Volume 616 Week 54 - Wednesday 7 April 2004 
Volume 616 Week 54 - Wednesday 7 April 2004 
[Volume:616;Page:12431] 
Wednesday 7 April 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that I have raised before to do with MPs’ access to the Chamber when the bell is being rung. The Associate Minister of Maori Affairs may not want to raise the matter but I found myself walking along the corridor at the same time she was and I do not think any member should be subject to the scrum through which that member was trying to walk. Two members I presume of her staff had to ask camerapeople not to hold the cameras so close. In fact they had to push camerapeople back so that a member of Parliament—because that is what a Minister is—could come to the House. 
I think that you as Speaker have a duty to make sure that members of Parliament especially when the bell is ringing have free access to the Chamber. I came down to the Chamber early yesterday to look at  
Erskine May 
 and found the Leader of the House here. I asked him why he was here so early and he said: “Otherwise you can’t get through the scrum.” That is ridiculous. Any other Parliament in the world would not put up with it and you should not allow it either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Prebble that this is one occasion when I completely agree with him and I am making a decision right at this moment that from 1.45 p.m. onwards there will be no permission for the press to impede a member’s passage to the Chamber and similarly from 7.15 p.m. onwards when the House is meeting at 7.30 p.m. The member’s point is valid. I have raised it with the chairman of the press gallery. He promised he would look at it; he obviously has not. So having tried the easy way I am now going to have to do it the other way. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that Mr Prebble has raised this issue as a genuine concern but I would caution against the expression of an absolute ruling right now. You have said that during a period of the day the media cannot get to a member of Parliament. More particularly you are ruling that a Minister who may be embattled for either political or personal reasons cannot be questioned by the media during that period. Ministers may be able to sit in their offices avoid public scrutiny of their portfolio areas by refusing to admit the media to their level of the building and then still come down to the Chamber—where they cannot be got at by the media—during a period when the media are supposedly banned from the access ways to the Chamber. I think that that is an extreme position to take. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not hearing any further comment on this matter; I am prepared to rule. I have ruled. I will of course consider what I have said. I will get the transcript. But as far as I am concerned until further notice between 1.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. and between 7.15 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. I have to give approval for press to be present. I have been lax on that in the past. I have asked and as recently as yesterday I talked to the chairman of the press gallery. As far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter at the moment. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to continue. This is just delaying. I have ruled on it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Fully accepting your ruling and noting that you finished that ruling by saying “at the moment” I wonder whether you might consider— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
:—that this is a matter most appropriately sent to the Standing Orders Committee for a broad consideration so that all members might have a say in what the new regime is to be. In fact the press gallery itself could make suggestions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Anybody can make submissions to me at any time but as Speaker this is my job and I do it in this way. I am entitled to do it and I will. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Noting the comments made by Mr Brownlee and noting that you will consider further I ask you to consider this also. In the incident Mr Prebble was describing not only was the Minister herself being prevented from making good way to the House but behind her were Mr Copeland Mr Donnelly Mr Jones and myself who were totally prevented from getting through. I ask you to consider when you give such approval that people pay attention to the fact that they are delaying other members of Parliament who have no part in that interview or in those processes but who do have a right to get to the House on time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that comment which I agree with completely. 
Foreshore and Seabed Legislation—Leave to Debate 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a different point of order and I would like some guidance from you. As you are no doubt aware because everybody is the Government has announced that it is going to table foreshore and seabed legislation tomorrow. Under our Standing Orders as they are at the moment that means the vote will not be held until after the Easter adjournment. At the moment whether the Government has a majority is causing some concern to the market. I want to know whether it is open to me as a member at the moment the bill is tabled to seek leave for the matter to be debated and voted on immediately—as used to be the case when bills were introduced. Can I do that tomorrow? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to seek leave at any time as he knows. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I give notice that tomorrow I am going to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is fair enough. The member knows he can do that. I am sure he is aware of the Standing Orders. There are only about four or five people in this Chamber who know a great deal about the Standing Orders and he is one of them. 
Questions to Ministers 
Algerian Refugee—Costs 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the total taxpayer cost to date for all legal costs prison costs court costs and any other costs associated with Ahmed Zaoui since his arrival in December 2002 and has he consulted with all his ministerial colleagues to ensure the figure given does not exclude any associated taxpayer costs? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
:  
The exact taxpayer cost to date associated with the Ahmed Zaoui case is not available because some costs are yet to be determined. However an estimate to date is $247000. This figure comprises the cost of imprisonment refugee status determination and legal aid. The exact cost in relation to this case will not be known until a final decision is made. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did he not answer the question “to date”—not “when it is known” but “to date” in its exactitude—and having said that why are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on Ahmed Zaoui who was convicted by two separate superior courts in France and Belgium for passport fraud and terrorist activities when article 1F(b) of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees stipulates quite clearly that where a refugee claimant has committed a serious crime outside the country of refuge that claimant is automatically disqualified from being granted refugee status? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly I thought I gave the member an estimate to date because I said that many of the costs will not be able to be determined until the end of the case. But I can say that Mr Zaoui has been determined to be a refugee under the convention the member talks about. As a refugee he can be deported only if he is a danger to national security or to the community. Mr Zaoui is subject to a security risk certificate. This certificate cannot be used to deport Mr Zaoui unless and until the Inspector-General reviews and confirms the security risk certificate and I as the Minister of Immigration have also decided to rely finally on the certificate. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What discussions has the Minister had with the Prime Minister on a new appointment of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security so that the whole business of Mr Zaoui can be dealt with once and for all? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The appointment of the Inspector-General is a matter for the Prime Minister and I presume that some decision will be made in due course. 
Keith Locke 
: How much has the Government spent so far on its three unsuccessful High Court cases: the first to stop the SIS having to provide a summary of its accusations against Mr Zaoui; the second to keep Mr Greig as Inspector-General; and the third to stop the Inspector-General from having to take into account Mr Zaoui’s human rights in its determination; and will the Government save the country money and not prolong Mr Zaoui’s determination by cancelling its appeal to the Court of Appeal on the latter case? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I said there are a number of costs still to be determined. On the second point the reality is that a process is under way and we should wait to see the outcome of it. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the Minister considered my suggestion that Mr Zaoui be freed into the 24/7 custody of his supporters such as Keith Locke and Matt Robson who could guarantee to be with him at all times and meet his accommodation food and legal costs while he is in their care to free the taxpayer of this unwarranted financial burden? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen that suggestion which I would describe as interesting. I have had a discussion with my colleague the Minister of Corrections and he advises that Mr Zaoui is in the most appropriate place according to legal requirements. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave for the course of action being proposed to be approved by this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave for anything. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that we are signatories to that UN convention and given that that UN convention clearly rules out this man—who is a terrorist and proven to be so in three jurisdictions and in Africa as well—what on earth is he doing in this country at the expense now of over a quarter of a million dollars to the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes the member is right—there is an exclusion clause. But the Refugee Status Appeals Authority has determined in its report that the exclusion should not apply in this case and that is why there is a process under way as we speak. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the determination of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority which Mr Peters— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that determination. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It has been done before. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has not been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is still objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister seeking refuge behind the Refugee Status Appeals Authority when because of the convention this man should never even have got there in the first place to begin his long and troubled journey of tackling every official security agency of this country at our and the taxpayers’ expense when he is a terrorist and a fraudster? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not hiding behind the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. The reality is that there is a security risk certificate out and it will be reviewed at some stage. That is the process that is happening at the moment. 
Home Detention—Sentencing Act 
2.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that section 97(3) of the Sentencing Act 2002 is sufficient to ensure that leave to apply for home detention is only granted to offenders who do not pose a risk to the community? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: I am not satisfied that the discretion not to grant leave to apply for front-end home detention contained in section 97(3) has consistently been interpreted in line with the policy intent behind that section. For that reason the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee contains an amendment to that section to clarify that the court may grant leave to apply for home detention only if it is satisfied that home detention is appropriate given the other sentencing considerations including the seriousness of the offence and the views of the victim. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Government not cut out any ambiguity whatsoever by simply ruling out leave to apply for home detention for all violent and sexual offenders or is the Minister satisfied with the fact that of those on home detention last year 27 percent had been convicted of such crimes? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is important that each offence is considered on its merits and the appropriate place to do that is the court. But the amendment is designed to ensure that the effect the member has raised will be achieved by maintaining the important principle that each offence is considered on its merits. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the Government satisfied that the interpretation given by the courts to home detention and deferral questions has been in line with the policy intent of the Sentencing Act? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. Although neither home detention nor deferral were new in the Sentencing Act the Government has not been satisfied that court decisions on those matters have in all cases adequately implemented the policy intent. Deferrals have been granted too often and the discretion not to grant leave to apply for home detention has not been exercised as was intended. That is why the Government late last year introduced amendments to relevant sections of the Act. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Government move amendments to the home detention regime to prevent the ridiculous situation where quite serious offenders sentenced to home detention can in fact be authorised to go to the gym or to play golf? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: That appears unlikely but it is also appropriate to wait until the select committee reports back on 18 May on the submissions on the bill. 
Ron Mark 
: How appropriate is it for a Parole Board subsequently to award home detention to persons like Kevin Moana Jarden who went on to reoffend and Maunu Nicholson who was suspected of drug manufacturing and was subsequently found dead in his home from a P overdose when a judge has not deemed them fit to apply for home detention; if it is not appropriate when will this Minister remove back-end home detention from the statutes? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am not familiar with the specific details of the two cases raised by the member but the principle is that all cases are considered by the Parole Board and the board applies the law as it is there. The decisions of the board have to be respected because it has the authority to make them. If the law is not adequate or does not give the board guidance then it is the responsibility of this House of course to change it—which is what is happening. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the fact that 29 percent of those on home detention have been found guilty of drug offences reflect the Government’s position that drug dealers and users do not pose a risk to the community if they are kept at home—or has the Minister not heard of “tinny houses”? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I have heard of “tinny houses”. Of course the Government is concerned if there is reoffending during that period. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that offenders convicted of knowingly possessing child pornography will continue to be eligible for home detention because the forthcoming increase in the maximum penalty—to 2 years’ imprisonment—for that crime will remain the cut-off point under section 97 for leave to apply for home detention; if so will she consider amendments to either the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill or the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill to remove that possibility altogether? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is my understanding that there is a Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill currently before Parliament in which the matter of penalties is reviewed. That would be the appropriate place to raise those matters. 
Marc Alexander 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
article citing that a psychiatric nurse caught with more than 15000 explicit— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Legislation 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will the Government be introducing legislation before the Easter adjournment which will affirm Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
:  
Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government’s bill will result in the vast proportion of New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed having an ancestral connection with Maori and therefore being subject to kaitiakitanga or governance by Maori? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The reality is that there is an ancestral connection between Maori and many if not most parts of the New Zealand coastline. That association is something that needs to be taken into account. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it the Government’s expectation that when this legislation goes before the select committee some members of this House known to oppose this legislation may put the interests of the nation before their narrow sectional political interests? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is true that on this issue there has been a distinct difference between those who have been prepared to work for a solution and those who just want to stir the pot. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What advice has the Prime Minister received on whether including the words “public domain” alongside Crown title will make any legal or practical difference and can she further confirm that regardless of those words the next Government will be able to sell any part of the foreshore or seabed with a simple majority of Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a well-established convention here that no Parliament can bind another. My understanding is that the term “public domain” did not have particular legal effect. It was an attempt to be more inclusive about what was there for the people of New Zealand. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why has the Government announced that Maori will get an ancestral connection based on historical association when neither term was mentioned by the Court of Appeal let alone offered as a justification for the grant to one race of decision making or governance powers over any beaches? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The fact that it was not mentioned by the Court of Appeal is not a reason for not making some provision for recognition in legislation that is establishing a new regime over the foreshore and seabed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does this bill with its new jurisdiction for the Maori Land Court and special Resource Management Act provisions for Maori deliver co-management of almost the entire coastline to Maori as specified and required by the Hon Parekura Horomia? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The reference to Maori in terms of resource management goes back to the 1991 Resource Management Act passed by the previous National Government. I think the answer to the second part of the question is no. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you cannot be responsible for the quality of answers but you can be responsible for there being an answer. The Prime Minister took a very specific question relating to the information given to us this morning by Dr Cullen on the special new provisions being provided under the Resource Management Act to Maori in this bill and to the fact that the Minister of Maori Affairs had told the House some weeks previously that that was what he wanted. Surely there can be a much better answer than to say that it goes back to 1991. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well there was. The Prime Minister in her last comment said “no”. I cannot think of any more specific answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Government’s statement that specifically stated it will amend the Resource Management Act to extend the protection of rights for Maori. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is usually a convention in this House that when a member seeks to table a document he or she at least has the courtesy to wait until the question is over. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is absolutely correct—that is the convention. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the question of Crown ownership on the question of equality of rights in respect of customary rights and on the question of access to the same court when there is a dispute is it not the case that this bill now reflects one law for all? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: One of the additions to the bill as requested by the leader of New Zealand First and his party was that the ability to apply for a customary right should be available irrespective of ethnicity. 
Heather Roy 
: What rights will Maori lose under this proposed seabed and foreshore legislation and what rights will Maori gain? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There was an unintended consequence of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act that the Court of Appeal opened up which was the ability to take a claim all the way through from customary land to freehold title and fee simple. It is not this Government’s intention to allow new exclusive private property rights to be created over these areas. In respect of what rights Maori will gain there is more specific reference to ancestral connection and it is something on which the consultation provisions in the Resource Management Act should be based. As well as that there is more clarity around the High Court’s role when it comes to issues of aboriginal title being raised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the earlier assertion in the House by the Hon Margaret Wilson that a customary right is a property right and can she tell the House for certain that the customary rights that this bill will give to Maori alongside the special Resource Management Act provisions that this bill proposes do not create two standards of citizenship in this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in an earlier answer there is the ability for anyone who believes he or she can establish continuity of use since before 6 February 1840 to apply for a customary right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask a question about the application that one may pursue for customary rights. I asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with one of her Ministers who said that a customary right is a property right. I asked whether the special Resource Management Act provisions in this bill will apply to that property right and as suggested whether that means this Government is pursuing the line of two standards of citizenship: one for Maori and one for non-Maori. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the Prime Minister add something to her question? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A customary right is a property right. A customary right can be applied for by anybody who believes that he or she can demonstrate continuity of use since before 6 February 1840. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is irrelevant who can apply. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No no Mr Speaker. You must insist that this House gets good information. The Prime Minister cannot dodge this question. We have been told today—if we are to believe everything that is in the information given to us by Dr Cullen are to accept the word of the Hon Margaret Wilson and are to follow the text inside the Government’s own handout—that we will see the creation of property rights and will see special provisions under the Resource Management Act applied to those property rights and that they are exclusively for Maori. To suggest that anyone other than a Maori can claim a customary right pre-1840 is a load of rubbish. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is making a political point. The Speaker does not tell Ministers how to answer questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister confirm first that now the bill has the objective and is in fact capable of realising that objective that where any right exists it is nevertheless not an exclusive right so it has to be shared with the rest of the country and second—[ 
Interruption 
] I am trained in law and the member is not—OK? I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know that. I am just about to rule. I will not have any comment made during the asking of questions or members will leave the Chamber—and the next member to do so will leave. That is my final warning. Please start the question again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm first that where any right does exist it will not be an exclusive right and therefore the asset or resource has to be shared with everybody else and second that what is new is that in respect of the High Court resolution Maori and non-Maori appear there as equals which was not previously the case under the 1991 Act passed by National—and the 1993 Act? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes people do appear as equals before the High Court. While there may well be specific use rights that are granted or recognised that does not mean that the average Kiwi including myself cannot wander down to the beach and do what he or she has always done. We will be able to do that. 
Deborah Coddington 
: What rights will non-Maori lose under this proposed seabed and foreshore legislation and what rights will non-Maori gain? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am hard-pressed to think of any rights that non-Maori would lose. In respect of gain the gain is the certainty that we are all able to access and enjoy those areas freely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the Government telling the public they have got through the Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed but is telling Maori that they have kaitiakitanga or control and is that not another example—[ 
Interruption 
] Why are Government members laughing at that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A comment was also made by the member’s own colleague. Please carry on with the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the Government telling the public that they have ownership of the foreshore and seabed but telling Maori they have kaitiakitanga or control and is that not another example of the Government saying one thing to Maori and another thing to non-Maori? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not think one can be clearer than saying that the full legal and beneficial ownership resides with the Crown. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that what non-Maori have gained and uniquely gained are the rights to appear via their counsel at the Maori Land Court and to appeal from it both of which are new rights and third the right to make a customary claim—for example for the Auckland regatta which has been going since 1840—which is something that is new in this legislation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What is new and what has been presented today is the ability of anyone who can prove that continuity of use to be able to claim a customary right. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister seek leave to have the debate and the vote on the first reading of the Government’s foreshore legislation tomorrow rather than wait until after the Easter adjournment or is it the reality that the Government is not sure it has the votes for this measure? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government does have the support to introduce this bill and have a first reading on it. I had not planned on seeking leave for that tomorrow. It may be tempting to do so. However I think that people want time to study the bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can she confirm to the House that once that bill is passed New Zealanders who want to build a jetty put in a slipway or build a boatshed will no longer need to go to their relevant local authority for permission to do so but rather they will simply have to contact the relevant iwi hapu or whanau because this bill gives those groups exemption from the Resource Management Act in those matters? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No that is ridiculous and if the National Party has to resort to that sort of nonsense to find reasons to vote against the bill there is obviously not very much wrong with it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Government’s own briefing paper which makes it very clear that Maori who have an ancestral connection to the foreshore and seabed around this country do have some exclusions from the Resource Management Act. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the speech made at Orewa this year on 27 January where one asserted—by way of borrowing it of course—the case of “one rule for all; one law for everybody”. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave to table the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ reaction to “one law for all” in which he described it as the view of a colonial tea planter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Everyone knows that I described the appearance at Ratana Pa wearing a panama hat as looking like a colonial tea planter. Mr Prebble again is wrong. 
Afghanistan—Provincial Reconstruction Team Bamian 
4.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports has he received on the progress of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamian Afghanistan? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 On 3 April the Bamian university was reopened after extensive reconstruction work by our provincial reconstruction team. The university was significantly damaged after it was taken over by the Taliban in 1998. Funding for the reconstruction has come in equal shares from New Zealand and the United States. NZAID will provide additional funding for support over the next 3 months. The university is the only tertiary education facility in Bamian and the Central Highlands. Its reopening is therefore a critical step on the path towards reconstruction in the region. New Zealand is making a difference in Bamian. 
Tim Barnett 
: What other reports has he had about the work that our provincial reconstruction team is doing in Bamian? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The team is currently implementing 35 projects worth some $6 million. In addition it has facilitated the establishment of a provincial governance structure and has formed a development group that is being used as a model for other provincial reconstruction teams. Our patrols provide liaison security presence and facilitate reconstruction efforts. This is a good example of our peacekeeping work and I note that New Zealand was recently rated No. 1 on a per capita basis for its contributions to United Nations peacekeeping forces. We should all be proud of the work of all our peacekeeping forces. 
Ron Mark 
: Given the magnificent progress that has been made in restabilising Afghanistan and moving it towards a democracy what recommendations has he made to his Government about repatriating the 100-odd Afghan refugees whom his Government brought into this country because supposedly Afghanistan was not the sort of place they should be left to live in? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member would know that the repatriation of Afghan refugees is not the province of the Minister of Defence. But I think this is a question that raises the good work of our peacekeeping forces and I would have thought the member would want to join us in doing that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your assistance. I specifically asked the Minister what recommendations he had made. He skirted all around it but did not say whether he had made any had not made any was going to make some or had no intention of doing so. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out I have no responsibility for that part of Government policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That addresses the question. 
Labour Market Policy Group—Disestablishment 
5.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has he received regarding the disestablishment of the Labour Market Policy Group? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have been advised by the Secretary of Labour that he is restructuring his leadership team to increase coordination across the Department of Labour to focus its work more strongly on outcomes and to strengthen the policy leadership capability of the department. As a result the Labour Market Policy Group will not remain as a stand-alone policy group but its policy capability will be integrated into workforce workplace and work opportunities groups in the department. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why did the advertisements for the new deputy secretary positions invite candidates to demonstrate that they were able to “resolve conflicts between commitments to long-term goals and the need for political expediency”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It was a mistake and it has been corrected. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is structural change necessary at the Department of Labour? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am informed that the structural change proposed is designed to lift the department’s capability on labour market issues and strengthen the quality of services it delivers. Overall this should mean a more coordinated whole-of-department approach in this critical area of economic and social development. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What part of the job description was a mistake—the part about being able to resolve conflicts or the part about having the need for political expediency—and who made the mistake? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The answer to the first part is the latter and to the second part I am not sure. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is the Minister telling the House that a requirement for a neutral public servant to have political expediency is a mistake and he has not bothered to find out who made it? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The responsibility for the mistake is the Secretary of Labour’s but who— 
Opposition Members 
: Oh! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Shock horror probe! The reality is that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of Labour. How that came about is not clear but the Secretary of Labour has taken full responsibility for the mistake and has had it corrected. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the purposes of clarity could I add the words “on average” to my question before the words “8.3”? I have just recognised that that would help to clarify it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not put leave. I will allow the member to do so. 
Television—Violence 
6.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he think it is acceptable for a public broadcaster—TV2—to screen on average 8.3 violent incidents in each hour of its programming; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Acting Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 The Television New Zealand Act specifically prevents me from interfering in the day-to-day operations of broadcasting including programming decisions. I am informed however that TVNZ executives met this morning to plan action on reducing television violence—in particular the concerns raised by the working-group on television violence over the concentrated level of violence in promotions. I need to add that TVNZ is pleased that it has the lowest level of television violence across the networks. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will he amend TVNZ’s statement of corporate intent to require it to reduce substantially the number of violent episodes in programmes screened on TV2 a channel that of course is targeted at children and young persons; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am confident that Television New Zealand listens well and is responsive to the views of the community. Indeed I am aware that the TVNZ charter clause in relation to television violence was included at the suggestion of the questioner. 
Mark Peck 
: What role did broadcasters play on the working-group on television violence? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The chief executives of Television New Zealand and TV3 were both members of that group which prepared the list of proposals on television violence. TVNZ has acted promptly and is drafting a new policy detailing processes for addressing the issue that I am informed should be completed within the next 2 to 3 weeks. TVNZ is looking at sharing its action plan with other broadcasters. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there are videos out there for hire that are equally as violent as anything shown on TV and what will the Government do about that? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes and they should be dealt with by the same process relating to community concern and a change of attitude. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable for a public broadcaster TV2 to screen adults-only content containing violence and horror programming which has now been well established to have a deleterious effect on young children at the early time of 8.30 p.m. when the international benchmark is 9 o’clock; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As I commented in the answer to my first question the Act prevents me from being involved in programming decisions. However I do believe that TVNZ should be complimented on the responsible way in which it is responding to the findings of the working-party. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree with the editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday that television bosses are delivering lame excuses in response to the findings of the working-group on violence and will he be calling on all television networks to act immediately to reduce the number of violent incidents on television rather than waiting for a revamped Broadcasting Standards Authority to require them to do so? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not agree with the editorial. In fact I find it ironic that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the only newspaper that was not present at the launch of this report last week was so inaccurate in its reports of the good initiatives stated at the time by Mr Fraser. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that a State-owned public broadcaster has a special responsibility to ensure it is not screening potentially harmful television content in the form of gratuitous or excessive violence on a channel that children and young people watch and will he therefore amend the statement of corporate intent to require that broadcaster to take a lead on television violence—not just in promos but in its programmes—as it is called on to do in its charter? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I do agree with the questioner’s initial statement and I believe that TVNZ is delivering on that responsibly. 
Hazardous Substances—Public Health 
7.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent developments have there been to better protect public health and the environment from the risks posed by hazardous substances? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: On 1 April this year single component dangerous goods were transferred to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996. This brings about 80 percent by volume of New Zealand’s hazardous substances under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act including most major fuels such as petrol diesel and natural gas. The transfer enables the Environmental Risk Management Authority to control more effectively the use and storage of these substances thus protecting public health and the environment. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What other initiatives will the Government undertake to reduce the risk posed by hazardous substances? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Over the next few months the Ministry for the Environment will be working with several regional councils to collect and dispose of unused agrichemicals from rural properties. This will be a free service offered to farmers to help reduce the environmental risk from chemicals and waste in rural areas. Once collected the agrichemicals will be exported to France for environmentally sound disposal. 
Parents—Children 
8.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development) 
: Does she stand by her statement that “the more control that parents have over their lives and destiny the better they can care for their children.”; if so why? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development)) 
:  
Yes that is a view that I hold. Children who are nurtured loved and supported in a secure environment where there are healthy attitudes and healthy relationships flourish. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister support the view of the Law Commission report commissioned by this Government which states that for Maori genetic parents have no exclusive rights to possession of their children; they hold them in trust for the whanau and the wider hapu and iwi? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Yes I do. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise how parents may best care for their children? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Parents best care for their children by loving them providing them with an environment that is conducive to learning and growing and giving them an appreciation of who they are and what they could become. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s answer does she believe that whanau and iwi have the same rights as genetic parents; if not how do those rights differ? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Yes I do believe that the extended whanau have the same rights as the parents because children are born into whanau. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Associate Minister concerned that the implication of those views for parents who happen to be Maori is that their parental rights and responsibilities are under this Government significantly less than those of non-Maori parents; if not why not? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I am not aware that the rights of Maori whanau are any different from those of the rights of non-Maori. 
Asia-Pacific Region—Security 
9.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What practical steps has the Customs Service taken to enhance security across the Asia-Pacific region? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: Last week while hosting the World Customs Organization regional heads of administration meeting in Auckland the New Zealand Customs Service entered into bilateral cooperative agreements with both the Japanese customs administration and the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority.  
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the significance to New Zealand is of the cooperative arrangements with the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority and the customs administration of Japan? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Fiji is a significant trans-shipping point for trade in and out of New Zealand and it makes sense for the security of both countries that we have a shared approach to enhancing security in the Pacific region. This is the first bilateral customs agreement that New Zealand has with any Pacific Island country. For Japan the agreement will facilitate secure trade between our two countries and will also provide a framework for cooperation in the investigation of illegal drugs and other criminal activity. 
Shane Ardern 
: As the Minister has acknowledged the importance of customs services for security across the Asia-Pacific region will he now admit that customs is a common-good service and therefore not proceed with the stupid $20 million tax that he intends to impose on industry in New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The charges associated with security and trade facilitation are anything but “stupid”. Without having secure arrangements we will not facilitate trade which I am sure that member agrees is very important. The second thing is that where there is an issue of security this Government pays for it fully. Where there is an issue of trade facilitation the private sector makes up the cost of that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that both the customs cooperative framework with Japan and the US Container Security Initiative enhance national security—a core Crown responsibility—and with that in mind will he consider amending the Border Security Bill so that all public-good measures contained in that bill are funded through general taxation or will he at least enable that matter to be tested through the inclusion in the bill of a suitable clause; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The first aspect of the public-good issue is that the Crown accepts that there are many public-good aspects of security. The Crown invests heavily in the Customs Service in order to pay for the public good. Where there are issues around trade facilitation that are in the interests of facilitating trade for business that is a private good and private-good interests should pay. 
Kaitaia Hospital—Future 
10.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What are the Government’s plans for the future of Kaitaia Hospital? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
:  
The Government intends to fund a new hospital at Kaitaia in line with the recommendations of the review carried out in 2002-03. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister confirm that the much-vaunted upgrade she has just mentioned will not actually restore after-hours surgery and will not give Kaitaia a proper emergency department and does she believe that this is the solution the people of Kaitaia had in mind when 2 weeks before the last election she promised to find a real long-term solution to the problems there? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Indeed we found a long-term solution for Kaitaia by the recommendations that came out of the review—the review that was agreed by the community. It was the community that put in place the reviewers who carried it out and we have implemented the recommendations. Twenty-four hour a day surgery will not be restored. It has not been carried out in Kaitaia since 28 February 2003 and since that time an average of around six people a month have had to be transferred on the advice of their clinician. What they do have is certainty that they will have a hospital today and into the future that also provides emergency care in a new emergency department. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister guarantee there will be a new hospital at Kaitaia that includes operating theatres as promised in the review carried out in consultation with the Kaitaia community? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can guarantee that I will very shortly be announcing a new Kaitaia Hospital that will include operating theatres modernised wards a new emergency department etc. providing the sort of facility the people of Kaitaia richly deserve and have long asked for. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why are even minor daytime operations such as tonsillectomies being sent to Whangarei and is Kaitaia Hospital not simply being subjected to death by a thousand cuts? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They certainly are not being subjected to death by a thousand cuts. If the member took time to look at what is being put in place she would see that it has a future that it has not been assured of in the past and that something like 121 operations have been carried out in the last year. What are not being carried out are emergency operations in the middle of the night. They are transferred to Whangarei. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister assure the people of the far north in promising them a real hospital in Kaitaia that the proposed upgrade will prevent situations such as the recent case in which a pregnant woman had to be driven to Whangarei Hospital and ended up giving birth on the top of the Mangamukas with nothing more than a towel to wrap her baby in on a cold night? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot give a guarantee that a woman will not have a baby in the back of a car or the front of a car. After all one birth was reported out on the Hutt motorway recently. Babies come where babies come. One does try to plan births but anyone who has had a baby knows they cannot always be planned exactly. 
Cabinet Responsibility—Abstentions 
11.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she justify her reported acceptance of a Minister abstaining from voting for a Government bill in light of paragraph 3.24 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 that states “ ‘Agree to disagree’ processes may only be used in relation to different party positions. Any public dissociation from Cabinet decisions by individual Ministers outside the agreed processes is unacceptable.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
:  
It is for me as Prime Minister to determine the boundaries for ministerial behaviour. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister is saying that it is acceptable for her to have one law for Maori ministers and another law for others? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The ethnicity of Ministers is irrelevant in this matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister not agree that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 makes no distinction between a Minister abstaining on legislation and a Minister voting against legislation and that being so is the real reason for the Prime Minister’s new tough stance on the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs that she has determined that her Government will be more popular if she gets rid of that Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The  
Cabinet Manual 
 is not a statute and it is not a set of laws. It is a set of expectations and they of course change from time to time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and her executive abide only by the rules and regulations of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 that suit their purposes and ignore all of those that do not; and what can New Zealanders really expect from a Prime Minister who so flagrantly disregards a document that is well considered to be part of the constitutional arrangements of this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In some aspects the  
Cabinet Manual 
 does indeed set down hard and fast constitutional rules—this is not one of them. It is as I said a set of expectations and those are revised from time to time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Are we now to believe from the Prime Minister that the concept of Cabinet collective responsibility is not core and central to the constitution and democracy of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No not at all. But I have drawn a distinction between active opposition as evidenced by crossing the floor and an abstention which by its nature is more passive. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to lay on the Table of the House the master plans for the new Kaitaia Hospital. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Services—Rural Communities 
12.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What is the Government doing to support the health of rural New Zealanders? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
:  
There are many initiatives under way. We recently announced the extension of the primary health-care nurse practitioner rural scholarships. The scholarships help clinical nurse specialists in rural practice take a year off to complete the necessary study to bring their qualifications up to nurse practitioner level with prescribing rights. Nurse practitioners with prescribing competencies make a huge contribution to the rural health workforce and this scheme recognises that. 
David Parker 
: What other programmes are in place to improve the health of rural New Zealanders? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The extension of these scholarships complements an already strong raft of rural health initiatives some of which include reasonable roster funding to relieve rural doctors and nurses recruitment and retention funding to address rural workforce issues the rural locum support scheme and the rural general practice network—that is finding long-term locums and permanent general practitioners for rural practices. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the money spent on recruiting rural locum doctors from overseas would be better directed towards investing in New Zealand medical students and providing incentives for their retention so that rather than losing 30 percent of these new graduates within the first 3 years of work and losing their skills and specific knowledge of New Zealand conditions they could be employed in filling the urgent deficit of approximately 80 rural general practitioners; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That is a very good idea and the Government is in fact undertaking both. We are attracting overseas general practitioners and we are supporting general practitioners who go through the system here. Forty more places were put into the medical schools under this Government to try to address the problem of the shortage that was ignored by the previous National Government. 
General Debates 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The Government today announced its policy on the foreshore and seabed and tomorrow it will introduce legislation that will put into effect a guarantee that all New Zealanders have a right to access the foreshore and seabed of this country of ours. That legislation will also ensure that Maori have a right to go to the Maori Land Court to pursue their rights to establish whether there is a customary use right that they have been in possession of since 1840 and are therefore under the common law and tikanga rules entitled to have recognised. 
The legislation will also give Maori and others the right to go to the High Court to seek a declaration that will determine whether there is in effect a bundle of rights that would be seen as the equivalence of ownership that would have been there prior to this legislation and that would in fact have entitled them to redress because that right is not there any longer. That right is not there any longer because the legislation providing public access clarifies that the foreshore and the seabed are vested in the Crown for the beneficial interests of all New Zealanders and thereby can guarantee public access 
This legislation was necessary primarily because of the Court of Appeal decision. Much has been heard about the Court of Appeal decision many interpretations have been given of the Court of Appeal decision and much has been claimed that the Court of Appeal did not itself claim in its decision. But the most important aspect of that decision was that it said Maori should have the right to be able to determine to pursue an action in the Maori Land Court and it is that right that is preserved in the new legislation. What is different however is that the only vehicle that was available to be able to pursue whether there was a Maori customary right was the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. It was that Act that in effect did away with the common law rights by putting them in legislation. In doing so it provided a process whereby land could be vested in the freehold title and ownership of Maori. It was that vital fact that made it necessary for the Government to clarify who in fact had ownership of the foreshore and seabed. It had always been assumed it was in the Crown. To take away any doubt from that—and doubt was raised in the Court of Appeal decision—it has been necessary for this House to legislate that with clarity. That is essentially what the legislation is about. 
Much has been heard in terms of argument one way or the other about what the effects will be. The Government has undertaken a 9-month process of consultation discussion and debate. I wish to put on the record my appreciation of and gratitude to those Maori members who have fully participated in all the meetings that have taken place to work through the issues to ensure the recognising and guaranteeing all New Zealanders’ rights in this legislation. It was not an easy task for them but they hung in there; they were prepared to fight for their people to ensure that Maori rights were protected in this legislation. 
It was also essential that Crown ownership be put beyond doubt. That was what the Government declared right from the outset and that is precisely what we have done. We have done that for one purpose: to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to the foreshore and seabed. Maori European Pakeha and all people who have the privilege to live in this land see it as their right to be able to access and have the benefit of going to the beaches foreshores and coastline around New Zealand. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Today the Government told us what it is going to do about the seabed and foreshore of this country. After 9 months of deception it has finally sold out on those New Zealanders who had believed that the seabed and foreshore rightly were held by the Crown. The Government came out last December with a package all dressed up in Christmas wrapping and finding it to be unacceptable to the public it has gone about this Mickey-Mouse consultation process tossed it back into an Easter box and served it up as being all-new and a great answer. It is none of those things; it is just the same old stuff repackaged with different names—a sell-out—and most New Zealanders will understand it to be that. Last time when the Government brought out the Christmas package Parekura Horomia was Father Christmas. This time Winston Peters is the Easter bunny and New Zealanders will not forgive him or the Labour Government for this legislation. 
This bill will herald a massive escalation in the treaty grievance process and New Zealanders will pay and pay for years to come as Maori parade themselves before the High Court claiming that not only their ancestral title—not only their customary rights—but also apparently some bundle of otherwise undefined rights means that the Government will have to compensate them for what has apparently been lost. This must be one of the first times in the world that people will be able to claim compensation for something they never had. They can thank New Zealand First and Winston Peters for that because we all know it is a waste of time even talking to Labour members about it. 
I say to David Parker that in voting for this legislation he will say goodbye to the Otago seat. I say to Clayton Cosgrove that he should not expect to be returned in Waimakariri when he votes for this sort of legislation. I say to Rick Barker that he should say goodbye to Tukituki. And I say to Ann Hartley—and this is a foregone conclusion—that there is no question she is going. 
The thing about this legislation is that no one will be happy. Those Maori members know that when they go back to their people and say: “Well yes the Government is asserting a sort of Crown ownership at a low level but don’t worry we have kaitiakitanga over the seabed and foreshore.” that that will not be enough to satisfy them. The rest of New Zealand the non-Maori communities will know that it does not matter what the Government says. As long as there is legislation asserting that those with ancestral connection to the coastline hold kaitiakitanga over it—governance and control the two things that stop one from doing things; the two things that limit one from doing things—then they will not be at all happy. That is the essence of the sell-out in the proposed legislation. 
I want to ask those Labour members whether they think it is fair that the entire coastline of New Zealand—all but one or two little spots—will come under the auspices of ancestral connection and therefore be subject to governance by Maori interests. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s not access. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Can the member for Otaki the otherwise transparent Darren Hughes tell us whether he thinks his people will believe that that means all New Zealanders are being treated equally. It does not. When one reads a little bit further into the proposal one sees that there will be special provisions under the Resource Management Act for Maori interests when it comes to the seabed and foreshore around this country. 
So rather than New Zealand First taking up the cudgel for all New Zealanders who want to get into development and improve their economic stakes but find the Resource Management Act a barrier New Zealand First has said: “Well we’ll do it just for Maori.” That is what we have happening in this House today. The embattled Labour Party which cannot get even its own members to vote for its legislation is relying on Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today we have witnessed the worst face of opportunism in politics. We have witnessed the ugly face of populism in politics. There is an old saying: “Some talk others do.” The reason why New Zealanders can trust this legislation is that for decades the only consistent party on this issue and since its formation has been New Zealand First. That is why every Maori and European can know that it is fair. 
Gerry Brownlee repeated the mantra of Orewa. He said that there should be one law for all. We agree. That is our speech. We know where it comes from. He said that people should have equal rights. We agree. We know where that speech comes from. The problem for National members is that today they are angry because the “king tide” is over for them. That is why they put up the person least qualified to understand this legislation. What he said in the House today in question time and just now demonstrates that he has not even read the legislation. What is the ancestral title? It is purely recognition. I invite National to get a lawyer to tell it what is going on. It has got a few. National should not put Gerry up and should stop embarrassing the party. 
I heard Gerry Brownlee say on 3ZB Christchurch that the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal had no legal standing when it comes to findings. I thought “I do not believe that the deputy leader of the National Party and the spokesperson on Maori Affairs is out there wantonly making stupid uninformed statements.” Everybody knows that that statement is absurdly untrue. It is an outrage. It is a manifestation of stupidity. But there is an old saying—and it applies to Mr Hide—“The malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it.” There are the founders of National and of ACT with their fingerprints and their DNA all over the mess of Waitangi and here they pose as the saviours. Boy one has to be arrogant to take that position! 
Here are the facts. The foreshore and seabed will now belong to all New Zealanders. Is that good? Customary rights will be for all regardless of race. Is that good? When people go before the courts in disputes there will be equality. Is that good? Is it right that the local authority can now appear at the Maori Land Court representing every New Zealander in its area? Is that good? It is good. Is it good that for the first time we have a limit of 10 years to make an application? People will have certainty of time. 
We have delivered something that could be perceived just a short while ago to be impossible. We have got ourselves out of the impasse and for 200 years New Zealanders will understand the day this law was—[ 
Interruption 
]—That is why ACT members are mad and National members are angry and irate because on this issue they now no longer matter. Don Brash made this speech but as John Wayne would say: “It’s one thing to steal a man’s horse outside the saloon; it’s quite another to be able to stay on it and try to get out of town.” When asked about the detail he never understands and does not know. He says: “Send Gerry out there.” The best thing that Gerry can do is to keep on going out with Tame Iti. In fact Tame Iti’s art makes more sense than Gerry’s speeches and that is saying something. 
Darren Hughes 
: Bring back Nick! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I do say National should bring back Nick Smith. He was far clearer in his mind far more stable far more calm and far more on top of the job than the present incumbent but then again all officers of the National Party as we have known for a number of years are purely temporary. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I may have been wrong but I think I heard in Mr Peters’ speech a suggestion that I had not read the seabed and foreshore bill currently before the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member will be seated. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I am making a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a point of order and not a debating point. His last point of order was a debating point and the member knows it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek the leave of the House to request Mr Peters to table the seabed and foreshore legislation which clearly he has seen when no other member of the House has. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot do that and he should learn his Standing Orders. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This morning the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation got caught between a rock and a hard place or rather between a “Peter” and a “Peters”. This is a dilemma entirely of the Government’s own making. This morning we witnessed an extraordinary farce of two parties threatening to withdraw support that they both previously promised for a large and complex bill they both supported on the basis of two little words: “public domain”. The silliest part of that is that those two words have absolutely no legal or practical significance whatever in the legislation. 
Hon member 
: Tell that to the United Future people. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: That member should tell it to his own people. The Greens are strongly opposed to the direction that the Government has taken and therefore also to the legislation. But I have to say that my sympathies are with the Prime Minister as she tries to negotiate the numbers with the two Peters who are battling over the number of angels on the head of a pin. All this is a perfect diversion from the substantive issues that are raised by this legislation which are serious. This is not an occasion for political game-playing. This is about how New Zealanders live together in the 21st century. It is about a good-faith approach to the treaty relationship. It is about sustainable management of the coast and we are still a long way from achieving that in New Zealand. 
 The Government’s political problem is of its own making. It stems from a hasty panic reaction to the Court of Appeal decision and to the expected Pakeha backlash that has been whipped up by other politicians and I have to say particularly by Peter Dunne and Nick Smith who led the march in Nelson claiming that the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to go to the beach were being seriously threatened. That has never been true. No Maori leaders we have spoken to—and there have been many—want exclusive title or want to stop people enjoying the beach. All they want is their mana and their kaitiakitanga recognised. 
There was another option the Government had. We put an option forward at the beginning we have continued to put it forward and we are still prepared to work with the Government if it changes its mind and decides to go down that path. The Government has a set of four principles underlying this legislation. So do we and they are also four. The first principle is sustainable management of the foreshore and seabed for the benefit of future generations and of the coastal marine ecosystems. The second principle is that rights established in law by the courts whether by Maori or Pakeha should not be confiscated. The third principle is that there should be no more private and exclusive title over foreshore and seabed. The fourth principle is that public access must be protected except for very special areas where environmental protection or historical cultural or spiritual significance makes this inappropriate. All those principles could have been satisfied by a simple amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to the effect that for foreshore and seabed land the title that the Maori Land Court could vest in hapu would be a collective title and would be a non-saleable title. 
Part of issuing that title would be a negotiation of a public access memorandum on the title to give confidence to the public to allow Maori to exercise their hospitality to the rest of New Zealand and to protect highly significant areas from disturbance. 
I do not often agree with Gerry Brownlee but this legislation will in his words lead to massive escalation of treaty claims. It is founded on confiscation both of whatever customary title the courts might have found remains and of the right to go to court to find out what title remains. My grandchildren and all of our grandchildren will inherit this albatross and will have to try to right the injustice. 
If we return to sustainable management of the coast surely the people who have lived there for many generations ought to be a part of ensuring that sustainable management. We see the Crown management now pouring sewage into coastal waterways and allowing four-wheel drives to run over dunes. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Was that not a bizarre speech? A mature-aged woman from the Coromandel representing the Greens is now the champion for tino rangatiratangaism! 
I have to agree with the leader of New Zealand First—the National Party and the ACT party are inconsequential to any debate on nationhood whatsoever. Why? On the one hand the Court of Appeal will bring a judgment down and in the bedrock of the principles of the National Party—the desire to uphold the rule of law—they will trample on it. They will trample on it if it is not in favour with their rich elite little mates. 
Secondly why are those parties inconsequential? Because they will nationalise and socialise private property rights founded by the Court of Appeal of this country. That policy is duplicitous and we should ring the bells up and down this country and advise the country exactly what Don Brash stands for. It is nothing about nationhood it is everything about patronage to his new rich mates—cheap mates! 
Let us get it right about moving forward. This Government is the only Government—whether it is on infrastructure issues whether it is on the management of a wonderful and sustained economy or whether it is on the lowest unemployment rates served up to this nation; it is this Labour-led Government that will produce the results and continue to produce them. It is this Government—only a Labour-led Government—that can sort out the race-related issues. Here on this side of the House is the face of the future of this nation. Over there is the past and a failed past. 
People need to realise that we are talking about “solutionhood” not victimhood as they say over there. They are very good at engaging with what is wrong. They can tell people about angst hurt hate and frustration. They have no solutions. Over here we are driven by “solutionhood” not victimhood. 
Tomorrow when the seabed and foreshore legislation is tabled in this House for the very first time on a very complex issue we will have one of the best results for every Kiwi in this country. It will not please Gerry Brownlee. It will not please Don Brash. It will not please Titewhai Harawira. It will not please Ken Mair. But to hell with them. We are putting something on the table for the benefit of all Kiwis and so be it. 
And here is the message to the tino rangatiratanga people in the Greens and to the tino rangatiratanga people outside this Parliament. The sovereignty of this Parliament is the one thing that underpins everything about this country. The supremacy of this Parliament is what underpins the whole constitution and this Parliament will make the rules. It will regulate. That is why we will assert Crown ownership. We will assert Crown ownership because Maori have a relationship to the treaty with the Crown. We will assert Crown ownership because it is through this Parliament that it is asserted. We will assert Crown ownership because it is through this Parliament that it will be regulated and it is through regulation that we can be protected. That is why we will assert Crown ownership in the legislation tomorrow. 
Furthermore we will give everyone the right to go to the Maori Land Court to explore the extent of their rights. We will allow them in the event that they are not happy with that to go to the High Court to assert their rights. Even if one happens to be a non-Maori one gets to go to the High Court to assert those rights. 
We heard from Mr Gerry Brownlee in a very poor speech as usual. He said once again that this will lead to years and years of uncertainty. There is a time frame on this legislation and it is 10 years. There is certainty here. There is closure here. There is justice. That is something that only a Labour-led Government could serve up. 
I want to send one other message to the born-again horis out there who are jumping up and down over this issue: if they want people to walk across the House if they want people to become members of the National Party and if they want people to vote for Don Brash so be it. Let them look at this document. Let them look at this information and for the first time they will have a platform to make an informed decision. 
 At no time prior have we been able to lay something on the table out in our communities. Tomorrow we will do that. We will go on the front foot. What is the solution? We are putting it on the table. If somebody has something better let us put it on the table. Let us have a proper conversation about that. We will bring closure certainty and justice. That is what it is about. What underpins this great country is fairness to all. Tomorrow this bill will do exactly that. It will uphold the greatness of our institutions. We will not pull them to pieces as the National Party will want to do. We will not pull them to pieces as the ACT party and the cronies next to them will want to do. We will bring closure on it. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In the interests of those in this Parliament being able to exercise their rights to be heard on this issue members on this side of the House would like to hear what Tariana Turia Nanaia Mahuta and Georgina Beyer have to say on this issue. The speaking slots left in this general debate will not be filled by those people neither will they be filled by Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui or Dave Hereora. Let us hear whether Maori members of the caucus believe that this legislation will do anything other than the one simple thing that John Tamihere knows exactly what this legislation will do—that is open a can of worms that we will never be able to reseal. 
Parekura Horomia’s press release this afternoon summed it up. He said that the Government foreshore and seabed legislation would ensure that Maori traditional rights and interests would be guaranteed and protected. That is one thing. He said that those rights would be enhanced and that is exactly what this legislation will do. He said in his press release that it is about guardianship but actually what we are seeing is the creation of a new legal concept of mutual or co-ownership. In the event that a particular group is able to prove somehow some obscure type of ancestral connection to a particular area of foreshore and seabed we do not have Crown ownership for all New Zealanders in that case. 
It is completely misleading to tell the public of New Zealand that Crown ownership will remain for all New Zealanders. If those ancestral rights are recognised a system of mutual or co-ownership will exist. But worse than that we now find that two systems are available firstly with respect to the Resource Management Act and secondly in respect of new High Court jurisdiction. It is worth looking at what the Government said about what will happen under the Resource Management Act: “The Act will require that if another party seeks a resource consent for an activity that would have significant adverse effect on the exercise of the customary right then it would be declined.” For the first time in New Zealand’s legislative history we are writing a veto into the Resource Management Act for one particular group of New Zealanders and that is absolutely outrageous. 
But worse the role of the High Court has been extended as well. New jurisdiction is created whereby an applicant group may seek a declaration by the court that a cumulative bundle of rights exists. If that does not open a war chest for lawyers in this country to make those sorts of applications to the High Court non-stop I would be very surprised indeed. 
This Government has failed to address the very serious concerns New Zealanders have over the foreshore and seabed. It has failed to put in place a concrete piece of legislation. When Parekura Horomia is saying in press releases things like: “For Maori this legislation is all about guardianship and ensures the protection and sustainability of everything in the ocean.” this ball game is far from over. They have kicked for touch. John Tamihere knows that this legislation is second rate. Members opposite will rue the day that this legislation came into this House. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 Mr Power talked about war chests and cans of worms. I would like to talk about another can of worms that exists in this country at present in the form of 4580 children on the books of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services who are unallocated. Last week United Future launched a policy initiative to address the many concerns relating to the Government’s agency the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. The project for us has been more than 6 months in the making and reflects wide consultation with individuals and with community groups plus an extensive look at international examples of child protection and family services. The beauty of being part of a centrist common-sense party is that one is not constrained by unworkable ideologies. We believe that we have been able to chart a pragmatic path through the many obstacles facing this agency. 
The problems are very real. The scale of demand is enormous with the number of notifications increasing at a rate of 15 percent a year. That means that social workers are able to deal with only the most pressing and critical cases. Less urgent cases wait and wait. Many have been re-notified for a second and a third time and often they deteriorate during the waiting process. The statutory requirements are very clear. This agency is meant both to provide child protection services and to work preventively with families to keep homes a safe place for all New Zealand children. 
United Future is convinced that if the work continues to be handled by a single agency the system will continue to fall victim to the tyranny of the urgent. We propose a dual-intake approach that separates out child protection work from the prevention work that is at present largely left undone. The essential investigative work that must take place when allegations of abuse are made will continue using competent statutory social workers who are unmuddied by being over-familiar with the families they have to investigate which happened with the Aplin-Jetson girls. Notifications of children deemed to be living in medium to low risk circumstances where abuse has not yet occurred would be referred for assessment to a family support coordination agency which would either provide appropriate help and support directly or would be able to refer cases to appropriate existing community agencies that are equipped now to do the work. It almost seems like stating the obvious to point out that the $109.9 million of additional funding promised by the Government to address the concerns of the baseline review could be distributed to extend the capacity of existing community non-profit organisations to clear the in-box of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services of the current 4580 unallocated cases. 
The existing bottleneck created by a single national call centre needs addressing. It is not uncommon for cases to have expired in terms of their required response time by the time they are passed on to the appropriate Department of Child Youth and Family Services office. While United Future sees an ongoing need for a centralised record of calls so that transient cases can be tracked we also believe that staff at more regionally based call centres could make much more pragmatic assessments with the benefit of local knowledge about the services available to families in their regions. That would speed up the referral process. United Future wants to see the problem of children’s safety laid at the feet of those who are ultimately responsible—that is the parents the families and the local communities which provide the context in which children lead their lives. Local non-governmental organisations and family networks should be the first port of call when prevention is required. 
We want to see resources spent on public education campaigns to facilitate the attitudinal change that Mick Brown called for a few years ago. United Future’s approach is not just a mirroring of the baseline review recommendation; it places a much greater share of the responsibility back on to communities but on to communities working in partnership with State-appointed family support coordinators. This proposal represents radical change but it is radical change that is working overseas. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 For the ACT party I went to the press conference this morning at 11.45. I sat there and as I listened to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen announcing the Government’s policy in that curiously tired “This is really just all beneath me.” voice with the slight cloth-cap element that he affects—that indeed he must affect as a Labour Party politician—I was reminded of another Englishman of a few years ago one called Neville Chamberlain. “Peace in our time” Neville Chamberlain said as he came back from Munich. I was reminded of that when Michael Cullen was speaking because he has introduced something called ancestral connection which no one in this country has ever seen before which no court has ever asked for and which no one in the English-speaking world knows about. It is something that comes by right of historical association. 
Is it colour-blind now? Well the Rt Hon Winston Peters would try to say it represented something of “one law for all”. Curiously Michael Cullen did not seem to think so. He was quaintly amused at the thought there might actually be any Pakeha who could qualify— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Not surprisingly. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Not surprisingly when the trigger date is 1840 for something that Dr Cullen says is not a treaty right. Curiously the Government has selected 1840 and of course not leaving any possibility which a lawyer might expect for it to start from the time that a custom is actually established. 
Does it respect property rights? Well the Hon Margaret Wilson told us today that these things will be property rights. I say to her that it is odd that it will expressly exclude the property right that Maori were promised under article 2 of the treaty in that they cannot sell it or turn it to valuable account. What does “ancestral connection” mean for ordinary New Zealanders who want to go fishing who want to picnic or camp who want to walk or paddle in the surf? What it means is tyres slashed campers bashed picnickers menaced—not this year maybe not next year maybe not even during the next 10 years while the lawyers are taking their pickings out of this process. It will be the next generation of young Maori who look at it and say: “What is this ancestral connection? Clearly someone thought we were owed something because they’ve given it to us.” But what remote resemblance does ancestral connection bear to a useable right a property right as the Hon Margaret Wilson tried to describe it? When an ancestral connection has been offered and one gets a pig’s ear instead of a property right who would blame the next generation of Maori for saying it was a booby prize a consolation prize—“They’ve acknowledged we were owed something and they’ve given us something that means nothing.”? 
In fact what it does mean is an absolute negative. The only thing it will mean to Maori is to be a nuisance to all their neighbours and local government. It is feudal. It says political power will go by descent; it says political power will go by inheritance. When political power goes by inheritance of course it is abused. Maori are as human as the rest of us. Only racists think that for some reason inherited political privilege that has been conferred on a race basis will not be abused will not be resented will not be turned to account by Maori inventing taniwha around every headland. Why would people not invent taniwha if it is the only way to benefit? These taniwha are amazingly greedy! They are satisfied by money. But why would Maori not invent one if that is the only way of turning an ancestral connection order to account? 
That is what this Government is storing up for this community. This Government is storing up a perpetual conflict of interests; it is storing them up in a way that elected officials cannot resist and kaitiaki-ship is made up as we go along because it is based on tikanga. Tikanga and the rule of law are not compatible. Tikanga is not law. Maori have been sensible enough to say that custom must evolve; it cannot be frozen in time. Of course the Maori Land Court can order ancestral connection orders as it chooses because ancestral connection has no relevance to anything that our law has known before and no relevance to anything that is going to be known in the future. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I just want to say one thing to the buffoon from the National Party and the member from ACT who have just spoken. They challenge our Maori members to stand up. I say to Simon Power that John Tamihere the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs has already got up but I ask members opposite where Georgina te Heuheu is and where Donna Awatere Huata is. Are they going to reel them out; are they going to let them speak? Oh no they will not because each of those parties has dealt to them. I say that from that speech from the ACT member—that sort of doomsaying—he should be in the National Party because all we have heard from the National Party today is division. There is nothing about nation building. They try to fire up the race issue. Today they have fired the best bullet they have in their gun—the race issue. Now the gun is empty and the people know it. 
I can tell members that today is a historic day because today we actually continue to build a nation. Today the Government has put forward a positive solution—the positive solution—for the seabed and foreshore issue. What did we hear from Wayne Mapp and his cronies? Zip! Nothing! They had no policy and no solution. It was just “scratch the scab” racial division. Tomorrow the legislation is tabled in the House and as Michael Cullen has said publicly it delivers four-square on our promises—that is protecting public access and guaranteeing public ownership. It delivers four-square on those promises and it enshrines the four principles that we went out as a Government to consult on—access regulation protection and certainty. 
Today we have a choice. The choice today is between those who want to build a nation by providing solutions and constructive policies and those who want to engage in the squalid politics of self-interest self-indulgence and political expediency—on all sides. The people of New Zealand have given this Parliament and this Government a clear message: they want this issue sorted and they want it sorted soon. We have got the message and that is why this legislation will create certainty for all Kiwis; certainty that the rights that as the Prime Minister said they had a year ago and generations ago will be preserved for future generations. These proposals do that. The choice today is between those who want to implement these constructive solutions—that is us the Government—or those who are self-indulgent who pit Kiwi against Kiwi and that is the National Party which uses slogans and rhetoric to fire people up on the race issue; or equally those in other places who call on people of non-Maori descent to go back to their ancestral homelands and leave this country. I say the people of New Zealand have rejected the two latter points and they have accepted our solution—that is to deal with this issue in a fair-minded way because Kiwis are fair-minded. They have rejected the slogans from those opposite. They want substance. They want the promise of a viable future. 
It is now time for a mature examination of the legislation. I am not bound by collective responsibility but I am bound like every member of Parliament to do what is right; not to do what is politically expedient not to do what is self-indulgent but to do what is right so that I can look myself in the mirror every morning and front up. I say that the kids in the playpen opposite have had their day. The kids in the playpen across the aisle have had their day. It is now time—and it starts tomorrow—for the adults to take back the debate. When the legislation is tabled tomorrow the adults will indeed take back that debate and we will get on with the job of building a nation. We will get on with the job of delivering for all Kiwis the guarantee that they wanted and the guarantee that the Prime Minister gave them—to protect public access and to protect public ownership. That is enshrined in the bill. 
I challenge the National Party and the bovver boys from ACT and some—I do not say all; some of those members are much respected over here—of the trendies from the Green Party who will vote against this legislation to put up or shut up. They should put up their legislative solution put a draft on the Table so that we can read it—because we will put up our solution tomorrow and they will be able to read it—and then we can have the debate. I will go out with pride to my constituency with pride and no fear because I know that Kiwis will support this legislation. I know they will support Crown ownership and they will support certainty and we will get on with building a nation. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Today is the day that New Zealand First was conned by the Government and the reason is that this bill is simply the December 17 package dressed up in drag and New Zealand First simply did not recognise that. There is only the shadow of Crown ownership. For the last 130 years we have had the full substance of Crown ownership. After this legislation is enacted there will be only the shadow of it. The reason is that the Maori Land Court will have the huge new jurisdiction of granting ancestral connection. 
What is the difference between mana and the ancestral connection of the 17 December package? 
In reality there is very little difference. What that will mean is co-management. We heard last month the Hon Parekura Horomia saying that is what he required—co-management. Why will he be voting for this bill this week—or this coming month? Because that is what the bill delivers—co-management. That means control and control is tantamount to ownership. So when the Government says it has delivered Crown ownership it is not as we would know it. It is not what New Zealanders have always understood it to be. This is the mere shadow not the substance of Crown ownership. 
In addition there is a whole new raft of provisions in the Resource Management Act. Everyone in the country has been saying we should simplify that Act and reduce its complexity. What is the Government’s answer? Its answer is to make that Act more complicated and provide for even more consultation more bureaucracy and more control. That is what is to happen. The effect of that is a veto because— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is an interesting topic. The member shouldn’t be boring. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —as Mr Mallard knows a customary right is a property right and that means a veto. Sure the word is not there but when I read in the report that it means that councils have to decline to issue a resource consent that is the same as a veto. It is a veto in any other words. So this legislation far from solving the situation actually divides New Zealanders one against the other. It delivers to some New Zealanders more powers and more rights than others have. How is that equality before the law? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What’s your solution? What would you do? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: National’s solution is simple: to provide the substance—full Crown ownership—instead of the shadow which is what New Zealand First has been sucked into by the Government. 
It was extraordinary to hear Mr Peters come along today and say that the New Zealand First members are the saviours when in reality New Zealanders—Maori and non-Maori alike—will find out they have been conned and New Zealand First has been a willing participant in that. I also heard Mr Peters saying that the legislation will not be race-based. I ask Government members and the New Zealand First members to tell me who can show ownership back to 1840. Who can show a continuous connection? That seems pretty simple to me and pretty obvious: it will be Maori and Maori alone. That is the reality of this legislation and no dressing up of it in language that talks about equality will get past the reality of inequality. 
There was a possibility of having a right answer to the problem delivered by the Court of Appeal. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General actually had it right back in July last year. They were going to have a simple proposition one that everyone could understand which was to confirm Crown ownership. Now 9 months later we have a complicated bill that sets New Zealander against New Zealander. It sets some people above others on the basis of racial preferment. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Cosgrove may not like the truth of that but that is the reality of the bill that has been presented. 
I say let us deliver the reality of Crown ownership. 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 This is my second term in Parliament and during that period I would never have guessed I would see the day when I and Doug Woolerton would be heckling in unison at a speech made by a National Party member. Thumbs up! There are a number of surprises in the House today. I think there is also an element of shock on the Opposition benches particularly amongst the National Party members. One thing they did not want to see happen today was a policy on the seabed and foreshore that was fair to all New Zealanders. This is a nation-building policy. Whilst we as Maori members are subject to some criticism for our stand on this issue in the forefront of our minds is the notion of nation building. 
There are a lot of positive things happening in our communities today. I am surprised at what Mr Gerry Brownlee said and I think he has been a bit untrue to this House. He said he did not support Maori Television and he would not support the future funding of it. But I listened to his pronunciation of the word “kaitiakitanga” in the House today and I ask whether he has been watching Maori Television’s  
Korero Mai  
because he did a very good job of it. I think the man is actually moved by the new sensation called Maori Television. It is very positive for all New Zealanders. 
I welcome the support of the New Zealand First Party in the promotion of this bill which is fair and just for all New Zealanders. I do have a difficulty however with the speech made by the ACT party member Mr Stephen Franks. He asserts that a generation from today young Maori children will be beating up other Maori children on the beaches. What a load of rubbish that is! If that is his view of Maori children then I am afraid the man needs some advice and maybe members of the New Zealand First Party will help him in respect of that. 
This is an important day for New Zealand. It is important that we debate this issue in this House because there are elements of this legislation that we need to be comfortable with as New Zealanders. The foreshore and seabed bill is about bonding the nation together not dividing it. The foreshore and seabed bill delivers four-square on Labour’s promise to protect public access and guarantee public ownership. The four principles—access regulation protection and certainty—remain and have been finely tuned. The result is a much clearer more familiar more transparent and less bureaucratic framework that is well balanced and will simultaneously guarantee access and recognise Maori customary interests while protecting the environment and safeguarding against inappropriate profit making. The issue of profit making is important amongst some communities as we have seen on television in recent weeks and months. There is a lot of pillage and plunder going on at some of our rural beaches and we have to congratulate the officers of the Ministry of Fisheries on their fine work in monitoring our fisheries. 
I am also very surprised at the comments by the National Party member Dr Wayne Mapp. Given his association with Maori communities in the far north which his wife belongs to I certainly would have thought he would appreciate the concept of Maori customary property rights which are non-tradable rights. He is wrong when he says those rights may be traded away. They are an inheritance and they are also a legacy to future generations. He should know that given the background of his wife’s family. A number of the assertions that Dr Mapp makes are quite incorrect. 
But I will get back to the advantage of the policy. There has been a significant shift from where we were in December of last year in terms of the authority of the Maori Land Court and in terms of the authority of the High Court in recognising and acknowledging aboriginal title. Maori can also make application to the Court of Appeal if they so desire and the Supreme Court right here in Aotearoa is another facility available to them. 
 I want to give an example of how my parliamentary colleague Dave Hereora and I practise our customary rights in our area of the Bay of Plenty—in particular Tauranga Moana. We share those customary rights with all comers there and we do not restrict their access. But at times there has been a lot of infringement of our rights and we are satisfied that this legislation will give us the opportunity to have those rights not only formalised but also enhanced. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I hesitated in taking this call because it is the last call in the debate and I had assumed that the great debater of New Zealand politics would take this call. So I waited for the Leader of the Opposition Dr Brash to get up to give members his views on the foreshore and seabed package announced by the Government of New Zealand today because he has made such a big fuss about it around the country. He has given all those views around the country misrepresenting what the Government was attempting to do in partnership with other parties in Parliament. I thought the great debater and new phenomenon of New Zealand politics who is a humble first-term member like myself would have wanted to take the last call in the general debate on this very important day in New Zealand politics. So I am shocked that the Leader of the Opposition sits there not wanting to take this call on this important issue while in the meantime the Labour-led Government working with other parties has been able to come up with a solution to try to move this issue forward. 
I am also surprised that the only Maori member of the National Party the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was not given the opportunity to take a call today. The three calls for National were taken by Mr Brownlee Mr Power and Dr Mapp. They hogged those all for themselves and effectively said the same thing. They misrepresented they made predictions that will never happen and that they will never be accountable for—because they will always sit on the benches opposite—and they just repeated each other’s mantra: one two three. They did not ask for a different view from the National Party caucus. They did not say: “Hang on we have got three slots. We normally get only two because we got the worst result in 100 years and we are down to just two calls in the Wednesday debate.” They said: “No no. We will take all three for the three white blokes. We will take it all for ourselves.” 
I thought Georgina te Heuheu might have been given the chance to speak. Then I contrasted that situation with calls from this side of the House which were led off by the Hon Margaret Wilson the Attorney-General and followed up by the Hon John Tamihere and Mita Ririnui. My friend and colleague Clayton Cosgrove from the South Island spoke in the debate as well. It was a diverse range of speakers from the Labour side of the House because we believe the solution we have put forward today brings people forward. We do not have the luxury of sitting on the other side and throwing stones at real problems and real challenges that confront New Zealanders and this country. What we have to try to do is put together solutions that bring people together and that is what today does. To that end I extend my gratitude to the New Zealand First Party and United Future for working with us. We were not able to get the whole way with United Future but those members were part of the negotiation because they said: “We want to be part of something positive for New Zealand. We want this to be a vehicle that can bring New Zealanders forward and give certainty to generations of New Zealanders.” 
All the National Party has said right throughout the foreshore and seabed debate is: “How can we use this as a vehicle to try to resuscitate our flagging political party?”. I see Mr Power nodding in agreement with that because he knows that ever since June when this decision came out of the Court of Appeal National members have looked at this issue and said: “How can we divide New Zealand? How can we attack the Labour Party on partisan politics to try to make New Zealanders be fearful about what we own in common partnership? How can we make New Zealanders feel resentment and anger towards other cultural groups in New Zealand? How can we position ourselves to cause the greatest degree of disunity and disharmony in New Zealand?”. What members on this side of the House have been left with and charged to do is to use this issue as a vehicle to bring the country together and give some answers and solutions for the 21st century. Not for us the approach just advocated by Dr Mapp which is to say: “Anyone can apply for ancestral connections but hang on that might only be Maori because they have been here since 1840.” as though there is something sinister about the fact that Maori can go back to 1840 in New Zealand’s history whereas not all New Zealanders can. But those New Zealanders who can prove those ancestral connections are able to go and have those customary rights and ancestral rights recognised and what is wrong with that? If those ancestral rights exist are demonstrated can be proven and they go right back to 1840 what is wrong with recognising them? What is wrong with the fact that in the 1990s that party when in Government recognised the concept of customary rights? And all of a sudden in 2004 it is a terrible bad and evil idea. That point has not been answered by the National Party. 
The other point not answered by the National Party is what kind of legislation we would be seeing tomorrow if those members held the Treasury benches. A lot of parties in this House have answered that question as opposed to Gerry Brownlee who has a bach in the Marlborough Sounds that goes back six generations. He has gone on television boasting about that. Gerry Brownlee has the opportunity to apply for his ancestral right to his little bach in the Marlborough Sounds if he can prove it goes back to 1840. If it goes to 1840 he can but if he is not able to prove that then that is the situation he finds himself in. The National Party did not give us a policy at any one stage. It did not give anything positive. This is a positive agenda for New Zealand’s future. We are building the country together and every New Zealander can have pride in what the Government is doing. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration that the committee report by 14 June 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
As anyone who lives in Auckland will tell us the rapid growth in the region in recent years has led to escalating problems with transport. Auckland is beset by severe congestion resulting in rising travel times excessive pollution and additional costs to business individuals and communities. Because of Auckland’s size and its importance to the economy these problems are having an impact on the whole country. It is an impact that is only likely to worsen unless action is taken. This bill takes action. The roots of Auckland’s transport woes lie in two key issues: firstly a history of underinvestment in transport which has lagged well behind the growing demand for it; and secondly confused decision making which has resulted from an inefficient and cumbersome governance structure with too many bodies involved in it. 
In the Investing for Growth package announced before Christmas last year this Government laid out comprehensive plans for tackling both these issues. This bill deals primarily with the second issue: governance. The Auckland region contains four city councils and three district councils in close proximity all of which have local priorities for land transport. In addition to Auckland’s territorial authorities there is a regional council with its own transport priorities and all these organisations sit alongside national agencies with national priorities. The challenge in the governance of Auckland transport is how to achieve a regional approach to transport problems while preserving the need for Auckland’s territorial authorities to have input into it. Our solution is laid out in this bill. 
The Government has decided that the Auckland Regional Council should have overall responsibility for land transport in the Auckland region with the exception of State highways and rail tracks which will remain the responsibility of Transit New Zealand and the soon-to-be TrackCo respectively. The Auckland Regional Council will continue to be responsible for the regional land transport strategy through its regional land transport committee. However in future the role of delivering land transport services in Auckland will pass to two new subsidiaries: the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings. 
The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be the body responsible for delivering the land transport services that give effect to the Auckland Regional Council’s regional land transport strategy. It will make the decisions on the projects that best comply with that strategy and when and in what order they should occur. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will prepare a land transport programme detailing its planned activities and including statements of all regional priorities in respect of particular projects and activities. It will then seek funding for these projects from either the Auckland Regional Council Transfund the Land Transport Safety Authority the Auckland territorial authorities or other sources as appropriate. The bill provides for the Auckland Regional Council to determine the level of funding it will provide to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority each year while the authority will determine the prioritisation of individual activities within its regional land transport programme. The creation of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will address the fragmentation of land transport governance by concentrating in a single body the roles of planning funding and the development of regional land transport in a way that contributes to an integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system. 
While the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be a subsidiary of the Auckland Regional Council a business-like board appointed by an appointments panel will run it. The appointments panel will include a representative from each of the region’s seven territorial authorities and eight Auckland Regional Council members including the chair of the Auckland Regional Council who will be the chair of the panel. A candidate will require a minimum of 10 votes from the panel to be appointed to the board. The success of these changes will depend on getting the right people into the right positions. Therefore the appointments panel will be required to select candidates with the right mix of expertise and knowledge. To avoid any potential for conflicts of interest elected members and employees of Auckland local authorities will not be eligible to sit on the board of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. 
The roles of Transfund the Land Transport Safety Authority Transit and TrackCo will not change as result of this bill. The relationships between Transfund and Auckland local authorities will however change in future. Transfund will deal primarily with the Auckland Regional Transport Authority rather than with eight different local authorities. The bill also provides for the disestablishment of Infrastructure Auckland and the transfer of its assets and liabilities to a new entity Auckland Regional Holdings. Auckland Regional Holdings will be a subsidiary of the Auckland Regional Council and will be a vehicle for owning and managing land transport and other assets in the interests of the Auckland region. In doing so it will make available any land transport assets that it holds for use in the delivery of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s land transport programme. 
The bill requires that at least 85 percent of the revenue from the Infrastructure Auckland funds provided by Auckland Regional Holdings to the Auckland Regional Council are spent on transport and stormwater purposes. In allocating those funds the Auckland Regional Council will have regard to its long-term council community plan as well as to the notional allocations that have been developed by Infrastructure Auckland for transport and stormwater. That percentage will be able to be reviewed from 2008. 
The bill also requires changes to be made to the  
Auckland Regional Policy Statement 
 and Auckland’s regional and district plans. This is to provide for integrated transport and land use policies that are consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy and the Auckland regional land transport strategy. The bill directs the eight Auckland councils to prepare changes to their planning documents and to notify the proposed changes for public submission by 26 February 2005. The bill also provides for a coordinated process by requiring that councils appoint a joint hearings panel to hear submissions and make recommendations on the proposed changes to councils. Councils will however retain full autonomy over the planning and decision-making process. 
Stronger policy direction will mean that proposals for land use intensification or transport projects that are consistent with that direction are more likely to be approved under the Resource Management Act or declined where they are inconsistent. The integration of transport and land use policies will shape the growth of metropolitan Auckland and support a competitive and efficient economy. The changes will pave the way for implementing the Government’s increased funding package for improved roading public transport walking and cycling. In the long term the changes will contribute to a greater quality of life for Aucklanders. 
As I indicated earlier this bill delivers part of the Government’s Investing for Growth package. It does not cover the other critical issue in the transport package—that of funding. Officials are undertaking ongoing work to develop the details in respect of increases in fuel tax and road-user charges and a Crown contribution to that will deliver an additional $1.62 billion to fund Auckland transport over the next 10 years. It is the Government’s intention that the additional revenue raised by higher fuel taxes and road-user charges should be allocated across all the regions of New Zealand on the basis of population. 
It is desirable that the bill be enacted in time for the establishment of the new entities on 1 July this year. I acknowledge that that is a tight timetable. It is a result of the time required to address the complex issues that have had to be addressed in developing the bill and of the urgent need to implement the changes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 If this is the answer it must have been one heck of a dumb question. Every member in this House knows that there is an enormous transport challenge in the city of Auckland. There is no disagreement on that. Where there is huge disagreement is over the answer and after 4½ years of a Labour Government we have this bill which will take us nowhere. 
Jill Pettis 
: Where are all the Auckland members? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: From the member for Whanganui I want to know why more bureaucracy will help Auckland’s problems. Why will establishing yet another public body make any difference to addressing the city’s transport issues? 
What is even more extraordinary is that if one asked the people of Auckland which local authority they had the least level of confidence in they would overwhelmingly say the Auckland Regional Council. Yet this Government in this bill will substantially increase the powers of the Auckland Regional Council. I say to members opposite that if they really believe that the Auckland Regional Council is the answer to all of Auckland’s woes the sooner they are kicked off the Government benches the better for the people of Auckland. 
I also want to say to members opposite that the kind of approach in this bill is all about plans strategies and talkfests when what the people of Auckland want is some action on the outstanding issues on which there has been so little progress over the last 4½ years. The timetable provided for in this bill is appalling. The bill states that a land transport programme will be prepared for Auckland on 1 July 2006. That is 2¼ years away! Can the people of Auckland put up with another plan on 1 July 2006? It is truly pathetic. It is acknowledged that Auckland’s transport problems are costing the economy of New Zealand a billion dollars a year yet members opposite are happy to sit around and wait to prepare a plan for 1 July 2006. I say that that is simply not good enough. 
Then we ask who will be responsible for the mess. Well we are to have a new body—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. We will have Transfund TrackCo Transit the nine territorial authorities and the regional council as well. The idea that we will have progress on Auckland’s transport issues with 13 different bodies trying to make that progress is truly extraordinary. 
Then we have the Minister who believes in the power of general competence. That is the Minister who said we needed to give local authorities flexibility and trust them to make their own decisions. Yet this bill states that they must spend 85 percent of the money in a particular way. Does that sound like trusting local authorities? Why is it 85 percent? Why not 86 percent? Why not 81 percent? Given those provisions what sort of stupid arbitrary legislation is he proposing for Parliament? This legislation provides for nothing more than a dog’s breakfast in making decisions on one of the most important issues facing this country’s largest city. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Give us a policy! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Clayton Cosgrove pipes up. I will tell him what was a damn good policy: 4½ years ago his Government dumped  
Better Transport Better Roads 
. That report had good intellectual thought and policy in it and it dumped that. It has taken 4½ years for it to deliver this policy which will do nothing for the people of Auckland. 
The other issue is that the Resource Management Act is a huge barrier to making progress on Auckland’s serious roading issues. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Which Government passed it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Judith Tizard pipes up and asks who passed it. I put it to her that when she came to Government in 1999 there was a very substantive reform bill before the House and her Government rejected it. It must take responsibility for that and for the fact that those reforms have not been provided for. The Resource Management Act continues to be a major barrier to dealing with those Auckland issues. And what does this bill do? This bill extends the culture of planning and strategies and bureaucracy that is at the core of the problem of Auckland’s transport issues. 
This bill provides for piecemeal reform of the Resource Management Act. It provides for another round of regional and district plan reforms. Does the Government know how long it takes on average for reform of a district or regional plan? It takes 4 years and I ask members who represent Auckland particularly those on the Government benches whether we can wait around 4 years for progress on Auckland’s transport issues. Clearly we cannot wait that long. 
I also say it is ironic that in this bill we will see a raid on Infrastructure Auckland. I remember when Infrastructure Auckland was set up. Members opposite who are now in Government said it would be a financial disaster. In fact it was a stunning success. Such a large pot of money now exists in Infrastructure Auckland that this Government wants to raid it and we again raise questions about that. 
I also want to say that the timetable set down for this bill is ironic. It has taken 4½ years for the Government to get this bill to the House and it is going to rush it through in 3 months. Yes we do need a timely solution but that is treating this Parliament with contempt. 
I also want to address the important issues of funding. Despite increasing petrol taxes on all New Zealanders—not once but twice—this Government is spending less on road construction in real terms than in 1999. 
Jill Pettis 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says that is rubbish. I challenge her to produce the figures because that is absolutely the truth. This Government is sitting on $230 million in Transit’s bank account while the people of Auckland wake up every morning to huge congestion. That is a disgrace. 
National will oppose this bill because it is miles away from a solution. This bill is about talkfests about planning and about bureaucracy when we need leadership and decisive action. This Government has failed again and the patience of the people of Auckland has run out. The people of Auckland will not support the Auckland Regional Council the least competent body in Auckland to progress transport and the important issues in Auckland. 
The Minister has to do a damned sight better than this if he has any hope of dealing with the serious issues. We have to deal with funding issues and with Resource Management Act issues. We need less bureaucracy not more if we are going to solve Auckland’s transport problems. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 That speech came from a man who was part of a Government that strangled Auckland for 9 years. It came from a lawbreaker and a wrecker a person who was part of a Government that passed the Resource Management Act then set out to destroy it and who destroyed regional government in his own region. The forestry companies are coming to us and saying they now have to do three times the work they would have done under regional government. The National Party has completely failed at the first hurdle. Could it put up an Aucklander? It could not even find an Aucklander. It could not find an Auckland MP to get up and talk about this issue and it had to put up the lawbreaker the wrecker from Nelson who cares about nothing in Auckland. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want that word to be used again and I want the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring to your attention that the Minister here also used the word “lawbreaker” and I would ask that he also withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member made that comment he will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no further comments about that. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that interchange the member Nick Smith challenged another member’s courage. That is right outside the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now we will proceed properly with the debate. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: That pathetic little speech came from the wrecker from Nelson the person who sobbed and wept about his previous leader Bill English losing the leadership. Bill English went looking for congestion in Auckland and could not find any—the bus ripped up the motorway. National does not even realise that the congestion is there only sometimes—it knows so little about Auckland. 
This legislation is the third time in 14 years that Parliament has tried to bring some sense to Auckland transport in terms of national legislation. First of all the wrecker from Nelson joined together with Warren Cooper the wrecker from Queenstown who was so worried that he came over and told me that I had to understand that if Auckland ever got its act together it would be a serious threat to the rest of the country. That was how concerned that local government Minister in that National Government was about getting Auckland working for the benefit of New Zealand. So what did that Government do? It expropriated Auckland’s regional assets and put them into the Auckland Regional Services Trust in the hope that it would be flogged off sold privatised following the Government’s agenda. What happened? Bruce Jesson came in and ran it perfectly well and it ran at a profit. What did the National Government do? Could those profits be used for Auckland? No they could not. So then we had Chris Fletcher’s and Tony Ryall’s attempts with Maurice Williamson dancing the “Maurice” dance behind them saying: “Sell sell! Privatise privatise!”. What did Maurice Williamson want to do? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe we are debating the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill and I think it might be time for the Minister to come back to what it is about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I thought that I would be bringing the Minister back. But this bill is about Auckland matters. It is an Auckland bill and I think the Minister is entitled to delve a little into history. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: So then we had another attempt by the National Government to privatise Auckland’s assets and destroy Auckland’s ability to put in an integrated efficient transport system. We saw Auckland sack-tied; we saw the National Government twice put so many restrictions on Auckland’s ability to do anything that we had 9 years of complete inaction under a National Government. 
We now have the New Zealand Transport Strategy we now have Transit and Transfund working to a 10-year project strategy and we have a 10-year financial plan. For the first time ever we have an integrated transport analysis and funding package. And what does the National Party do? It opposes it. It wants to stop Auckland progressing again because it can see a vote in it in Nelson and in Tasman and in the south of the South Island. I want to tell the National Party that this package is $2.97 billion for the whole of New Zealand $1.62 billion of which will be spent in Auckland and $1.35 billion of which will be spent— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Over how many years? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: It will be spent over 10 years. It will be extra and it will be spent in the rest of New Zealand. So the wrecker from Nelson can take that and tell the people whom he is trying to stir up that this Government for the first time is addressing the real issues in Auckland. It is addressing the need for coordination to deliver an integrated public transport roading and traffic management system for Auckland. 
Let me talk about some of the actions of this Government. We have seen massive building of roads. We have seen the Grafton project completed on time and under budget with great celebration. We have seen the Puhinui interchange finished. A constituent told me that it is saving him over an hour of travelling time a day. That project went through because Mark Gosche as Minister of Transport said to Transit and Transfund: “Get in and do what you can now. Get things going; get projects up.” We are building State Highway 18 we have massive work on State Highway 20 and we have the central motorway junction project—the “Spaghetti Junction” which was stopped by the Muldoon Government in 1976—up and running with over $250 million being spent. We went up and broke the ground for the North Shore busway on Monday. We are spending three times the amount that the National Government spent on public transport. This project is a fabulous project that needs support and coordination and this legislation will provide that. 
On 12 December last year the Government outlined its Investing for Growth package. We will not privatise Auckland’s transport. We will not flog off Auckland’s regional assets. We will allow Auckland to make the decisions it needs to make with its regional transport strategies which are now in the sixth round of consultation I think. Dr Smith does not even understand regional transport strategies which were brought in under the Transport Act and the Local Government Act in 1989. He should read the legislation. The plan is there and Auckland wants to get on. This Government has funded massive development in an integrated transportation strategy in Auckland. We have buses providing services that we have never seen before. We have a magnificent package. 
There is ongoing work to develop details of increases in fuel tax and road-user charges and in the Crown contribution which together will deliver an additional $1.62 billion to fund Auckland’s land transport over the next 10 years. It is this Government’s intention that the additional revenue raised by higher fuel taxes and road-user charges will be allocated across all the regions of New Zealand on the basis of population. The National Party should talk to any mayor council roading contractor and freight operator throughout New Zealand because those people know that this Government is working for them. These measures will result in an estimated $1.3 billion in additional roading funding to be used outside Auckland as well as to fix Auckland’s problems. This Government is delivering for Auckland and I say to the National Party that it should be very afraid because in the next election Auckland will tell that party what it thinks of its stupidity and obstruction. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak after that brilliant performance—because it was a performance—by a Minister who was somehow trying to explain after 4½ years what can be done for Auckland. The unfortunate thing is that if we were to go down Queen Street this very minute or tomorrow morning and ask people what has been done about Auckland’s transport they would reply very very clearly that nothing has been done. That is the sorry part. In the mind of the average Aucklander nothing has been done. 
And in case my friends in National start to smile nothing was done between 1990 and 1999 either. There were attempts made and it might be that if the National Government had been given another term it might have made it. But I recall the numerous papers of the 1990s. There was a white one and there was a green one—in fact three papers came out. The Hon Maurice Williamson came up to Auckland to tell people what was to be done and how it could be done but the reality for Aucklanders was that they saw no change. I am sorry to say to the Minister of Local Government that nothing will be accomplished if this bill goes out like this in its final form. 
This is a confused bill. Whether or not it is deliberately confused and contradictory it is confused. It states in the opening preamble that: “The changes in transport governance are designed to promote increased integration of decision-making in respect of Auckland land transport. Overall responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council (through its Regional Land Transport Committee) while a new council-controlled organisation (the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA)) will be established to undertake the integrated planning funding and development of Auckland land transport.” I say to the Minister that in the very words of the preamble there is complete and utter confusion. Although it has not confused some of the Auckland mayors it has certainly confused people who looked at the bill in the last week and wondered exactly what its intention is. I will read it again: “responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council” while the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority will undertake “integrated planning funding and development”. When I look at clauses 27 and 28 I find the bill even more contradictory. 
When the bill was announced last week there were broad comments in agreement from the Auckland Regional Council and the Mayor of Auckland because they like us welcome any step to try to improve the situation that has prevailed over the last decade or more with regard to Auckland’s transport. So I read from Gwen Bull’s statement that they were very pleased that at long last in their minds—and they obviously have not read the bill carefully enough—this is a major step with regard to funding aligning regional and transport strategy and setting up a new entity that is almost adequately funded to implement the strategy. 
John Banks the Mayor of Auckland said very clearly that it was a positive step. He said that given the huge amount of money being moved around he now needed to get his head clearly around the detail of the bill and that is exactly what needs to be done carefully in the select committee. He said: “We are committed to putting a submission to the select committee which would argue very strongly our reservations in the strongest possible way.” 
He was concerned about the actual proportionality of the whole bill and that if 85 percent went to one group where the rest would go. He made the comment that hopefully it would not go into everyday operating expenses. These are two comments from two major Auckland organisations in broad agreement because like many of us who have lived and worked in Auckland over the years they were looking for improvements in what we have seen over the last decade. 
I will come back to the point I raised at the beginning—the confusion. I am genuinely confused because section 175 of the Land Transport Act 1998 sets out the requirements for the preparation of a regional land transport strategy. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 changed the required representation of the regional land transport committee and said that it must now consist of “suitable persons” who were to be chosen by the relevant regional council to represent the following interests—and I will go through those interests—and with this purpose: the objectives of economic development safety and personal security public health access and mobility and environmental sustainability. These were the prime interests to be considered by the membership of the committee—by those who were going to make up that committee. 
There was talk of cultural interests. The regional council was to be represented on that committee. Numerous territorial authorities were to be on it. The authority itself was to be represented on that committee and so would Transfund. The purpose normally of a regional land transport committee is to set up a regional land transport strategy and thereby serve for at least 5 but mostly for 3 the ongoing strategic needs of the region. 
So in the 2003 changes nothing had changed. First of all a regional land transport committee’s work would be to undergo consultation with the various groups and interests that were named. From that would come the projects and the priorities then the financial forecasting that needs to be done with regard to those projects and last of all Transfund would approve the projects. In a normal funding year—by June of this year—the local authority would find the projects approved or not approved for the next year beginning 1 July until the end of the following year. 
That is the normal process but when I look at this bill I find some real inconsistencies in the clauses that I have named. The first one is in clause 27 “Application of funds by ARC” with regard to the new body. It states that the Auckland Regional Council which is responsible for the funding of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority may not specify individual activities for which funds may be used. 
 Secondly clause 28 states: “From 1 July 2005 ARC’s regional land transport strategy … must not include—(a) references to specific activities and their prioritisation; or (b) any regional passenger transport plan …”. Thereby comes my other confusion: which plan and which funding base are to prevail or are they both to prevail? The whole purpose for any development of Auckland’s transport is the promotion of clarity and certainty. That is the issue that has bedevilled Aucklanders over the years along with a lack of funding. This bill purports to be an attempt to meet the issues of Auckland with regard to transport and governance but that other confusion resides in two bodies—both supposedly involved in planning and both involved in funding. As one will be independent and one will expect a little bit of settling down time in the creation of the new body the Auckland Regional Transport Authority there is not clarity and certainty about the role of each of those bodies. 
I say to the Minister that I thought the bill would have a very clear governance structure—that of the Auckland Regional Council—and I would support that. It would form the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee along with other bodies and that new body would prepare the strategy. But the strategy has not been prepared. In the normal sense the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority group would be the operational arm. It would be the group empowered to do the job and with the funds to get on with it. This bill does not provide for that. Therefore on behalf of New Zealand First I find it very difficult to support this bill especially in the time frame the Minister has proposed. These issues need thought they need care and they need the utmost attention by Auckland local bodies with associated interests in respect of their submissions to the select committee. Again we have a Government that is pushing a bill on. The result of that will be seen later in the afternoon with regard to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) where belatedly we see that serious issues that should have been clarified are not. The result is that they are back before the House. This bill needs time it needs care and it needs to be legislated in the proper way. I will wait to see how it proceeds at the select committee. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party of course will be supporting this bill and was very involved in its formulation working closely and successfully with the Government on bringing it to its present state and to this House. It shows how well the Greens can work with the Government on issues of common concern particularly progressive issues relating to transport and its social environmental and economic dimensions. The United Future party is also supporting the bill and that is very good as well. 
This legislation as previous speakers have said is turning the clock back to a better situation in the past and trying to regain some of the ground lost under the National Government when the Auckland Regional Authority was broken up and assets sold off. When the Auckland Regional Services trust then Infrastructure Auckland was set up there was the intention that all the assets would disappear and that Ports of Auckland Ltd would be privatised etc. but as a result of a public campaign Ports of Auckland remains largely in public ownership which is very good. In this bill it is protected from sale to the extent that Auckland Regional Holdings to which the assets of Infrastructure Auckland will be transferred is forbidden on its own initiative to sell it off. 
Now there will be greater coordination of transport planning its operational side and to an extent the ownership of transport assets within one framework—with the Auckland Regional Council at the top of the structure the Auckland Regional Transport Authority under that and Auckland Regional Holdings under that. Under this legislation the Auckland Regional Council will have to rework the regional land transport strategy in the light of the new situation which is very good. It will have to take into account the Auckland regional growth strategy and also what has been developed nationally in terms of the national land transport strategy. Again that is the result of collaboration between the Greens and the Government in respect of rebalancing transport expenditure away from just road building to a more balanced approach with particular emphasis on other things such as public transport cycling walking and ferries. That makes it in the words of the Minister in his speech more sustainable. 
Now the Auckland Regional Transport Authority under the Auckland Regional Council has to develop a land transport programme with priorities in that programme. This is where the legislation is very good as it has to take into account the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Again it would tend to favour public transport—more efficient transport; less energy-consuming transport—rather than road building and things that just accommodate private cars which often run around Auckland roads with just one person in them and add to the congestion. 
The Auckland Regional Transport Authority in developing its programme will also have to take into account the 10-year programme of expenditure and the priorities in that of Transfund New Zealand. Transit of course will have to relate more to Transfund in its priorities for developing its projects so it cannot just go along the road-building track exclusively or predominantly. 
Under the national land transport strategy the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Transfund will be taking more things into account not just the economic dimension—that is one of the five criteria in the land transport strategy—but also about such things as the safety of travellers mobility of people who do not own cars and have to use public transport and health and environmental sustainability factors which include such things as pollution noise and other downsides that accompany motorways. That is another reason to put the balance of programmes and expenditure on alternatives to motorways or roads wherever possible and into such things as railways buses walkways cycleways and ferries. 
A previous speaker said that nothing has really happened in Auckland. In fact public transport has gone ahead marvellously in Auckland over the past 4 years. For the first 3 years it was going up about 7 percent a year in patronage and then in the last year it went up even more than that. There has been a tremendous advance in the use of public transport and with money being put in by the Government in collaboration with the Greens and the $1.62 billion being spent over the next 10 years on Auckland transport there will be tremendous advances there particularly in the area of rail infrastructure and rail transport. 
Of course there has been a problem in that too many people are wanting to hop on the trains and there are not enough trains. The infrastructure is not there at the present time but with the buying of new rolling stock and the double tracking of the western line etc. that will really move ahead so that the rail backbone of Auckland will be developed. We already have Britomart and we can increase bus services and ferry services off the rail backbone. The development of new cycleways is particularly important. Auckland is quite backward in that respect at the moment too. So we are looking forward to quite an important development there. 
The other dimension of the bill is demand management—that is the reduction of the demand in particular for people to use motorways and the encouragement of people to use alternative forms of transport from the private car. That is particularly important because we can anticipate that in not too long a time oil prices will go up when there is depletion of the world’s oil reserves. Under this whole new structure guided by the land transport strategy nationally as a sort of umbrella we will definitely find that the eastern highway so promoted by a couple of mayors in Auckland Barry Curtis and John Banks but opposed by the other mayors and most of the people in Auckland will not go ahead. 
 That $4 billion project will not meet the criteria in the national land transport strategy and it is now being applied down into the Auckland region through this legislation so that will not be a starter. It is very bad that Barry Curtis and John Banks have been scaring homeowners and people in Auckland saying that they will lose their homes along this new motorway and so on when that motorway will certainly not go ahead. Even State Highway 20 the southwestern motorway is finding it difficult to justify itself under this legislation and has not been finally approved. 
I would like to make one other point in relation to one of the assets that will go under Auckland Regional Holdings—that is the Auckland Regional Holdings will have 80 percent of the Ports of Auckland. It will have that asset by 1 July. I have asked the Minister of Local Government to intervene and use his influence even if he does not have the full legal powers to say to the Ports of Auckland to halt the sale of Westhaven. The people of Auckland do not want it sold. It should wait until Auckland Regional Holdings takes over on 1 July and it might want to purchase it itself because it would just mean transferring an asset from an 80 percent - owned subsidiary of Auckland Regional Holdings—the Westhaven part of that Ports of Auckland asset—from the 80 percent - owned subsidiary over to full ownership by the Auckland Regional Holdings. That would very much please all the people in Auckland. 
It is good that Auckland Regional Holdings has a much broader mandate than Infrastructure Auckland had in that it is to own and manage assets “in the long-term interests of the Auckland region”. It is certainly in the long-term interests of the Auckland region for Westhaven to be in public ownership and for all the boaties there to be able to use that in perpetuity and for the surrounding area of Westhaven to be developed in the public interest with the green space to be developed properly and not just being overbuilt with dense apartment complexes but to be used for the people of Auckland. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill but before I get into the reasons why I would like to correct that member’s total ignorance about the Ports of Auckland and Westhaven Marina. He said that nobody in Auckland supports the sale of it. The myth and ignorance surrounding the sale of Westhaven Marina is absolutely breathtaking. The fact that it would even request a Minister of the Crown to interfere in the sale of an asset owned by a company listed on the Stock Exchange is outrageous. To this Minister’s credit he has acknowledged in this House that he will not interfere in the sale. But not only that public access to the area that surrounds the marina is guaranteed. If Westhaven Marina were sold there would be absolutely no difference at all in terms of public access to that. It is protected through a number of planning controls. All the land that is up for sale is zoned public open space under the Auckland district plan and it rests with the Auckland City Council. There is also a conservation covenant around the perimeter of the marina that fully protects pedestrian access to the waterfront. Changes to the covenant require the permission of the Minister of Conservation. 
The marina itself as anyone who has been down there knows is not a public facility. It is already privately owned by the 700 berth holders who own berths there and who pay rent on them. The public do not have access to those berths already. For this Green MP to stand up and say that that area is under threat of being built out and of excluding the public is absolutely ignorant nonsense. He talked about scaremongering; that is scaremongering. 
But to get back to this bill this is another example of this Government’s patronising attitude to Aucklanders. This Government is destroying what is a great city with its immigration policies which have allowed people to flood to Auckland without doing anything to address the transport situation and the stormwater situation and the sewerage situation. That is a disgrace. This lazy Government had the chance to address the situation with the Land Transport Management Bill—the bill of lost opportunities that went to a select committee; but because this Government had to keep sweet with the Greens it lost the opportunity of that. What is the Government doing now? It has brought in this legislation to try to correct the situation and it will just not happen. 
We could have improved the situation and fixed Auckland’s roads with the Land Transport Management Bill. Submitters came before the select committee with very good suggestions on how that could happen with public-private partnerships with tolling with ring roads and with all the solutions very carefully thought out—plans that have been on the board for 30 years. However this Government decided not to listen to the overwhelming number of submitters who had good suggestions for improving Auckland traffic. 
So what are we to do? We have a Government that will now say to Aucklanders what they can do with their own money. This money belongs to Aucklanders. It is not the place of the Government in Wellington to dictate to them what they can and cannot do with that money. We will see this $1.18 billion which has already been set aside for transport and stormwater now directed through the Auckland Regional Council. The Auckland Regional Council will be able to suck out 15 percent of that to use for—I have got the exact words that the Government used in its facts sheet where it explains the change—“The need for greater expenditure on transport and stormwater infrastructure is a clear priority for the region. In recognition of this the Government requires the Auckland Regional Council to expend a minimum of 85 percent of funds received from Auckland Regional Holdings for these purposes. However the Government does recognise that there are other regional priorities that may need extra funding. The Auckland Regional Council in consultation with its electors will have the flexibility to determine how any remaining funds can be spent. This will be reviewed in 2008.” 
In other words if Aucklanders are good then this Government—if it is still here in 2008—will come back and look at what it can do with their own money. Look what the Auckland Regional Council has done in consultation with its electors. Look at the recent rates debacle when we had the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues—“Her Madness” as she is often known. She today proved that she is actually alive which is a good thing. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I withdraw and apologise. When we debated the raising of rates by the Auckland Regional Council the Minister said that if people in the area could not afford them they would simply have to sell their houses and move away. The best thing this Minister could do for Auckland would be to move permanently to Wellington. When the eastern corridor was discussed a couple of years ago this Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues said: “Why should we hurry that through just so that people out in Pakuranga can have an extra half-hour in bed each morning?”. I have got news for this Government and for the Greens. The people of Auckland want to get to work on time. They do not want to be herded on to trains. They do not want to be herded on to buses. Yes the usage has gone up but it is not commensurate with the population growth in Auckland. In fact it is lagging behind the rise in population growth. One would have expected more use of public transport if what this Government and what the Greens are saying is true. 
They talk about one person in each car. They forget that most people in Auckland do not just go to work and come back each day. There are people who pick up their children from school take their children to soccer go to the supermarket pick up some other children and then go back to work. They cannot do that on a train or a bus. This Government cannot tell Aucklanders how they should run their lives. 
 This Government is using this legislation to swipe money from Auckland people—the money that they have built up through their assets and by paying their rates—and use it to fund transport. This Government should have been funding transport in Auckland with its estimated $6 billion surplus yet it is going to raise petrol taxes by 5.6c a litre next April. When the Government has paid for this transport strategy will it lower the petrol tax? I do not think so because this Government uses any excuse to raise taxes. 
We already have throughout this country a feeling of resentment towards Aucklanders by other New Zealanders. I can see why they have that feeling of resentment. Because they perceive that Aucklanders are always moaning about wanting their roads fixed. Yes I can see that as I travel around. This legislation will increase that resentment because all New Zealanders will be paying an extra 5.6c a litre for petrol. There is a token amount that this Government is setting aside for the rest of the country but most of the money raised will be spent on Aucklanders. I agree with the radio station in Christchurch that ran a tongue in cheek but none the less very apt metaphor competition or joke when it said that all coffee sold throughout Auckland should be taxed to pay for cafes throughout the rest of the country. That is what this Government is doing by making the rest of the country pay more for petrol to pay for the roads in Auckland when with the Land Transport Management Bill they did not need to do that. That is why we are opposing this legislation. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Well they say “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” United Future is happy to support this legislation because it is another bite at the elephant of our roading system that is Auckland. Auckland is a great city. It is a progressive city. It is a fantastic city to live in. The Aucklanders I speak to are happy Aucklanders because as they look out of their windows they can now see progress; they can now see that the roads are starting to get built. I must commend those who have begun to design our roading system. “Spaghetti Junction” for example is not an easy place to increase the size of the roads yet it is being done. I see it happening on a day-to-day basis. 
I hear my dear friend the Hon Nick Smith criticising this Government on the progress of Auckland’s roads. I wonder how members of the National Government even dare to open their mouths and criticise progress on Auckland’s roads because I remember that absolutely zero happened with regard to Auckland’s roading problems. If they had had the foresight and been visionary enough to look down the corridors of time to see what that money which was transferred to building roads in the South Island instead of building roads in Auckland would have done in the progressive city of Auckland—the hub of the country—we would not have had the same problems as we now have. 
It is very easy for Mr Smith to criticise. When I watch sports I am often amused to hear spectators—those who would never ever dare to play the game—criticise. That is very easy to do. But to get in begin to make a difference and move ahead is an entirely different matter. United Future as a progressive centralist party is pleased to get behind legislation that gets things done and it supports this bill. 
We all recognise that there are major transport infrastructure problems all over New Zealand as a result of years of neglect. I say that Auckland because of its size and its importance to the economy as a whole is a good place for the rebuilding process to begin. Auckland is a great city but our strength can often be our weakness. Too much is happening up there and the roading system cannot keep up. 
The only thing that concerns me and nobody has yet brought it up is that when we get these fantastic roads one might say that it is costing the economy a billion dollars. But once our roads are freed up I hope we do not have too many speed cameras on them. We could perhaps consider raising the speed limit to a sensible 120 kilometres an hour on those great roads so that we do not have to have such a huge amount of money coming in from unfair fines. 
But I digress. One of the major roadblocks to getting Auckland moving has been the lack of an integrated approach to transport planning in that region. It is not a committee or a council that gets things going—it is the people who are put on those organisations. When one has visionary progressive people in an organisation that is when things begin to get going. Previously each council has promoted its own pet project resulting in endless squabbling delays and eventually inefficient outcomes. 
That is what Aucklanders are very tired of. They are sick of the talk and are glad to see that finally things are beginning to happen around roading. The changes in transport governance that this bill promotes are designed to solve that problem by integrating the decision-making progress underpinning the development of Auckland’s land transport infrastructure. As we heard from Mr Nick Smith National may have been spending money but it was obviously spending it in the wrong places. I think that the next National speaker should perhaps stand up and apologise to Auckland for that. 
As we have heard the overall responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council but a new council-controlled organisation the Auckland Regional Transport Authority known as ARTA will be established to undertake and coordinate the actual planning funding and development of Auckland land transport. There are always some pluses. Aucklanders are very innovative and creative people. We sit on our motorway structure and are at times entertained by the windsurfers sailing down the harbour. But we are tired of watching them now and we are glad to see that the traffic will get moving again. 
Under this legislation the Auckland Regional Transport Association will be required to prepare a land transport programme for the Auckland region which will detail all its planned activities and set regional priorities for each specific activity. 
Simon Power 
: Speak from the heart. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I am speaking from the heart. 
Simon Power 
: Well get on with it. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: This is my heart and I am speaking from my heart. 
Funding will still come from Transfund the Auckland territorial authorities and the Auckland Regional Council as it does now. But the spending of that funding will be properly coordinated. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will determine those priorities so hopefully local policies will be kept to a minimum in this decision-making process from now on. I only wish the same could be said for other woefully underfunded and poorly coordinated regions such as Wellington. 
We also need to think of things that can very simply be done with our roading system to speed up the movement of traffic. For example somebody mentioned carpooling. One of the major problems with our carpooling system in Auckland was that we failed to recognise that two people constituted carpooling. Therefore it did not kick in like it should have done. If we bring carpooling back into Auckland I believe we should say that it means two people sharing a car. Imagine if everybody took one extra person—and I am speaking from my heart—we could halve the number of cars on the road. It was often not practical to pick up that third person we had in our previous carpooling system and I think that was one of the major reasons why the system failed. 
Another thing that would be vital for Auckland and would really help the traffic flow would be to number our motorway exits as is done in many parts of the world. One would say to somebody: “If you want to take the Northcote turnoff you look for the No. 3 exit.” or: “If you want to take the Barry’s Point Road turnoff it is the No. 4 exit.” All the motorist would have to look for would be a simple number on the side of the road. Much congestion is caused on many roads because people are having to slow down to see where they are going. I have been so inspired to speak from my heart that I am getting away from my notes and I will not be able to cover it all. 
The settings of the new administration structures for managing the development of Auckland’s land transport infrastructure will enable the Government to implement the $1.62 billion Auckland transport funding announcement made in December. That of course is the 5c per litre increase in petrol excise duty. United Future continually says that we need to be more integral in what we take off motorists to fund roads and the money should not go into the consolidated account. It should flow into the roading systems and we will continue to press for that to happen. United Future supported that announcement and we support this legislation. New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure is in a very poor rundown state and even the injection of $1.62 billion is only a small part of what will eventually be required to remove this intolerable drag on our economy and really get things moving again. 
Ever since the election we in United Future have made it a priority to work with the Government to find alternative sources of funding for rebuilding New Zealand roads and to develop the regulatory structures needed to allocate the funding in a strategic coordinated manner. We worked with the Government on and supported the passage of the Land Transport Management Bill. We see the passage of this bill today as another step in that vital ongoing process. 
Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city. It is a great city and a vital part of our economy and getting it moving again must be a key priority. Economic prosperity is vital for the future and wellbeing of New Zealand families and ensuring future prosperity for New Zealand families is and will continue to be United Future’s main goal. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow Mr Adams. It is good to hear an enthusiastic and positive speech from a member. It is in stark contrast to the whelping from the Opposition but I suppose that is what we have come to expect. 
Simply this bill introduces changes to transport governance structure in Auckland that are long overdue. I congratulate the Minister who has brought this bill forward. The creation of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority as we have heard will address the chronic fragmentation of land transport governance by concentrating in a single body the roles of planning funding and the development of regional land transport. Not only is that good and necessary for Auckland it is necessary for all New Zealand that Auckland’s transport system works efficiently and effectively. It is my view that this measure will produce a safer more integrated responsive and sustainable land transport system for Auckland and I am pleased to support the bill. 
I simply conclude by acknowledging that this is a far-reaching and progressive measure. It is a long-term investment in the future and I congratulate the Minister and my colleagues who have worked collectively to bring this legislation forward. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 There is a reason that Auckland is known as the city of sails and it is simply this: under a Labour administration the only way to get around Auckland is on a boat. People will not get around it in a car. Frankly I was absolutely shocked that Paul Adams a former rally driver and a man who knows cars probably better than any member of Parliament stood up in the House and told us that there is progress in Auckland. He has obviously spent way too much time on gravel roads around New Zealand and not enough time in Auckland and frankly it is a disgrace that he is not talking to any of my constituents. 
The Minister who introduced this bill is none other than the Hon Chris Carter the member for Te Atatu. I challenge Chris Carter to go to his home electorate and ask any one of his constituents whether he or she believes that the Labour Government is fixing Auckland’s roads. Every night traffic goes up and down the north western every night people are in traffic jams for an hour and regularly there is a traffic jam the length of the entire north western. The Hon David Cunliffe who happens to have the New Lynn electorate—the electorate neighbouring Chris Carter’s—has exactly the same problem. It does not matter what time one goes on to the north western it is in complete and utter gridlock and chaos. That is an unbelievable position. 
Before I move on to the bill in any great depth I refer to the speech made by the Hon Judith Tizard the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. It was a simply extraordinary and unbelievable speech. It was nothing short of hysterical raving about something that this side of the House could not quite make any coherence or sense of. However one has to ask why that Minister made such a speech. There is only one reason. She is full of guilt and shame. She knows that for 4½ years this Government has managed to deal with everything except Auckland’s roads—whether it has been its relationship with the Greens its relationship with any other party or with various mayors whatever it has taken the issues have not been Aucklanders’ issues. The Government has not been fixing the problems. That is why Auckland has the highways from hell and any person who goes to Auckland knows that that is the situation. 
Anybody can see that Auckland has a motorway network that has not been completed—since 1965. Keith Locke told the House that it was wonderful that the eastern corridor would never be completed. That is the same party whose solution to Auckland’s transport problem was the Road Traffic Reduction Bill—the modern-day equivalent to carless days. We should not forget that that bill was introduced in this House 12 months ago by Jeanette Fitzsimons. It was to mandate the number of cars that could go through any part of Auckland at any given time. That was the Greens’ solution to Auckland’s transport problems. They do not care whether another road ever gets built in Auckland. Mike Ward from the Green Party who sits on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hates road. He cannot understand why anyone would want to drive on those roads. That is the position of the Green Party. They are not interested in progress. They do not care that the transport problem costs a billion dollars a year—minimum. Members should ask the Auckland Employers Association and the Auckland Manufacturers Association how much they think it is costing Auckland. They think that a billion dollars a year is light and their members are leaving New Zealand to go and live in Brisbane Melbourne and Sydney. They are going to places in Australia where the Government is committed to fixing the infrastructure and that is a sad thing for the people of New Zealand. 
There is absolutely no contention about this issue. Traffic on Auckland’s roads and motorway networks is at 95 percent capacity. If there is a single crash in Auckland or a wet day the place simply grinds to a halt. Roading is the No. 1 issue that Aucklanders care about. John Banks was elected on a mandate of “roads roads and roads”. That is why this Government has the spin and the rhetoric—it wants people to believe it is doing something when in reality it is not. We should not forget how this all came about. This legislation was foreshadowed by the Land Transport Management Bill which was nothing short of a complete sop to the Greens. The bill was so bad that the then Minister of Transport Paul Swain went up and down the country with mayors and various constituencies and campaigned against his own bill. That is how bad it was. He begged various parts of the community to petition Parliament against his own legislation. That is how little he believed in it. Then he set up the joint officials’ group which recommended that a lot of money—not just a bit of money—needed to be spent. 
Today the Minister is parading in front of the House and trying to tell us that he has a solution because the Government will spend $1.62 billion over 10 years. How will we get that money? We are paying for it. That is hardly a novel solution from the Government. Even when we do pay with the increase in petrol tax—and I am not opposed to paying a bit more petrol tax to fix the roads—the point is that no roads will be built because we are not fixing the very thing that is stopping that progress—the Resource Management Act. That is why Transit states in its annual report that it has six projects to go that it has the money but that it cannot get the final sign-off. It is pulling its hair out in Auckland because it cannot get going. That is how disgraceful the situation is. 
Not only does Auckland have that problem but what makes it worse—the bigger joke—is the $5 billion gap in fixing Auckland roads. Without the eastern corridor and without the alternative harbour crossing there is a $5 billion gap. When we look at the Government benches at John Tamihere and the broken group that calls itself Labour what do we see? They are like possums in the headlights. They have no solution. The lights are out; nobody is home. There is nothing going on in the intellectual grunt material over there. They have given up because they do not have a solution. They have a Minister who will not spend the money on infrastructure. He wants to spend it on future direction and buy a few more votes from beneficiaries. That is what he wants to do with the money. He does not want to spend it on fixing Auckland’s roads. He is not committed. That is the honest truth. That is why Judith Tizard got to her feet in this House and raved like a lunatic yelling and screaming. The reason she did that is that she is ashamed of her own Government she is ashamed as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues that she has not got a solution to fix the problem. 
I want to make some specific reference to the new group that has been set up—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. It would have been a good idea if a few simple solutions could have been introduced. David Cunliffe is looking at me and I know he is thinking: “I know! I want to put that in my speech but I’m not allowed; the boss will tell me off. I wish I was part of the National Party team so I could call it the way I see it. I’m ex Boston Consulting Group; I’m absolutely ashamed of what I am seeing.” What are we seeing? We are seeing absolute hypocrisy. Thirty-two people—the entire Auckland Regional Council—have elected themselves on to the committee. It has put everybody in there. The very body that failed Auckland so miserably is now being rewarded with the keys—lock stock and barrel—to fix the place. Lock stock and barrel they have been given the opportunity to run the show. It is like giving the keys of the jail to the inmates. That is what we are doing in Auckland. We could have had an independent body that was structured in a logical coherent way. We could have had a body that had the ability to change the rules. But what we have is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority an Auckland Regional Council body that is just going to allow the council to stack it with its political mates. The biggest joke of all is that the very people one would want enclosed in that body—Transit and TrackCo—are left out in the cold. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s daft. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is daft it is dumb and it is hopeless. But what is so sad about the town I love to call home Auckland the city of sails—which is a big place I remind members; I know it might come as a shock to them—is that we can get around it on a 737 or like John Banks in a helicopter or on a boat but if people want to travel by car or by bus they cannot get around it and they never will until the Labour Government stops its love affair with the Green Party and is committed to fixing our commercial capital. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 That has to be the worst speech I have heard that member give in many a long week in this House. What part of $2 billion does the National Party not understand? For years the National members have been complaining about Auckland’s transport. They have been saying we were not spending enough money on it and now we are doing so. They have been saying the governance arrangements were broken and now they are fixed. They have been saying we should get Auckland moving and now we are doing so. The public is sick to death of an Opposition that does not know the difference between constructive criticism and opposing and moaning for the sake of moaning itself. It has to be said the previous speaker John Key travels around Auckland more than most people. It is a long way from Parnell to Helensville and back again. 
John Key 
: You’re on dangerous ground. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: At least he is moving against the traffic flow— 
Jill Pettis 
: In his Lexus. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —in his Lexus. 
John Key 
: You’re on dangerous ground my friend. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is right. 
This is a very constructive package. It collects in one place and under one governance arrangement the key players under the Auckland Regional Council through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. It is a constructive move. Why does the National Party not like it? It is because its favourite alumnus now the Mayor of Auckland had his little pet project all sorted out whereby Auckland City could dominate Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd at the expense of every other territorial authority and it worked just fine for John Banks. Well we have news for him: his eastern highway is bonkers. It will never reach a workable benefit-cost ratio so he should put it to bed now and bury it 6 feet under. He should twin-track the western line so poor John Key does not get stuck in the traffic jam and he should twin-track it all the way to Henderson and Swanson—right now! 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I feel very sorry for the Auckland people. I really really do. I look at this bill and I find it staggering that the Government thinks it is going to get anywhere near the time frames that it thinks it will have. We listened to Judith Tizard and she gave an incredible performance. I have never seen a performance from Judith Tizard like it—and I have seen one or two. Normally she has been knitting but this time not only did she give a performance but I am sure she must have been feeling guilty and ashamed about it because she disappeared from the House straight afterwards. What does that say about how Judith Tizard really feels about Auckland’s roads? She has not stayed here to listen to any of the comments being made about the significant contribution— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: You should not refer to a member’s absence from the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: My apologies. I will move on to talk about the Greens their planning processes and their promotion of walkways cycleways carless days and of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. The Greens are a significant part of the reason why we do not have any progress on our transport and roading systems. 
I think Auckland faces the danger of being fobbed off with a new body that is responsible for delivering an integrated network but where is Transit in all of that? One of the major things missing from the new integrated body is representation from Transit in terms of the major corridors. The Government is actually excluding the major corridors from the whole process. Establishing one transport agency with responsibility for roading should not be difficult but I think in this bill it has certainly become convoluted with a great deal of bureaucratic process. And for what? For $1.6 billion dollars which is to be drip-fed over a 10-year period. Just what on earth does the Government think it will achieve with $1.6 billion drip-fed over 10 years when Auckland actually needs an extra $5 billion? How much progress will actually be achieved with that amount of money when clearly a lot more money is needed? 
The Auckland Regional Council will have more influence over public transport than it does now and it will control the assets of Infrastructure Auckland. It will influence but not control the regional funding priorities for public transport and local roads through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The only difference will be that Infrastructure Auckland will become an Auckland Regional Council - controlled agency called Auckland Regional Holdings. So we are starting to grow all those bureaucracies. We have the Auckland Regional Council Auckland Regional Holdings the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Transit Transfund and also about seven local authorities. The process will become incredibly bogged down and I refer members to a part of the bill that sets out what the local authorities will be required to do. 
Under clause 31 there is an obligation by all the local authorities to publicly notify the proposed changes to all their planning documents. They have to do that by 26 February 2005. That is great! So they are to go through a whole public process as required by the Resource Management Act—and we all know how long those processes take. Of course there is bound to be objection by the Greens. Why will that be? The public have been under quite incredible pressure from a completely inadequate transport system and I know that because I have been there. I go there every week and get bogged down in traffic just as my colleague John Key has referred to. So we will have people desperately trying to put planning documents in place so as to improve that situation and people like the Greens will come along and say they are sorry but the documents do not adequately provide for cycleways or walkways or maybe do not actually take into account carbon dioxide—all the sorts of things that the Greens cling to in their attempts to slow everything down. That is exemplified by the Road Traffic Reduction Bill and the Greens’ proposals for a carless day. I would like to reiterate the comments made by my learned colleague John Key about one of the Greens’ representatives on the Local Government and Environment Committee not even liking roads. 
 All the local authorities are to be involved in that area. That is about seven of them who will by 26 February 2005 actually have go through a complete public notification process under the Resource Management Act—right through the whole gamut including appeals to the Environment Court. So if all the local authorities’ planning documents are appealed against to the Environment Court how on earth do we expect that the review of the Auckland regional land transport strategy by 31 December 2005 can possibly take place with any degree of competence if the local authorities have not got their act together? Here we have another example of the Resource Management Act having the ability to slow down the whole process and that does not even begin to take into account the ability of that Act to slow down all the projects that are to be undertaken. 
I reiterate my concern about Transit not being involved in the construction of the new authorities: Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. I really feel sorry for the Auckland people having to struggle with all of that. It will be a planning nightmare for them as they try to come to terms with the situation make submissions and try to get the best they can for their areas. With the exclusion of the roading corridors how can we get the sorts of roading efficiencies that we seek? 
I completely concur with my colleagues and I cannot understate in any way the serious concerns and reservations we have about the efficiency of this particular bill—about it being able to actually deliver the outcomes sought for the people of Auckland. As members have heard my colleague say there is $1 billion of economic loss a year because of the poor traffic and roading systems we have in Auckland alone. That figure does not take into account some of the traffic congestion in other parts of the country which is also real. But Auckland’s congestion is by far and away the worst—although having travelled in Tauranga a lot I would say that it is not far behind Auckland. 
We have all contributed a huge amount of funding and we are looking at about a 5c increase coming on stream in petrol costs. How much of that will actually go into roading projects and achieving an asset outcome that will make a difference? I put to members that it will not be a great deal. How much is being siphoned off for cycleways walkways planning and the like while we are not getting actual roading projects being done? I would like to refer to some comments made by my learned colleague Dr Nick Smith. By the time a person actually ever does— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: He’s not learned. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely he is! He is one of the best members in the House. As we even get anywhere near to trying to put in some of the roading projects we will struggle to find the contractors engineers and suchlike to undertake the work. It is getting harder and harder to find people able to take on works of such scale. 
I would like to reiterate our concerns. We do oppose this bill. We are concerned about the bureaucratic bog-down that this legislation will create. We are concerned about the lack of real action with regard to the Resource Management Act and about the effect that some of the requirements of this bill will have by adhering to that Act’s processes. I really do have a great deal of sympathy for the Auckland people but I do not see this bill as being the way forward for them. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I have a great deal of sympathy for the constituents in the Coromandel seat after hearing that speech. I am lucky enough to represent constituencies in Waitakere Auckland and Manukau cities. This piece of legislation brings—as does a previous piece of legislation talked about predominantly in the general debate; the foreshore and seabed legislation—closure and certainty and allows clear economic decision-making processes to roll out in one of our greatest power houses in the country. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Waitakere! 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes Waitakere is obviously going to be a lead player in that regard. There are two or three other points I want to make in terms of our economic management and our record on infrastructural issues. This Government has been absolutely superb. I find it hard to be modest. I find it very difficult to be modest about what has been achieved whether it be in telecommunications whether it be in energy development or whether it be in the roading infrastructure. I commend this bill to the House. It is one of the best laxatives ever given to Auckland to get it really rocking and rolling. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report by 14 June 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sittingexcept during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration that the committee report the bill by 14 June 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week on which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
The tight framework for reporting the bill is because some of the provisions in the bill need to be in place before 23 July 2004 the opening date for nominations for this October’s local authority elections. The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) is to further ensure that the legislative framework in which local government operates is as comprehensive and clear as possible. This bill seeks to clarify and address a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical in their nature. It does not signal any major new policy decisions. 
Cross-party support was gained in order for the Business Committee to agree to this bill being introduced as an omnibus bill amending six Acts. This agreement reflects the generally non-controversial nature of the bill. 
Since taking office the Government has introduced a comprehensive package of legislative reforms that have modernised our system of local government. This has included the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. As with any major legislative changes it is not unusual that some minor issues have arisen that need to be addressed. I note that the need for many of the bill’s provisions has arisen during an extensive joint local and central government education and implementation programme for the new legislation. This Local Government Know-How project is an excellent example of local and central government collaboration between the Department of Internal Affairs Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers. The local government sector has given much positive feedback on the new legislation. This feedback has also highlighted several aspects of the legislation that should be clarified. 
I do not wish to go into detail about all the provisions in this bill. However I would like to outline a few matters in each of the six Acts that the bill seeks to amend. Firstly the bill amends the Chatham Islands Council Act of 1995 to explicitly provide the Chatham Islands Council with the powers needed to support its limited regional council functions. Secondly the bill makes various amendments to the Dog Control Act of 1996. It addresses an accidental omission in that Act of infringement penalties for failing to meet certain obligations as a probationary dog owner as well as making amendments relating to dog seizure notices and recapturing unlawfully freed dogs. Thirdly the bill makes various amendments to the Local Electoral Act of 2001 including clarifying the right of a candidate to stand for both mayor and ward councillor in the same territorial authority. This is required before nominations for this year’s elections open in July. Fourthly the bill makes various amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 including clarifying certain voting provisions at council meetings and the absence of a casting vote as well as applying existing information requirements to all council-controlled organisations. 
In addition to these matters the bill contains a number of other minor amendments to some of those Acts. This fine-tuning will provide more certainty and clarity for councils as they administer and work within the legislation amended by this bill. It will also provide communities with greater clarity in their dealings with their local authority. As I mentioned earlier it is highly desirable that this bill be enacted by July. I acknowledge that this is a tight timetable for the select committee and I thank the committee in advance for the hard work that I know it will put into this framework. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill should be called the “Chris Carter Fix Up the Botch-up Bill” because it is all about fixing legislation that the Minister was responsible for that has subsequently been found to be seriously in error. I have to say we told him so. Members on this side of the House told the Minister time and time again that when he forced through changes under urgency in many cases and always in a rush it was inevitable that there would be mistakes and so it has proved to be. 
But not only did the Minister botch once he has botched again. Only last year there was new dog control legislation and here is Parliament less than a year later having to patch up his mess. One would think he would learn eventually but today the Minister introduced two more bills that he wants passed with a far more rapid timetable. I say to the Minister that members accept he can make a mistake once but they also expect him to learn from his mistakes and to stop this process of throwing bills before the House rushing them through and making more and more mistakes. 
I will go through some of those specific mistakes in some detail but I also want to point out what should be in this bill but is not. The biggest issue for ratepayers and councils throughout New Zealand is increased costs that this Government is dumping on ratepayers and councils all over New Zealand. There have been the prostitution laws the gambling laws the dog control laws the buildings laws and today there have been announcements about the foreshore and seabed—new laws that will again dump costs on councils and ratepayers. 
I want to draw this fact to members’ attention: in this past year rates and council expenditure grew by 9.3 percent. That is six times the inflation rate. I say to the Minister that that is a disgrace. It is a direct consequence of the sort of legislation this Government has rammed through Parliament and sent the bill for to the ratepayer. What those figures show is that rating costs and expenditure by councils has increased by six times the rate of inflation. Six times the rate of inflation is the cost that is being imposed on New Zealand families and businesses because of the sort of legislation being advanced by Chris Carter as the Minister of Local Government. There is increased bureaucracy increased numbers of bureaucrats and increased costs and this Minister and Government simply do not care. 
I will now go through quite specifically the botches made in previous legislation that members are now being expected to repair. The first of those issues is in respect of local government elections. There is a problem that the Minister has known about for all of the last 12 months. Councils drew to his attention the problem of mayors and council candidates not being able to stand for both positions; yet Parliament is being asked to rush through those changes. There are problems in the Electoral Act with scrutiny of the rolls. There are problems with the bill that was passed by this Government in respect of STV voting. This Government rushed through Parliament changes involving STV and mucked up the detail and without this bill our local government elections in October would be a mess. 
Do members know how many changes there are in local government legislation that have to be patched up by this bill? There are not one not two not three but eight changes that Parliament now has to make to the Local Government Act 2002 that was rushed through prior to Christmas. How many times does it take for this Government to learn that rushing through legislation in the pre-Christmas period inevitably ends up with mistakes that end up costing? There are problems for port companies that have to be fixed problems in respect of annual report requirements problems with the casting vote problems with voting in councils problems with trade waste by-laws problems in respect of quorums— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: You talk about the problems. What about the solutions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Tamihere why did this Government not get the legislation right the first time? 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Don’t know. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Tamihere does not know. He is paid a ministerial salary. The Minister of Local Government should have got it right the first time. He was one of the members who voted for urgency and for the Local Government Act to be rushed through with all of those mistakes. There are mistakes with long-term community plans and local government decision-making requirements. There are even mistakes with dealing with disaster relief; an area that I would suggest is critical for us to get correct. There are mistakes in respect of the information that is required for council-controlled organisations. 
Then there is the other legislation that was rushed through by the Hon Chris Carter. I do not know of any legislation passed by Chris Carter that Parliament has not had to go back and fix within 12 months. There was the Local Government (Rating) Act which was also passed under that Minister. There is a botch-up in respect of information from rating records. New Zealanders thought they could get information from their councils about rating records but the Minister botched it up caused huge costs and huge inconvenience to New Zealanders and now the House is being asked to fix it up in a rush. There is a botch-up in respect of postponed rates that members have to fix up and then there is the dog control legislation. Members will all remember that—it was not even 12 months ago. Members on this side of the House—I also credit the ACT party and the New Zealand First Party—said to the Minister: “Look you are rushing it. You are going to make mistakes.” The Minister assured the House: “No trust us. It is all OK.” It has not been 12 months and I say to the Minister that there is not just one mistake there are five mistakes in the dog control legislation that he was responsible for bringing through this House less than 12 months ago. 
There are problems with probationary owners and infringement notices. And how about this one? If somebody manages to get his or her dog out of a pound there are not even the enforcement powers to return those dogs back to the pound such are the deficiencies in the law for which Mr Chris Carter was responsible. 
The Minister could not get the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Electoral Act the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act the Local Government (Rating) Act or the Dog Control Act right all of which he was responsible for administering. In five out of five Acts there are mistakes that he wants the House to patch up in a rush. The Minister owes the House an apology. Members on this side of the House pointed out to the Minister at the time that he was rushing legislation and making mistakes and inevitably we were proved correct. I ask the Prime Minister how long she can maintain a ministerial warrant for a Minister of Local Government who did not just get it wrong once but twice three four and five times. There has to be a time when the Minister’s warrant is up. 
I ask the Minister why having made those mistakes on that rushed legislation he introduced earlier today new important legislation that he also expects to rush. I will bet the very best bottle of Nelson wine that the Minister will have to admit and concede that he erred and stuffed up again and the House will again be asked to fix up his mistakes. On behalf of Parliament I say to the Minister that it is not good enough and that he should learn from his mistakes. This bill is an absolute embarrassment to him and his colleagues. He owes it to Parliament to get his legislation right and not to continuously expect ratepayers to pick up the bill for his botch-ups. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 That was a speech from the Hon Nick Smith a man who has never made a mistake in his life. This is a good bill. It responds to the needs of local government communities which are doing a superb job in New Zealand and will assist them in their governance. I am pleased to support this bill. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I well recall especially as the Hon Nick Smith was speaking the fevered haste of the passage of the Local Government Bill in the last hours of the 2002 sitting period particularly as councils did not see the bill. The bill was so rushed through on the Friday and the Monday that when we came into the House the bill had been unseen. One council I know well suffered financial loss as a result of that indecent haste. 
Secondly although there have been some suggestions of a lack of duty in the preparation of that bill one matter does not really lie with the Minister but with his advisers. That is the meaning of “council-controlled organisation” and “council organisations”. The impact of the suggested clause and its meaning was specifically raised in the select committee at least twice and was denied by the advisers at the time. Clause 38 should have been drafted by advisers who knew what they really meant. 
Last year companies that were subsidiaries of port companies were asked by the Audit Office to produce their books. For some companies that issue alone has been costly. In view of the fact that advisers were told that that would be so and that the Hon Dave Cunliffe was there at that time—and as a commercial person should have known better—it should have been realised that that would be the end. We had the unusual situation that resulted in port companies being exempt but in their subsidiary companies being under the overall monitoring and call of the Audit Office. Therefore I am very pleased to see this patch-up section in the bill. 
I called the Chatham Islands Council and I did that because I was concerned knowing something of its recent financial inability due to funding to meet the needs of a normal local authority particularly when I saw that it was given the functions views and powers of a regional council. I was very pleased to be reassured by the council that those powers related to resource management and biosecurity functions that it felt it had to exert on the island. Secondly I was also pleased to find that the Government will fund the council in the execution of those duties. Without that funding the bill would have a rather shallow induction into the House. 
With regard to the Dog Control Act I was pleased that yesterday the Auckland City Council said it was pleased with the Act and saw it as an improvement. The council is catching unregistered dogs and has been able to implement those parts of the Act that relate to absentee dog owners. Its overall impression as of yesterday was that the Dog Control Act of last year was a considerable improvement. Therefore I commend these sections of the Act—with the odd part that needs to be further clarified—that give greater authority to dog control authorities if needed. 
The only other section I wish to draw to the House’s attention relates to the electoral system. Again those parts of the Act could have been clarified at the time it was debated. We need them amended in time for the elections this year and I understand the Minister’s urgency. 
But again in closing this is not the first time—and will not be the last—that we are back here looking at amendments because of the way the Leader of the House has managed the business of the House. I know that amendments are part of the daily realm of Parliament but in these cases with more care there could have been a more considered response. Therefore I was sorry this afternoon to see that a very major matter—that of the Auckland region which has just been discussed—was once again the subject of indecent haste. The end result will not be pleasing because of the way the House orders that area of business. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I want to say that we support these additions to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) which will improve the execution of the various sections of the Act. I hope that with adequate Government funding the Chatham Islands Council can carry out its duties. 
With regard to local government I know that those ambitious people who wish to stand for both the mayoralty and council roles will be pleased not to be denied that chance at present. To that degree we support the bill being forwarded to the select committee. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It is 2 minutes to 6—just prior to the dinner break—which is not a great time to start one’s speech but nevertheless. It has not taken long has it? It seems just like 2002 when we were in this House debating what the Hon Chris Carter said was great well-thought-out well-drafted legislation that would see local bodies and communities well into the future. Here we are back again just 2 short years later patching up the mess. This is an omnibus bill as the Minister alluded to and it is purely designed to patch up the mess the inappropriateness and the oversights that occurred during the drafting of the bill. The Opposition constantly pointed out at the time in 2002 that the passing of the bill was too quick and too rushed. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Following my ruling this afternoon regarding the conduct of the media in this building while members are on their way to the Chamber I have discussed the matter with the chair and deputy chair of the press gallery. They acknowledged that there have been unfortunate incidents in recent days and have expressed a wish to work with me on a protocol that while allowing the media access to members does not impede members’ own access to the Chamber. I am prepared to work with the press gallery on this matter. Consequently I am announcing that my ban on journalists approaching members after 1.45 p.m. tomorrow is suspended to allow further consideration of the issue. 
I nevertheless require that journalists act with consideration to everyone using the Parliament Buildings corridors and in particular do not in any way impede the free access of members to the Chamber. In the latter regard I wish to quote from  
Erskine May 
 22nd edition at page 121: “It is a contempt to molest a member … while attending the House or coming to or going from it …”. In our own Standing Orders—Standing Order 395(k)—it is specifically made a contempt to obstruct or molest a member. It is therefore necessary for me to re-emphasise the seriousness of obstructing a member in those circumstances. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. Two things come from it. Firstly I wonder whether you would circulate that ruling to members. I am sure you will. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will make sure that it is in every member’s box by 8 o’clock. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you. The second point given that you are now considering the matter further is that I wonder whether you would be prepared to accept any written comments from members on the issue. Some members may wish to make a submission to you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will; I think that point is a very fair one. I will make sure that every member of Parliament is written to tomorrow and that we invite members to make comments over the adjournment so we can sort the matter out. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that in your earlier comments to the House you mentioned two times: 1.45 and 7.15. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is both times. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: In your comments just now you did not mention the 7.15 time. I am just interested to know whether we are talking about both times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no evening session tomorrow. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No but we are referring to this issue in the future are we not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes we are and I will actually rule on it the day we resume. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes but what I am interested in is that you are actually covering both times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We only suspended journalists approaching members for tomorrow originally but I will make that clear in the ruling when I eventually give it. 
Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Prior to the dinner break I was reflecting on the fact that it did not take very long at all for members in this House to be back debating and looking through proposed amendments to the Local Government Act that was passed in this House just 2 short years ago. I emphasise again that we debated that bill at real length at that time and we came to the conclusion that we would be back in a very short space of time. Well here we are yet again. As Dr Nick Smith pointed out at some considerable length during his speech we decide in haste in this Chamber and we repent at the taxpayer’s and ratepayer’s leisure. We regret that we have to come back and debate this bill yet again but nevertheless that is necessary in order to tidy up the cracks in the legislation and the mess that has been achieved. 
The Business Committee and all parties have decided to vote in favour of this bill. It is an omnibus bill but a number of issues still need looking at in some real depth. One of the great problems that the taxpayer and ratepayer of this country face is the cost structure that these bills impose and that this House—or this Government to be more precise—seems to impose on them ad nauseam. That is one of the great concerns. I personally have had people coming up to me and ringing me and asking in relation to the costs that are being imposed when enough is enough. We have the powers of general competence that were given to local government just 2 short years ago and the cost structures are mounting already. Something like an 8 or 9 percent cost structure over and above the rate of inflation has been imposed on the ratepaying community and that is not something we can blame the local councils for. It is an imposition by central government on local government. It is a requirement of this Labour Government which directs local government to achieve this or that aim. And the power of general competence gives councils the ability virtually to do whatever they will. As we said 2 years ago that is of huge concern to businesses farmers and ratepayers whoever they may be. The Government ignored their entreaties at the time and carried on. I suggest that this is an appropriate time to readdress some of those issues and some of the cost. 
With regard to the power of general competence I have certainly wished we could legislate to give this Government the power of competence. It is not competent when it comes to deciding what we can and should do for business and the productive sector of this country. It does not seem to understand that to impose costs takes out that sector’s profitability and takes out the ability for this country to excel and to grow. It is not Governments and it is not councils that will determine that. The private sector will determine that but if the private sector is constantly whacked with cost increases coming at it from all directions from central government as well as local government it makes matters extremely difficult for that sector. 
Another problem in the legislation is to use the old phrase the paralysis by analysis that is happening in New Zealand—the consultative process that the Government has imposed upon everybody seeking to do anything these days. I note that the words “special order” in the legislation have been replaced with the words “special consultative procedure”. Those are weasel words if ever I have heard them. I know what a special order is: it is an imposition from the Government or from the council. But what about the phrase “special consultative procedure’? I can only suggest that the paralysis that has gripped this country in recent years is causing us huge angst. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that no substantial industry has been created since the passing of the Resource Management Act which is administered by local government. That is purely because of the hugely costly paralysis by analysis that as I said permeates the entire country. The words “special consultative procedure” are a sham. Councils all over this country have told me that they have to go through that process before they impose what they were going to do in the first place. If there was a special consultative process and it was genuine that would not be so bad but we all know it is a sort of nod nod wink wink situation. We all know that local bodies do impose what they were going to do in the first place and this thing called a special consultative procedure is nothing more as I said earlier than weasel words. We know that exactly the same result will occur as would have occurred if there had been no special consultative procedure. 
The changes that are required to the Dog Control Act are interesting also. As a farmer I tell members there is a very very simple way of controlling dogs. If farmers see one on their property they shoot it. It does not last very long so there are very few problems on farms with regard to wandering dogs. They are put down very very quickly. 
Jim Peters 
: Twenty-four in 3 months. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well is that so? That illustrates the point. But it makes individual dog owners in our region anyway hugely responsible. They train their dogs properly and do not let them roam willy-nilly. They exercise their dogs but they do not let them roam. They train them properly and that is the way it should be. 
I am not suggesting that we have dog rangers go around the country with rifles and shoot dogs in the main streets of Auckland Wellington or wherever else there may be a problem but we do not need legislation as much as we need dog owners to be far more responsible. The people who are the real problems such as members of Black Power of the Mongrel Mob and of the other gangs that often have many of the pit bull terriers will not take a blind bit of notice of this legislation—not one little bit. I find it quite extraordinary that in this country we now need a licence because in order to own a dog in the first place a person becomes a probationary dog owner. What an extraordinary thing that is. We can bring children into the world without any restrictions or requirements but we need a licence to own a dog and we become a probationary dog owner. I think that is an absolute nonsense. It is reflective of the time that is totally wasted in this House on ridiculous politically correct nonsense in terms of the consultation issue. 
We will reluctantly support the passage of this bill as has been indicated but I emphasise that it is with some reluctance that we are doing so. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). It is an omnibus bill that amends a number of Acts. However in my view there are no significant changes of policy and it remains a relatively uncontroversial bill. I will therefore not take up too much of the House’s time on this matter. 
The bill first makes changes to the Dog Control Act 1996 and I will begin by noting that it was only late last year that the House amended this Act. It is therefore disappointing that here we are in April already having to tidy up a whole lot of mistakes created by our last bout of interference. It is disappointing that the Minister is unable to get his officials to produce law that will not take up the House’s time for at least a couple of years after its enactment. In this case there appears to be no other reason for the changes except that “Oops we mucked up and forgot to put these things in last time but now that we have discovered them we desperately need to do something about this.” But United Future being the party of common sense that is committed to stable government is therefore happy to help the Government out on this one. There are some worthwhile amendments and I will now take a moment to dwell on a few of them. 
Firstly the last time around we neglected to make it an offence to fail to undertake a dog education or obedience course if a person is so ordered following his or her classification as a probationary dog owner. Obviously if someone has been classified as a probationary dog owner there is a reason for it. Either an incident has occurred involving the person’s dog which may have led to harm or the owner has been shown to be neglectful in the ownership of a dog. However it was that these people came to find themselves in need of further education on dog ownership they need to be compelled to undertake such a course. To not do so would not only be a blatant flouting of the rule of law but it would also turn these rules we have into a farce. We have them for a reason: to protect the public and maintain safety as well as for the good of the dogs themselves. In any event to be ordered to brush up on one’s dogs skills and then to be allowed to ignore such an order is unacceptable and it needs to be an offence to ignore it. 
It also appears that while the fine for this offence upon summary conviction is put at the hefty figure of $3000 there is no discretion for a dog control officer to issue an instant fine of a lesser amount—a remedy that would save the courts and everyone else a lot of time I am sure. Although we will seek further clarification of this matter it is an amendment that we will be looking to add while this bill is before the select committee. I think the instant fine system just makes life a lot simpler. 
There is another amendment to the Dog Control Act that I will also comment on and it relates to the instalment of the power for the recapture of dogs that are unlawfully free. This amazes me because I am unable to comprehend why exactly this is expressed in legislation. Is there a huge problem with renegade owners unlawfully springing their offending dogs from the doggy jail? Is there an elaborate canine network of dogs working to free one another from the pound? I think not and it would seem very strange if this indeed were the case. The only other alternative that springs to mind is that the dogs are being deliberately let out prior to their intended or lawful release. In this circumstance one is bound to ask about the competence of dog pound management and those who handle the cases of impounded and dangerous dogs. Should we really have to legislate for their incompetence? My message would be simple: get it right the first time around so that Parliament can stop wasting its time on such matters. 
The bill also deals with the Local Electoral Act 2001. In particular it provides for the election of our near cousins—the local body politicians. Specifically clause 28 of this bill amends section 57B of the principal Act. At present section 57B prohibits a person from being a candidate for election in more than one ward or constituency of the same local authority at the same election and rightfully so. We cannot have some local tyrant taking over the entire council. The amendment contained in this bill clarifies that the prohibition created by section 57B does not apply to a person who is a candidate for election as a member of a ward and as mayor of the territorial authority of which that ward forms part. 
Aside from avoiding a disaster at the up and coming local body elections might I say that it is hard enough to get good people interested in running in local body elections and interested in local authorities generally. It would therefore be a massive shame if we were to have a law that effectively ditched the worthy and experienced councillors we do have—who incidentally form the bulk of the pool of candidates who run for mayor—because they decided to stretch for a higher position. What a tragedy it would be if such hard-to-come-by individuals were given the heave-ho because of a drafting error in local electoral law. We are therefore pleased to support this particular aspect of the bill. The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) is a worthy bill amending a number of pieces of useful legislation. United Future is pleased to support it to a select committee for hearing and I commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members just before I call the next member I will say that during the honourable Paul Adams’ speech a cellphone rang. It is a distraction it is not necessary during debate in the Chamber and I urge members to show restraint and good manners. It is discourteous to the House and all of those in it and is out of order. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/2. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I must admit that I have been guilty of this myself but I think you may have cast aspersions on every member here. Maybe if one knew who the offender was one should name him or her rather than accuse in a general way all MPs of having their cellphones go off. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I must fess up and say that it was my cellphone and I am going to make sure it is turned off. I am sorry about that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that if that happens at a select committee the member has to shout morning tea. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 In our caucus it is a $100 fine. Could he pay a cheque to each of the parties perhaps? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Carter. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I support the bill. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 It is an omnibus bill and as it is widely supported I am not going to speak at great length. But having come out of local government there are some questions I put on any piece of legislation regarding local government; first whether it addresses some of the commonly expressed concerns in my community. Among those would be: does it undermine democracy? I do not think it does. There are a number of bits of this bill that in fact enhance democracy. The one that says the chair does not have a casting vote is one of those. The members of the committee will have to go back and talk about the issue until they can come to a decision. That is good for consensus and I think that that is a plus. 
The introduction of the single transferable vote (STV) as an alternative to first past the post is again a real plus and having been one of those who tried to bring it into my own community and failed—sadly—I am hopeful that those communities that did manage to get it will talk loudly to the rest of the country about how successful it is and how it makes the process of voting for local authorities a simpler one. It takes the guesswork out of it. If anybody wants to see how STV works they have only to look at Part 3 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) and that will point it out to them. 
Part 1 effectively turns the Chatham Islands into a unitary council. Obviously if they do not have a regional council or any body performing regional council functions that is an option. It is not my favourite because coming from Nelson I live with a unitary council and as others have put it before me it is like being poacher and gamekeeper. To be the “poacher” a local authority is a user of resources and has an impact by its activities on the environment. As well as that to be the “gamekeeper” the one supposed to look after it is a conflict of interest I think. But I am sure the people on the Chatham Islands have been looking after their islands for a while now and will do that in no worse a way than before. Hopefully this part of the bill will mean that they are a little more careful over the environmental obligations that regional council obligations will impose upon them. 
Part 2 dealing with the Dog Control Act is tidying up anomalies as has been said before. We have debated that at length and this part simply spells out what is required. It was legislation the community was asking for. It does not do a great deal more than the previous dog control legislation but it does give a little more muscle to local authorities. 
I have one last issue. We hear regularly from local authorities that frequently they find it an imposition and a financial imposition when Parliament passes legislation that imposes activities and the management of that legislation on to them. That has been a major cost to many local communities. Having said that I think it is entirely appropriate that local government is the place for local decisions to be made. So I think that that is totally reasonable and support the legislation generally because of that. 
There are other bits in the bill that perhaps raise one or two questions such as the fact that local authorities will be able to debate more serious issues without those issues being on their agendas. I think the select committee needs to look very closely at that issue and make sure that safeguards are in place to ensure that that is only done sparingly. Apart from that the bill is tidying up some loose ends and the Greens will support it. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) and also to express the concern that has been expressed by most in this House who have spoken thus far on the bill—that so many pieces of legislation are being amended within such a short time of their enactment. There are actually six Acts in total being affected by these amendments. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the legislative guidelines and refer to the recommendations in those guidelines with regard to preparing good legislation: “High-quality legislation is legislation that endures.” Well some of these provisions have endured for only 2 years so one could not regard them as high-quality legislation. “High-quality legislation is also legislation that does not need frequent amending.” Indeed again these are amendments to Acts that have been in force for only a couple of years. 
So there we have guidelines that state time and care should be taken in developing policy and creating the legislation for that policy and that a realistic timetable should also be allowed for the drafting of that legislation. There has been concern about how some of this legislation has been rushed through the process towards enactment. 
I would like to comment on the different aspects of this local government law reform bill. Firstly I presume that the amendments to the Chatham Islands Council Act were forgotten in the drafting of the principal Act. Then we come to Part 2 which amends the Dog Control Act. In the principal Act the word “property” was used instead of the words “land or premises”. An amendment now corrects that in line with the principal Act and is repeated in clause 7(2). 
In clause 8 there is not much change but that clause amends section 21 of the principal Act because of changes to section 25. That is about territorial authorities classifying persons as probationary owners under Section 21. 
There are a number of typos throughout this amendment bill. I express concern about the fact that those were not picked up during the original process. There is a quite substantial new section in the bill. We went through a huge process a very intense emotional process for those dog control provisions. There was a lot of participation by people who were seriously affected by attacks from dogs and the whole of clause 10 is about penalties being put into the principal Act that have been left out. So how is it that with that huge concern over dog attacks etc. the penalty provisions were left out of the original Act? In my mind that is a huge oversight in the drafting of the original legislation and its enactment. Nobody not even the Minister spotted that omission. So under clause 10 are all those penalties that are a new addition to the Act. There is a $3000 fine for those failing to comply with the requirements of this dog control legislation which is one of the major amendments with regard to the Dog Control Act. 
Another amendment is in relation to working dogs. The provision in the principal Act applies to the owner of a working dog and clause 16 clarifies that the provision is “in relation to the working dog” and not in relation to the various pets that might be owned by somebody who has both working dogs and perhaps a pet chihuahua. Clause 16 is making sure the distinction is there so that owners are not excluded for their chihuahua but are exempted because of the working dog. However they could be exempted because of the Doberman that if a guard dog could be classified as a working dog. Its occupation is a guard dog and as such the dog has a working role. I should know because we have one. I would class it as a working dog and so I would not see that dog as needing to be muzzled. 
I see further typos in clause 17. I presume that clause 17(2) contains a typo. There is a big typo in clause 18 where the word “registered” has been put in which means that law-abiding persons do not have the options of a first-time offender for transgressions of their dogs that have just happened to be picked up walking along the street. I think that that is a significant amendment and one that would be welcomed. 
Most of section 72A inserted by clause 19 is new and I wonder whether there is a typo there already in those new provisions. But on the whole it is interesting to look at some of the penalties. One is up by $600 and there are two new different penalty regimes of $300 each. 
We then come to the Local Electoral Act and this has had some significant changes. We are facing an election this year in only a few months’ time. I know from my local authority that it will be a single transferable vote election (STV) for both the local authority and for the district health board. We have here some significant amendments and I have not gone through the detail of these amendments but looking at them I see they are quite substantial. I am absolutely aghast that we have amendments to this degree on such a serious issue as our electoral system and the manner in which people will vote and use the democratic process in just a few months’ time. These amendments are quite significant. The Minister is working on the assumption that we will get this through in time to meet the shortfall of the existing Act and addressing some of the necessary items for our electoral system. I do not know how many other councils are affected by STV processes but certainly the district health board is also as is our council in Coromandel. 
Jim Peters 
: Seven! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: My learned colleague Jim Peters advises me that seven councils will be affected by this so very definitely the amendments are absolutely vital to make sure that processes run smoothly. After all if they do not who will pick up the tab? It will be the ratepayers. What will they do? They will have to redo their processes. That would be an unconscionable burden on the ratepayers. 
The Local Government Act 2002 also has some substantial amendments. I see the first one is a change from “organisation” to “entity”. I recall Jim Peters referring to that during his speech on this bill. If members look at clause 42 they will see that it is largely new. 
In closing one of the things I would like to refer to is the casting vote. I note the comments of Mike Ward from the Greens. The casting vote is absolutely necessary. If we get to the point where the decision is hung and it is based on finances to do with the council the Standing Orders mean that we cannot revisit that decision within 6 months after the decision has been made. That is a general part of the Standing Orders. There can be situations where it is absolutely necessary that we have the ability to put a casting vote. The provision could have been made that we allowed councils to adopt that option as an addition to the Standing Orders. We could have allowed the option of a democratic process by which councils made that choice for themselves instead of being guided by the Greens—being colour blind yet again with regard to the Greens and not really considering the situation—and allowing councils to make those choices for themselves if they did not find themselves in an untenable position. Hopefully this matter will be addressed much more succinctly through this rather significant collection of amendments to six different pieces of legislation which we find appalling but which we will support none the less. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) is an outstanding example of the legislator’s craft. It is brilliantly crafted by an outstanding Minister of Local Government Chris Carter and I have no hesitation in supporting it absolutely. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 We cannot even call that a whip’s speech because the member is not now a whip. To suggest that this is outstanding legislation is nearly as funny as the foreshore and seabed legislation. The reason why we are here is that this bill is correcting a whole lot of mistakes that were made by this Government when the bill was put through the House not so long ago. To be fair to Minister Chris Carter I do not think that he has denied or tried to duck the fact that there are mistakes. To be fair to him he has not stood up here and said that it was not his fault which is unusual. 
Hon David Carter 
: “Swainy” does that; “Swainy” blames everybody else. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Minister Swain does but I have not heard the Minister of Local Government try to duck the responsibility. It is worthwhile putting on the record that we are here. How long is it since the bill was put through? 
Sandra Goudie 
: A couple of years? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Was it not even less than that? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Dog control was last year. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes the dog control legislation was last year and I think the rating bill was just before the last election. Here we are dealing with a bill that corrects a whole lot of mistakes that have been made over the last 6 12 and 15 months. Quite honestly why should we be surprised? This is the standard of administration that this Government sets itself. Indeed it is becoming more and more reflective of the standards the Government sets. Quite honestly the public are starting to say: “Enough.” Indeed it is starting to get to the stage where the public are saying that they want a group of people who are responsible who can put through good legislation and who make sure that the legislation before them is correct. We will not then have to go back and correct a whole lot of the bills that are before us. 
I want to come to one or two issues in particular that are dealt with in this bill. In relation to the Local Government (Rating) Act I am sure that most members of Parliament have got to the stage where we have been as frustrated as indeed have many members of the public of New Zealand in trying to get information out of local government. It is not local government’s fault. The legislation prevented the public from obtaining information from the local authority. We debated this bill when Sandra Lee was the Minister in charge of the particular part of this bill that we are now correcting. I remember arguing and debating whether this would be an end result—whether it might prevent people from having access to the records of local authorities so that they could find out names and addresses; the stuff that historically we have been able to do for— 
Hon David Carter 
: Like the member’s mother does. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think mum has got to the stage where she will get one of her sons to look after it now. Nevertheless this has been something that people in New Zealand have done forever. It is part of what we are. All of sudden it was stopped. It was a mistake. It was pointed out to the Government that it was a mistake. And what did the Government do? It was not interested. We told the Government that we would probably have to come back and put legislation through. I hate to say: “I told you so.” It is a fact of life and here we are correcting it. 
This is an important thing for people to be able to get information on. If they want to know about a property they should be able to go to the local authority obtain the name address and so on of the people who own it and have some interest in it. They have had to go through all sorts of machinations arm wrestles and all sorts of different systems to jolly well get the information they needed. The consequence is that we have to put this bill through to correct it. We should never have had to deal with it in the way we are tonight. 
The second thing I want to talk about is the meeting issue and the casting vote. That will generate some interest. It is one of those fifty-fifty issues—that is does one permit it or does one not permit it? In our Parliament the convention is that a draw is a loss and the status quo remains. If we do not have the numbers legislation does not get through. It is as simple as that. We have had the occasion where we had a draw but with one abstention and that got the legislation through. 
Hon Member 
: Which legislation was that? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It was the prostitution legislation. 
Hon David Carter 
: Who abstained? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am trying to remember. It was Mr Choudhary who abstained. We really did have a draw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please call the member by his full name. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I would but I think I would be pulled up for the fact that I did not pronounce it correctly so it is probably better if I do not try. I do not want to embarrass him or me for that matter. So let us just say that it was a member whose name is well known who decided to abstain from voting which was rather unfortunate. But the point I am making is that the Standing Orders of our Parliament state that if a party does not get the majority it does not get the legislation through. 
It has been the practice in local government that the mayor or the chairperson of the local authority the committee or whatever has a casting vote. But of course at the moment there is now debate around whether that should remain. It will be interesting to see how we handle that. My understanding is that the bill provides for a casting vote— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No it does not. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is right but there is representation to say that there should be a casting vote. It is an interesting debate—it is the sort of matter that should go before a select committee. There are some good reasons why a casting vote should be permitted but there are also some good reasons why it should not. It will be one of those interesting issues on which I am sure there will be lots of submissions. My understanding is that local government is fifty-fifty on it. 
Pansy Wong 
: Do they have a casting vote? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No that is the problem. If we asked local authorities we would probably have to end up with a casting vote and they cannot have one so we would not know who was on which side. But having said that I think it is an issue that will certainly generate some submissions and we will watch that with some interest. 
I want to finish where I started by saying that the National Party is supporting this bill to select committee because there are issues that do need to be addressed and should be addressed. But we should not be addressing them here tonight for the very reason that too often we get to the stage of correcting legislation that has been mucked up by this Government and it is not good enough. It costs the taxpayers of this country too much for us to have to bring legislation like this before the House. It is not as though this country is flush with money although we know that the Government is sticking some away in its piggy bank so that it can do its best to influence some outcomes a bit later on when the Budget arrives— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Post-election bribes! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I am not sure whether that is parliamentary so we will not go there; we will save all that for the Budget. But the point I am making is nevertheless we do not need to waste taxpayers’ money on this sort of legislation. 
If the Government had considered the legislation and taken the Opposition’s advice which was given to it at the time quite honestly we would not be here tonight debating this. People would not have had to put up with another 10 minutes of me making a contribution to the Parliament and a lot of people will be wondering why I have made a contribution. But I am pleased I have. This law does need to go through. I want to express again the disappointing fact that we are correcting mistakes in legislation that the Government had put through in the past. It is most unfortunate. Let us hope it does not happen again. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). The previous speaker is right. There are a good number of issues in this bill that need to be changed quickly particularly with local government elections coming up and I am glad that he is going to support the bill and facilitate its speedy passage through the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to say there are no speaking slots left if the member is seeking to speak. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: You have called me. [ 
Interruption 
] No no—I said: “Mr Speaker”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is not possible for me to give the member a call unless it is a point of order. All opportunities have been used. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I do appreciate your gentle manner in letting me down. It is just sad that on day when local Government is being disenfranchised— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —by the Government’s proposals over the seabed and foreshore— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —that I cannot make a contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration that the committee report the bill by 14 June 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the detail that the Minister went through in moving the motion. But it was a machinery motion telling us of the time that he wished the bill to be reported and the days on which the committee could sit. I wonder whether the Minister might also give us a reason as to why the time needs to be shortened because it may influence how we vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That can only be done by leave. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As I explained in my opening address on this bill there is some urgency because of the commitment that the Government has given to Local Government New Zealand particularly on the issue of whether people can stand as mayors and ward councillors at the same time. This is something that local government feels very strongly about and we are keen to allow that to happen and this will clarify the issue. 
Motion agreed to. 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Revenue 
: I move  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. 
 Later I shall be recommending to the House that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. This omnibus bill reflects several important themes of the Government’s tax policy work programme: measures to promote growth and innovation; to simplify the tax system especially for small business; to reduce compliance costs; and to protect the revenue base. 
The bill aligns New Zealand’s venture capital tax rules more closely with those of Australia removing a tax barrier to unlisted New Zealand companies gaining access to foreign venture capital. This will help New Zealand to compete more effectively with Australia for international venture capital supply. The change targets foreign investors who because they are tax exempt in their own countries cannot claim or make use of credits for any tax they may pay in New Zealand. They will be exempted from the New Zealand income tax on the sale of shares in certain unlisted New Zealand companies. The change will apply to foreign investors who are resident in one of 26 countries with which New Zealand has a double-tax agreement and who are unable to claim credits for any tax they pay in New Zealand. It will not apply to residents of Switzerland because that country has a limited exchange of information with us under our double-tax agreement. The change will also apply to foreign funds from countries representing our main investment partners who invest on behalf of foreign venture capital investors who are generally exempt from tax at home. 
The bill also introduces a business-friendly 6.7 percent rebate or discount to encourage people who begin receiving self-employment or partnership income to make voluntary payments of income tax during their first year of business. As members know businesses do not have to pay tax on income earned during their first year of business until the second year but both years’ payments can be due at about the same time. Paying two lots of income tax very close together can create real financial hardship for some small businesses and the measure proposed in this bill is designed to relieve that problem. The rebate or discount is one of a series of proposals canvassed last year on ways of making tax easier for small business and is the first to make it into legislation. 
 It received significant support from submissions and from consultation with small and medium sized businesses. Further announcements on the other major proposals canvassed in that package will be made later this year. 
Also introduced in this bill are changes to improve the legislative framework within which disputes between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department are resolved. The changes seek to ensure that the current process for resolving disputes introduced in 1996 is doing what it was intended to do—namely deal with disputes fairly efficiently and quickly before they get to court. Several amendments fine tune the legislation in this regard or reduce the costs involved in preparing the necessary documentation. Other changes affect time frames for both taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department. 
The bill allows costs associated with patent and resource management consent applications that are not granted or are withdrawn to be tax deductible. Under current law those costs cannot be claimed because they are regarded as a capital expense nor under common law can they be depreciated because no depreciable asset is involved. The tax treatment of replacement plantings of fruit trees and vines is a subject of other changes introduced in the bill. They follow Government consultation with the fruitgrowing industry over a proposal to allow a limited proportion of replacement planting to be deductible in a current income year. That will make the tax treatment more flexible and encourage the planting of the most commercially desirable varieties. 
To prevent a potential and significant revenue loss the bill closes a loophole involving the sale and lease back of intangibles such as trademarks and newspaper mastheads. The proposed changes target transactions that could result in participants claiming tax deductions for what are in substance repayments simply of loan principle. The changes will not affect normal sale and lease-back transactions entered into for commercial reasons. 
Finally an annual event the bill sets the income tax rate that will apply for the 2004-05 income year. Changes introduced in the bill are described in detail in the 77-page commentary which has been distributed to members of the House and I recommend it to members. I commend the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I think that the public and all members on this side of the House would quite like the Minister to take another call to explain why confirming an income tax rate of 39 percent for hard-working New Zealanders who earn only $60000 and above would motivate them to earn more and would stimulate growth. I think that this legislation to reaffirm the company tax rate of 33 percent and the high personal income tax rate is the Labour Government’s cruel Easter gift to hard-working New Zealanders. 
For the 8 months to the end of February 2004 the Crown’s operating surplus was $1 billion more than forecast. Part of that was due to the tax collected being higher than forecast by $154 million. Even the cash flow for core operating and investing activity was $781 million higher than forecast. The Minister had the nerve to bring in this legislation to reaffirm the Labour Government’s policy to impose high tax on hard-working individuals. 
Anyone who is earning above $60000 is classified as wealthy and is penalised by having to pay the higher marginal tax rate of 39c. Currently one in five hard-working New Zealanders are affected by that tax rate. National will not support this legislation that reaffirms the high tax policy to penalise the wealth creators in our country. We will not support this envy tax that will punish individuals who want to earn more in order to support their family better and that will create further wealth. 
I shall demonstrate further the total lack of rationale and consistency of this Labour Government. One has only to look at the Business Law Reform Bill passed by this House last night. That bill’s definition of a “wealthy person” apparently refers to one who has an annual income of at least $200000. Yet the socialist Labour Government is driven by envy to punish individuals who earn more than $60000. Those individuals are not even wealthy by the definition included by the Government in the Business Law Reform Bill. 
Of course New Zealanders are being overtaxed. As I mentioned previously the Crown financial statement identified that the tax revenue was $154 million ahead of forecast up to February this year. Since the Labour Government came into power it has introduced 17 new taxes in addition to new personal tax rates. There is a raft of new taxes ranging from fringe benefit tax trust income tax resident withholding tax tobacco tax and sherry tax and increased rates of taxation on petrol and alcoholic beverages. 
However I have to come clean and say that the Labour Government does cut taxes—but only for Maori authorities. That is one tax that was reduced but I had hoped that this Labour Government would apply one law for all and propose to reduce tax for all our hard-working New Zealanders. 
When we look at the legislation which reaffirms the income tax rate for individuals trusts and companies we want to ask not only why New Zealanders are overtaxed but where that tax money has gone. In recent weeks we learnt that $1.3 million went on consultation over a prison site an overseas trip to study hip-hop music and community educational courses for singalongs in people's own homes next to their own radios. A sum of $2 million was spent on the export credit office which has not signed a single export insurance scheme. Not only have hard-working New Zealanders paid too much tax but those taxes have gone to waste. 
Recently we learnt that gallstone sufferers were told that unless they had three attacks and blackouts it would be unlikely they would receive health treatments. So New Zealanders are overtaxed taxes are wasted and when it comes to essential health services people are not even receiving those. 
The Minister of Finance should explain to the public why he is claiming credit for the last few years’ good economic growth when it had been due to the previously lower exchange rate favourable international commodity prices and National’s strategies for immigration and international students. Recently when the Hon Michael Cullen learnt about the loss of business confidence and now that a lower economic growth rate is foreshadowed he simply said he always knew that the good times would not last. I think it is more a case of this Labour Government never tackling a hard chore when the sun is shining. High taxes and more red tape will drive a wedge between employers and employees thus pandering to union representatives. I think that cutting tax for both individuals and companies would be a good start to making up for lost time. 
The Minister of Finance’s spin on this bill is to focus on two other issues instead of on higher tax rates. First he championed a tax exemption for certain proceeds from venture capital investors’ sale of investments and that is a sensible move. However this Labour Government’s indifference to and lack of understanding and respect for the risk-taking attitude of entrepreneurs is in itself a barrier to the growth of our venture companies. 
The report of Ernst and Young in commenting on the monitoring of the venture capital industry sector in New Zealand said that venture capital in New Zealand is coming of age. Ernst and Young reckons that based on global trends biotechnology and information technology will continue to receive significant funding in the year ahead anyway. The company went on to say that in its opinion the type of environment in which the venture capital sector will grow is one where a dynamic business environment and culture thrive. 
I cannot say that the policies of the Labour Government are providing a dynamic environment in which venture capital can grow. For example the recent collapse of Project Aqua is sending the message to both domestic and international business communities that business in New Zealand suffers from uncertainty about long-term power supply and from a lack of urgency in tackling infrastructure issues such as roading and transport in Auckland Wellington and Tauranga to name a few. 
The other issue the Labour Government is championing in this bill is a tax rebate for people who move into business. Let me remind the public that the benefit of that move will need to be demonstrated. The rebate is available only if those businesses that do not have to pay provisional tax choose to pay; hence it is more to do with the time-use of money than with a rebate per se. 
The Minister just mentioned the improvement in the dispute resolution process. Well I am sure that all my colleagues in this House have heard complaints from taxpayers feeling a bit intimidated in dealing with tax disputes with the Inland Revenue Department. 
Rodney Hide 
: Not very! 
PANSY WONG 
: My honourable colleague obviously has prior experience. The finance Minister would have us believe that these provisions will resolve that problem. But let me just pose questions about two scenarios for the Minister to answer. Firstly why does the Inland Revenue Department have the ability to reopen an assessment for up to 4 income years yet taxpayers get just 4 months under those proposals? Secondly the legislation does not tackle the issue of a favourable case decision or ruling for the taxpayer yet the only taxpayer to benefit from that ruling is the one who takes part in that procedure. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and am pleased to support its passage through the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I follow the senior Government whip who has just given her longest speech in the House this year. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It was a good one. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It was a good one. It was more coherent than some of the interjections and contributions that Mrs Pettis has made. I must admit it was very good to hear the Hon David Cunliffe introduce this bill. I quite like listening to him because I like to hear both sides of an argument. In fact when I was listening to him I think I heard about six sides of an argument. Last week he was explaining to us how he is a Christian socialist when it came to shop trading I think and this week we heard about him being a venture capitalist and all that he was doing. 
Jim Peters 
: From the Boston group. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes the man with the Harvard accent. If this Government was serious about venture capitalism if this Government was serious about entrepreneurship and investment in New Zealand it would not be fiddling with this bill. As my colleague Rod Donald says it would be cutting taxes. He is quite right because the one thing I know and I like about Rod Donald is this: he does not like business he does not like economic growth he does not like success and he does not like commercialism which is why he favours higher taxes. He sees lower taxes as giving economic growth which if one is a Green is a bad thing. But across the floor in Mrs Jill Pettis’ party and in the Hon David Cunliffe’s party they say: “We’re for economic growth and we’re for high taxes.” 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Yep! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The Hon Paul Swain from the great Department of Corrections with the iwi consultation at $1.3 million to talk to a— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: This is “Beat them up Rodney Hide” all the way from the Fiji consultation. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh! So $1.3 million to talk to 150 Maori according to this Minister is excessive spending. When asked on television: “What about this letter?” he said: “I don’t know anything about the letter.” They said to him: “But you signed it Minister.” And did he not look a turkey on television when that happened? What a turkey of a Minister! [ 
Interruption 
] He pipes up and says: “Yes we are in favour of higher taxes and economic growth.” Because the one thing that Paul Swain has in common with Jill Pettis and with Mr David Cunliffe is this: no concept of the impact that tax has on entrepreneurship on investment on venture capitalism and on growth of the New Zealand economy. If they were serious they would not be fiddling; they would not be sitting over there trying to laugh at Mrs Pettis’ jokes; they would actually be getting some serious tax policy on the Table which would be lowering the top rate on those earning over $60000. 
Darren Hughes 
: Another rort. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well this is the great thing about the member for Otaki. 
Darren Hughes 
: I pay my taxes. It’s a great thing. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The great thing about “Mr Whoever” paying his taxes is all it is is a bookkeeping entry because his entire salary is paid by the taxpayer of New Zealand. The member is sitting there saying that he pays his taxes and anyone else who is wanting to lower the top rate of tax down from 39c to 33c to 25c to 20c is somehow making a rort. But what we are talking about is taxpayers’ money. Mr Hughes might want to take that money from those taxpayers and give it over to the Hon Paul Swain so he can splurge it on a scheme of iwi consultation at $1.3 million to talk to 150 Maori and when the television cameras come along he says: “Oh yes this is excessive spending.” but that Minister over there and his predecessors approved it and directed it. That is what happened. Then the Minister is confronted with a letter and says he does not know anything about the gate but he signed the letter. That must have been one of those things he sort of signed when he was asleep just like Parekura Horomia. But I ask Mr McCully why can we not get the top rate of tax down to 30c 25c and 20c. Mr McCully is indicating we should go a bit further. Well I would concur with that. 
Jill Pettis 
: I will tell you why—because you’re not the Government. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh well! Mrs Pettis has worked it out. I do not know how long Mrs Pettis has been in this Parliament but she has finally worked out something—she is in Government and we are not. Well that is about to change and I am so pleased she has figured out why she is sitting over there. We know what it is. So does the rest of the country and they are sick of it. 
I have to say one other thing about Mr David Cunliffe when he was talking about the new culture in the Inland Revenue Department. I have to say that there are elements of this bill that are taxpayer-friendly and we will be interested in looking at the detail. I know things have got pretty bad under the sisterhood under “Helengrad” but I am astonished that Mr Cunliffe is sanctioning a manager turning up to the call centre of the Inland Revenue Department each and every day in a fairy suit with wings and a crown on and a magic wand and saying she is a fairy. This is what David Cunliffe says is OK in the Inland Revenue Department. I do not think so. I do not think that is a very good idea. Here we have Mr Cunliffe thinking he is in charge of the Inland Revenue Department. Do members know what the fairy does each day? She dances around the call centre spreading a bit of twinkle dust here and there and it is designed to— 
Jill Pettis 
: Sounds like that member’s had some twinkle dust during the dinner break. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I might have had a bit of twinkle dust but I hope that member gets home by midnight otherwise the pumpkin might turn into a princess for a change. Would that not be something—the old pumpkin turning into a princess? 
I have to say to Mr Cunliffe that having the old fairy walk around the call centre spreading a bit of twinkle dust when we are saying:“We need a new culture at the IRD.” is a bit over the top. Another thing that is happening at the call centre at the Inland Revenue Department—the new caring understanding employer the New Zealand Government—is that if people are working at the call centre they have to put a sign on their seat and that sign is a picture of a monkey. 
Darren Hughes 
: From the member’s website. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No no the call centre. So people arrive at work and they get to choose which monkey they are. I have to say that I think David Cunliffe is on to it—because over there do we not have a Cabinet full of monkeys? We used to have a barrel of monkeys but over there on that side of the House there is a Cabinet full of monkeys and I think we are on to something. We have them over there on the foreshore and seabed issue. We have the Minister of Corrections—see no evil hear no evil do no evil. That is what is happening with this Government. I have to tell Government members that the public are awake to the duplicity of this Government. They are awake to this Government. 
We have a simple proposition: do not fiddle around with the tax system. Let us get some real entrepreneurship. Let us get some real investment. Let us get New Zealand moving and let us drop the top rate of tax down from 39c. Let us drop the company rate down and let us go for a flat tax of 20c in the dollar. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 There are some very good features in this bill that are certainly worthy of support. I would like to run through some of those. The first one of course is on provisional taxation. The 6.7 percent tax discount that is being offered to encourage individuals to pay tax voluntarily in the year before they begin to pay provisional tax is an excellent idea and one that will help the self-employed and those in partnership to get on their feet and to get over that often difficult hurdle of having to pay 2 years’ worth of provisional tax in one hit. I am sure all small-business people and all entrepreneurs who are setting up in business will look forward to that measure coming into effect. 
There is also an excellent initiative to end the scam that was initiated by a number of companies to try to rort the tax system by selling intangible assets then leasing them back in order to avoid paying tax. It is good to see that the Government is closing that loophole and that it is very keen to protect the tax base. We applaud that initiative. 
It is also good to see the disputes procedure being improved. I thought Rodney Hide might have been a little gracious and also might have taken a bit of a pat on the back for the role he played in trying to improve the customer relationship of the Inland Revenue Department. Under David Butler it has improved even further and with this new disputes procedure the department will be as popular as an inland revenue department could ever become. 
But the Green Party cannot support this bill. We cannot support this bill because of one key feature it contains and that is the proposal to exempt offshore venture capitalists from paying tax on the profits of their New Zealand share sales. It is ironic that in this bill on the one hand the Government is talking about closing a loophole on the sale and lease-back of assets in order to protect its tax base and on the other hand it is deliberately undermining the tax base by exempting venture capitalists from paying their fair share of tax. 
The Government says it needs to do that because New Zealand is not attracting enough venture capital. It also says it needs to do it because Australia has that rule and New Zealand does not. Well excuse me but why should we be letting foreign investors make tax-free capital gains in New Zealand especially when the Government is determined to throw our hard-earned taxes at the global sharemarket through its New Zealand Superannuation Fund? Is it not amazing that we supposedly have a shortage of venture capital in this country when at the same time the Government is putting at least $2 billion a year in the Superannuation Fund which in turn tosses most of that money at the global sharemarket and at other overseas investments? The remedy for the venture capital shortage is clearly in the Government’s own hands. All that it needs to do is to use some of the $2 billion it puts into the Superannuation Fund to set up a venture capital fund in New Zealand. 
Despite what Rodney Hide says the Greens are actually very keen on venture capital. Our own superannuation fund has money invested in wind power and that is still very much a venture capital exercise at this stage. We have money invested in organic food products. We are currently scoping other investment opportunities such as solar power. All the investments we make are designed to help the New Zealand economy become sustainable and self-reliant and we will continue to do that despite the tax exemption that this bill proposes to offer foreign investors and despite the fact that that incentive that tax break will not be available to New Zealand investors. 
But I have to say that other superannuation funds will not be so understanding. Already there is a strong push from New Zealand superannuation funds and other New Zealand investment vehicles to be exempt from capital gains tax. We have the opposite view. We think that capital gains tax should be investigated on all but the family home because we want to shift this economy from being a speculative economy to being a productive economy. So we would not support getting rid of capital gains tax on share sales and on other capital gains such as from property. 
But with this Government opening the gates for foreign investors not to have to pay tax on the capital gains of some of their share sales in New Zealand the pressure will really come on the Government to deliver some tax breaks to the New Zealand superannuation funds; otherwise they will justifiably claim that they are being treated unfairly. I cannot put a price on what is at risk because the officials are still working that out but I predict it will be tens of millions of dollars. So the Government is deliberately undermining its tax base by putting up this proposal for venture capitalists to get a tax break. 
 The worst thing about this proposal is that it will be retrospective and most members of this House do not like retrospective legislation. I would like to draw attention to the fact that this legislation is to take effect from 1 April just passed. So by the time this bill is passed assuming other parties support it and assuming the Government does not recognise its folly and withdraw this particular section of the bill there will already be overseas venture capitalists coming here to make hay while the sun shines and New Zealand businesses will be increasingly upset that those foreign investors have an advantage that is not available to them. 
So I would like to invite the Minister of Finance and also the Government members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to reflect on the implications of what they are doing with the venture capital section of this bill. If it were not for that section I am sure the Greens would be able to support this legislation but I am afraid that putting in a tax break for venture capitalists is simply unacceptable to us and therefore we feel obliged to vote against this legislation. I look forward to hearing Government members put up some substantive arguments in this debate as to why our position is wrong why it is OK to let foreign investors come here and have an advantage over New Zealand investors and why it is OK for the Government to be exporting our funds—taxpayers’ funds—through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and gambling those on the overseas sharemarket instead of using that money to strengthen our own economy by investing in sustainability and self-reliance within New Zealand. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill I want to indicate to the House that New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee so that the public companies businesses and corporations—whatever—can have their say. With regard to the number of significant changes this bill will make to taxation laws New Zealand First’s priority is first and foremost to encourage New Zealanders to save and invest in our economy and keep the resources of New Zealand in the hands of New Zealanders as stated in our 15 founding fundamental principles. So we will be keeping a close eye on that part of the bill. 
I now want to focus mainly on Part 1. The commentary states: “The rates in Schedule 1 vary from the rates that applied for the 2003-04 income year in the following ways:”. One of the ways is: “a rate of 19.5% will apply to Maori authorities (see section 78(2) of the Taxation (Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003);”. In speaking to the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill about a year ago on Wednesday 19 March 2003 I moved an amendment on behalf of New Zealand First that all sections of the New Zealand community should be able to take advantage of the proposal relating to basic tax rates of 19.5 percent. We did not support that part of the bill because we felt it was unfair. I reiterate that New Zealand First wants to treat all New Zealanders equally and at that time I put forward an amendment to give effect to that view. 
I want to read that amendment; briefly I want to inform the House again of what that amendment was. I moved in Committee the following amendments in relation to clause 24(1): that the words “Subpart 1—Maori authorities” on page 18 line 9 be deleted and be substituted by the words “Maori authorities and applicants”; and that on page 21 between lines 6 and 7 the following words be inserted: “Election to become applicant—(1) The applicant whose tax characteristics and tax rates are similar to those of a Maori authority as referred to in this Act shall be entitled to make a similar application to the Commissioner as a Maori authority can under this Act by giving notice to the Commissioner as a Maori authority is entitled to do in terms of section HI 1C of this Act and shall receive the same treatment as a Maori authority is entitled to receive in terms of this Act. (2) The words ‘applicant or applicants’ shall include all persons legally entitled to be called a legal person in terms of any and all Inland Revenue Department and any other tax legislation including (but not exclusively) individuals companies incorporated societies charitable trusts sole traders partnerships and any other parties liable to pay income tax. (3)” —the last part—“the provisions of Subpart 1 as applicable to Maori authorities shall apply to an applicant.” Regarding the amendments I proposed I would also like to add that the Federation of Maori Authorities welcomed the amendment I put forward to the House at about this time last year. 
Staying on Part 1 I want to say that unlike the Greens New Zealand First is not in favour of tax increases and as I mention many times in this House unlike the National Party which just wants tax cuts for the rich we advocate tax incentives for exporters. For example we would announce tax abatement and concession policies such as a 20 percent tax rate on new export net income to ensure that viable exporting opportunities and innovation are not lost. 
In ending I want to say that New Zealand First is looking forward to hearing submissions on this bill at the select committee and we will make our decision from there. But as always we support good legislation and we oppose bad legislation. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Generally speaking this bill will have positive outcomes for New Zealand taxpayers. Firstly I applaud its announcement of the introduction of a 6.7 percent rebate or discount on tax paid to encourage individuals who have been receiving self-employed or partnership income to pay tax voluntarily in the year before they begin paying provisional tax. This will provide some incentive for people starting businesses to take into account their tax liabilities sooner rather than later. 
Evidence both anecdotal and otherwise demonstrates that at the moment many new business start-ups fail during their second year whilst many others survive only by the skin of their teeth. That is because tax relating to the first year of their operations is deferred until the second year but in that second year the fledging entrepreneurs have to cope with provisional tax payments as well. This effective double-up in tax during the second year drains cash out of new businesses undermines their working capital and in all too many cases brings businesses to their knees. This is a tragedy both for new business-owners and for our economy generally. 
Enormous personal sacrifice is required to start a new business and not infrequently the capital used is a combination of hard-won savings a mortgage on the house or loans from friends and families. This capital base is normally pretty thin and not big enough to see a company get through that second difficult year. Under this bill if a company is prepared to discipline itself to pay provisional tax from year one it will effectively earn interest on that amount. That discipline not only enhances its potential to survive during the second year but also in and of itself becomes a success factor in the future growth of the business. 
United Future wants to see small New Zealand businesses grow to medium businesses and medium businesses grow to become large and successful operations. I am sure that the measures introduced in this bill will assist those goals. I am pleased to see also that the bill closes a loophole to prevent the sale and leaseback of intangibles creating tax deductions for what in substance are repayments of loan principal. Simply stated this is a tax avoidance opportunity and it is rightly being brought to an end. 
I am pleased to note however that the new arrangements will apply only to arrangements entered into on or after the date on which this bill is introduced. I believe that retrospective legislation particularly when it is in favour of the revenue rather than the taxpayer is undesirable unless there are clear extenuating circumstances involving significant risk or similar. So in principle retrospective legislation should be avoided if at all possible. 
The new disputes resolution arrangements outlined in the bill are also a positive initiative for New Zealand taxpayers. Two thousand years ago Jesus suggested that it would be better to try to settle matters with our opponents before we get to court. There is tremendous wisdom in that advice and I think it is always better for disputes between the commissioner and taxpayers to be resolved through a robust resolution process mediation good communication and the like rather than through use of the much more cumbersome and expensive court process. 
The only losers from eliminating and minimising the involvement of the courts in resolving tax disputes will in most circumstances be lawyers and other professional advisers. They will not lose out entirely under these new dispute resolution procedures but in the majority of cases the need for their advice and input will be significantly reduced with a commensurate reduction in cost to both the taxpayers involved and to the commissioner. We need to bear in mind also that cost savings to the commissioner represent cost savings to all of us. At the same time when these procedures fail taxpayers will still have the opportunity to go to our courts in the usual way. That is the right of course of every citizen and every taxpayer under our democratic form of Government. 
Unlike the Greens United Future also welcomes the provisions in respect of venture capital. It is vitally important that New Zealand businesses—and in particular our smaller companies—can access venture capital from overseas sources. In speaking against this proposal Rod Donald overlooked the reality that the worldwide pool of venture capital funds is severely limited and that New Zealand competes with other nations for those scarce resources. By exempting from income tax profits made by non-residents who on-sell shares in unlisted companies this bill will improve New Zealand’s competitive position in that regard. Simply stated I predict that the bill will result in an increase in the quantum of offshore venture capital investment in New Zealand. That can only be a good thing for our economy. 
The only other matter I wish to refer to is the confirmation in this bill of current income tax rates. United Future continues to believe that the current rates of income tax of 19.5c—effectively 21c—up to $38000 33c up to $60000 and 39c over $60000 should be adjusted for the cumulative movement in the consumer price index between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2005—that is the whole year that this bill covers. The Government’s steadfast refusal to adjust the $38000 and $60000 tax brackets for the consumer price index means that in real terms tax rates have increased very significantly for many thousands of New Zealand taxpayers during the last 4 years through what is referred to as “bracket creep”. That creep is now substantial. Based on Reserve Bank forecasts the creep will be 13.95 percent by 31 March 2005 which would see the $38000 bracket move to $43000 and the $60000 bracket move to $68000. 
The Government says that at about $620 million per annum the adjustment would be too expensive but I say what about fairness? What about the cut in real family incomes at a time when the Government is not only running a surplus but the surplus itself is running well ahead of previous forecasts. That point is critical. The operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes for the 7-month period ended 29 February 2004 is more than $740 million above the 2003 December Economic and Fiscal Update. So the plain and substantial fact is that the Government could adjust the income brackets for inflation and still find itself about $120 million ahead of its own forecast made as recently as last December. 
I should say that pursuant to United Future’s confidence and supply agreement it will nevertheless support this bill’s referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. For the benefit of those Opposition members who ask me why we do not pull the plug on our confidence and supply agreement very simply I repeat that we stand by our word and do not welsh on deals. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I stand in support of the first reading of this bill. The reasons why the Government is introducing it have been made well clear by the Minister. I wish it well as it goes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee which does very good work in considering taxation bills and I look forward to the second reading within a very short space of time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 One always knows that the Government is trying to rush legislation and not have debate when it gets the junior Government whip Darren Hughes to rise to his feet to make a few comments about a tax bill that he has only just picked up off the Table and does not have a clue what it is about. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: He doesn’t pay tax. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am not sure about that. I start my contribution by concentrating on the parts of this bill that the Associate Minister of Revenue—the junior Minister—the Hon David Cunliffe forgot to mention when he made his speech to the House an hour or so ago. It has long been accepted that when a Minister comes into this House to introduce legislation before it goes to a select committee he or she spends that 10 minutes honestly outlining what the bill does. I listened with interest to the words of the Hon David Cunliffe and I never heard him at any time at all refer to the most important part of this legislation—the most critical part and the reason we are having to rush this legislation through—Part 1 which sets the annual rates of income tax for the 2004-05 year. It is little wonder that— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a copy of the speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that it is not on to interrupt another member’s speech. I apologise. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I can understand why the Minister is somewhat wounded. It is also apparent to me that whenever there is unpopular legislation to be introduced the real Minister of Finance and Minister of Revenue always manages to ask his junior David Cunliffe to come down and do it for him. David Cunliffe acknowledges that. A discussion probably occurred on the 7th floor whereby Dr Cullen said he would prefer not to introduce the bill because it is not one he is proud of. I accept that that was probably the case so David Cunliffe has dutifully come down to introduce the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. 
I repeat the statements made by Pansy Wong. I can assure the House that the National Party will vote against this bill because it cements in place for yet another year the highest tax rates in the South Pacific and Asian regions. New Zealand has the highest tax rates of any country with which we trade. David Benson-Pope shakes his head in amazement. He is another recently appointed Minister and he did not realise that this— 
Brian Connell 
: A short-term appointment. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: A very short-term appointment. He is acknowledging today in the House that he did not realise— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Tell the whole story. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Now he is telling me to tell the whole story and I am happy to. I will ask for an extension of time to carry on telling the whole story. The whole story is that this bill cements in place the highest tax rates of any country in the South Pacific and South-east Asian regions. That is the whole story. That is why countries like Australia can regularly perform over a period of time at a higher growth rate than New Zealand. The average weekly pay packet of Australians as opposed to New Zealanders has approximately $200 more in it because they do not have to pay crippling tax rates that stifle the economy. 
Let us look at the highest tax rate of all—the personal tax rate of 39c. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s a killer. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: My colleague Brian Connell is absolutely right. It is an absolute envy tax. I recall that the Labour Party campaigned on the tax with two messages. Firstly it said that it would affect only 5 percent of taxpayers and it is now being paid by nearly twice that many—about 10 percent of taxpayers. But the other thing Michael Cullen David Cunliffe and Darren Hughes campaigned on was that they would apply this extremely high tax rate only to the wealthy. That is what they said—it is only for the wealthy. Then we find out—and it is being re-cemented in this legislation today—that their idea of wealth is someone who earns $60000 a year. 
David Cunliffe nods his head and says yes that is a wealthy person in New Zealand. If that is his level of aspiration for this country it is no wonder that the public of New Zealand have finally woken up to this Government. Sixty thousand dollars is not wealthy. It equates to close to the support wage that the Americans pay. [ 
Interruption 
] It is effectively the poverty line in the United States and because of its lack of ambition for this country it is recognised by the Labour Party as a wealthy position to be in. I say to that Government that if it thinks $60000 is wealthy and the sort of wage at which people should be asked to pay 39c in the dollar tax it is too high. 
The other thing I want to move on to in the bill is a section that again David Cunliffe did not make mention of. The rates in schedule 1 vary from the rates that applied for the 2003-04 income year in the following way: a rate of 19.5 percent will apply to Maori authorities. 
Brian Connell 
: That can’t be right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is what this legislation does. It reinforces a special rate for Maori authorities that is just impossible to justify. I have heard Dr Cullen come into the House and attempt to justify it. His rationale goes something like this: the beneficiaries of Maori authorities tend to be lower-income New Zealanders and on that basis the Government will make those authorities pay 19.5c. The ma and pa investors in Air New Zealand will on the whole be low-income New Zealanders. They will be paying tax rates of around 21c so why not apply the same logic to them? Darren Hughes does not have an answer to that because there is no answer. This law gives a special tax rate to the Maoris. No one can argue against that. 
Darren Hughes 
: No that’s not right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I invite Darren Hughes to take the next call having read the bill. It is in black and white Part 1 cementing in a tax rate of 19.5 percent for Maori authorities. Darren Hughes cannot deny that. 
My time is running out. This bill means that on Monday and Tuesday people work for Dr Cullen and the Government; on Wednesday they work to pay GST and local government rates; on Thursday and Friday they start earning for themselves and then have the ability to buy their cars fuel their cars feed their families and pay other bills. If Darren Hughes thinks that is not a high tax rate I ask him to take some time out and look at the successful economies in the world. They are not stifled with tax rates like this. 
Darren Hughes 
: They have higher tax rates to pay. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They do not have higher tax rates at all and Darren Hughes knows that. He knows that New Zealand is a high-tax economy and that is why people in this country get fed up with seeing money going into Government coffers and then being spent on things like a $26000 hip-hop tour. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I look forward to the time when the National Party will get over its paranoia about Maori. I wish to say that this tax bill is a jolly good bill and it does show that this Government is listening to people. I thank John Tamihere and those who have been around the country listening to and holding meetings with small-business people. Particularly good is the part of the bill that introduces a rebate of income tax for small-business taxpayers who pay their tax on their self-employed or partnership income in their first year. That is what we have heard people saying they want and this is a Government that does deliver. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 That last speech was lacking in inspiration was it not? It is just as well it was very short. Mr Carter’s speech however was full of inspiration and I congratulate him on it. It dealt with some of the real true issues of what this Government is really all about. It is one tax policy for some and another tax policy for Maori. But we will come to that in due course. 
Despite all the rhetoric that this Government has taken us through this evening I have to say that this is not good legislation. Despite David Cunliffe’s assurances to the contrary this is not good legislation and that is a widely held view in the business community. But I will allow that there are some good aspects of this legislation. There are a couple of initiatives. In particular I am referring to tax treatment of venture capital. I would give that a tick. Sales and leaseback intangibles and patent and resource management application costs I would also give a tick. But on balance the National Party opposes this legislation because it simply does not deal with the very vexed issue of taxation. I would like to come back to this if time allows but I want to deal with other areas of concern first. 
The commentary really makes me chuckle. It makes reference to the Government’s growth and innovation strategy. This is really a joke. Promoting venture capital investment moves in the right direction—I have already said I agree with that—but if this Government thinks that that is the solution to the problem of attracting foreign and domestic capital it is woefully wrong. The real blockage to investment and the development of industry in this country is the Resource Management Act and red tape. This Government continues to demonstrate that it just cannot intellectualise this problem. If it could it surely would have by now. Does Mr Carter think that is fair? If it could have it would have by now. 
Hon David Carter 
: This is the Government that tried to tax farting. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I agree with Mr Carter. The Resource Management Act is the biggest handbrake on growth in living memory and I want to give the House an example of what foreign investors think about it as well. [ 
Interruption 
] This bill does absolutely nothing to address this fundamental problem absolutely nothing and Mr Mark knows this. He knows this. At Christmas I had the opportunity to deal with some executives from a multinational conglomerate a forestry company called Weyerhaeuser. This company turns over US$22 billion a year. Do members know what they said to me? They said: “We like your country. We like this place for growing trees but your Resource Management Act is a showstopper.” They also said: “And by the way your corporate tax rate is far too high.” They said that we are simply not competitive. The real issue here is that those guys left with their chequebook unopened. They came here to invest and they left with their chequebook unopened. [ 
Interruption 
] If Darren Hughes had more years of experience he would realise that that hurts every New Zealander even his constituents in Otaki. [ 
Interruption 
] An ounce of intelligence would help as well. 
I want to pursue for a while the matter of the amendments to income tax introduced as a rebate on income tax for small businesses. We have been told to swallow this as good for cash flow pressures. But I have to say this is a real sham an absolute sham. It is a sprat to catch the mackerel. It would catch someone like Darren Hughes out. He would think this is a good idea because he is a sprat. [ 
Interruption 
] I said sprat. This would catch him out. It is going to improve cash flow pressures all right but guess whose? 
 It will improve the Government’s cash-flow pressures and nobody else’s. It is an incentive for the unwitting to pay tax before they have to. They will put pressure on their own cash flow and the Government will have us believe that it went around the country consulting broadly. What it did was get a few Government patsies—it was a bunch of old cobblers really—to turn up and listen to John Tamihere rattle on for a while and then they told us that everyone was converted and this is good. I will now turn to annual rates of income tax because this is I suppose the issue that hurts us most. 
Hon David Carter 
: Darren Hughes laughs. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He is not used to paying tax. It probably has not hurt him yet. He probably still has tax incentives from being at university. 
Not only has the Government not dealt with the issues of corporate tax or the top marginal tax rate it has reverted to type when the pressure has come on. Mr Carter has already dealt with this but I have to say that when he referred to it in his speech I could hardly believe it. I read the legislation I turned to the page and despite Darren Hughes’ denials I read and reread it and it says that Maori authorities will pay a tax of only 19.5 percent. I was a bit excited when I first heard that because I thought it was a good idea to have a flat rate of 19.5 percent. That would get my vote—it would get a lot of votes. I started to get a bit concerned as I realised it could not be right so I reread it. Mr Carter was dead right—it applies only to Maori authorities. Other Kiwis will cringe when they hear about this. When the Government tries to justify this— 
Rodney Hide 
: Where in the world is your tax determined by your race? Only in New Zealand. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Does the member know what it is called? It is called being racist. It is discriminatory—it discriminates on race. The Government has tried to justify this on the basis that some Maori trusts are poor. Some Maori authorities suffered double taxation whammies and in some cases I have to agree that that was taking place. But we cannot fix the problem by creating a worse one. Fix double taxation yes but do not cherry-pick on the grounds of poverty because if poverty is the issue what about poor white businesspeople? What about Asian and Pacific Island businesses—why can they not have the same tax advantages that the Maori trusts are now enjoying? I would have thought that this Government had learnt its lesson. The recent polls have been telling it that the population en masse is sick of these types of discriminatory policies and they will bring it down. I fear that Government members will learn their lesson only when the next election takes place and they find themselves out of a job. That is what will happen. I have tended to focus on the major issues of this legislation but there are some minor amendments that I do not think we should bother speaking about. 
I will conclude by saying that this legislation falls well short of the Government’s intention to try to stimulate investment in this country. David Cunliffe is sitting opposite and he cannot look me in the eye because he knows that what I am saying is true. He knows now that this is wrong and that he cannot justify a 19.5 percent tax rate for Maori authorities when the rest of the country can go and sing. He cannot justify it. [ 
Interruption 
] Dianne Yates is calling out. She had an opportunity to take a call for 10 minutes and I think she was on her feet for 30 seconds. She did not want to talk then but now when her opportunity is lost she wants to interject. That just will not wash. People in this country will vote at the next election to show that they are tired of this type of racist discriminatory legislation. I have to say that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will have one heck of a job trying to sort this bill out because members know that if they continue down this path there will be a change of Government and the present Government members on that select committee will be very uncomfortable. At this stage unless some monumental changes are made by the select committee the National Party simply cannot support this legislation and we remain strongly opposed to it. 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Hughes knows that is a prime ministerial speech in the making and he is now cringing because there will be a huge change. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Corrections Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections Bill be now read a second time 
. This measure is a major reform of the law governing the operation of the corrections system. It will replace the Penal Institutions Act and parts of the Criminal Justice Act and require the replacement of the Penal Institutions Regulations 2000. This reform is needed so that the legislation reflects modern conditions and approaches to the management of offenders. It is compatible with the Government’s criminal justice reforms—the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Victims’ Rights Act—particularly in emphasising the central importance of public safety and it is clear and easy to implement. The Corrections Bill is the outcome of a lengthy policy development process involving a substantial public consultation exercise including consultation with Maori. While the bill carries forward much of the current legislation it also incorporates a number of policy changes. 
For the first time there is a legislative statement on the purpose and guiding principles of the corrections system clearly indicating that improving public safety is of paramount importance. The bill implements long-established Government policy by ending private contracting for the management of prisons. The Department of Corrections will be required to devise individual management plans for prisoners and within the resources available to provide programmes for the rehabilitation of prisoners and their reintegration into society. The bill ensures that prisoners’ minimum entitlements are consistent with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners—for example by providing for access to news library services and education. I am pleased to say that the bill provides for a fair complaints resolution system and expands the role of inspectors to cover offenders on community-based sentences and orders as well as prisoners. The ability to detect drugs and other unauthorised items will be improved notably by the provision of a more effective searching procedure to be used where it is reasonably believed that a prisoner is concealing contraband. Finally the bill improves the prison disciplinary offence regime by including provisions for legal representation in certain areas having a single set of clearly specified offences instead of the current two-tier system and providing for the appointment of legally qualified visiting justices. 
The bill was referred to the Law and Order Committee last April. A total of 41 submissions from a wide variety of people and organisations was considered. However the committee was unable to reach agreement on whether the bill should be passed and therefore reported it back to the House without amendment. I would like to thank the committee for its careful consideration of the legislation. The most contentious matter in the bill and the apparent reason that the committee was unable to reach agreement on its passage is the ending of private prison contracting. I would reiterate that the Government’s position on that matter is based on an important principle. The management of prisons involves the exercise of some of the State’s most highly coercive powers against individuals. There needs to be a direct accountability for the exercise of such powers and that can best be achieved through a Government department directly accountable to a responsible Minister. 
 The Law and Order Committee considered some additional policy proposals which were approved by Cabinet for inclusion in the bill. In order to improve public safety it is proposed to enhance provisions for information sharing between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police. For example information will be shared on released offenders considered to be of the highest risk in relation to public safety. An information-matching programme between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Immigration Service is also necessary to assist in exercising the powers conferred by the Immigration Act. Cabinet agreed that intentionally obstructing injuring or interfering with a prison drug-detection dog should be an offence. Finally it was recognised that temporary prisons may need to be established in the event of a civil emergency. In addition the committee was not persuaded that Justices of the Peace should be disqualified from appointment as visiting justices and formed the view that there should continue to be provision for the appointment of appropriately qualified Justices of the Peace to that role. It is my intention at the Committee stage to move a Supplementary Order Paper that will include those matters. It will also contain a substantial number of technical amendments that are needed to improve the quality and clarity of the legislation and to make some minor policy changes. 
Following the report back of the bill by the Law and Order Committee I have given further consideration to the content of the bill including having helpful discussions with both the Progressives and the Green Party. I want to take particular note of the work of Matt Robson former Minister of Corrections and the discussions we have had around some of these matters and also of Nandor Tanczos who is the Greens’ spokesperson on corrections. I found the discussions we had as we progressed through that process extremely constructive and helpful. As a result of the process I have identified some additional amendments that are desirable and those amendments will also be included in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The bill should include a reference to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. To enhance the transparency of the corrections system it is appropriate that the annual report of the Department of Corrections include a report on the activities of inspectors of corrections. I propose that there be provision for the chief executive and prison managers to obtain advice from affected communities in relation to the development of corrections services policies and practices. A decision to segregate a prisoner for security reasons or to protect the safety of others involves significant additional restrictions. It is therefore appropriate that such decisions be reviewed at least monthly rather than every 3 months and that any extension beyond 3 months be approved by a visiting justice. Similarly detention in a police jail rather than in a prison can mean a loss of certain minimum entitlements and it is therefore appropriate that the chief executive may order only one 14-day extension of the period of detention in a police jail and that any further extensions be authorised by a visiting justice. 
I consider the Corrections Bill to be an essential element in the Government’s package of criminal justice reforms and that it will make a significant contribution to the improvement of public safety. Accordingly I seek the House’s support for its second reading. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 If the House ever needed an example of a Government department that is completely out of control then the Department of Corrections is it. The department is bordering on the dysfunctional and is a complete and utter mess. The reason why the Government is now addressing this issue is that it wants to get it off the agenda before anything more befalls that hapless Minister in charge of the disaster of a Government department called the Department of Corrections. And this Government wants to give the Department of Corrections another prison to run! It cannot even run the prisons it has now and it wants to run another prison. That is absolutely hopeless. 
We heard from this Minister today an announcement that the gravy train we saw with regard to Maori consultation on the Spring Hill prison at Meremere will continue because we now find that under pressure from the Progressives the Greens and the Labour Party the Department of Corrections is to consult with communities on how to run local prisons. Well we know what consultation with the Department of Corrections means. It is an absolute gravy train and this Government has now decided to get a new set of tracks for it. That gravy train will be arriving at a prison near someone and other parts of the community will be able to enjoy the $1.3 million largesse that we saw spent in the Waikato. This party will be opposing that completely. 
This Government in its misguided manner has said that the only reason it wants to abolish the private prison is that prisons have coercive powers against individuals and it is inappropriate for the private sector to wield such power. As Professor Charles Logan a noted expert wrote: “Keepers do not take away anyone’s freedom; catchers and convicters and sentencers do.” There is an important difference between the power to deny liberty and the job of carrying out such orders. The power to punish someone belongs to the people embodied in the Crown and it is subject to the rule of law. The rule of law applies to both the public and private sectors and in short that means the State is free to choose who carries out its custodial responsibilities and obligations. It does not have to be the State—the Government—that does those things. It is not the keepers who take away people’s freedom. In fact it is the law that does that and the law is not being changed in that regard. 
The National Party in Opposition also strongly opposes this legislation because it will cost taxpayers heaps in legal costs. It opens up incredible levels of uncertainty and that will lead to litigation. Already some prisoners who had a hard time in the isolation block at Paremoremo have now had a ruling that will no doubt entitle them to compensation from the Department of Corrections. But that will get worse under this legislation. Let me give members a couple of examples of that. This bill requires the department to take into account the cultural background ethnic identity and language of offenders in managing their sentences. Now what does that mean? It will be an invitation to the courts to decide what happens in the running of the prison service—as we have seen today. What is the impact of the chief executive having to cater for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners? I ask the Minister what that means. The Minister does not know what that means which means that it will be decided in the courts—and that will be very costly. 
This bill also brings new rights to prisoners that they have never had before. Those rights will be costly. Prisoners will be entitled—not permitted but entitled—to access tertiary education that will help in their rehabilitation. The bill tries to limit the cost of that with some new wording about prison managers and poor literacy skills but the fact is that there will be considerable risk because of the uncertainty associated with that area. It is an invitation to the courts to rule that prisoners are entitled to expensive education at the taxpayer’s expense. Ordinary hard-working New Zealanders will be furious if they pay their taxes so that criminals can get a better education than those New Zealanders’ children can. And that is one of the uncertainties being proposed in this legislation. 
The National Party in Opposition says that the fact that the Government was unable to get this bill passed through the Law and Order Committee should be a lesson to it. The bill is premised on a liberal philosophy that will backfire on the Government. The bill seeks to import a philosophy that is not supported by the majority of New Zealanders. Do most New Zealanders actually want the prison service to be run by taking account of people’s cultural background ethnic identity and language in managing prison sentences? What does that mean? [ 
Interruption 
] Government members can chirp but they do not know what that means. And what does it mean that the chief executive has to cater for the various religious and spiritual needs of prisoners? What does that mean? This Government has absolutely no idea. 
Two weeks ago the Department of Corrections moved the double murderer Mark Lundy from Paremoremo prison down to Kaitoke prison after he had served only 2 years at the Paremoremo maximum security prison. Did the department bother to advise the family of the late Mrs Christine Lundy? No it did not. In the select committee the National Party together with the Opposition parties raised the issue of why this bill does not require the Department of Corrections to advise victims or their families when prisoners are transferred. What did the Government say? The Government refused to support that and the Greens refused to support that. They were convinced that it was too administratively difficult to tell families that. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Impossible actually! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Does Mr Robson know that the family of Mr Lundy was informed of the transfer? If the family of Mr Lundy was informed then why was it impossible for the family of Mrs Lundy to be informed? I would have thought that Government members would support victims being notified of the long-term or permanent movement of their offenders to another prison but the Government and the Greens decided that that was too difficult. They decided that victims should not be entitled to be informed of the movement of their offenders. I think that is outrageous. Victims have an entitlement to know that. I agree with the family of the late Mrs Lundy that they should have been informed of Mr Lundy’s transfer. 
In the Committee stage of this bill we will move an amendment which will be supported no doubt by other Opposition parties in this House to require the Department of Corrections to advise those victims of offenders who want to be advised of the permanent movement of their offenders. They have a right to know that. Surely women who have been subjected to violence by offenders would want to know about that. I expect our woman Prime Minister should support their right to know that. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This bill has been a long time in the making. The last bill that dealt with our prisons was in 1954. Successive Ministers of Corrections have worked on this bill and I would like to pay tribute to first of all Nick Smith who was there at the genesis of this bill. It went through to Clem Simich modestly myself—I had a hand in it—Mark Gosche and now it is being completed by Minister Paul Swain. I would like to thank Paul Swain for bringing this bill to fruition. I remember when he was the Minister for Land Information. That position was handed on to another Minister. Since then he has grown tremendously in the role of being a Minister and is now very competent in handling this position. I have been pleased to watch him grow in this particular role. 
As usual with a bill on corrections it will attract the puerile the infantile and those who want to make a profit in political terms out of the misery that many people endure from criminal offending. The bill itself deals with the issues of how we can best administer the prisons and how we can move forward on the basis of our present knowledge. I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of public servants who work in the corrections system who not only fulfil a custodial function but also a mentoring function and use their knowledge to reduce criminal offending. 
There are people like Dave Mackie Ces Lashlie who was head of the Christchurch Women’s Prison; men like Lautafi Purcell Des Ripi Mita Mohi Harris Shortland Ollie Olsen Jim Moriarty outside the prison system and many many more whose names are not known to us but who exemplify the commitment not only of public servants not only the community people who come into the prison but the feeling of the community that something can be done and something must be done inside our prison service. 
 The prison itself is only one part of dealing with criminal offending and it is actually the crudest way to deal with criminal offending. Everybody in this House at one time or another has talked about his or her support for early intervention. That would be a good start in approaching this bill—not only to look at those aspects of the bill that deal with the person who is in prison but to use the experience and the knowledge of how they got into prison and what brings them back into prison so that we can transfer that into our work in early intervention. 
I would recommend to members to become more informed on this issue. It will not hurt even those members who think they have it all sewn up with a punishment model like Mr Franks to actually read  
About Time  
which is a report written by the Department of Corrections building on the knowledge of the department itself experts outside the department and international experience on when is the best way to intervene. 
I would also recommend that those who are looking at this bill read the work of the Home Instruction Programme for Pre-school Youngsters which Leslie Max directs in a booklet called  
We Talk in Our Family Now  
which deals with intervening with young families and how to help the parents. There is an extremely interesting story in that booklet the story of Gordon. That story is about the path to prisons. Gordon says on page 68 of this book which is available in the Parliamentary Library and it would particularly benefit members on the opposite benches to do some reading on this subject: “My own family wasn’t a nice place for me. I don’t like talking about it.” He goes on to say that at 14 years of age he was excluded from school. He celebrated by drinking and did not stop until he was 40. In that time he committed crimes he beat people he beat his family and he was beaten himself. 
But it was not until the Home Instruction Programme for Pre-school Youngsters intervened in his life and in the life of his children that he changed his behaviour and is now a model for his own children who will not end up in prison. This cost was a very small amount of money to stop his children going to the place he was—in prison. It is $3000 or $4000 per year for this programme as against the $50000 that we spend when we wait for people to get into the corrections system. 
But get into the corrections system they do and that is why this bill is so important. It builds upon the good practices that have already been instituted in the corrections system. For example the integrated offender management system is helping us to tailor programmes for individuals who come into prison—not just to contain them but to find the cause of their offending the skills they lack and what means we have to intervene in their lives. For example do we need to get somebody off drugs do we need to deal with that person’s mental problems or violence or lack of employment skills and so forth? 
In my reading of this bill I was struck by the fact that we have moved on in New Zealand beyond many other correction systems in the world. The bill is taking account of the fact that inmates are in prison for an amount of time. But the prison has to deal with how people got into prison and how we can stop them coming back. So it is extremely important that the philosophy in the bill takes an approach that is holistic and ensures that it is not just a custodial sentence but is also a sentence where we aim at reintegrating people into their society and as much as possible making sure that they do not come back. 
In terms of consultation which was brought up interestingly enough by Mr Ryall I would like to say this. When I became the Minister of Corrections I continued the consultation in the north that the former National Ministers had carried out. The cost at that time was something up to half a million dollars for two prisons one at Ngawha and one just outside of Whangarei. The Whangarei prison was stopped after consultation. What did the consultation show? The consultation which was largely with the Pakeha community—Maori were largely excluded from it—said that the community did not want that prison there. National had a look at this and saw that it would lose that seat if it built the prison there. So the prison was moved to an area that was thought would be easier and that was in an area with a high Maori population and a population that would not threaten it seemed the National vote. 
 I would certainly like to pay tribute to John Carter who has been a supporter of that prison and the process to go through to build it. The point I am making is that National did carry out consultation and it knows that it cost money. In the Waikato in relation to learning from the northern experience the consultation began earlier. I challenge those on the other side who try to make profit about this and talked about corruption to say it outside the House because I will sue them. I was the Minister who did much of the consultation. I went to the hui and the meetings to set up the consultation. I know that $1.3 million is a drop in the bucket for what has already been spent on the prison. 
Tainui should be congratulated on taking an intelligent approach to learn about the prison and for not being bulldozed by those people who said that there was no such thing as consultation and that there was no future with a prison. Tainui took an intelligent approach. In particular Mr Haydn Solomon who worked for the Department of Corrections was one of the best workers I ever met inside the department in terms of his analysis and commitment. He has been an outstanding person in the consultation process in the Waikato. 
Lastly I would like to say this about privatisation. When Labour and the then Alliance—the party I came into Parliament with in 1996—learnt of the privatisation of the prison we told the then minority National Government in regard to the Auckland Central Remand Prison that that contract would be cancelled. Labour the Progressives and the Greens have stuck to that policy. There was forewarning to the private prison the Auckland Central Remand Prison. The problem with the privatisation that is extolled by National is that it has nothing to do with quality of prisons. It was all to do with opening up the public sector to privatisation for profit. The Mount Eden Prison was the stalking horse for the rest of the system. The Labour Party the Progressives and the Greens want a system that is coherent coordinated and will reduce reoffending. For that we need a public prison system throughout the whole country. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 One can always tell dyed-in-the-wool socialists who spend more time in university than on the streets getting their hands dirty because they stand up with the “pompicity” of people whom they normally call Tories— 
Dianne Yates 
: “Pomposity”. 
RON MARK 
: Same difference. That is the difference between academics and people on the ground. The pomposity they criticise is from people who come out of places like Christ’s College or St Andrews. They are the very people who swan around art galleries—while telling working class people they work for them—swan around the symphonies go to the opera and then call Opposition members infantile because we do not agree with their stupid nonsensical socialist philosophies that would not add one jot of credibility to a department that is in absolute chaos—namely the Department of Corrections. 
Who is partially responsible for the mess we are dealing with today? It is the member Matt Robson himself as a past Minister. If that member is to have any credibility at all in the debate on corrections I have one question for him. Why did he not do something about the “goon squad” when it was brought to his attention in 2002? I bet that I do not get an answer. Why did he not do anything about the abuse of inmates abuse of the law and what people alleged to be absolute corruption going on inside his prisons? Why did he not do anything about the Sheree Harris and June Skinner case? Those two women in the Department of Corrections were persecuted out of their jobs by men. They went to the Employment Court. 
This is the wonderful public corrections system that Nandor Tanczos is defending. Those two women did not get one jot of support from that Minister and what happened? It cost the taxpayer $400000-plus with the Department of Corrections fighting an injustice that it committed on two women prison officers and it lost. The women won. When I took that case to the Minister he was hiding under his table backing up his incompetent and—people say—corrupt department. He has nothing of value to add to this debate because he did nothing. 
 There are parts in this bill that New Zealand First endorses; and that probably explains what he just said. That is probably Clem Simich’s work from the time when he was Minister. But there is a lot in this bill that leaves New Zealand First in total opposition to it. If the Government is going to put more dogs in prisons we agree. If it is going to pass laws that protect dog handlers we agree. If it is going to tighten up on the abuses meted out to inmates then I need only to look right at Nandor Tanczos because he needs to explain to the great Maori community that he purports to represent why he is doing nothing about the death of Mr David Rere Haimona which happened in a State prison not the Auckland Central Remand Prison. It did not happen in a private prison. It happened in a public prison in a State-run prison and to sit here and tell me that this man will support this legislation and see the one bright shining star in our corrections service go under because “The State must have control.”—I am going to ask him what has he done to support the Haimona family as a result of what the “goon squad” did to that man. 
Evidence has been produced and people have testified that they killed him. That is what they say: “They killed him.” I am waiting with interest to see the result of the inquiry because it will all come out in there. But Mr Tanczos does not care. He just wants to see the State running it. What does he want to see? Does he want to see more inmates like the one in Dunedin who was paid out $40000 after smashing up the local barber breaking his face and failing to pay reparation? He got $40000 because our highly competent State-run Department of Corrections let him out a week later than his parole date. That is what Mr Nandor Tanczos supports. 
Do we want to see more inmates—like the ones we have read about in the newspapers today—suing the department? Well we have a doozy in this bill. Clauses 49 to 51 open up the doorway to lawsuits based on the fact that inmates will be able to argue in a court of law that the integrated offender management system that was put together for them or not put together in the way they asked it to be because of one or another reason failed to prevent them from reoffending. 
Mr Jarden has a case has he not? We know he abused and sexually molested children. We know he was out again on parole. He went on home detention and he did it again! Three more cases! A member opposite says: “Oh!” as though the abuse of three little girls means nothing. Well over here it does. If the member did not say that I am sorry but that is the way it came across in the House. She seemed bored with my whole speech. Members opposite should say that to the victims of Mr Jarden. Is that the type of Department of Corrections that Nandor Tanczos and the Green Party support? Because boy I am looking forward to the election—and it is coming soon. I am looking forward to standing up on the hustings and arguing this issue. Because there is no justifiable reason for the Department of Corrections to do what it did. 
At the end of the day there are victims. We will have people like Mr Isherwood the guy who just recently was convicted let out and within 2 weeks he had drug-raped a girl again. He could argue that the integrated offender management system failed him. I question whether he had a plan. I am now finding in talking to people that this management system that members opposite laud and applaud is not even working now. So many inmates are being transferred from one prison to another that no one has a tab on whether a plan has been put together. So these people are quite capable of going through the system not having a plan coming out reoffending and blaming the failure of the prison service to adhere to its statutory obligation of providing the inmate with a plan to prevent the person from reoffending. 
There has been a lot of criticism about the consultative process up at Spring Hill prison. Is it not interesting and so amazing that the one group of people who spoke so highly of the Auckland Central Remand Prison—the prison service we are going to see the demise of—was the one group of people who have since put out a press release saying they were never consulted as to whether that prison was doing the right thing as to whether it was a good competent prison service? 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.