Volume 652 Week 5 - Thursday 5 March 2009 
Volume 652 Week 5 - Thursday 5 March 2009 
[Volume:652;Page:1693] 
Thursday 5 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
World Trade Organization—Director-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Director-General of the World Trade Organization Mr Pascal Lamy is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Pascal Lamy accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 10 March the Government intends to make progress on Government orders of the day and on other bills to be introduced during the week. The second reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill will be taken on Thursday 12 March provided that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is able to report back on Monday 9 March. The following week will be an adjournment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be kind enough to indicate which bills are likely to be set down for first reading next week or introduced. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That would take some time. I can only suggest that all members look at the Government orders of the day on the Order Paper that will be provided to all members every day. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I had also referred to the bills being introduced which of course are not Government orders of the day yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might wait until he is called before making such an interjection in the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Accident Compensation—Date Extension for Funding of Accounts 
1. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Will the Government support an urgent law change to extend the date for full funding of ACC accounts? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yesterday I stated my intention to introduce legislation to push out the full funding date. The member is wrong to present the extension of full funding as a solution to the challenges facing accident compensation and the growth in levies. All it changes is when we pay and if costs double as they more than did under Labour’s tenure at some point levies must follow suit. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister accept that if the date for full funding is extended to 2019 then the big hikes in levies and registration fees that the Minister referred to yesterday will be substantially avoided? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes if the full funding date is moved forward we can make a difference in some of the accounts but not all. I also note though that by pushing out the full funding date the solvency ratios in the accounts do not improve—in fact they deteriorate—and furthermore the debt goes on to the Crown balance sheet. The idea that simply pushing out the full funding date solves the problem in accident compensation in misleading and wrong. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Is the Minister surprised by Labour’s proposals for deferring full funding in order to take pressure off the motor vehicle levy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I am. Last July Labour increased the accident compensation motor vehicle licence and petrol tax levies by almost $50 at a time when the cost of petrol was over $2 a litre. Officials presented Labour with this option; it declined it then. How it changes its spots when in Opposition! 
Sue Bradford 
: Is it true that Business New Zealand and Treasury are currently the sole drafters of the terms of reference for a full Government review of accident compensation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No that is completely false. I have not had any discussions with either of those organisations about the changes that the Government will need to make in accident compensation nor have officials. I wish to reassure the member that this Government is absolutely determined to ensure that New Zealand has a 24/7 accident insurance scheme that is both affordable and sustainable in the long term. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What other reports has the Minister received of misleading information about the accident compensation scheme’s financial position? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yesterday I noticed that Mr Parker was keen to focus on the solvency ratio in 1999. I note and the House will know that the decision to move to full funding was made in 1998. So 25 years of residual funding had to be taken into account at that time and the idea that somehow it would all be paid off in 1 year is simply absurd. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Will deferring the full funding date resolve the costs facing families from the blowout in the accident compensation accounts? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. Of the $2400 increase in projected levies for families 73 percent of that will come from the earners account. The earners account has a very small residual component so extending out the full funding period will have a negligible effect. The average family would still face increases of over $2100— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —$2100—even with the proposal being advanced by Mr Parker. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Government commit to extending the date for full funding in time to prevent the large and unnecessary increases in motor vehicle levies this July or will the Minister let them go up unnecessarily as he did with the employer levy before Christmas? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can assure the House that this Government is far more mindful of the costs of accident compensation on motor vehicle owners on households and on businesses than the previous Government ever was. Furthermore this Government is prepared to make the changes to secure the long-term future of accident compensation rather than to have it compromised by the sorts of policies that the previous Government had. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question was really very simple: would the extension be in time for the July increases or not? Again we had a diatribe from the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point that the member has made. I invite him to repeat his question because there was no mention of timing in the answer. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Government commit to extending the date for full funding in time to prevent the large and unnecessarily large increases in motor vehicle levies this July or will the Minister let them go up unnecessarily as he did with the employer levy before Christmas? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you later today to consider very carefully the transcript of the answer given by Dr Nick Smith in answer to the question that was first asked. If we are going to have to answer questions on the basis of supposition in the question then I think we are in some trouble. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The part of the question that involved supposition did not require an answer. The bit that was very clear in that question related to the timing of a decision and the Minister made no attempt to address that in any shape or form. That is why I invited the member to repeat the question and the Minister for ACC— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The change in legislation in respect of motor vehicle levies will not be necessary for this Government to provide for a lesser level of levy increases than those proposed by officials. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What the Minister has just said is not a matter of order. The Minister may choose to incorporate that in an answer to the member but the member’s question was very clear. I invite the Minister to answer it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s question was based on the supposition that the only way I can limit the cost of the motor vehicle levy increase is to change the legislation. That is not correct and that is why it is possible for the Government to make a lesser levy increase. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is attempting to answer the question to me; it is the honourable member’s question and I invite him to answer it. He is giving a perfectly good answer now. If he had only done that previously then everything would have been in order. I have invited the Minister to answer the member’s question. He does not have to if he does not wish to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I thought I had. I will answer again. The member’s supposition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was trying to answer the question by way of a point of order. He cannot do that because it is not a matter of order. He just needs to answer the question not raise a point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The supposition in the member’s question that the only way in which I can contain the levy increases on motor vehicle owners is a change in the legislation is not correct. The Government’s move to push out the full funding date will be in legislation that I intend to introduce into the House this year so that it can be taken into account in the levy increases at the end of this year. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister accept that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report showed that $1.8 billion of the $2.5 billion increase in accident compensation liabilities is the result of decreasing investment returns caused by the global economic crisis and is not caused by generous entitlements as he claims? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The decrease in investment returns is actually quite small. The key factor in the latest report that has increased the liabilities has actually been a reduction in the discount rate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Exactly—cyclical. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Exactly! Even Dr Cullen is agreeing with me. The discount rate went up in 2005 and 2006 and as the report that was presented to the House on Tuesday made plain the underlying reason for the huge increase in liabilities is the fact that the cost of the scheme had more than doubled per year. 
Hon David Parker 
: What does the Minister say to former train driver Terry Bristowe who would again be denied coverage for his lost earnings if he was off work having had his train run over people and to people who suffer medical misadventure and lose their earnings and is he willing to assure them that they will remain covered after his changes to accident compensation coverage? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The new National Government will not be making any retrospective changes but it is true that Labour made extensions to the scheme that were not funded. We have the simple choice either to increase the levies by $2400 per average household per year or to review some of the changes that have been made. It is the view of the Government that we need to save the scheme and to make it affordable as well as efficient. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again we had the Minister making a speech. Very little of that answer was relevant to the question that was asked and I ask that you bring the Minister to order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe I have been very fair in giving the member the chance to restate a question and obtain an answer on it. I do not believe that that point of order was remotely reasonable. 
Accident Compensation—Financial Reports 
2.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What reports has he received on “shonky figures” in ACC? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not so much as said a word and I face a barracking of voices from the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure the honourable Minister is perfectly capable of dealing with that. It was clearly a fairly political question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Labour’s describing the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on accident compensation as “shonky” is a bit rich in the very week in which it has been confirmed that Labour’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 hid $1.5 billion in liabilities in a breach of the Public Finance Act. 
Chris Tremain 
: What reports has the Minister received on taking responsibility for misleading reports? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The signed statement by Labour in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 says: “I accept overall responsibility for the integrity of the disclosures … in accordance with the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989.” and that all material fiscal implications have been disclosed. They were not. Labour now refuses to accept any responsibilities despite at least two of its former Ministers knowing of that $1.5 billion of liability—the largest breach on record of the Public Finance Act. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister intend to proceed with accident compensation levy increases that would cost the average family $2400 per annum as he said to the House yesterday or was that alarmist talk to soften up people to the need for unnecessary cuts to entitlements? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. This Government is not going to proceed with levy increases of that size; they are untenable. They are untenable but they are the legacy that Labour left through its poor management of accident compensation. We have the job of fixing it and saving accident compensation and we are up to that challenge. 
Chris Tremain 
: What would be the effect on the accident compensation scheme’s solvency ratio of deferring full funding? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If we adopted the approach that members opposite adopt to the challenges we face in accident compensation I am advised that the solvency ratios would decline all the way to zero within a period of 7 years. That is untenable and that is why simply changing the full funding date is not enough; we will have to have a more comprehensive package of change to secure the future of accident compensation. 
Climate Change—Development of Low-carbon Economy 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with leading economist Nicholas Stern that “the development of a low carbon economy can provide new jobs and new opportunities for innovative businesses”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Successful innovation and adapting to new business circumstances and conditions are absolutely pivotal to creating new jobs. In this regard how the economy adapts to future climate change wherever that may lead is in principle no different from any other economic change and there are a considerable number of such forces now. That is why this Government is intent on building a flexible productive and competitive economy capable of weathering whatever storms lie ahead. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If that was a qualified yes then which measures if any in the Government’s stimulus packages so far will create jobs from the development of a low carbon economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have not specified any particular jobs that will be related to the creation of a low carbon economy but as the member knows this Parliament like others around the world—notably that in Australia—are involved in a discussion about the most appropriate mechanism for carbon pricing. In New Zealand it is partially in place now and that will affect the decisions that businesses make that are consistent with lowering the carbon content of the economy. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Minister agree that incentives such as research and development tax credits are important for assisting innovative businesses to develop low carbon technologies; and is it true that the Government is regretting its repeal of the previous Government’s tax credits and is scrambling to find a similar replacement? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This Government is involved in a wide range of activities to undo bad decisions made by the previous Government. One of those is the research and development tax incentive. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why did the Minister tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that “I think one crisis at a time might just do most Governments.” when Stern and many others—Governments and UN organisations—have clearly shown that one can deal with both the climate crisis and the economic crisis with the same measures; and is it not time that his Government learnt to walk and chew gum at the same time? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will know—because I have responded on behalf of the Prime Minister to her questions in the same way—the Government is contemplating measures that will have the effect of creating jobs as well as assisting households with for instance their insulation needs thereby reducing their energy consumption. But we do believe that some of the rhetoric that we have heard from other countries is yet to be proven. In the end it is yet to be shown whether when large numbers of people are losing their jobs other countries will choose any real policies other than those that will protect jobs or create new ones from any source regardless of whether they are green or carbon neutral. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware of research done by the International Monetary Fund demonstrating that for every dollar spent on tax cuts there is a fiscal multiplier of less than one whereas every dollar of Government spending can multiply 1.4 times? Is this not another argument for investing in “Green New Deal” solutions instead of giving tax cuts to those earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is an argument for 100 percent tax and we do not go along with that. Sometimes we disagree with the International Monetary Fund and I know that that member often does—in fact most of the time. Part of this is about who makes the best decisions. Our view is that part of the case for lowering taxes is that in those circumstances New Zealanders get the chance to decide whether to reduce their debt which many of them should be doing or to increase their consumption in order to help the economy. We prefer that to a rigid pathway towards a green economy that has been chosen by bureaucrats and a few politicians. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there is a possibility that climate change science may deteriorate and that climate change sceptics may be right and does he think that the Prime Minister’s comments to  
Investigate 
 magazine are creating uncertainty and discouraging the creation of new jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I do agree with the Prime Minister particularly when I read the whole quote. But I have to tell that member that in the last few weeks no one in my electorate has come up to me and asked this Government to pursue the carbon-neutral sustainability workshop strategies written by Labour. What they are asking us to do is everything we possibly can to protect their jobs and create new ones. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a member’s bill that could next week if the Government adopted it extend the date for full funding of accident compensation to 2019 avoiding the increases that so concern the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Police New Zealand—Code of Conduct 
4.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is the police code of conduct adequate for the administration of the police and the maintenance of public confidence in the police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that the New Zealand Police is confident that its code of conduct is adequate for the administration of the New Zealand Police and the maintenance of public confidence. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she think it appropriate for a senior police officer who was discovered by a volunteer community patrol slumped over the wheel of his police car who was asleep behind a service station and was smelling of alcohol while recovering from a drinking session who was seen only a few minutes later to be driving his vehicle erratically towards his home and who then refused to take a breath test to be then rewarded by being granted 6 months’ gardening leave on full pay? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As I have advised the member employment inquiries with the New Zealand Police are matters that I cannot comment on. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What can the Minister say about a code of conduct inquiry? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Nothing. As it is an employment inquiry it is a matter for the employer and is subject to privacy law. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will she then recommend to the Commissioner of Police changes she may feel would be appropriate to the police code of conduct so as to avoid this situation ever happening again? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The matter that the member refers to is obviously hypothetical and I would think that the member should understand that under the Policing Act I do not have responsibility for the employment decisions of the New Zealand Police. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. I asked a specific question—not hypothetical—as to whether she if she saw fit would recommend changes to the Commissioner of Police in respect of the code of conduct. She is entitled to recommend anything she likes to her officials. That is a specific question; it is nothing to do with a hypothetical matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Where the member is seeking an opinion he may not necessarily get the opinion that he is seeking. I cannot assist him on that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister realise that her continued inability to properly condemn this incident is tarnishing the professional image of the police who on the whole carry out their duties honourably and professionally; and does she agree with the  
Dominion  
Post which noted: “For the sake of confidence in the police the full facts of the Thomas case must be made public.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The supposition on which the member has based his question is incorrect. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister now show a modicum of leadership and express—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has a right to ask his question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Thank you. I am glad to see the Opposition treat this issue very seriously Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will get on with the question please. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: When will—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will be quiet while the member asks his question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear that a person asking a question cannot make remarks or other suggestions in it outside the question. That is exactly what the member has done. He has not even asked his question and he has made a derogatory comment about the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that procedures in the last 60 seconds have not been great. Would the member please ask his question without provoking disorder. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: When will the Minister show leadership and express her condemnation of and outrage at this incident given that the Commissioner of Police has said that the police officer in question had a moral duty to undertake a breath test; or does she exhibit outrage only when she is in this House being called to account as the responsible Minister by Parliament? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No matter what my personal views are on this matter the fact is that police officers are entitled to employment law and that member as a member of the Labour Party should actually have some regard to that. 
Immigration Service Pacific Division—Report 
5.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has he received a report into Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific division? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I have received the Ernst and Young Pacific division report and it is being released via the Beehive website this afternoon. This latest review has found severe deficiencies across Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific division. It paints a damning picture of a poorly performing service that was poorly led and lacked a clear strategic mandate under the previous Government. The division has become isolated from the rest of Immigration New Zealand over time effectively acting in an autonomous manner which is out of keeping with accepted practice. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What were the findings of the Ernst and Young report? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The report detailed serious concerns about divisional leadership that lacked accountability and transparency failed to observe proper process and created a fiefdom mentality. It described serious concerns about strategic direction under Labour with no clarity over the divisions roles and responsibilities. The division’s management was poor resulting in ongoing deterioration of service delivery major inefficiencies huge application backlogs and concerns regarding financial processes and compliance. It has not served Pacific people well. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who was responsible for the establishment of the pacific division? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The pacific division was the ill-conceived creation of the last Labour Government and was set up by a former head of the Immigration Service Mary Anne Thompson. It was never given a clear mandate by Labour. The leadership has been poor and the performance suboptimal. Despite knowing about problems with the Pacific division the last Government failed to take appropriate action. The mess described in this latest report is unacceptable. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What action is the Minister taking in relation to the pacific division? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I have directed the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour to consider reintegrating all the activities of the pacific division back into the core of Immigration New Zealand. This will ensure that there are clear lines of accountability. I will appoint an independent adviser to report to me on the chief executive’s actions in relation to the Pacific division and to monitor service performance. 
Corrections Department—Sentencing and Parole Costs 
6.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any reports from the Department of Corrections on the costs associated with the passage of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she seen estimated costs of $7.5 billion for an additional 14000 offenders who will require another 24 prisons and do these massive costs mean the National Government will not support the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill through all its stages? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Hon Annette King 
: When does she or her colleagues intend to inform New Zealanders that rather than only supporting this bill being referred to a select committee the National Government has reached a deal with ACT to pass it through all its stages in exchange for ACT’s support for the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill or is this a dirty little deal that they wanted to keep in the closet? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other reports on costs has she received from the department? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Today I was advised by the department that the previous Minister of Corrections the Hon Phil Goff asked the department to analyse National’s law and order policies. I can only assume that that was because his Government did not have any of them. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is she aware that last night on the  
Back Benchers 
 programme on Television New Zealand’s channel 7 Rodney Hide announced for New Zealand to know that you are voting for the bill— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I am voting for anything. 
Hon Annette King 
: —that the Minister and her Government are voting for the bill because they have struck a deal over the gang insignia bill? That is why they are voting with ACT on this bill but they are hiding it. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I was not watching the  
Back Benchers 
 programme on TV last night; I was working. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree with Ministry of Justice estimates that show that “three strikes” legislation will lead to an increase of just 70 beds over 20 years costing $21 million at $300000 per bed and does she agree that had such legislation been in place when 78 people were killed their lives would have been saved? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is certainly the information I have been provided with. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the  
Back Benchers 
 programme last night where Rodney Hide announced that the ACT Party voted for the gang insignia bill because it had struck a deal with the National Government on the “three strikes” bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Department of Corrections to the then Minister of Corrections dated 8 October 2008 and headed “Impacts of proposed parole changes” which details the National Party policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table another letter from the Department of Corrections to the then Minister of Corrections dated 16 October 2008 detailing further impacts of the proposed parole changes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I inform the House that the Labour Party is prepared to make one of its supplementary questions available to Mr Hide if he would care to ask a question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: First of all may I beg the indulgence of the House to thank Michael Cullen for that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must ask his question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that if “three strikes and you’re out” had been in place 78 New Zealanders would be alive now rather than their having been killed which is what happened under the previous Government’s law and order legislation? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Certainly if those offenders had been incarcerated then clearly those 78 New Zealanders would now be alive. 
Health Workforce—Voluntary Bonding Scheme 
7.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How will the Government’s voluntary bonding scheme help address shortages in the health workforce? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The biggest challenges facing the New Zealand public health service today are workforce workforce and workforce. The Government’s voluntary bonding scheme offers student loan write-offs and cash incentives to graduate doctors nurses and midwives to work in hard-to-staff communities or specialties for 3 to 5 years. This scheme will encourage more of them to stay at home after graduation and make choices that will establish their careers here in New Zealand. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What response has the Minister received in relation to the scheme? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The new scheme which also applies to veterinarians and to teachers has had a very positive response particularly from young doctors nurses and midwives themselves as well as from the health sector. Positive responses have been received from a great many organisations including the College of General Practitioners the New Zealand Nurses Organisation the Medical Association the Medical Students’ Association the University Students Association and the Public Service Association. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When the Minister issued a list of the areas that would be covered by the scheme did he know that the people of Horowhenua and Kapiti had been bribed with stories of more doctors nurses and midwives before the election and had been promised more local doctors midwives and nurses after the election and after the scheme had been announced—both bribes and promises from his colleague Mr Guy—and if so why did he leave Horowhenua and Kapiti off the list? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is certainly interesting that the Opposition’s strongest criticism of the scheme is that it should be expanded to more places and groups. I advise the member that if a graduate doctor wishes to be a general practitioner in his or her third year after graduation and works in Kapiti or Horowhenua then he or she will quality for the voluntary bonding scheme. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What other steps is the Government taking to address workforce shortages? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government is tackling workforce issues on many fronts. It is working to give doctors and nurses a much greater say in the running of the health system in order to improve job satisfaction and make them less likely to leave. We are requiring district health boards to focus on the retention of doctors nurses and other health staff. We are funding an additional 200 medical training places and an extra 50 general practitioner training places. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Has the Minister seen reports from the director of nursing of the West Coast District Health Board from the College of Nurses and from the College of Mental Health Nurses stating that this scheme would pull nurses away from primary health care rural health care and aged care; if so what is his response? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen those reports and I have to say that this Government is doing something the previous Government did not do. Rather than relying on 55 workforce reports over the previous 9 years—55 workforce reports and still we inherited a health workforce crisis—the voluntary bonding scheme and the other policies I talked about earlier will help make a difference. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Can the Minister explain why words such as “voluntary” and “bonding” are permitted words to be used but words like “public health inequalities” and “social justice” are banned in his ministry? What is it about voluntary bonding that the Minister likes? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I advise the member that the only instruction I have given the Ministry of Health is that it write its reports in English. 
Housing Initiatives—Construction Industry and Waiting Lists 
8.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he see any opportunity to simultaneously deal with the job losses in the housing construction sector and assist the nearly 10000 people on the Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes. That is why over the current full financial year we will see an increase of roughly 540 State houses—150 under Labour and 390 under our watch. Of those 390 under our watch 69 came from the recent cash injection. On top of this we are putting an extra $104 million into State house upgrades as we are concerned about the squalor that tenants have been living in. So those on the waiting list will be helped those State house tenants currently living in squalor will be helped and the building industry will be helped. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why is the Government aiming to build only a pitiful 69 extra State houses over the next few months when for example Australia is investing $6.4 billion in social housing for some 20000 households? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Perhaps the member did not hear. We are actually providing 390 extra houses under our watch—69 of them from the cash injection. We are also upgrading the State housing stock that was left in squalor when the then Minister of Housing used money set aside to address State house depreciation for acquisitions instead. Interestingly the same Minister who fiddled the books in State housing fiddled the books at the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I consider that reference to be unparliamentary. I take offence to it and I ask that you ask that member to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a fair point because of the implication of that allegation. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Todd McClay 
: Why is the Minister injecting an extra $104.5 million into State house upgrades over and above his already scheduled upgrade programme? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The report to the incoming Minister showed that the previous Labour Government had been taking money that was set aside for State house depreciation and spending it on acquisitions letting State houses fall into a disgusting state of repair. The National Government has addressed this problem. This policy will see builders in work. I am very interested as to why the Green Party is criticising National for increasing State house numbers doing up the State housing stock so that we cannot be accused of being a slum landlord like the previous Government and providing jobs for the construction industry. Why are Green members supporting slum landlords— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An answer is not time for a speech. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why is the Minister heading down a path of job destruction in the community housing sector with changes to funding that are likely to wipe out a number of organisations when instead he could much more productively be part of leading a “Green New Deal” that would see a much-needed acceleration of house building in both the State and community housing sectors? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is true that the previous Government spent many millions of dollars on capacity building. When in Opposition I asked the Government what that meant in terms of the community housing sector and was told that no houses had been built with that money. Under this Government capital funding for the community housing sector has been increased from $12 million to $20 million. We are proud that houses will actually be built. We are not interested in capacity building which builds nothing. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Will the Minister admit that he was wrong to suggest scrapping the $1 billion retrofit of New Zealand homes which would have injected much-needed investment into a building industry that is facing job losses; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: There was a dream and promise of $1 billion. There was no money. I cannot believe that George Hawkins says that he supports putting $1 billion into housing upgrades when his Government left the State housing stock in serious disrepair and was a slum landlord. 
New Zealand Skills Strategy—Status 
9.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What is the status of the New Zealand Skills Strategy? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The Skills Strategy is currently under consideration and I note that many of the actions under the 2008 Skills Strategy action plan continue to be implemented. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she brief the Prime Minister on the strategy before the Job Summit? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have had many discussions and conversations with many of my ministerial colleagues before and after the Jobs Summit and that conversation continues. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question specifically asked whether she had briefed the Prime Minister; it was not a general one about other ministerial colleagues. I ask you to ask her to address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question certainly was specific—had she briefed the Prime Minister—and the answer was that she had briefed many Ministers. I do not see why the Minister should not actually answer the question that was asked. I would ask the Minister if she is able to— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not your job to have an opinion on whether Ministers should answer questions you want them to answer. Your job under the Standing Orders as Dr Cullen pointed out yesterday is simply to decide whether the question has been addressed. I share Dr Cullen’s view that to take a role beyond that is to take on a burden that eventually you may find difficult to get out from under. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to read the relevant Standing Order. The first thing that the Standing Order requires is that the Minister answer the question. The nature of the answer must address the question. The question asked whether the Minister had briefed the Prime Minister. That is a fairly plain English question. I invite the Minister to answer. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer to that question was also plain English with respect. She said she had briefed many ministerial colleagues. The Prime Minister is one of her ministerial colleagues. There were numerous meetings leading up to the Job Summit. Naturally the Prime Minister was pivotal to those. Was there a specific briefing? That was not what was asked. The question was whether he was briefed and the answer was given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to give that answer. 
Hon Bill English 
: Oh come on! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have to answer. If it is not in the public interest to answer a question the Minister does not have to give an answer but when a question is very plain the Minister can easily answer it because the Minister knows the answer. The public has a right to have the executive held to account in this House. I invite the Minister if she is able to to answer the question. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Of course I have had discussions briefings and conversations with the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues both before and after the Job Summit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard has the floor to ask his question. [ 
Interruption 
] The Leader of the House will respect the member asking the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the Prime Minister understood the strategy when he answered questions in the House yesterday; if so why? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. 
David Bennett 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the New Zealand Skills Strategy? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen a report that states: “Labour should be encouraging job hunters and small business not scaremongering. It is simply irresponsible.” That was from the Newmarket Business Association and it referred to Trevor Mallard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Labour front-benchers to show respect to their colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard who is seeking to ask a question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why is the Minister satisfied that the Prime Minister understood the strategy when he answered in the House yesterday? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Because we have the very best Prime Minister that we have had in this country for the last decade. 
Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—Concerns 
10.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have concerns about the operation of the Government’s retail deposit guarantee scheme; if so what are those concerns? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government stands behind the retail deposit guarantee scheme but I am concerned to ensure that it is not putting taxpayers’ money at undue risk. Therefore I have asked officials to have a look at the scheme to ensure that we are managing the risks taken by the taxpayer as intended. 
John Boscawen 
: Why does the Government’s retail deposit scheme subsidise finance companies some of which have already gone broke when the Reserve Bank recommended that finance companies should be charged for the true cost and true risk of the taxpayer guarantee? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In hindsight it is not difficult to see that aspects of the scheme may have been designed in a way that dealt better with the risk that taxpayers were taking. However I stress that at the time decisions were made—back I think in October last year—there was a premium on providing depositors with the kind of guarantee that would prevent a run on finance companies or on a bank and in the trade-off between getting a guarantee in place and getting it perfect I think they probably made about as good a decision as they could. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Te Puni Kokiri Advice Regarding Ngati Apa Appeal 
11.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What advice if any has he received from Te Puni Kokiri on the main aspects of the Court of Appeal decision  
Attorney-General v Ngati Apa 
 (2003)? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou. The advice that I received from Te Puni Kokiri was that the  
Ngati Apa 
 decision provided clarity. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: How can the Minister argue that position when the Chief Justice herself in her statement said: “The outcome of the appeal cannot establish that there is Maori customary land below high water mark. And the assertion that there is some such land faces a number of hurdles in fact and law …”? How does the Minister reconcile that statement with his view that Maori own all the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The Hon Dr Cullen asked me what advice I had received from Te Puni Kokiri and that is the advice I received. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What advice has the Minister received about the former Government’s response to the Court of Appeal decision  
Attorney-General v Ngati Apa 
? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Tena koe. I have received a report from the Waitangi Tribunal that states that the Crown’s policy response breaches the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and gives rise to serious prejudice—namely that cutting off Maori access to the courts and effectively expropriating their property rights puts them in a class different from and inferior to all other citizens and that the policy takes away opportunity and mana and in their place offers fewer and lesser rights. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: How does the Minister reconcile the quoting of that report issued before the bill was actually drafted with the statement by Mr Gerry Brownlee that of the interest that was thought to be held in common through Crown ownership and subdivided amongst the public and Maori Labour has traded away the birthright of all New Zealanders and the unrestricted ownership of the Crown of all the foreshore and seabed and turned it over to racially based control? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am not responsible for Mr Brownlee’s statements. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: What other reports has the Minister received in relation to yesterday’s announcement of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Tena koe. I have received a statement by the Labour Party stating: “Labour will constructively engage with the Government over the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act”. I have also seen a report of comments from the Hon Shane Jones to Maori media that criticises the review. This is yet another indication of Shane Jones’ seeking to undermine the Leader of the Opposition and to position himself as a suitable candidate for Labour Party leadership. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister read the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its entirety; if so how does he reconcile his many statements on this matter with sections 33 to 45 covering customary title and applications to the High Court for rulings and sections 46 to 61 covering customary rights orders and applications to the Maori Land Court for rulings? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes I have. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What advice if any has the Minister received on the legal and policy dimensions arising from the Court of Appeal decision  
Attorney-General v Ngati Apa 
? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have received a report from Cara Conroy-Low of Victoria University who concluded that: “The government had an opportunity to help create vibrant and positive race relations in New Zealand but failed.” The analysis of Ms Conroy-Low was that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill had been motivated by a desire on the part of the Labour Party to portray itself as not favouring Maori but rather siding with non-Maori. The review announced yesterday therefore enables the politics of division and conflict to be replaced by a new era of nationhood in which we can look afresh at this situation rather than take sides. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister stand by his previous view that Maori will “lose their culture and identity.” with the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act; if so what is his evidence over 4 years after its passing that Maori no longer have any culture and identity? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: That statement was made in reference to cutting off customary rights. 
Oil Production—Maari Field 
12.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Has he received any reports about oil production commencing in the Maari field? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes I have seen a report that the Maari oilfield off Taranaki has started to produce oil. The field is expected to yield 50 million barrels of oil in its 10 to 15-year life producing revenue for the Crown of approximately $1.5 billion in both royalties and taxes. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the benefits of oil production in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are many benefits to New Zealand other than the royalties and taxies I mentioned. In the case of the Maari field about 200 people have worked offshore during its installation and drilling operations with a further 60 people expected to be employed in the longer term as the years progress. The project has also employed engineering firms in Taranaki and it has given a boost to many services in the area ensuring a positive employment effect. 
Immigration Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 3 March. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Immigration Bill because it was a Labour Government bill. It is well-thought-out and it changes the immigration law after 20 years. Consideration was given to many issues and concerns that have been raised by the community. In doing so the Labour Government considered the global labour situation and the security environment around the country as well as internationally. This bill provides a balance between allowing us to choose the migrants we want and need in this country and protecting our national interest. It ensures that we can protect our borders and it enables us to successfully fill our immigration-related international obligations. 
This bill does a number of things and I will highlight some of the key issues in it. For example this bill looks at the visa system. At the moment we have a number of visas permits and exemptions. I know that a number of people who visit this country get a permit to enter then they have to apply for another visa if they want to stay for a longer term—although sometimes people have exemptions. This bill clearly brings all these visas if you like into one universal visa system. I think that is very important because of the costs of some of these visas for some visitors. When they come here they have to pay one set of fees then when they apply for a visa in order to stay for a longer term they have to pay more fees. All these different fee structures have been combined into one universal visa system. It is also a much easier and more flexible system for the Minister of Immigration to implement and there will be a lot of positive outcomes for people who are coming into the country. 
At the moment we have a number of appeal authorities. For example there are four appeal authorities that people have to go through. If they have been out here for some time and they want an extension to their visa or they have overstayed then to regularise their visas they have to go through a number of authorities. This bill combines all of those authorities into one independent appeal tribunal called the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. I think this will be great for a lot of people who have overstayed. The bill gives the Minister the opportunity to have one tribunal to deal with these issues. Similarly the removal and deportation provisions and the revocation of visas provide for a transparent deportation system. I think that is very important because often immigrants are confused. They are not sure which particular regulations apply to them because they have either a removal order or a deportation order. All these provisions are now combined in this bill. 
Although I support this bill I am also very mindful of a number of issues that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee looked at. There were 90 submissions on this bill and most of them were heard by the committee. The committee has made some important changes to a number of issues particularly in relation to the use of classified information on people coming here to the refugee and protected person system and to the detention and monitoring system. Some of those issues have relevance in terms of people’s rights particularly in relation to using classified information. The select committee had to do a lot of work to try to streamline some of those issues. The select committee has done a great job and I congratulate the committee members. With those few words I thank the committee for its work and I support the bill. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the Immigration Bill today. I have been heartened to hear that although there are some differences in opinion the bill definitely has broad-based support. As we have heard it has support because people understand the importance of the bill as the foundation for New Zealand’s immigration system. They understand the importance of immigration to New Zealand. It is a driver of economic growth and it assists us to meet a range of obligations to the international community. 
I reiterate the gratitude expressed in the House to all the people who have contributed to this bill. Literally thousands of people have had input into this legislation since the Immigration Act review began. The majority of those people have been members of the public members of ethnic organisations and members of a variety of law societies. What is impressive about that is it shows that there has been robust debate on the bill. Part of that debate has been heard here in the House during this reading and we have heard it during the speech from the Green Party. However I think it is important that where criticisms are levelled against the bill they do not misrepresent it—that they are not scaremongering. It seems to me that there has been a lot of scaremongering about the classified information provisions in the bill. 
I remind everyone here in the House today that the Part 4A processes under the current Immigration Act have only ever been used once. We have had the power to use these processes for 10 years and they have only ever been used just that one time. Do members know why? It is because the Immigration Service is good at finding the open-source information it needs in order to make decisions. 
I do not know why people think that just because of the provisions in this bill there will be a mad rush by the Government to use classified information left right and centre. I also do not know why people think the classified information provisions in this bill are so bad. Any person who cared to do a comparison would surely see that they are better than the Part 4A processes in the current Act. To start with there is an entitlement to a summary of allegations in most circumstances. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has ensured that unless a summary can be given for key decisions classified information cannot be used at all. The bill also provides access to a special advocate in any appeal or review proceedings. None of these provisions exists in the current Act. 
I do not want to dwell on the classified information processes; they are taking up more time than they deserve in the overall debate. The final thing I will address in relation to them is the blanket claim that under the legislation the High Court will be compelled to treat inaccurate classified information as accurate. I have just described some of the key safeguards in relation to the classified information provisions. At the heart of the safeguards is a clear and closely prescribed appeal and review process. Where classified information is used people will generally have the right to appeal its use to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and/or the courts. In the context of those appeals the veracity and the accuracy of the classified information is able to be tested. People will be able to challenge its use in the decision made about them. 
What the bill does not allow is for people to challenge the accuracy of classified information in warrant of commitment hearings. The reason for this is to avoid multiple strings of challenge being used to obstruct the regular and proper decision-making process. Treating classified information as accurate in the context of a warrant hearing prevents delays in the warrant process and the decision-making process. 
I do not think there will be many circumstances where we will need to use classified information in a decision to detain someone but given that we are talking about people who are a risk or a threat to security or who are criminals I think it is pretty important that if we need to use it we do. I think most New Zealanders would agree with that. 
It has been disappointing to hear the criticisms from the Greens about the impact of the bill on refugees. It is pretty clear that the bill takes significant steps forward in providing for a robust refugee and protection system that takes account of New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill recognises not only New Zealand’s obligations under the refugee convention but also our immigration-related obligations under the convention against torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. People seem to forget how positive that aspect and many other aspects of the bill are. Maybe I could remind people of some of those positive aspects. 
Firstly the bill does away with the visa permit and exemption system. That might not seem like such a big deal but it will make life easier for people dealing with immigration. Applicants and employers are two examples. 
The bill creates an interim visa. Where people put in an application and a decision is not made before their current visa runs out an interim visa can bridge the gap. This is important as it means people can remain lawfully in New Zealand and will have more certainty. 
The bill allows for automated decision-making with appropriate safeguards. This means that New Zealand will be able to put into place systems that compete favourably against other immigration systems internationally. Where appropriate we will be able to automate some decisions so that they will happen quickly. 
The bill also enables most people to remain lawfully in New Zealand throughout any appeal they might be undertaking. This is a significant change from the current system where often people have their permission to stay in New Zealand revoked before any appeal. 
These are just some of the positive aspects of this bill and it is worth mentioning that the bill’s deportation compliance and enforcement provisions will not apply to most people. Members may ask why not. It is because most people do the right thing. They have nothing to worry about because they are good honest people who comply with our immigration law. These are the people New Zealand wants and needs in order to build the economy. 
This bill is one part of a programme of work towards building a stronger immigration system for New Zealand. There are also a number of operational improvements that will support these legislative changes. Today I released the outcome of the review of the Immigration Service’s Pacific division. I have asked the chief executive to consider integrating all activities of the Pacific division back into the core of Immigration New Zealand. I will also be appointing an independent adviser to report to me on the chief executive’s actions in relation to the Pacific division and to monitor service performance. I have every confidence that the chief executive will take the actions necessary to restore the level of service and to restore full confidence in Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific operations. 
I acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of staff at Immigration New Zealand are hard-working honest and professional and that they do an excellent job for New Zealand ensuring that the right people come here to work live visit or study. Most people in the Immigration Service do the right thing. I think that was acknowledged here in the House in the speeches on this bill. I can assure the House that that acknowledgment is appreciated by the staff of Immigration New Zealand. 
The state of the global economy makes it more important than ever that the Department of Labour including Immigration New Zealand is in the best possible position and has the best possible systems in place to face the enormous challenges ahead. It is essential that we have as many New Zealanders in jobs as possible whilst ensuring we have the best possible skilled people from overseas in areas where it has been difficult to recruit locals. Immigration provides an important source of talent and skills to support the New Zealand economy. Having the right systems in place that leverage off this bill is important. Employers the international education system and the tourism industry amongst others rely on New Zealand having a world-class competitive immigration system. 
Immigration New Zealand has a programme of work under way to address longstanding under-investment in its people its systems and its business processes. This includes investment in its core application management system as well as a plan for investing in a modern information technology system to replace the application management system which will not be fit for its purpose in the future. In addition Immigration New Zealand will institute an end to end business process review to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of its services. Supporting professional leadership and management capability in Immigration New Zealand will be a key aspect of this work. 
As my colleagues have stated the Government wants New Zealand to have a robust and progressive immigration system. This bill will help achieve that goal. The bill will provide a solid foundation but we recognise that there is other work to do. As members can see from the announcement made today this Government is committed to doing it. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill and I know that the work is progressing well. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the debate on the Immigration Bill. I commence my remarks by paying tribute to the new Minister of Immigration Dr Jonathan Coleman and congratulating him on his contributions to the debate and to the management of the bill so far. It must be really refreshing for New Zealanders to know that immigration policy is at long last in the hands of a capable intelligent clear-thinking Minister which is such a huge contrast from what this country has come to expect in recent years in relation to immigration policy. 
The aim of this bill is to reform legislation affecting immigration in order to establish a stronger and more flexible legislative framework for New Zealand’s immigration system. Immigration goes right to the heart of the nature and history of New Zealand; we have to get immigration policy right. To manage immigration in a fair and balanced way is the objective of this bill. In order to achieve that a number of significant changes are being made. Firstly the new visa system will be simpler. In fact that one word “visa” will replace the previous three words: “visa” “permit” and “exemption”. The words “permit” and “exemption” will go and just the word “visa” will be used in their place. As part of that change three classes of visa are being established. The naming of these classes provides a clarity and understanding that did not exist before. There will be a residence visa a temporary entry visa and a transit visa. 
The second key change occurring as a result of the Immigration Bill—and the Minister made very good points about this—is the ability to use classified information in a wider range of decision-making areas with particular safeguards. And that is the point—with particular safeguards. This change will assist the identification process. Those of us who are electorate members of Parliament for whom immigration work takes up a fair bit of the time our offices spend dealing with constituents will welcome this. This change is balanced by providing greater natural justice protection for non - New Zealand citizens where classified information is being used. 
The third key change in the bill is to establish a single independent appeals tribunal which will be known as the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. This single tribunal will replace the four immigration and refugee tribunals we have at the moment. That has to be good. It is important to appreciate that this bill does not reduce the appeal rights contained in the Immigration Act 1987. Those rights remain. Those who seek to pick fault with the bill on those grounds really need to reflect on what they are actually saying. I repeat the point: this bill does not affect the appeal rights contained in the 1987 Act. I think we will see as a result of these changes a more transparent and fair deportation process. That is what New Zealanders would expect to see in legislation such as this. 
The fourth key area of change is the greater flexibility that is being put into the compliance powers of appropriately trained and designated immigration officials. In practical terms this means first of all that there will be new powers for immigration officials to exercise power of entry inspection and search. Secondly there are new limited powers for information officers to detain a non - New Zealand citizen who is liable to arrest and detention. Thirdly the bill will increase the period of detention without a warrant—which currently ranges from 42 to 78 hours—to 96 hours. This provision will better enable the Department of Labour to facilitate the departure of non - New Zealand citizens. It is fair it is sensible and it in no way infringes on any existing rights available under the 1987 Act. 
In conclusion I go back to where I started. Immigration is a very important feature of New Zealand life. New Zealand is built on immigration. We are a country that welcomes immigrants and the contribution they can make to our country. This legislation should further encourage and enhance that. In saying that though let us not lose sight of one fact: the best immigration policy is our own people staying here and our own people having done their OE wanting to come home. But of course that will never meet the total population skill needs of our country so we need an immigration system that is flexible robust and strong and that will enable us to meet our current and future skill needs. We need an immigration system that will attract for example business interests because it is businesses that create employment prosperity and income. And above all else after the experiences of recent years which are a tragedy New Zealand needs to develop an immigration service in which every citizen every potential immigrant and every refugee being assisted can have confidence that they are being treated fairly directly and honestly and that there is only one way to get into New Zealand—the lawful way. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Those of the public who have been watching on television will have observed that the member who has resumed his seat Allan Peachey is quite a big man—a man around 6 feet 2 inches tall. Those who have been listening on the radio will have perhaps thought that he has made himself seem a little smaller in trying to play partisan politics with a bill in which his Government has changed not one comma. 
Allan Peachey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to references to my height or lack of it. I do not think there is any place in this House for that sort of personal comment. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order I think the member will have to have a substantially thicker skin if he is going to last in this place. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is the member taking exception to reference to his height? 
Allan Peachey 
: I am indeed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I will not comment on that. 
Hon Member 
: Stand up Mr Deputy Speaker! 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am standing. The member has taken exception. Under Standing Order 116 I ask the member to apologise. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I apologise to the member. 
One of the reasons for making that comment—in all seriousness—is that there are many people who need to be acknowledged in the history of the Immigration Bill. One of them whom I would like to acknowledge is the current Speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who when he was the previous Opposition’s immigration spokesman and I was the Minister was one of the first to take a bipartisan approach to the development of this bill. He attended seminars he participated in the development of the policy and he was quick to say that the then National Opposition would support moderate and balanced legislation that would bring immigration practice into the 21st century. So I commend Mr Speaker as he now is for that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Without bringing him into the debate of course. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —without bringing him into the debate in anything other than a complimentary way I say to my dear colleague. 
We have here a bill with a rather long history. Its concepts were laid down by former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel and it was further developed by former Minister of Immigration Paul Swain. Its drafting was developed under my own watch and the bill was passed through to the new Government after its introduction into the House. I think all members would acknowledge that there have been no amendments to the draft; the bill as it is before the house today has multipartisan support—other than from the Green Party; it has had reservations all along—and the current Government has changed not one comma of the draft it inherited from the previous Government. I say to Mr Peachey and some of his colleagues that there is room for a little bit of bipartisanship in this Parliament and a little bit of acknowledgment of work done—it does not demean anybody. 
The second point is that this bill has a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. It is also fair to say that earlier drafts did not have that vet. Many hours of work were put in by some very able officials and legal advisers with a bit of help from Ministers and they brought this bill to the point where it could—and did—receive a clean passage under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Of course that stands in contradistinction to other legislation before the House at the moment—the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. I commend the current Attorney-General Mr Finlayson for taking a very proper and balanced approach and upholding the dignity of his office in making clear that that bill does not pass muster either ethically or constitutionally under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The third and final point I make with your indulgence Mr Deputy Speaker is that this legislation—a very major once-in-a-generation overhaul of immigration law—will not itself be sufficient to modernise immigration practice. That is why the previous Government saw this as one of three main legs if you like of the broader Immigration Change Programme. The programme included the modernisation of key categories of immigration policy such as business migration the skilled migrant category talent visas the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme and some of the more socially focused programmes such as the refugee policy and the ability to reunite families. We need to acknowledge some of the long history of all of that work; again it goes back not only to the previous Government but to a number of former Ministers and many many officials who have worked tirelessly to put together the hundreds of pages of policy work that underlie the many many pages of this bill. 
The third leg of the treble is operations and it is no secret that the operations of the Department of Labour’s Immigration Service have had a fairly chequered history over the years. I acknowledge the current Minister of Immigration Jonathan Coleman and his hard-working Associate Minister Kate Wilkinson and former Ministers and Associate Ministers who have done their best to serve the public interest in what is always going to be a very difficult environment. It is difficult because these are human stories: they are individual case-based; no two cases are the same; and the fairest way to interpret the law can sometimes be a matter of judgment. That is why some 5000 cases a year come across the desk of the Associate Minister and require many many hours of consultation between that Minister officials and other members of Parliament to try to get the best result for New Zealand and for the constituents concerned. 
The Labour Opposition fully supports the efforts of the Government to ensure that the management structures and processes of the Department of Labour meet the challenge before it as it is modernised. The Opposition holds no truck with any form of malpractice any lack of ethics or any lack of due process. We commend the work of the Government working with the State Services Commission and the Department of Labour management to ensure that those processes and systems are able to meet the challenge. There is no politics in this and there is no partisanship. This is a matter of good governance. Of course it should always have been so and I acknowledge the many good officials and Ministers who have done their very best to ensure that it is and will be so. We do not need to again go into individual cases that will have disappointed us all but we do need to acknowledge that that was not about party politics; it was about human frailty. Our common challenge is to build systems that meet the challenge and the mandate before them. 
One final piece of advice to the new Minister is that it will continue to be a challenge to have a seamless and well-functioning department while the information core of the business is rather antiquated. The Minister will be aware that—going back to my time as Minister—that significant work was being done to modernise the information technology systems in the department because fully one-third of cases are processed without access to the main information database at the time those decisions are made. That was never acceptable on our watch. Significant investment was put into modernising it and I hope that the Minister will give his best efforts to ensure that the development of modern seamless systems throughout the department continues. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Bill read a second time. 
Unit Titles Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Unit Titles Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Unit Titles Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. The Unit Titles Act 1972 is the primary legislation that governs multi-unit developments such as apartment blocks townhouses and office buildings. The Act covers the creation and ownership of unit titles by unit owners the establishment of bodies corporate to manage developments and the rights and responsibilities of unit holders and bodies corporate. 
I point out by way of background that that Unit Titles Act 1972 was designed for the simple small-scale residential flats that were prevalent at the time. Often such developments would number—would you believe it—only two or three units. But times have changed. Unit title developments are now much larger and more complex and they are used to meet much more diverse needs. 
The demand for intensive apartment-style living has grown over the last 30 years and the market has responded with some unit title developments containing more than 100 units. Some developments are additionally complex with retail shops bars or restaurants located on street level and apartment dwellers residing above. Unit title developments are also growing in sheer number. It is estimated that there are approximately 16500 unit title developments in New Zealand comprising around—would you believe it—96000 units. This trend is expected both to continue and to accelerate particularly in the Auckland region where it is estimated that within 50 years half a million people will be living in apartments townhouses and high-rise buildings. 
If we compare the existing legislation with its small-scale design with the current needs of the market we see clearly that the 1972 Act does not provide a sound basis for the creation and sustainable management of intensive multi-unit developments. Its inadequacy in the modern environment means among other things that buildings can be insufficiently maintained that bodies corporate can be hampered by time-consuming decision-making processes that disputes between owners are seldom resolved and that there is little consumer information or consumer protection. Furthermore the process for building developments can be inflexible and overly complex. 
The Unit Titles Bill is the result of a comprehensive review of the Act which was announced in November 2003. The review was initiated in response to widespread views held by the Law Commission the Auckland Regional Council and other sector stakeholders that said a review was critical. The Department of Building and Housing has worked closely with officials from the Ministry of Justice and Land Information New Zealand as well as with a cross-section of key stakeholders. 
I am pleased to report that there has been ongoing and widespread support for both the review process and the direction of the proposed changes. This has been demonstrated by the continued engagement and professional goodwill of key stakeholders such as the New Zealand Law Society the Property Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors. The views of those who live and work in unit title developments have also been critical in informing the development of the bill that I am now putting before the House. 
The bill is a fundamental rewrite of the existing legislation. Its key changes include promoting sound property management practices. Sound property management practices are essential to preserve the investment people make when they buy a unit in a development. Best practice will be encouraged by the following provisions. 
Bodies corporate will be required to develop long-term maintenance plans to protect the capital value of the development and the capital value of units within the development. This means owners will be able to plan for big-ticket maintenance items and pay a regular amount over time thus avoiding the need for large one-off lump-sum payments for items such as replacing a lift or for exterior painting. A body corporate needs to be able to act quickly and decisively on behalf of all unit owners and for the good of the development as a whole when repairs and maintenance need to be done. 
This bill provides that the body corporate will own the common property which includes the parts of the development owned collectively. Its responsibilities for repair and maintenance will be widened to include building elements and infrastructure that affects more than a single unit. This will mean for example that if an apartment block has a leaky roof it will be the body corporate’s responsibility to fix it rather than the responsibility of the owner of the top-floor apartment. 
 The second major change will make joint decision-making by the body corporate manageable. A streamlined simple and easily managed way for decisions to be made by all unit owners collectively is a critical component of this legislation. This bill provides just such a process. The cumbersome requirement for unanimity in body corporate decision-making will be removed. Instead decisions will be able to be made based on 75 percent agreement by those who vote at a body corporate meeting. This for example will make it easier to redevelop a unit title property that has become economically unviable or to organise to fix the roof or alter a unit plan. It will also prevent hold-outs and will mean that unit owners who do not vote will not be able to hold up the process. 
Another fundamental key change is in the area of dispute resolution. Many disputes in unit title developments are created because people just do not know what their rights and responsibilities are when they buy an apartment. Owning and living in an apartment comes with a raft of rights and responsibilities that are not usually necessary when one owns a stand-alone house. This bill takes a first step of clarifying and simplifying the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the obligations of bodies corporate. This is a crucial part of ensuring that disputes do not arise in the first place. But when disputes do arise they will be able to be dealt with through mediation or adjudication through the Tenancy Tribunal in the first instance rather than solely through the courts. This will make resolution faster cheaper and more appropriate to the disputes that tend to arise in multi-unit developments. 
The fourth key change is around the disclosure environment. Educated consumers are a central principle of the bill. Enabling people to make informed and confident decisions helps to ensure that the management of developments runs smoothly and that fewer disputes arise. [ 
Interruption 
] There will not be any violence such as the violence shown by the Hon Trevor Mallard on a number of occasions—we will not see that sort of violence in the unit titles dispute process. 
Disclosure requirements will be introduced for purchasers unit owners and bodies corporate to enable them to make informed choices. For example developers will be required to provide information on the construction systems and infrastructure of buildings to the body corporate. This means that the body corporate will be able to make sound decisions when repair and maintenance needs to be undertaken. Purchasers will be entitled to a list of information they can view on request such as body corporate rules audited accounts and maintenance plans. General information on unit title developments will also be available. This means that there will be no surprises—purchasers will know exactly what they are buying into and what their rights and responsibilities are. 
In terms of technical changes it is important to ensure that the process of building unit title developments does not impose undue constraints or increased costs on developers or call for time-consuming changes and alterations. Each subsidiary body corporate will be a member of a head body corporate responsible for the overall management of the development. 
This bill brings our unit title law up to date in wide-ranging areas. It addresses the changes that have occurred in property development over the past 36 years and it brings our unit title law into the 21st century. The bill will provide broader and more adaptable ways of setting up and managing multi-unit living both now and in the foreseeable future. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Naturally Labour will be supporting the Unit Titles Bill. 
The speaker who has just resumed his seat Phil Heatley has not even dotted one of the i’s or crossed one of the t’s in respect of this bill; all the work was done by the Hon Shane Jones. The previous speaker has done nothing. It is very important that we acknowledge that. It is also very important that people make submissions when this bill goes to the Social Services Committee. You see since the original bill became law in 1972 lifestyles have changed dramatically in New Zealand. Having lots of apartments— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: I already said that George. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well the member may have said it but he probably read it somewhere; he does not know it. 
This bill makes sure that the law keeps up with the changes in people’s lifestyles. I say to the Hon Phil Heatley if he is awake—he probably went to sleep during his own speech—that this bill will be very important for people who live in apartments that have the leaky homes syndrome. Under the Unit Titles Act people needed to get a 100 percent agreement in order to make decisions; now only a 75 percent agreement will be needed. That will be a huge change. It will be a change that I think people will welcome. 
People who live in apartments—many of them are young people attending university—may have had those apartments bought for them by their parents and they do not understand the Act. This bill will make things far better for them. The fact that we have more than 16000 unit title developments in this country means that there will be widespread interest. Between the time this bill is read a first time and then sent off to the select committee Mr Heatley should get someone to read it to him because I do not think he understands it. He got up and read a speech prepared by his officials and the pity was that he did not have a dress rehearsal; he got muddled up as he went along. I am not going to waste my time in the Chamber going through all this other than to say that I hope the select committee will advertise this new bill very widely because many people need to know about it. They need to know what it will mean for them as individuals so that they can make good submissions on it. One of the very good things about Parliament is the select committee system where people can have a say. 
I conclude by thanking the Hon Shane Jones because he actually did all the work. I am sure that Phil Heatley may try to grab hold of the bill and promote it as his greatest achievement—even greater than the 69 State houses he will build this year which is actually down on the number Labour would have built. This bill belongs to people who are living in apartments and feel trapped in the present situation. The bill will allow them to be more widely dealt with. I am sure the New Zealand Law Society will come and make submissions and I am pleased by that. I am sure the select committee will ask the society to make submissions as well as many other groups. I welcome this bill. I think the repeal and replacement of the Act is long overdue. Once again I thank Shane Jones. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 The Unit Titles Bill is a bill that I am pleased to support. The Minister of Housing Mr Heatley gave a very detailed and exact speech and one that was really good. The bill addresses and corrects the problems that developed under the Unit Titles Act 1972. That Act needed modernising and I am glad that this is something we are in the process of achieving. The Act was not bad legislation when it was first introduced but the demands of the modern context make it necessary to repeal and replace that legislation with something more attuned to present demands. In essence this bill addresses the changes that have occurred in property development over the past 36 years. 
The legislation enacted 36 years ago was designed for simple small-scale developments in discrete areas and does not adequately provide for the range complexity and size of developments today. The Unit Titles Act of 1972 governs building developments where multiple owners hold unit title property tenure. This is defined as being a specific part of a building such as an apartment as well as the shared ownership of common property such as lobbies and driveways. Such building developments are typically apartment blocks townhouses office blocks and industrial and retail complexes—malls for instance. As of September 2006 there were an estimated 15774 unit title developments comprising 88817 units and the number of unit title developments is rapidly increasing. Changes need to be made as the trend towards unit title development will be continuous and will accelerate. It is estimated that over 500000 people will be living in apartments townhouses and high-rise buildings within 50 years. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who estimates that? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The people who are involved in demography statistics. The member used to be the Minister of Statistics; he should know. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And will be again. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The member can live in hope. I thank the member for that contribution. It could well be that the honourable member— 
Chris Tremain 
: That is the height of his aspiration. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That is the height of that member’s aspiration—to go back to where he was—and we wish him well. 
Clearly it is imperative to modernise the Act and this bill is not something that has been put together lightly. The bill is the result of nearly 5 years of a review and consultation process. It was put on the Order Paper last August but since then there has been little action on it. National has made this bill a priority and is committed to ensuring its passage through Parliament. I will reiterate the key features of this bill which in my view succinctly summarise its positive features and how it provides clarity in areas that were previously a little murky. 
This bill establishes a real and meaningful legal framework for ownership by different parties and establishes clear and simple processes for building unit title developments and technical detail for developers. The Minister has already given an amount of this detail and a Labour speaker asked for further clarification. That is why we are giving it now. Clearness and simplicity are understood as things that should never be made unnecessarily complicated. When something is clear and simple it can be easily followed and hence more progress can be made. I am sure that the developers will be grateful for the transparency of the new guidelines which will assist them a great deal in their work. If we can make their lives easier then I am sure this will aid overall progress. 
This bill aims to encourage a holistic approach to the management and maintenance of unit title developments. It will clarify the responsibilities of unit owners and bodies corporate ensuring sound management practices and will protect long-term capital value. These are highly worthy aims and when I investigate the minutiae of this legislation I am convinced that these aims will rapidly grow to outcomes. If indeed the duties and powers of unit owners and the body corporate managers and developers are made obvious then this will minimise disputes about rights and responsibilities which is always a good thing. It will also reduce costs. 
However speaking of disputes one part of this bill that is very satisfying to see included is the introduction of a dispute resolution process for unit title matters covering education information mediation and adjudication. This will enable disputes to be dealt with swiftly comprehensively and cost-effectively. This bill provides for recourse for dispute resolution by extending the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to hear and determine most disputes related to unit titles. The monetary limit for this is $50000 and the tribunal may not hear cases relating to the title of the land. The bill provides jurisdiction for the District Court to hear cases involving monetary amounts of between $50000 and $200000 and jurisdiction for the High Court to hear cases involving sums in excess of $200000 and includes those cases involving the title of land. As one can see the bill provides comprehensive cover for the full range of possible disputes. 
The bill will provide a clear flexible governance structure with reduced voting thresholds for bodies corporate in order to make decision making more easily managed and to enable the body corporate to act in the interests of the majority of unit owners. I can envisage the concerns of some people in regard to reduced voting thresholds. Reducing voting thresholds by their very nature can lead to more contentious measures becoming more likely to pass. I do not consider though that the reduction of voting thresholds in this bill will have that effect as I consider the previous requirements were too rigid. For example in the Unit Titles Act 1972 there were a number of situations in which a unanimous resolution was required. I will quote one as an illustration. Section 17(1) states: “Any instrument evidencing any transfer lease or grant of easement affecting the common property or land that is to become part of the common property may be executed by the body corporate if the transfer lease or grant has been approved by unanimous resolution of the body corporate.” Section 42 in Part 3 did provide for slightly less restriction stating that if 80 percent voted in favour of the resolution this could be taken by the courts and if the courts so ordered the resolution could be deemed to be passed unanimously. 
However with the advent of the Unit Titles Bill none of this will be required. The bill stipulates that 75 percent composite votes are required. We say that 75 percent is stringent enough. It is still a high threshold and will allow the body corporate to act in the interests of the majority of unit owners. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does the member know all of this? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I have done my work on it. Actually we have covered this issue at various times over the last 3 years. In not having to take the matter to the court when one lone vote disrupts the passage of resolution we are removing unnecessary delays and costs. 
We in the National Party went into the election promising to streamline and simplify regulations. This is what we are in the process of doing with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and that is precisely what we are doing with the Unit Titles Bill. We are ensuring the decision-making process is not hamstrung by vexatious and frivolous objections. We are about getting things done. 
Paul Quinn 
: Say that again. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: We are about getting things done! The Unit Titles Bill is a lucid and cogent bill. It is an excellent replacement for the Unit Titles Act 1972. The Act needed modernising. This bill does precisely that. It was an Act that analysis has demonstrated was no longer adequate to deal with the range of matters. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Well done Shane Jones! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Let us refer to Mr Shane Jones—a future Prime Minister if ever there was one. In May last year Shane Jones said: “The Unit Titles Bill will streamline development processes and allow flexibility for those who are building the really big developments. This will mean up-front costs are reduced and developers can make changes to their plans more easily.” I applaud those comments of Shane Jones. It is the mark of a true political leader. Put some water on him; he will grow. I am pleased the Government is making this bill a priority as the Act is certainly overdue for a shake-up. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take just a short call on the Unit Titles Bill because there is no need to prolong the House’s time on this measure. We are in agreement on this bill. There is a sublime moment in the life of an incoming Government when it does not have to do any work of its own; it simply has to put through and tidy up by a third reading legislation that has already been prepared by the previous Government. 
I am delighted that Mr Quinn was pleased to say how good this legislation is. I am delighted that he is so much in support of it because it was a Labour Government measure. I am delighted that Mr Auchinvole made reference to the point that the bill is about reducing some compliance measures and taking away red tape because that is the result of a Labour Government measure. 
I will raise a couple of points. The first is that yes Shane Jones did the work on the bill. I also congratulate quite sincerely the Minister Phil Heatley on bringing it through to the House. The Labour Opposition will support the bill of course because it is a sensible measure and the incoming Government has seen that. 
I will refer to a favourite part of the legislation—at the risk of this speech sounding like a Committee stage speech—if members will indulge me for a moment. A favourite part is the bits that relate to voting: clause 83 and the following clauses. I refer to the threshold for voting for bodies corporate which is important. It was one of the most significant changes we could make in modernising the legislation applying to unit titles. Numerous people up and down this country having gone into apartments and units will attest to those occasions when getting to a unanimous decision with the body corporate was just impossible. Individuals hold out on agreement of things that have to move forward whether it is a roof repair new paint job colour scheme or whatever. One or two people hold out on a decision that the majority is in favour of and therefore impede the progress and I presume the comfort in many instances of the people who own the principal units. 
The reduction of the threshold on special resolutions to 75 percent—although general resolutions can be carried by a majority—is still a high threshold. It is not simply a matter of 50 percent plus one who agree with a change the body corporate is considering; it is in fact a very substantial majority. Three-quarters of the body corporate principal unit holders need to agree before a change can be made. That will be really helpful because there have been instances when people have held out and have been very difficult to move when trying to arrive at a resolution about a repair maintenance improvement or service issue for a body corporate. 
But just to be sure in relation to the 25 percent of people who may disagree a dispute resolution process has been put in place. Access to mediation and arbitration around that process is a good measure so that a minority view is not excluded or completely railroaded by the majority but there is room and provision for a process to arrive at the resolution of disputes. That is an improvement. 
Yes the 1972 legislation is now anachronistic. It is unsuitable for the kinds of developments we have seen emerge in the intervening years and this bill will bring it up to date. If there are improvements to be made on this bill then they will be made at the select committee. If there are improvements to be made even after the substantial consultation process that was engaged in prior to the drafting of this bill then those improvements can be made at the select committee. I commend the bill to the House. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I will make a brief call in support of this bill. We are pleased to see the bill finally come back to the House. When Labour originally introduced the bill last year we were delighted to support it then and we are really pleased that National has picked it up. 
It is certainly high time for this as the original Unit Titles Act 1972 is of course some 37 years old. I am sure that all the key stakeholders in this area will be relieved that this legislation has been given some priority in the new Parliament. It is also good to see that the original review process involved a lot of the key groups involved in the sector—for example bodies corporate themselves local and regional authorities developers surveyors people like the Law Society building surveyors the Insurance Council and the Real Estate Institute. There have already been some 148 submissions that were received as part of the review process that formed this legislation so I hope that this bill will be a sound reflection of a whole lot of work that has already happened. 
In terms of the actual content of the bill as far as we can ascertain at this stage we are in support of all the key provisions. One provision we are particularly pleased about is that the need for unanimous body corporate decisions will be removed so that in future only 75 percent agreement will be needed by those who vote at body corporate meetings. One is particularly put in mind of the leaky buildings situation where people are desperate to try to get a decision so that they can make progress on solving leaky building problems. Where people are holding out on that it has a detrimental impact on everybody involved in the building. At the moment it takes only one person to hold out for a whole process to be stopped. So that provision is really good though I note also that John Gray from the group that has done a lot of work on leaky buildings does have a few concerns that at times in terms of the people holding out it has been beneficial in relation to what needs to happen. I am sure that the select committee will look at that. 
Another area we are pleased about is the shifting of adjudication from the courts to the Tenancy Tribunal. This is really good in the context of access to justice but it does need to be accompanied by an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act to permit representation for those who are taking cases to the tribunal. Apartment owners will not always have the expertise needed to present their own case and this is certainly similar to changes that we had hoped to see in the residential tenancies amending legislation but which I believe National is planning to take out. We believe that anyone going to the Tenancy Tribunal should have the right to qualified representation because in most cases tenants—and in this case unit title owners—do not have the legal expertise or background to be able to present their cases adequately. I am certainly hopeful that during the select committee process this will again be something that we can look at. 
The whole question of unit titles has become a lot more urgent in recent years with the huge increase in developments. About a year ago there were over 95000 units. Of course many of these were in Auckland where ever-growing numbers of people live in this way. So it has become a critical issue that we change the laws so that people are protected at all stages of the transaction and we do not see some of the unfortunate situations that have arisen in the past. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It is entirely appropriate that I stand here today as a Maori woman to talk to the Unit Titles Bill. Our whakatauaki our tribal traditions have always made explicit the connection between wahine our women and whenua our land. As we say: “He wahine he whenua ka ngaro te tangata.”—“For a woman and land men perish.” Women will be revered and respected as te whare tangata—literally the house of people. Our words are interchangeable—to be hapu also means as well as “subtribe” “to be pregnant”. Whanau relates to the act of giving birth as well as to the family. And when we give birth our whenua the placenta or afterbirth and the pito the umbilical cord are returned to the whenua the land making forever the link between that newborn baby and Papatuanuku—Mother Earth. 
I give this very brief summary of our world views on land as a means of an introduction to the importance of land to Maori. Just as we must value every woman as the bearer of the iwi—the generations to come—we must also guard and protect Mother Earth with that same reverence. It is because of the strength of our beliefs that our people have literally walked the land in hikoi acknowledging the special cultural spiritual emotional and physical significance of this relationship. We are tangata whenua people of the land; the land and people are inseparable. 
So we take great interest in the proposal in this bill to update the law regarding the subdivision development and management of land. We take great interest in the issues around ownership and management of land buildings and facilities and we will always be concerned to see whether any developments that are put forward will diminish Maori rights or whether they can create opportunities. In our world view land is a taonga tuku iho a treasure to be preserved respected and protected. If land and buildings are to be subdivided into unit title developments owned by unit holders we want to be assured that tangata whenua are fully involved. 
Those members who have looked at the Order Paper over the last few days will have noticed that sitting at No. 5 place for members’ bills is a Maori Party bill generated by the call that no more Maori land should be taken under the Public Works Act. In that bill my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell is recommending that Maori owners be given the first right of refusal to purchase land that the Crown no longer requires for use as intended. I am interested to see whether in the Unit Titles Bill there will be any recognition made for land taken under the Public Works Act and never returned. 
In this bill today we are being offered the opportunity for a deviation from section 11 of the Resource Management Act which applies to restrictions on the subdivision of land and from Part 10 of the same Act which is about subdivision and reclamation. The question that raises for the Maori Party is whether it creates the potential for confusion as another critical part of section 11 is the requirement that any subdivision that is to be considered for Maori land can be dealt with only under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. We will be looking for clarity therefore on section 11. We wonder what other considerations may need to be made in relation to Maori land including lands upon which Treaty settlements are currently in negotiation. 
As I said earlier the importance we place on land as tangata whenua is all-encompassing. Our land provides us with a tangible link to our tupuna. It is the site of our genealogical connection to all of our bloodline so we take seriously the role of guardianship our kaitiakitanga responsibilities on behalf of those who have come before us and those who descend from us. But it would be stretching the rainbow to say that the management of the multiple ownership of land is easy. Indeed the ongoing fragmentation of multiple ownership is a direct result of the individualisation of title and of a failure to recognise the principles of collective use and occupation. Maori communities on multiple-owned land will also often not face the standard market conditions that other landowners face. They may have limited access to markets capital is often scarce information is frequently incomplete and the requirements for the decision making of the collective are highly complex. 
There are currently serious problems with the subdivision of Maori land and particularly with the fact that the Maori Land Court will not agree to the partition of Maori land. Getting an application for an individual partition of land through is difficult because of the thresholds of agreement needed. We need to find another way in which to protect lands from misuse and/or sale while also allowing whanau and hapu to develop papakainga housing projects if there is a reasonable level of consent. One way might be to identify land suitable for a Maori housing scheme and to lower the thresholds for the partitioning of those lands while also placing restrictions on the sale of the partitioned land. 
At present under the law there is also no capacity to enable the owners of Maori customary and freehold land in a particular area or papakainga to join with another one and collectively manage their lands—to do things like restrict the sale of land in order to maintain the integrity of the papakainga. The question that needs to be put to the select committee is whether the bill can be modified to take into account special Maori needs to protect their papakainga. This is a potential opportunity offered by the bill and we will be interested to see how submitters address it. 
Another approach we as a party have considered is to introduce proposals to enable leasehold titles to be commercially bankable. We are interested in the possibilities of third-party financial institutions that may be interested in investing in multiple-owned land so we are interested in the management proposals around bodies corporate that would bring together all unit owners in a development to cooperate and manage unit title developments. Suffice it to say we have as many proposals and solutions as there are issues inherent in the development of land and resources to better enable whanau hapu and iwi to advance on a socially and economically sustainable basis. So we are extremely interested in the evolution of the modern framework that the Minister suggests is needed to achieve the joint ownership and management of land buildings and facilities. 
Of course we are always going to be wary of the actions of the State as they pertain to the upholding of the rangatiratanga of our land. We have to think back only to the sale of prime Coromandel land at Whenuakite the controversy regarding Rangiputa Station on the Karikari Peninsula or the proposed sale of the Taurewa land blocks to know how deeply our people feel about the mismanagement of land and land disposal processes. We will be interested to see whether Hauraki Tuwharetoa Ngati Kahu the Tainui Waka Alliance the Maori Council and other iwi who have been so closely involved with these activities will take up the opportunity to scrutinise this bill and to share their views about whether it creates opportunities or whether in fact it does threaten Maori rights. 
Finally I will leave with the oft-quoted words “Whatungarongaro he tangata toitu he whenua.”—“Each generation passes in its turn but the land remains.” We are absolutely dedicated in our pursuit of protecting the integrity of our land but we are also absolutely dedicated towards the possibilities of development and opportunities for advancing the social economic and cultural progress of tangata whenua. We are not satisfied that this bill adequately facilitates Maori housing development and we will also be keenly listening to the Minister in subsequent stages to hear how those aspirations will be meet. We will support this bill in order to enable the korero to be heard. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Unit Titles Bill. I will take a full call because I think there are a number of issues to address. I am happy to say that from the outset officials at the Department of Building and Housing came to me and said they thought this legislation could easily go through in my name because it has implications for my portfolio or that it could be transferred to Mr Heatley the Minister of Housing. 
I did not take too long to decide about that. I thought it was best to hand it to the Minister of Housing because frankly I thought it related way more to the role that Mr Heatley fills. As the Minister of Housing he deals with tenancy and other matters. So I thought the bill should be his rather than be under the building and construction portfolio which is more to do with the physical bricks and mortar. Having said that there is some crossover between the two portfolios and I am delighted that Parliament is finally addressing the issue. 
The Unit Titles Act was passed in 1972 and in 1972 I was a young university student at Auckland University. In downtown Auckland—now so ably represented by Nikki Kaye—there were almost no residential buildings in the city at all. There were some State-owned flats in Greys Avenue I think but apart from that and a couple of halls of residence—O’Rorke Hall and the other one in Symonds Street—the actual idea of big apartment blocks in central Auckland just did not exist. Even in the outer suburbs a block of three or four flats joined together was a reasonably big development in terms of multi-ownership. 
We have really changed the way society functions. If we go into central Auckland now we see that there are apartment buildings for Africa. Everywhere we look around Beach Road I think it is—down the bottom on the way to the railway station—there is nothing but apartment building after apartment building. Let me share with the House some of those numbers. I am told that by September 2006—this is a couple of years out of date but it is still worthwhile hearing—there were 15774 unit title developments in New Zealand comprising 88800 units. That is quite amazing. It is amazing that we have gone from having almost none to having about 88800 units by 2006—and it has not stopped. 
It is fair to say that that rate of development has pretty much slowed down right now because of the economic downturn and the financial crisis that the world is facing. In fact a lovely clip I saw on the news the other night said there is such a financial crisis in New York that the Mafia has had to lay off five judges! When the economic crisis is over we will see the building sector come back into its own and we will see a number of big apartment buildings being built in downtown Auckland as we will in Wellington and maybe even in other parts of New Zealand. It is estimated I am told that around 500000 New Zealanders will be living in apartments townhouses or high-rises within 50 years and that sort of demographic indicates that it was time to get on and do something. 
So what is the problem? Well the problem is that when there are multiple owners of a large building such as a large apartment building there has to be some legislation that governs how the ownership of that building works. There has to be legislation that governs the rights of the individual apartment owners; the rights of the collective body corporate to override the rights of an individual who does not like what is going on; and how we get some form of the democracy we in Parliament so love whereby a majority of people can have a say on what goes on. I know it upsets some people but a minority view may get overridden. 
The whole point of this legislation is to provide some clarity in areas where there is no question that the legislation was quite murky in the past. Legislation passed in 1972 would not have had any chance to see the society we live in today and to look at how to deal with it. This bill establishes a real and meaningful legal framework for ownership by different parties and it establishes a clear and simple process for building unit title developments and for technical details for developers. That is important as well. 
We are all aware of what other people call “leaky homes”. I do not refer to them as that; I always call them “rotting homes” because “leaky homes” is not the right phrase for them. We know that there are rotting buildings in those multi - unit title developments. Some of those owners are really in strife because the legislation does not give them the power to get agreement across body corporate members. There have to be only one or two standouts who are demanding something different and the majority can suffer. Getting some clearness and simplicity into this legislation for all the people involved—the developers the individual owners and the group appointed to represent a body corporate’s rights and responsibilities to outside organisations—is a really good step in the right direction. 
The bill clarifies the responsibilities of unit owners and bodies corporate it will ensure sound management practices and it will protect long-term capital values. I think that is another important thing. No one in the House would deny that those are worthy aims and it is good to see the multiparty support that the bill has been enjoying. I am convinced that these aims will be fulfilled in the legislation. If indeed the duties and powers of unit owners body corporate managers and developers are made obvious then I think disputes will be dramatically minimised. There is a demand for that clarity. If people know what the duties and powers and aims of those people are it is very unlikely that there will be anywhere near the number of disputes that there would be if it was murky and no one could tell what was going on. I think the reduction in disputes across the board will be one of the best things that come out of this. Having said that I think it is likely that there will always be disputes when large numbers of people are involved. In any large organisation there will be people who will think they have either been disenfranchised or treated badly and so on. 
The bill provides recourse for dispute resolution by extending the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to hear and determine most disputes related to unit titles and that is a good step in the right direction. I do not think anybody could deny that. There is a monetary limit of $50000 for this so the Tenancy Tribunal can hear cases that relate to a sum that is meaningful. The bill has quite specific definitions of what one does from that point upwards. Beyond the $50000 monetary limit jurisdiction is given to the District Court. It can hear a dispute relating to sums of between $50000 and $200000. Jurisdiction then moves to the High Court if the dispute concerns a sum in excess of $200000. 
Those are quite sensible levels I would have thought. In terms of a dispute concerning more than $200000 people will need a fairly robust legal process to go through a large claim like that. But if the amount is less than $50000 taking the dispute to the Tenancy Tribunal and hopefully getting through the levels of adjudication and all the other support that is provided is probably the best way to go. 
The bill provides a clear flexible governance structure with reduced voting thresholds for bodies corporate to make decisions. I think I said that before. What I think is really important is that it stipulates that a 75 percent composite vote is required. Now 75 percent is I guess random. Some people might think it should be 66.6 percent—two-thirds—and some might want it to be 90 percent. In the end after a lot of consultation and development the 75 percentile mark was set. It is pretty hard to get 75 percent of all parties in a particular large building to agree to a particular regime if it is a stupid or nonsensical regime that is being proposed. 
I think that provision allows for good decisions to be made but it takes away that one rogue element that might hold out for some grossly unrealistic or ridiculous settlement. That person could hold it up for the rest and resolution could take for ever. In some cases that is happening right now and it is unfair to everybody. So yes the rights of the minority might be getting trampled on a little bit but frankly getting the majority of people signed up to something agreeing with it and going with it is great. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Unit Titles Bill and it is good to see that it has been so positively received in the House today. It is well and truly time to update and streamline the Unit Titles Act which was originally passed in 1972. 
Over the last 36 years living trends have changed dramatically. We have just heard from Maurice Williamson about what Auckland looked like in 1972. We can see the vast change in the way people live. More New Zealanders are living in cities; many more are living in higher-density suburbs and in inner-city apartments. Multi-unit and high-rise apartment developments have become common and very popular. It is a modern trend both locally and internationally and it is forecast to continue. Many more New Zealanders are expected to move into apartments townhouses and high-rise buildings over the next few years. 
The original 1972 Act was designed to manage developments in the time when they were mostly pretty simple and small. Back in the 1970s even the language was different. Unit titles were most commonly used when one was building a couple of ownership flats—that is a term from the 1970s—and for that purpose the Unit Titles Act worked well. But as bigger and more complex multi-unit developments became common changes needed to be made. 
This bill is the result of an in-depth review of the Act undertaken in 2004 but it has taken another 5 years and a change of Government to bring action. It was interesting to hear Maryan Street talking about Shane Jones’ contribution to this bill. It is just a pity that something that could streamline and cut bureaucracy was not brought to the House. 
The aim of this bill is to streamline and to simplify and it is part of National’s push to simplify all regulations and to cut through inefficient bureaucracy. The aim is to provide increased flexibility and to produce simple and effective legislation for the setting up and management of unit titles and multi-unit living now and into the future. The main problems identified with the Act when it is applied to larger and more complex development revolve around joint decision-making building maintenance—and of course we see that continuing with the rotting homes story—financial management and also consumer protection and dispute resolution. 
Members of the House need only watch one of the many television programmes that focus on the neighbours from hell to understand the tensions and the problems that can arise with greater numbers of people moving to small living spaces. With increased density of dwellings neighbours are required to work together more closely in order to organise their living arrangements and to share facilities. This new bill provides clear processes for doing this. 
The bill will modernise the governance framework. It is designed to make joint decision-making by the bodies corporate simpler because right now there are developments where any action by the body corporate is stalled. That is because the body corporate is unable to get a unanimous resolution and a contrary neighbour can control and enrage dozens of unit holders. It is happening every day. As has been said the new bill will lower that voting threshold to 75 percent in favour so that one person can no longer hold the rest of the body corporate to ransom. 
The bill will clarify the position of unit holders the body corporate managers and developers in relation to their duties and powers. The clarification in itself will immediately reduce disputes about the rights and responsibilities of neighbours. 
The bill will also establish a resolution service for anything to do with unit title matters. The service will be required to provide information and education on how unit titles work and if necessary to mediate or adjudicate. It will also introduce new ownership structures that are designed to be flexible and that can manage large complex developments particularly those—as has been mentioned—that may have a mixed use such as living and working restaurant use and other uses and also those that have a multi-stage development period. One of the problems with the current legislation is that it is difficult to do a part of a development without getting oneself tied up with bureaucracy. 
Finally the bill will introduce a mandatory disclosure regime for buyers sellers and developers. This is really to make consumers better informed so that they can make better choices in a more transparent and accountable way. 
Interestingly enough the most common area for dispute in multi-owned developments is the management of maintenance or really the management of finance for maintenance. This bill will require mandatory long-term maintenance plans and long-term maintenance finance organisation. That will be based on good sound property management practices but it will be flexible enough to be tailored to the development’s needs. 
This bill has been long-awaited and the industry supports it. There has been a wide consultation process and feedback has been generally positive. I am delighted that National is addressing the problem of an outdated Act. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: National is addressing it? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: National is addressing it. We promised to simplify and streamline regulation and this is another example of us taking action very early in our term. I am sure that many multi-unit developments will be better organised and will become better places to live now that we can get rid of the old Unit Titles Act and the way that it empowers neighbours from hell. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise to support the Unit Titles Bill. This is very important legislation for the people of Auckland Central. There are over 21000 people living in the central business district of Auckland and there are about 9000 unit titles in the city so it will have a big impact in my electorate. I am very happy that the Minister of Housing has made this bill a priority because it is my understanding that the review began in 2003. It was a long time coming—5 years in the process—but we are here today and I acknowledge that there is widespread support for this bill both across the House and in the industry. 
My colleague Maurice Williamson noted what Auckland Central looked like back in the 1970s. Unfortunately I was not born back then but I can tell members what it looks like now. One of the most staggering points that has been made is that in the next 50 years over half a million people will be living in either those types of developments or multi-use properties. So is very important legislation. I am glad that the Minister has made it a priority and I cannot wait until it is passed. I was at a meeting with a residents’ advisory group in the central business district in the last week and this issue is a major priority for that particular group because of the impact on all the people in the central business district. 
This bill does four or five key things that are very positive. The bill not only deals with the disputes resolution process—making sure that such cases are not dealt with in the courts but via mediation and the disputes tribunal—but also seeks to prevent some of those cases from coming about. It does so by trying to clarify and simplify some of the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the obligations of bodies corporate. I think that is pretty important. At a time when New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses are really suffering under the recession it is really important that we are not clogging up the courts with some of these cases. Given that New Zealand now has such a large number of properties that fall under these rules and we have issues like rotting and leaky homes I think it is really important that we are bringing in some legislation that seeks to clarify and simplify the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the obligations of bodies corporate. 
I pick up on Sue Bradford’s point that by changing the disputes process to mean that a number of these disputes would go through the tribunal we are actually improving access to justice for a lot of people. I think that is a really important point as well. Another key thing this bill does is that it enables decisions to be made on the agreement of 75 percent of those who vote at a body corporate meeting which I think is a really important point. I have lived in an apartment. It is very difficult to get 100 percent agreement and it often leads to gridlock. So we have got rid of a cumbersome requirement and that is really important. 
The other key point the bill addresses is around sound property management practices which I think is important particularly for young buyers. I know that in Auckland Central there are an increasing number of younger families in the central city because apartments tend to be cheaper and that is a key way to access cheaper housing. They tend to go into apartments in the central city. It is key that we are introducing something that will enable bodies corporate to develop long-term maintenance plans to protect the capital value of some of those apartments and developments. It can be pretty heartbreaking for some of those young buyers if they end up in a situation—as some of them have—whereby they are effectively left with big-ticket items for maintenance. So it is quite important that we promote sound property management practices. 
This is very important legislation for the Auckland central business district. It will affect a large percentage of the 21000 people living in Auckland Central. In my view the legislation cannot be passed quickly enough. It is an updating of the law but—as we have seen from the figures that half a million New Zealanders in the future will be living in these types of multi-unit dwellings—the issue will not go away and it is important that we address it as soon as possible. I commend the Minister for making this a priority particularly for the people of Auckland Central. I commend the Minister in particular for the provisions around dispute resolution because I think it will lead to better access to justice for many people and it will prevent some of the heartbreak for some of those young families who end up in situations like that. 
The last point I want to address is a technical change that is dealt with in the bill around large-staged or mixed-use unit title developments. It enables them to be layered where two or more bodies corporate are managed under an umbrella body corporate. This basically means that an apartment block a shopping centre and a car-park in a multi-use development could each have its own subsidiary body corporate to manage the interests of each group of owners. That is really important because there are a number of those within Auckland Central as I said before and it is quite clear that this legislation will enable each subsidiary body corporate to be a member of a head body corporate that is responsible for the overall management of the development. 
I again commend the Minister on making this bill a priority and I look forward to the passing of this legislation because over the last 3 years we have seen a tremendous change in the landscape of New Zealand—particularly in Auckland Central. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I am delighted to rise and support the Unit Titles Bill because it resonates with many of the values that characterise this very fresh new National-led Government. 
First of all the bill is characterised by action. This bill has been 5 years in development and has languished since August on the Order Paper but this National-led Government has gripped its responsibilities. It has charged into the commitments that we made to clarify people’s rights to introduce simplicity and to streamline regulations so that New Zealanders are able to get on and live their lives without undue interference by overweening Government. Action is one of the first hallmarks of this new National-led Government. The bill is the result of nearly 5 years of review and consultation processes and it overhauls legislation from 1972. As my younger colleague Nikki Kaye mentioned she was not born in 1972; I only just made it myself. But I am able to stand and talk about how times have changed since the time when one or two units were built to the time now when we experience multilevel ones. 
Another hallmark of this fresh new National-led Government is our interest in clarity: people understanding clearly what their rights are and the processes by which they may exercise those rights and having the opportunity to protect those rights. We are interested in streamlining and simplifying regulations. This bill recognises that. It has widespread support from both the Opposition and the industry because all parties recognise that the opportunity to clarify regulations so that each participant in this process can conduct his or her particular level of business without undue ambiguity is a great plus of the bill. 
The bill clarifies property rights: where they lie—with whom they lie—and which level of protection relates to each of those property rights. That is yet another hallmark of this fresh new National-led Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Introduced in May 2008. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I say to Mr Mallard that it protects value so that people who have invested in this kind of property understand what kind of value accrues to the investment they have made and that over time that value will be protected. In this bill there are of course provisions for long-term future-focused plans to ensure that owners developers bodies corporate and managers of bodies corporate are very clear about what their responsibilities are over time. The provisions also ensure that the capital value is protected over time and does not disappear because there has been insufficient provision for the future. The legislation is inclusive: it involves all participants in the process and it has included people who have an interest over time. Everyone who needed to be involved has been involved and has had the opportunity to contribute to this new legislation. 
The bill reflects realism which is yet another hallmark of this fresh new National-led Government. We understand that it is almost impossible—as anyone living in a family of more than one will know—to achieve 100 percent agreement all of the time on all issues. So this bill provides a 75 percent threshold which in itself is still a relatively high threshold as those of us who have ever had the experience of using Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will know. The 75 percent threshold is still a very high threshold but it is much more realistic in terms of what kind of consensus might be achieved in collective living arrangements. It is realistic also because this is an increasing trend of living: housing in the future particularly in intensely urban areas is likely to involve more and more multi-unit habitation. 
That leads me to yet a further characteristic in the litany of characteristics of this fresh new National-led Government and that is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Nearly! Nearly! 
HEKIA PARATA 
: The member is hopeful. The characteristic is future focus. This bill introduces mandatory long-term maintenance plans and long-term maintenance funds—scaleable and appropriate to the size and complexity of the development—in order to support sound property development. It also recognises—as I said earlier and as my colleague the new member of Parliament for Auckland Central Nikki Kaye indicated—that changes are occurring in this regard most particularly in Auckland and it is important for us to recognise research that estimates that over half a million people will be living in apartments townhouses and high-rise buildings within the next 50 years. The list goes on. 
Hon Members 
: And on and on and on. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I know. It is riveting is it not? Members have the opportunity to comment on the orchestral delight of the resonant values of this fresh new National-led Government. 
We are doing things differently with the emphasis on the verb “doing”. We are getting things done and we are only fresh into this new term of our Government. Our approach is to get on and do what needs to be done rather than talking about it. In the process we continue to reflect in operational practice the values that I have just rehearsed to members which are hallmarks of this fresh new National-led Government. 
I commend this bill to the House. It has taken 5 years; it has had multipartisan support which in itself is to be commended. Those people who have worked on it in the past are to be recognised respected and thanked for their contribution. We look forward to it enjoying continued support as it progresses through the House and passes into law so that people who choose to be involved in and live in this kind of investment and to enjoy a quality of life under a fresh new National-led Government will quickly and expeditiously be able to do so. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I supported Lianne Dalziel when she did the work on the Unit Titles Bill I supported it when the Labour Government introduced it and I still support it. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Unit Titles Bill. I will probably take a slightly different angle from the one the speakers before me this evening have taken in regard to this bill. Before I take this angle I acknowledge the member on the other side of the House Shane Jones—as Labour members have wanted us to do all night—and the work he put into this bill before it came to the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Lianne Dalziel actually did the work. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I understand that Mr Jones as the previous Minister of Building and Construction put some work into it after Lianne Dalziel. It probably does not come as a surprise that he was unable to bring it to the House at the time. He got tied up in some issues around showers and water flow that prevented him from bringing this bill to the House at the time. It is along that line of showers water flow and the new green agenda that I really want to take this debate tonight. We see tonight the National Government following the new green agenda in bringing this Unit Titles Bill into the House. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Opposition members laugh but let me explain it clearly. Today in the Chamber Jeanette Fitzsimons stood up and asked the Minister of Finance how National is supporting this Green agenda and where National is taking the whole green agenda. Here is a concrete example of the new green agenda: the Unit Titles Bill. We are talking about legislation that modernises unit titles. Unit titles are about building high-rise housing comprehensively and closely together within cities. It stops the encroachment out into the rural boundaries and pushing them out which is something I know the Green Party has been very conscious of—the pushing out of the city limits. We have legislation that is very important in that regard. It modernises the unit titles legislation and encourages the construction of quality high-rise developments and the concentration of public services within more comprehensive cities. In that regard I think this is important legislation. 
I will move away from that topic and back to the city of Napier and to your own province of Hawke’s Bay Mr Assistant Speaker. We have seen significant changes in the real estate landscape over the last 5 to 10 years all around New Zealand but particularly in my own province and my home town of Napier. The Ahuriri environment was once a place for fishing boats—and it still has fishing boats—but we are now seeing the development of places like the Ahuriri Quadrant and West Quay apartments. They are significant-sized apartment complexes that have been built with real quality of design. They have allowed people to live in much closer proximity. We are again following the green agenda that we have been talking about which is something the National Government is following significantly by supporting this legislation. 
The developments are helping to provide green-collar jobs in the building and sustainable development of those townhouses. There has been fantastic development of the Ahuriri landscape. There are now literally hundreds of apartments there that have changed the whole landscape. In fact my own mother has purchased one of those properties which she will benefit from living in. 
New Zealanders have struggled over time with moving off the quarter acre section away from their gardens and into a high-rise complex building. I know that my mother has struggled with that. But there are significant benefits to moving in terms of increased security and a lack of having to focus on the garden. A whole raft of things have really helped her in her retirement years. I think we will see those benefits be significantly enhanced with this sort of bill. The bill will improve the legislation around unit titles and in that regard I think it will be excellent. 
Not only will the green economy benefit from this but so will Napier and other such provincial centres which will develop their real estate infrastructure through this bill. I think we may even see Hastings in the Tukituki electorate benefit from this type of legislation. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Auckland Central. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes Auckland Central. There is a fine example of the green economy in action. The wonderful member from Auckland Central Nikki Kaye is driving the new green agenda for that part of New Zealand. It is great to be up here in the Chamber supporting her in that regard. 
This is wonderful legislation. It is excellent to see Phil Heatley doing an excellent job as the new housing Minister. He stepped up to the plate and delivered an outstanding speech today on the new Unit Titles Bill. He has been absolutely outstanding. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: A much-loved Minister. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: He is a much-loved Minister. 
I will talk a little about some of the details of this bill. It makes changes to some of the current legislation and I just put it on the record that it will clarify the duties and powers of unit owners. It will also provide clarification for the bodies corporate and body corporate management developers in order to reduce disputes about rights and responsibilities which are a real issue. 
A significant issue arose with one of my constituents in respect of the development of the old Inland Revenue Department building in Napier when the development was changed from the Inland Revenue Department building into a unit title block of apartments. There was an issue with the lift shafts in the building whereby one of my constituents lived on the third floor and there was a whole drama about whether one of the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What are you saying was going on in the lift then? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The lifts would not go Mr Mallard. My constituent was an older woman who had to walk up and down the stairs. It became a significant issue for the body corporate and for the manager of the body corporate. 
I hope this bill will lay the groundwork so that the disputes resolution process between tenants and the body corporate can make a significant difference which will ensure that constituents like mine in Napier benefit from this legislation. We are benefiting from the new green agenda that National is pushing through Parliament today with concrete examples of that agenda—no pun intended—to ensure that we look after the environment that we concentrate development in cities and that we do not encroach into our rural landscapes. This is very important so that our farmers can continue to farm their land. 
I ask members to remember that as the Greens tell us the population is exploding. Members may not know this but New Zealand currently feeds some 55 million people. We do not want to drive down that figure by continuing that rush to develop the cities out into those green spaces so this bill helps us to concentrate growth in the cities. If we are to grow in the cities the quality of design for these sorts of apartments is important. We do not want people to congregate in high-rise towers that are without an element of design and greenery; we want to ensure that we have a fine landscape and environment for our residents to live in. I think this bill will help to ensure that we do that. 
I have no hesitation in standing here tonight in support of the Unit Titles Bill. I have no hesitation in recommending it for the excellent bill that it is and for the excellent work that the Minister Phil Heatley has done in pushing the new green agenda through the House tonight. I think it is absolutely fantastic. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I move  
That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee. This bill is an omnibus bill as provided for in Standing Order 258(1)(e). The intent of Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills known as ROLD bills is to make non-controversial changes to land status that cannot otherwise be easily dealt with. These bills deal with authorisations transfers and validations of matters relating to Crown land reserves and other land held for public or private purposes. The last Reserves and Other Lands Disposal legislation was enacted in 2003. There are now sufficient matters to warrant this present bill. 
I will shortly refer to the detailed contents of the bill but may I say that although this is certainly technical legislation it provides for an important set of law changes with significant impacts. This bill deals with land throughout our country at all four cardinal points of the compass. Looking north we have provisions dealing with the reserve at Mahinepua Bay in North Auckland—in the Speaker’s electorate of Rodney. To the south we have provisions tidying up the administration of the Winton Racecourse in Southland—the Deputy Prime Minister’s electorate. Looking east we find a number of land-related changes including a reserve on Port Chalmers which is on the east coast of the South Island. To the west we have the Sugar Loaf Islands off the west coast of the North Island near New Plymouth. 
This legislation deals with some very iconic areas of New Zealand. I am sure that not too many pieces of legislation can lay claim to resolving issues with three of our national parks Kahurangi Paparoa and Westland; one of the most iconic features of Dunedin city the Octagon; all of the volcanic cones dotted around Auckland city; and an offshore island marine sanctuary. The benefits of this legislation are considerable. There will be real benefits for people throughout the country from the community in Port Chalmers whose residents will see their local bowling club’s lease formalised to the Otago Aero Club which will have its future secured and to the art aficionados in Auckland who will appreciate the extension of the Auckland Art Gallery. 
The bill has no fewer than 58 clauses covering 17 items. Nine were proposed by the Department of Conservation six by local authorities and one each by the Ministry of Transport and the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. Clauses 1 to 3 relate to the title of the bill—its commencement and its binding of the Crown. Clause 4 is a standard provision in this type of legislation. It authorises the Registrar-General of Land to carry out any technical actions needed to give effect to the legislation. Clause 5 repeals sections 48(A)(6) 114(5) and 115(6) of the Reserves Act 1977 to correct an oversight that limited the range of reserves over which local authorities as administering bodies could exercise various powers. 
 Clauses 6 to 9 amend the definition of Albert Park in Auckland City so that the Auckland Art Gallery can be extended on to land that is currently part of the park. I understand that there is now a difference of view on this item between the Auckland City Council which requested it and the Auckland Regional Council but maybe that is a matter best resolved at the select committee. Clauses 10 and 11 update a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act from 1915 so that the decision-making power over the excavation of volcanic cones or hills adjoining reserves in Auckland will be with the Minister of Conservation instead of the “Governor in Council”. Clauses 12 to 14 remove a restriction in a previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act on the erection of any structures in the Octagon in Dunedin city. That is to better enable the management of that piece of land by the Dunedin City Council. 
Clauses 15 to 17 formalise a realignment of State Highway 6 from the Hope Saddle to the Buller River at Kawatiri Junction through parts of Kahurangi National Park. These parts will be declared road. Clauses 18 to 20 clarify the status of land at Lookout Point in Oamaru Waitaki District. It will be confirmed that this land is endowment property in terms of the Local Government Act 2002 and is vested in the Waitaki District Council for the purpose of aiding council funds. Clauses 21 to 23 address local community wishes by vesting landlocked reserve land at Mahinepua Bay in North Auckland in the trustees of an adjoining Maori reservation while facilitating public access to land. Clauses 24 to 27 validate a 1903 transfer of the land where the Picton office of the Marlborough District Council is located and remove an antiquated interest on the title to the land. Clauses 28 to 34 remove specific hospital-related purposes and other constraints on five titles to land held by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. That change will enable the board to make more effective use of the land in providing health and disability support services in the Nelson-Marlborough community. 
Clauses 35 to 37 formalise a widening of State Highway 6 at the Punakaiki Village through part of the Paparoa National Park. This part will be declared road. Clauses 38 to 41 remove a restriction on the sale and lease under a 1901 statute of an area of reserve at Port Chalmers so that the Dunedin City Council can manage the reserve subject only to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. That will enable the council to regularise an existing lease of part of the land to the local bowling club. Clauses 42 to 44 rectify the anomaly of having sanctuary areas and a conservation park within the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area that are owned in part by local authorities rather than by the Crown. The land concerned will be transferred to the Crown. Clauses 45 and 46 requested by the Ministry of Transport amend section 9 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1973 to enable the Dunedin City Council to transfer the land of Taieri Airport to a community trust. This will provide the users of that site which includes the Otago Aero Club with some certainty that aviation activities will be able to continue there. An issue relating to the proceeds of any future sale of the land will need to be considered further during the select committee process. 
Clauses 47 to 49— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: This is important. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: —remove local purpose reserve status over a residential subdivision—mostly now developed—on land that is currently vested in the Waitakere City Council for cemetery purposes. I have responded to the interjection of the honourable member. Clauses 50 to 52 remove all trusts on an area of forest reserve land originally held in trust for the Waipa District Council and four other local authorities but now held by the council alone. Clauses 53 to 55 formalise a realignment of a bridge on State Highway 6 through parts of Westland National Park. These parts will be declared road. Clauses 56 to 58 amend section 3 of the Winton Racecourse Reserve Management Ordinance of 1873. Members may ask why. It is so five trustees of the Winton Racecourse can be appointed for 3-year terms rather than three trustees for life. 
This bill will enable the resolution of the 17 items that I have just outlined at length. The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is diverse legislation that spans this country has wide-ranging community interest at its heart and deals with a number of iconic New Zealand locations. It should not surprise members to learn that I commend this bill to the House. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to rise in support of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. 
For a moment there I thought I might not get a chance to actually take my call this evening but we have got there thankfully at last. I get the feeling of Groundhog Day. Here I am again speaking on a technical bill and it has taken a while for me to get my chance to speak but I suppose such is the lot of those of us who hold the land information portfolios in our respective parties. It is not a glamorous spot but it does deal with important details of Government and some of those fundamental rights that New Zealanders hold dear and take for granted. The work all gets done behind the scenes without much media attention. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: Sadly so. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes indeed. It is not unlike internal affairs; it is not a glamorous portfolio but it is where a lot of the hard work gets done. Of course we are dealing with another one of Labour’s bills today—just another one of Labour’s bills. I congratulate the previous Minister for Land Information David Parker who was involved in the meticulous work of putting this bill together. He has done an excellent job. This bill is another one that the Government has picked up without touching in any way whatsoever so I congratulate the previous Minister on his superb work. 
As the current Minister for Land Information Dr Richard Worth said this bill is an omnibus bill; it pulls together a lot of different issues. Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills are identified as non-controversial issues and have the consent of all parties in Parliament so really there is no need to waste too much time on the bill. I will cover a couple of areas just very briefly. 
The first area is the Auckland volcanic cones land. Under existing legislation it is an offence to excavate or quarry on the side or slope of a volcanic cone or hill in a domain or public reserve in Auckland without the express authorisation of the Governor-General by Order in Council. Seeking authorisation from the Governor-General for that type of activity is no longer appropriate. Accordingly clause 11 amends section 5(1) of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915 so that consent must now be sought from the Minister of Conservation. That is entirely appropriate considering that in March 2007 New Zealand submitted that volcanic field with several specifically named features as a World Heritage Site candidate based on the area’s unique combination of natural and cultural features. That is very much in line with Labour’s philosophy of protecting our unique landforms for future generations of New Zealanders to enjoy. 
The second area I will cover is the provisions relating to the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area off the Taranaki coast. That protected area is currently a mixture of Crown-owned and local authority - owned land and seabed. The bill seeks to rectify the anomalous position of having sanctuary areas and a conservation park owned in part by persons other than the Crown. The bill also designates further areas within the protected area as sanctuary areas and removes the redundant wildlife refuge status from further areas within the protected area. 
New Zealand is blessed with some of the world’s most outstanding and distinctive flora and fauna and with conservation areas of great beauty and attractiveness for recreation and tourism. The recreational and heritage values of conservation areas can be readily diminished by alien weeds or pests and by overuse and poor management. Through this bill we can help protect these values and ensure we are responsible kaitiaki for future generations. 
There are as the Minister detailed a number of other provisions. There will be ample opportunity for any individuals or groups around the country affected by those provisions to make submissions to the select committee. I look forward to the progression of this bill and I commend it to the House. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and in doing so I acknowledge the very articulate way that the Minister for Land Information went through the bill its very structured purposes and what it is designed to do. 
I also take up the comment made by the member who just spoke and who has resumed his seat. He said that it has taken some time for him to get his call and that he had not known whether he would actually get to speak on the bill today. I think it is worth tying that in with what another Opposition member said today. The member said effectively that it has really been left up to National to tidy up what Labour clearly left very untidy. This bill was introduced in the House on 15 July 2008 and it has languished on the Order Paper. It has now been picked up by an eager and enthusiastic National Government to ensure we get these matters sorted. This bill covers matters that are significant from the point of view of the communities involved. So there will be no more waiting; we have brought this bill forward for its first reading and I am sure it will be sent off to the select committee. 
Interestingly nine of my colleagues on this side of the House will be eagerly waiting to see the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill pass into law. I take the opportunity of naming those fine members. We have Shane Ardern the member for Taranaki - King Country. We have the member for West Coast - Tasman Chris Auchinvole. We have the member for Waitakere Paula Bennett. We have Jacqui Dean from Waitaki and Bill English from down in Clutha-Southland. From Auckland Central we have Nikki Kaye. I am from the Kaikoura electorate Lockwood Smith is from Rodney and Jonathan Young is from New Plymouth. That gives members some idea why we on this side of the House see this matter as of significant importance. 
Going back to my own situation and considering the eloquent speech given by the Minister Richard Worth I see that the explanatory note of the bill touches on a matter that is close to my heart. It talks about the “Marlborough District Council (Picton Office) land”. We see that a long way back in time the Picton Institute Act 1864 bequeathed land for the specified intention. However the council has used that land for another purpose and under this Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill the council wishes to validate a previous dealing with the land and to remove the interest in relation to the Picton Institute. That goes right back to 1864. We can understand that the purpose of this bill is to tidy up such anomalies. 
As we have heard 2003 was the last time that a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill was put forward. Some 5 years have gone by and now we have this bill which covers 17 pieces of legislation that need to be pulled into line. Either there have been oversights or corrections are required. 
A situation that is occurring in the electorate of Kaikoura is hugely significant and everybody is waiting on it. It is with regard to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and the land that surrounds the Wairau Hospital. Clauses 28 to 34 relate to five parcels of land that are very important to the Wairau Hospital rebuild. In fact the rebuild has already started. We are well into the project. This matter is very important to the rebuild because unless we get those titles clear we will not be able to use these particular parcels of land to complete the hospital rebuild. It is a very very important matter. It is something that needs to be processed quickly because the community is aware that there is an intention in relation to that land. Some 16 hectares of land is involved. Not all that land is needed. However the way in which the land came to be bequeathed to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board needs to be clarified so that it can be used for the purpose of rebuilding that hospital. It needs to be processed. 
The intention is that the land that is not required be used for the purposes of residential subdivision. That in itself raises another point in the sense that when we look at the explanatory note we see that it states that the bill is non-controversial. That is an interesting comment because “non-controversial” today can take on the meaning that the general public are in acceptance of the process. It will be very interesting when the bill goes through the House and submissions are called for—and I am a member of the Primary Production Committee—to see whether every member of the public in Marlborough agrees that the land should be disposed of and subdivided for the building of houses. 
Effectively about $5 million in general terms is required to make up the sum that is necessary to totally fund the Wairau Hospital rebuild. There is a view amongst a section of the community that the money should come out of the consolidated account of taxes and that this land should be reserved. However once something is bequeathed to a district health board the board effectively becomes the owner and on that basis the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill as it is presented is intended to tidy up the matter so that it can be moved on without there being any issue. 
When we look at this bill we consider that those matters are very very important to the community of Marlborough in the Kaikoura electorate but likewise throughout the country there are other matters of huge significance that need to be tidied up. One area that I found to be of particular interest—and I will try my very best to pronounce the name appropriately—is to do with a cemetery in the electorate of Waitakere. It is the Waikumete Cemetery. A lot of its 220-odd acres of land has now been subdivided and used for residential properties. That being the case corrections need to be made concerning the process and everything needs to be brought into order. There is no doubt that the community of Waitakere agrees with that. Things are being dealt with in an orderly way and by arrangement. 
It is worth noting that that cemetery has a significant historical background. It includes a monument to the Holocaust. The monument was erected adjacent to the Hebrew prayer house in the Hebrew section of the cemetery. Also a number of victims of the 1918 influenza outbreak are buried in unmarked graves along the eucalyptus way. Probably the most recent thing of significance in regard to that particular cemetery was the burial of a number of unidentified victims of the Mount Erebus plane crash. 
As members will appreciate the provisions relating to those things need tidying up and this bill the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill does that appropriately. It is very very important—hugely significant—to the communities that are involved. It gives me great pleasure to support the first reading of this bill. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of this riveting legislation the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is a technical non-controversial bill and I do not think it needs to occupy a lot of the time of the House. However given the current global situation I wonder why this bill gets priority over other more important things such as the creation of jobs. We are well aware of the much-vaunted Job Summit last week. We are also aware that there was another summit early in January when two Cabinet Ministers got together to talk about something else. It makes me wonder why this bill is so important when we could be talking about such things as protecting New Zealanders; we could be debating the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which is a bill that really gets tough on gangs; or we could be debating superannuation portability and so on and so forth. But we are here debating this bill which as I said is riveting. We are talking about some small pieces of land that no one really knew much about until something happened and suddenly things had to be fixed with a bit of legislation. 
The previous speaker Colin King talked about the Waikumete Cemetery. He said the cemetery was quite significant and I guess that is not least because a few thousand dead people are buried there. They are of course our tupuna our family and friends and that is significant to us. But what concerns me about that parcel of land is that a bit of it was sold off in a shonky land deal. The Waitakere City Council without lawful authority disposed of the land. It subdivided the land and sold it off privately to people a few houses were stuck on it then the council said the land still legally had reserve status and remained subject to the Reserves Act. Clause 49 revokes that reserve status but it concerns me that pieces of land can be sold off have houses stuck on them then we say “Sorry there was a bit of a mistake there. But it is too late now so we will just have to change the legislation.” That concerns me because I know that from a Maori point of view a number of bits of land have disappeared or had houses thrown up on them. That concerns me. 
These are innocuous pieces of land except for the fact that again from the Maori world point of view there is not much land—well there is no land—in New Zealand that is really innocuous. My family sort of mocked my father when we were going around for drives as kids and it seemed that every stone every tree and every hill and bump had a story to it. But none of this land is insignificant. There is also a saying in Maori that goes “Ma te wahine ma te whenua ngaro ai te tangata” which basically means that by the pursuit of women and of land men perish. I dare not get myself into trouble with my wife by trying to justify or explain the first part of that whakatauaki—I will not go there—but the second part of the whakatauaki is basically a warning that we need to be careful about the way we treat our land and the way land is dealt with so that we do not create problems for ourselves down the line. 
Basically as I say I do not think that this bill should take up a lot of our time in the House; more important things could be consuming our energies in here. But I stand to support this bill at its first reading. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On the surface the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is an innocuous little number. The explanatory note of the bill itself starts off by stating that the bill “makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of … land land titles” and so on. However this bill is not innocuous and it is not non-controversial. The Green Party will oppose it every step of the way unless there are changes to the section of the bill that deals with the Auckland Art Gallery development. We are appalled that the bid to reclassify part of Albert Park was included in a bill that would normally just fly through the House without anyone—the public or politicians—being particularly aware of its existence. Last July the Green Party wrote to the then Minister for Land Information the Hon David Parker and asked him to consider removing this portion of the bill because it was the subject of such major contention in Auckland. But unfortunately the Minister considered that the issue had to be dealt with at the select committee. 
So here we are today with a bill that is supposed to be non-controversial but that in fact contains within it something absolutely abhorrent to many Aucklanders: the taking of a small portion of Albert Park for the art gallery extension. Public space in central Auckland is a rare commodity and every square metre is precious as our population grows apace particularly given the population density in the central city. For many of us who live or have lived in the central city and/or who have gone to Auckland University or the Auckland University of Technology Albert Park holds a special place in our hearts and memories. Albert Park has played quite a large part in my life in all sorts of ways and I am sure that I am not the only MP in this House today who feels that way. I call on all members—whom I hear around me right now—who care about Albert Park to join me in working to stop this section of the bill going through. 
The area this bill allows the art gallery to take is of special significance. It is one of only three small areas on the western edge of the park that provide access to the park from the city. To take away this space or to narrow it down even further will cut off the park even more from the city side. Open and green space in the middle of downtown Auckland is rare and precious. Neither I nor the Green Party has anything against the art gallery but we do not believe that the gallery should be extended at the expense of the park. 
Proponents of this open-space grab are acting as if it is the only option for the art gallery but of course there are always other options. During the consent hearings on this matter the gallery’s director himself Chris Saines actually agreed that even the new modernised gallery would have a limited life and that there would be a need to move on to a second gallery in the future regardless. I would far rather see a fine second gallery on the drawing board now than see the current project cut into scarce open space in Albert Park. 
Judith Tizard of course was a champion of the art gallery project and perhaps that was why Labour was so determined to keep these controversial clauses in a bill that was supposed to be non-controversial. She seemed determined to make sure the gallery could expand into this small area of Albert Park. However I believe that the new Government does not have quite the same allegiance to that former Minister and I call on National to look again at the issues involved and to support the call from local people in Auckland from the Auckland Regional Council and from the Green Party to save Albert Park from this encroachment. 
Ordinary Aucklanders have got involved in this partly through a petition signed by more than 1100 people who object to the 1117 square metres of the park being reclassified from a historic reserve to a local purpose art gallery reserve which is inconsistent with the policies originally put in place to protect urban green space. I agree with those submitters in their call for the Auckland City Council to look for an additional site for an adjunct art gallery and not to take any land from Albert Park for the art gallery development or remove or prune any trees for the purpose of that development. 
Once this piece of land is gone and the affected trees are cut down or pruned the land and trees will be gone forever. Section 18 of the Reserves Act 1977 establishes historic reserve classification as being “for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity such places objects and natural features … as are of historic archaeological cultural educational and other special interest.” Albert Park encompasses many of these things: it is a public park a historic reserve an archaeological site of both settler and Maori heritage a geological site a green open space part of an urban forest and a visual amenity. 
We believe that at the moment most people in Auckland are actually blissfully unaware of the Auckland City Council’s plan to build on Albert Park. I am also conscious that many MPs in this Parliament may be unaware that these clauses lurk inside this bill. The Green Party will be doing everything it can to amend the bill as it progresses through Parliament and I certainly hope other parties will join us in ensuring the protection of this small but significant portion of central Auckland’s rare and precious open space. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe. Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Tena koe Sue. Thank you very much for that korero about Albert Park. It brings back memories. 
Shane Ardern 
: Do we want to know about it? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Now now cut that out. 
The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill raises important issues about land for the Maori Party. When the colonials first got here if they did not see any houses on the land they called it—what do you call it— 
David Garrett 
: Terra nullius. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: —terra nullius. There was nothing there so they claimed it for themselves. After the colonials had been here a while if there were not any Maori still on the land 24 hours a day 7 days a week they said “We’ll call this wasteland and take this stuff too.” Later on in the 1800s after the colonials had started grabbing all that land and selling it off to each other they had a twinge of conscience and realising how many dodgy land sales there had been they passed an Act called the Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act. Then they could say “OK we’ve ripped off all this land but that’s OK—we’re going to make it OK.” So any time that a bill like this comes up about what is likely to happen to a piece of land—especially land that is called reserve land empty land or wasteland—and there is the opportunity to dispose of it in one shape or form we will express our concern. 
Apparently we are supporting this bill at its first reading because we want to get as many iwi as possible to signal what has happened with regard to a lot of their own reserved lands so we can get the picture in on that. Clearly a lot of these reserve lands are lands that were either gifted or transferred from Maori ownership into Pakeha ownership and particularly into Crown ownership for specific purposes. It did not end up staying that way. One of the Labour members talked about land in Waikumete where the local council grabbed some land and gave it to one of its subsidiaries which then flogged it off and some houses were built on it. I know of lands all around the country that were originally school land and when the schools were closed the land was transferred from one Government agency to another then to another then eventually sold off and not returned to its rightful owners. 
The Maori Party is concerned about any suggestion that these small pieces of land here there and everywhere may be eligible for immediate sale by the Crown its agencies or local bodies without any further consultation. The Waikumete land was one example of that having been done and the Albert Park land was another. That park apart from being a place of great value and great beauty to the people of Auckland is also a place of historical settlement by the people of Ngati Whatua. I know that at the resource consent hearings the iwi laid out a whole lot of their concerns about what might likely happen to that land and this bill will not assist them in ensuring that their rights will be adhered to. We have concerns about that. We know of lands in Marlborough that were originally set aside for hospitals but that have been chopped up and passed on to this entity and that entity then eventually flogged off. 
For example I know of some land in Kaitaia that is currently held by Far North Holdings Ltd on behalf of the local district council on behalf of the Crown which used to own it through the then civil aviation division of the Ministry of Transport. Far North Holdings is now starting to impose different rules and regulations on the use of that land and that has impacts on the local school. 
I am speaking only about the situations I know of personally but those sorts of blocks of land all over the country have huge value for Maori. As long as they do then we will raise these concerns—certainly at the select committee. We will be notifying as many of our people as possible and we reserve the right to vote on this bill according to however we feel at the second and third readings based on the information that comes before the select committee as a result of that process. Mr Deputy Speaker thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Reserve and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is unfortunate that I was tied up with other parliamentary duties and I was not able to listen to what I bet was a very eloquent Minister’s speech. I am sure it would have been very precise. I am particularly interested in the area of this bill to do with the Waipa District Council. As others have said I am the MP for Taranaki - King Country. The Waipa District Council is in Waikato but it is in my electorate—go figure. It sits right in the heart of Waikato in Te Awamutu and covers a wide area right up to the Waikato Territorial Authority which is also partly in my electorate. The history in regard to the parcel of land in the bill is quite a long one and it is quite a substantial pocket of land. 
Before I touch on that I shall read the general policy statement in the explanatory note. It states: “This Bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of parcels of land land titles and previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal (ROLD) Acts.” I have just discovered that apparently that sort of Act—or bill as it is at the moment—is described as a ROLD bill. I am sure the learned Minister gave the House an explanation as to the origins of that term and what it means and I am waiting in anticipation to read the  
Hansard 
 and find out that explanation. There we go: it is a ROLD bill. 
My point is that when in Opposition and reading an opening comment like “non-controversial” Opposition members’ antennae suddenly prick up and they become very nervous. I noticed the member Sue Bradford did so and she highlighted it as an area of concern; likewise Hone Harawira who has just resumed his seat. But under the guidance of the new National Government and this Minister I think they have no reason to fear a recurrence of any of what has happened in the past with regard to those kinds of non-controversial things. 
In Taranaki there are a large number of little bits of land—primarily schools that were closed under the last Labour Government in fact—that it is a pity could not be included in legislation like this. The Office of Treaty Settlements has looked at them with advice from Te Puni Kokiri and it has said they are not required to be part of the land-banking process yet those buildings and properties languish in disrepair getting worse all the time. They are assets that are declining. I cannot for the life of me understand why that should be the case. Certainly under the new Government I know that that issue will be moved forward. Even if local iwi decide that the land should be part of the settlement process—and in this case they have not—under the National Government those settlements will be moved forward with much better integrity than has happened in the past. So Maori will have their day in that regard. 
The particular clause in this bill that is of relevance to the Waipa District Council is clause 50 relating to sections 51 and 52. Clause 50 states: “trust land means the land comprising 203.7996 hectares”—so not an insignificant amount of land—“contained in computer freehold register 78214 (being sections 23 and 26 Block”—well I am not familiar with roman numerals but it is VII which is six—“Pirongia Survey District).” So there we go. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That’s seven. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Six. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Crusade for literacy and numeracy! 
Hon Member 
: The member can debate it. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: There we go. There is a bit of a debate about that. The background to this particular piece of land is as stated in clause 51(1) “On 9 June 1942 Te Awamutu Borough Council Otorohanga County Council Hamilton Borough Council Raglan County Council and Waipa County Council entered into an agreement to purchase the Government interest in the trust land with Te Awamutu Borough Council holding the land in trust for itself and the other councils for afforestation and water conservation …”. Now if members listened to some of the debate in the House today they would think that conservation water reticulation and water protection were new ideas and here we see that way back in 1942 the councils in central Waikato were involved in such a project. As clause 51(1) also states the “agreement was validated by section 10 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1942 and vesting notices published in the  
Gazette … 
” in 1958. Clause 51(2) states: “On 15 July 1960 Raglan County Council withdrew from the agreement and a supplementary agreement was signed by the remaining parties to reflect this change. This agreement was also validated in legislation by section 14 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1960.” So members can see that this particular proposal has had quite a long gestation period going back before the last Labour Government. Most of these things have a long gestation and this one obviously is as good as any. 
Clause 51(3) states: “Changes to local government organisation in 1970 and 1989 and arrangements between the councils again altered the parties to the original agreement so that by 2003 the legal and beneficial interest in the trust land resided solely with the Waipa District Council.” Hence the need for the changes now. It goes on: “In addition the purpose of the reserve had changed from afforestation water conservation and scenic purposes to a reserve for afforestation and water conservation purposes …” gazetted in 1973 on page 360 I say for the learned Minister Richard Worth in case he wants to go and clarify that. The Waipa District Council at this point “wishes to have the trusts cancelled and the reference to them on the computer register in respect of the trust land removed.” I am sure that at the end of this process that is exactly what will happen; I am confident of that. The Minister is nodding so it seems as though that will happen. 
Clause 52 is entitled “Trust land free of trusts” and it states that the trusts affecting the trust land are to be removed. So there you go Mr Deputy Speaker; as the land is very near to your own electorate I am sure you are very interested in all that. Certainly the next time there is a game of Trivial Pursuit in the Waikato you will be able to quote that back from  
Hansard 
 so it will be useful to you. 
Clause 42 relates to the Sugar Loaf Islands Protected Marine Area in the New Plymouth district. That is also for the learned Minister in one of the territorial authorities in my electorate the New Plymouth District Council—one of eight. This change is another great area of conservation. So once again those in the Green Party and others who think they are the first horse out of the blocks in terms of conservation need to go back and study some of this history. This matter will be tidied up by this bill and at the end of that the people of New Plymouth will be very happy with that change. 
I will leave the rest of that to my colleague Jonathan Young who I think may be following along in this debate and will complete my contribution today by pointing out to those who are concerned about the non-controversial changes in this bill that they will get their chance to raise those concerns in the select committee because under a National Government everybody gets the chance to have their day on these issues. This is a new change for Parliament. I can understand that members are not used to it because it did not happen under the last Government. This will be a new experience. There are some new members and they will understand that when a National Government puts up a bill that states it is non-controversial then most likely that is what it will be. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to support the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. In the interests of brevity I think that all there is to say is that we should be congratulating the previous Minister for Land Information David Parker. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am absolutely delighted to be following my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern. He makes an outstanding contribution to the New Zealand Parliament and to his electorate of Taranaki - King Country. What an outstanding member of Parliament he is! I have very fond memories of his wonderful tractor Matilda. 
This is a momentous moment in New Zealand’s legislative history as we speak to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is an important opportunity for New Zealand to recognise the continuing excellent work of the National Government in moving matters forward. That is what we are intent on doing and have been doing for the last 100 days - plus. We are absolutely focused on getting the job done. I commend all my colleagues for the outstanding work that they have been doing. On my right is the Hon Richard Worth—another outstanding Minister. 
The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill makes a number of non-controversial changes to the status of parcels of land land titles and previous Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Acts. In short we call these bills ROLD bills—R-O-L-D. I say for the benefit of those people who might happen to be listening in on this very special occasion that this legislation is important. If one looks at the breadth of the proposed changes one sees that—apart from the changes to the Reserves Act—there are about 50 different amendments. Some of those relate to Albert Park with the Auckland Art Gallery development; the Auckland volcanic cones land; and the Dunedin Octagon land. Do members remember that the Dunedin Octagon land was in the news recently? So many people have very strong connections and emotional ties to many of these places. I am sure they will be delighted that some of the constraints on their enjoyment of these places and on the community’s use of and wishes regarding them are now being set free. It is absolutely liberation. Communities will now have the freedom to enjoy these places and spaces as they wish. 
There is the Kahurangi National Park land. I hope I am pronouncing that correctly. We have been berated for the way in which we pronounce words in the House. We endeavour to be very careful about it. There is the Lookout Point land. Regarding the pronunciation of words local dialect must be considered and taken into account. 
Shane Ardern 
: The vernacular. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely. In the Coromandel and all around New Zealand there are different pronunciations of words and that is to do with local dialect. 
But I will get back to the very important changes being made through this legislation. I must share with members that the Mahinepua Bay reserve land is mentioned—I am not sure I have said that correctly—as is the Marlborough District Council (Picton Office) land and Nelson Marlborough District Health Board land. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: What are the priorities of this Government—filibustering on this and avoiding the important legislation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I take issue with the member who does not believe that this bill is important. It absolutely is important. It is really important that these changes are made for the many communities throughout New Zealand who want the opportunity to enjoy these places and spaces. I would hope that the member supported communities being able to maximise their enjoyment and use of all these properties. 
 There is the Paparoa National Park Land the Port Chalmers Recreation Reserve—and what a delightful little place Port Chalmers is—the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area and Taieri Airport which is absolutely important. The Waikumete Cemetery land is very important and there is the Waipa District Council land the Westland National Park land and—the coup de grace—the Winton Racecourse. 
I was interested to see the Winton Racecourse there because my family often used to go to the Winton Racecourse and we have had many a wonderful happy family time there. It is wonderful to see that the Department of Conservation is opening up the opportunity for the community to have an interest in the Winton Racecourse and to take part in the management of its affairs. Clause 56(2) states: “So as to enable wider community and independent input into the racecourse the Department of Conservation wishes to enable the Minister of Conservation to appoint up to five trustees at any one time for the racecourse and to limit each appointment to a three-year period.” Is that not wonderful? I think it is absolutely fantastic! I am so moved! 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: This is outlandish. This is foolish—disgraceful. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well it is wonderful. The Winton Racecourse Reserve Management Ordinance 1873 is being amended. We heard the year 1973 given but the ordinance dates back to 1873. It had been left to languish until we took it by the horns and we are making it happen tonight. Clause 57 substitutes a new section 3(1) in the ordinance that states: “The Minister of Conservation must appoint by notice in the  
Gazette 
 not fewer than 3 but no more than 5 persons as trustees of the Winton Racecourse.” It goes on to talk about the term of office and the transitional provision which is of course incredibly important. 
This Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is diverse legislation and it spans the length and breadth of New Zealand. It has wide-ranging community interests at heart and it deals with a number of iconic New Zealand locations. It enables the transfer of land to address community wishes it removes restrictions that prevent community use of land and it corrects historic oversights errors or omissions that are of a non-controversial nature. I recall the words of my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern who said that the Office of Treaty Settlements has had an opportunity to comment as have a number of other agencies and it has found nothing overly controversial in the formulation of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. 
It would appear that we are satisfying the wishes of many people in communities throughout New Zealand about the use of these wide-ranging iconic places and spaces. I note that the Braemar Hospital site the Wairau Hospital site and the French Pass District Nursing Property are other areas of land whose use is now able to be determined to the satisfaction of the interests of those communities. 
I applaud National for its wonderful efforts in this regard— 
Hekia Parata 
: The leadership. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: —yes absolutely and for the leadership it has shown to the people of New Zealand. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 Here we are at 6 minutes to 6 on a Thursday evening and the Government is filibustering on a bill that is non-controversial and that is going to go to a select committee—the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. 
The Government is obsessed with gangs and crime and on the Order Paper there is a bill called the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill yet that bill is not considered important enough to debate. I think New Zealand needs to notice that this Government is full of rhetoric about getting hard on gangs and getting hard on criminal offending yet tonight it puts up—to filibuster and giggle about—a bill that is a tidy-up of all of the work the previous Government did. Government members are giggling away on clauses in the bill in order to waste the time and resources of the House when they ought to be getting on to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill or the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. 
It is an obvious indication that this Government is simply not organised. Its members are in total disarray. They are not ready to speak tonight on the liquor legislation so what are they doing? They are trifling with the House’s time. It is an appalling waste. When Labour was in Government we never did this; our speakers were always ready to go. They are not ready; they are a shambles. 
Tonight we are wasting time on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I must say that the previous Minister for Land Information David Parker made sure he did the detailed work in the build-up to this bill. It is an appalling indictment that at this stage of Parliament—just after the first 100 days—Government members have forgotten the rhetoric of a bright future of cleaning up the gangs and of cleaning up the criminal offending and that they have put this sort of detailed bill on to the Order Paper. It is an appalling way to end what has been a very successful week for the Opposition. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 I wish to make a very good contribution to the debate on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which is a very important bill that is before the House this evening. 
I take offence at the previous speaker the junior Opposition whip Steve Chadwick standing up and saying that we should be focusing on crime and law and order issues. She has obviously forgotten about the 100-day programme that we have just implemented. With your consent Mr Deputy Speaker I think it is appropriate that the junior Opposition whip realises what this Government has achieved to do with law and order. I think it was a cheek that she stood up and berated this Government when we have been working on a very good plan to make our communities safer. We have introduced legislation to remove the right of repeat criminals to parole; we have introduced legislation to crack down on gangs which that former Minister said we are not doing enough of; we have toughened up the bail laws; and we have been extremely busy on youth crime—legislation to do with that is passing through the select committee. Legislation to do with DNA testing of criminals who come before the police is also moving through the select committee. There is a whole lot more but I do not want to take all of this precious time to enlighten the junior Opposition whip as to how successful we have been during our 100-day programme. 
I take some time to commend the honourable Minister Richard Worth for bringing this bill to the House. It will tidy up the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Acts. It is a very very important bill that has been sitting around on the Order Paper since July of last year. This Government which has implemented a 100-day programme is getting on with the issues of the day. This is an important bill. When we think about it we see that this bill will be very very important for all those electorates that National holds. This bill affects the electorates of Shane Ardern Chris Auchinvole Paula Bennett Jacqui Dean Bill English Nikki Kaye Colin King Lockwood Smith and Jonathan Young. Labour has very few electorates in rural communities. This important bill will address concerns that have been raised by these electorate MPs in their own patches. 
This very important bill will be referred to the Primary Production Committee which is chaired by Shane Ardern. The committee has a bit of a work stream ahead of it and it will also have to work hard on this bill. The benefits of this legislation are considerable; there will be real benefits right across the whole of the country including the formalisation of the lease of the Port Chalmers Bowling Club and the securing of the future of the Otago Aero Club. 
We heard from one of the new MPs Clare Curran—one of the “listies”. She stood up and made a contribution for about 30 seconds. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.