tell members why. It is a shallow bit of politicking by Nick Smith. He has convinced his colleagues. I know that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Conservation is quite embarrassed by it because I believe she is truly committed to conservation and the outdoors and encouraging people to get out there. She knows that this bill will kill that because people will be paranoid about where they will poo. That quite frankly is just bizarre in a country of 4 million people. We have a number of visitors accepted but we bring them into this country almost under false pretences if everywhere they go they will face signs put up by councils that could effectively have a blanket ban that is up to the councils. 
Councils find this whole proposition rather bizarre because although they want to do something to reduce the impacts the Government will not help with any infrastructural costs. The previous Labour Government did with our sewerage and water subsidy scheme. It helped councils that did not have the resources but were facing quite a lot of visitors—Kaikoura in particular and many others around the country—and needed to put in place proper infrastructure. If there are no toilets it is very hard for people to go to the toilet. So we need to build infrastructure to address the problem. As we have gone out and promoted New Zealand and encouraged more people to visit this country the basic responsibility is to put in place better infrastructure. The Labour Government had assistance for councils. The National Government gave $14 billion in tax cuts to its mates the rich then said it had no money to do anything else. So it has chopped schemes like that and now councils have the difficult option of saying they cannot afford to put in place proper toilets although they want to attract visitors and they realise there is an impact. So Nick Smith in his shallow way said “Oh I’ll give you a tool. Here you are: you can go and put up little signs and tell people they’re not allowed to come here.” Well that goes to the heart of Kiwi culture. It goes to the heart of the experience that we sell and promote overseas I have to say. 
The images put out by Tourism New Zealand are of wide open spaces for people to have freedom to go out and enjoy. Most of those people understand that they have to minimise their impact on the environment. The problem is often if they are in a campervan—even if it is self-contained—at the end of their journey or when the tank is full there are simply not enough dump stations. The real impact out around the country is where self-contained campervans dump large volumes of effluent in one place. It is outrageous. It is shocking. There should be as the Supplementary Order Paper from my good colleague Phil Twyford says some penalty for that. But if we do not provide the facilities then it is very hard to impose a fine. There will be a backlash there is no doubt about that. We have amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 267 from the Minister to tidy up how the Government can charge people these penalties if they go away from New Zealand. So if they run offshore—because most of them are visitors and come here for a time—or hop on the plane and move off all of a sudden there is a penalty imposed upon them. So there is a very complex set of rules and regulations in the bill to ensure that we can get the money out of them and that they can be charged or if they are let off for some technical reason then the obligation is on the rental camper van companies to refund the money. 
All the complex rules in this bill are unnecessary. What we have to do is put out a code of practice put in place some proper infrastructure and put up some signs to encourage the right culture and behaviour—for example signs could say “No toileting for the next 50 kilometres”. That is a clear indication that it is not acceptable to go to the toilet on the side of the road. Do not say “Do not camp”. and have some overzealous and dare I say it maybe farmer-controlled councils that are not necessarily friendly to the tourism industry saying “Right! That’s it. We don’t want any freedom camping. They can go to the camping grounds.” The problem is that although we have some wonderful camping-grounds and I encourage people to go to them what we are selling as New Zealand is an experience and an amazing opportunity for tourists from anywhere around the world to come and enjoy our culture and our country at their leisure and their pace. We are chopping that. 
I have to say as a former Minister of Tourism I find that rather sad. I find the whole thing rather unnecessary and I cannot understand how National and ACT given their ranting and raving on things like the nanny State and compliance costs can possibly put forward legislation like this. There are better ways of dealing with this issue. There are far better ways and I hope that National will see its way clear if it wants to push through this legislation to at least amend it through the wise Supplementary Order Paper put up by my colleague to make judgment on the effects on the environment not on the proposal to either camp or stay overnight in a place. As a good friend from Copperfields—Robin—said: “That’s what the fun of New Zealand is.”—being able to go somewhere and camp. 
Phil Twyford 
: Cam Calder understands that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Most of them understand it I think but they are just too scared because a shallow piece of legislation has been railed through Cabinet by Nick Smith. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 It is great to follow my colleague Damien O’Connor who is a former Minister of Tourism. I had a brief fleeting moment as a Minister of Conservation. Freedom camping was an issue that we looked at when we were in Government and it came up at a mayoral forum with senior Cabinet Ministers which we held on a regular basis. We realised there was a problem not because the Rugby World Cup was coming up and we were going to dump down ridiculous legislation to try to tidy up the motorways of New Zealand for our Rugby World Cup visitors but because there was a genuine concern about people littering on our State highways and in places of quite high visibility. But beneath that there was also concern about environmental degradation. We were really concerned about it. 
Mayor Geddes’ solution was where we were at when we lost the election and for us to now have to sit here and watch National bring in a bill that is 64 pages long is an embarrassment. The Freedom Camping Bill says that in New Zealand people can freedom camp but only in certain places. Visitors cannot camp it up when they come to our country to enjoy the lifestyle that New Zealanders love. The bill is absolutely a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is an embarrassment to us in Labour that we are seeing this nanny State Government bring in such stupid legislation. There is now also a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister of Conservation to tidy up the infringement and penalty regime because the Government got that wrong too. It is an embarrassment to us in this country who are saying: “Haere mai. Welcome to New Zealand and enjoy the Rugby World Cup.” I am embarrassed and we are definitely opposing this bill especially after listening to submissions during the select committee process. 
I come from Rotorua. We have a by-law in Rotorua that works perfectly well. We have never needed legislation that is 64 pages long for us to say to visitors: “When you come to New Zealand these are the places where we want you to go. Don’t freedom camp in this place because there are no ablution blocks anywhere near it but these are the places you can go to.” 
I think this Government and the Minister of Tourism—who for goodness’ sake is the Prime Minister of this country—have failed to understand the very nature of the visitors to our country. They come here to explore the great outdoors. That is what they love. They come here and they want to get in the great outdoors. New Zealand is a long skinny piece of string as our previous Prime Minister called it. The visitors think they are freedom campers because they get in their campervan they can travel anywhere north and south and they cannot get lost. They can go off the north-south continuum in this country and they can find their way back to the main routes to the next town. 
The bill is putting in something that those visitors will not even know about. They will not even understand. We will have an infringement regime that pings people when they get to the airport. It will say: “We got you when you were going through Rotorua when you stopped at Rotoiti—” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: You are not a visitor Mr Chairperson; I mean the visitor. The infringement regime says: “We’ve got you and you’ve got an instant fine here of $200. Hope you had a good trip. Bang! Here’s your fine. Pay it before you leave the country or there will be problems when you come back into the country.” It is just silly and it is just embarrassing for us as hosts who are saying: “Come to our country. When you come here enjoy the great outdoors. Please don’t spoil the great outdoors experience by littering our highways and our byways but do enjoy yourself while you’re here.” This is ridiculous. 
The other aspect of this bill that is ridiculous—the Minister of Conservation has become absolutely passionate about conservation—is that there is no way that the Department of Conservation front-line staff want to be involved in snooping around the country and checking up on who is pooping on the side of the roads that are not on the conservation estate. They do not want to have anything to do with it. They want to go out there and look after species that are threatened not tourists who will feel a bit like threatened species when they come to this country. The Department of Conservation wants to get on with front-line work. When I know that there are cuts to Department of Conservation staff and conservancies around the country it makes this stupid bill even sillier. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 The Committee should be honoured to be listening to a descendant of the original freedom camper in New Zealand some 30-odd generations ago. My tupuna Kupe turned up and he was the first person according to legend to set foot in Aotearoa. He was the original freedom camper when he set up shop at his first campsite. But he did not actually form a permanent dwelling; he circumnavigated all of the North Island naming places on the way and therefore I claim him as the original freedom camper in Aotearoa. Here is his direct descendant standing up who follows his legacy because every Christmas my family and I also participate in freedom camping. 
According to clause 5 the meaning of freedom camp is to camp other than at a camping ground. We do not camp at a camping ground; we camp on private property. This is a slightly different circumstance. But it is within 200 metres of a motor vehicle accessible area. It is not near a great walking track. The only walking track at our camp is the great walk from the sleeping tent over to the food tent and back again. That is the great walk that I participate in when I am freedom camping. 
Stuart Nash 
: Many times. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Many times in the one day. We are concerned about the potential for a blanket ban on freedom camping. I take up the point that our colleague Phil Twyford made about what constitutes a blanket ban. Is it 99 percent? Is it 98 percent? Is it 70 percent? There can be bans on huge swathes of local authority areas and they can still not be called or defined according to this bill as a blanket ban but in effect that is a blanket ban under clause 3(2A). 
The problem with this bill is that it does not address the problem. The problem is not that people pull up in their campervans or pitch a tent and camp; the problem is with the disposal of waste or effluent—call it what you may. That is the problem and that is the issue that should be addressed not the fact that people might pull up overnight and camp. We have heard from the previous Minister of Tourism the Hon Damien O’Connor and he would know that the term “FIT” in the tourism trade is “free and independent traveller”. We want to attract more free and independent travellers to New Zealand because generally they tend to be older people who like to not have any set schedule. They do not like to get on a bus and be taken from city A to city B to city C. They like to make up their plans as they go along the way. They like to pull over here and there and just camp where they can and when they can. That is what it means to be a free and independent traveller. 
These free and independent travellers tend to be wealthier. They bring more money and they tend to spend more money. We should be encouraging these people to come and have a great time enjoy themselves go where they want and when they want but respect the places they stay at just like my ancestor Kupe would have done back in his time. We need to encourage these people to stay and then go home and tell their friends and their families what a great time they had in Aotearoa New Zealand and encourage those people to also come over here and participate in the freedom camping experience. They tend to stay longer and they tend to spend more. We need to encourage those tourists not as the Hon Steve Chadwick referred to pop them here there and everywhere and get them as they are leaving the country. We should not say: “There you go. Here is a $200 fine because you were camping somewhere where a local authority said you shouldn’t.” 
There is the issue of not having enough places for freedom campers to stay at. I am talking about tourists; I am not talking necessarily about New Zealanders who want to go pig hunting surfing or whatever and end up camping just off the road before they go on their big adventure. I am talking about the tourists who are driving around. The camping grounds are normally full in the summer period or when we have something on such as the Rugby World Cup. There will be a lot of freedom campers at that time. 
I note the decision by this Government to do away with the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme which the Hon Maryan Street touched on. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson Robertson. Kia ora tatou katoa e hoa ma. I am taking a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. Earlier this evening I was listening to my colleague Rahui Katene in the debate on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. She referred to the wisdom of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report  
Ko Aotearoa Tenei: A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Maori Culture and Identity 
. For all intents and purposes it is known as the Wai 262 report. 
In that report there are a number of recommendations that suggest that the Resource Management Act should be reformed so that the Crown and all local authorities are more strongly compelled to engage meaningfully with the kaitiaki. The report outlines exactly how that can be achieved. It could be achieved by developing an enhanced iwi management plan with polices and proposals developed by agreed to and adopted by both the iwi and local authority representatives. Another approach could be to create an improved plan to make joint management with and a transfer of power to iwi much more easily implemented. A third approach might be to recommend that core national policy statements are developed on Maori influence and active participation in the Resource Management Act processes. Those are great ideas I reckon but given the impending importance of the event on 26 November I suggest that it does not appear likely that any progress will be made in responding to the recommendations made in that report certainly not in the immediate future. 
In the meantime the Maori Party has come up with the challenge of seeing how we can draw upon such an excellent reference point for other legislation where it applies. The Freedom Camping Bill is a very clear example of legislation where we can encourage a far more effective relationship between local authorities and mana whenua. The Maori Party through my colleague Rahui Katene has taken the step of introducing Supplementary Order Paper 266 to amend this bill to require local authorities to recognise respect and act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi when exercising powers or functions under the legislation. This amendment will introduce a clause that suggests that in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi local authorities and any person acting on behalf of local authorities must act in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi when exercising powers or functions under the Act. 
We say we need to have a more proactive approach to encourage local authorities to communicate meaningfully with the relevant iwi hapu and whanau. My colleague Rahui Katene recently advised me—and it comes with some experience I think—of what has happened down in Kaikoura where I used to teach at the start of my teaching career. In Kaikoura there is a place called Nga Niho Pa which is just in behind Takahanga Marae if one has ever been to Kaikoura. It is a traditional pa site of Kaikoura and of course Ngai Tahu—rightly so—became pretty agitated when some so-called freedom campers were using the traditional pa site to empty their toilet waste. In case people think that that is an isolated approach I say I am aware that there have been concerns in my electorate of Waiariki from one end of the electorate to the other from places such as the Tongariro National Park through to Te Urewera National Park and the eastern Bay of Plenty and up and down the East Coast where freedom campers tend to move. Quite rightly this issue is something that we have to address. 
We think this bill is pretty useful because it sets up an offence of freedom camping which is described as taking place when the flora or fauna is interfered with or damaged or waste is deposited on to the area other than into the waste receptacles that have been set aside for that. But the Maori Party has a philosophical opposition to any bits of legislation that are introduced for the sake of creating a new list of fines and punishments without due consideration being given to proactive and responsible behaviour to avoid the same mistakes reoccurring. We believe that the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene on behalf of the Maori Party is such an approach. It encourages local authorities to take as I said earlier appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to act in ways that recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility as a Treaty partner. Acting in a Treaty-complaint manner will ensure that there is consultation with iwi. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I will take just a few minutes to have a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think there is general agreement throughout the House that freedom camping in New Zealand is a valued tradition and it is part of our way of life—and no wonder when we have so much beautiful scenery and we are the best country in the world. Having said that unfortunately there are some behaviours that do need to be discouraged. 
I want to take a call to address just a couple of the issues and questions that have been raised by the Labour Opposition. The first one is in relation to blanket bans. There is absolutely no intention in this legislation to allow local authorities to issue a blanket ban on freedom camping in their area. In fact one of the amendments that I think was pointed out was in clause 3(2A) which specifically states that “the powers of regulation under the Act do not allow for freedom camping to be prohibited on all land” so that therefore addresses the blanket ban. 
In addition to that it is further provided later on in Part 2 that the by-law has to be appropriate and proportionate. We think we have put in sufficient safeguards to prevent a local authority thinking it has carte blanche to issue a total blanket ban on freedom camping in New Zealand. The other misunderstanding that I think the Opposition has is that this legislation bans freedom camping. In fact it does the complete opposite. It is permissive. It permits it and it actually specifically provides for freedom camping which until now has not been protected or enshrined in law. This is actually good legislation. 
The final issue I will raise is from the Hon Steve Chadwick whom I recognise as a former Minister of Conservation. She made the interesting comment that there is a by-law that provides for this in Rotorua which is working well. Well actually all this legislation does is provide for other local authorities to have the same by-law. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They can do it without a law. They don’t need the law. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: But what actually happens under the by-law in Rotorua is if the council wants to enforce it it has to go through the courts and that wastes court time and several thousands of dollars in legal fees when an instant $200 fine should be all that is required. It is actually pretty light-handed but I do agree that this is only one of the tools in the tool box. 
We do need to get across the culture that spoiling our pristine countryside is not acceptable. Freedom camping is acceptable; irresponsible spoiling of our countryside is not. That will take more than just one piece of legislation to stop; it will take a change of attitude education working with the Department of Conservation and local authorities working together with various sector groups appropriate signage and a whole lot of other tools. This is one small tool in the tool box that we hope will discourage those irresponsible people who want to spoil our countryside. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I will take only a short call on the Freedom Camping Bill. We are obviously not supporting it whatsoever. I was not too sure what the Maori Party were doing whether they were supporting it. There was a lot of verbosity there but not much understanding. 
I actually think this legislation will be decided in the courts. The reason I say that is there is a lot of ambiguity here around the meaning. In particular I would like to talk about clause 5 “Meaning of freedom camp”. If we go to subclause (1A) it says: “In this Act freedom camping does not include the following activities:”. It talks about temporary and short-term parking. When I am parking in the city I know what temporary and short-term parking means. But when in the great wilderness that is New Zealand what does that mean? If we say that temporary does not mean permanent does that mean one can park a car for 3 days? Is that temporary? It is certainly not permanent. There is not a permanent structure there the car is not in my garage; it is not in anything I own. By any account that is in fact temporary parking. Is it 1 day 2 days 3 days—a week even? That is certainly temporary parking when one is on holiday or doing a trek up and down the country. The other term is “short-term parking”. Again when in the city I think I know what short-term means but in terms of a 4-week summer holiday if one is driving from spot to spot does short-term mean 3 days 4 days? Does it mean 1 day? 
I think that a smart lawyer representing a client who wanted to make a point or a principle could drive a bus a campervan or a housetruck straight through the middle of this because I would suspect they could quite easily argue that they were not freedom camping under the meaning of the Act because they were temporary parking they were not permanent parking or they were short-term parking. Perhaps they were on a holiday for 6 months and during that term a 4-day stopover was considered as short-term in the scheme of things. The other thing if we go to subclause (1) is the meaning of freedom camping. It includes a tent or other temporary structure; a caravan; a car campervan housetruck or other motor vehicle. Well it is pretty obvious that this bill is being rushed through for the Rugby World Cup because this is what happens in the middle of winter; people stay in these things. But if I know many young people and I take myself as an example when I was a young man footloose and fancy-free during the holidays I would jump in the car grab a sleeping bag and sleep on a beach. 
Hon Member 
: When was that? 
STUART NASH 
: A long time ago sometime last century. I would grab a sleeping bag and sleep under the stars under a tree or on a beach. But according to this bill that is not freedom camping. But that is where a lot of the problem lies. As my honourable colleague Kelvin Davis said we need to address the issue of people defecating in the wilderness. But if one is sleeping in a sleeping bag under the stars on a beach for a 3-day period according to this bill one is not freedom camping. Again what is the definition of “temporary structure”? The Crown may argue that a sleeping bag is a temporary structure; I doubt it. I would say— 
Phil Twyford 
: What about the stars? 
STUART NASH 
: Are they temporary? Well they are in Christchurch at the moment because one cannot see the sky or the stars. It will be interesting to see who starts challenging this. Someone will I know that. It will go through the court. What will happen is that someone will be picked up after staying on a beach for 3 days with a group of mates in sleeping bags. They will have taken no care about where they do what they do and they will be picked up and fined an instant $200. One of them will be the son or the daughter of very wealthy person and they will say no. They will be a third-year law student and decide to test the case in court. This is classic legal systems 101. What defines freedom camping? The issue will be what the definitions of temporary and short-term parking are. Is temporary and short-term parking 1 hour half a day a full day 3 days or a week? Does a temporary structure mean a sleeping bag? Temporary structure is almost a bit of an oxymoron but I suppose it means a tent. The bill says “tent or other temporary structure” but a sleeping bag on a beach in a car for 3 days—according to the bill—is not freedom camping. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the meaning of “local authority area”. The bill states: “local authority area—(a) means an area of land—(i) that is within the district or region of a local authority;”. It is the areas of land that are of concern. They are where people will park up or camp in. I think there is a pragmatic practical solution that if the Government had not cut the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme could have involved a joint venture between the Government local authorities and other organisations within the community such as schools sports clubs and possibly even marae so that the whole cost of providing facilities is not borne solely by the Crown. You see most schools sports clubs and marae would love to have their ablution blocks upgraded and improved. I think there would have been real scope to do that through something like the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme which the Government has cut. 
There would be issues to do with getting registered or whatever if the car-park or sports field at the school or rugby club say or the car-park at the marae was to be used as a temporary camping-ground. But I think that would ease a lot of congestion on the streets. I have been to Nelson and seen the street that the Hon Maryan Street spoke about where in one evening 26 cars parked up. There were two temporary toilets—Portaloos—and a couple of rubbish bins there for the campers to use because there was no room at the local camping-ground. If there was a bit of thought we could come up with a solution whereby any overflow could go to those sorts of facilities. 
Where I grew up the ablution block—the shower facilities and toilets—in the first-ever rugby club I played for have not been touched in 40 years. They are a mess but with a bit of thought using something such as the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme the club itself the local authority and the Government could all pitch in to upgrade those facilities. There is a huge car-park there and a huge sports field which in summer is nice and hard. People could park there if there was overflow from camping grounds. In fact those bodies could perhaps set themselves up to get a bit of income for the local sports club because these days they are certainly struggling for members and struggling to raise funds in other ways. With a bit of thought and a bit of organisation that could be a way for the particular sports club I am talking about to get a bit of income over the course of the summer break when the facilities are not being used for sports. I believe that with a bit of thought we could solve this issue and not have people camping out on roads or in car-parks in the middle of town. So it would not be the major problem that it is now. 
I endorse what my colleague Stuart Nash said about the possibility that this matter could well be settled in court because of the lack of definition of short-term and temporary parking. I think he raised a very valid point about that. 
I also say that I think the Supplementary Order Paper from Rahui Katene is a very good Supplementary Order Paper. The Labour Opposition will support it. I think it is really important. It is a pity that it was missed out in the first place. The Supplementary Order Paper inserts a Tiriti o Waitangi clause that basically makes sure that the Crown recognises and respects Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the responsibilities it has to take account of te Tiriti. The Supplementary Order Paper also deals with the responsibility of local authorities having to take account of te Tiriti. 
It is really important that local Maori are involved in any decision making on the areas where camping may or may not be banned. It is very important that Maori have this input. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take what will be a very brief call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think this is a ridiculous bill. It is a total overreaction to what is a real problem. I am not saying that it is not a real problem but this is a total overreaction to it. I am a freedom camper. I have quite often with old flatmates driven up to the Tararuas parked in the car-park overnight on a Friday night and gone tramping the next day. Under the definitions and provisions provided in this bill we could be slapped with a $200 instant fine for doing that. I think that is absolutely ridiculous and an absolute attack on what is a Kiwi way of life—the ability to drive to a place park sleep in the car or camp beside the car and go tramping or hunting. This bill attacks that. 
There is a real problem with people leaving a mess behind by not using adequate camping facilities; there is also however a responsibility on us to make sure that those facilities are provided. I note that this Government of course has cut the funding for providing sanitary disposal facilities and that is absolutely ridiculous as well. This is an overreaction to what is a real problem but it could be much more easily solved and I think this bill is ridiculous. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 in the name of Rahui Katene be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Where freedom camping permitted 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill. As many of the members on this side of the Chamber have made clear we think that Part 2 is another example of—no matter what you call it—over-the-top heavy-handed or sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut legislation. Part 2 again typifies what we think is a bit of an overreaction from the Government to what we see as a problem but not a significant-enough problem to basically take away the freedoms of Kiwis who have enjoyed freedom camping in some of our most pristine and beautiful places. Part 2 deals with where freedom camping is permitted. What is now in store for New Zealanders and visitors is that some of our most beautiful areas—beaches vistas and views—are no longer allowed to be enjoyed. One cannot park up have a look around and have a bit of a kip without having what could be called ablution police keeping an eye on us. 
I would like to open up a window to the world of what it would be like to be one of those people who will be forced to police this kind of law. What exactly will they be confronted with? I think that along with parking wardens the people who will be tasked with policing the Freedom Camping Bill will be in one of the most hated occupations for both New Zealanders and visitors to New Zealand. These people will be in some of our most pristine areas and they will be forced to sit in car-parks rest stop areas or places where one can look at some of the most beautiful views in New Zealand and be forced to snoop on what people are doing there. So for families sitting at home now I tell them that if they are out enjoying some time with the family at Christmas time—just as Kelvin Davis does—and they get caught short it will now be the job of some people to whack members of those families with a $200 instant fine if they are found defecating or urinating in some of those public places— 
Phil Twyford 
: Or just camping. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
:—or just camping; that is right. Families now run the risk of being slapped with what we think is an over-the-top $200 instant fine. We will have to hire people to do that kind of work. 
As Steve Chadwick said in her earlier contribution to the bill we do not need those people to do that kind of work. There are other means and ways to make sure we crack down on this problem. People hired by local bodies or by the Department of Conservation should not be doing that kind of work. They should not be snooping on people who are enjoying some of our most pristine areas. They should be making sure that other by-laws are being adhered to and that some of the flora fauna and wildlife in those areas is being saved. They should not be keeping an eye on people who are enjoying a night out under the stars in their sleeping bags—as Stuart Nash commented on earlier—to make sure they are not defecating or urinating in public areas. That is not their job and we do not believe that it should be their job to monitor that kind of behaviour in some of these areas. Again this bill is heavy-handed and a punitive measure that threatens the freedom to camp under the stars that Kiwis have enjoyed over generations. 
I would like to pick up a point that Stuart Nash made earlier about the definition of what freedom camping is and what short-term freedom camping in some of these brilliant areas is. My colleague Chris Hipkins pointed out that he has been on a number of camping expeditions where he has done that. I would like to know what will happen to the surfing expeditions now. It is not unknown for a young bunch of lads to jump in a car on a Friday night head to the beach and camp out for an early start on a Saturday morning to make sure they can get the early waves. Now under this legislation what will happen to that? It is unclear as to whether that is freedom camping. A lot of surfies will be sitting at home wondering what this National Government is doing to the freedom that they and their parents have enjoyed for many years which is to go and sleep under the stars or in their cars in some of those areas close to the beach so they can get the early morning waves. 
It also raises the possibility of freedom camping being effectively outlawed in large parts of the country and I think that is a sad by-product of this bill. It leaves uncertainty in the minds of Kiwis—can we park here can we sleep here or will we get a $200 fine? Now that uncertainty is there with many Kiwis and it will leave a lot of confusion for many Kiwi families who enjoy some of these most pristine areas. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am referring to clause 16 “Public notification of freedom camping notices”. Subclause (1) states: “A freedom camping notice is published in accordance with this section if a summary of the notice—(a) is published in the  
Gazette 
; and (b) is published in the following newspapers: (i) in a daily newspaper circulating in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin;”. My concern is for overseas tourists who land in New Zealand and have not happened to pick up a copy of a daily newspaper in Auckland Wellington Christchurch or Dunedin in which that freedom camping notice was published. The chances are that they would not have seen it or that they would not even look in the section where that sort of thing would be published. So those freedom campers—free independent travellers—will be journeying around New Zealand and will have a nice surprise when they pull up somewhere and wonder who the person is approaching them and saying that they have committed an offence that is liable for $200. That is not the face that we want to portray to our travellers from overseas but I think we are risking that. 
I know that ignorance is not an excuse but how can we expect people from overseas to turn up to New Zealand and know exactly what these regulations are? I hope there will be some sort of full-blown education campaign so that international travellers will know what the circumstances are and so that they will not be stung by that sort of thing. 
I note clause 11A “Bylaws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping”. This is similar to clause 11(2)(a). Clause 11A(1) states: “A local authority may not make bylaws under section 11 that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district.” Subclause (2) states: “This section is for the avoidance of doubt.” But the doubt still exists—the doubt that our colleague Phil Twyford raised earlier. What is a blanket ban? The provision says that a local authority may not make by-laws that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all the local authority areas in its district. Will the local authority not have that provision then in just one area of its district or in two areas of its district? I think there are still some vagaries there that will allow overzealous local authorities to sting all and sundry in a roundabout way. I do not think that subclause (2) removes the avoidance of all doubt. 
Clause 11(5) states: “The local authority must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (as modified by section 86 of that Act) in—(a) making a bylaw under this section; or (b) amending a bylaw made under this section; or (c) revoking a bylaw under this section.” So regarding the special consultative procedure section 83 in the Local Government Act 2002 states: “Where this Act or any other enactment requires a local authority to use or adopt the special consultative procedure that local authority must”—and in subsection (1)(e) it says—“give public notice and such other notice as the local authority considers appropriate of the proposal and the consultations being undertaken;”. The part that is of concern is what the local authority considers appropriate because we are concerned that some local authorities may be overzealous just go too hard and as we already said use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. So it comes down to what is appropriate according to one local authority and what is appropriate according to another local authority when they refer to the Local Government Act 2002. There are vagaries and there could be confusion as to what the local authority considers appropriate. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up where my colleague Kelvin Davis left off and make some comments about the second clause in Part 2 which is about the bylaw-making power of local authorities. To borrow the turn of phrase from Stuart Nash I think it was we could drive a housetruck through the wording in some of these clauses. Subclause (2) of clause 11 says that “A local authority may make a bylaw under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied that—(a) the bylaw is necessary … (i) to protect the area:”—to protect the area. I mean that is ridiculous. That is so wide-ranging and so lacking in any kind of concrete meaning or specificity that it just makes a complete mockery of the bill. A council can make a by-law if it is satisfied that this bill is necessary to protect the area. Well what is it protecting the area against—or whom? It is an absolute nonsense. 
Paragraph (b) of clause 11(2) states: “the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way …”. Well there is an irony right there that this entire bill is disproportionate. That is the problem with it. It criminalises a whole class of people and a whole class of activity unnecessarily when it could actually be focusing on the problem—that is people who dump waste in scenic places. The by-law is supposed to be the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem—but perceived by whom? If there is a perception that there is a problem a council can pass a by-law to outlaw freedom camping across all but 100 percent of its territory. The legislation is absolutely ridiculous. It is heavy-handed and it is punitive. So if there is a perceived problem and a council thinks it needs to protect an area then that is justification enough under this bill for the council to pass a by-law that will outlaw freedom camping; a freedom that generations of New Zealanders have enjoyed will be able to be outlawed across large swathes of territory. 
Louise Upston 
: It doesn’t outlaw it Phil. Do you remember the bill? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Louise Upston has occasionally opened her mouth in this debate. She refuses to get up and take a call. I do not know why. She sits there on the backbenches on the Government side saying “Read the bill. Read the bill!”. Well I know from the select committee discussions that Louise Upston had grave concerns about this bill as did Cam Calder. They had serious concerns that this bill is punitive and heavy-handed and that it threatens the freedom of New Zealanders to enjoy the great outdoors. I challenge Louise Upston to get up and take a call. At least the Minister in the chair the Minister of Conservation had the good grace to get up and engage in a little bit of debate and I thank her for that. But to be honest I was mystified because all the Minister did was repeat what is already in the bill supposedly to avoid doubt and that was the statement that this bill does not allow blanket bans. Well we have already asked the Minister what percentage of a ban is acceptable. Is 98 percent OK? Is 95 percent OK? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: 99? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Maybe 99 percent is if there is a perceived problem that needs to be remedied by the council. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: What about freedom camping in a council car-park? That might be it. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I thank Rick Barker; that is a very good suggestion. 
The Minister also said that the bill specifically protects freedom camping unless it is outlawed. But that is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic: if one says that it is so then it must be so. Well it is not. The status quo makes it quite difficult for councils to outlaw freedom camping across large areas of land. It does. It makes it quite difficult for them to do that and it is not easy for them to enforce it. But with this bill Minister Wilkinson is not as she said handing councils one small tool in a tool box. She is giving them a powerful and efficient tool to outlaw freedom camping across large swathes of New Zealand and to enforce that ban in a heavy-handed way with $200 instant fines for people who happen to find themselves parked up and sleeping overnight in a prohibited area. What punitive bureaucratic and authoritarian streak lies at the heart of the National Government that it thinks it is OK to deal with this problem this specific problem of people dumping waste in some of our country’s scenic areas by imposing this heavy-handed regime? It is way beyond what any normal person would consider to be a proportionate response to this problem. It threatens a fundamental freedom that New Zealanders have enjoyed for a very long time. 
Louise Upston 
: It actually makes it more pleasant. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: All I can assume from that outburst from Louise Upston is that she has never gone away for a weekend surfing tramping or hunting and has never slept on the side of the road or pitched a tent in some beautiful part of New Zealand as she has gone off climbing mountains tramping or fishing. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Five-star hotels in Europe. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right. It must be that she stays in five-star hotels and that she does not give a damn for the thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who spend their retirement travelling around this beautiful nation of ours in self-contained campervans enjoying the great outdoors in this country and who are fearful that this bureaucratic and punitive law will crack down on their freedom to enjoy New Zealand. 
I know that Cam Calder is a man of the world. He has travelled around. I bet he has slept on beaches. He has probably slept under hedgerows has Cam Calder. He does not like this bill but why will he not get up and take a call? Why will he not get up and take a call and explain why he is voting for this heavy-handed bureaucratic legislation? 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I refer to subpart 2 in Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill which relates to details of freedom camping on conservation land. It starts off very well I have to say. Clause 13 states: “Freedom camping is permitted on any conservation land unless freedom camping is restricted or prohibited on the land.” Clause 14(1) goes through a process of: “The Director-General may by erecting a sign …” etc. Clause 15(1) states further: “The Director-General may by notice published in accordance …”. Then it goes on to say how the good people of New Zealand will be informed of this and states that a notice must define the conservation land and then it must be published in the  
Gazette 
. Well that is a good publication. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Widely read. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Widely read in New Zealand circles. I know that all my hunting fishing and surfing friends always read the  
Gazette 
. But to be fair and we have to be fair to the Minister clause 16(1)(b) states the notice can be published in the following newspapers of course: “(i) in a daily newspaper circulating in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin; or”—not and—“(ii) if the Director-General is satisfied that the notice is of local or regional interest only” in a local paper. So we are to have laws that for the most part affect areas in regional New Zealand but there may not be a requirement for there to be notification in any of the newspapers in the areas where freedom camping will be banned. What sort of consultation process has there been? What sort of authoritarian regime are we setting up here? It is just bizarre. 
I know now that regional and provincial newspapers quite often get up in arms about the lack of consultation and about the arrogance of the “shiny bums” as they say who sit on their chuffs in Wellington make these laws—I guess we are some of them now; we spend long enough here—and impose them on the good people up and down this country. They are the people who understand nature and who go out and enjoy it: the fishers the hunters and the surfers—all of those people. Yet the people—and I have to say it is National and the ACT Party people who want to impose this law—have said that it is OK and that we can notify people— 
Phil Twyford 
: And the Maori Party. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: —and the Maori Party too that is right. Actually that is scandalous. I have just realised that. Maori people will be criminalised for parking up and camping on their beaches and by their rivers. How could the Maori Party support this bill? How could they support such Draconian authoritarian and quite arrogant legislation? It is understandable National and ACT members supporting it. They might have three or four toilets in their own homes and cannot understand why people should not be able to go somewhere and go to the toilet. But not all Maori—many of them in Northland in particular—have ready access to toilets in their homes so they understand the ways of working with nature. One could call it composting or whatever but a good shovel and a spade can address the issues of effluent. 
I can understand that National and ACT members cannot quite get their heads around it. They have said that a notice in the newspapers circulating in the cities will be good enough to inform people of the areas that will be banned from freedom camping. That is outrageous. It goes right to the core of Wellington arrogance. The kind of criticism that we as politicians get every single day when we are out in the provinces is that we in Wellington do not understand and that we have no idea what is going on. That is what the people say and they will be quite right in this case. In fact those good people do not always hop in their cars and rush to the city for a holiday. Many of them travel down the road to another part of beautiful New Zealand and to the wilderness—for example from Westport to Punakaiki or from Nelson down to Fox Glacier or to Gillespies Beach or anywhere like that.  
There are many many options but they may not know and may have had no notification whatsoever that the area is conservation land until they arrive at the place and there may or may not be a sign there. So their planned journey and experience in wilderness New Zealand or beautiful New Zealand will come to a grinding halt. They will have to make a call on whether they commit an illegal act and stay as they were planning to do yet have no impact on the environment. They might have brought a shovel or be self-contained—who knows? But someone in Wellington in conjunction with the local council or the Minister of Conservation in this particular case has decided that it is conservation land. The Minister has decided having been given advice from the Director-General of Conservation that these areas shall be out of bounds and banned for camping. The Minister or the department will then issue a notice in a daily newspaper that circulates in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin.  
What about Nelson? Did the Hon Nick Smith insist on Nelson being included? Maybe he should have given that he brought this legislation into the House. What about Timaru Invercargill Westport or Greymouth? None of those places will have mandatory notification in their newspapers because the bill states “or if the Director-General is satisfied”. Can the Minister get up and give an absolute guarantee that the provincial newspapers and the people in the provinces will have fair notice of her Draconian legislation to ban people from the conservation estate that they fund that they have fought for and that they uphold as being sacred in this country? The Minister is going to ban them from staying overnight on that land.  
Well I have to say this is what the legislation says and if the Minister can get up and guarantee that notice will be given in all of the provincial papers then maybe we have gone one step forward. But the legislation as stated here does not say that. Just as my colleague Stuart Nash said there will be interesting legal battles over what is a short-term park or a long-term park or whatever and the difference between what is perceived in provincial New Zealand and what is perceived in urban New Zealand. There is a huge void that is not covered by the legislation and the Minister has not risen and attempted to answer that in any way.  
This is just one of the many many flaws in legislation that is a sledgehammer attempting to crack a walnut. The Minister should just wind back and perhaps take on board the Supplementary Order Paper put up by my colleague Phil Twyford and say that we shall have a law around harming nature and harming the conservation estate but we will not make a judgment on the input side of it whether people are staying in a V-Dub—as many used to in the old days—a combi a Bedford van or nowadays a fully compliant and self-contained Mercedes van. Technology has moved on and we have found better ways of mitigating the impact of all of our behaviour—for example reducing carbon and getting better at saving energy and indeed in the area of camping we are better able to manage the potential effects of it. That is what we should be moving to do to encourage people and to give fair warning by notice. We should not impose a penalty for something that is at the heart of the New Zealand way of life and something that many have fought for and expected to see for their lifetimes. Unfortunately in this subpart 2 we now see potential behaviour by the Minister of Conservation and the department that through notice in the main newspapers of the main cities they will deem areas to be out of bounds for freedom camping. I think it is outrageous. The Minister should get up and explain why she is doing this or change it and take on board the Supplementary Order Paper put up by my colleague Phil Twyford. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up on a couple of points made by my colleagues. I think they were very very well made. I turn to clause 16(1) in Part 2 of the Freedom Camping Bill to pick up the point that “A freedom camping notice is published in accordance with this section if a summary of the notice—(a) is published in the  
Gazette 
;”. In all of my time as a tramper and a hunter the very first thing we did before we did anything else—before we examined the weather forecast and made a plan—was read the  
Gazette 
 because we knew that the  
Gazette  
was the most important part of our information requirements for going on any trip. It is a very widely circulated document and is avidly read by New Zealanders every day. I am surprised the  
Gazette  
is not in the newspaper awards as one of the most widely circulated documents! 
Let us face it: this publication as far as the public is concerned is published in secret. It is a secret publication. How many New Zealanders have ever read the  
Gazette 
? I ask how many parliamentarians have ever read the  
Gazette 
. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I have. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Minister in the chair says she has read the  
Gazette 
. I want to ask her what was on page 2 of today’s publication. I bet she cannot tell me. Let us be honest: most people look at it as a quaint document that no one has ever heard of. To publish in the  
Gazette 
 is to have a decision of the old-fashioned Star Chamber. It is in secret. It is a closed society. No one will know about it. 
To make sure that people have some notice of freedom camping restrictions the writers of this legislation go on to say—it is hilarious—that the notice will be published in papers in the following areas: Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin. Well everybody knows that those papers go to all the camping areas of New Zealand! How much freedom camping is done in the city of Auckland? How much freedom camping is done in the city of Wellington? I would say it is next to zero. Not only will we have publication of documents in secret but we will have publication of documents that are completely irrelevant to the places where people go freedom camping. 
But it gets even better! I could not believe this. The third option put up by the drafters of this legislation said it would be “published if the director-general is satisfied that the notice is of local or regional interest only in a newspaper or newspapers circulated throughout the locality.” That means effectively that it will never ever be published. There is no place in New Zealand where freedom camping could be undertaken that is only and exclusively of interest to the people in that area. For example if we are to have a publication about freedom camping on the West Coast it would be impossible to argue that it was of interest only to people on the West Coast. The people of the West Coast live there. They have houses there. They will never go freedom camping there. Freedom camping on the West Coast would be of interest to people who live in Auckland. But because it is of interest to Auckland people it cannot be published in the local paper because it is of interest outside of the West Coast. By logic and definition the director-general cannot publish it in the local paper because something that is to happen on the West Coast of the South Island is of interest to the whole of New Zealand. Because it is of interest to the whole of New Zealand it is not of interest only to West Coasters; it is of interest to all New Zealanders. By definition the man or the woman who is the director-general cannot publish it in the local paper. 
So what do we have as a notification? We have a notification processed by the  
Gazette 
 which is read by nobody. It is a publication in secret. We have a publication in newspapers that is completely irrelevant to the areas in which it is published and then we have a clause that means it is impossible for the director-general to justify publishing it in a local paper because it is not of interest only to those people in that area; it is of interest to people across the whole country. This is a nonsense. 
We then get back to the other point made very well by Phil Twyford that under clause 11A by-laws must not absolutely prohibit freedom camping. Well there is an easy way to get around that. Councils can simply set a small part of a council district as a freedom camping area. It could be the council’s backyard that has a big fence around it and is locked so that people cannot get into it. As long as it is designated as a freedom camping area that justifies the council having the whole of its district wiped out from availability to freedom campers. The Minister shakes her head but she has not thought of the inventiveness of local councils. 
What we have now is a Freedom Camping Bill that means that a council if it is hostile to freedom camping—and some may be—will designate an area that is hostile to freedom campers and say it is the freedom camping area. It effectively means that it then has a freedom camping area. It can be 0.5 percent of the area available or it could be 0.1 percent but as long as the council has one area available it can say it has not absolutely prohibited freedom camping. There just has to be an exception to prove the rule. It does not have to be a certain percentage. Just one exception justifies the council saying it has not absolutely prohibited freedom camping. 
On the other side the council makes the decision and who will be able to challenge the council? The council makes a decision to designate one minor small inconsequential hostile area to freedom campers. The power rests with the council. A freedom camper can turn up get a $200 fine then go through the council’s by-laws and say that they have done all the right things. They have gone back and read the  
Gazette 
 and they made sure they did that before they went. They have gone through all the back issues of the  
New Zealand Herald  
before they left to go to the South Island and made sure they checked all the public notices to find out all the information they needed but missed it somehow. They get themselves there and are then confronted with this. Will they take the council—firstly I presume—to the District Court? If they fail there can they go to the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court thereby exercising all their legitimate options? Let us face it. Councils are litigious. If they lose they will appeal. We will have a freedom camper with a $200 bill for camping trying to overturn the council’s policy decision and having to go all the way to the Supreme Court because the weight of bureaucratese will be with the council. There is no balance in this. 
I find this extraordinary coming from National which pushes itself forward in the public as the party of freedom and the party of choice. National lauds itself as the party of freedom and the party of New Zealand and of protecting New Zealand’s heritage. What a load of bunkum. National has set up legislation that ensures that the information is held in secret: it is published in the  
Gazette 
 or in a paper that is irrelevant to where freedom campers are. It is a notice that cannot be put in the local paper because as I said it has to be of interest only to the people in that area to be published locally. If people outside the area are interested in it it cannot be published locally. 
Then the bill says a council has to have only a small aspect of its council area available to freedom camping to show that it has not absolutely banned freedom camping. It needs only one example to prove it. It could be beside the rubbish dump it could be beside—I do not know—the sewage station the sanitation plant or the oxidisation ponds. Here we are: here is a place that freedom campers can have beside the oxidisation ponds. Because the council has designated that place it has not banned freedom camping absolutely. It can find all sorts of hostile places such as a mill that works 24 hours a day. A sawmill can go for 24 hours a day and be completely hostile to freedom campers but as long as the council puts up a sign saying “Freedom campers welcome” it has not absolutely banned freedom camping. 
This bill goes far too far. There is no balance logic or reason in it and I think the process of consultation has been abysmal. This legislation is from a party that says it is there for individual freedoms and individual rights. What a load of rubbish. This shows the paradox in National. National members talk about being anti - nanny State then they introduce nanny State policies. They talk about getting the Government out of people’s lives and then they put more government on people. They talk about having less bureaucracy and what do we have? More bureaucracy. In fact they are taking people’s freedoms away by stealth and by orders of that well-read paper the  
Gazette. 
 I cannot believe it. It is impossible to believe. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Enforcement miscellaneous and transitional provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to debate on clauses 18 to 48 and schedules 2 to 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I am disappointed that members of parties that are voting for this Freedom Camping Bill are not taking calls in this debate. Not only are we in the situation yet again of this National Government taking away freedoms of New Zealanders under urgency but even worse the members on the Government side are not even game enough to get up and take a call— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You cannot say that word. I ask you to withdraw that word. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I withdraw. I just think it is a shame that the Government members will not get up and take a call to explain themselves. The ACT Party members who are the great defenders of our freedoms and liberties have not even made a contribution in this debate but they are quite content to vote for this nasty odious bureaucratic little bill that takes away the freedoms of New Zealanders to enjoy the great outdoors. I urge Hilary Calvert to get up and take a call because as we know the ACT members are not whipped on these things. It does not matter that Rodney Hide has promised this bill to Local Government New Zealand. That member has the freedom to stand up and express her view and I urge her to do that. 
I think it is a shame that yet again the Maori Party is voting for a nasty sordid little bill like this and the best its members can do is put up a Supplementary Order Paper inserting a Treaty clause. It is exactly what we have seen time and time again. They will vote for a lousy little bill like this and they will try to ameliorate the situation by proposing the insertion of a Treaty clause. Well it is just not good enough. 
I want to speak on our Supplementary Order Paper that deals with the question of the seizing and impounding of boats caravans motor vehicles and other property. This illustrates just how pernicious this bill is. The provisions around clause 35 give extraordinary powers for the Department of Conservation and council officers to seize property that has been used in the committing of offences under this new regime. I submit that the powers are completely out of proportion to the offences that are being dealt with by this bill. They are Draconian and I think there is a risk that they are so out of whack with the offences that this bill seeks to deal with that they could do serious damage to our tourism industry. If people come to this country from around the world to experience our country’s most beautiful places and to do it in a spirit of freedom and they find that their car or their property is impounded seized and forfeited under this bill then that would send a very very unfortunate signal to our international visitors. 
I will refer to the advice from the Legislation Advisory Committee which raised some really serious concerns about the seizure powers. It raised two main concerns. It said: “Firstly the purpose of the seizure provisions in the bill is less than clear. Secondly it is not clear that the objectives will necessarily be effectively achieved through the provisions as they are currently drafted.” The Legislation Advisory Committee points out the reasoning behind the higher threshold that is given to the seizing of things like boats caravans and campervans. A series of tests have to be passed and large items—housetrucks boats caravans cars—can be seized only if an officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the seizure is necessary to avoid risk to the health of the public and the safety of the public and so on and so forth. It sets up a two-tier test which under this regime actually creates a perverse incentive for people to infringe in a housetruck but not in a tent. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer points out in this advice that is illogical and inconsistent. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: A housetruck’s OK. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right. It is much more difficult for property to be impounded if it is a boat or a housetruck. There is a much lower threshold and a much lower test that has to be passed if people choose to break this law in a tent. It does not make any sense at all. 
What is more the Legislation Advisory Committee says that clause 37 which deals with the return of seized property is also problematic. In fact the clause places the onus on the person who has had their property seized to establish that it will not be used for future offending. As the advice from the Legislation Advisory Committee makes clear that may be difficult to do. Essentially the likelihood of property being retained and disposed of means that this is a forfeiture regime. It is not about seizing and impounding property; it sets up a de facto forfeiture regime. This is one of the most Draconian aspects of the bill. It has no place in this bill. It is completely disproportionate to the scale of the offences we are talking about. I invite the Minister of Conservation to think again about the seizure and impounding provisions in this bill. It will bring this House into disrepute for this bill to be passed in its current form. I would like to hear from the Minister her response to the detailed and thoughtful submission made by Sir Geoffrey Palmer as the chair of the Legislation Advisory Committee. 
Labour has put two other Supplementary Order Papers on the Table for this debate. One addresses the issue whereby the offence is associated with a particular vehicle and any subsequent fine can be levied against the owner of that vehicle. I note that the Minister has brought in a similar Supplementary Order Paper. In a way I am glad to see it because it makes sense that rental companies have the ability to pass on fines to offenders. Our concern is that that would be fine if this infringement regime was set up to target the dumping of waste and littering but to harness it to an infringement regime that deals with freedom camping is completely over the top. And putting those two things together is the reason why we keep saying this bill is Draconian. 
We would support the amendment that allows the owners of these vehicles to have those fines passed on to them by the rental companies but not if it is for a regime that includes penalising people for freedom camping. We would support it only for offences relating to the dumping of waste and littering. That is why we have also proposed an amendment to clause 18 that would remove the offence of freedom camping from this bill and would leave simply the offence of littering and leaving waste. Creating the offence of freedom camping is the problem with this bill. That is the provision in this bill that will undoubtedly lead to innocent New Zealanders being criminalised simply because they are freedom camping in the way they have for generations and think they should be entitled to. 
It is our argument that if this bill focused on the actual problem which is the leaving of waste and litter if other practical measures were implemented as my colleagues Damien O’Connor and Maryan Street have said and if other infrastructure was put in place such as bins and waste facilities in places where they are needed then those practical measures would be enough to deal with most of the problem. I will leave it there. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 18(1A) of Part 3 I think actually gets to the heart of this very issue. I think it is a relevant issue and it is what we should be focusing on. Clause 18(1A) of the Freedom Camping Bill says: “Every person commits an offence who discharges a substance in or on a local authority area or conservation land in circumstances where the discharge of the substance is likely to be noxious dangerous offensive or objectionable to such an extent that it—(a) has or is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment; or (b) has caused or is likely to cause significant concern to the community and users of the area or land.” That is the heart of this bill. It is not about parking up a housebus or a caravan or pitching a tent. That is not offensive. That is not a problem. The problem is the discharge of waste. That is what we should be focusing on. We should be pinging people who do that rather than people who just pull up and camp or sleep in a car or a tent or whatever. That is not the problem. There is no harm or offence done there. We should be focusing solely on the discharge of waste. 
As Phil Twyford has touched on clause 35 “Enforcement officers may seize and impound certain property” talks about boats cars and things like that. They are not the problem. The boats the caravans and the housebuses are not the problem. It is what people do when they get out of such vehicles and go in the bush to relieve themselves—that is the problem. When they empty the septic tank or sewage tank—whatever they are called—from the caravans that is the problem. That is the behaviour that should be dealt with not the fact that someone parks up overnight or whatever. To have a provision to in effect seize somebody’s Maui campervan or mobile home is outrageous. Let us take a company that rents out campervans or the vans that people stay in—the self-contained vans. Why should they the owners have their property confiscated? I think it is way over the top; it is a way-over-the-top provision. 
Who can do this? Who can do all the confiscating? It is an enforcement officer and enforcement officers are appointed by local authorities. If I was camping somewhere out in the wilderness someone could walk up to me and say “I’m an enforcement officer; here’s my evidence.” Under clause 32(1) “An enforcement officer must produce evidence of his or her appointment under this Act…”. What does that evidence look like? Are they wearing a uniform or a badge or do they have a certificate? What do they have to produce to prove they are an enforcement officer? 
If I was camping way up north in the bush with my cousins if we were going hunting or something like that I could imagine what my relations would say to a guy—or a person I should say—who turned up said they were an enforcement officer and told us to move our four-wheel drive away from that area. I would say that person’s safety would be in jeopardy. I mean who up north will take it seriously if somebody bowls up waves a piece of paper in their faces and says it is evidence that they have been appointed by a local body to tell them to go away—to tell them to move their vehicle? Especially if those people have been using that spot for generations to camp before heading off on whatever outdoor pursuit they want to do and all of a sudden as Rick Barker said earlier there has been a move taken by a local authority which has been gazetted and put in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and which no one knows about it. Why would those people believe that this person had any sort of authority at all? I do not understand how that piece of paper will make them— 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 There is much that we could debate about the Freedom Camping Bill but I will focus on the proposed amendments in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 267. I go to new clause 28B “Charging hirer for infringement fee”. This relates basically to the situation of foreign visitors say a husband and wife from Finland who have come here and hired a campervan. Their knowledge of English may not be great but for some reason or another they have ended up camping in the wrong spot in their campervan. It does not matter whether they failed to do something; they just camped in the wrong spot. Then they have left and gone back home. 
The rental company then receives an infringement notice because someone has driven past and seen the number plate. The “poo police” whoever they are—a person with the bit of paper—has come along. They will not be respected in Northland and they will not be respected on the West Coast either. The “poo police” have come along taken the registration number of the vehicle and sent it to the rental car company. They see it is a Maui campervan or some other firm’s campervan. I do not like to mention brands and I am not in any way trying to imply that one brand is better than the other or worse. But anyway the rental company receives an infringement notice so it sends a copy to the people. I will quote from the Supplementary Order Paper. This is the wisdom that comes from the department after the first version of the bill when it recognised that there were mistakes but said it would improve the bill. Clause 28B(1) says “the rental company may not exercise an authority under a rental service agreement to debit the hirer’s credit card unless within 5 working days of receipt of the infringement notice the rental company—(a) sends a copy of the infringement notice and the rental service agreement to the permanent address provided by the hirer in the rental service agreement;”. 
Imagine this: the rental company receives a notice. The first point is that the company has to send a copy of it to the people from Finland. Is it to their email address or is it to their residential address? That is what the law says. The company is not allowed to do it for 5 days and it has to send it through to the permanent address. I take it that that will mean sending a letter to the permanent address. I do not know how long it takes to get a letter from Wellington to Finland or to some little town in Finland but the company has to send it there after that. It is somewhat archaic not to have provision for email contact. The clause does not say so; it says the notice goes to the permanent address. Is it an email address or a residential address? Maybe the Minister can clarify that question. Subclause (1)(b) says the company then “notifies the hirer that if the rental company receives a reminder notice for that offence the rental company will debit the hirer’s credit card”. 
Subclause (2) then says: “If the rental company does not receive an infringement notice for the particular offence but receives a reminder notice for that offence the rental company may not exercise the authority to debit the hirer’s credit card”. How do we get the money? If we put in place stupid legislation and stupid penalties that cannot be enforced will people just carry on and go out of the country? Maybe they will be held up at the border because someone says to them: “A notice has come up. You’re not allowed to leave the country because you camped somewhere and you haven’t paid the fine.” Will it go as far as that? This sounds like a wonderful recipe for Kiwi hospitality—I think not! This is a ridiculous situation. Subclause (2)(a) says the rental company again “sends a copy of the reminder notice and the rental service agreement to the permanent address”. I do not want to go on and on and round and round in circles but the whole thing is ridiculous. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and this is a process to get $200 maximum maybe. 
Then of course there is the ability to challenge an infringement notice and the people from Finland may have a legitimate defence to say they did not understand English. Maybe the sign was knocked over—who knows? This is 5 10 15 20 days or a month after they have left New Zealand and we are chasing them around for a small fine in the hope that it will be a big incentive to behave better when camping on conservation land. If people out there are getting somewhat confused it is because the legislation is confusing quite frankly. 
Once again I say we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. This is all because a campervan has parked in a place where there is a nice view but some council has decided that it does not want people to park there overnight regardless of the fact that they have a fully self-contained unit and they have been fully aware of and compliant with every other law in the land. But this bill says the council or councillors can decide that people cannot stay there. 
Unfortunately the people from Finland may not have been able to read the  
New Zealand Herald 
. They do not go online very often. They probably do not think the  
New Zealand Herald 
 is worth reading very often. So they have not had early notice of or consultation about a particular area being out of bounds. 
I say in summary that the signage in this country is generally not up to scratch. If people are trying to drive around and find a place to camp then they will find on an international comparison that the signage is pathetic I have to say. People get lost; they do not know where they are going. I doubt whether the signage needed for the measures in this legislation will be sufficient to allow someone from Finland or a foreign-speaking country to understand fully what is going on here. There are international signs I guess. There is the skull and crossbones; that sign might be the one that aptly applies to this legislation. No doubt there might be a way to indicate that camping is banned but the finer points of for how long or where people may camp or of where they can go if they cannot park in one spot—200 metres or whatever—will make for a very confusing situation for people who come to this country expecting to be able to wander around in their fully contained campervan. It will be completely contrary to what they were told about New Zealand and what they understood a holiday in this country would be like. Then to top it off they will have in the mail notices from New Zealand demanding the Finnish equivalent of $200 or thereabouts for parking in a spot that they probably do not even remember. 
This bill is just ridiculous. We should not support it. We should get on and do the wise things about improving knowledge of how to reduce our impact on the environment when we are camping regardless of where it is. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairman. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is wonderful to take one of the last calls tonight on the Freedom Camping Bill which is a Government bill coming before the Committee. 
I have to ask: is this the most urgent thing this Committee could be addressing a few months before the election a month before the Rugby World Cup and just before we are about to go into urgency? I acknowledge there is a poo problem when one goes out across the countryside and there is a legitimate freedom camping issue of waste being disposed of unwisely in our natural areas. But the fact is that if we were thinking of the actual serious poo problem facing this country we would be looking at the massive—and I mean massive—dairy effluent pollution that every day is going into our creeks into our rivers and into our streams meaning that Kiwi kids cannot learn to swim in a Kiwi river because we are not adopting smart farming solutions. 
I just have to point that out before I go on to addressing Part 3. There are more serious issues that this Committee should be discussing before we go into urgency such as our kids and our grandkids being able to swim in our rivers. 
I spent a few years freedom camping. I was a contractor for Greenpeace for a couple of years. I would work for 3 months and then I would freedom camp for a few months getting to see our fantastic country. Like most tourists and Kiwis I did it responsibly. I took care of the waste. I never left anything apart from footprints and I took nothing but photographs. 
The Green Party does acknowledge that there is a serious issue. Our “clean green” brand is vital to our economy. It is vital to our sense of who we are as a people and we do not want tourists—or New Zealanders—to turn up to a beautiful scenic spot and see waste there. This is a serious problem and looking at Part 3 of the bill I wonder whether the magnitude of this issue is dealt appropriately with by the fines. We have a pretty small fine; the financial penalty is only $200. 
The main point I want to touch on is clause 18(1)(c) of Part 3 which states that any person who “makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority in breach of any prohibition or restriction” commits an offence. We have heard other speakers ask how we will identify the appropriate person delegated to deal with this serious issue—whether it will be with a badge certificate or sash. 
The big question is how this person will be able to identify whether a person is making preparations to freedom camp. What is the definition of “make preparation to freedom camp”? Is it getting out the thermos and having a cup of tea? Is it setting up a table with the thermos on it and having a cup of tea? Is it setting up a folding chair with the thermos and being about to enjoy a cup of tea? How on earth will we define this? Are we simply going to put off these tourists who are important to our economy coming to our country and enjoying our beautiful natural scenery? How will we define “makes preparation to freedom camp in a local authority in breach of any prohibition or restriction”? I invite the Minister of Conservation to take a call on this issue. 
There are a whole bunch of other questions that I have heard tonight and it would be good to have them answered. We have heard a whole range of questions in this debate. The fact is that this bill has just been rammed through under too much haste. 
I am really looking forward to the Rugby World Cup kicking off. As a Kiwi I am really excited about it but unfortunately the tournament has brought out a bit of a bad streak in our national psyche. We have heard about Auckland sweeping the streets of homeless people we have seen Adidas price-gouging Kiwis who want to wear the black jersey and here we see the authorities and police—who already have appropriate powers to deal with this serious issue—being circumvented by this bill. We do not need to do it; they already have the powers. 
What the Green Party supports is a positive approach that looks at education and providing more facilities and more legal camping-grounds. What we would love to see is more money going to the Department of Conservation to keep providing those great camping-grounds. Kia ora. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The member Gareth Hughes made a very good point about freedom camping. He talked about Auckland sweeping the streets of all the people who sleep on the street. Well surely they are the ultimate freedom campers. Does each of those people who sleep on the street realise that they will be subject to a $200 fine if they are making preparations for freedom camping? What does this mean for Blanket Man in Wellington? I do not think anybody has heard that this is an attack on Blanket Man’s right to sleep on the streets of Wellington. 
I want to come to another point. There are several points I want to make and I start on clause 18(1)(c) of the Freedom Camping Bill. It states “makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area” and there is a similar reference for a Department of Conservation area. What does “makes preparations to freedom camp” mean? Does it mean that the campervan has stopped and someone has pulled on the handbrake? Surely that is a prerequisite to freedom camping. One cannot freedom camp without the vehicle being stopped and the handbrake pulled on as we saw tragically at Lake Hayes. So if someone has pulled the handbrake on and stopped are they making preparations? 
One would think that a person who did that would have a defence. But no National has made sure there is no defence because if we go over to clause 19 of the bill “Strict liability offences” it states “In prosecuting an offence under section 18(1) the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant—(a) intentionally or recklessly committed the offence;”. So there is no need to have proven intent. The person needs only to have stopped and encountered someone of mean spirit who has had a bad day and decides they need to do something so issues an instant fine of $200 to that person because they have stopped. Is it an intention to camp if someone stops like in those glossy adverts where people put a couple of chairs outside to have a cup of tea and enjoy the view? Is that an intention to camp? It is very hard to prove an intention. But it gets worse. I draw members’ and the Minister’s attention to new clause 18(1A)(b) which states “has caused or is likely to cause significant concern to the community and users of the area or land.” A concern—what is a concern? 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)