Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Third Readings 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) the Building Societies Amendment Bill the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 5) the Civil Union Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cook Islands Amendment Bill the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill the Engineering Associates Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Fencing of Swimming Pools Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill (No 2) the Gas Amendment Bill (No 2) the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Amendment Bill the Human Rights Amendment Bill the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 3) the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 3) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 2) the Niue Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) the Racing Amendment Bill (No 2) the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 3) the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill (No 2) the Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Securities Transfer Amendment Bill the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill the Status of Children Amendment Bill the Tokelau Amendment Bill the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill and the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I am advised that technically the bill that was formerly the Statutes Amendment Bill no longer exists and that it is now divided into its component parts and becomes 48 separate bills. Thankfully—and I am sure to the House’s relief—I am further advised that the traditional practice is that I am not required to read the whole motion. 
I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee who have been instrumental in the passage of the Statutes Amendment bills. Statutes Amendment bills cover a wide range of subject matters and this involves some unique challenges. This particular bill contained amendments to originally some 50 Acts covering subject areas as diverse as health and disability securities law and company law. Amendments contained in Statutes Amendment bills do not by their nature address significant policy issues. Rather these bills provide a vehicle for minor non-controversial and technical amendments to Acts so that legislation works effectively and can be responsive to necessary change. Some of the improvements brought about by these bills include the following: modernising the language used in the Defence Act 1990 to keep pace with terminology currently in use streamlining procedural requirements for those seeking relief from the court under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 to make the court process more straightforward and accessible and streamlining the nomination advisory panel meetings under the Racing Act 2003 to achieve greater efficiencies. Some small cross-referencing errors—for example in the Land Transport Act 1998—have also been corrected. 
Since the bill was introduced to the House some changes have been made to it. An amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 initially proposed in this bill has now been removed from it and will be considered as part of the wider review of that Act that is currently under way. As I foreshadowed in the second reading another proposed amendment to the Public Audit Act 2001 in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament has been removed from the bill. This is because some parties no longer support the amendment to the Public Audit Act 2001. The nature of a Statutes Amendment Bill is that all included amendments must be supported by all members of the House. Where this is not the case the amendment drops out. This is proper and the normal way of things for Statutes Amendment bills. 
The bill was added to by inclusion of a further amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to Watercare Services Ltd which provides that parties wishing to carry out works on or in relation to Watercare Services Ltd water-supply assets must meet the same requirements as if they were carrying out works on water-supply assets of local authorities. 
These few examples demonstrate the value of Statutes Amendment bills as a vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial changes to statutes where required. Few of the amendments referred to above would have received the necessary priority in the House if they were stand-alone amendments. However gathered together in a Statutes Amendment Bill they assist in achieving an aim of all members present to keep the law up to date accurate and user-friendly. 
My thanks go to the many officials who worked on the various amendments to the bill. Again I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee and its very able chair for their speedy and helpful deliberations on the bill. I thank all members of the House for the dispassionate manner in which this bill and all such Statutes Amendment bills are considered. Comment is often made about the adversarial nature of this House but these bills are a good reminder that this House regularly works in a more considered and cooperative way to get the business of the House completed. I commend the bill to the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third readings of the bills coming out of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove’s very kind remarks about the chair of the Government Administration Committee and the way in which all parties worked together to assist the process of this legislation. As he said Statutes Amendment bills are omnibus bills and are designed to provide minor technical and non-controversial amendments to legislation. The original bill has been divided into 48 bills. 
We had one or two queries over some aspects of the legislation because with one or two parts in the original bill we were concerned that the amendments were not minor or technical in nature and of course we sought guidance from the officials on that. That is the process that needs to be undertaken and it is the role of the select committee in monitoring the process of Statutes Amendment bills to do that. The Ministry of Justice actually has a role to play in that and it is charged with the responsibility of coordinating the amendments. It cannot give any advice. That is left up to the ministry officials who will seek the committee’s guidance on any queries that it has. 
All in all the legislation went through quite smoothly and National is happy to support it. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 A week ago we were debating this latest omnibus bill to come before the House bringing together issues as wide ranging as endangered species real estate agents lawyers and conveyancers and volunteers all in one heap of amendments. It is always difficult when we are faced with omnibus efforts to identify the absolute critical points apparent—or perhaps hidden—in the legislation. Is it all for the best that section 253 of the Resource Management Act is amended to enable the Attorney-General and not the Minister of Justice to appoint environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners? What is the compliance cost of the change? It sort of reminds me of the dilemma over whether the glass is half full or half empty. Perhaps the only alternative is to drink the water and remove all doubt. The problem would be gone. 
 Taking that analogy speaking of water is of course highly appropriate today when we consider the new definition that the Crown has created—just yesterday in fact—of water: that “Taupo waters” does not include water itself. I do not know whether you heard that Mr Deputy Speaker so I will say it again for you: the definition of “Taupo waters” does not include water itself. In this definition “water” means beds soil space above space below and space in which the water exists but “Taupo waters” does not mean the water itself. 
Sadly it reminds me of the introduction of the notion of Crown stratum first mooted in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act. If the House recalls this was the first time the Crown had overtly claimed in legislation that the lake water was vested in the Crown. The peculiar formula applied was that the Crown owned the stratum or the space within which the water exists not the water itself. 
What the hang is going to be next if that is the way we define things in legislation? Will Maunga Ruapehu be defined as everything but the maunga? I get it: is “Maori land” going to mean everything except Maori land? Is “Tane Mahuta” the largest remaining kauri tree in all of Aotearoa going to be defined as everything but a tree? If this is to make any sense to anyone in the House and if we follow this sort of thinking then “sense” here will be defined as everything but sense—“nonsense” if you like. 
My attention was drawn to the complexity of water matters because of the amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill to provide Watercare Services with the same protection currently afforded to local authorities. In itself this amendment seems to fit the bill of being fairly non-controversial. In essence if through the process of excavation of drainage or of cabling a water pipe ends up getting wrecked then the same protection will be afforded to Watercare Services as is currently available to any local authority. This technical change is something the Maori Party is happy to support. 
But we come back to the question of whether if we follow the river through it will eventually find the sea. The sea change that is not being talked about in this legislation is the matter of multinational water incorporation like Metro Water in Auckland City or United Water in Papakura. The council might own the pipes but the operation and the management of water services becomes contracted out. They are contracted out to corporations that accrue private profit from public infrastructure without actually owning it and without making any form of payment back to the public who do. 
It is of course interesting that we are discussing this issue tonight in the context of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill which was debated earlier this evening because the debate cannot be complete without acknowledging the impact and influence of global commercial interests that are looking to control water and sell it for profit. 
Part 31 of the original bill the Statutes Amendment Bill amends the Local Government Act 2002 by various amendments that confer on Watercare Services the same protections concurrently afforded to local authorities. Watercare Services is the water wholesaler for the Auckland region and is owned by various city councils that are water retailers. The water mains are owned by Watercare and the local pipes are owned by each council. Where it becomes of interest to Parliament is the fact that Watercare’s intention is to create one super water company in Auckland that brings together individual retailing councils and private water companies such as Metro Water in Auckland City and United Water in Papakura and set up a single infrastructure. 
Maybe this is just the path of the future. Maybe Watercare is better able to contract out to water multinationals than any other retailers. We cannot deny the threat and consequences of yet more privatisation of water where private companies control water management and operations and draw off profits from the powerless public in excess of that required for infrastructure reinvestment. This is where we look carefully at the amendments like the consequential amendments to the Local Government Act to test whether the only damage that is being considered is damage costs for wrecked pipes. What the Maori Party asks is whether the new user-charges for water the water meters and the corporate concept of water as a commodity which are increasingly being accepted or considered by many councils are congruent with Maori customary rights to water. 
The Local Government Act—the object of the amendments in Part 31 of the original bill—along with provision in the Resource Management Act 1991 actually serves to facilitate public-private partnership that enables the management of a resource such as water to be passed over to a profit-making company. We say that this is outright privatisation opening the floodgates to multinational companies. 
So why does this matter so much? As tangata whenua we see water as a living entity with a mauri of its own. The very clear advice that consultation has revealed is that Maori customary rights to water still exist or at the very least are contestable in court. Any Crown presumption of ownership will therefore be challenged and will continue to be challenged by Maori. 
What this Government has done to date is this: it has refined the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow water permits to be traded by councils and it has asserted Crown ownership of water through introducing the term “Crown stratum” into Treaty settlement legislation. In short it has set up the conditions for water permits to be sold off to private profit-driven companies that then overcharge to supply water to New Zealand households. The implications for this are in the first instance that water metering and water privatisation will make a huge difference to poorer New Zealanders who require water for cleaning cooking washing and drinking. In short it is one of the basic commodities that we cannot do without. Water under such a scenario also becomes what Moana Jackson has described as the ultimate raupatu. 
We in the Maori Party appreciate the close connection between the well-being of the people and the environmental state of the land and the rivers. Infused throughout our language is the vital importance of our waters—ko wai; no wai; na wai. Whether we are referring to our tribal tributaries or our umbilical waters the significance of protecting water as our tribal taonga is upheld. Our waterways are historically tribal sources of major food supplies and they nurture our natural landscapes and biodiversity. Indeed they are cultural icons of prime importance. 
With privatisation of water well under way in Aotearoa the amendments in this legislation may well be water under the bridge. But the key issue for us in the Maori Party is to ensure that the questions are raised and the issues aired so that we can in all honesty ensure that the availability of clean free drinking water does not end up a mirage. 
The Maori Party will support the third reading of these bills and we will also continue to keep the debate high on the critical issues concerning water. 
Bills read a third time.