Volume 695 Week 60 - Tuesday 19 November 2013(continued on Wednesday 20 November 2013)Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 695 Week 60 - Tuesday 19 November 2013(continued on Wednesday 20 November 2013)[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 19 November 2013(continued on Wednesday 20 November 2013)Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) BillThird ReadingDebate resumed.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Last night when we were at the midway stages of the debate I was opposing the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill on behalf of Labour and I was proud to do so because we simply do not believe in making some of the most vulnerable people in our society even more vulnerable through this constant pressure and insecurity of reviewable tenancies.During the Committee stage Labour put forward very sensible amendments that were rejected by the Government. They were there to ensure that in legislation no one over the age of 65 no one with a disability and no one with school-age children would be subject to these reviewable tenancies and to the absolute lack of security over the most basic of fundamental needs the right to have a decent roof over one’s head. Labour is not a party that wants to make more insecurity for schoolchildren for those over the age of 65 and for people with disabilities. Those are the people who need protection from the ravages of that Government opposite. We know that the basic problem here is that there is not enough housing to go around.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am also pleased to take a call on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. That speech from Sue Moroney was a fairly good example albeit a very short one of the approach of the Labour Party which seems to think that it is the only one that can be determinative of a person’s situation in life. For so long in terms of the housing stock we have seen people who have become beholden to the State and have not had the ability and have not had the framework and the legislative impetus to have aspiration and to have the freedoms that we want everyone to be able to have. No one in this House would argue that having a house that is fit for purpose and having people assessed on a needs basis is anything other than reasonable.We are talking about a Labour Government that sat back there and did nothing about the housing stock for 9 years whereas this Government is actually doing something about the housing stock. It is actually doing something about the challenges we are confronted with in some of the centres in terms of housing. We are bothering to insulate the houses and make them happy and warm environments.The Labour Party members can wax lyrical and wring their hands over their chardonnays but ultimately this is about a Minister of Housing who is actually committed to ensuring that the housing stock grows that the flexibility—Dr David Clark: Slash and burn!MIKE SABIN: Well that is the Labour Party approach Mr Clark. That is the Labour Party approach: “What we will do is we will sit over here in Opposition and do nothing more than throw stones at the people—throw rocks within the glass house—because those other people over there are actually doing something.” which is pretty reflective when one looks at the polls. It does not matter how many Labour leaders change it in and out; it is getting nowhere with that. And that member there who seems to come up with the greatest one-liners in 50 years and nothing more should actually take a little bit of time to consider exactly what his party is doing and what it aspires to—not much.This bill is about providing the right mechanisms for the housing stock and ensuring that the community and relevant organisations can participate in providing the right sort of support for those who need it—simple as that.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I want to cover some of the things that may not actually have been covered in the debate on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill but I will try to keep to a third reading speech. It is a bit galling to have johnny-come-latelys in the National Government protest that Labour did nothing in housing for 9 years. I would just like to go back a bit because clearly the new members have swallowed hook line and sinker the spin that their seniors have fed them without question. The fact is that Labour came in after 13000 State houses were sold and proceeded to build 8600 State houses. We built or acquired 8600 houses during those 9 years because it does take longer to build and acquire them than it does to get rid of them or to sell them as the previous National Government did. I will not even be bothered traversing all the other ranges of options that we put in place to address housing affordability such as the Welcome Home Loan scheme such as shared equity—all of those programmes that were designed to help people into their first homes. The newcomers in the National Government have been fed a line by their seniors that they have swallowed without question.What we have here as others have noted before me is a Minister with a devastating combination actually—a devastating combination in Dr Smith—of being extraordinarily effective as a Minister and almost always wrong. He is almost always wrong. He is really effective—he knows how to get things done—but he is almost always wrong and this bill is another example.The procedure that is operationalised in this bill will strip back Housing New Zealand. It transfers its needs assessment function over to the Ministry of Social Development. It transfers money to the third sector for housing purposes which we do not oppose but we wish it were sufficient and not simply an abrogation of the Government’s own responsibility to be the leader and the prime provider in affordable housing and social housing in this country. Instead of shovelling that off to an under-resourced third sector the Government should be stepping up and making its own moves taking its own actions to address the needs of those who are unable to enter the private rental market through no fault of their own or to enter homeownership which is an even more remote dream.Labour opposes this bill not because everything in it is wrong but because everything in it is either wrong or inadequate. It is simply not good enough—it is simply not good enough—for this Government to bring in a process of reviewable tenancies so that that shadow will hang over every tenant in a State house—“When are they going to review my tenancy? When am I going to be told that I can’t have this house any more?”. That is not how to build secure communities and that is what social housing ought to be about—about not only providing housing for the poor but also using the State’s leverage and the State’s capacity to build secure contributing communities and not simply considering it an irritation or a monkey on the back of the Government that it would rather dispose of. This is not a good bill.This is a piece of legislation that will be limited in its lifetime. It will be limited in its lifetime because when Labour takes office we will be keen to address affordable housing in the multitude of ways that work not simply the single actions that penalise people who currently use State housing because they need to for the security and the safety of their families. This is a punitive bill and Labour will not support it. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): The Green Party also fundamentally opposes this Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. Weoppose it because we believe in homes not just houses. We believe that homes are important to the foundations of our society. We oppose this bill because we know that if we have good warm dry affordable homes for everyone we will all benefit through reduced health costs improved educational outcomes and improved economic productivity. We believe that because the evidence tells us that.We oppose this bill because we honestly value the tangata whenua and the community and voluntary sector. We recognise that they have a lot to contribute to community housing through their own value base not through being turned into arms of the State which is what this bill attempts to do. We oppose this bill because we do not believe that the Ministry of Social Development or Work and Income will improve services for people needing housing support—in fact we fear the opposite. We oppose this bill because we think that the priority is building communities not temporary shelters.I have spoken already in relation to this bill about most of my adult life being in rental housing and the costs of that to me economically as well as in terms of increased stress. But I was really lucky to spend my childhood in one house in a place with a big garden fruit trees and three bedrooms. It was warm and dry. I got to go through the same schools—the primary school the intermediate school and the secondary school—with consistency. I did not have to move between my schools and none of my friends had to move either.In my childhood none of my friends moved house and that is such a contrast to the reality of so many children now. We see in South Auckland the turnover in private rentals being on average four families a year. We hear about schools where there is 100 percent churn in the population of the school. Those children have lost the childhood that we had. They have been taken away from the stability of a continuous education and peer group. They do not have the childhood that we had. What this bill does is make that even more precarious. Even the lives of children in State housing are now being threatened.I want to remind that side of the House that it was a liberal Government that first recognised the importance of State housing. It saw that the growing reports of extortionate rents and squalid living conditions required it to intervene to protect our society and to provide some basic decent standards. That very vision is being eroded by this Government and by this bill. I think it is an absolute shame and a change of our national values. Shame on this Government.I think that the Green Party as an alternative has a vision in terms of the State’s role. I know that housing is of such concern to our communities. I was speaking with a cleaner in Wellington Hospital recently who was asking what can be done because he wants to get out of extortionate rents in the private market. I told him that our answer is about more secure tenure—the opposite to what this Government is doing—and the idea of a rent-to-own property where the Government’s ability to access low interest rates could be passed on to New Zealanders so that New Zealanders could be provided with secure tenure and the ability to own in the future. I hope New Zealand will vote in the future for that vision—a vision of community and of all of us having a decent standard of living—and not this dystopian vision.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill has been canvassed a lot and was for many many hours last night. I simply want to say that when the Opposition accuses this Government of not recognising the importance of State housing it is absolutely wrong. This bill is all about recognising the importance of State housing. That is why National is committed to ensuring that the State housing stock is fit for purpose that theState housing stock is allocated to those most in need and that there is flexibility around that too.I want to simply point out the huge investment that Housing New Zealand is making. We are making a record investment of $2.9 billion in Housing New Zealand over 3 years. That is National’s commitment to State housing. This bill will absolutely ensure that more services are provided to New Zealanders in this sector.Bill read a third time.Votes for the Noes ordered to be recorded in theJournals of the House of Representatives as follows: New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan 1.Game Animal Council BillSecond ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I moveThat the Game Animal Council Bill be now read a second time. This bill is an important step in both improving the management of game animals and also recognising the recreational passion that many New Zealanders have—in fact I think that includes the Deputy Speaker—for recreational hunting. Although those who tramp those who mountaineer and those who go fishing for salmon and trout are given a direct voice in their recreation the hunters of deer of pig of chamois and of tahr are effectively not included in the statutory way in which their recreation is managed.I want to acknowledge the leader of the United Future party Peter Dunne who as part of our confidence and supply agreement has been a champion for hunters and for the recognition that the Game Animal Council will give to providing a voice for that group of recreationists. I commend the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee ably chaired by Christchurch Central MP Nicky Wagner. The committee worked effectively in considering the many issues that were raised by submitters and has suggested a number of constructive changes to the bill and I thank all the members of the committee for the work that they have done.There were 664 submissions from interested groups and individuals which is a bit of a signal as to just how many people have a passion for hunting. The committee heard 39 oral submissions. It had hearings both in Wellington and in Christchurch. Many submitters supported the creation of the Game Animal Council as a whole-of-sector council. We need to acknowledge that there are tensions between some who have commercial aerial trophy-hunting businesses and the purely recreational sector and I think that there is real merit in having a Game Animal Council which is pretty consistent with this Government’s view of getting those parties round the table and directly engaging in their recreation and their businesses in order to come to a sensible way forward to manage.The vast majority of submissions supported the intent of the bill but there is a range of changes. For instance the committee has recommended that we clearly define “public conservation land” so that it is quite plain that it does not include privately owned land or land that has been vested back with iwi as part of a Treaty settlement. There have also been amendments around the definitions of “regional council” and “game trophy” that are also constructive. The select committee has made changes to the bill to ensure that the Game Animal Council itself has the right mix of expertise to be able to make sound decisions that strengthen the voice of iwi and Māori. It has also made provision for ensuring that scientific knowledge is properly respected. And we need to acknowledge in this area that there is a real tension between the interests of recreational hunters who wish there to be good populations of deer chamois and tahrso that it is an easy hunt and the reality from a conservation perspective that those numbers need to be kept down and need to be kept limited. Therefore we are serious about the sustainability of the forests in which they exist.I do note in the debate on this bill that there is the polarised view that these animals must be defined either as pests and every last one hunted to the ends of the Earth or as valued animals. I come from the perspective a pragmatic perspective that it depends where they are and in what numbers. That is it is true that these animals if in high concentrations or in the wrong place can do irreversible conservation harm. Equally so it is true that they provide a huge amount of enjoyment and recreation for many New Zealanders and that providing that is properly managed it is possible for us to have the best of both worlds.I announced yesterday changes in respect of the role of the Game Animal Council. During the Committee stage I will be introducing Supplementary Order Paper 395 to deal quite specifically with the tension between aerial trophy hunters and recreational hunters around hunters in helicopters shooting animals from the helicopter of herding animals into a hunter—a practice known as hazing where effectively a helicopter is able to chase an animal to exhaustion and then make it an easy pot-shot for a hunter. It is intended that the Game Animal Council will be responsible for developing a code of practice to ensure that there is tighter regulation of those activities. That is a specific commitment that the Government made to Peter Dunne and the United Future party and we intend to address it in that way.This bill is a significant step forward. For my entire period in Parliament there has been concern from recreational hunters that they are locked out from having an effective voice in the management of their recreation. This bill is a good bill which enables those hunters to be able to be directly engaged in their sport. My experience with other bodies such as the Fish and Game Council is that when participants are included in the decision-making process they are very responsible and they engage very constructively. That is why fundamentally this is a bill that the House should support.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I listened with interest to the Minister of Conservation’s contribution on what has been a very interesting process and debate on the Game Animal Council Bill. Some of his speech is very outdated actually and does not reflect the deliberation and the submissions that went on during the select committee process and I am a little sad about that because he is a Minister who is on top of his portfolio particularly in comparison with his colleagues. He has got a good passion for the area he understands it and I think he has a genuine commitment but when he described opponents of this bill as being people who could see game animals only as pests and that therefore the animals had to eliminated to the nth degree he did miss the debate and the progress that was made on that particular point. That is quite a narrow view and it is not one that was reflected by people who had concerns about this bill in the main.I also noted that he seemed to totally overlook the fact that one of the biggest associations in New Zealand the Deerstalkers Association said that its concerns about trophy hunting have fallen on deaf ears. That is a very strong comment to make from the group that represents one of the biggest groups of recreational hunters. In fact its president Tim McCarthy said yesterday: “When it becomes an issue that affects the stakeholders of New Zealand’s public land and hunters are stakeholders in public land then surely the tail shouldn’t be wagging the dog in this case.” Those are the sorts of serious concerns that were raised at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have to say that I think the members of the select committee from all parties in the main took those issues very seriously and tried to do what Labour said we would attempt to do at the very start of this process which is to look at the fact thateveryone agrees that the different stakeholders and interests should work together as much as possible to get agreed outcomes on shared goals. It is not always possible but it is clear that in some parts of the country it works very well under the existing regime. It is also clear that in other parts of the country it does not work well.The select committee tried to find out where it is working well—where the Department of Conservation recreational hunters and other users of our public land work together—what bit of magic they have produced to make that happen. Well in a lot of cases it is about relationships and it is about the personalities and the commitment. But I think it is driven by an understanding that the Department of Conservation has the legal mandate to protect our conservation estate our public land but it is really obvious that it is not the only stakeholder. The public of New Zealand are all stakeholders in our public land. If any groups or individuals have interests they should be party to shared goals of protection and then utilise their activity to further that goal. That was the approach we took at the Local Government and Environment Committee. We looked at how we could better enhance the work of the Department of Conversation through those partnerships and build on successful models that had already been demonstrated.When the Game Animal Council Bill was first introduced we also said that we had a lot of concerns about it but we did support it going to the select committee so that we could have that debate and see what could be resolved. Unfortunately despite what I think were the very good efforts of the select committee our time was short by just a little. Perhaps if we had had another few meetings we might have got to a complete resolution. But unfortunately we were not given that additional time and as a result some of our pretty serious concerns have not been resolved. I am sad to say that we have to oppose the bill just because those concerns have not been met.I think it is also a bit of an indication to Parliament of not presuming which parties will think what and always presuming that certain parties will oppose it or support it. I do think that in many areas if there is an agreed goal there are genuine attempts made for compromises to look at other people’s perspectives and to see what resolution can be found. If we were able to do that more in Parliament then perhaps some of the solutions that are passed into law might be more robust and might be more enduring because they would have had wider input wider consideration and some compromise reached along the way.What I think this bill does now is actually create a stronger tension between hunters in New Zealand and the Department of Conservation. From my perspective that is the very opposite of what we should do. Recreational hunters are a big part of New Zealand life. We heard that from submitters. The passion that those submitters have about the great outdoors about being able to hunt—whether it is to feed their neighbours or feed their families in quite a serious way as part of their budgeting. The pride and passion that they have for New Zealand and for our public land is something that we should capture and we should utilise for the greater good. I do not think that this bill does that. I do not doubt that that was part of the intention actually. I am sure that there was a lot of wanting to utilise that passion of recreational hunters as the driver behind this bill but I do not think that the outcome has achieved that. Perhaps during the Committee of the whole House there might be some more accommodations reached. The Hon Peter Dunne who drove this bill might well consider that. I would recommend that he read the minority reports that have been produced as part of the select committee process because they do indicate a lot of support for some of the outcomes but the serious concerns about the other outcomes of this bill are just too great.I have also heard that there is some concern that the Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled go too far or are based on an extreme view of what might happen.Actually the Supplementary Order Papers produced by Eugenie Sage that I have seen so far do not do that at all. I will obviously talk more about them in the Committee stage but I just want to put on the record for consideration by the other members of the House that her Supplementary Order Papers from my reading of them do what the select committee assumed would happen anyway so it is a belt and braces approach rather than something that is going to a real extreme. So I would ask that serious consideration be given to all the Supplementary Order Papers rather than members making an assumption that any member is trying to trip up the process. What we tried to do from the perspective of the Labour members—and we put a lot of effort into the select committee process—was just address the concerns that we had. We were upfront about it. We listened to the submissions. We moderated some of our views as part of the process and hardened up on others where those concerns had not been met. Some of the areas are quite obvious. Where you want to create a partnership you do not set up another structure and have it often in competition with an existing organisation. You work out how to have a structure that would better enhance the relationships that are so necessary for us.When you look at the way the Department of Conservation is operating now it is obvious to see that it is under huge financial pressure. It has been forced by the nature of the budget cuts to move into better partnerships as they are called with community organisations. What concerns me is that they are not genuine partnerships with shared goals where different groups in our communities say: “We care about the public estate. We’re not DOC. We’re recreational hunters or we’re fishing people.” and whatever their activity is they have a passion and a genuine love and concern for the well-being of our public land. They should have a part to play. But the partnerships that the Department of Conservation is undertaking are almost ones purely of a business arrangement where it is asking for money in order to perform its fundamental duties. I do not think that those are the sorts of relationships that will enhance the work of the Department of Conservation; in fact they may well undermine it. We certainly do not want to have a department that is responsible for pest control for example putting out the begging bowl and saying: “We think there’s a stoat onKāpiti island. Would anyone like to sponsor some pest control?”. That is the position that the National Government has put the Department of Conservation in.We have seen an even more recent example in Hawke’s Bay where the proposal for the Ruataniwha dam has the potential to turn the Tukituki River toxic. That should be a major concern to people in Hawke’s Bay. In fact to people over the rest of the country that is exactly what the model says. That is because it does not manage nitrates. That is exactly what the model says and the Department of Conservation was absent from any contribution to that. So we want this bill to be reflective of the genuine partnerships that we need to better protect our public land. We tried really hard through the select committee consideration to get to that but unfortunately this bill achieves the opposite.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Today is a red-letter day for recreational hunters in New Zealand for a couple of reasons. First there has been—and I think the member who has just resumed her seat Ruth Dyson alluded to this in part—a measure of suspicion amongst many of them as to whether the Game Animal Council would ever eventuate. After all it is almost a year since this bill the Game Animal Council Bill was reported back to the House and some of those advocates were deeply suspicious that that was as far as it would go. So today is important to give reassurance on that score. It is also important for them because as the Minister of Conservation said in his introductory remarks this Game Animal Council effectively parallels for game hunting interests the role of Fish and Game in terms of freshwater fish etc. So upon the passing of this bill we will for the first time have integrated approaches to themanagement of the major recreational sectors in New Zealand. I think that is a very positive step forward.But it has been a long journey. I want to take some time this morning to rehearse some elements of that journey. In United Future’s 2005 confidence and supply agreement with the then Labour Government there was a special committee established to review pest management issues. That committee was chaired by my former colleague and very good friend the Hon Margaret Austin who is well-known in this House. The Minister said earlier that this bill attracted 660-odd submissions. That is a fraction of what the Austin committee attracted by way of submissions. There were 4500 submissions to that committee which met in the period of 2005-08. One of the strong recommendations that came forward from that committee was that there be a move towards the establishment of a Game Animal Council. So this morning I want to immediately acknowledge the work of Margaret Austin and the earlier work of her committee in getting us launched on the journey.When the change of Government occurred in 2008 we included in our 2008 and 2011 confidence and supply agreements with the current Government provisions firstly for the work of the Austin committee to be advanced and secondly as it happened for the Game Animal Council to be introduced. What happened after 2008 was that an establishment committee chaired by Garry Ottmann from the Game and Forest Foundation was set up to take those recommendations from the Austin committee and start to develop the basis for a Game Animal Council.The establishment committee consulted widely in New Zealand. It consulted with similar agencies in Australian states. They are not entirely comparable but there were valuable insights to be gained from them. By the time of the 2011 election we were on the way to preparing the legislation that comes before the House this morning. So I want to acknowledge the work of Garry Ottmann and successive officers of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association—more particularly of recent times Tim McCarthy and before him Alec McIver and Bill O’Leary who has been a constant advocate right throughout. I want to acknowledge all of the work these people have done in bringing this proposal to the stage where firstly it becomes legislation and secondly it is about to be passed by the House today.I listened to what I thought was a relatively constructive speech from Ruth Dyson. I do not agree with everything she said and I think that some of the concerns that she expressed may well be dealt with once the council is established but I think there were some important points. I do not see the Game Animal Council being set up to be a competitor to the Department of Conservation in that sense. Rather I see it as part of the devolution of responsibility to a range of interests. One of the things that strikes one when you look at the whole recreational sector in New Zealand is that it is not particularly well-organised at this time. There are a series of responsibilities that sit in different places. They are not well coordinated and are a little hard to understand. One of the issues that the Game Animal Council will face will be to be the focal point for bringing together a lot of matters that relate to the game animal sector—and to the hunting sector in particular—not just in terms of the physical act of hunting but for issues like the promotion of safety.That brings into prospect the work that the Mountain Safety Council does and how that can be better coordinated and plugged into existing systems. The Mountain Safety Council is an extraordinary organisation. It has been around for 40-odd years. It does not actually formally report to anyone. It is funded on the basis of contracts from the public sector—the police search and rescue etc.—but it does not have a physical home. What it is crying out for is some form of integration with the work of agencies like the Game Animal Council.The issue that has arisen over time in tandem with this has been the question of what used to be known as heli-hunting which now has the more grand title of assisted aerial trophy hunting—it is somewhat of a euphemism I think for what actually happens. There has been a constant dispute between the recreational hunters and the purveyors of assisted aerial trophy hunting services about whether the playing field is level.As part of our confidence and supply agreement in 2011 there was provision for the phasing out of assisted aerial trophy hunting through making restrictions to herding and hazing etc. When as Associate Minister of Conservation I received the applications nearly 3 years ago from that sector I made a condition of the permits that were granted that there be no herding and hazing. Having told me that this was a practice that they never engaged in those in that sector promptly took me to a judicial review for having put into their agreements the things they said they never actually engaged in. We won that position in court but the issue arises again as these permits expire in February of next year.The solution that will be proposed by way of a Supplementary Order Paper a little later today—effectively charging the Game Animal Council with monitoring the application of those provisions and then developing a code of practice—is I think an elegant one. It is an elegant one for a couple of reasons. Firstly it will resolve an issue that has caused so much tension. Secondly it will ensure—and this is really the platform on which I believe the Game Animal Council needs to be launched—that the council will have an effective role in terms of future issues that affect the recreational hunting sector. One of the great fears in the early days of this debate was that we were setting up an agency that would be a talk-shop that would do very little and would have little connection to what was going on. The fact that we have been able to identify this particular issue as one that sits neatly within its purview is I think a good indicator of what will happen in the future.There are very complicated issues regarding access to land and the member who preceded me Ruth Dyson alluded to those. There are always delicate issues regarding the quantum of hunting being allowed in particular sectors. I am aware of certain management plans that work well and others that are challenged by hunters who see other people from outside their particular geographic location coming in to steal their bounty if you want to use that term. The Game Animal Council will be in a much closer position to monitor to regulate to recommend and to cajole behaviour in those particular areas.I think what we will see once this legislation is passed is not fears being realised. These fears are understandable at the moment because this is new. I think what we will start to see once the council is appointed—and I think getting it up and running early in the new year is a priority—is a process whereby for the first time we have a genuine forum where the issues that affect recreational hunters can be put on the table can be debated and can be understood by conservation authorities by the Department of Conservation by the Government and by Parliament as a whole.So this is a red-letter day. It is a very important day for the recreational sector in New Zealand. I think it sends a signal and it is this. This was an unusual perhaps unique and certainly not especially popular campaign when we began it back in 2005. It was seen as being a little quirky. The reality is that hunting is a mainstream issue for New Zealanders. What this bill demonstrates is that by commitment by tenacity and by perseverance you can make change and you can achieve positive outcomes. It demonstrates that you can give a sport that is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders a proper place and a way in which it can be recognised its talents and attributes can be respected and the input the people who partake in that sport have into broader conservation policy can be given credibility. So I welcome the second readingof this bill. I am looking forward to the debate that will ensue and to the bill being passed by this House hopefully a little later on today.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It has actually been a while since our select committee the Local Government and Environment Committee considered this bill the Game Animal Council Bill. I think the Hon Peter Dunne must have all the patience in the world given how long it has taken to get to this point. I had to dig out all my notes and refresh my memory in terms of all the very very in-depth conversations we had at the select committee around the various aspects of this bill.It is disappointing that Labour is not able to support this bill. I think it is an opportunity lost. There is very definitely the potential in here for doing some very very good things from building on existing relationships creating relationships where those relationships do not currently exist and fixing relationships where in fact things have not gone so well and there was a range of ways that this bill could have been approached.I note that it was the advice of the officials that going down the path of creating stand-alone legislation as we have done here carried with it the most regulatory burden and the most cost and there were other ways that we could have approached this bill. Under section 5 of the Wild Animal Control Act of course the Minister of Conservation is able to establish any type of committee that is relevant to the purpose of the Act and clearly managing those tensions between recreational hunters and pest control and the preservation and stewardship of public conservation land is relevant to the purpose of that Act. But of course there were concerns raised that in doing that the Minister could also then very easily disestablish any such committee and they felt that that was perhaps too much power to be giving to a Minister of Conservation when we have a committee that everyone agrees should exist and when we have identified common goals as Ruth Dyson said. We appreciate that point of view but this could have also been done through making an amendment to the Wild Animal Control Act. That would have set up a committee that the Minister did not have the power to disestablish but would have been far more consistent with the legislation that the Department of Conservation already works under. So there was a range of different things that we could have done.I note that this goes right back to when we were in Government. I think that Steve Chadwick was the Minister of Conservation when an advisory group was set up to look at how this might be done. Well I think they were one of the first submitters that we heard from from memory—going back into the distant past—and they were not happy with the bill. In fact they said that this is pretty much exactly what they said not to do and they think that this will increase tensions not reduce them.Although I agree with a lot of what the Hon Peter Dunne said about what his party wants to achieve and what he is trying to achieve it is not as simple when you are dealing with an area like this which relies on relationship-building—very very much so—and this is not going to work if those relationships are not taken into account. You cannot simply through legislation just force that relationship-building and that was our concern the whole way through.There was a lot of common ground. What became very apparent at the select committee was that between all the groups and what we might call competing interests there was actually a hell of a lot of common ground that we could have built on to come up with a solution that did not exacerbate some of the tensions that do exist. I do not think there is anyone in this House—well I hope there is no one in this House—who is going to stand up and claim that this bill is going to see those tensions disappear because it will not. This is still going to require an awfully large amount of relationship-building. But in that room we also heard from recreational hunters in parts of thecountry where they work incredibly well with the Department of Conservation where they have worked between themselves to develop management plans that met the objectives of pest control but at the same time provided herds of a significant enough size for recreational hunters to be able to get maximum benefit out of that. And it works very very well.We also heard from parts of the country where it is an absolute dog’s breakfast where there is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the department and the recreational hunting community. I think a lot of it comes back to what the Hon Peter Dunne was saying about how the recreational hunting community is not particularly well-organised at the moment. So you have some parts of the country where it is very strong—certain herds that are stronger than others—but across the entire country it is not particularly well-organised. So I guess then it becomes the question of whether we put the cart before the horse with this piece of legislation.Could we have done this differently? At the moment we are asking a sector that by our own admission is still in its infancy in terms of organisation to carry out an incredibly important task. Maybe had we gone down another path of that relationship-building it may well have been that this is where we ended up. But we might have ended up there first of all by building on existing relationships developing those relationships and using them as an example where those relationships are very good and learning from negative experiences where those relationships have been very bad. We could have done this as an amendment under existing legislation. It may well have been that we would have got to this in the end once we had built up the capacity within the recreational hunting sector to be able to carry out the tasks that we are handing over to it.The National Party represents extensively provincial New Zealand where pest control is incredibly important not just for people who value conservation land but for farmers and for many others. If we do not carry out pest control effectively if we let that get away from us that has enormous implications for our economy as well as for our environment. So when we start to devolve responsibility away from the department—Shane Ardern: Have you ever shared that with your colleagues before Moana? You have? They’re not listening. Tell them again.MOANA MACKEY: —that currently does that then we have to be very very clear that those same things those same activities those same roles are going to be carried out. Mr Ardern was not on the select committee. I actually wish he had been on that select committee because I think the experience he has would have been very very useful. A lot of the discussions we had were very relevant to his area of expertise. I do not believe that with this piece of legislation we met the concerns that were raised at the select committee. That is all I am saying.I think there was probably I guess an intermediate step that we could have taken as I said perhaps on the way to a stand-alone game animal council bill with its own legislation that would have allayed the concerns of those who felt that devolving those powers right now was a bit soon and that the people we are devolving them to do not quite have access to the resources in order to be able to do that. But we want to build up that capacity with the Department of Conservation and with the Government and eventually yes we could potentially see far more devolution of some of this stuff to a game animal council. That is not far away from where actually the advisory committee that we set up when we were in Government to look at this was—the advisory committee that the National Government continued; the advisory committee that came before the select committee to tell us its thoughts.I note that if members read the regulatory impact statement they will see that these are all concerns that have been echoed right through the regulatory impact statement. Under “Problem definition” it says: “There is no information clearly establishing that current institutional arrangements in the management regime for wild animals requires change to improve participation among the different groups with interests in these animals and their effects on the environment. Differences in values and viewpoints between the relevant stakeholders are longstanding well understood within the sector and have not been resolved over many years. There is no evidence that current user groups and organisations (for example the Deerstalkers’ Association) are deficient in representing their members’ interest.” So I think the regulatory impact statement itself clearly says that the problem definition that the Government has done in justifying the need for this bill does not really represent reality.One of the issues that we spent a lot of time on at the Local Government and Environment Committee was how we were going to pay for this. It is always one of the more difficult things as you can come up with new councils—Hon Member: There were a lot of ideas.MOANA MACKEY: Well there were a lot of ideas. You can come up with a whole range of new committees and councils but someone has to pay for them. Ultimately when the rubber hits the road it is often the case unfortunately that everyone wants it but no one wants to pay for it. We looked at a range of options. The Government was not prepared to stump up the total funding for the board. There was some establishment money and I think $50000 a year but that $50000 a year ongoing—so $100000 in the first financial year and then $50000 in subsequent years—comes from reprioritising existing Vote Conservation funding. So it is not new money. It means that the Department of Conservation which is under enormous financial pressure at the moment as it is is going to have to find this money from somewhere else.So the question obviously around that is what has got to give in order to pay for this? There were really two main options. One was a levy on the export of trophy heads which was the path the select committee went down in the end. Submissions reflected concerns that this was unfairly targeting one group of hunters over another and that is a fair point to make. That could again create tensions within the hunting sector as opposed to trying to relieve them.Then the other option that we looked at was to put a levy on all hunting permits. There are about 34000 of these issued a year but they are currently free of charge. I guess there was a feeling in the select committee that applying it to everyone might again create a number of tensions within the hunting community. I think the discussion we had around operating costs actually reflected largely the discussion we had around the bill which is that we want to reduce tensions and not increase them. Unfortunately this bill does not achieve it.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Game Animal Council Bill. The Green Party certainly supports recreational hunting on public conservation land. As Moana Mackey said there are 34000 hunting permits issued each year by the Department of Conservation. Many Kiwis get immense enjoyment from getting out into the back country and going hunting because of the physical challenges involved and the stamina required and actually just from being out in the back country being up on those scree slopes and being up on the tussock tops enjoying the views waiting for deer and scanning through binoculars for chamois.It is a long tradition that New Zealand has of free access to conservation land to go hunting. We understand that and recreational hunting is just as valid a use of our back country as tramping mountain biking fishing or any other opportunity out there. But we have a big problem with this bill because it is not about strengthening the Kiwitradition of going hunting. It is not about boosting hunter numbers and encouraging more young people to go hunting. The regulatory impact statement made it quite clear that there was not any evidence that the current institutional arrangements required change in order to improve participation of people in hunting as a sport.This bill is primarily about catering to a small group that can afford to pay for helicopters and guides to go trophy hunting. It is about giving them management control and considerable influence over the management of conservation land. The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 by stripping out of the bill any references to recreational hunting makes that quite clear. This bill is likely to make it both more expensive and more bureaucratic for Kiwis to go hunting.There is no reason for this bill as other Opposition colleagues have noted. There are alternative ways of giving a better voice for the hunting fraternity. It is only going through because it is the pay-off to United Future for its support of the Government’s asset sales legislation and it is part of the confidence and supply agreement. The bill does not recognise what the Department of Conservation is doing to improve relationships with the hunting sector. It does not recognise improvements to the hunting permit system or the outreach that a lot of the conservation boards are doing and it is unnecessary as the regulatory impact statement made very clear.We already have the Wild Animal Control Act. The purpose of that Act is to achieve coordination of hunting measures and it is to provide for the regulation of recreational hunting commercial hunting and wild animal recovery operations. It was an option—which many parties supported such as the Conservation Authority—of setting up a ministerial advisory committee under the Wild Animal Control Act to advise the Minister on hunting. That would have achieved much better integration with the current legislative framework and with the current structure of managing hunting rather than this stand-alone bill and stand-alone agency.We could have also got a greater voice for hunting through additional appointments to the Conservation Authority or to conservation boards. We had a very interesting submission at the select committee from the Tongariro/Taupō Conservation Board which talked a lot about how it was working to ensure that hunters’ interests were accommodated. If you use existing agencies in existing legislation you are going to get that cooperation that collaboration amongst the different stakeholders. Setting up the Game Animal Council as a single hunting organisation will not see that collaboration and will not foster it. It is likely to create significantly more conflict and division in the management of conservation lands. So that is one reason we are opposing it.The bill is also setting up an unnecessary quango. We already have liaison committees under the Wild Animal Control Act and they have a significant influence on how hunting is managed on conservation land. You only have to think of the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan Implementation Group which I was on in a former life. That was dominated by hunters. That was very influential in determining how tahr were managed and making sure that hunters actually got a real privilege in getting helicopter access to wilderness areas. There are existing mechanisms like those liaison committees under the Wild Animal Control Act.One of the other reasons we oppose the bill is the significant cost in establishing the Game Animal Council. As the regulatory impact statement said the council would have the highest costs in terms of time and resources as well as being the least aligned to the current wild animal control regime and legislative framework. The Government is proposing to direct at least $100000 annually and potentially $200000 annually to establish the council. That is a significant cost for the Department of Conservation when the push is for it to be engaged in effective spending and we know because of the funding cuts that it is very much under financial constraints. Where we have seen thesestand-alone councils established elsewhere such as in New South Wales the council failed to break even and the state Government there had to subsidise its game animal council to the tune of $3.5 million.So here if the Government does not subsidise the council to that amount we are likely to see significant fees imposed on recreational hunters. Originally the council was to be funded just by levies on the export of trophies. The Local Government and Environment Committee amendments to the bill include a power for the council to recommend to the Minister how it wants to recover its costs and then there is a power for the Minister to impose fees and levies. The Green Party’s concern is that the combination of those powers plus the stripping out of any reference to recreational hunters through the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is going to mean potentially that the council will set very high levies to hunt animals in herds of special interest that only the trophy hunters can afford.At the moment the Department of Conservation does not charge people to go hunting. It recovers its costs for hunting permits but that is generally only about $30 a permit. So the Department of Conservation at the moment supports that Kiwi tradition of going hunting. The Game Animal Council is likely to undermine that because of the need to recover the costs of running an 11 to 12-member council and its costs in doing research and other work on these herds of special interest.The State Services Commission Treasury the former Ministry of Economic Development the former Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the former Food Safety Authority all opposed this bill. The Government normally takes the advice of these agencies. National’s rhetoric is all about cutting through red tape and bureaucracy yet in establishing this stand-alone agency with significant management powers it is setting up more red tape and bureaucracy.But our major reason for opposing it is that it introduces multiple use management on the public conservation estate and that it is at odds with the whole thrust of conservation legislation and the Department of Conservation’s statutory purpose which is to protect and preserve natural and historic resources and our unique indigenous biodiversity. Because animals like tahr and deer are being changed by this bill from being recognised as a problem and as having an impact through their browsing on our high country soils on our indigenous species into being seen as more of an asset of value we are going to see significant conflicts between the Game Animal Council and the Department of Conservation when it wants to undertake culling and control operations and when it wants to do aerial 1080 operations to control possums. The Game Animal Council in seeking to protect its stakeholder interests is likely to oppose that.So the whole desire of the Game Animal Council to maximise hunting opportunities will conflict with the management of conservation lands and pest control. That is obvious from the fact that there is nothing in this bill that prohibits the Minister from establishing herds of special interest in our highest-category protected areas like national parks nature reserves and ecological areas. That is why there is Supplementary Order Paper 400 in my name to amend that. If the Minister is genuine about continuing to protect conservation values there should be a clear commitment that these herds of special interest not be established in national parks nature reserves scientific reserves and ecological areas because of the damage that introduced browsers cause.There is significant international concern about this bill. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand attached to its submission a letter from the vice-chair Oceania of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. That was from Penelope Figgis and the deputy vice-chair Bruce Jefferies to the Minister ofConservation. It emphasised that there is “significant deep-seated apprehension that the legal and philosophical principles that underpin New Zealand’s conservation management systems would be both undermined and compromised if introduced animal management is taken over and driven by the interests of commercial game animal groups and a limited number of recreational hunters.”We have a lot more to say about this bill which we will do in the Committee stage. Thank you.Debate interrupted.Points of OrderSocial Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting CorrectionJAN LOGIE (Green): I seek leave for the vote on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill to be taken again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You want the vote to be taken again?JAN LOGIE: Yes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [Interruption] Sorry? Do you just want to give your vote again?JAN LOGIE: No I want to take the vote again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You want to take the whole vote again? I have been advised that as the matter has finished—the bill has had its third reading—that is it.JAN LOGIE: I seek leave to have it recorded inHansard that the Green Party the Mana Party and Independent MP Brendan Horan wish to vote in the negative on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill which the House was previously dealing with.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes of course you can seek leave. The reality is that the House is the master of its own destiny. The member has sought leave and then it is up to the members to decide what they want to do. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. Thank you. But it is inHansard anyway.Game Animal Council BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am very pleased to talk on the Game Animal Council Bill because it is an important bill. I think that it is all about a sensible and intelligent use of the conservation estate so that more people more New Zealanders can get out there and enjoy our natural environment. As has been discussed today in the House the Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on this bill. We really wanted to deliver for two stakeholders. We walked a fine line to make sure that we delivered for the hunting community which is passionate about this bill but we also wanted to deliver for the environment and for conservation. Hunting and conservation are not mutually exclusive. We all want to see more people out and about and more recreationists out in our great outdoors because recreation is often the pathway to conservation. When you speak to recreationists whether they be hunters shooters fishermen or mountain bikers—the people who are out there—they are the first to extol the beauty of our natural environment and to be very sure that theywant to see it protected. Hunting is a hugely popular recreational activity in New Zealand and many hunters along with other recreationists whether they are fishermen or trampers or mountain bikers or climbers are also passionately committed to looking after our environment and contribute actively to practical on-the-ground conservation.This bill will give hunters a greater say in their sport just like fishermen have through Fish and Game and it will also provide the Minister of Conservation with a valuable stream of advice regarding recreational and guided trophy hunting of tahr chamois deer and wild pigs. Again it is a balance between giving the hunters more say and providing the Minister of Conservation with more abilities to look after the conservation estate. The Game Animal Council Bill provides a framework for collaborative management by stakeholders of this animal resource. It will ensure that the animals are permitted in only identified less sensitive areas and are well managed and that the natural environment is monitored. This of course will be a much better proposition for the environment than the present situation where stakeholders tend to be divided there is no process for shared knowledge or for goals and there is no opportunity to manage these animals in a much more efficient way. So we believe that this bill will provide a win-win. It will provide a better hunting experience for our recreationists but it will also manage and conserve our natural environment more effectively. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Game Animal Council Bill. When this bill was first presented to the House we were not particularly impressed with it. New Zealand First thought that it was in its first drafting somewhat of a sop to the Hon Peter Dunne just to satisfy the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with United Future and that the Government was perhaps just giving lip-service to it initially as a result of that. We opposed the bill at the time but we were confident that if it went to a select committee and was given the proper light of day huge improvements could be made to it—and that turned out to be the case.I would like to commend the Local Government and Environment Committee which I am on for the work that was done on this bill because the bill is considerably changed from the original bill. The committee heard submissions in both Wellington and Christchurch. There were over 600 submissions in total and many were heard orally. Our hearings in Christchurch were an interesting experience. They were held at the International Antarctic Centre by the airport. It was not foreseen but through the wall from the hearings room a movie of Antarctica was going on. It was on a 30-minute loop with a large crescendo of loud music and sound. Jacqui Dean Paul Goldsmith and others will recall that it was somewhat ironic that as many of the submitters were getting to the end of their various presentations coincidentally there was a loud growth a crescendo of music and sound. It was somewhat ironic and people commented that they did not expect to have a musical accompaniment to their submission.Maggie Barry: Surreal.ANDREW WILLIAMS: It was quite surreal but it was quite fitting. Many of those comments and statements were being made by many parties from across a sector that is involved in game animals hunting recreation and conservation and it was very appropriate that they had a musical background to them. But it was good to see so many people coming together from all those interests and I would like to congratulate all those who did so many of whom had been involved on the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee for the last 5 or 6 years to get it to this point particularly the likes of Garry Ottmann who chaired that committee which brought much of the thinking together to where it is today.It was also very good to see in Christchurch an old colleague of mine Tom Williams who led the delegation there and spoke on behalf of quite a number of the entities. Tom was the former chairman of the New Zealand Game Industry Board many years ago when I was in the venison industry. Tom has huge experience from across the deer industry and the game industry and it was very good to see Tom again taking a lead role in bringing so many of those entities together as one voice.It really was impressive. You know there are really many different factions involved in recreational hunting in commercial hunting in commercial deer operations and in commercial farming that impact on the conservation estate where wild animals can interact with farmed animals and deer farms as well. It was very good to see so many of those people coming together with one voice.The Game Animal Council Bill will bring many of the parties together in a council that will have between nine and 11 representatives. It is good to see that it will be independently chaired and the select committee made some recommendations on this. Clause 12(1A) states: “The Minister must appoint as chairperson a member of the Council whom the Minister considers has the appropriate management and conflict resolution skills to chair the Council.” Our committee thought that it was very important that whoever is appointed as chair of this because there are many factions involved must have the ability to chair it and bring those parties together.This bill also provides a balance between the Department of Conservation and conservation principles and the recreational and commercial hunting sector. We believe that it achieves a good balance so that both sides are able to come to this council in one collective place and express the interests of all those involved in the many activities out there in the conservation estate and in the wild. It provides for the designation of herds of special interest and will improve the management of the likes of chamois deer tahr and wild pigs. The bill allows the Minister of Conservation to define locations on conservation land and designate a herd of game animals as a herd of special interest specifically for recreational hunting without adversely affecting other users or biodiversity values.We included in our recommendations on the bill things such as the council would be subject to LGOIMA—the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act—so that the council will be required to provide information as other local authorities in New Zealand are now required to provide official information on their meetings and their correspondence. The council must notify the Minister of the adoption of any procedure as soon as it is reasonably practical after it has been adopted. So again this council will have to keep the Minister well-informed of its intentions so that it can be monitored all the way through.It was interesting too that we recommended in terms of the trophy export levy in clause 22 that “A person must not export a game trophy from New Zealand that is a souvenir of an animal hunted and killed in New Zealand on or after the day this Act comes into force unless the person pays to the Council the game trophy export levy prescribed …” in this Act. Again this is a good thing because it does mean that highly prized game trophies will be charged a levy to be determined by the council and recommended to the Minister. Again these sorts of things can only be good to help improve the return and to then be able to have funding to go back into the estate itself and into managing the herds.In terms of funding again we provided for fees for hunting any animal that is part of a herd of special interest and for the game export trophy levies. Again there needs to be some form of funding to cover this. It does come at a cost but it is a necessary cost because at the end of the day all those involved will benefit from it. A nominal cost that is the result of this can only be good for the overall management of the herd in ensuringthat this is continued well into the future for this generation and future generations to be able to enjoy the great wild and the recreational sport that this involves and for commercial hunting as well.One of the other things that I believe is good in this bill is that there will be a review of the Act no later than 3 years after the commencement. That provides for Parliament to ensure that the council its activities and what comes out of this whole piece of legislation are monitored. The legislation will not be perfect there will be some teething problems no doubt and there will be a settling-down and bedding-in process while it all comes to be. But it is good that there will be a review within 3 years and as a result of that I am sure that any minor discrepancies or oversights in this bill will be picked up and addressed by a future amendment perhaps in this House.New Zealand First is supporting this bill. We think that the considerable changes that were put through as a result of the submissions and listening to the parties involved are good ones. We believe the bill is a step forward for this sector. We commend the bill to the House.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Jacqueline Dean.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Good call. The Game Animal Council Bill delivers on the Government’s 2008 and also 2011 confidence and supply agreements with United Future. It also reflects the work done under United Future’s 2005 confidence and supply agreement with the then Labour Government. The game animal panel which was chaired by Margaret Austin and included more than 4000 public submissions recommended that a statutory organisation be established to represent the interests of hunters of large game animals and to undertake the management of recreational guided and commercial hunting. An establishment committee was set up to undertake further public consultation on what the structure the membership and the functions of the council might be. Its recommendations widely consulted on have been incorporated into this piece of legislation.This legislation this bill creates a Game Animal Council which will advise and make recommendations to the Minister of Conservation on behalf of the hunting community on a range of hunting-related issues. The council will also be delegated powers to manage herds of special interest to hunters for the purpose of recreational hunting. I was interested to hear comments from the Green Party in relation to the fact that in its view this is a bill that is non-inclusive. Well I could not argue the contrary more strongly because the membership of the Game Animal Council will have people with knowledge and experience in areas such as recreational and commercial hunting deer farming safari park operations meat processing and exporting hunting-related tourism Māori hunting interests hunting-related research farming generally forestry and also nature conservation. So I would like to know from the Green members and they might care to take a call—what is so exclusive about that? This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Damien O’Connor.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Yes good choice. Labour supported this Game Animal Control Bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee because we have for a long time recognised that we need to have I guess a more robust and certain system around the management of game animals in this country and of course the protection of the conservation estate. The bill has been considered by the select committee and a number of changes were made.Labour at this point is not supporting the bill because I guess in summary this is an MMP bill. It is really about a deal that has been done a political deal to push ahead something that in the end is not ideal and not truly fit for purpose. We do need to haveprotection for the conservation estate. At a time when the Government has squeezed funding for the Department of Conservation it is little wonder that staunch conservationists are a little bit edgy and concerned and paranoid some might say that it is all going to be shifted on to the private sector with deals done in a partnership model and that we are then going to shift the control of pests and wild animals on to the hunters. They are a little bit paranoid about that—hence their concerns from what we have seen and certainly in some of the Supplementary Order Papers that are coming up. It is understandable perhaps.It comes down to a philosophical divide about what we have conservation and public lands for in this country. We are talking about exotic animals. They have been introduced into the country just as trout have been. For those fish we have quite a robust system of protection that treats them almost as if they are an indigenous species. They are not. We have accepted that as part of mainstream management for the good of New Zealand as a whole. We are trying to establish a similar regime with this bill.An independent Game Animal Council is I guess in theory a good thing as long as it works in with the Department of Conservation. This will establish a point of conflict and there is debate about what that might mean. The elephant in the room if you like of course is the one of 1080 and its use throughout the country. I come from the West Coast an area that has been—Hon Ruth Dyson: An elephant in Sri Lanka.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: An elephant in Sri Lanka. It will be here. It will almost be in the room soon—when John Key comes back tomorrow.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Back to the bill—I am sorry I have been distracted. Thank you. I will be back on target. It is a philosophical divide about whether we should use 1080 to control possums or not. Coming from a region like the West Coast we know that it is an essential tool to not only control bovine tuberculosis in animals but also protect the spectacular national parks we have. There has been over time some by-kill if you like—bycatch or by-kill—that is when spreading the 1080 deer have been killed. Staunch conservationists think that that is a great idea—kill anything that is not native. However the hunters think that they should have access to a recreational activity that gets them out in the bush that keeps them fit and that has been part and parcel of the New Zealand way of life—in fact people have survived by eating venison. But if in the end the Game Animal Council here was to stop the use of 1080 as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has alerted us to then that is not progress.I have had an assurance from the hunting sector from Garry Ottmann that that is not one of the things that the Game Animal Council would do. I welcome that assurance. However it is a contentious point in the hunting fraternity. There have been changes to the 1080 bait put out there in order to try to minimise the by-kill and to not inadvertently or unnecessarily kill deer. But you still come back to the core philosophical debate about whether there should be deer tahr or chamois in the conservation estate at all. There are Supplementary Order Papers on the Table that attempt to ensure that there are no managed herds in any of the conservation estate or national parks. I do not quite accept that because the reality for tahr and chamois is that they are often in national parks. This is indeed where the objective of the bill will play out. Either we have them in national parks or we do not.The other reality we are dealing with is a Department of Conservation that is squeezed for resources is that it will never be able to control or exterminate wild animals in the conservation estate or indeed even in areas of high natural values. So there will be a reliance on hunters to assist in that control and where necessaryextermination. But there are some double standards. In wilderness areas for example people are not able to use air access into these areas for recreational purposes such as rafting or tramping. However they are able to use air access for the control of wild animals. If one were to be very pure about it we would say that there should be no air access at all. So in summary there are a number of slight contradictions across the whole of the conservation estate that have been put in place for best management purposes. The issue here is to ensure that if this bill proceeds we have a Game Animal Council that works in the best interests of conservation and the hunters—not exclusively one against the other. We do support that.An aside but one that will have an impact on the kinds of recreational control that can occur is the issue of venison. We had a huge deer population in this country until the practice of farming and the value of the meat itself got to a level where people saw the economic driver to get out and kill deer. Indeed that was what we needed to do to drive down the numbers to actually see the restoration of a whole lot of natural values across the conservation estate. We were overrun with deer there was a commercial value put on them and we saw the extermination of them in some necessary areas. The fact that the meat industry is dysfunctional and has lost and is leaving opportunities on the table all around the world means that the value of venison is nowhere near where it should be. If the Government was to get on and sort out the meat industry and put a decent value on venison I think we would see real activity from the hunting fraternity to get out and help control deer.Labour is not supporting the bill at this point not because we do not want to support hunters to get out and enjoy the conservation estate and assist the Department of Conservation to control wild animals in areas but because we think it is actually going to create some tension that will be ongoing between the department and the Game Animal Council. I am comforted by reassurances from Garry Ottmann on behalf of the hunting sector that they will indeed do their best to work together. I hope that that does indeed happen. But when it comes to the issue of 1080 as a West Coast MP and former dairy farmer I am staunch. We must be able to continue to use 1080 in the conservation estate to control the exotic pests that frequent there. It is not just deer; it is stoats it is weasels and it is possums. We need to do that; otherwise the future of this country as an economic exporter of meat is at risk.I welcome the opportunity to speak more on a number of particular technical issues in the bill through the Committee stage but can I say that Labour supports hunters. We want people to get out into the outdoors. We want them to help the Department of Conservation to kill unwanted pests—anything they can hit. Stoats would be great. That is a very challenging target I would have to say but if we could have a bounty on them that would be great. But on the issue of deer chamois and tahr we need to ensure that there is appropriate control but that we protect the opportunities for people who do make a great effort to get out and hunt them. So we will work through. We want the best outcome here. We are just concerned that perhaps the Government has not got it quite right in its proposals.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. It is sponsored by the Minister of Conservation Nick Smith. Many of the details of this piece of legislation have been tracked through by the Minister and by Nicky Wagner the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee which has ushered through this longstanding piece of legislation. It has been around since 2005. Peter Dunne had it as part of a confidence and supply agreement with the then Labour-led Government so it emerges.We had a lot of discussion at the select committee about the various elements of definition and about such vexed issues as what constitutes a herd of special interest tohunters. We resolved that it would be deer chamois tahr and wild pigs. There is a lot of other game out there to be hunted. National obviously supports the recreational pastime of hunting. There is a sense of entitlement for New Zealanders to be able to go out and shoot. In many occasions what they are doing for their recreational pleasure and interest is also enhancing conservation values.One of the things that stood out for me at the select committee was the work that was done by the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation. I think that is a really successful example of how recreational hunters can work in with conservation. That foundation has been managing the effects that deer have had on the environment of Fiordland for around about 7 or 8 years and the conservation and recreational hunting interests are in a very good balance. The recreational hunters for example have been responsible for 70 kilometres of predator lines to control stoats and rats in partnership with the Department of Conservation. They have released blue ducklings which have come back into Fiordland now. And recreational hunters have funded the removal of thousands of non - wapiti-type deer. What this shows us is an example of how the Game Animal Council can work when it gets up and running. As Peter Dunne said he hopes it will be a reality early in the new year. I support that.I think it is a lost opportunity that Labour is not supporting this bill. I am not surprised that the Greens are not. There is nothing new there. I would echo the sentiments of the previous speaker Damien O’Connor who just sat down about 1080. I too have spent time on the West Coast of the South Island recently. I am aware of the issues that are prevalent around New Zealand when it comes to possum control and pest control. I commend the use of 1080 and would hope that others might take the time to read the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on it. She has done a very good job of looking at the science of it and the way in which it actually works. So I think that those who are not aware should make themselves more informed before they state a view. But when and where 1080 is used is a debate for another occasion as are some of the key messages within this piece of legislation which I will come back to in more detail at other readings. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I want to advise the House that this is a split call.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to take a split call with the Green Party on the second reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. I have got a couple of questions. Why are we debating this bill in urgency and why are we debating this bill at all?Why are we debating this bill in urgency? Well there can only be one reason. The regulatory impact statement on this bill is dated 17 March 2011. The work was commenced in 2008 by the then Minister of Conservation Steve Chadwick who engaged with the Hon Peter Dunne to talk about wild game animals and the control of wild animals through hunting and through conservation measures.One of the things that came out of that conversation was that there was a range of statutory possibilities available. It is unfortunate that the Government has chosen to pursue entirely the wrong statutory option and this is the lost opportunity. It is not the one that the previous speaker Maggie Barry spoke of but this is the lost opportunity. Instead of being able to have an advisory committee established by the Minister of Conservation under the terms of the Wild Animal Control Act we have a stand-alone Game Animal Council which costs money and has its own statutory authority—its own legislation in fact. It would have been more effective and less damaging to the relationships in this highly contested and quite fractious area to provide the authority for an advisory committee to be set up under the Wild Animal Control Act.In fact if that was not enough for the Government it would have been possible to amend the Wild Animal Control Act to ensure that the advisory committee could not be disestablished by the Minister. There are advisory committees under that Act at the moment but the Minister has the ability to disestablish them at any time. If the Government really wanted to give teeth to this proposal instead of escalating it into a bill a statute of its own it could have just said that this is an advisory committee under the Wild Animal Control Act the Minister is establishing it and the Minister will not have the power to disestablish it. That would have been sufficient.What we have now is a bill that is going to work against the common interests of the hunting fraternity and the Department of Conservation. There have been tensions for a long time between those two groups but this bill does not help. This bill makes it worse in fact. This bill makes those relationships inevitably more fractious. Why would the Government want to do that when there was conversation happening where interests on both sides were being taken into account and when there is a deal of common interest because of the damage that wild animals do to our biodiversity to our environment? So there is a deal of common interest there.The only reason I can think of that the Government has chosen the heavy-duty legislative option is to appease the Hon Peter Dunne because he was upset at being told that John Banks would be welcomed back to the Prime Minister’s Cabinet but he would not be. I can only assume that this bill turning up in urgency after a regulatory impact statement written more than 2 years ago is to appease the Hon Peter Dunne. That is not a model of democratic process. So I am sorry to all our visitors in the gallery who are here today—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon MARYAN STREET: Sorry.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was actually indicating that it was inappropriate to speak to the gallery.Hon MARYAN STREET: Yes that is what I thought. How much more—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s time is nearly up.Hon MARYAN STREET: I will speak further about this in the Committee stage. I cannot support this bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): This is a split call.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): On television at the moment there seems to be a resurgence in magic shows. I guess we might call them illusionists rather than magicians. Those of us who have been around a bit know that they accomplish their tricks through a combination of hypnosis and diversion. I want to suggest that something similar is going on here because we have had a number of Government speakers stand up in the House and talk about how this bill the Game Animal Council Bill is a bill to further the interests of recreational hunters. In fact the Government intends in the next stage that this House considers the Committee stage to remove all reference to recreational hunters from the bill. Recreational hunters out there around the country will be thinking that this is a bill for them. Actually it is not. Instead it is a bill for the top end of the commercial tourism hunting scene—the trophy hunters those who are paying the big bucks to get the big bucks. The Government is accomplishing that same trick of pretending that this is a bill for recreational hunters in order to garner support while in fact advancing the interests of only a few.I feel sorry I guess for the Deerstalkers Association which has been calling for a greater say for so many years in this country. In fact the bill that is being delivered is one that will not deliver it a greater say. It will not even need to be consulted by this Game Animal Council.It is not quite true to say that that particular part of the commercial hunting scene is the only winner out of this bill and that everyone else will pay. In his contribution to this debate Peter Dunne said that it was a red-letter day for recreational hunters. Of course that is an absurd claim but actually it is a red-letter day for Peter Dunne. I congratulate him in a political way on being able to parlay his United Future conference speech into getting a bill advanced through the remainder of its stages in urgency.I guess the political drivers behind advancing this bill are clear both from the use of urgency to get this bill into law as Maryan Street has just talked about to the House and also the history of this bill which has been outlined to the House today by Jacqui Dean. This is a bill that has been hanging around and that no Government has actually wanted to proceed with because it is a poor bill. This Government has now been forced to do that for political reasons. I say it is for political reasons because this was a bill that was opposed by for example—let us see—the State Services Commission Treasury the former Ministry of Economic Development the former Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Food Safety Authority. All of those State agencies opposed the bill along with every environmental and conservation organisation in this country. This is not a bill for conservation at all; it is a bill for Peter Dunne and for a tiny group of those commercial recreational hunters.I am going to talk some more at further stages but I want to just signal that as one of the few members of this House—perhaps the only one—who has served on a conservation board the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board it is very clear that the existing law already provides for the kind of input into decision making that was being sought by recreational hunters. The existing law already provided for that. As other speakers have said if more was required amendments to the Wild Animal Control Act could have provided for that. This bill is completely unnecessary. On the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board we had recreational hunters represented. We dealt very frequently with issues that were raised by recreational hunters. Those procedures were entirely adequate to deal with those concerns. I want to wrap up there and come back at a later stage to the further points I want to make.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is my pleasure to take the last call in the second reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. I cast my mind back to the many many hours that we the Local Government and Environment Committee spent listening to submissions on this bill—a very wide range of submissions. There is no doubt that hunting is a hugely popular recreational activity in New Zealand and that people feel very strongly about it. In fact I took my research very seriously and went out hunting for the first time a few months ago and I learnt firsthand the dangers of being too close to—Hon Trevor Mallard: How much did Simon charge you?PAUL GOLDSMITH: No—I learnt how dangerous it is to get one’s eye too close to the scope when firing a weapon. That was something I learnt.The Game Animal Council Bill which is part of National’s confidence and supply agreement with United Future will have hunters’ interests at the forefront and will also engage practically with conservation local and Government authorities and other sector groups. We will be hearing more about this over the next few stages and I do not want to delay the House any further. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Game Animal Council Bill be now read a second time.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Billread a second time.In CommitteePart 1 Preliminary and key provisionsMOANA MACKEY (Labour): I had been hoping that the Minister with responsibility for the Game Animal Council Bill might be in the chair. Hopefully the Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully is able to answer some questions we have about Supplementary Order Paper 395. I am not sure that that face really inspires confidence that we are going to get an answer to all our questions but we will give it a go—we will give it a go. The Minister of Conservation Nick Smith has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 395 and I really hope that the Minister is going to take a call on it because it does actually appear to quite seriously change everything that we did at the Local Government and Environment Committee.I want to refer specifically to the proposed changes to clause 16 in Part 1 of this bill where we are removing the word “recreational”. So we are going to replace “managed for recreational hunting purposes” with “managed for hunting purposes”. Given that the entire purpose of this bill was meant to be around recreational hunting I am really worried about what that change means and whether that completely undermines everything we did in the select committee.When this bill went through the select committee we were very cognisant of the job that was before us to manage the tensions between the recreational hunting community and the Department of Conservation. That really was our focus. We were recognising the value of the recreational hunting community recognising that there were actually a number of common goals between the Department of Conservation and the recreational hunting community and that there were existing relationships that were already very good. There were some existing relationships that were very very bad but there was enough common ground for us to work on to bring together the recreational hunting community and those purposes where they aligned with the Department of Conservation’s vision and aspirations around pest control and the management of the Department of Conservation estate. So when I see in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 on Part 1 of this bill that we are removing the word “recreational” from the legislation it is deeply concerning.I hope that the Minister in the chair even if this is an issue that he has to come up to speed with very quickly is able to get some advice from officials. It is not looking good is it? It is not looking good. Given that this could potentially completely change the entire purpose of the bill—and the member Peter Dunne mentioned heli-hunting in his contribution or whatever new name we have given it to make it sound not so awful—I would like to know what this means in terms of the discussions we had at the select committee around the hunting of trophy animals from helicopters. If we are now saying that this is no longer about recreational hunting interests and it is just about all hunting interests that is a completely different kettle of fish and different from every conversation we had at select committee. It might be that this is some minor technicalamendment that does not actually change a lot or that is designed for a specific purpose but I think the very first thing we need in this debate is some clarification from the Minister in the chair around what that means.Why did we have a select committee process that spent all its time focusing on how the interests of recreational hunters worked in with the interests of the Department of Conservation and the general public on behalf of whom the Minister of Conservation is a steward of that land? Why did we go through all that if suddenly this bill is going to be about all hunting interests? I wonder whether it is because maybe we went down the path in terms of setting out how we were going to pay for this Game Animal Council of basing its fees on the number of trophy hunters. And maybe the Government just wants a whole lot more of those but I wondered whether it might be something that the Hon Peter Dunne might be able to refer to. For us this is very concerning.Just so that I can let the member know what our concerns are about we have been focused on recreational hunters. This amendment now takes the word “recreational” out and to me that is a major change. It is not something that was ever flagged at the select committee. If there was an issue with keeping the word “recreational” in there at the select committee I do not know why it was not raised with us then albeit it was decades ago that we had this bill at the select committee. Maybe the Hon Peter Dunne would be able to take a call on this Supplementary Order Paper 395 from Nick Smith and explain why in clause 16 we are changing “managed for recreational hunting purposes” to “managed for hunting purposes”. That does seem like a big change to us and in light of the comments he made about heli-hunting as well it would be good to get some clarification around exactly what that is trying to achieve and to allay concerns on this side of the Chamber that it is not actually going to make worse a bill that we are already concerned about and take the focus off recreational hunting which was what we understood to be the entire purpose of this legislation. So I look forward to getting some clarification on that.In terms of the rest of Part 1 of the bill when you look at the purposes of this bill in clause 3 they are: “(a) to establish the Game Animal Council and provide for its functions; and (b) to create powers for the Minister to manage herds of special interest; and (c) to allow the Minister to delegate his or her powers to the Council; and (d) to provide for fees and levies to fund the Council and its functions.” Our question would be again whether this is an appropriate way to achieve the purposes the policy intentions of this particular piece of legislation especially given that the official advice from Treasury and the Department of Conservation has been that this is not the way to go. Their advice was that this path has the most regulatory burden and has the highest costs and in fact there were other options available to the Government that would have been far easier that would have built on existing relationships that would have built on existing functions that would have identified where those relationships did not exist and that would have done so with far less regulatory burden and at a much lower cost. When you consider that the funding for this bill—$100000 in the first year and then $50000 per year after that—is going to have to come from money that is reprioritised within the Department of Conservation then it becomes even clearer that this pathway and the pathway set out in clause 3 “Purposes” in the bill is not the appropriate legislative pathway to be taking.This legislation has been a long time in the making. This is work that started under the previous Labour Government. The advisory panel provided advice none of which is really represented in this piece of legislation and when you look at what we have come up with there were far simpler ways to do it that could have actually been done a lot quicker—a lot quicker. They could have been done under existing legislation either within ministerial powers that already existed which would not have requiredlegislation at all or through an amendment to existing legislation which would have been far simpler than what we see in Part 1 of this piece of legislation.I know that part of the concern around simply using existing legislative or regulatory tools such as the ability of the Minister of Conservation to set up a special committee to look into this was about the power of the Minister in that role. These are always tensions that we have to manage in legislation regarding the Department of Conservation. It used to be the case that the Minister of Conservation had sole responsibility for all activities on the conservation estate as the guardian of that conservation estate on behalf of all New Zealanders. What we continue to see is an undermining of that role and I think that in Part 1 of the bill we see this again. We have had successive pieces of legislation that have taken away the ability of the Minister of Conservation to carry out that very very crucial role and again here in Part 1 of the bill we see that further undermining but for no gain. It is not saying that you cannot have some of the devolution that we see here from the Minister and from the department to other groups where there are shared goals where there are shared common interests and where those tensions can be managed.In that respect a lot of what we see in Part 1 and what we will see in the debate on it represents a lost opportunity. I do not think there is any question that there were enormous gains to be made here that would have benefited all parties who were in the process and that was very clear at the select committee when we heard from submitters. When we expected to see a much more polarised debate what we actually saw was a lot of people coming together wanting to talk about what they wanted to achieve in common. They wanted to highlight where those tensions did lie but they said: “These are not tensions that cannot be managed and these are not tensions that we cannot find a way through and if we cannot we will just agree to disagree.” There was a lot of goodwill from all sides of the debate and that is why I feel that this really is a lost opportunity.I am going to end my contribution there but I do come back to the amendment to clause 16 on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper on the bill. It would be really good to have some clarification around that because that does seem like quite a wholesale shift away from what we were trying to achieve at the select committee and what the policy intentions were stated to be.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I just want to comment on two points that have arisen in the debate so far. The first is to just discuss this question of why the Game Animal Council Bill is being progressed at this time. At the end of the second reading Kevin Hague made reference to magic and illusions and I accosted him on the stairwell shortly thereafter and said that I thought that was a good description of his speech as well. There is no sinister reason or untoward motive for the timing of the bill’s passage being now; it is simply that certain things with regard to certain concessions have expiry dates. The council needs to be in place to give effect to either the renewal or the changes of those concessions as soon as possible. Indeed in my ideal world this bill would have been passed much earlier this year but that is another story.Hon Trevor Mallard: The member’s hardly had an ideal world this year. I share his position.Hon PETER DUNNE: It has been an interesting year and perhaps that member and I should get together to mutually commiserate at some stage. I want to come back to the questions that have been raised about clause 16. I just draw members’ attention to Supplementary Order Paper 395 and also to the changes that are being made to clause 7 because they need to be seen in tandem. What happened if I can recall the history very briefly was that at the time that the bill was being drafted we specifically excluded a number of what might be described as the private sector operators from itspurview because we did not want to infringe on property rights etc. Once the bill came back from the Local Government and Environment Committee the Government received submissions from a whole range of those groups. They came to see me. There were the tourism operators and there was a range of groups basically saying that they wanted to be brought under the purview of the legislation. We had previously excluded them. I said: “You give me your letter with your signatures to this and we will make the changes.” That is what happened.I should draw to the Committee’s attention because it has just come to my notice—some 15 minutes ago in fact—an email that I received this morning from Mr Garry Ottmann who has been listening to the debate. He has been quoted favourably by members from all sides during the course of this debate and I just want to read his comments on this issue which relates to clause 16. He said: “The removal of the word ‘recreational’ means that this bill will actually benefit all hunters in New Zealand. The council is there to serve the interests of all hunters.” That is a direct quote from Garry Ottmann the chair of the establishment committee this morning. So I say to the Committee that the concerns that have been raised about whether the removal of the reference to recreational hunters limits the scope of the bill in terms of the ability to cover their interests are in fact invalid. What we are doing is becoming much more all-encompassing and in fact the scope of the Game Animal Council is being increased significantly by the amendments which have the buy-in of all of the major players that are made on the Minister of Conservation’s Supplementary Order Paper.So a lot has been made of the need to get consensus of the need to get people working in the same direction and of the need to get people broadly having an agreement about the direction in which we should be travelling. All of that has been achieved—in fact it is one of the reasons why the bill has taken so long to get to this point. But it comes essentially as a package now agreed to by all of the interests in the sector and the final bit of the jigsaw that needs to be put in place is its passage because basically people cannot wait for that to happen.So I think that although I understand the concern that has been raised a lot of that is a debating point. In reality this is a broadening of the bill’s coverage. It will ensure that the concerns that a number of the members opposite have raised about just to whom the council will be talking whether it will be able to consult widely enough and whether it will be put into a narrow box are in fact being addressed. I think they are positive changes. They are certainly changes that I was working on at the time that I was interrupted in my duties and certainly ones that I would strongly support because they are in the best interests of what the Game Animal Council was set up to achieve. It is not being set up to be a lobby group. It is being set up to be an entity to manage the interests of the recreational and other hunting sectors in New Zealand to deal with a number of the critical issues that affect them both in terms of things like safety and in terms of specific issues like aerially assisted trophy hunting and access. I think that the breadth is appropriate.There is one other matter that I will comment on very briefly. Mr O’Connor raised during the second reading issues relating to 1080. He and I may have a different view about the impact of 1080 but it is not part of this bill and I would be very surprised if it was an area where the Game Animal Council would want to traverse very significantly at all. I am pretty certain that in the event that it did so then in that eventuality it would come up against some pretty stiff political opposition from the entrenched interest. I think the issue—and I say this with the greatest of respect—is a red herring in this particular debate. I am not saying that it is not significant in other contexts but in the context of this bill and this council it is not all that relevant and is therefore a red herring. I think that what is contained in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 395satisfactorily addresses a number of concerns that have been addressed. It also ensures that the council will be able to function effectively. I commend it to the House.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): That is a very interesting explanation from one of the sponsors of the Game Animal Council Bill Peter Dunne—even though the bill is not in his name—because I think that the recreational hunters in New Zealand and the Deerstalkers Association have been sold a pup with this amendment. If it is so anodyne then why was it not brought to the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider? Why is it being pushed through under urgency?Recreational hunters are being cut out of the bill through the Minister of Conservation’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 because it removes the word “recreational” wherever it occurs. That means that the Game Animal Council will have to liaise only with hunters and hunting organisations not recreational hunting organisations such as the Deerstalkers Association. It means that when the Minister is appointing members to the Game Animal Council he will not need to include anyone on the Game Animal Council who has knowledge or experience of recreational hunting; he has only to have somebody who has more general knowledge of hunting.The most fundamental change that this Supplementary Order Paper brings in is that herds of special interest will not have to be managed for recreational hunting purposes. They will have to be managed just for hunting. That means that the Game Animal Council potentially can manage these herds as a private recreational resource not for the benefit of Kiwi hunters but for well-heeled trophy hunters. This is another example of a Government by the 1 percent for the 1 percent. Nick Smith should be ashamed of himself given that he was on the select committee and he heard the passion of recreational hunters for their activity. This Supplementary Order Paper cuts right across that.It is interesting is it not that instead of Mr Dunne relying on advice from the Department of Conservation—an independent public sector agency—for what the clauses mean he is relying on Garry Ottmann who has got a very narrow sector interest in this and has been one of the major promoters of the bill. What we are seeing here is that the Government just as it penalised recreational fishers with its changes to the daily catch of snapper is through this legislation penalising recreational hunters by cutting their voice out by making sure that they do not have a seat around the table for the Game Animal Council.Why this is so dangerous is that the bill provides for the Game Animal Council to make recommendations to the Minister on how it is going to recover its costs to run this 11-member council. It allows the Minister then to make recommendations through an Order in Council to set fees and levies. The fees and levies for a hunter to be able to go hunting on Rakiura / Stewart Island for white-tailed deer at the moment are about $30 as the Department of Conservation covers its administration costs. If you have got the Game Animal Council with no recreational hunter representatives on it setting or recommending to the Minister the fees and levies for hunting white-tailed deer—if they become a herd of special interest—they may be in the thousands of dollars. Similarly with tahr—unaffordable for Kiwi hunters.That is why for this Supplementary Order Paper we need much more explanation. We need it from the Department of Conservation from officials not from Garry Ottmann about what this Supplementary Order Paper means. My reading of it is that by stripping out those references to “recreational” it will reduce the voice of recreational hunters. They will not have a seat at the table in the Game Animal Council.One of the other major concerns about the bill is the impact it will have on commercial deer recovery. Damien O’Connor talked about the huge benefit that commercial venison recovery had in reducing deer numbers several decades ago. Theyshoot about 18000 animals a year. They save the Department of Conservation several million dollars in pest control culling costs and yet those operators made extensive submissions to the select committee about the potential impact that this bill would have on them because of the increasing intolerance that some sectors of the hunting community have towards wild animal recovery operations and commercial recovery.At the moment those wild animal recovery operators are prohibited from being able to commercially recover deer and venison in recreational hunting areas which cover about 187000 hectares. It is likely that the Game Animal Council will not want them to operate in any areas where you have got a herd of special interest designated. That will actually reduce the ability of those commercial operators like Highland Cuisine which put in quite a detailed submission explaining how it processes wild venison for export.Highland Cuisines employs about 20 people directly and indirectly. It said in its submission: “We see the Game Animal Council with its potential costly bureaucracy as a direct threat and impact to our future business … The new Bill will be costly in real terms and become a bureaucratic and environmental burden for hunters business and tax payer alike …”. That is because Highland Cuisine has noted that since the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee had been established its suppliers who are going out in those helicopters shooting animals recovering the venison processing it and then exporting it to places like Germany were seeing an increased intolerance of recreational hunters towards them.So if the Game Animal Council given its substantial powers over these areas to be designated as herds of special interest excludes those operators that will restrict the areas where they can recover animals. And it will restrict what the National Government is on about a lot: added-value processing. These operators take something that is a problem a pest and turn it into an export that is of high value. That whole business community is being disadvantaged by this bill.The other major concern we have is just around the fact that the bill does not exclude herds of special interest from being established in our premier natural areas like our national parks. That is why there is Supplementary Order Paper 400 in my name to make sure that when the Minister decides whether or not to designate a herd of special interest it cannot be in a national park. The select committee did make some useful changes to the criteria that the Minister would use when he was considering whether to designate a herd of special interest. Clause 16 tightened them quite considerably and added criteria like the status of the land where the animals were to be found and the statutory requirements around that land but it does not include a specific exclusion on these areas being established in national parks.There have been problems with this in the past with the tahr plan. For a long time the tahr hunters argued that there should be no culling of tahr in Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park. This is despite the fact that national park legislation provides that exotic animals should be eradicated wherever feasible. But we had this hunting interest wanting to hunt tahr in the national park strongly opposing tahr culling and tahr control. It was only over very strenuous efforts that it was finally recognised that the national park legislation should prevail.Similarly if you do not have an explicit protection of national parks in the bill so that herds of special interest cannot be established in them we will see the Game Animal Council arguing against culling in national parks and potentially opposing 1080 drops. And certainly I agree with the concerns that Damien O’Connor raised about the value of 1080 as a pest-control tool. Although Mr Dunne can give the reassurances of Mr Ottmann and others that they will not be opposing 1080 that has not been the history in the past. Because of the undesirable by-kill deer hunters have opposed 1080. TheDepartment of Conservation has done a lot of work on deer repellent. We will come back to some other points later.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am very pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Game Animal Council Bill. Can I just express my frustration that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not seen fit to take a call. I think it is a very poor reflection on his regard for the Local Government and Environment Committee actually. This select committee which was made up of National members New Zealand First members Green Party members and Labour members worked really hard on this bill to try to get agreement. There were some areas where it was a case of “We’re clearly not going to go there—we will not get agreement on that.” but there were a huge number of issues that were in that middle space where if we just put our heads together and worked hard and diligently then we would be able to get agreement and we did.The few fundamental outstanding issues are the areas that have caused us to decide to oppose this bill. But I think that the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be taking a call and answering some of the questions that have been raised instead of sitting in his Minister’s chair smirking at the process and at members of Parliament. I do not think it is a very good attitude to have. It reflects an arrogance that I think is out of touch with the New Zealand community and the way that they want to see legislation progressed in this Parliament.The member who promoted this bill and first introduced it as part of a confidence and supply agreement with the previous Labour-led Government the Hon Peter Dunne made more sense in his contribution of 5 minutes than the Minister of Conservation has through this entire debate. But I am still very puzzled by one point that he made and it is pretty important in regard to Part 1 and Supplementary Order Paper 395 in the name of the Minister of Conservation the Hon Nick Smith. I listened carefully to what Peter Dunne said. He said that after the select committee process he was lobbied by private landowners. He said that there were lots of them who felt that they had been excluded from the view and then he mentioned tourism as an example of those lobbyists. He then said that that explains why clause 16 is being amended in the Supplementary Order Paper.Hon Peter Dunne: Federated Farmers were there.Hon RUTH DYSON: Take another call—I would like to hear the former Minister’s explanation because it in no way satisfied my concern that in Supplementary Order Paper 395 in the name of the Minister of Conservation it is being proposed that clause 16(1)(a)(ii) be amended by replacing the current wording which is: “managed for recreational hunting purposes”—that was the whole debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee; that we supported the recreational hunters—with “managed for hunting purposes”. That is not the debate that the select committee had. In fact the select committee was at great pains to ensure that what it was supporting were people who had hunting as part of their lifestyle not as their primary source of income. But this is not about slicing off a bit of public land for private profit. This is about supporting the genuine recreational activity that thousands of New Zealanders enjoy and because of that enjoyment they have a great passion for the well-being of our public land.So it was the recreational hunters that this was designed to be supportive of. That was the debate through the entire select committee and now we have ended up with a total rewrite of the purpose. For the Hon Peter Dunne to say: “I was lobbied after the select committee and the power of their logic was overwhelming so we ended up with Supplementary Order Paper 395 which fundamentally changed the purpose of the bill and the consideration of the select committee.” just does not wash actually. It does notwash. It has got no credibility and if it is not what the member said then I challenge him to clarify his position by taking another call. In my view he did not explain it and it does not justify the significant change.I go back to the comment I made earlier in regard to the head of the Deerstalkers Association Inc. Tim McCarthy. He said: “When it becomes an issue that affects the stakeholders of New Zealand’s public land and hunters are stakeholders in public land then surely the tail shouldn’t be wagging the dog as in this case.” That was his concern about where this legislation has ended up. It was quite interesting as we went through the select committee process because we heard from the people who had been on the advisory committee that was set up under the last Labour Government—again as part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Hon Peter Dunne in the same way as it has been with the current Government. They came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and said: “This is not what we envisaged. This does not work for us. It does not achieve the purpose.” Then we had the opponents of the Game Animal Council coming along and saying: “This does not work for us either.”It seemed like nobody was gaining. It seemed like this legislation had been put together in an environment of such tension between policy perspectives with no clear outcome. Nobody knew what the outcome of this was meant to be and so everybody was just putting in their tuppence ha’penny and we ended up with a mishmash of ideas and no clarity about the purpose of it. That was the result of that policy tension between the opponents and the proponents of this legislation.Members of the Local Government and Environment Committee tried to get a clear outcome. We said we wanted to ensure that the partnerships that are there for the taking and are actually obviously enabled by the current legislative regime work well. We heard example after example from around the country of where those relationships—between the Department of Conservation recreational hunters local iwi and community organisations—worked brilliantly. So clearly it is not prohibited by the current legislative regime but what we wanted to do was ensure that that strong partnership was better supported through this legislation.I think that what we have seen with the Minister of Conservation’s Supplementary Order Paper is a step in the opposite direction. I wish the Minister had listened more carefully or read the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee because it was an example of where members from different parties and with perhaps different perspectives could listen to each other and gain some understanding. It was the first time that I had worked alongside Andrew Williams actually from New Zealand First and I thought he made quite a significant contribution to the thinking on this legislation. We had different members on our team. Moana Mackey Shane Jones and I were often the three Labour people on it and we do not always think the same. Heaven forbid that three human beings alongside each other should always have complete agreement. We talked about that at the committee and I think that we learnt a lot from each other. I hope the rest of the select committee did as well.So to have all that good work undermined by a Minister who has not even taken a call in the Committee stage of this debate is very frustrating and I think a slap in the face to the good work that the select committee members did. Supplementary Order Paper 395 which changes the term “managed for recreational hunting purposes” to “managed for hunting purposes” is a complete undermining of the work that was done. It sends quite a different message to recreational hunters in New Zealand about what their value is and how they are considered by the parliamentary process.There are some other Supplementary Order Papers that relate to Part 1. There are three in the name of Eugenie Sage. I think that they are going to provide a good opportunity for further debate. She has outlined some of them already. They areintended to ensure that the understanding actually that the select committee had about what the Game Animal Council would be able to do is in fact reflected in the legislation. So it is not a shift in policy through the Supplementary Order Papers that the member has on Part 1; it is actually a belts and braces approach making sure that the legislation actually says what was reflected in the understanding of the select committee. So I commend consideration of those Supplementary Order Papers to you.I want to end by saying that Part 1 has quite a lot of the nuts and bolts operation of the Game Animal Council. It does not have the substantive area of debate that we will be having later on. I do hope that the Hon Peter Dunne is able to take another call before we finish the debate on Part 1 and clarify why he would be proposing that Supplementary Order Paper 395 be supported and how it came to be introduced at such a late stage. We have had the select committee process and months and months of this bill sitting on the Order Paper with no discussion with any other parties about a substantial change. Then under urgency and at the last minute we get thrown this Supplementary Order Paper and the Minister in whose name it is does not even take a call on it. I think that is a very bad process. It does not represent the good work that the parties did across the select committee.I know that Eugenie Sage has had her Supplementary Order Papers on the Table for a while. There is no point putting them on the Table when a bill is not before the House. But the Government members have known that this bill has been back on the Order Paper from the select committee for months and months and then we get treated with this very poor behaviour—a Supplementary Order Paper a fundamental change at the last minute under urgency. It is not good enough.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Abraham Lincoln once said of a colleague that their competence was restricted to causing crises where previously none existed. Having heard the debate this morning on the Game Animal Council Bill I think we are creating controversy where none actually exists.Let me just reiterate the points that I made in response to the Hon Ruth Dyson. When the bill was introduced it related specifically to the conservation estate. During the debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee the funding mechanism that was proposed in the bill was a levy on trophies realised from all forms of hunting—in other words all geographies. Following the report back of the bill a number of those groups that represent private landowners—and I include Federated Farmers as one example—came to the Government and said: “Because trophies taken on our land are going to be subject to the levy we think we ought to be included under the Game Animal Council rubric.” It is as simple as that. This is not about diminishing the role of recreational hunters—far from it. In fact it is including all hunting groups for the first time at the same table. If the members who are concerned look at the provisions relating to the membership of the council they will see that they are broad and will enable all interests to be represented.I just make this point as I conclude. I have listened to this debate and it has been a useful one but one of the themes that has come through repeatedly has been the risk of the Game Animal Council being at odds with other groups in the sector. The very best way to ensure that that is the case would be to limit the scope of its application. Far from doing that the amendments that are contained in the Minister of Conservation’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 actually bring people together for the first time.I cannot for the life of me see what the concern is about. I suspect it is an element of political point-scoring which is fair enough in this place. But frankly when you have the chair of the establishment committee say that there is not a problem with it and when you have the major groups that will be required to be part of the payment process saying they want to be included under the scope of the legislation—it is the first time Ican recall groups actually saying they want to be included in legislation; most times groups want to be excluded and left to do their own thing—you actually have the basis of a consensus moving forward. I think that the debate in Committee frankly diminishes the significance of that and puts at risk all of the good work—and I freely acknowledge that members opposite were part of this in the select committee in taking this concept and turning it into a proposition that is now workable and that is on the point of being established.There is no hidden conspiracy here. There is no hidden plan. It is a simple fact of responding to needs that have been expressed and ensuring that we get the best possible outcome in the interests of all hunting groups across this country.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I would like to take a brief call but in response to the Hon Peter Dunne I would say that the only thing that diminishes when bills are slipped in under the cover of darkness is democracy. I cannot comment on Supplementary Order Paper 395 because I have not had the opportunity to read it but I would concur with the Hon Ruth Dyson and members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. What I would like to do is take this brief call to explain the good points of these particular clauses and why I am supporting this bill. In doing so I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by a number of passionate hunters including Garry Ottmann and Roger Duxfield. I also acknowledge the work of Fish and Game’s Chief Executive Officer Bryce Johnson.The key point I want to make about clauses 3 to 26 is that the Game Animal Council Bill has the chance to reverse 30 years of friction and distrust between those who value game animal resource and those charged with conservation. Current legislation has fostered as has been expressed before me a win-lose environment while the new bill will create a win-win one. There has been a massive cost to our nation in wasted resources and negative environmental outcomes. The Game Animal Council will have a partnership relationship with the Department of Conservation whilst still remaining accountable to the Minister of Conservation and that is a good thing. Combining resources will greatly assist environmental outcomes. That is critical. Hunters have always been latent conservationists and I must say that when there are hints of pollution out there or pests I often get called by hunters and they are a great source of information. I do not know a hunter who is not a conservationist.But hunters have been forced previously into adversarial positions largely because their voices have been ignored. The Game Animal Council membership will have to take responsibility for constituent body issues and will have the mandate and resources to resolve internal conflict. One only needs to think of the use of helicopters for hunting industry standards hunter behaviour and so on and so forth. So having all game animal sectors around the table making consensus decisions is a huge achievement in itself. It indicates new maturity in sharing public and private resources. Having professional hunting and game estates included recognises the serious potential contribution commercial hunting can make to the economy and also conservation and will safeguard New Zealand’s international reputation in a sector that is very high up there in the tourist spend. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I wanted to rise to speak on Part 1 of the Game Animal Council Bill. I am very pleased that the Minister in the chair at the moment is the Hon Murray McCully. I presume that he elected to do his duty during the course of this bill because of course he will have some interest in and knowledge about elephants. I look forward to him taking a call. Unfortunately elephants are not game animals and they should not be even though they are being slaughtered at a rate of about 100 a day in parts of Africa. However perhaps with that wonderful gain of an elephant in exchange for not upsetting the President of Sri Lanka the Minister might infact get us a bear from Russia in exchange for the human rights of gay and lesbian athletes as they participate in the Winter Olympics in Russia. We look forward to another unhelpful contribution.I have been on the Local Government and Environment Committee for most of the last year. I have never been privy to this debate because it all happened last year. So I have been listening very carefully. This bill has taken a long time to get to the House and here we have it under urgency. It is another one of these measures that the Government uses to appease disgruntled coalition partners. Of course we know that the Hon Peter Dunne has been disgruntled recently with the different treatment that he seems to have received compared with the Hon John Banks. That can be the only reason for this bill appearing under urgency because the work on it started in 2008. There was a regulatory impact statement in 2011. I presume that the Local Government and Environment Committee debated it in 2012 and here we are at the end of 2013 and suddenly it is urgent—suddenly it is urgent. I am afraid that the arguments that the Hon Peter Dunne put up—that certain things might expire before this date—actually do not wash because if you have the work starting in 2008 and coming to fruition only now in 2013 what exactly were the expiry dates? What exactly was going to expire and when that caused this to be brought in under urgency? I would like to know that.I have been listening very carefully to colleagues on both sides of the Committee who have been talking about the deliberations in the select committee. That select committee is chaired well by Nicky Wagner and by all accounts there was a great deal of work and effort that went into finding a suitable solution and a great deal of application by the members to the submitters and their submissions. But it seems to me that with Supplementary Order Paper 395 being introduced which deletes the reference to recreational hunters and simply talks about hunters and hunting rather than recreational hunters and hunting something is happening here that goes across what was discussed in the course of the select committee’s deliberation.Earlier in this debate the Green Party member Eugenie Sage was saying that she thought that recreational hunters were now with the introduction of this Supplementary Order Paper being sold a pup in this bill at which point the Hon Peter Dunne interjected and said “Look at clause 8—look at clause 8.” Well one can read clause 8 as I have and see that none of Eugenie Sage’s concerns is allayed by the content of clause 8. Clause 8 talks about the council membership. The Hon Peter Dunne when he got up a moment ago referred to that. Clause 8 says that the Minister has to appoint members to the council and that they have got to be people whom the Minister considers to “have collectively knowledge of and experience in relation to matters relevant to the functions of the Council.” Well that is a no-brainer. Then it goes on to say: “Knowledge and experience that are relevant include knowledge of and experience relating to (a) in the case of game animals—(i) recreational hunting: (ii) commercial hunting: (iii) deer farming: (iv) safari park operations:” and so on. But it does not say anywhere that those interests must be represented. It says that the knowledge and experience relevant to these areas should be present on the council but it does not say that recreational hunters should have a representative. I dare say that people who are commercial hunters may well have been recreational hunters at one stage in their lives and so they can claim to have knowledge about recreational hunting but there is no guarantee of representation.If the Minister of Conservation Nick Smith is so confident that his Supplementary Order Paper in deleting the word “recreational” actually does not do recreational hunters any harm then why not at the same time put in an amendment to clause 8 that says that these interests should be represented and not just have people who have knowledge of and experience that is relevant to those sectors? Why not havesomething that represents the concerns that were described so fully by Ruth Dyson as part of the fabric of the select committee’s discussion? It seems to me that the recreational hunters are not being provided for at all adequately. Firstly they are having several specific references to recreational hunters and hunting deleted from the bill and they are not having that compensated for by ensuring that representatives of recreational hunters are included amongst the membership of the Game Animal Council.In addition to that I still want to reiterate that this was not the only legislative solution available to the Government. Instead of escalating this into a monster that has its own statute why not simply amend existing legislation like the Wild Animal Control Act and ensure that there would be an advisory committee which would not have the costs and would not have the tensions that will now be entrenched because of this bill but would have ways of ensuring that the voices of hunters could be heard through the Wild Animal Control Act and the protections available there? This expensive option was not the only one available to the Government and it should have looked at others.The regulatory impact statement says that the non-regulatory options for achieving the objectives had not been explored or analysed further because the decision had been taken to proceed with the establishment of the Game Animal Council. The Department of Conservation says in the regulatory impact analysis of 2011—that is how urgent this bill is—that the Game Animal Council could be established either under section 5 of the Wild Animal Control Act or through an amendment to the Wild Animal Control Act. So why take the kind of nuclear option in making this a bill of its own? The Minister has not addressed that issue and I invite him to do so. I do not understand why the most difficult and the most expensive option has been chosen by the Government. Thank you.ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I see Minister McCully the Minister in the chair about to leap to his feet so I apologise for taking his call. My intention is actually to be of some assistance to the Committee in working its way through the issues there are with the Game Animal Council Bill. I think that most members of the Committee will know that I am actually a hunter. There have been some issues made out of two points which I want to address first. The first one is why we are doing this in urgency. The Hon Peter Dunne made the point that there are provisions that will expire. There are provisions that need to be put in place before next year’s commercial activity by safari parks and hunters so that issues that are actually anathema to the recreational hunter are dealt with. So there is no mischief there is nothing untoward about the reason why this bill is being deal with now. By February there need to be codes of practice in place.Let me deal with another issue that is perplexing the Committee. Why are we taking “recreational” out of the bill? In the last 12 months I have been a hunter and I can name five different hats that I have had. I have been a recreational hunter harvesting some eco-protein for the pot or the deep freeze or whatever else. I have been a trophy hunter—an unsuccessful but attempted trophy hunter. I have been a commercial hunter—I have sold product that I have harvested. I have been a pest hunter—I have dealt to wild pigs that were savaging young fawns on my deer farm and we wiped out an intrusion that happened there. And I have been a guide—people have paid money. I do that for charities. That is five different things. If you go to clause 4 “Interpretation”—Hon Ruth Dyson: And you’re an MP as well?ERIC ROY: Yes well that may amaze the member but you know I can multi-task. But if members go to clause 4 the interpretation clause there is no definition of “recreational hunter” and there is ambiguity about that. Everybody knows what a hunter is but not everybody knows what a recreational hunter is and at some point there could be some litigation about exactly what that means. So this is actually inclusive rather than selective. I want the Committee to just understand that—that thereis no mischief. This brings a level of inclusion to hunting and making sure that there are all of those representations because people often wear different hats.Can I then make some comment about clause 22 which is about the way in which fees may be extracted to pay for the Game Animal Council.Hon Ruth Dyson: What clause?ERIC ROY: Clause 22 I think. The mechanism is there. I have also had some experience in being on hunts in other countries but I have been too Presbyterian to pay. Can I just illustrate that it is in fact the habit of pretty much every country in the world to charge foreign nationals a different fee from locals. My experience particularly is in Wyoming. If you are a resident Wyoming citizen a tag for an elk is $150. If you are a non-resident but US State citizen it is $250 on top of the $150. If you are a foreign national outside the US it is $700 on top of the $150. That is one of the lower rates where it does occur. So we are not creating anything that is outside the realm of what is normal practice internationally where there is some kind of expectation that fees are paid by people who are not resident and those fees go towards the management of the environment and the various hunting species that are there. So that is an explanation of how that might work to actually fund the Game Animal Council.Can I then address the Supplementary Order Paper 395 on new clause 26A which talks about a code of practice for herding and hazing. This is one of those issues that needs to be dealt with post haste because there are a number of hunting guides that are ready to set in place contracts for next year. That is why there is some urgency about actually doing it. How did this actually happen? That is the question. Members need to understand that there is WARO—wild animal recovery operations—where significant numbers of animals are in the wrong place. The Minister of Conservation said in his second reading speech that when there are too many animals in the wrong place they need to be harvested and a wild animal recovery operation is a very effective way of controlling that. My interest is principally around Fiordland and every year 6000 deer are taken out by wild animal recovery operations in Fiordland. That is the number to keep the number to a sustainable level in Fiordland.Some of the more enterprising guides said: “Hang on there is a commercial application for hunting out of helicopters.” So they tweaked—I think that could be a word we could use—the wild animal recovery operation provisions to allow them to charge for the hunting of trophies the herding and hazing or the extension of how that actually happened. In many ways this is anathema to the recreational hunter and that needs to be dealt with and in most countries in the world there are some very strict rules about that. We in New Zealand have this very delicate relationship where we need to allow wild animal recovery operations to continue to harvest animals that are in excessive numbers in some places and yet not allow that provision for our people to conduct hunting experiences that are outside what is acceptable certainly internationally. If you go to a place like Canada you are not even allowed to hunt—not you Mr Chairman. A member is not allowed to hunt on the day that he flies in in case he sees a trophy animal on the way in or he does some detour routes on the way in looking for one. So the rules are quite specific.Hon Maryan Street: Why isn’t Lindsay allowed to hunt?ERIC ROY: Sorry has the member got a question? I am happy to answer questions. This is about putting provisions in place—and the member has read it very carefully—and I think that that Supplementary Order Paper around the codes is quite elegant. It gives an opportunity for the Game Animal Council to create a code that will set the rules around this and still allow for the sensible use of wild animal recovery operations. That is principally what that is about.So all in all I think that the Supplementary Order Papers add to the bill. I just run through the key points again. It is necessary to get this bill under way and passed through the third stage so that the time limits and the things that need to be put in place are put in place before the next commercial guiding activity starts. The removal of the word “recreational” takes the ambiguity away and the Supplementary Order Paper on clause 26 allows us to have best practice which will be accepted internationally.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): That was a very interesting explanation by Mr Roy but I am still puzzled. We can understand the code of practice around hazing but there is this fundamental change that herds of special interest are now no longer going to be established so that they are managed for recreational hunting purposes. This means that they can be managed then for trophy hunting purposes completely undercutting the previous thrust of the Game Animal Council Bill which was about promoting recreational hunting.I would just like to talk about clause 16 and the whole process of designation of herds of special interest because the Local Government and Environment Committee included some more specific criteria in there to ensure that the Minister did take a number of matters into account that were not in the original bill including the purposes of the Wild Animal Control Act. There were a number of submissions on the bill from regional councils like the Auckland Council for example. That is where again Supplementary Order Paper 395 is also of concern with the other change that it makes. The Supplementary Order Paper amends the definition of “game animal” to include chamois deer tahr and wild pigs that are kept in captivity. “Kept in captivity” is quite a loose term when you are talking about safari parks. In extensive areas in North Canterbury and Marlborough where animal numbers are allowed to increase quite significantly they are run and hunters who are paying for the privilege get a very easy opportunity to shoot an animal. So I would ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for Sport and Recreation who has not said anything during this debate whether he could explain why the definition of “game animals” has been expanded to include these animals that are run in safari parks.Potentially as I read the bill that means that herds of special interest could be established in those safari parks on private land and the problem with that is the potential implications it has for pest management. The Auckland Council was quite adamant in its submission that the bill should make it clear that the herds of special interest should be able to be established only on conservation lands and once an animal was no longer in its designated area it could be managed in accordance with other legislation i.e. the Biosecurity Act. We do not have deer everywhere in New Zealand. In Northland for example there has been a major effort by the regional council there to control deer numbers and prevent the establishment of feral deer populations. So if the bill with this Supplementary Order Paper is loosening the provisions around safari parks it means that regional councils the Animal Health Board and the TBfree New Zealand programme will have a reduced ability to control animals like feral pigs in order to prevent the spread of bovine TB and to make sure that landowners in those areas actually have proper fencing in place so that the animals do not escape. Could the Minister please explain what this whole expansion of the definition of “game animals” to include animals in captivity is all about? Why is that required when the bill has been promoted as being about improving recreational hunting in the first instance?I have put in three Supplementary Order Papers in my name that relate to clause 16. The number of matters that the Minister must have regard to has been expanded to include things like taking advice from the Ministry of Primary Industries primarily around biosecurity issues from any relevant regional council from the Conservation Authority and from any relevant conservation board and also having to look at theactual status of the conservation land. That was another important change that the select committee made to the bill—that you do not have just herds of specified interest being established but you actually have to designate the land area that they relate to. The Supplementary Order Paper seeks to address the concern that at the moment some of these introduced species are located in specific areas like the white-tailed deer population which is found only on Rakiura / Stewart Island. The Himalayan tahr population is found in the central Southern Alps between about the Rangitata River and the Landsborough River. Keeping those animals [Bell rung] confined to a particular range is really—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Does the member want to call?EUGENIE SAGE: Yes Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You must ask for the call.EUGENIE SAGE: Sorry Mr Chair. May I have a call please?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Eugenie Sage.EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you Mr Chair. Preventing the expansion in the feral range of these introduced animals is critical in managing their impacts on introduced biodiversity. My Supplementary Order Paper 399 seeks to ensure that the Minister has another matter to consider and that is that the designation as a herd of special interest will not lead to an expansion in the feral range and will not prevent its range being contracted as animal numbers are controlled. We all know that some hunters like to take animals and plant them in other areas to expand their hunting opportunities. That is highly irresponsible—particularly in relation to feral pigs because it spreads bovine tuberculosis—because it spreads the pests’ impacts by expanding their range.Supplementary Order Paper 400 which I have talked about previously is to prevent herds of special interests being established in national parks.The third Supplementary Order Paper in relation to Part 1 is Supplementary Order Paper 401 and I would encourage National members to consider this one seriously too. It makes very clear by adding an additional clause clause 16B that the Minister could withdraw the designation of a herd of special interest at any time and restrict the location and area of conservation land where that herd of special interest was managed. It also makes clear that he would consult the organisations that are already listed in the clause such as the Minister for Primary Industries the Department of Conservation regional councils the Conservation Authority and conservation boards. The reason for doing that is that it may become quite obvious that the Game Animal Council is not adequately managing the biodiversity impacts of herds of special interest that it has allowed the populations to expand to make it easier to go hunting and that that through the browsing impacts is affecting a lot of our threatened plant species and damaging habitat. The Minister has to have the power to actually be able to uplift that designation or to reduce the area that it applies to. It is a belt and braces approach as Ruth Dyson has noted but it is a sensible one to make clear that the Minister has those powers. I would encourage the Government members to consider it seriously. Thank you.Phil Twyford: Mr Chairman please may I have a call Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Can I just explain why I mentioned that to the previous member—just continuing to stand after your 5 minutes is up does not mean that you will get the next call. You must call out “Mr Chairman”. That is the second time you did it. I did not pull you up the first time but just for reference in the future just ask for the call again by saying “Mr Chairman”. Phil Twyford has asked for the call and I am going to give it.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Please Mr Chairman may I have a call? Thank you—thank you Mr Chairman. It is good that we are rewriting the Standing Orders on the hoof.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no we are not.PHIL TWYFORD: It is good to follow yet another excellent contribution by the member Eugenie Sage and actually I wanted to say also that the member for Southland Eric Roy—Eric Roy: Invercargill.PHIL TWYFORD: Invercargill I beg your pardon. He made a great contribution and it was good to have someone of his firsthand knowledge of hunting and have some real detail to put on the bone. I want to register the ongoing frustration on this side of the Chamber with the lack of any contribution from the Minister in the chair the Hon Murray McCully. I do not know how much hunting is done in East Coast Bays these days but probably more—Hon Trevor Mallard: Probably quite a few Tory members looking for the seat.PHIL TWYFORD: Well I want to come to that but I suspect more hunting is done from the comfort of big-game lodges that has been tacked on to various foreign affairs excursions and international conferences. We live in hope that Mr McCully will make a contribution and answer the many questions that have been posed in the course of this debate.It seems to me looking at the background to this Game Council Bill coming to the Committee stage that it is something of a textbook study on how not to make legislation. It is a pretty unsatisfactory process. If we put aside just for a minute the details of what the bill seeks to do it is an unsatisfactory process and I want to provide some background to why Labour is not supporting the bill at this point.When the bill was first tabled in the House and had its first reading I have to say that there were mixed views within the Labour caucus but considerable sympathy for some of the intent of this bill to provide a place for hunters to stand within the governance of our natural environment and recreational system in New Zealand and a considerable sympathy with their desire to have more of a say to be part of decision making and to protect their access to hunting places around this country. As with all these sorts of things there are always complex trade-offs to be made and I think we have reached a point where we believe this bill actually hinders rather than helps the building of constructive relationships between the hunting community and the conservation estate and that actually the risk now is that this bill will do more harm than good.I want to just touch on some of the arguments why we believe that that is the case. The first is that the council as it is set up in Part 1 of the bill is being set up as a stand-alone separate entity. There was a lot of debate I understand at the Local Government and Environment Committee that in fact it could have been set up as an advisory body. What the bill does is the opposite of creating clean lines of accountability and authority. It basically muddies cuts across and sets up competing interests in the management of the conservation estate and I think that is unfortunate. I would suggest that in time that will make it unsustainable. It sets up direct and competing interests in the management of wild animals. So that is the first thing.The second thing—just as worrying I think—is that in regard to the final determination on a proposal for conservation purposes for example the dropping of 1080 for pest eradication purposes it gives the Game Animal Council that determinative role. That is a serious issue. That is going to create strife. It will build into the system a real tension around what is already a fraught issue in terms of decision making.The third issue is about funding of the council and that is one that the select committee worked really hard on.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes72New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes48New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 395 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 399 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 16 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes48New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 400 in the name of Eugenie Sage to insert new clause 16A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes48New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 401 in the name of Eugenie Sage to insert new clause 16B be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes48New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Miscellaneous provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to debate on Part 2. This is clauses 27 to 36 and schedules 1 to 3.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is good to speak on Part 2 of the Game Animal Council Bill which deals with some of the issues that even though not as substantive as the ones we have already been debating caused the most discussion in the Local Government and Environment Committee. One issue in particular that we discussed was that of offences and penalties.We also spent a huge amount of time in the select committee talking about how the Game Animal Council would be funded. I was really fascinated by how many proposals we had about the different methods of funding. There was always some group within the hunting fraternity that said: “That is an excellent idea—but we should be excluded.” It did not matter what model we considered or what model we thought would be an appropriate and fair way of funding the Game Animal Council through some sort of levy there was always a group that explained to us—and I think that they were being perfectly honest actually—how that would impact unfairly on them. So this part has a bit about that a bit about the offences provisions and a bit about the further definition of the “herds of special interest” and what animals may be hunted within those.I was very interested to hear an earlier contribution about how much money was going to be spent on operating the Game Animal Council. The estimates that the Local Government and Environment Committee got were $100000 for the first year of set-up and from then on after the first 12 months it would be $50000 per annum. At the same time we have had the chief executive of the Department of Conservation on the radio this morning onRural Newssaying that his department was not going anywhere near the advocacy required for the Ruataniwha dam proposal which opponents say will turn the Tukituki River toxic.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon RUTH DYSON: The Department of Conservation said it would cost it $250000 to prepare and defend a robust case about the nitrate management on the Tukituki River. That is just 3 years of the funding required as outlined in Part 2 of this bill for the Game Animal Council because if it is $100000 for the first year and $50000 after it then in 3 years you have pretty well chewed through the same amount of money that the department was not prepared to use to defend—and perhaps even atsome future date enhance—the quality of a river and a river that actually has significant conservation values—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This is outside the scope.Hon RUTH DYSON: Just going back to the more specific areas in this part Eric Roy in his contribution talked about the regimes that are in place in other countries. I will be interested in his contribution on this because he is right in saying that other countries have a much stricter regime around what can be hunted what can be taken from the country and what can be used for what purpose within the country. They usually have a regime where people from overseas are charged a much higher rate to hunt on public land than they would be if they were a resident of that country. Mr Roy used the examples of Canada and a state in America to emphasise his points. We do not go into that level of detail in this legislation.The select committee did not talk a lot about whether we should have a different regime for overseas nationals. I have not checked the Table recently but there may well be a Supplementary Order Paper proposing that sort of regime. It is a little more detail than the committee was able to get agreement on though. In clause 28 we talk about a person “who hunts or kills any game animal that is part of a herd of special interest”. That is a herd that has been designated as a herd of special interest. If they hunt or kill an animal without an authorisation without a licence or a permit and without complying with the terms of that authorisation however it is given whether through a licence or a permit they then are liable to be convicted of an offence that is then liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $2500.I would be very interested to hear from some of the hunters in our Parliament as to whether they consider that to be a high enough penalty to deter people from committing such an offence because that is another area that the committee felt quite weak on in terms of knowing exactly what level of fine you would need to impose to deter anyone from committing that act. A person might say: “Well I’m interested in hunting. I can’t be bothered getting a licence or a permit or if I applied for one I might not qualify. There would be reasons that I would be excluded from being granted a licence or a permit to hunt.” So what would be the level of fee that would make them say: “Oh if I got caught I’d be fined that amount of money.”? That is exactly what clause 28 in Part 2 is aiming to do. It is aiming to set a fine at a level that would stop people from hunting or killing animals within a herd of special interest without a licence or a permit.The next couple of clauses in Part 2 sort of flow on from that. We have got clause 29 “Capturing conveying or possessing game animal that that is part of a herd of special interest”. There are obviously a limited number of ways that people could be doing that but this is different from hunting or killing. Again we set the fee at what we considered an appropriate level—$5000. So if a person captures conveys or possesses a game animal that is part of a herd of special interest without a permit or a licence they get a fine of $5000.Next in that series of fines relating to animals that are part of a herd of special interest is the provision in clause 30 “Restrictions on liberation of game animal that is part of herd of special interest”. This attracts the biggest fine in Part 2 and that is a fine of $50000. So Parliament is saying that that offence—the offence of liberating a game animal that is part of a herd of special interest or allowing any game animal that belongs to a herd of special interest to escape—is considered to be the most offensive of the three offences much more so than capturing conveying or possessing a game animal and even more so than hunting or killing an animal in a herd of special interest.I think that sometimes we go over these fines and penalties provisions quite lightly. But if you take a step back and consider why we have them the whole point is to create an environment where the weight of the penalty is such that it would stop somebodyfrom moving to commit the offence. It is not just an after-the-event consideration—that we should punish somebody because they have committed an offence. There is also the deterrent factor in the penalty regime and we certainly hope we have got it right.There are a few other provisions in Part 2 but those are the four main ones that I wanted to concentrate on. I do think it is an important regime for us to debate and I hope that it carries on for another little while.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The concerns we have over Part 2 of the Game Animal Council Bill are around this whole notion of offences. I guess it reflects the whole thrust of the bill which is turning a problem animal into a valued resource and therefore undermining the control that is needed of these animals. So making it an offence to hunt or kill an animal in a herd of special interest as clause 28 does potentially means that if you have a Kiwi hunter who strays into an area that has been designated for a herd of special interest and he or she has not complied with all the provisions and has not got the necessary authorisations that the earlier part of the bill sets up he or she could be charged with an offence. It also means that the Department of Conservation the staff of which are already pressed in terms of managing the one-third of the land area of New Zealand with a budget equivalent to that of Hamilton City Council’s is going to be responsible for some of the enforcement of these provisions. So that is taking those staff away from the much more important duties of managing biodiversity values and potentially having to be responsible for enforcing these penalty provisions.We have seen a similar conflict arise with the Wild Animal Control Act. The best deer the best chamois and the best tahr are dead ones. So anybody who goes out hunting these animals and killing them is doing good for our indigenous species which are found only here in New Zealand. But by this bill making it an offence—Hon Shane Jones: The best one’s in the hangi.EUGENIE SAGE: —means that—well maybe the best one is in a hangi too. It is also dead if it is in a hangi. But making it an offence to kill them is potentially undermining the need to go out and kill them and it is going to set up the tension that several speakers from the Opposition have talked about earlier between the Game Animal Council wanting to protect these herds of special interest as a resource for them to enjoy and exploit and actually needing to reduce their numbers to protect biodiversity. That tension is really apparent in clause 28 where it is an offence to kill any animal in such a herd.So Mr Chair—I was just surprised to see a member of the Opposition in the Chair. That was a refreshing change. This again is an example of how the bill is not needed how it will set up internal conflicts in the management of conservation land and how it twists the Department of Conservation’s primary purpose of managing conservation land to preserve and protect our natural resources and our indigenous species. Now it will be charged instead with potentially protecting those exotic animals those browsers which have a heavy impact on a lot of our threatened plant species and with making it an offence if anyone kills them. So that again is our concern about the bill. It is setting up a very bureaucratic regime because of the need to get a permit issued by the Game Animal Council and the need to pay the fees to kill these species which people can now go out and freely hunt in return for an easy-to-get permit from the Department of Conservation. If you are going to capture convey or possess a game animal that is part of a herd of special interest without having the Minister of Conservation’s permission you are also committing an offence under clause 29.We have already seen some of the parties that were promoting the establishment of the Game Animal Council such as the Game and Forest Foundation. It was issuing press statements in 2010 that were criticising Silver Fern Farms inHokitika on the West Coast for killing chamois recovering those carcasses processing them and thenexporting them. So again these offence provisions will set up a real tension potentially between the wild animal recovery operators and those whom the Game Animal Council protects and whose interests the council is being established to promote. So these offence provisions cut right across the need to reduce these exotic animals to low numbers in order to protect indigenous biodiversity. As Ruth Dyson commented the Local Government and Environment Committee spent a lot of time dealing with how the Game Animal Council would be funded. This part of the bill also deals with the export of game trophies which is intended to be one of the funding mechanisms and sets up offences there.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just clarify something for a moment? Are we dealing with Part 2 and schedules 1 and 2 or—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes and 3—schedules 1 to 3.Hon MARYAN STREET: Schedules 1 2 and 3—thank you very much indeed. That may make a difference to what I say. In Part 2 of this bill the Game Animal Council Bill subpart 1 deals with offences and penalties and subpart 2 deals with other matters. Before I begin on this let me say that in due course I also want to refer to the Minister of Conservation’s Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 395 which amends clause 33. However I just want to recognise the contribution from Eric Roy earlier which I found very helpful particularly with some of those clauses in Part 1 that had raised questions. So I thank the member for that but it did leave me with some more questions which are now exacerbated by Part 2 because this is the bit that deals with in the first instance offences and penalties.It seems to me that if some of the difficulties between hunting organisations and the Department of Conservation and so on had been resolved through a different measure—that is not by a statute setting up a Game Animal Council on its own—then some of the provisions in Part 2 would not be necessary either. Certainly offences need to be established and that could easily have been done I think under the Wild Animal Control Act to which I have referred previously and it could have been done in a way that was cooperative and came out of an advisory committee established under that legislation rather than under this legislation.So although I recognise that offences and penalties are necessary the thing I am questioning in this part is that this entire process and this special bureaucracy that is being established to implement it would not have been necessary in this form if the Minister of Conservation had chosen to take more notice of the submissions that were put in by submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee or had chosen to take more notice of the regulatory impact statement written by the Department of Conservation.This really goes back to stage 1 for me because if these penalties and provisions here and the definitions of a “herd of special interest” and so on are all essential then it might have been better to have it come as recommendations from an advisory council that the Minister could not disestablish under the Wild Animal Control Act.I want to go to another matter and it is in schedule 1 which talks about enforcement officers and honorary enforcement officers. We see in clause 1 that enforcement officers are clearly appointed “within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987 as an enforcement officer for the purposes of this Act.” So there will be warranted officers appointed under the Conservation Act to carry out the enforcement functions required under this piece of legislation. Schedule 1 then talks about the appointment and removal of honorary enforcement officers. An honorary enforcement officer here in schedule 1(2) is somebody “who may be appointed for a term not exceeding 3 years but may be reappointed: (b) may be removed from office by the Director-General bywritten notice if the Director-General considers for any reason that the person is no longer a fit and proper person”—[Bell rung] I just wish to conclude this point fairly quickly.Schedule 1(3) states: “The Minister may reimburse an honorary enforcement officer for reasonable expenses”. This goes back to a theme that is being pursued by this Government when it comes to the care and protection of our environment. The Minister of Conservation has stripped back the Department of Conservation to such an extent that now it cannot even carry out its legal functions. So it cannot preserve protect and advocate for the environment given the stripping-back of the staff of the Department of Conservation.The Minister’s answer to that has been partnership. It has been words around partnering with volunteers and charitable organisations in order to ensure that our environment can be adequately protected. This is the same Minister who wants to get housing on the cheap through giving minuscule amounts of money to third-sector organisations in housing provision. He wants to contract out parts of the functions of the Department of Conservation because it can no longer fulfil those functions because of retrenchments and staffing. He wants to contract out those functions to volunteers and voluntary and charitable organisations and so get environmental protection on the cheap.This is now environmental—or game animal—enforcement on the cheap with enforcement officers. So I presume that the Minister has in mind that he will give a cap to the people who volunteer to take up this position. They can then with their own resources with this hat on that says “honorary enforcement officer” stroll around our environment ensuring that the provisions of this bill and particularly the requirements of Part 2 are being honoured and are being implemented.I worry that this is the same model that is being used in other areas where the Government wants to withdraw money that it provides for legitimate and legislated functions and pass that over to charitable organisations individuals and the private sector in some cases in order to carry out what should be Government functions. The Minister should resource this properly if he wants the functions to be carried out adequately. Thank you.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I want to begin by focusing on schedule 1 which is around the role of enforcement officers and honorary enforcement officers under this new Game Animal Council Bill. Any piece of legislation is only as good as the provisions under which it can be enforced. So the enforcement and penalty provisions that are found in Part 2 of this bill will have meaning or effect only if those people who seek to break the law feel that there is an adequate chance that they will be caught in breaching the provisions of this bill.One of the concerns that we had at the Local Government and Environment Committee was the lack of detail around how many of these enforcement officers we would have. We know that every constable in the New Zealand Police will be considered an enforcement officer but we also know that police have a very large job to do outside of the Game Animal Council Bill. The reality is that I do not believe that our police force is going to be patrolling Department of Conservation land as a priority to catch people carrying out illegal hunting or illegal hunting of herds of national significance unless they have been tipped off that there is something very bad going on. Then the question comes down to who is going to do that day-to-day monitoring which realistically is not going to be carried out by the New Zealand Police.So we have a role in schedule 1 called “enforcement officers” and then we have what are called “honorary enforcement officers”. At the select committee our concern was very much that this not become the “Dad’s army” of the conservation estate andthat these be very real positions which bring in people who have the right qualifications experience and knowledge particularly in the areas of health and safety. Hunting is obviously a very dangerous activity and the last thing we would want to do is put people who are inadequately trained in harm’s way by sending them out into a part of the conservation estate where hunting is being carried out. It comes down really to schedule 1 clause 2(1) which says: “The Director-General may appoint any fit and proper person who is suitably qualified and trained …” but nowhere in the legislation do we find out what “suitably qualified and trained” is deemed to be. There are no thresholds set. There are no basic competencies put in place. So I would like to think that the director-general is going to do the right thing but as we can see public servants can be made to do things that they do not particularly want to do and that are against the interests of the Department of Conservation and what we would normally expect from the Department of Conservation.Phil Twyford: It’s been going on for 5 years.MOANA MACKEY: That is right—it has been going on for 5 years. If we were then to find out that the Government was under some pressure because in fact—I mean these are honorary positions. The Minister has the ability to reimburse for realistic costs but these people are not getting paid so I question really how realistic it is to think that we are going to get a big enough force of these people to be able to monitor these activities given that the people who are paid to do it—the paid enforcement officers—are the police force and this is not going to be a priority for them. There is a risk that that definition of “suitably qualified and trained” might be too watered down and be without adequate belt and braces in the schedule and in this part of the bill to say what the core competencies are. If the Government feels under pressure that it does not have enough people out there it might start to actually water down that definition of “suitably qualified and trained”. Then we may end up with people who are lesser qualified and trained carrying out this very important role.I want to just briefly go through some of the powers that these honorary enforcement officers will have. They basically will have all the powers that a police officer would have in the Department of Conservation: the power to intervene the power to prevent or stop offending the power to require personal details or the production of lawful authority and the power to search. The honorary enforcement officers “may without a warrant search any building vehicle vessel aircraft animal or other thing on public conservation land if—[they believe it] is in the possession or under the control of …” someone who they think is committing an offence under this legislation. That is the power to stop and the powers of seizure. Those are quite significant powers to be handing over to non-professional people and all we were asking really was that we have a little bit more detail in this part of the bill about the basic core competencies and requirements of an honorary enforcement officer given that they are basically going to have nearly all the powers of a police officer when they are acting on Department of Conservation land.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I moveThat the question be now put.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): So coming back to my point after that brief and very good speech from Mr Goldsmith—Hon Ruth Dyson: What a contribution.Paul Goldsmith: Better than yours.MOANA MACKEY: Yeah OK. It is about this definition of “suitably qualified and trained” and it is the Director-General of Conservation who will be appointing these people and making these judgments but as we know directors-general in the Department of Conservation can be leaned on to do things that they are not particularlycomfortable with. We know that that is the case particularly in terms of the Ruataniwha Dam scheme which is currently before a board of inquiry—Hon Judith Collins: Don’t know that at all.MOANA MACKEY: I am sorry Mrs Collins but where there is smoke there is fire. I do not think there is anyone who is under any illusion that the Department of Conservation was not weighed on very heavily—weighed on very very heavily—to pull its submission on the Ruataniwha Dam scheme. That is quite clear. The Minister leaned on the Department of Conservation and this happens from time to time. So that is why we are asking in this piece of legislation that where we have Ministers in the National Government who are prepared to lean on their directors-general and their public servants to get them to do things that they do not want to do it is important in legislation like this that when we are giving people the power of a police officer—Hon Ruth Dyson: The staff member resigned.MOANA MACKEY: That is right. A staff member actually did resign over what happened in the Department of Conservation with Ruataniwha so it does happen. It has happened; it is happening. That is why when we are giving these honorary enforcement officers basically the role of a police officer in the conservation estate and it is the director-general who is determining who is “suitably qualified and trained” we should have a little bit more in the legislation to make it clear. And when we cannot find enough of these people—because they are not paid positions; they are voluntary positions—and when suddenly there are not the numbers that were promised in the conservation estate it is important that the Minister does not then lean on the director-general to say: “Well we just need to water down those kinds of standards you’ve put in place for what these people”—Hon Shane Jones: Honorary politician.MOANA MACKEY: Well it would be good to have some basic core competencies around that as well. So when you look at the extensive powers—I mean we are very disappointed that we were not able to get that under schedule 1 of this bill.One of the good things in Part 2 of the bill is clause 35 “Review of operation of Act” which means that in 3 years’ time when we are the Government we will get to see whether or not this legislation has actually met its intentions where the gaps are and we will pledge to carry out a proper review of the Act. We believe that this was a lost opportunity and that there were real synergies and common goals that could have been built on between recreational hunters or all hunters now. This bill was about just recreational hunters; it is now about all hunters which changes the flavour significantly. We will see how the Act has operated in practice and whether the many many concerns that officials right across the board from Treasury and the Department of Conservation raised during the development of this policy and the select committee process have been realised and if they have been realised we will see what we can then do about it. We do pledge to carry out a very thorough and transparent review of this Act in 3 years’ time.It would actually be good to have an element of independence perhaps in that review. The review of the operation of the Act as it is currently in the bill is that the Minister will do that and as we know this is a Government that is not afraid to put out reviews that do not reflect reality but reflect what it wants reality to be. So it is a shame that there is not a little bit more independence in clause 35 in relation to the review of the operation of the Act just to give the public confidence that this is not the Government finding what it wants to find or trying to brush away any criticisms or concerns that claims it made about the way that the Act would operate have not actually come to pass. I think in terms of the very significant change that we made in Part 1 of the bill which was to basically remove the word “recreational” from the entire bill and now make this bill apply to all hunters. We are very concerned about that because wethink it actually shuts the recreational guys out. We wanted to make it very clear that even though these are small voluntary organisations—they are recreational; they are not professional—these are the people whom we really want to be involved in this process. We want them to be part of the engagement the Department of Conservation has and now there is no requirement to do that because there is no mention of the word “recreational”. It is very telling that the change the Government made which we will be reviewing under clause 35 in Part 2 of this bill never came to the select committee. At the select committee this was never raised with us as problem. Actually this is Minister Bridges’ modus operandi so it is quite fortuitous that he is in the chair at the moment. It never came to the select committee. It was dropped—MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I moveThat the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 395 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 402 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 28 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes48New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2agreed to.Schedule 3agreed to.Clause 1A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice)on behalf of theMinister of Conservation: I moveThat the Game Animal Council Bill be now read a third time. This bill establishes an independent Game Animal Council to improve the management of wild game hunting in New Zealand. Hunting is a traditional free Kiwi pastime. The Government wants the thousands of New Zealanders who hunt continuing to enjoy and benefit from hunting while also contributing to the responsible management of wild animals to protect conservation and other values.The Game Animal Council Bill establishes an independent statutory body to give greater representation to the interests of recreational hunters. The Game Animal Council aims to better manage recreational and commercial hunting activities for deer tahr chamois and wild pigs. Key functions of the council include advising and making recommendations to the Minister of Conservation on hunting issues providing information and education to the sector promoting safety initiatives conducting game-animal research and undertaking management functions for designated herds of special interest. An independent whole-of-sector Game Animal Council will get hunters working together to improve cooperation within the sector and help resolve conflicts.The council’s first task will be developing an industry-led code of practice for controversial aerially assisted trophy hunting methods such as shooting from a helicopter and herding and hazing. Once the code of practice is approved—expected to be by the end of next year—the Minister of Conservation will be able to make it a mandatory condition of aerially assisted trophy hunting concessions from the Department of Conservation by regulation. In the interim the Minister will be considering the inclusion of conditions requiring compliance with the existing voluntary code which limits shooting from the air and the practices of herding and hazing in relevant concessions.The establishment of the Game Animal Council and regulations around the practice of aerially assisted trophy hunting are a core part of National’s confidence and supply agreement with United Future. We would like to thank United Future leader Peter Dunne for his passion and determination in getting the Game Animal Council established and ensuring herd-and-chase style heli-hunting becomes a thing of the past. We would also like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work on this bill. Once this bill is passed the Minister of Conservation intends to move rapidly to establish the Game Animal Council so that it can get on with its important work. We all look forward to seeing its code of practice for aerially assisted trophy hunting. I commend this bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Assistant Speaker thanks for giving me the call in the third reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. Originally when this bill was introduced Labour was very familiar with its history. As part of the confidence and supply agreement with United Future in the previous Government we established an advisory group that travelled the country and did a very good job actually on getting the various views on the subject that is now the point of this legislation. Margaret Austin was the leader of that process and I want to commend her for her passion and integrity throughout that process. I also acknowledge the 4000 or so submitters who contributed to the early thinking along that path.There are of course extreme views on either side. There are some who would say there should be no hunting at all in New Zealand and some who would say there should not be a Department of Conservation. Those are not the views that the Local Government and Environment Committee was involved in hearing from and considering. We heard from a very large number of well-respected New Zealanders who had a contribution to make that was worthwhile. I really enjoyed that part of the process. Sometimes at select committees you get very few submitters or you might get submitters who are just very narrow in their point of view and want to give only their perspective and do not consider anyone else but that was not the case for all but a few of the submitters whom we heard.Most of them were people who had a real passion for New Zealand and loved the outdoor life. For many of them it was the first time they had ever made a submission to a parliamentary committee. They were much more comfortable with their tramping boots their shorts and their Swanndri out with a pack on their back than in the confines of a select committee room in front of a bunch of members of Parliament. But they were passionate about what they see as their patch their part of the world the public land of New Zealand and their opportunity to hunt in a recreational capacity.There was a lot of tension between the recreational hunters and the commercial hunters. I can remember one submitter who came and talked to us and told of how he had endured hours and hours and hours of climbing up very steep terrain—I do not recall exactly where it was; it may have been in Taranaki—to try to get a deer. He had got nearly to the top nearly to the point where he would be able to shoot this deer and a helicopter came over and just whooshed in and scared the deer away and then they went off and shot some deer from the helicopter. He was pretty angry about that. He saw heli-hunting as a really bad practice and very intrusive on what he saw as a core part of his well-being of his lifestyle as a New Zealander.So not only do we have the physical benefits of hunting—you know people get out in the fresh air and they do a lot of hard work to get to the areas where they go hunting—they obviously get food for their family and very importantly as well they reduce the pests that we have got on our land. We have got a lot of work to do in that space. We have far too many pests that destroy the very environment that we all love so much.So the select committee process itself was a really good one. The committee worked I think across all parties in a very constructive way. We had a bit of a shortened process. We wanted a little bit longer to consider the bill and I think we would have got a lot more agreement had we been given the little extension that we asked for. But no the bill was closed down. It got sent back to the House and here it has sat for months on the Order Paper—months.Darien Fenton: That’s disgraceful.Hon RUTH DYSON: It is very odd. It was very frustrating for the committee. We said: “We think we can get this better. We think we can get this right. We think we can get agreement if we have a little bit longer.” No we were denied that opportunity—“Get that bill back to the House.” Then the bill sat on the Order Paper for months and months and months and here we are on a Wednesday morning under urgency debating legislation that could have been brought to this House and dealt with in a proper manner. I think the process is offensive to good parliamentary process and I am surprised that so many of the National Party members now just take it for granted that we will do things in a bad form in a bad way. Well what you get when you follow bad process is actually bad legislation. That is something that none of us would want. Even if we do not agree with legislation we would want it to be robust.Then of course we have had the Minister of Conservation’s Supplementary Order Paper 395. It was not discussed with any political parties before the debate started. It was not signalled during the months that we have had this bill on the Order Paper and not progressing through Parliament. It was just dropped on the Committee at the last minute. It was sort of “I’ve got the numbers. Who cares?”. Well actually a lot of people do. A lot of people care about good process and about things being debated and considered properly because in the end that is how you get high-quality legislation.I think it is above all a wasted opportunity. It was an opportunity to get the various perspectives around this issue together and to work through their differences until you got agreement. I think that was absolutely possible. When we first debated this bill Labour said we would support its referral to a select committee but we did express our serious concerns.We expressed concerns about the actual structure of the Game Animal Council which is a separate entity rather than a structure such as a ministerial advisory committee or any such comparable structure. That could have been set up under the Wild Animal Control Act. We did not need a separate piece of legislation. We did not need the type of consideration that this bill has gone through. Not only did we think that that was an unnecessary structure but also it was against the specific advice of both Treasury and the Department of Conservation. They said that setting up the Game Animal Council as a separate entity would set up direct and competing interests in the management of wild animals. They thought that it would be the highest cost in terms of regulatory time and in terms of resources.So here we have got an organisation that creates division that creates confusion and that costs heaps of money. I cannot see who is winning out of this so far. It does not sound like this is a win-win situation when of course we could have had a win-win situation. The opportunity was there for us to take and it was thrown away by the Government.I want to put on record not just our appreciation of the submitters but also the respect and value that Labour places on recreational hunting in New Zealand. It is a core part of so many people’s lives and it makes a huge contribution in terms of controlling animal numbers and protecting our biodiversity. We heard from many recreational hunters during the select committee process about their frustration with the Department of Conservation and how they were not able to work together. There was always tension;they were always arguing. We heard from others—probably about similar numbers actually—about the strong good and healthy relationship that they had with the Department of Conservation in their areas. We heard the same from iwi. They said that in some parts of the country it worked like magic and in others it just was not working at all.I wish we had been able to pick up the threads of what works in some areas and then develop a way of transposing that across the country so that every area could operate benefiting from the valuable staff and resources of the Department of Conservation and from recreational hunters local iwi community groups—the list goes on and on and on. Why does it work in some parts of the country and not in others? We never really developed the answer to that question but this bill is not the answer. The establishment of the Game Animal Council is not going to be the answer at all. I think that it will cause further division and tension and it will not let us pick up the opportunity that we had of learning what works and replicating it.We did have a lot of discussion about the final determination of a proposal for conservation purposes such as the dropping of 1080. My colleague Damien O’Connor has already referred to that and put a pretty staunch stake in the ground in terms of his support for the use of 1080. We have had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying that our forests will be silent unless we take a massive step up in terms of pest eradication and 1080 is currently one of the most effective means of doing that.The final point I want to mention is in regard to the funding of the council. That has been a very difficult issue and it is one on which all members of the committee worked hard. The purpose of this legislation will not be achieved by what we have ended up with today despite the best efforts of the select committee. The bill creates a tension between the Game Animal Council and the Department of Conservation—the very thing it sought to remove. That is in no one’s interest. When this bill is reviewed in 3 years I hope that we can have an opportunity to improve it and really reshape it to achieve the purpose that was intended.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Well we have heard a lot of debate about the Game Animal Council Bill in the House today but I remain convinced of the positive outcomes of this bill—the positive outcomes for the hunting community and the positive outcomes for the conservation estate. In fact it has confirmed my belief that hunting and conservation can and must go hand in hand. There is plenty of evidence to support the belief that the majority of those attracted to our great outdoors as recreationalists—in this case hunters—learn to love our special places and become entrenched conservationists.This bill is a significant achievement for hunters. It gives them much more say in their sport. But it is also designed to improve the outcomes for and protection of the conservation estate because it provides for better management of herds of special significance in specified areas. The Game Animal Council is a framework for collaborative intelligent management of hunting and game animals. Those animals are tahr chamois deer and wild pigs. This is in really stark contrast to the rather haphazard divided and often confrontational management or lack of management that is in place currently.The Local Government and Environment Committee spent many hours investigating and discussing this bill. There has been huge interest in the topic and active discussion since back in 2005. We heard from a significant number of submitters.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.Questions to MinistersPike River Mine Disaster—Compensation1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that he told the House yesterday that he had no idea whether ACC or the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as shareholders of New Zealand Oil and Gas had voted against paying compensation to the Pike River families has he since bothered to check?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I can confirm that as independent fund managers and as minority shareholders in New Zealand Oil and Gas ACC and the Superannuation Fund voted against that motion. That motion if carried would have seen New Zealand Oil and Gas a 29 percent shareholder in Pike River Coal pay out on behalf of the other 71 percent. Of course ACC and the Superannuation Fund are a small proportion of the 29 percent. However I am concerned to see reports that the Leader of the Opposition would instruct ACC and the Superannuation Fund in making investment decisions that are by statute independent. The Leader of the Opposition’s position is probably unlawful.Hon David Cunliffe: In light of that answer does the Acting Prime Minister believe that it is possible for the Government to recover any of the money from the corporate parents of Pike River Coal or is he just giving up on the miners’ families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Certainly I am advised that there is no legal mechanism by which the Crown could pursue that company. No one has given up on the miners’ families. The advice I have seen is that families of the miners have been paid around $5 million by ACC and we would expect that the longer-term support for those families will amount to some $20 million.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by Simon Bridges’ comment that Cabinet did not discuss the Government’s moral responsibility to the Pike River families; if so does he not think that they deserve better than that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I do support the Minister of Labour’s comments. The Government’s moral obligations are met through the statutory systems put in place to support these families. In this case that system has supported them to the extent of around $5 million so far and we would expect that the extent of just ACC support will amount to some $20 million for the families. As I said to the House yesterday the Crown needs to bear in mind in discussing how to deal with these families the fact that every day in New Zealand families experience tragedies they would rather avoid and they would have every right to expect equal treatment with the Pike River families.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by the statement of the Hon Christopher Finlayson that “The Government is fully aware of its obligations to these families.” but did nothing on compensation; if so does that mean that the Government decided that it has no legal or moral obligations to pay compensation to those families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have answered those questions previously. The member is carrying on as if there has been no support for these families and that is simply incorrect. I will just reiterate the facts around ACC support according to my advice. About $5 million has been paid to these families through ACC on the same basis as any other family that suffers a workplace or accident death and we expect that the full support for these families will amount to around $20 million. Every other family in NewZealand that experiences a tragedy which may be less high profile and less politicised by the Opposition has a right to expect equal treatment to the Pike River families.Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Acting Prime Minister think that putting the burden on an accident compensation corporation that actually voted against compensation going to the families is a sufficient answer when this is the only case where a Government department glossy has been found culpable when a Minister has resigned when 29 miners lie dead and still buried under the earth and that Government is walking away from its moral obligation to the families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It does not matter how often the member says it he needs to understand that every New Zealand family who experiences a tragedy—and every day there are some—deserves equal treatment to the Pike River families. The Government has fully supported these families through the statutory processes it has committed millions of dollars to the recovery of the bodies it has met its moral obligation to take all the steps recommended by the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy to ensure that these tragic events do not occur again. But finally the Government has to act on behalf of all New Zealanders. Every New Zealand family who suffers a tragedy deserves equal treatment. And I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to show me a family who has lost someone in a workplace tragedy who should be treated less carefully and less supportively than the Pike River families.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the founding shareholder of New Zealand Oil and Gas Gordon Clout that the company should “remove their blinkers man up face reality and demonstrate humility to financially support the hurting and grieving families.”; if so why will his Government not do the same?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have explained to the member and I will go through it again the families have had the benefit of $5 million of payments from ACC so far and they can expect a further $15 million of support. The Government has committed I think $10 million to the recovery of the bodies. We have met our moral obligations by implementing all of the royal commission recommendations to ensure that this does not happen again including a very considerable commitment of taxpayer resources to a new workplace safety agency. I reiterate my final point. The Leader of the Opposition needs to show us a New Zealand family who lost someone in a workplace accident that should get less than the Pike River families and I do not think he can.Health and Safety Workplace—Forestry Industry2.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Māori Party—Tāmaki Makaurau) to theMinister of Labour: What is he doing to improve industry standards and to resource safety inspectors appropriately in order to respond to analysis from the Chief Coroner that the forestry sector has the nation’s highest rate of workplace injury deaths?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): I thank the Minister for the question. This Government released theApproved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forestry Operations in December last year which clearly lays out what is expected of industry. In August I announced the Working Safer reform package which will see significantly increased funding for workplace health and safety and will especially target high-risk industries like forestry on an operational level as an example. I am advised that in the past 10 weeks alone inspectors have carried out 135 workplace assessments across logging operations nationwide and this proactive enforcement work is continuing.Hon Dr Pita Sharples: In addition what immediate initiatives has the Minister put in place on the ground to address safety standards in the forestry industry given that188 serious harm notifications were made last year—the highest number in the last 5 years?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There are a number of initiatives but I think that probably the most significant on the ground as the Minister has said is the one where inspectors are going to every single forestry operation in the country—as I say 135 so far. By the time that is finished—and those inspectors are doing it with some pace—it will be some 300 and there has been a range of enforcement actions taken already such as written warnings and infringement notices and in some cases actually closing down the operations for safety reasons.Hon Dr Pita Sharples: Has the Minister received any feedback from the families who have lost loved ones in forestry accidents on what they recommend is needed to stem the tide of fatalities in the forestry sector?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes I have had conversations by telephone in my constituent office with whānau members of people who have passed away through forestry and the message they give me loud and clear is that they want action and that I think is what this Government is delivering through the approved code of practice through visiting every forestry contracting operation and through WorkSafe New Zealand which starts next month and is receiving significantly more funding to deal with high-hazard industries such as importantly forestry.Darien Fenton: How can he insist that his approved code of practice is adequate when the sixth forestry worker killed this year was working in the pitch black of night invisible to workmates and the approved code of practice says only that “Where night work is required the employer shall ensure that the level of illumination does not cause a hazard.”?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the approved code of practice is necessary but not sufficient and as I have made very clear there is quite a number of other things we are doing. I think what is confirmed by the coroner’s case study on forestry which Pita Sharples has referred to is that actually the things that are the focus of that approved code of practice—tree-felling and breaking out which contribute to a significant number of these fatalities—are the big issues and are what as I say the approved code of practice focuses squarely on.State-owned Assets Sales—Air New Zealand Revenue and Public Support3.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to theMinister of Finance: What recent announcements has the Government made on the next steps in its share offer programme which is freeing up money to invest in new public assets without having to borrow from overseas lenders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last night we announced the Government had successfully issued 20 percent of the shares in Air New Zealand. The shares were placed at $1.65 each—Hon Trevor Mallard: And they’ve dived this morning.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —yes was it not a good deal—and raised $365 million for taxpayers. The Government has retained 53 percent of the airline and when Air New Zealand resumed trading today 88 percent of the company was owned by New Zealanders. This is the latest step in the Government’s share offer programme which has now raised almost $4 billion which has been placed in the Future Investment Fund for investing in priority public assets.Simon O’Connor: How did the Government ensure that New Zealanders were at the front of the queue for shares in Air New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Shares were offered to New Zealand sharebrokers for on-selling to New Zealanders. A condition of New Zealand brokers participating was thatshares were allocated only to clients who met the New Zealand client test: having an IRD number a New Zealand bank account and a New Zealand address. The Government achieved its target of at least 85 percent New Zealand ownership. The Opposition cannot make up its mind whether that New Zealand ownership is rich mates of the National Party or poor mums and dads who have been ripped off—we have heard both from the interjections today.Hon David Cunliffe: Why were the shares available only to a handful of select brokers at incredibly short notice while other Kiwi mum and dad investors were shut out?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The nature of the offer was determined by the fact that the company is already listed on the stock exchange and that means that mums and dads whether they have a sharebroker or not could buy shares any day of the week at the market price more cheaply than the price for which they were sold yesterday and today they can buy shares at the market price. We are satisfied that we have achieved 85 percent—in fact 88 percent—New Zealand ownership.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table an email I received this morning that states: “As a current Air New Zealand shareholder I was looking to buy more shares in the Government sell-down. I rang my bank which I have shares”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The email has been adequately described. I will put the leave. [Interruption] The question has been asked whether anything has been redacted. [Interruption] Order! The name has been—Hon David Cunliffe: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Allow me to put the leave first and then if there is a point of order I will take it. Leave has been sought to table an email. The name has been removed. There are no further redactions. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in this matter. The Leader of the House has seen fit to impugn the integrity of the member who has said that he has received an email. To prove it I have sought to table the email but the Government has refused leave to have that tabled.Mr SPEAKER: I put leave. Leave was refused by the House. Any member has the right to deny leave. Is the member now raising a point of order that he has been offended?Hon David Cunliffe: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: If offence is taken I am unsure of the remark that could have possibly offended the member. I presume you are referring to an interjection from the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Can I ask Mr Brownlee if he offended the member would he stand and withdraw that remark.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I do not think I offended him. Of course I do not.Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I found him out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand and withdraw the comment that offended the House and Mr Cunliffe.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might reflect on exactly what has been asked for here and give the House a ruling as to where offence intersects with being found out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No I do not need any assistance. As I said I did not hear an offence that came from this side of the House that I would have thought offended the member. The member said that he was offended. That is the end of the matter. If a member takes offence he has a right to ask that that member withdraw and apologise for the comment. There is the difficulty that I have to judge every time as towhether it is reasonable that a member was offended. On this occasion because I did not hear the remark I accepted the comments from the Hon David Cunliffe.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Accepting that ruling I wonder what reflection you might have for the House on when a senior member of the House directly challenges your ruling through a point of order. I have noticed you being very hard on members of this side of the House when they have done that and threatened them with ejection. I wonder whether the same thing applies to the Leader of the House.Mr SPEAKER: I do not think the point made by Mr Brownlee was like that. He was asking as to whether when some remarks are thrown in a political chamber they can be considered as offensive or not. That is a line-ball call on many occasions. I have made the call that on this occasion I will accept that the member was offended and we move from there. I cannot give a categoric assurance where a ruling might go next time; it depends on the remark.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The published Speakers’ rulings make it very clear that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise they are not then allowed to comment on that matter. That is the end of the matter. What Gerry Brownlee then did was raise another point of order where he commented directly on the matter.Mr SPEAKER: No. I certainly accept that members should not then further interject or refer once they have been asked to withdraw and apologise. That is accepted. But the member Mr Brownlee then raised a reasonable point. There are some remarks that are traded across this House that may to some person cause offence because some people are more sensitive than others. That is something I have to determine on the occasion.Simon O’Connor: How has Air New Zealand performed under the mixed-ownership structure introduced by the previous Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I want to acknowledge the foresight of the previous Labour Government in setting up the mixed-ownership model for Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand has performed very well under this structure and it would be regarded as probably the best-managed small airline in the world. I also note that the previous Government was flexible about the degree of ownership of Air New Zealand. The airline was initially 82 percent owned by the New Zealand Government. By the time we came to float 20 percent it had reduced to 73 percent ownership which means a Labour Government reduced Government ownership in Air New Zealand by stealth or without recognising that it was happening. We have no doubt that if the airline had been 100 percent Government-owned it would not have performed nearly as well as it has and on behalf of the taxpayer I thank the Labour Government for its foresight. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. [Interruption] Order! I have called the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How can he claim that the asset sales programme is a success when the three sales to date have raised $1 billion less than he promised the New Zealand people?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No that is not correct. The proceeds will be less for the reason that one of the companies Solid Energy is simply not appropriate for public sale. We are very pleased to have just a shade under $4 billion in the bank which we will be spending on rebuilding Christchurch building new hospitals and revamping modern learning environments all around New Zealand without having to kowtow to foreign bankers the way that the Greens and Labour want us to so that our children can have decent schools.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: In respect of that last answer how can he say that the asset sales programme is a success when the amount raised from the sell-down of Air NewZealand will pay for only 36 hours of Government operational expenditure at the same time as the Government continues to borrow $424 million per month and when net debt has increased by $5.087 billion in a year? Is that kowtowing to foreign bankers or what? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has a right to ask the question. Now we have all got a right to hear the answer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is successful because tens of thousands of New Zealanders now have direct ownership and probably a million have indirect ownership of these assets. The Government has $4 billion from New Zealanders who want to invest in large New Zealand companies which we will use to invest in decent public housing modern public schools and rebuilding Christchurch while Labour and the Greens will have to go crawling to foreign bankers to get that money. We do not have to; we got it off New Zealanders.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister believe that there is public support for the asset sales programme in light of polls showing two-thirds opposed and will he take the upcoming referendum on asset sales as a measure of public support?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I think is a fact whether that member believes it or not is that there was public support for a Government that transparently campaigned on selling assets. I also happen to think that there is public support for the Government investing in public assets using money from New Zealanders who have the opportunity to invest in large New Zealand companies rather than doing what that member wants which is to borrow even more from foreign bankers. Quite why he prefers to deal with foreign bankers rather than New Zealand savers is beyond me.Simon O’Connor: What reports has he seen supporting the Government’s share offer in Air New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a range of comment in the last 24 hours indicating that the Government got a pretty good deal here. We have sold the shares for $1.65 which was the market price when normally this kind of sale would involve a discount. That means $365 million that is now in the Future Investment Fund which we will be able to use to invest in better classrooms for our children a modern hospital in Christchurch and we are able to do it without going and borrowing the money from foreign bankers like Labour and the Greens want to.Dr Russel Norman: Supplementary question Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am just waiting for a bit of silence.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister stand by his reported comments that he plans to take non-voters in the upcoming referendum as supporters of the asset sale programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall those comments. What I did say I think is that we would expect a reasonably low turnout. I know that the Opposition parties are disappointed that there is no marching in the streets about the sale of Air New Zealand but then why would there be? The Labour Government invented the mixed-ownership model. It was proven to be successful and we built on that success. It is no wonder that New Zealanders are not quite as worried about this as the Greens and Labour which seem more concerned about doing better business with foreign bankers than giving New Zealanders the opportunity to save.Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister accept that if there is a majority No vote in the upcoming referendum—the best opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their voice on this specific issue—the people of New Zealand do not accept his asset sale programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What is surprising is that for a party that says that it believes in the voice of the people it seems to regard the 2011 election as some kind ofillegitimate intervention in the reign of the previous Government. The fact is that we campaigned transparently on this policy and I invite that member in the next campaign to campaign transparently on the impact of his climate change policy on household costs and we will hold him to the same standard as we met on asset sales.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a simple question which the Minister did not address which was whether he would take a majority No vote in the referendum as the people of New Zealand opposing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to relook atHansard and have a look at the question. The question then talked about “is it not the best opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say.” The Minister then responded and said that the best opportunity in his opinion was the election that was held in 2011. The question was adequately addressed.Health Services—Waiting Lists for Elective Surgery4.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 9 yesterday?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes within the context they were given and in particular that a record 23000 patients received orthopaedic treatment in the last year.Hon Annette King: In light of his answer yesterday that there are “two separate figures” relating to patients waiting for surgery—those on a waiting list at a certain date and those “who did not even get on the waiting list”—can he inform the House how disabled and sick a patient must be before they can get on the official waiting list?Hon TONY RYALL: That is a clinical decision that would be made by the various clinicians who are assessing those patients. What I can tell the member though—and thank you for the opportunity to be able to say this—is that in the last year we have provided 40000 more elective operations compared with 5 years ago. That is a really significant achievement.Hon Annette King: As he sets the level of funding that the district health boards receive thereby influencing the priorities they implement does he believe that a patient who suffers the pain of bone graunching on bone who is forced to climb stairs on his hands and knees sounds sick enough to get on his official waiting list for surgery?Hon TONY RYALL: The first thing I would say is that if that member wants to bring that case to me I will look into it. It is better to help patients than to use them. On the second issue of funding this Government has put in an average of $500 million a year extra into the health service and millions more into elective surgery. What is interesting about all these questions is that the Opposition parties have been promising to cut back on elective surgeries.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question Melissa Lee. [Interruption] Order! I have called Melissa Lee. By the sound of it there was an interjection which I did not hear. If a member took objection then stand and raise that objection with me. I have called Melissa Lee.Melissa Lee: What reports has he received confirming that in June 2005 there were around 31000 patients booked in for assessments or surgery who had been waiting over 6 months and what reports has he seen of surgeons’ views as to what happened to these patients?Hon TONY RYALL: An independent review by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General confirmed that in June 2005 around 30000 patients had been waiting over 6 months. I have seen many other reports that around 30000 patients were summarily removed from these lists soon after this by Government edict. Amongstthese was a report of 74 of the Canterbury District Health Board’s 80 surgeons signing a letter condemning Labour’s waiting list cull of 5000 patients off Canterbury’s list.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is sufficient. [Interruption] Order!Hon Annette King: Does a patient who was dumped from the waiting list earlier this year and now takes at least eight painkillers a day who cannot sit without wincing and uses crutches to get about sound sick enough to get on his official waiting list after 5 years of his stewardship?Hon TONY RYALL: If the member is referring to the case that was in the ChristchurchPress a few days ago it is my understanding that that person was not on a waiting list so the claim is not valid. However that patient is being considered by the Canterbury District Health Board. But the great news in Canterbury of course is that in the last 5 years at the Canterbury District Health Board we have increased elective surgeries by 48 percent compared with a 13 percent cut under Annette King.Hon Annette King: Does a patient who has lost the ability to stand whose general practitioner can no longer manage his pain and he is likely to go into a wheelchair forcing him to sell his home sound sick enough to get on his official waiting list or does he have to stay on the hidden list and remain just one of the Minister’s figures?Hon TONY RYALL: Let me review this straight away. There is no hidden list. That is about as reliable as Annette King’s Official Information Act request where the number was inexplicably changed.Hon Annette King: I wish to table two documents in light of the Minister’s claiming—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just describe the two documents.Hon Annette King: The first is a letter from the Waikato District Health Board stating that 376 patients were denied surgery and sent back to their general practitioners because they could not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is adequately described. The second document please.Hon Annette King: The second one is a letter from the MidCentral District Health Board stating that 161 patients were denied surgery and sent back to their general practitioner.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave for those two letters—one from the Waikato District Health Board and one from the MidCentral District Health Board. Is there any objection to those two letters being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an editorial from a small provincial paper—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. If members want to search for that they can find it for themselves.Business Growth Agenda—Purpose Impact and Construction Sector Initiatives5.Dr JIAN YANG (National) to theMinister for Economic Development: How is the Government’s Business Growth Agenda helping to strengthen the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): The Business Growth Agenda is a detailed and comprehensive programme to encourage businesses to make new investments to build jobs and long-term growth for New Zealanders and it is working. Today the OECD released its latest economic outlook report. It is forecasting growth for New Zealand reaching 3.6 percent in the calendar year 2004. This forecast would put New Zealand growth rates in the top six for developed economies—above the OECD average of 2.4 percent and actually much better than Australia’s at 2.7percent. The OECD is also forecasting an improvement in the current account deficit forecasting the deficit—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect a Minister has got to be relatively accurate. We do not want to hear about—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to know what the point of order is. Debating the answer is not a point of order; that is a debate—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No you have not heard it yet.Mr SPEAKER: Well then I want to hear it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well you are going to hear it now if you sit down and I will give it to you.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will be lenient because the member has the next question but if he treats the Speaker like that in the future he will not be here for the balance of question time. [Interruption] Order! I invite the member to quickly come to his point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The point of order is that he gave the growth report for 2004—9 years ago. That is my point.Mr SPEAKER: That may well be the point but I do not think that is the fact.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to check theHansard—Mr SPEAKER: I will check theHansard. I invite the member to resume his seat.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Perhaps a little more slowly for the member—the OECD is forecasting growth for New Zealand reaching 3.6 percent in the calendar year 2014 Mr Peters. This forecast would put New Zealand growth rates in the top six for developed economies—above the OECD average of 2.4 percent and much better than Australia’s at 2.7 percent. The OECD is also forecasting an improvement in the current account deficit forecasting the deficit will narrow from 4.3 percent of GDP to 3.6 percent of GDP in 2014. The Government’s relentless focus on encouraging investment via the Business Growth Agenda is clearly working.Dr Jian Yang: What steps is the Government taking to encourage further investment for jobs and growth for Kiwi families?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Business Growth Agenda is a comprehensive programme of work that encourages investment. On Monday the Minister of Finance and I released a 2013 progress report which updates progress on the approximately 350 separate initiatives. It builds on access to the six key inputs business needs to succeed: growing and adding jobs capital market access natural resources infrastructure skills and innovation. It includes initiatives like oil and gas exploration the apprenticeship reboot more flexible labour market conditions the Government’s series of Resource Management Act reforms the mixed-ownership model the New Zealand International Convention Centre and the roads of national significance to name just a few. The interesting thing—and New Zealanders will note this—is that the Opposition opposes almost every one of those initiatives.Dr Jian Yang: What initiatives in the Business Growth Agenda are aimed at helping the construction sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The construction sector is of course one of the largest sectors in the New Zealand economy. It generates annual revenues of more than $30 billion and employs around 170000 people. A big challenge in the sector is to grow skills training to help meet these skilled employment requirements for the coming construction boom. The Government’s revamp of the apprenticeship scheme in the apprenticeship reboot is seeing very big numbers of people signing up for construction apprenticeships. We have also spent approaching $60 million in expanding priority trades at institutes of technology. That has led to an expansion of trades facilities aroundthe country including in Wellington where today I was pleased to be able to announce the development of a $13.6 million Regional School of Construction by the Wellington Institute of Technology and Whitireia Community Polytechnic.Immigration—Confidence in Minister and Immigration New Zealand6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so why?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) : Yes because he is a competent hard-working Minister.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration when the Minister’s department is failing its own internal quality assurance checks ignoring the Auditor-General’s 2009 inquiry findings and running Immigration New Zealand as a visa-stamping factory?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not believe that those things are true but I understand that visas do have to be stamped at some stage.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration when Immigration New Zealand’s own internal quality assurance results indicate that over 20 percent of the decisions made by Immigration New Zealand are of poor quality which means that tens of thousands of wrong decisions are being made each year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure that that is what the numbers mean but it is a good thing that Immigration New Zealand has its own internal quality assurance process. We would not be surprised if it achieved less than 100 percent or top quality. But we would expect where it does fall short of 100 percent that action is taken to improve the quality of those decisions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration when that Minister has ignored the Auditor-General’s recommendation that Immigration New Zealand should focus on the quality of migrants rather than quantity as stated in the inquiry report which reads as follows: “review the emphasis on target setting in Immigration New Zealand branches to ensure that the quality of visa and permit decisions is not compromised;”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: My understanding is that the Minister and the department have paid a good deal of attention to the Auditor-General’s recommendations and are implementing them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration when he is concerned only about having an overall net positive immigration to New Zealand so that the number of New Zealanders leaving to Australia is somehow neutralised and does not reflect poorly on the current Government’s policies?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would disagree with the assertions of the member. The number of migrants coming in is pretty similar to what it has been for some time. The change in migration numbers is because there are a lot fewer New Zealanders leaving. We look forward to the member’s support for the policies that are going to continue to retain more New Zealanders here and have less migration out.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Bit late now! How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration who said yesterday in this House that there is no evidence that people-smugglers were selling opportunities to immigrate to New Zealand and that the Australian journalist was perpetuating in his words “a heinous lie” when half an hour later he was outside talking to journalists and admitting that the department alone was now investigating 30 cases just as we alleged? How can he have confidence in an incompetent Minister like that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister does have confidence in a Minister who understands that people-smugglers will say all sorts of stuff particularly to the media about what they can deliver. If people-smugglers in the Asia-Pacific region are promising that they can get people to New Zealand for $40000 or whatever it is they pay then he needs to be reassured that when people who pay that amount of money turn up at our border they will be dealt with decisively.Schools Canterbury—Building and Redevelopment Projects7.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: How much of the over $1 billion announced for refurbishing Christchurch schools last week will come from money the schools were already due to receive in the form of regular property funding leaky buildings remediation and insurance payouts?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): As I said yesterday to the honourable member it is no secret that a combination of funding is reflected in the $1.137 billion investment in Christchurch including any insurance payout that is yet to be determined. However I want to be as helpful as I can. The current working provision we have is approximately $400 million of ministry baseline funding and over $700 million extra funding including any insurance payout. Only the most jaded and graceless would be anything but delighted with an investment of over $1 billion to provide a better education for the children and young people of Christchurch. This investment is a combination of funding—much like Mr Cunliffe’s grasp on the leadership some—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That part will not help the order of the House.Chris Hipkins: Did she receive a report in June last year that showed that the Ministry of Education had been planning before the quakes to spend up to $710 million over 10 years on Christchurch schools anyway; if so how on earth did she come up with the figures that she gave in her answer to the primary question?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot speak to the specific June report from last year that the member is referencing but the Ministry of Education routinely makes provision for total school networks. If what we are being accused of is prudent money management then we are happy to be accused of that. We have continued to update the provision for Christchurch as more detailed information has come to hand and that is what has been reflected in the final announcement that I made.Chris Hipkins: Did she receive and consider up-to-date population and demographic projections—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am very close to the member and I cannot hear the question.Chris Hipkins: Did she receive and consider up-to-date population and demographic projections for the greater Christchurch area before making the final decisions that she announced last week—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can tell that the Minister cannot actually hear the question that is being asked.Mr SPEAKER: Is the microphone not working? [Interruption] Order! I have a suggestion. We will try it with a lot less intervention and noise coming from other seats in the House.Chris Hipkins: It would take all the fun out of it. Did she receive and consider up-to-date population and demographic projections for the greater Christchurch area before making the final decisions on the proposals she announced last week; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: We use continuously updated projections on demographic growth and more specifically on projections for actual school rolls.Dr Cam Calder: How will the recently announced investment in Christchurch contribute to raising achievement for all children and young people?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The investment we are making in Christchurch will give schools modern facilities including better access to the latest technology. Students will be able to take advantage of a citywide digital learning network that extends curriculum choice and allows them to study in ways that better suit their preferred learning style. Improving the quality of education so that more students can succeed is a vital part of the renewal of greater Christchurch. That is why we have invested over a billion dollars in the next 10 years to provide a modern centre of learning for the children and young people of Christchurch.Chris Hipkins: Are public-private partnerships being considered for the rebuild of existing schools that have not been considered for merger or closure as part of the renewal process; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: They might be because we are interested in a range of procurement approaches. The reason why we might be particularly interested in public-private partnerships is that they take on the whole-of-life management of the property thus liberating the principal to focus on raising achievement of the students at their school.Chris Hipkins: Will communities have the ability to reject the use of public-private partnerships for the rebuild of their local school if they wish to; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The purchase decisions that are related to over a billion dollars will be driven by what the best outcome is for the particular school community as well as what the most prudent use of taxpayers’ money is.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked—Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to repeat the question. The Minister may not have heard it.Chris Hipkins: Will communities have the ability to reject the use of a public-private partnership for the build or rebuild of their local school; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: If a public-private procurement method is chosen for a community that community is fully involved in the design because the public-private partnership is there to build what is required not determine it.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps we want to give the Minister another go—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Raise the point of order.Chris Hipkins: Once again the Minister has not indicated whether or not communities will ultimately have the say in whether or not they want a public-private partnership.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: You ruled yesterday on the issue of “Yes” and “No” answers. The Standing Orders make it very clear that a “Yes” or “No” answer cannot be sought by a member. This question given that it has been repeated twice now effectively goes right to the heart of demanding a “Yes” or “No” answer.Mr SPEAKER: I thought before the Hon Mr Brownlee rose to his feet that the member has now had two goes at the same question. He has not got an answer about whether the community will have the right to reject and I accept that he has not but he has had two goes at it. On this occasion I think the Minister—certainly in the second answer—attempted to address the question. The question has been addressed. The member can use further supplementaries if he so wishes but Mr Brownlee is quite right.Speaker’s ruling 167/5 by Jonathan Hunt clearly says—and it was used yesterday—that a member cannot insist on an answer that is a “Yes” or “No” answer.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that this is not a point of order relitigating a decision?Chris Hipkins: No it is not at all.Mr SPEAKER: Good. Then I will hear the point of order.Chris Hipkins: It is just a clarification from the ruling you have just made as to whether or not the standard that you are applying is that the Minister attempt an answer or address the question. The Minister certainly attempted an answer but it did not address the question.Mr SPEAKER: That is relitigating exactly the ruling I have given. In my opinion the member on a—[Interruption] Order! The Minister has now on two occasions attempted to address the question. My ruling which I had given the member which he is now questioning is that on the second occasion the Minister addressed the question.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Again I just want to clarify that the point—Hon Trevor Mallard: Well I am going to ask you to explain your answer and the reason is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That leads to disorder. If the member wants to come and see me afterwards he can do so. I have ruled. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order I will happily hear it. But if we are going to get the situation where we are having relitigation of points of order that in itself leads to disorder.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Repeatedly in Speakers’ rulings Ministers have been required to address the question. You appear to have set a new standard requiring Ministers to attempt to address the question. I am asking you whether that was deliberate.Mr SPEAKER: No what I am saying is that the answer must be relevant to the question. I make a call on every question that is raised in this House. I have ruled that the answer given by the Minister although not delivering the answer that the member Mr Hipkins wanted was certainly relevant and addressed the question.Offenders Monitoring—GPS Use for Offenders on Extended Supervision Orders Parole and Work Release8.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to theMinister of Corrections: What recent updates has she received on the use of GPS technology to monitor offenders?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): GPS technology was introduced in August 2012 to provide 24-hour monitoring of high-risk offenders in the community. Since that time 146 offenders have been subject to GPS monitoring. The use of that has allowed the Department of Corrections and police to take immediate action when these offenders have gone into prohibited areas. GPS also means that these offenders know that they are under constant 24-hour watch from Department of Corrections staff rather than just regularly reporting to their probation officer. So far 15 offenders have been monitored going into exclusion zones. As a result seven of them are now back in prison with the rest facing further sanctions or due to appear in court. Without the use of GPS technology the Department of Corrections would have been unaware that these offenders had breached their conditions.Louise Upston: What other steps is the Government taking to make further use of GPS technology to monitor offenders?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have extended GPS tracking to allow a greater number of low-security prisoners to participate in the Release to Work programme which givesthem valuable work experience outside the wire ahead of their release. Sixty prisoners out of a total of 146 monitored on GPS have been on the Release to Work programme. We are also looking at ways we can extend 24-hour monitoring to offenders convicted of serious domestic violence offences to better protect their victims. The Parole Board has imposed GPS monitoring on two of these offenders so far and the Department of Corrections is looking at how it can increase this number further by providing comprehensive family violence risk assessments to the Parole Board.Oil and Gas Exploration—Anadarko and Risks9.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement to the New Zealand petroleum industry annual conference that “This Government is very clear we won’t let cowboys operate here in New Zealand”?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes.Gareth Hughes: Why is the Government allowing the very company that was partially responsible for the world’s worst ever oil spill to drill in New Zealand and how does that match with not letting cowboys operate in New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The very premise of the question the member asks is wrong. The US Government did not find that Anadarko was to blame for Deepwater Horizon.Gareth Hughes: How is Anadarko not a cowboy when it knowingly and expressly approved BP’s riskiest cost-cutting and time-saving proposals which were a major factor in that spill?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not responsible for Anadarko. The fact of the matter is that it was a passive shareholder. It had no involvement in the operation of the well no personnel on board the facility and no decision-making power as to how that operation was operated.Gareth Hughes: How is Anadarko not a cowboy when it has also been responsible for six other spills of greater than 7 tonnes including one in 2007 when it lost well control and released 1061 barrels?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would need to confirm that. My clear understanding is that it has not been responsible for any major incidents as an operator.Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister immediately make public the oil spill modelling and the oil spill response plan for Anadarko’s Taranaki well so that people get to know what is at risk before the drilling starts?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think this member has asked this question before. The position is very clear. They are not publicly available in the sense that they are not on some website right now but under the Official Information Act he knows what to do.Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table a response from Maritime New Zealand saying that it cannot release Anadarko’s oil response plan until it consults Anadarko.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? No there is no objection. The paper can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Gareth Hughes: Is the reason why the Government is suppressing this information that it does not want the people of New Zealand to know the potential consequences of a spill and what it would take to clean it up?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There is no suppression.Gareth Hughes: Why is the Government risking our environment and our economy by allowing Anadarko the Texan cowboys behind the world’s worst ever spill to conduct risky deep-sea drilling in our waters?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not accept any of what the member has said. I think that we have in this industry the highest environmental and health and safety practice operating in New Zealand today. I am very confident that our environment is secure well into the future.Housing Affordable—International Reports10.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theMinister of Housing: What international reports has he received on how housing affordability can be improved and what lessons can New Zealand learn from these experiences?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): This week’s public report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics notes that first-home buyers in Australia have dropped to the lowest level ever. This is despite Australia having a capital gains tax and some restrictions on overseas home purchasers. The median multiplier of house price to median income from Demographia is 8.3 in Sydney as compared with 6.7 in Auckland. The median house price in Sydney is $810000 as compared with Auckland’s $582000. And Sydney median house prices have gone up by 13 percent as compared with 10 percent in New Zealand. The lesson that has been drawn from Australia is that if we are serious about helping first-home buyers it is cost and supply of housing that need to be addressed. That is why the Government is focused on those real issues.Mike Sabin: What advice has he received on new policy options that are being explored in Australia to help improve housing supply?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The main focus is on increasing land supply. The consensus is that too little land has been made available for housing and state Governments are looking to fast track land supply and simplify planning processes to make housing more affordable. I also note that they have announced policies to enable the transfer of significant State housing stock from State to community housing organisations. I note that none of the state Governments in Australia facing challenges over housing affordability are proposing massive State housebuilding programmes.Mike Sabin: What reports has the Minister seen from the OECD on housing markets and what does it recommend for improving affordability?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The OECD has undertaken a comprehensive study following the collapse of house price bubbles in many countries as part of the global financial crisis. The report is particularly critical of rigid land-use regulation and notes that house price bubbles were most severe in countries with rigid land supply. That is why this Government has this year passed the housing accord and special housing areas legislation to free up land and fast track the supply of new housing.Human Rights Sri Lanka—Support for Independent Inquiry11.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to theMinister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement with regard to his conversation with the British Prime Minister the Rt Hon David Cameron about Sri Lanka that: “I just sort of said to him ‘where do you think it’s all going?’ I mean like us I mean I think everybody is now really focused on what’s the next steps going forward”?Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The member is of course quoting the Prime Minister out of context by omitting his immediately preceding sentence. Asked whether Prime Minister Cameron had raised with him the question of an inquiry in Sri Lanka the Prime Minister commenced his answer with “No he didn’t raise it.” Quoted in context the Prime Minister’s answer is clear unambiguous and of course correct.David Shearer: Was the Prime Minister or the New Zealand Government ever asked by David Cameron to support his position to promote an independent inquiry intohuman rights abuses and war crimes in Sri Lanka and why did the Government choose not to support it if that was the case?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I was not present for the meeting that the Prime Minister held with Prime Minister Cameron but I can make clear the Government’s position on this matter. As the member will know what happened in Sri Lanka particularly in the period leading up to the cessation of the conflict about 4 years ago was nothing short of a major human tragedy. It is also a fact that the United Nations Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka having investigated those matters found very significant and serious fault on both sides. The Government believes that there should be a process to hold those responsible to account just as it believes that there should also be a process for achieving reconciliation and also devolution in the north where elections in September provide the opportunity to devolve power to the chief minister and his Tamil-led party.David Shearer: In light of this answer will the Government support an independent inquiry at the Human Rights Council meeting in March as the UK Prime Minister David Cameron is proposing?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Government believes that there should be accountability and an independent inquiry through some mechanism whether it is one sponsored by the Human Rights Council or otherwise appointed. Certainly it is a good way forward. With regard to the UK prospect of a resolution at the Human Rights Council depending on the actual wording contained in the resolution we may well support it.David Shearer: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s comment about PresidentRajapaksa that “Domestically he’s extremely popular and that’s because people do now feel safe” or does he believe the reports of the United Nations Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who say exactly the opposite that the Sri Lankan Government has not investigated nor stopped human rights abuses and that Tamils in the north certainly do not feel safe?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I think the Prime Minister was very accurately reflecting the results of the elections in Sri Lanka which demonstrated that President Rajapaksa’s Government must have been popular to have achieved such a significant election victory. It is also true to say that the elections held in September in the north demonstrate that there is a significant desire for Tamil autonomy in that province. They won 30 of the 38 seats and the chief minister is a significant figure and a former judge in the Tamil-led party there. Both the statements that the member has quoted are therefore correct.David Shearer: Given that we have received an elephant in exchange for the human rights of the people in Sri Lanka can we expect him to bring home a bear from Russia in exchange for the rights of gay athletes at Russia’s Winter Olympics?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The question of an elephant for Auckland Zoo is one that Auckland Zoo has been pursuing for over 2 years. If the member kept in touch with his constituency he may well have known that. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member asked a question. The Minister now has every right to answer that question and he is attempting to do so but the level of interjection coming from my left-hand side is making it very difficult for me to hear that answer.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I have already indicated in an earlier answer the Government regards the events that occurred a few years ago in Sri Lanka as nothing short of a major human tragedy. We therefore believe that these are matters that should be appropriately taken up with the Sri Lankan Government that accountability should be pursued that devolution—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will not warn a member again on my left-hand side. I have got to my feet on the second occasion now asking members to give the Minister a fair go. I cannot carry on doing that. I will be asking a member to leave the Chamber.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I will repeat. The Government regards what occurred in Sri Lanka as nothing short of a major human tragedy. We believe that those responsible should be held to account and also that devolution should occur to benefit the people in the north of Sri Lanka. We do not believe that these matters should be trivialised in the manner that that member wishes to.Water Supplies—Fluoridation12.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to theAssociate Minister of Health: Does the Government support the fluoridation of water supplies?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health)on behalf of theAssociate Minister of Health: Yes. There is no doubt that the science shows that there are benefits for families from fluoridation and that the levels of fluoridation in water are safe for New Zealanders. At this time the Government considers fluoridation a local community decision.Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Government considering or prepared to consider shifting the responsibility for making decisions regarding the fluoridation of local water supplies to district health boards rather than to local government; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is yet to formally—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you just clarify a matter for us? The Associate Minister to whom this question was directed is who?Mr SPEAKER: The Associate Minister in my advice is the Hon Tariana Turia. Clearly on this occasion that answer has been transferred to a Minister present in the Chamber. Can I ask the member—[Interruption] Order! I am going to ask the Hon Peter Dunne to repeat his question because it has been interrupted.Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Government considering or prepared to consider transferring the responsibility for the fluoridation policy of local water supplies from local government to district health boards; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is yet to formally consider the Health Committee report. However it has been a long-term position of the Government that fluoridation of public water supplies is a decision for local communities to make and that the Government’s role is to make sure that local councils are supported when they decide to use fluoride not to make the decision for them.Hon Peter Dunne: Can it be taken from the Minister’s first reply that fluoridation is a priority for the Government; if that is the case in the light of the select committee report tabled earlier this week what is the Government doing to give effect to that priority?Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is doing quite a lot to give effect to the priority that we put on fluoridation. The Ministry of Health supported the three district health boards in an unprecedented effort to fight back against the orchestrated campaign of misinformation from those who are against fluoridation. This was really the first time ever that there was a totally concerted effort by public health authorities to get that message out. We congratulate the three communities that strongly endorsed fluoridation of their community water supply.Game Animal Council BillThird ReadingDebate resumed.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): The Local Government and Environment Committee spent many hours investigating and discussing the Game Animal Council Bill. There has been huge interest in this topic and very active discussions since about 2005. The game animal panel hearing process led by Margaret Austin dealt with over 4000 submissions. We too heard a significant number of submissions.The key to this bill is that the Game Animal Council can manage herds of special interest for the purpose of recreational hunting but only—only—where this activity is compatible with the management of the public conservation land. We already have a highly successful model to imitate. This model is the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation. That foundation has for over 7 years now been managing the effects that deer have had on the Fiordland environment. It is managing them for both conservation and hunting excellence purposes. Because as we have discussed recreationalists often become the best conservationists it is the hunters who have taken on the responsibility of managing and improving the environment where these animals live. The hunters are working actively and in partnership with the Department of Conservation and they are focusing on pest control in the area. They have been doing a lot of work on predators such as stoats and rats and they have installed and maintain over 70 kilometres of tracks right throughout this area. This really has improved the environment for flora and fauna and particularly for some of our endangered birds and bats. They have also taken the pressure off the environment by culling non - wapiti-type deer. This is of course for conservation reasons but it is also to improve the quality of the wapiti stock. Finally just to add a little thrill to their events they have supported a project to reintroduce the blue duck into the area and that has been very successful and appreciated by all.So this area that is cared for by the hunters and the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation is a shining example of better conservation outcomes and a better hunting experience. That is why we support this bill. It will encourage more New Zealanders to get out and enjoy our natural environment. It will encourage more New Zealanders to engage in conservation activity. It will help us manage our game animals—that is the tahr the chamois the deer and the pigs—more effectively and it will provide for better hunting opportunities.Of course the fishing community has Fish and Game and now after today the hunting fraternity will have the Game Animal Council. I look forward to seeing that council up and running and adding value to both our conservation estate and the recreational hunting community. I commend this bill to the House.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Labour unfortunately will not be supporting this piece of legislation the Game Animal Council Bill. It really is unfortunate because I think this was a lost opportunity. I think that before the bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee there was a lot of consternation around the very principle of what we were doing and the fact that it was quite different from what the advisory committee which had been set up under the Labour Government via our agreement with the Hon Peter Dunne and United Future had suggested.Actually when we got to the select committee what we found was there was an awful lot of common ground and a real desire to do something about those tensions that exist between the protection of the conservation estate pest management and the interests of recreational hunters. There was general agreement that in many cases thoseinterests actually aligned whereas people might think that they conflicted. It was a real opportunity to do something that would build on the relationships that already existed highlight where relationships did not exist and provide an opportunity to start building those relationships.What we found out through the select committee process and the submissions was that around the country this is already happening in some places very very well and the Department of Conservation is working extremely well with local recreational hunting interests. Decisions have been made and relationships put in place that mean that we are getting what the select committee wants which is a win-win for both sides. But equally there are other parts of the country where that relationship is very bad where the relationships have broken down and where the Department of Conservation and the local hunting interests are not working well together. What was clear was that it would have been perfectly possible within existing laws to actually build on both those experiences—the very bad experiences and the very positive experiences—and come up with something that I think most parties if not all parties in the House would have been able to support.Certainly if you read the regulatory impact statement on this piece of legislation and if you read the advice that came from both Treasury and the Department of Conservation this was their least favoured option. This was the option that they thought would have the highest regulatory burden and the most cost. They said that stand-alone legislation was not the way to go when under existing legislation you could achieve exactly the same outcomes. So what the Minister of Conservation is currently already able to do under the Wild Animal Control Act is to set up committees of special interest. So we could have taken that route. But we certainly took on board the concern of the recreational hunting community—that the problem with that was that as easily as a Minister could establish one of these boards the Minister could then disestablish it. We accepted that this is something that needed to be far more permanent than that.But the other option that was available—I guess we would see it as the middle-ground option—was that under the Wild Animal Control Act there could have been an amendment to put this committee into place and could have given it the kinds of functions that this bill seeks to impart on the Game Animal Council but in doing so not undermine the role of the Department of Conservation and the Minister of Conservation.I very much appreciate the lofty goal of devolution of a number of these functions from the Department of Conservation down to other groups where we can get a win-win for everyone involved but I simply just do not think we are there yet. I think that the member who is effectively responsible for this bill the Hon Peter Dunne made a very correct statement in his second reading speech which was that the recreational hunting community is not very well organised at the moment and this bill does seek to address that. But it is a bit of a chicken and an egg thing. We are passing on and devolving an awful lot of responsibility to a sector that has yet I think to develop to a point where we can be confident that especially in terms of pest management—and that is incredibly important for all New Zealanders not just for those who care about that Department of Conservation estate—the standards there are going to continue to be met.One of the concerns of course that was raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was around the issue of 1080 and ensuring that the Game Animal Council was not able for example to stop the use of 1080 where it is being used for pest control simply because it might also impact on one of the herds of national significance. So it is disappointing.I am very pleased though that there is a 3-year review on this bill. I think that is an important part that does allay some concern. In 3 years’ time we can see where we are atand see whether this is still the appropriate vehicle to address the very real issues that are being addressed in this bill around managing those tensions between the Department of Conservation pest management and the rights of recreational hunters.I keep saying “recreational hunters” because up until a few hours ago we were really talking only about recreational hunters. A major concern for us has been the vote that was taken in the Committee stage of this bill today to remove the word “recreational” wherever it appears in the bill. That is a very big shift from what we were discussing at the select committee. It very much changes the entire flavour of what we are trying to do here. There is a difference we believe between the recreational hunting interests—the people who go out who have done it their whole lives and who learnt from their grandad from their dad and maybe from their grandmother and their mother as well that hunting is a real part of the culture a real part of that community—and the people who go out and make a lot of money out of shooting at animals from helicopters.For us that was an important distinction. We were doing something that was going to benefit that recreational hunting community because we recognised that many of them also do it out of a love of the land do it out of a love of just getting out there amongst nature. They have no interest beyond just enjoying what they have always done and wanting to see that when the Department of Conservation is engaging in pest management plans it is not at the same time eradicating the species that they enjoy going out and hunting—that it can get some kind of species management in there that allows both to coexist. So that is what we wanted and those were the people we wanted to benefit from that.But unfortunately we are now including a category of people who are benefiting from what we are doing here but who also make money off what they do and who are more the big end of town I guess when it comes to the hunting sector than the people whom we believed we were primarily dealing with at the select committee. I know that we were told in trying to explain why clause 16 was changed that it was to be more inclusive to extend the benefits of it beyond just recreational hunters but that was not the mandate we were given at the select committee and that was not the overarching framework of what we were told we were doing. What we were told we were doing was dealing with the everyday hunters who go out there and do it because they love it and it is part of their lifestyle. They are doing it because they love being out amongst nature not because they are making money out of it or having tourists come in and do trophy hunting.So now this bill extends to all those other people. I think that that is a real shame because everything I said before about how close I thought we were to actually getting something that everyone could get on board with is undermined. Actually what the amendment also does is it removes any mention of recreational hunters from the legislation. Had this amendment gone to the select committee—and I do not know why it was not raised at the select committee except that I acknowledge that the select committee was about 400 years ago but that is all right—we could have discussed for example mentioning recreational hunters. Including recreational hunters would ensure that the interests of recreational hunters who were the people whom we believed we were passing this legislation for will not be lost against the bigger more wealthy voice of other hunting interests.When we were going through this bill officials made it quite clear to us that this bill was not being passed for the other hunting interests; it was being passed for the recreational hunters. So to come to the Committee stage and suddenly have all reference to recreational hunters removed from the bill was unexpected to say the least and unfortunate I think. I am sure that other members will get up and say that it will make no difference and it may be that in 3 years’ time when we do the review that that is thecase but it should have gone to the select committee so we could have actually teased that out rather than it being changed under urgency. I appreciate that there are time frames that need to be met so that we do not breach them but then why was this bill not progressed earlier? Why was this bill not progressed earlier in the year so we did not have to do that under urgency and we did not have to have Supplementary Order Paper 395 dropped on us at the last minute when we really do not fully appreciate exactly what it might do?So we will not be supporting this bill. That is a shame because I do think we were very close to finding something workable that everyone could get on board with. But I do congratulate the Hon Peter Dunne on the time and effort he has put into passing this piece of legislation after what must be coming up to nearly a decade now. That is a long period of time so I do acknowledge that this is I am sure a very happy day for the Hon Peter Dunne. I am just sorry that we could not get on board with it.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Thank you to the member who has just resumed her seat Moana Mackey. I want to just acknowledge at the beginning of my contribution that this debate has been I think on the whole a very constructive one. There have been points of disagreement but largely they have been handled in a constructive way and I acknowledge that from all members. As the member intimated for me this is the end of a fairly long journey. It began before the 2005 election. In the 2005 confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government United Future secured the establishment of the game animal review panel which was chaired by the Hon Margaret Austin and ended up recommending the establishment of the Game Animal Council. When the National Party came to power in 2008 we included in our confidence and supply agreement the provision to establish a special committee to pick up those recommendations and develop the council. In our 2011 agreement this legislation was concluded. So to finally be at the point where the bill is about to receive its third reading is the end of a remarkably long journey.A number of people have been involved along the way and I want to acknowledge immediately the worth of their contributions. I have already mentioned the Hon Margaret Austin who has been steadfast. I know from a message received from her this morning that she is extremely excited that her work is finally coming to its conclusion today. I want to acknowledge the work of Garry Ottmann and the members of the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee for a job extremely well done over a long period of time. I want to acknowledge the officials whose hearts have not always been in this bill but who have worked constructively to make sure that it was the best it could be and the Local Government and Environment Committee for the consideration that it gave as well.But there is one unsung hero of this bill whom I want to mention. His name is Hayden Cox. He was my ministerial assistant for a number of years and he worked on this piece of legislation as a labour of love for a very long time. I know that Hayden will be an extremely happy young man today to see that his work his dream his perseverance and his sheer determination have paid off in the passage of this bill. He will be joined in that pantheon of people to be acknowledged by Tim McCarthy and Bill O’Leary of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association and in an earlier time Alec McIver and a number of other recreational interests around New Zealand. This is very much their day.I want to deal with one point that dominated the Committee of the whole House’s consideration of the bill and that I think is largely—with the greatest of respect to members opposite—a red herring. That is the matter that the previous speaker was referring to about the expansion of the ambit of the council by way of Supplementary Order Paper 395 which was passed by the Committee of the whole House. Let merepeat what I said at that point: when this bill was introduced for reason of issues related to the protection of property rights it related only to the conservation estate and obviously by definition that limited its scope to apply only to recreational hunters as they are the major users of the conservation estate in that regard. Once the bill had passed through the select committee there were strong representations made by a number of other groups with interests in land management tourism and hunting in its broader forms that they should now be brought under the ambit of this legislation not the least reason for which was the fact that the levy mechanism placed on trophies that the bill introduces would affect them as well.As the Associate Minister of Conversation at the time I received those submissions and I must confess to the House that I was at first a little sceptical. It did sound a little bit like johnny-come-latelys once the bill had been passed. I said to them: “If you come back to me with a document signed by all of the people who you claim support the inclusion of a wider definition I will be prepared to take the matter forward.” They did and the Supplementary Order Paper reflects that. I do not see that as sinister. I do not see that as changing the scope of the bill. In fact it broadens it. It makes it a much more inclusive platform. It makes the council I think a much more credible body. I note and I said this during the Committee of the whole House that Mr Ottmann has given a message this morning that the changes proposed are utterly consistent with the recommendations of the establishment committee. If one looks at the provisions of the bill regarding the membership of the council there is a specific statement there about recreational hunting. I do not accept although I understand why it has been made the criticism that we heard during the Committee of the whole House.One other point that has aroused some attention—and if I hear the Green Party correctly it has mainly been their point—is that the hitherto overarching role of the Department of Conservation in the management in this area is being diminished by the establishment of this council which will have its own responsibilities. I respect that we have a difference of opinion on this. I actually think that devolution is a good thing because you will have more stakeholders involved in the decision-making process greater commitment and the value that they espouse—of wanting to conserve a resource so that they can use the resource—can be given greater effect through this proposition.I am very happy today. I am very pleased to see this council come to fruition. I have great confidence in the future that lies ahead. I suspect actually from the tone of some of the debate opposite that members opposite are also quietly confident that this council will be successful. It is an important day for the hunting sector in New Zealand—recreational hunters as well as other hunters. It is an important day for all of those who value our outdoor heritage and their ability to have a say in its management and their ability to contribute to future policy developments. Congratulations to all who were involved in bringing the bill to this stage. I am very happy to let the debate proceed and for the vote to take place in due course.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. When this bill was introduced the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society described it as a political trophy awarded to Peter Dunne for his loyalty to the Government. It is certainly a very fine trophy. If it were a deer head it would have a lot of points on the antlers. It has been a very controversial bill. There were more than 600 submissions on it and it was opposed by the major conservation and environmental groups conservation agencies the New Zealand Conservation Authority a lot of the conservation boards regional councils and the Auckland Council.We are getting to the final stages. We in the Green Party still believe that the Game Animal Council is being established for all the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. As a stand-alone council that is promoting the interests of hunting it is putting that recreation in a very privileged position in relation to all other users of conservation land. Trampers mountain bikers kayakers and other users do not have their own special legislation that gives them special access to the Minister of Conservation and gives them Government funding and the ability to recommend that fees be set. Essentially this bill is establishing a glorified lobby group for hunters which is going to be funded by the Crown and by Kiwi hunters.One of the tragedies of the bill is that it overlooks the opportunity provided by conservation boards which are a diverse group of iwi representatives recreational representatives farmers hunters conservationists and others who advise the department. They provide collective advice from a range of different points of view. We heard in the Local Government and Environment Committee how boards like the Tongariro/Taupō Conservation Board are working with hunters to give them more influence in the management of conservation land. Conservation boards are an integrating body. The Game Animal Council as a stand-alone one is likely to exacerbate the conflict between conservation values and hunting.We do not think the bill is needed because it essentially duplicates the work of some other agencies. In the firearms and hunting safety areas it is duplicating the work of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association and the Mountain Safety Council. We do not think it is needed because we already have recreational hunting areas under the Wild Animal Control Act and they cover nearly 190000 hectares of New Zealand. We already have liaison committees such as the tahr one under the tahr control plan. We already have a number of successful examples from the hunters’ perspective of where herds that they see as being nationally significant are managed on conservation land with input from hunters.Both Maggie Barry and Nicky Wagner talked about the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and its work in Fiordland. Wapiti in Fiordland National Park are managed by the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Department of Conservation through provisions in the Fiordland National Park Management Plan which recognises both the interests of hunters and biodiversity values. Similarly the white-tailed deer population on Rakiura / Stewart Island is very popular with hunters. It is managed under the provisions of the Rakiura National Park Management Plan but in consultation with hunters. In both these areas hunting management operates well and to the satisfaction of the hunters concerned as many of the submitters made clear in their submissions to the select committee so we do not need this bill.As the Southland Conservation Board noted in its submission—and it has obviously had experience with both wapiti management and white-tailed deer management—the bill risks undermining the existing goodwill that has built up between the Department of Conservation and hunters and it could well overwhelm these local initiatives where you have got a centralised agency like the Game Animal Council being established and because of our concern that that will primarily promote the interests of trophy hunters and commercial guides rather than the average recreational hunter. That is potentially likely to happen because we have got an 11-member council that has got to fund its activities and it is going to be very keen to supplement its income that it gets from the export of trophies so it will want to collect fees. If it is going to be collecting fees there is nothing in the bill that requires those fees to be set at a reasonable level.But our primary reason for opposing the bill is that it cuts right across the Department of Conservation’s statutory responsibilities to protect and preserve our indigenous plants and wildlife and the landscapes they inhabit. The Hon Mr Dunne wassaying that that is just our concern. It was a concern that came through in a range of submissions including from organisations like the Auckland Council. It is a real concern because of the significant powers that the bill gives to the Game Animal Council in relation to the management of herds of special interest. Even this term turns pest animals such as deer tahr and feral pigs—problem animals—into being seen as an asset. It is very unlikely that the Game Animal Council when it is managing these herds will want to permanently reduce their numbers contract their range or eradicate them. Of course that undermines a strong commitment to the management of these species as pests because of their browsing impacts on indigenous vegetation and because of their contribution to soil erosion on high country lands. So the council’s desire to maximise hunting opportunities will cut across and conflict with the need to control and cull these browsers.There is nothing in this bill about promoting and achieving better outcomes for tourism for better pest control for bovine TB management or even for better results for conservation. That is why we have got this concern about the undermining of the Department of Conservation’s statutory purpose. As the Auckland Council said the likely results of the bill will be far worse for conservation.I was very disappointed in the Committee stage that the Government did not support Supplementary Order Paper 400 in my name to make national parks and other high status protected areas off limits to the establishment of herds of special interest because there is a parallel provision to the one that was in the Supplementary Order Paper in the Wild Animal Control Act that prevents the establishment of recreational hunting areas in national parks. So why if the Government believes and Mr Dunne believes that this bill would not undermine conservation values and would not undermine the protection of our indigenous biodiversity did they not support a parallel provision that would have put national parks off limits to these herds of special interest?Members from the National Party have said that this bill in establishing the Game Animal Council replicates or is similar to the Fish and Game Council. We would point out that the management of Canada geese was taken away from Fish and Game because it was seen as having a conflict in managing Canada geese for hunting and also because of concern that farmers had with an increase in Canada geese numbers and their browsing impacts on farmland. Fish and Game no longer manages a species where it has got that conflict of interest. Similarly here you will have the Game Animal Council managing species that have impacts as pests so that is an internal tension that is not good for biodiversity.The final reason we are opposing it is still those changes in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 that take out the reference to recreational hunting as a management purpose for the herds of special interest. That we believe will mean that the council will be dominated by an elite group of trophy hunters safari park operators and commercial guides and we will not see the traditional Kiwi sport of hunting promoted.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Game Animal Council Bill. Sometimes I do wonder whether I am sitting in the same select committee because some of the comments that have been made today—Maggie Barry: We do wonder too.ANDREW WILLIAMS: I am supporting you Maggie Barry. Do not knock me—do not knock me. I do wonder having gone to Christchurch and having been in a packed room in Christchurch with interests from all over the game animal sector—from recreational people to commercial people to people involved in all aspects of it—whether all the members here today who have spoken actually were at that particularhearing and did hear from the submitters because quite frankly this does bring together all the people who have an involvement in big-game animals in this country.I looked back today just to reference that on the website of the establishment committee—the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee. It says on there that back in 2007 a ministerial panel looked into future options for managing game animals and recommended the formation of a big-game hunting council as it was originally intended. The establishment committee was formed representing hunters and game animal managers. It was to have regard to the environmental effects of deer tahr chamois—or shammy—and wild pigs. It was to relate to the hunting farming and management of those animals including recreational hunters commercial hunters farmers and the public in general. Game animal numbers needed to be controlled for conservation reasons.That was the basic premise back in 2007 of the ministerial panel recommending the establishment of that committee. Further it was given terms of reference and the main terms of reference were that the establishment committee would encourage participation in hunting and farming of deer shammy tahr and wild pigs; it would coordinate hunting activities to reduce conflicts; it would establish agreed national standards for hunting activities; it would advocate for the interests of its membership to the Minister of Conservation and to the public generally; and it would advise the Minister on matters relating to the management of big-game animals in New Zealand. Those are pretty clear terms of reference for the establishment committee.The establishment committee originally consisted of five representatives who represented recreational deer hunters pig hunters commercial deer hunters guiding services to recreational hunters and deer farming and safari park operators. Those were the original five. This Game Animal Council Establishment Committee then went on and spent the last 6-odd years—we are now in 2013—developing this through the whole process with widespread consultation across New Zealand with all those involved and affected including in the areas of conservation and with the Department of Conservation environmentalists Fish and Game New Zealand and in all sorts of other areas.As a result the first bill when it was first brought to this House had various angles on it that New Zealand First initially had some difficulties with. We were quite happy when we saw that it was going to go to a select committee and be really really thrashed out. And it was. I was most impressed that as a result of the select committee process we really were able to get into it get some much better outcomes from it address many of the concerns particularly the concerns that were coming out of some of the environmental and conservation areas regarding this and address the concerns of the recreational hunters in tandem with the commercial hunters.At the end of the day it was very very pleasing to be in the same room with so many of these people who were finally starting to see eye to eye with each other and to see the value and the scope that this Game Animal Council would finally have to cover the interests of all those people. As a result of that it was recommended of course and agreed that the committee would end up with a membership of between nine and 11 members to ensure that there was much wider representation across all interested parties and that it would have a chair who was capable of chairing it and who would have skills in the area of conflict of interest and be able to resolve issues and bring parties together. As a result in this bill it does state that the chair will be required to have those skills to bring all the parties together.It does concern me that there are members in this House today who say that recreational hunting has been left out and ignored. That is not the case—not the case at all. Quite clearly the term “hunting” covers all aspects of hunting whether it berecreational whether it be commercial whether it be guided services for recreational hunters or whether it be the industry side of deer farming wild deer recovery and that sort of thing which overlaps into our deer farming industry and the like.I believe that at the end of the day we have achieved some good legislation here. It is significantly different from the original legislation that came in the House but is the result I believe of a good process that saw over 600 submissions a good process that heard very very good oral submissions and very good representatives of so many sectors coming to the select committee and putting their views which were taken on board by the members of Parliament—or at least taken on board by the members of Parliament who listened but obviously not by some who did not listen. As a result of this I think this legislation is a good piece of legislation now and New Zealand First will be supporting it. We like the idea that it has a 3-year review period so anything that perhaps has been missed or where there could still be some fine-tuning some tweaking or some areas that may still be assisted with the result within the 3 year period we would like to see that occur. New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the third reading of the Game Animal Council Bill. Thanks to that member who just sat down Andrew Williams. He makes some excellent points on this occasion and I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with him on many matters. I too have sat in on the Local Government and Environment Committee throughout this long and protracted process.I would have to say though that some previous calls really dwelt on the disquiet the lack of trust and the dysfunctional relationships and that is just the Opposition although this is not a laughing matter. I guess that when it comes to looking at something like the Game Animal Council we need to look at what it is at its core intent. The core function for the council is to reduce conflicts within the hunting sector and to raise awareness of the views of the hunting sector. The Minister of Conservation will appoint members from the public and from organisational nominations. There are a wide range of groups that will be represented on that nine and up to 11 member council.People have expressed concerns—including the Green member Eugenie Sage who sat down recently—about conservation having been really not served well in this. I disagree. It is always valid to look at conservation and to ensure it has been enshrined properly but I do not think it is justified in this case. I think conservation values will be protected because checks and balances will be put in place. As part of the herd management plans for example those herds of special interest will not result in adverse effects on conservation values. That is going to be monitored. Any management plans for those herds of special interest would have to have regard to the management of conservation. They would also have to include all of the existing policies strategies and plans made under conservation and biosecurity legislation. It is going to be reviewed every 3 years. It will be closely monitored because these convictions are passionately held and very well thought through. So I do not think that there is anything that is present in this bill that will endanger our conservation values.Be not afraid this bill will deliver the right balance and protect our conservation values. I commend it to the House.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is a pleasure to follow the member for the North Shore Maggie Barry. I am sure that a lot of hunting goes on up there—I am not sure how many things they hit though.Of course Labour supported and was part of the initiation of the Game Animal Council Bill in 2008 when good intent was in place to bring some coordination to the issue of recreational hunting and the tension between the hunting sector and conservationists across the country. Unfortunately whether we like it or not there havebeen a number of pests introduced into this country. Some of them have ended up being partially productive. Some of them have been totally destructive. What we are dealing with here are the ones that fall in the middle. Some people see them as a great asset; others see them as a huge liability particularly on the conservation estate.There is a philosophical divide here that has I guess been behind many of the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was not on the select committee but I have heard from and spoken to many people from both sides. Labour supports the need for greater coordination between hunters and conservationists. It is sensible. These are people who are passionate about the outdoors and I applaud them. Whether someone goes into the outdoors to walk to mountain bike or to go and hunt they are all appreciating the spectacular natural values of our country and are prepared to step in and pay their taxes in support. So we must support whatever their interests are.But it does come down to the reality—it has not been said here other than by myself—that 1080 has been a big player in this whole tension. As the Department of Conservation regional councils and farmers have become more effective in the management of the possum population they have spread 1080 far more systematically and accurately than they did in the early 1970s. But they have still done so and there has been some by-kill—there is no doubt about that. So hunters who have been passionate about going out and finding the odd deer chamois or tahr—but deer in particular—have felt aggrieved that their prey has been reduced by this broadcasting of poison to kill possums.There has been a view that the hunting fraternity should have more say in that management. Conservationists on the other hand would be happy to see them all go and see the indigenous forest restored to its original value—actually that is impossible because forests will evolve. So the tension between deer numbers and our indigenous forests has been at the heart of this debate in my view. On top of that there has been a growing commercial hunting sector which does make a lot of money. It brings a lot of export dollars into this country through people flying in staying at high-value lodges and spending a whole lot of money to go out and trophy hunt in our wonderful conservation estate and in the national parks as we have seen. Managing that in an appropriate way is the objective of this whole exercise.However the bill has been tinkered with. Because of MMP and the deals that have effectively been made with the Hon Peter Dunne one sector has kind of got some momentum and that is the commercial hunting fraternity. It has been well represented. It has done a lot of good lobbying. Some might say that it has won the day. The concern with Supplementary Order Paper 395 from the Minister of Conservation which removes the recreational component of hunting is that it is a backwards step and the legislation will not deliver the outcome that everyone was looking for in 2008 when the process was initiated. So I believe that we will be back in this House in the very near future making changes to this legislation because we find that there are perhaps some imbalances.In particular I have had assurances from the hunting fraternity that they will in no way through this new Game Animal Council attempt to stop the utilisation of 1080 in the forest areas that are pretty hard to get to. I welcome that assurance and I will be watching very closely for them committing to that. If we back away from the determination to knock bovine tuberculosis on the head and to knock the possum population down to very low numbers then we as a nation are exposed and at risk of a further big outbreak of bovine tuberculosis. No one wants that.The speaker from the Green Party Eugenie Sage did raise an issue that we should be mindful of and that is the issue of the control of Canadian geese where effectively amanagement plan did not work. The number of geese did get out of control to the point where there was a new approach needed to get on top of it. We hope that these faults and failings do not result from the passage of this bill. Labour does have concerns. We supported the bill going to the select committee. Changes have been made as many will say but we are not convinced that each and every one of them has been the right change.The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 395 put forward at the last minute does beg some questions. The “overriding considerations” is a term in the bill that I have gone through and read and it basically says just about anything really. That leaves the door open for the Minister to do what he or she should like. Regulations being made by the Minister have to take on board the purposes of the Wild Animal Control Act of course and overriding considerations. If you read through that—I am not going to read it in this House—it covers everything.I am a bit concerned about handing to any Minister some open right to make I guess management plans for some wild animals. We have a spectacular conservation estate. We do need to protect it. We need to be mindful of a squeeze under this Government on the Department of Conservation that has meant it is looking for more partnerships on a commercial basis. In this particular area it may very well lead to herds of tahr or chamois that are managed for very wealthy people who might pay big fees to their hosts and then on to the Department of Conservation.If that is indeed what the Government expects then it should be upfront about that because that will limit the ability of ordinary New Zealanders like the member over the other side there Mr Roy from putting a gun on his back and going out and shooting tahr or chamois or anything that moves in fact. If we had a few more Eric Roys I am sure we would have far lower numbers of deer and chamois and tahr. The fact is that he spends too much time in the House here I guess to do that.Can I say in all seriousness that Labour would have liked to support a bill that did achieve a fine balance between recreational commercial and conservation interests in hunting. We accept that we have these exotic animals in our indigenous forests. They do have an impact. We need to keep the numbers low. We need to seize the opportunities for commercial exploitation where possible but not at the expense of conservation and not at the expense of what is a reasonable expectation for New Zealand hunters to go out in the bush and to find something that they can shoot at and bring home for tea.It is unfortunate that we cannot do that. I would have liked to speak in support of this piece of legislation but the changes were not good enough and the protections were not good enough. I just hope that we do get a positive outcome for conservation and for hunting from this.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to make the point in this third reading of the Game Animal Council Bill that hunting and conservation are not mutually exclusive. I would like to make the point that many hunters take a keen interest in maintaining and protecting the environment and I look forward to the contribution by my colleague here Eric Roy who represents that very cohort of hunters in New Zealand. Hunting is a hugely popular recreational activity in New Zealand and as a result it brings with it competing interests and concerns on the best way to manage recreational and guided trophy hunting interests for the hunting of big game animals. So this bill will give hunters a greater say in their sport while also providing the Minister of Conservation with a valuable stream of advice regarding the recreational and guided trophy hunting of tahr shammy deer and wild pigs and also with a keen eye on the impact on the environment. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I am just going to take the 5 minutes I have because I understand that this is a split call with the Green Party so I have only 5minutes. I want to recap a couple of points I have made during the course of this debate on the Game Animal Council Bill. First of all I want to respond to Eric Roy’s contribution earlier in the debate in the Committee stage which I thought was a very good contribution. In fact he gave a much more competent set of answers to the questions I had raised earlier than the Hon Peter Dunne was able to give. One of the things that did puzzle me in Eric Roy’s contribution was his talk about expiry dates and dates that made this a bill of necessity to be brought back to this House at this point in urgency. One of the points that he made was to do with commercial contracts that were going to be renewed in January of next year as I understand it. I listened to that very carefully because I do not know how long those commercial contracts last whether they are a season or a year—Eric Roy: Selling safaris.Hon MARYAN STREET: —oh OK thank you—and whether or not the same condition could have applied last January or the January before. Thank you Mr Roy. For the benefit of those who cannot see him he is confirming that that is not in fact the case. So that still remains a good point. However I do want to go back to one of the points I made that was about the need for urgency. I do think that there is more politics than practicality about the urgency of this bill the Game Animal Council Bill. We began the work in 2008. We would not probably—I do not think; who knows—have arrived at the same solution that this Government has. What we have in this Game Animal Council Bill is the maximum impact that can be applied to this situation. In other words it gets a legislative cover of its own. It gets a bill of its own. That is going to cost money. Setting up the council as an independent statutory body is going to cost money. That did not need to happen.Secondly it is going to exacerbate the tensions that exist between hunting groups and also between those groups and the Department of Conservation. Everybody needs to be working together on this issue and this is not going to help. This seems to me like a typical Nick Smith approach. It is the absolute bull-at-a-gate approach that gets the maximum nuclear option on the table. Thank goodness we do not have nuclear power or nuclear arms in this country. Thank goodness the Minister of Conservation the Hon Nick Smith is not in charge of them. This is a kind of excessive response to the things that were needed. It could have been done by amending the Wild Animal Control Act. The Minister could simply have put an advisory committee into that legislation which would have required a legislative change but not a whole bill of its own and not a Game Animal Council of its own with its own statutory authority and all of the complications and all of the expense that that entails.I think this is an unnecessary response and it is for that reason that the Labour Party is not going to support this bill. It could have been done differently. It could have been done more effectively. It could have been done in a way that enhances the relationships in this sector and that does not exacerbate the tensions. That is an opportunity lost. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): In my second reading speech on this bill the Game Animal Council Bill I reflected on my time over a couple of terms on the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board. I want to reflect some more on that because I well remember a briefing given to the New Zealand Conservation Authority about the drivers for the dispersion of deer in New Zealand. It turns out that the main way in which deer move from place to place in New Zealand is that they are deliberately introduced into new areas. What that means actually in relation to this bill is that there is a fundamental conflict of interests between those who see animals like deer as assets to be managed and those who see them as pests.Bluntly the question facing New Zealand is: do we want to see more of these animals or do we want to see fewer of them? We have a great example from the so-called tahr control plan where numbers which in the early 1980s were around 3000 tahr have been in fact managed up as the interest of hunters has been more reflected to around 10000 now. So one of the major risks of this bill and one of the major risks of the confusion that it introduces about the responsibility for the management of particular areas of land and the conflict between the objectives of the Game Animal Council and the Department of Conservation is that we will see an expansion of the feral range of some of these pest animals.It is possible to strike a balance I am sure. I am not a hunter but I am a pretty regular back country user. I am a tramper. I am a mountain biker. I often talk to hunters in huts and we find we have a lot in common. These are people who are also passionate about back country recreation and passionate about our natural heritage. But fundamentally this is not now a bill about them. It is a bill about and for the big-money trophy hunters. That is a very very small and specific part of the hunting sector.To make it worse this Game Animal Council is going to be effectively competing for control of some of our conservation estate with the department which has been depleted in money and depleted in capacity and this council even now is going to be funded from Vote Conservation weakening the department even further. So that balance that could have been struck has not been struck by this bill.Today we have heard from the Hon Peter Dunne that he would be very surprised if the Game Animal Council sought to undermine 1080 use for pest control in the conservation estate. Damien O’Connor has told us that Garry Ottmann has told him no; he has given assurances that they will not do this. Well please forgive my cynicism. I believe that the Game Animal Council will seek to undermine 1080 use for pest control in our back country. I believe it will do that because it is in its interest to do so and that will be a very clear example of that conflict of interest.This is a bill that successive Governments in fact have tried to avoid. It has come to the House today and is passing through its remaining stages under urgency because of the Government’s debt to Peter Dunne. It is a bad bill for conservation. It is a bad bill for our back country. It is actually a bad bill even for our recreational hunters—the everyday Kiwi recreational hunter. That is why it has been opposed by all of the Government departments that have been asked to comment on it and is also universally condemned by conservation organisations.Even those organisations like the Deerstalkers Association which has been calling for more say for many many years are going to find that this Game Animal Council is not for them at all. The Game Animal Council is no longer under the amendments agreed to by the House today even required to consult with the Deerstalkers Association. It is not a bill for that association. It is a bill for just that tiny part—the big-money trophy-hunting part—which is essentially part of a commercial industry. It is a bad bill and one that we will oppose.ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): It is a rare thing for me take a call. I thought I might make my second maiden speech of the day on this particular bill the Game Animal Council Bill and sum up the bill.This bill is really not about whether it was appropriate that between about 1840 and the First World War a whole lot of game animals were released into New Zealand. I guess that in a way it is saying that they are here and they are part of the fabric of New Zealand in the same way as other releases like ryegrass pine trees Friesian cows and racehorses were all introduced into New Zealand. They are part of the fabric of New Zealand. What this bill does actually do is seek participation of stakeholders in decision making. Where anything that has been introduced into New Zealand is in the wrongplace or there is too much of it it needs to be controlled. The bill brings these stakeholders into a position of that control.This bill does not override conservation or environmental principles. It simply brings the stakeholder into the discussions about the best way that they can be made. One of the things about being chronologically challenged is that one sees arguments repeated several times. If one looks at stakeholder participation in something like the fishing industry’s quota management it was going to be the end of the world and the sky was going to fall in. What has happened is that we have a much more successful and better programme for managing our fish stocks.This bill is actually a sensible bill. It acknowledges that 137000-odd New Zealanders participate in hunting and it gives them a voice so that we can get the right outcomes. I support the bill.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Game Animal Council Bill be now read a third time.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Bill read a third time.Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tēnā koe. I moveThat the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its consideration of this bill. Nō reira e te Komiti Māori nā koutou i whakarite tēnei kōrero mō te pire nei i tātari ā i whakatakoto kia wānangahia e te whakapiringa tangata o tēnei Whare hoi anō tēnā tātou.[So to you the Māori Affairs Committee which considered this discourse about this bill deliberated it and recommended that members of this House debate it acknowledgments to us collectively.]The Māori Affairs Committee has considered changes proposed in the bill and has recommended that it be passed with a small number of amendments. The amendments seek to strengthen the Crown-Māori relationship by softening the tone of some of the words in provisions relating to spectrum management and future reviews of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003. The committee has also expressed its concern about the status of some of the constituent groups that make up Te Pūtahi Pāoho the Māori Television Electoral College. I will update the House on the latest changes to Te Pūtahi Pāoho later in this speech.The Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003 established the Māori Television Service. It also specified that a review of the operation of the effectiveness of the Act be undertaken in 2008-09 with a report to Parliament and recommendations for any amendments to the foundation legislation. This bill is a result of that review. This bill does not propose major changes to the principal legislation. The changes are fine-tuning in nature so that the Māori Television Service is well positioned for the digital switch-over and can continue its strong focus on promotingour language and our culture. Digital switch-over is scheduled for completion in December 2013.The bill seeks to make minor changes to the function of Māori Television Service to strengthen its focus on Māori language and culture to update arrangements for spectrum management and the contents of Māori Television Service accountability documents to address arrangements for borrowing and investments by Māori Television Service and to update arrangements for the timeliness of future reviews and other miscellaneous matters.I would like to talk about comments in the Māori Affairs Committee report about the composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. The committee has noted its concern about the current composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. At the time this bill was being considered by the committee a number of the member organisations of Te Pūtahi Pāoho were either no longer active or not registered as an incorporated society. The committee rightly notes that this was an untenable situation for Te Pūtahi Pāoho and could open it to criticism.On 26 August 2013 I was advised by Te Pūtahi Pāoho that it had accepted the withdrawal of the National Māori Congress and Kawea Te Rongo from Te Pūtahi Pāoho. Pursuant to section 14 of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act I am progressing an order in council to confirm the removal of these organisations from Te Pūtahi Pāoho. I can advise that Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo has also been re-registered as an incorporated society. These recent actions address the concerns expressed by the committee in its report. I am advised by my officials that a letter has since been sent to the chair of the committee explaining these recent developments.With the withdrawal of the National Māori Congress from Te Pūtahi Pāoho I would like to give thanks to the former chair Mr Tūwhakairiora Williams. Nō reira e Tū tēnā koe i ārahi ake i te waka nei a Te Pūtahi Pāoho. Nāhau te karanga kia hoe tahi ā kia haere whakamua tēnei waka.[So congratulations to you Tū who escorted this vessel Te Pūtahi Pāoho and made the call to paddle in unison so that this vessel moves forward.]I acknowledge also the new chair Mr Willie Jackson who I am sure will continue the committed work of his predecessor.I indicated in the first reading speech for the bill that I intend to undertake further work to review the composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho and that this work will be coordinated with relevant work streams in Vote Māori Affairs. If there are further changes to the membership of Te Pūtahi Pāoho I will advise the House at the appropriate time. A Supplementary Order Paper for the Committee of the whole House has been prepared. It seeks to update the commencement date of this bill. This is a minor technical but necessary amendment.In conclusion I am pleased with the progress of this bill. The select committee process has not seen the requirement for significant changes to be made to the bill. I am heartened by this as it suggests that those with interests in this bill are satisfied with the detail of this piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Māori Television is New Zealand’s indigenous broadcaster. It provides a wide range of local and international programmes for audiences across our country and also online and it is internationally recognised. Māori language is at the heart of Māori culture and New Zealand’s unique cultural identity and the Māori Television Service’s vision for Māori language to be valued is that it is to be valued embraced and spoken by all. Māori Television was launched in 2004. It is almost 10 years old—and I think that that is a really important point first up to acknowledge in this House today—and in those 10 years it has largely achieved its objectives.I want to pay particular tribute here today to my colleague the late Parekura Horomia for his courage and determination in establishing Māori Television. It could be described as a taonga so today I put it to you that we should keep it that way. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Jim Mather as the outgoing Chief Executive of Māori Television who through recent years has steered New Zealand’s only publicly funded television station to a place of great value in New Zealand’s broadcasting environment.In contrast though the appointment process of a new chief executive is currently under public scrutiny—high public scrutiny—and is certainly under a cloud due to the highly questionable and certainly botched process under the auspices of its current chair and former National Party MP Georgina te Heuheu. This process which reeks of cronyism and dodgy practice resulted in a highly regarded and experienced board member Ian Taylor resigning from the board over the process used well before questions were asked in this House. Government Ministers have subsequently ducked for cover because they know that it is a bad look. The Minister of Māori Affairs who is the Minister in charge of this Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill should recall that Māori Television is in the good place that it is in today because of the utmost care and transparency that surrounded its appointments and mandate after some mistakes were made in key appointments at its beginnings.A publicly funded media organisation should be scrupulously independent from Government Ministers and MPs past and present. Neither the shareholding Minister nor Māori Television will make public the detailed reasons why Ian Taylor left the board but when that information comes to light as it surely will then the role played by the board chair will be exposed and we will certainly have more to say on this matter. Her role will be exposed and her position may well be untenable.This bill appears on the face of it to be quite straightforward but it certainly is not. Labour is supporting this bill but I want to explain to the House some of the complex issues surrounding it and the questions that remain. It does seek to make some minor changes to the functions of Māori Television to strengthen its focus on the language and the culture but importantly it allows for the current analog spectrum that Māori Television runs on to be switched to digital which frees up more spectrum for up to possibly eight digital services. This is important and this is why we are debating this bill under urgency because that has to happen by the beginning of December—by 1 December. What is the date today—what is the date today?Hon Members: The 20th.CLARE CURRAN: It is 20 November. That is pretty close so it actually has to happen. That is why we are debating this bill under urgency today and I think we should all acknowledge that.This bill also requires the Crown to transfer the management rights to Te Pūtahi Pāoho over that spectrum for the establishment of a digital terrestrial television network over a 20-year period. As the Minister has acknowledged there certainly was concern raised in the Māori Affairs Committee about the membership and governance of Te Pūtahi Pāoho and I put it to you that without those questions being asked that situation would never have come to light and there would have been potential mismanagement by an organisation that has been revealed to contain organisations within it that do not even exist any more.Even the commentary on this bill which was agreed to by everyone on the committee says: “We consider that the current situation exposes Te Pūtahi Paoho to criticism as some of the constituent groups appear to be defunct. We recommend that this issue be addressed with some urgency”—which the Minister has acknowledged is being undertaken but—“… We were also assured by the relevant officials that this wasbeing addressed. We [noted] that the relationship between the Crown Minister and Te Pūtahi Paoho needs to be clarified which would be [we hoped] achieved by the amendments we recommend [in this bill].” This could be described as a dog’s breakfast of a management situation that we are putting this newly converted spectrum into and this is something that this side of the House remains concerned about.It raises questions around whether the Government has its house in order in passing a bill that transfers the management of valuable spectrum to an organisation that is clearly not properly constituted or properly functioning. In the Committee stage of this bill I would like the Minister to answer more questions on that matter and on what is intended to be done about it because it also raises questions about what this spectrum may be used for down the track and who will ultimately make decisions on its use. I do have three questions that I would like to put on the record today around that and they are: will any revenue from the potential sale or lease of surplus frequency be returned to Māori Television? If that was to occur will any surplus—i.e. that not required by Māori Television—have to be offered back to the Crown first or to Kordia; if so how would its value be determined and why? And this is an important one: why does Māori Television itself not control the full frequency? I ask why this organisation which is about to turn 10 years old does not have control over that frequency which it was set up to have. It does have the pride of place in our country and should be given the full value that it is accorded.This brings into question the wider question of the spectrum for public use. Māori Television is our only publicly funded TV station. It is not a public broadcaster in the real sense of the term. It has a particular mandate. We no longer have a public television broadcaster in this country since this Government axed TVNZ 7.Until very recently we had another problem because we had no broadcasting spectrum that was owned by the Crown—and will not have until members on this side of the House get into Government and decide to reintroduce public television in New Zealand. But there was not any spectrum. Interestingly just weeks ago on 23 October we had an announcement from Sky television that it was handing back to the Crown four multiplexes or groups of analog spectrum which is the equivalent of 30 to 35 national TV channels. Sky has been sitting on this unused spectrum for years. It had to make a decision by the beginning of December to either convert it to digital or hand it back which raises questions—raises many questions—around this.First of all I have just a couple of things to say and two observations. The first is to say thanks to Sky. Thanks for returning that spectrum. Secondly those frequencies should remain with the Crown. But the questions are: when was the Government advised formally or informally that Sky was handing this back and what was the relationship between this on the face of it magnanimous decision to hand it back with no demand for payment and the wet bus ticket decision of the Commerce Commission just 1 week before—while Sky’s contracts with the internet service providers reduced competition and probably breached the Commerce Act—that it was not going to do anything about it? Why did Sky wait until the last possible minute to hand back this spectrum? This raises many questions about the way the Government manages spectrum what that spectrum will be used for and whether that spectrum will be sold.Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I was going to give a very very lovely Tau speech. I was going to talk about Māori TV and even congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on a job well done—on a job in fact where the questions that were raised by members of the Māori Affairs Committee have turned out to make some changes to what is the Māori Television Service and what is the Māori Television Electoral College.I got a tweet this afternoon from none other than Clare Curran saying that if it was not for her none of the hard questions would have been asked. I mean for goodness’ sake! It is 2013 and this—I do not use these words often—Pākehā lady from Dunedin comes to our select committee. She is not a member of our select committee but she comes to our select committee. She does not think any of the natives on that select committee or the other Pākehā people on that committee can ask any hard questions. What she is out there saying and tweeting is: “They couldn’t do their job. I’m Clare Curran. I’ve come in on my white horse”—I do not know whether it was a white horse or not; actually I just made that part up—“and I’m the one who’s asking the correct questions.” But she fails to realise that questions were actually asked by the late Parekura Horomia way before she even came to our select committee questions were asked by Shane Jones and questions were asked by all of the committee members including the Green Party and including—well I was going to say New Zealand First but he is not a member of New Zealand First any more and I am not talking about myself. Questions were asked by those members of the committee. And I tell you what. It was through those questions that were asked by all of the committee—Clare Curran: Well how about talking about the issues?Hon TAU HENARE: Oh be quiet. Be quiet. You had your turn. You had your turn. The questions that were asked were asked by all of the committee and in fact it was through those questions that MrTūwhakairioraWilliams actually stood down from being the chair ofTe Pūtahi Pāoho. It was because of those questions that we asked that we have Willie Jackson who is the chair now of the new organisation.Tracey Martin: For now.Hon TAU HENARE: Oh for now—well for whenever. It does not matter. The fact of the matter is that we did our job. We knew what we were doing. And it was not Ms Clare Curran riding into our select committee trying to help us. You want to read the tweet. You want to read the tweet. I tell you it smacks of that old colonial European thing that the old natives cannot do the job by themselves. And I tell you what. Guess what? We have done the job. I commend this bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Taloha ni and tēnā koe to you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak to the second reading of theMāori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I follow the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Tau Henare who is obviously feeling a bit needy today. He wants to make sure that his select committee and the work that was done on this bill during the select committee process was good and thorough and that it asked the right questions. I say to that member well done to the Māori Affairs Committee for making sure that this piece of legislation has gone through. But as you asked questions we are entitled to ask questions as well.There are a number of questions that my colleague Clare Curran has raised about the analog spectrum that is about to become digital spectrum about the ownership and where that lies and about what profit and what moneys will come of that. They are very pertinent questions because basically that spectrum is being taken off Māori Television and being put in another entity and to what end? As Clare Curran says that one analog spectrum can create up to eight or 10 digital television channels. The ability for Māori Television to hold on to those and use those in the future could have allowed for huge revenue-gathering by the Māori Television Service. To sell those off or to lease those off to create more revenue to make sure that its goal of making sure that the Reo their language and their culture are enhanced through the Māori Television Service could have been enhanced by having the rights to lease that spectrum. But in this case it is being put into another entity at arm’s length from the Māori Television Service and weare not quite sure what that means for it. So I think they are absolutely valid questions that Clare Curran has put forward which were obviously criticised by Tau Henare. He can do that; that is his entitlement. But they are still absolutely valid questions being put by this side of the House.I would like to come back to this notion of questions because we have asked some questions around the appropriateness of the process around the appointment of a new chief executive at Māori Television. Just like the media have freedom to ask questions we too have the freedom to ask questions in this House and we have serious concerns about the process and the fairness in the process around the appointment of a new chief executive. There has been some criticism from the Māori Party and some others in New Zealand about the right of this party to ask questions. I would say to those people who criticise us for asking those questions: bad luck. We are the Opposition and it is absolutely our right. If we think there is an issue to bring to this House then we will ask questions. There is $36 million of taxpayer funding appropriated to Māori Television and we have to be absolutely clear that the person who is running that organisation is above board not just because of the money but because of the importance—and I think Clare Curran used the word “taonga”—the absolute importance of this Māori Television Service to the indigenous culture of New Zealand. We will absolutely ask those questions to make sure that that person is the right person for the job.Clare Curran also set the scene of the importance of Māori Television not just for Māori but also for non-Māori. I understand the vision of Māori Television. It is to make sure that the Māori language and culture is strong and that they have a voice and a face for the culture here in New Zealand so that they can influence celebrate educate and communicate with their people to expand the use of their language and to make sure that things that are very important to that culture are viewed around the country. I think many people would argue at the moment that Māori Television has become the default State broadcaster in New Zealand and I would have to agree with them to quite a large extent because if you have a look at some of the programming that it is running especially on special occasions—I can think of its huge Anzac Day coverage that it runs now—and of course a lot of sports that it is covering now it is certainly the default State broadcaster here in New Zealand.Māori Television has also come under fire for what I would call some hard-hitting journalism recently. There was some criticism in this House about that type of journalism. But I would ask that this House and those parties actually think about what they are saying because hard-hitting journalism—the likes of what we have seen onNative Affairs recently—absolutely can respect the tikanga of the Māori culture but also hold the values of journalism and good journalism about the way that they do things. I certainly think that what we have seen fromNative Affairs and the news department of the Māori Television Service is absolutely top standard and it is asking the right questions that need to be asked. If we do not like the way that the media are operating we can take some action against that. We have the right to complain but as a rule it is their job to hold us to account and to hold public office-holders to account. I think that they have done that very very well in the last month or two. We certainly know that the journalists from Māori Television are no soft touch. It may not suit everyone in this House but that is the reality that we have of living in a free democracy.So I think that Māori Television certainly ticks most of the boxes for what you can expect from a State-funded broadcaster. In fact in its statement of intent which the Minister of Māori Affairs who took the first call has mentioned today it says that one of the major outcomes that it wants over the next 3 years is to develop an independent Māori Television broadcaster that is relevant effective and widely accessible. I certainly think that it is doing that.The questions of who runs it and who the chief executive is are very important because that person needs to be fiercely independent and very importantly I think beyond political interference. I think that the situation we have got here at the moment—and it is yet to be fully proved but I think it will be in time—is that it seems that the process in appointing a chief executive at Māori Television and its independence and being beyond political interference is certainly under threat.There are some serious responsibilities under this bill that the Māori Television Service has to achieve. If I can just take this opportunity to read new section 8 “Functions of service”—because section 8 is being replaced—in clause 7 of this bill: “The principal function of the Service is to contribute to the protection and promotion of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga through the provision in te reo Māori and English of a high-quality cost-effective television service that informs educates and entertains viewers and enriches New Zealand’s society culture and heritage.” All of those things—Andrew Little: Different from TVNZ.KRIS FAAFOI: That is right. All of these things are very very important. So we have to have someone in that role who ticks a hell of a lot of boxes because they have to have a unique set of skills. They have to understand all things Māori whether it be the Reo whether it be the culture or whether it be the changing nature of the Māori population in New Zealand to make sure that the coverage that they put in their programming suits that audience. Obviously they also have to understand broadcasting have an eye on fast-changing technology they have got to grow the use of the language and importantly they have to be in charge of as I have mentioned roughly $36 million of taxpayer funding all up that is given to them each year. So all of those boxes have to be ticked very well and to not do that I think is doing a great injustice to the Māori Television Service.So we do have concerns about one of the people who was shortlisted for the chief executive job. The sources whom we have spoken to question the ability of that person to tick all those boxes I mentioned and particularly around two of those boxes which are independence and the ability of them to—I guess when you are looking at new section 8—cost-effectively run a television service. So they have to have very good financial skills and be cost-effective—so they have to have very good financial skills. So we do have some concerns around Paora Maxwell because we understand that he is a very close personal friend of the chair of the Māori Television Service who is the former National Minister Georgina te Heuheu.In the time line that the Māori Television Service gave in an Official Information Act request to the press gallery about the appointment process I think it said—and I am just going to try and hunt this down—that on 16 July Georgina te Heuheu put her hand up and said: “I have got a conflict of interest because someone on this list I know very well and is a good personal friend of mine.” Nowhere in any of the documents can I find anything to stack that up. So when on 16 July was that done? Maybe the Minister of Māori Affairs can help us there. I can find something from about 6 weeks later. But according to the Māori Television Service on 16 July Georgina te Heuheu said: “I have a personal relationship with this person. I am putting my hand up.” At least she did it.But we have also got problems with the previous employment of Mr Maxwell at Television New Zealand (TVNZ). Mr Maxwell can clear that up if he just says why he left. This can be easily concluded. Either TVNZ or Mr Maxwell can clear up why he left TVNZ.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I do not think I am going to take all the time that I have available for this call. We are very supportive of this legislation the Māori Television Service (Te AratukuWhakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased that the review has been completed and that the legislation came before the Māori Affairs Committee.The Green Party of course was one of only two parties that voted in favour of the Māori Television legislation in 2003 that led to Māori Television being established. It was a very proud moment for us and for me. I was a brand new MP. I had been in Parliament for less than a year and I remember negotiating—I cannot say I was particularly good at it—with Parekura Horomia who was the Minister of Māori Affairs at the time over how the service would be expanded and shared particularly amongst marae. There were a great deal of issues. It was momentous that the bill did pass but I would just note that only two political parties voted for it: us and Labour.Hon Annette King: So the National Party didn’t support it?METIRIA TUREI: The National Party did not support the legislation at the time.The legislation is now a little bit over 10 years old. It is as has been said previously unusual in that it is a creature of statute. The legislative provisions that established Māori Television will need to be reviewed on a regular basis and changes will need to be made according to changing times and technology and that is what has happened here. So it is quite reasonable for this legislation to have come before us and for the issues to be discussed.I was pleased to be a member of the select committee that considered it. I appreciate everybody’s contributions. Clare Curran made a good contribution and other members of the select committee made a great contribution. But I do understand where Tau Henare was coming from with his contribution this afternoon.One of the issues that have been raised around Māori Television and in the context of this bill is the one that was just raised by Kris Faafoi. I appreciate his very clear discussion and description of those issues but let us not think that this current issue with the appointment of the chief executive which is making a little bit of news is the first time that there have been any issues with the Māori Television Service. In 10 years there have been some teething problems and there have been issues raised in the public realm. Some of them have been more contentious than others under the Labour Government and under the National Government.This is an organisation that is comparatively young but has no doubt made an enormous contribution to New Zealand’s broadcasting scene.Hon Trevor Mallard: Much better than ATN.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you Mr Mallard. It is widely regarded as the best State television broadcaster in the country. I firmly believe that that is the case as do the Greens because it is 100 percent focused on the community that it serves. And having such a strong kaupapa for the people that it serves and the broad community that it serves it is able to deliver the kind of broadcasting that we would expect as a well-educated citizenry who are looking for stories and programmes that are focused on ourselves on our people on our culture on the interconnection between Pākehā and Māori culture and on news and current affairs of course which most politicians are mostly interested in.Actually Māori Television does a lot more than just news and current affairs. Māori Television provides a huge range of programmes that reflect Māori lives—real Māori lives—being played out. It is the kind of stuff you never see on any other television station in this country. It is all the good stories that you never see anywhere on television in this country and all of the self-made programmes where whānau are out there talking about themselves showing our whānau our kids our kuia and kaumātua and all of our nannies and our koros—showing us the way that Māori really live. It is just whānau—positive constructive doing amazing things and taking great care ofourselves our families and our communities. Again they are stories that you simply do not see on mainstream television.So to that extent I want to say to the Māori Television Service that you have provided a fantastic and incredibly valuable service to our country by the work that you do. Despite any legislative change we might need to make or regulatory change we might need to make—any of the issues that we bring as politicians to the debate—we have an obligation to make sure that this service is strengthened and at every turn is able to better meet the needs of the Māori community and communicate to the whole of the New Zealand community about its health and wellness and all the amazing contributions that the Māori community makes to our country.I would note that as in the example of news and current affairs a large bulk of the viewership of Māori Television is Pākehā because Pākehā are wanting to hear and see the stories by Māori of Māori as well. This is not just directed at Māori; this is about—Tracey Martin: Better programming.METIRIA TUREI: —yes—genuine programmes about our own communities where Pākehā are wanting to understand more. They are wanting to understand the Reo and all the different layers and levels of Reo that are provided. They are wanting to see their own whānau. I do not think we probably have a single Pākehā whānau in this country that does not have a Māori grandchild or a Māori grandparent. We are very integrated but that is not often reflected on any television anywhere except for the Māori Television Service. It is a service that provides excellent communication to Māori and Pākehā alike and that it why it has such strong support.So for all that there may be some changes needed—and I appreciate that the Minister has given the House an update on Te Pūtahi Pāoho and its membership; I think that is great. Issues were raised at the select committee and we have now had some changes as a result. There are still some ongoing controversial issues. They will no doubt be resolved in time. None of that should implicate or affect or in any way undervalue the fantastic service that Māori Television is providing to our country helping to bind Māori and Pākehā communities together and showing the true health and wellness of Māori communities and Pākehā communities working together in Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you very much.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Kia ora te Kaihautū. I rise to support the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. This bill is all about changing the functions of the Māori Television Service to better protect Māori language and to allow the service to establish a free-to-air digital terrestrial TV network. These changes will support Māori Television to become a world-class indigenous broadcaster and it is well on the way.The awareness and the use of Māori language Te Reo by New Zealanders has increased dramatically over the last 25 years—the last 25 years since Te Reo became an official language with the Maori Language Act in 1987. We can be proud of Māori media for supporting and growing our appreciation of Te Reo. Coincidentally it is 25 years since the establishment of Māori radio and broadcasting—25 years of presenting Te Reo on air for all New Zealanders. We now have 27 iwi radio stations broadcasting on 68 radio frequencies promoting Māori language and culture. Now all New Zealanders have the opportunity to listen and to watch regularly to enjoy and to learn.We can all see the effects of regular Te Reo broadcasts. New Zealanders in all walks of life of all ethnic backgrounds now know more about Māori culture and now use many Māori words on an everyday basis. These days they mostly pronounce them correctly and they have an appetite to learn more. I really look forward to hearing Māori spoken on a more regular basis in every location across the country and by people in all walks of life.This morning something special happened and this indicates that this could be very possible. The Māori Affairs Committee sat this morning between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. Just as we were starting somebody came into the room by mistake. I love the fact that everyone in the room acknowledged that person everyone in the room acknowledged them cheerfully and everyone in the room acknowledged them in Māori. It was a chorus of various Māori greetings from all of us regardless of ethnicity and it was very special it was very satisfying and it was very appropriate.So I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am pleased to take a call in this second reading of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I support this bill. Can I at the outset acknowledge our matua our late chief the Hon Parekura Horomia who championed the establishment of Māori Television when he was Minister of Māori Affairs. Māori Television definitely is a lasting legacy that he has left.I know that all of us and all of Aotearoa in fact are very proud of Māori Television. It is by default our New Zealand State broadcaster. You know when we watch shows likeNative AffairsTe KāeaCodeTōku Reo andHōmai Te Pakipaki those shows have been added to the lexicon of—Hon Tau Henare:Kai Time on the Road.RINO TIRIKATENE:Kai Time on the Road. There are so many great shows that this humble small Māori Television station produces. You know talk about what it can produce relative to the relatively meagre resources it has to work with compared with its very large commercial counterparts. I think it does an exceptional job. Along with acknowledging Parekura I do acknowledge the current and previous management and staff of Māori Television for the exceptional job that they did and they do and also in terms of the programming they create and that we get to enjoy when they broadcast over the network.I support this bill. I am very proud to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and I do acknowledge the member Nicky Wagner from Christchurch Central my colleague over there on the other side of the House because we are like a whānau. There was another special moment—two moments actually—that occurred this morning in our committee in terms of the opening. I will not share them—oh I might share it with the House actually because believe it or not we open with a karakia which is great. That is our custom. That is our tikanga. So we do open with a karakia and we usually share the job around. This time our dear tuahine over there volunteered to open for us. We are multi-denominational multiparty Māori Pākehā—you name it. That is us. We are all there for the kaupapa of the Māori Affairs Committee. We held hands when we had our karakia this morning to start and to conclude.Hon Tau Henare: What?RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely—Nanaia Mahuta was linked with Tau Henare. We had that circle we had that bond—the band of brothers and sisters—as we kicked off our Māori Affairs Committee and the important mahi that we do. In all seriousness it is special and important mahi that we do. I am pleased with the work we did at the committee level with the contribution from my colleague Clare Curran but also with the contributions from everybody because this is an important piece of legislation. It has been a long time in the making.The independent review that was programmed into the 2003 Act was started 5 years ago. We are nearly at the 10th anniversary of Māori Television and we are just now implementing in legislation the recommendations of that review. So it definitely has taken a while but we are nearly there. We have to get there. We are under urgency atthe moment and we need to get this legislation passed because of the digital switch-over that is happening in about a week’s time. So we have got to get all the ducks in a row for Māori Television.Not all of the recommendations of the independent review were picked up in the bill itself but a fair amount of them have been. I specifically refer to the amendments in the substituted section 8 in clause 7 which further refine the language of the function of the Māori Television Service. The main amendments in the bill are concerned with the management rights to the spectrum which are now vested in Te Pūtahi Pāoho. That is a very interesting development because I would have thought that those management rights could just be conferred on the Māori Television Service. I think that Television New Zealand can manage all of its part of the spectrum and make all of its decisions. I do not know; maybe they think they are giving too much power to the Māoris by giving those rights to Māori Television. Instead the responsibility for the management of the digital spectrum—4G the new flash high-definition multi-platform digital channels and other things that are yet to be developed—rests with Te Pūtahi Pāoho.It is true that we have raised concerns around the composition of that body. I think that too often we get pieces of legislation where we like to prescribe a hell of a—excuse me—where we prescribe—Iain Lees-Galloway: An awful lot.RINO TIRIKATENE: —an awful lot of rules and processes particularly when it comes to Māori bodies and Māori entities. This bill is a classic example because schedule 1 of the Act lists the organisations that make up Te Pūtahi Pāoho and through our inquiries as a select committee it was clear that some of those organisations were not operating. They were defunct. Some were deregistered from the incorporated societies register. So it needed to be cleaned up because there is statutory recognition of those organisations they have huge responsibility to appoint members and those members of the Te Pūtahi Pāoho body have very important statutory roles to play. They are the partners to the Crown in terms of Māori broadcasting and the relationship around Māori Television. So it was I think worthwhile that we made those inquiries. I guess initially the concern was that that is not part of the bill but Te Pūtahi Pāoho is a fundamental part of the Act and the bill so I think we really had to make those inquiries to make sure that we got to the bottom of the composition and that it was tidied up.To conclude we do support this bill. We are looking forward to going through the remaining stages. It has been a long time in the making in the running but I guess we are all looking forward to this new phase for Māori Television.Before I conclude I would just like to make some remarks about the chief executive or lack of for Māori Television. All I would say is that we like to talk about a waka but you cannot have a waka without a kaihautū. You have got to have that chief standing up against the wind directing his paddlers which way to go. This is an important new chapter for Māori Television and it is really important that it has its kaihautū in place to navigate it through these waters at this time. That is all I would say. I hope we can get the chief executive in place as soon as possible. I am looking forward to celebrating 10 years of Māori Television next year and many more to come thereafter. I support this bill. Kia ora tātou.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): I just want to pick up one major point that quite a few of my colleagues have been making which is around the minor amendments to the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. One of the amendments is quite major. It reads “the protection and promotion of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga” where previously it was about the protection and promotion of Te Reo me te tikanga. This amendment addresses the vulnerability of the integrity of Te Reo by changing that principal function the Māori language and its accepted andcustomary usage and that is really important for providers of programmes to the Māori Television Service.What it means is that it has implemented a measurable outcome for the service to achieve in terms of Te Reo and tikanga. That means then that programmes likeMister Eddubbed over in Te Reo Māori are no longer acceptable. Programmes like “The Happy and Hapless Home Videos Replayed” with a Te Reo - speaking presenter are now no longer acceptable under this classification of Te Reo Māori me ōna tikanga. This bill is about protection of the context in which the Reo is placed and how it is used and maintained. The context must enhance the mana and integrity of the Reo. I commend this bill to the House.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā koutou katoa. A little bit of whakapapa—kinship—which eclipses political affiliation caused me to be over there on the other side of the House for a mercifully short period of time. I stand to provide a little bit of background and history in respect of this bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill.It is important that we think right back to the efforts at Waiwhetū Marae where in the 1980s the original kohanga reo was established. Then there was a push to achieve recognition in the time of the Hon Koro Wētere for Te Reo Māori. That led to—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A great man.Hon SHANE JONES: Well unlike the current Minister of Māori Affairs he was a great man. Then that led to Te Reo being regarded as a taonga as a manatunga. That led to the Māori Language Commission being formed and a host of other bodies. Māori Television has had a rather chequered history but we stand quite staunch in promoting it as an institution that plays a key role in the revival and dissemination of our language usages and customs that are often regarded as following in the wake of language development. It relies now on modern technology that the current Minister in his dealings with the Minister for Communications and Information Technology—i.e. I am talking about the spectrum which is now the new highway—and the current activists and future users of the language should look to. It is a shame that the Minister has failed miserably. Never have we seen a worse outcome for language activists.Indeed on Māori Television only tonight Piripi Walker one of the key members of Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo—i.e. those who seek to provide permanent status of the language—was very diplomatic a little bit like myself. He did not quite say in candid terms that the Minister has been asleep not at the wheel but at the helm at the prow in the puku and climbing up the sail of this waka. Minister I say to you that this is a piffling contribution. On the day this is going through he has been told to keep quiet and accept this modest improvement whilst spectrum rights have been denied to the Treaty partner.A Government is entitled to treat an iwi how it likes but the Māori Party is not entitled to diminish to destroy or to betray the dreams of the Māori people and that is what has happened today. That is why although we stand and we see some modest improvements associated with this bill it is a very bleak day.It comes down to the quality of advocacy. I have had my differences with earlier Ministers of Māori Affairs. I had my differences at one stage when a former Minister Tau Henare decided to appoint Joe Williams who had been a lawyer and a judge of the Māori Land Court as a consequence of his intervention—a very bright guy but we were often at odds with each other about the iwi thesis. But that was a Minister who showed courage and boldness. This has been around for so long that members of the Māori media community and iwi have lost sight of where these improvements actually came from. But they are emblematic of the very lacklustre tired and largely irrelevantcontributions that the Minister has made. It is like keeping a rugby player who has faded to a point where he is better to be on the bench permanently.I had my misgivings about the Māori Television Electoral College. We had discussions on our side of the House and the sense was to allow the college to refine its processes and improve its own set of accountabilities. But a number of the organisations I have referred to as waka kihau which is the Māori way of saying in English ghost ships. We need to be absolutely sure because of the value of taonga and the capacity being transmitted that they do not decide to follow some whim of the Māori Party and promise to 72 iwis that they can all have their own radio station—an absurd idea—or their own TV station. This requires bulking up the resource bulking up the talent not atomising effort. I think it is very very sad on this particular day that Māori Television is covering onTe Karere evidence of the abject failure of the current Minister and his colleagues to have an inch of influence with the dowager of Te Wai Pounamu otherwise known as the Minister of Broadcasting. If there was ever evidence where the power imbalance lies here Māoridom have had it shown to them today.Unfortunately I do not have time to digress into the inordinately large consultancy fees associated with the Te Puni Kōkiri report. Some is related to the bill because it says “strategic advice”. But rest assured that scores of Official Information Act questions are being composed as we speak to seek justification as to why the Minister has been unable to attract enough talent into that particular organisation. Has that caused a delay in this bill being at the point it is? There were earlier reports lying behind this bill. One was by a panel called Te Kāhui o Māhutonga. It includes the Māori word for the Southern Cross Te Māhutonga. I think that Te Māhutonga the Southern Cross a key feature of navigation needed to be imprinted in the Minister’s mind so that he had a sense of how to navigate progress—not go round in circles not give in so easily and not be forced to back down whilst talking tough to the hapū and the iwi. These might sound rather jarring remarks but this is a robust House. It is the highest court in the land and we are drawing to an end. It is important that our people as they watch an improved version of Māori Television over the Christmas holidays contemplate the need—and the importance—for the Minister to receive a very sharp reminder of his total irrelevance to the behaviour and the conduct of where the power is which is not with the Māori Party.I need to come back and talk a wee bit more about dramas around the chief executive officer. At the end of the day the board appoints its own chief executive officer and I hope that it reaches a decision with alacrity. It has been very disturbing to learn that the former Minister the Hon Georgina te Heuheu put herself in a position that was very very awkward supporting a candidate who apparently—I have no evidence of this—left under a cloud from Television One. But all of it only goes to damage the perception initiated I must confess by the very idle approach shown by the Minister towards Māori broadcasting. When Koro Wētere and Parekura Horomia were around they had dramatic support from the highest levels of Government. Indeed I would say even in the time of Winston Peters and Tau Henare—they had their differences. That is cool. I occasionally have my own differences with some of my colleagues. That is part of being Māori in Parliament. It is exaggerated by the media. It occasionally happens with the Greens and I wear that often as a badge of honour but that is another matter.I would say that this bill although it collects our support shows that too little has been done. If you want Māori communities to improve the quality of language and the frequency of language and to broaden the language out so we overcome the cringe factor with regard to our Pākehā cousins in Aotearoa and other ethnic groups it needs leadership. Unfortunately the Minister of Māori Affairs for the last 5 to 6 years—intolerably long—has provided hopeless leadership. It is one thing to be a good hail-fellow-well-met sort of character but when you are dealing with powerful personalities as is the case in the National Cabinet there is no place for the old figure—i.e. of the 1950s—“Pai kare it’ll be right.” That belongs in the past. The quality of advocacy that has caused the collapse of Māori aspirations today in relation to spectrum rights—there are spectrum rights. There most certainly are. Indeed Labour went some way to recognising an entitlement there and made a grant to shunt forward Māori participation in the new emerging information and communications technology sector.It is important that we not overlook that the value of the language eclipses the efforts of politicians. Fortunately the language will live on in spite of the miserable efforts of the current Minister. That is cool that is politics etc. and that will change next year. But Māori Television has a bright future. Its future however depends on its board of governors choosing the right chief executive officer and Te Pūtahi Pāoho the waka kihau—the ghost ship—ensuring that this capacity and taonga is used to achieve the ends of the legislation which is to popularise the language throughout New Zealand as an ongoing feature of our indigenous identity and a contribution to multicultural New Zealand. Kia ora tātou katoa.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to take a short call on this bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I joined the Māori Affairs Committee towards the end of its consideration and can recount some of the discussion that may be useful in this part of its progress. There was a lot of discussion which members have pointed to around Te Pūtahi Pāoho and its role as an electoral college and concerns that some of its constituent organisations were not fully representative of the supposed interests that they are there to promote. We had quite an in-depth discussion about what more could happen but in the end we noted for all the reasons that my colleague Shane Jones has outlined in his discussion that it should not impede the progress of the bill.With regard to the digital switch-over the pragmatism of the select committee was that we wanted to ensure that Māori Television could continue to do what it does really well and let us face it: it is the public broadcaster of New Zealand. It does promote the identity of New Zealand in ways that we would not see on Television One or TV3. What it does is provide an access point for many New Zealanders to see our New Zealand through a different lens. We have a platform that promotes indigenous broadcasting. We have a platform that promotes Te Reo Māori through a number of mediums—throughHōmai Te Pakipaki through game shows through documentaries through sitcoms and the like and through Māori language learning programmes.One of the impacts of the review that will be a positive gain I think for the development of Te Reo Māori is to ensure that the language becomes more accessible in contemporary broadcasting terms. So as a mother of young kids I am absolutely delighted that Māori Television will be promotingDora the Explorer in Te Reo Māori. My son watches—Iain Lees-Galloway: AndSpongeBob.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That is right—andSpongeBob Square Pants. I have to say that that is probably more for an older audience—probably for us in here. The point of it is that our children wherever they are live in a very diverse world. Whether it isDora the Explorer whether it is Māui whether it isDiego or whether it is something about dragons or something about taniwha the fact is that our children today are not limited to the world of Te Ao Māori and they want to have accessible access to what is on offer in their global community. That is the world that I am bringing my child up in and I am absolutely delighted that Māori Television has taken the step to ensure that there are programmes that are accessible in Te Reo Māori for a new emerging generation who see the world as their oyster who want access to the global indigenouscommunity and to the global community and who will see that through Māori Television. So I am certainly supportive of the aspects of this bill that will open up that prospect.The other part of the conversation that is important to this bill is I guess the future relationship of the Ministers responsible for Māori Television and how that relationship will continue with Te Pūtahi Pāoho especially in the future review of Māori Television. We ensured in the select committee and we took on board advice that there would be a good amount of negotiation and agreement around the terms of reference for the review of Māori Television. The benefit of doing that is to ensure as was initially envisaged when Māori Television commenced that the partnership approach to the governance and the setting of direction for Māori Television was one that would be done by agreement. With the hindsight of 20-odd years looking at how things have happened and could happen better I think this is a progressive step and a step in the right direction.Members before me have spoken about the governance issue. I really do not want to add too much more to what has been said except to agree with the comments of my colleagues certainly on the Labour benches that the governance of Māori Television is absolutely critical. It should not have a level of perceived interference by political appointments which recently became a part of the focus. The reason why I say this is that there will be some of us in this House who would remember that back in the days of Aotearoa Television it was not so easy to get over the threshold of having such an innovative approach to Māori language and Māori broadcasting through a Māori television station. So there is a spotlight whether people want to acknowledge it or not on everything that happens in this space. At the governance level it is I guess an area where we will have to assure ourselves that there is a robust and transparent way of appointing those who lead Māori Television.I have seen the growth of the people in the Māori Television space. Jim Mather has since left and gone to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. He has certainly provided enough sunlight for talented potential to grow in Māori Television. It has been good to see the people who initially started at the lower levels or on the lower rungs if you like in the broadcasting space now assuming roles at the management level in the programming parts of Māori Television and can I make this comment. In an organisation such as Māori Television which I believe is making a huge contribution to the development of Te Reo Māori to see the growth of talent through that organisation being reflected in all parts of its operation is absolutely exciting. Whether those people are in front of the camera or behind it or negotiating the various programmes and the way in which Māori Television is marketed externally talent has been growing through this particular medium alone and I am really positive about the way in which Māori Television can go into the future.When I first used to visit schools and ask the kids: “Well what do you want to do?” initially the answer was: “Oh you know I think I want to be a teacher.” or it would be that they wanted to do law or commerce or things like that. Now it might be: “I want to get into tourism into hospitality into broadcasting—hopefully I am going to be making my own programmes on Māori Television.” and this is certainly what is reflected back from Māori young people within the school system. So that is the extent to which Māori Television has had a positive impact on another generation coming through.There are some aspects of the bill that I will be only too happy to allude to in the Committee stage in order to contribute to this debate but for this small part can I say again that notwithstanding the concerns around Te Pūtahi Pāoho the Māori Affairs Committee did not feel that those concerns were significant enough to impede the progress of the bill. But we still want to ensure that the Minister of Māori Affairs’attention around ensuring the robustness of that particular body and the fulfilling of its obligations is something that he may consider a watching brief. Nō reira i tēnei wā ka tuku te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.Bill read a second time.Instruction to CommitteeLOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for this bill to be taken as one question.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well that is an instruction to the Committee because we will be in Committee for the next stage. Leave is sought that there be an instruction to the Committee to take the remaining stages in Committee as one debate. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. Leave is granted.In CommitteeParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): There has been much made in the discussion on the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill about the contribution of Māori Television to the broadcasting environment in New Zealand and its role over the last 10 years and its position as a taonga in our broadcasting environment. I would welcome during the course of this debate the Minister getting up and telling us what he believes has been that contribution what his vision is for Māori Television going forward and where he sees this bill fitting in as part of that vision going forward in particular in relation to the use of the spectrum which is really fundamentally why we are passing this bill under urgency—to get that spectrum.Because that spectrum has to be converted the law has to change by the beginning of December in order for that spectrum to be converted. That is why we are rushing through these last parts of this bill right now in order for that to happen. There has to be the context and the context is that the Māori Television Service—like Radio New Zealand like New Zealand On Air like every publicly funded entity that receives funding for broadcasting—has had its funding frozen for years now.Four years—I think probably we are heading into the fifth year of no extra funding and yet we are passing a bill today that transfers the analog spectrum to the digital environment which is a necessary factor. We are heading into the 10th anniversary for Māori Television and there is no talk at all about what the development of Māori Television is going to be and whether that includes a vision for high definition. In that case there will be a need for more spectrum because—Mr Chair for your edification—in order for the high-definition channel to be developed it requires a lot more spectrum than is the current amount of spectrum used for analog television.This issue is actually at the heart of the bill. How that spectrum will be managed who will manage it what decisions will be made about it and in whose interests they will be made are really the big questions that lie behind this bill. I think that the Minister of Māori Affairs during the course of the second reading will have received and hopefully taken note of those specific questions and will get on to his feet and provide us with some explanation and discussion around that.I would like to refer back to the briefing to the incoming Ministers—the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance. They are the Minister in the chair Pita Sharples and also the shareholding Minister Bill English. They have been referred to on a number of occasions as ducking for cover on the appointment of the new chief executive at Māori Television. They had a briefing from Māori Television in 2011. Thatbriefing referred specifically to the management rights and spectrum allocation and the impending change to digital television.That briefing raised questions—in a very polite manner but it still raised questions—about how that spectrum was going to be managed and who was going to manage it. It harked back to what happened in 2010 I think it was if I am correct—and correct me if I am wrong—when there was a lessening of the amount of analog spectrum for Māori Television which happened really under the noses of everybody and without much public comment. But there was a reduction in the amount of spectrum where Māori Television had no say. It was a reduction from 32 megahertz down to 16 megahertz. There have subsequently been concerns raised about whether in the future that may happen again and if it did happen again what role and what rights Māori Television would have to ensure that that did not happen and that it had some say in it.The other absolutely critical issue is around the funding for Māori Television and how it can manage its future in this environment in which funding has been frozen. We all know that the effect of funding freezes over a number of years actually equates to funding cuts because the service cannot continue to operate at the same level. I think we must put on the record that Māori Television and Radio New Zealand in that environment of frozen funding have both done exceedingly well in providing the service that they do to the New Zealand public in our straitened public broadcasting environment.But if we are to look at going into the modern digital environment where there are multiple platforms where there is the possibility of higher-definition television—as we should be considering and as we should be having the debate around—what ability will Māori Television have to do that? What rights will it have over the ability to do that through its spectrum? How will it do that if there is no ability for its cost structures and sources of income to be increased or reviewed and for it to actually take control of its own future?Given that this is the 10th anniversary of Māori Television in New Zealand I would like to get some indication from the Minister in the chair as to what his belief is what his vision is and what his ideas are around how Māori Television can take us into its second decade and perform that important role as a taonga in New Zealand.I would also like to reiterate my concerns around the management of the spectrum under the Te Pūtahi Pāoho structure and the governance structure in the context that as the Minister himself said in his second reading speech it is in a state of flux. There are question marks around the composition of the groups that make it up and its ability to perform those governance functions effectively to the standard that we need to have at the electoral college—that relationship between the Crown and the electoral college. So I would like to hear more from the Minister on that. I think there is a question mark and that question mark is in the commentary on the bill. It seems very ironic that we are passing a piece of legislation which we have to pass by the beginning of December in order to transfer that spectrum over where there is a huge question mark in the bill over the governance process of the management of that spectrum.I think as I said in my second reading speech that the Government really should have had its house in order in terms of that issue. It came up in the Māori Affairs Committee only under questioning from members of the committee on both sides. But it really did emerge only in the select committee because it certainly was not in the officials’ advice to the select committee. It really did emerge only during the discussions. Why was it that it came up only then? What are the Government and Minister doing about it to ensure that we can be reassured that Māori Television can progress can move into the modern era with the spectrum that is being transferred over can move into an era of high definition will have the amount of spectrum it needs to dothat will have some control over the way its spectrum is managed and more important will have its funding reviewed and hopefully increased?KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I know at home the eyes of the people listening to this debate the Committee stage of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill may be glazing over because we are talking about spectrum—Clare Curran: Oh!KRIS FAAFOI: —not necessarily in particular reference to the previous speaker my colleague Clare Curran but because we are speaking about spectrum. Maybe I should not have said that. Because we are talking about spectrum sometimes—excuse the pun—that goes over the head of most New Zealanders. But what is important here is that because we are having what is called the digital switch-over on I believe 1 December an analog frequency that was allocated to Māori Television will under this bill be allocated to another organisation called Te Pūtahi Pāoho. It will be that organisation that essentially gets to utilise that old analog spectrum. Where that spectrum becomes important is that it can actually be transformed into a digital spectrum. In that spectrum there is the ability for eight digital TV stations to be carried so one old spectrum becomes a new digital spectrum in which you can broadcast eight TV stations.Why is this important? Because in the future if someone wants to start up a TV station and if the Māori Television Service had that spectrum it would have the ability to lease out one of those eight stations to make some money off it. But because there has been a transfer of that spectrum from the Māori Television Service to Te Pūtahi Pāoho it is taking away a potential revenue-gathering plan for the Māori Television Service. We have heard from my colleagues about the importance of making sure that the Māori Television Service has increased revenue. I think my colleague Clare Curran just made the point in her previous speech and Nanaia Mahuta made a reference to that in her second reading speech. So the question that I want to ask the Minister in the chair at the moment the Minister of Māori Affairs is: why? How will the proceeds of Te Pūtahi Pāoho’s management of that spectrum benefit the Māori Television Service which is forgoing the right to that spectrum? So if he can answer those questions that would be very useful.I think that the Māori Television Service would feel a little bit hard done by if it had this asset that is no longer going to be used but that could be used in a different way to make some revenue to host other broadcasters but that has now been taken off it. So to the Minister in the chair—and this specifically refers to paragraphs (c) and (ca) in clause 4(2) about the spectrum management rights—I ask: how is it going to be utilised by Te Pūtahi Pāoho? How will the funds from that if it makes any money from it go to the Māori Television Service or not? And why specifically has that spectrum management right been transferred from the Māori Television Service to Te Pūtahi Pāoho and not stayed with the Māori Television Service? I do not know whether there is a decent enough answer.I guess it goes to show that there is no real overarching vision from the Government around spectrum use. We have seen it in 4G. The Government has just announced—and I think my colleague has put a press release out today—its intentions to sell off the 4G network which has just become available. Instead of being able to ring-fence some of that 4G spectrum or think of other uses where it can be utilised it just says that it is going to flog them all off. As Clare Curran mentioned in I think her second reading speech very recently Sky television said it was going to give four packets of this analog spectrum back. So four times eight because of the theory I said before means that up to 32 television stations could be broadcast on the four packets of spectrum that Sky hasjust handed back to the Government. As of yet we have had no word from the Government as to what it intends to do with it.Just to give those at home an understanding of what these frequencies are worth one of those packets recently sold for about $1.7 million at the auction that the Government held. Am I right here? [Interruption] Yes it was roughly $1.7 million. So these are resources that have got some cost. Obviously in the future as digital technology gets better it may actually be able to hold more transmission capability. So if people want to start television stations here in New Zealand these are the kinds of things that they are going to need be able to broadcast. So they will have some future value. I would like to see an overarching strategy from this Government—I am not expecting one—as to how it manages the spectrum that has just become available to it from Sky and the spectrum in the 4G sphere which my colleague Clare Curran has already mentioned today and what it sees as the best fit. That is not just to hock them off to the highest bidder but to say: “OK if we’ve got four packets that have just come back from Sky television do we ring-fence some of that for any public broadcasting future?”.We have announced today that we think the Government should ring-fence one of those packets—one packet of analog which can be transferred into eight television stations at this moment—that has just been given to it to make sure that that is protected for any future public broadcasting. If the Government sells those four packets off to the highest bidder they are all gone. So if any future Government that is actually committed to public broadcasting like members on this side of the House wants to start up a public broadcaster there will be some spectrum available for us to do that. But what I fear will happen—and those members have gone quiet so this is probably what is going to happen—is that those four packets will just be hocked off to the highest bidder. So when it comes to the time for members on this side of the House to say that we want to start up a public broadcaster there will be zero spectrum available to us. So we will probably have to go back cap in hand to whoever bought that spectrum and say: “We need some of it back.” If I had bought that spectrum I would say: “Well things have changed. You really want to do this so you are going to have to buy it at a much higher price.” Well in the long run that is bad for the taxpayer because not only do we have to pay more for the spectrum but we could have held on to it and ring-fenced it so that we had the ability to not just start one but also have seven more television networks there on that spectrum.I will propose this challenge to the Government and maybe the Minister in the chair would like to see how this works for the Māori Television Service as well. This Government has the ability now to ring-fence spectrum to manage spectrum in a responsible manner for State broadcasting. You probably get to sell it or lease it only once every 20 years so what the Government does now is very important. It can either hock it off and it has a track record of doing that or it can say: “This is important stuff right now. We might be able to sell some of it but this is going to be saved for any future Government. They might want to do it”—again I am not expecting it—“for public broadcasting.” So that is another question that I might pose to the Minister in the chair around spectrum because this management arrangement in the bill seems a little bit strange to me. Again I guess it is a little bit symptomatic of a Government that does not have an overarching plan when it comes to spectrum.It is very important. People at home are actually watching Parliament TV now on spectrum. If they want to see any future public broadcasting stations there is going to have to be spectrum available there for it. So this Government needs to make a pretty hard decision: does it care about public broadcasting enough to ring-fence some spectrum or not? I think that this bill around the way that the spectrum from Māori Television Service is changing the management rights to Te Pūtahi Pāoho shows thekind of attitude that this Government has to spectrum. It does not really care. Well it should care because this future Labour Government will be committed to public broadcasting and we do want to make sure that there is spectrum available for it. If the current Government does not care about public broadcasting it will just sell that spectrum and we will all know the commitment from that Government to public broadcasting. So it will all be down to a decision that the Government will make very soon about whether it sells it or keeps it. If it sells it then you know that this Government does not care about public broadcasting. If it keeps it well it has proved the critics wrong.I would ask though that maybe the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee could put a bit of pressure on the Government and take a call to say that he agrees with me because the success of Māori Television could be augmented by it having another channel. But we do not know how that is going to happen because it is no longer in charge of the frequencies that it is going to be going out on. That now goes to—no not Māori Television—Te Pūtahi Pāoho. So it cannot manage any further growth without having to go through this other organisation which may say: “We don’t care about you having another channel. We’re going to lease out the rest of the spectrum just to make money.” Here is a question and it is a serious question: if there is money to be made out of the spectrum what is it going to be used for? I would prefer that it goes back into the culture but that question has not been answered.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā koe Mr Chairman. In the characteristic spirit of positive contributions that defines me I want to direct our attention to the question of whether or not Māori Television with the change in the Māori language Te Reo me ōna tikanga [the language and its customs] is a Trojan horse where the station will no longer be a bastion of quality language and a prestigious place to go to help people improve their language.I know that report from Te Kāhui o Māhutonga which I thought was not unlike the report from Te Paepae Motuhake to do with Te Reo Māori had content inversely related to cost and had quality inversely related to quantity. They were by and large reports that did not advance the Māori language in any practical way. I would love to hear Dr Sharples our Minister of Māori Affairs stand and provide some account of that.But there is a point at which the underlying raison d’être the underlying kaupapa purpose of the station needs to be tied to something that is a legacy. Is this an opportunity for it to broaden and provide more shows such as those narrated by Sir Howard Morrison’s son? I have got nothing in particular against that whānau or Matua Parkinson other than his lapse of smoking dope but then half of Kaitāia does it. I do not judge him for that either. However I would say that if we are going to maintain a special position of power and influence for our Māori Television station in so far as it can be a public television provider let it not be at the cost of good-quality language. Let it not be at the cost of being a bastion for those people as the language stops being used in the way that it perhaps was in our grandmothers’ time and indeed in my colleague Tau Henare’s grandparents’ time. New avenues are required but it is important that new students can find it in an accessible way not by reading some ancient dictionary.I think Richard Tregear wrote a Māori language dictionary. That is quite apart from that famous Anglican who ended up with too much Ngati Porou land Williams. That might have more to do with Ngati Porou than Williams and the Anglican Church. That is another matter—that is another matter. But I would say that we must not compromise on te pūkenga te mārū wehi me te ātaahua o Te Reo Māori tōna ātaahua [the skilfulness awesome gentleness and beauty of the Māori language its attractiveness].If they are going to make programmes that are broader than Te Reo Māori then it is important that it is done in such a way that it actually improves the consciousness. I am tempted to talk about the Minister’s year-long slumber but that would be unbecoming. But the consciousness of broader New Zealand society is such that the language becomes regarded as something that does not deserve to be sneered at and eventually turns into a part of compulsory study in all New Zealand schools just as we have to learn geography and social studies. I would like to think that every kid learns civics compulsorily. If it is not happening then help is on the way. It certainly will be in a year or two. As a part of a robust social studies programme New Zealand’s first language our native language Te Reo Māori should be embedded there. But for that to happen society obviously has to lose a lot of its not so much fear but its sense that the language is worthless.I fear that those critics looking at the Minister might collude and say that the language is worthless. The language is not worthless. There may be some problems with the worth of the Minister but the language is not worthless. I do not think it is fair that we have sat through this debate and we have not really heard a great deal—and that is fine there are a host of other Ministers. Indeed there were some on our side who did not feel obliged from time to time to contribute. But let us not compromise the language. Let us ensure that it provides a basis for improving our sense of ownership our sense of place in terms of the language being an indelible feature of broad New Zealand civic culture without Māori feeling that they are being alienated from their language.The other thing that I would like to remind us of is that we had a great debate and it is there in the bill in terms of management rights. There is an issue as to whether or not Te Pūtahi Pāoho may be captured and decide that Māori Television is not deserving of the entirety of the spectrum and that other pursuits—there may be the occasional erratic film maker who may come up with a bright scheme from out of the Māori film-making ether—might want to get some of that spectrum for a different television purpose.I would counsel and warn against that. I think it is important. Just as under the current Minister where we have watched Māori radio wither on the vine there is no longer any funding for training. These are people who can criss-cross from te irirangi Māori to te pouaka Māori. They can criss-cross from Māori radio to Māori television and create a bigger cadre of bilingual sophisticated broadcasters and reporters. I think it is really disappointing that when there is some scope that this waka kīhau this ghost ship will provide the chance for viral activity people think that by atomising Māori effort somehow the kaupapa is going to get stronger. I find very little evidence that that is the case. In relation to te irirangi Māori—Māori radio—we have seen that the reason that it has withered is that often it lacks collective effort. You have too many organisations pulling in too many different directions.The Minister might say that there is a safeguard there and that any major changes to spectrum allocation or spectrum use have to have the acquiescence or the statutory consent of the relevant Ministers. In order for those mortgages to be entered into or for other purposes the Minister has to buy into it. That is a safeguard but a number of Māori will see that as patronising. A number of Māori will see that as diametrically opposed to the tino rangatiratanga rhetoric that defined the Māori Party when it was at its best. Unfortunately much drooping has taken place since that point in time.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s withered—withered.Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. The voters will have the final say on that matter.But when we actually focus in respect of the usage of the spectrum let us ensure—and the Minister perhaps might provide us with some reassurance—that Te Pūtahi Pāoho will not be a nest of instability that then weakens the ability of the major Māorilanguage television provider. There is some mahi happening in Television One but I think most Māori in terms of language activists and those of us wanting to promote a greater level of knowledge and consciousness about our heritage in Māori look to Māori Television.Let us not create a situation where that waka is weakened because of conflicting agendas. I suspect that is what has blighted the attempt to date of Māori Television to find a person to be the new chief executive officer. There are too many agendas and too many people fighting each other. Of course we have seen this with Hone Harawira having left the Māori Party and Tariana Turia not sure whether she is going to stay or go. Unfortunately this is a feature of certain aspects of that type of political creed. That is their business and our business today as parliamentarians is to ensure that this bill does not provide an opportunity for people with so many conflicting agendas to weaken the resolve of the board. It has actually started to happen. They cannot even find a chief executive officer which is actually an indictment on the chair of the board Georgina te Heuheu. That did not seem to make any difference when she was a Minister and it is unlikely to make any impact on her now. She is not a Minister.When Māori Television does make programmes that have broader appeal it should make a programme about creatures that hibernate. Occasionally they are prodded out of their slumber into a level of consciousness.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who would star in that?Hon SHANE JONES: I can think of someone who will be unemployed at the end of next year and out of politics who may actually star in that programme. Indeed Georgina te Heuheu could actually star in that at the moment given the failure to find a chief executive officer and the inability to bring what seems to be conflict to a head. So this is not good for Māori Television. We stand with Māori Television in the sense—RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora Mr Chair. I would like my contribution at this Committee stage to really just focus on quite a narrow issue. That matter relates to the actual composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. The organisations that make up Te Pūtahi Pāoho are listed in schedule 1 of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act. To be removed from schedule 1 of the Act requires an Order in Council. That Order in Council requires a recommendation from the Minister. The Minister’s recommendation comes through as to whether they are taking up the decision of Te Pūtahi Pāoho to that effect. So basically Te Pūtahi Pāoho makes a decision it goes through to the Minister as to whether he will take on that recommendation then it gets enshrined by Order in Council and then the Act is amended.We have got 11 organisations in schedule 1 of the Act as I understand it today. I will not rattle through all of them. There are some longstanding Māori organisations that have done much work in terms of championing the Reo when doing other great things.Hon Shane Jones: Kōhanga reo?RINO TIRIKATENE: Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust is in there.Hon Shane Jones: Special Minister in kōhanga reo. Kei te moe.RINO TIRIKATENE: Āe. We have got the Māori Council—Hon Tau Henare: Who?RINO TIRIKATENE: The New Zealand Māori Council. There are the kura kaupapa. There is a whole host of organisations there that comprise Te Pūtahi Paoho. That means that those organisations are entitled to appoint a member to Te Pūtahi Paoho. So what I am really seeking from the Minister of Māori Affairs is absolute certainty as to the composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.RINO TIRIKATENE: As I was saying before the dinner break I am seeking clarification from the Minister of Māori Affairs as to the composition of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. It is the statutory body that is now going to have the management and administration rights for the spectrum under this bill and it is very important because of as you know the issues raised at the Māori Affairs Committee regarding certain members of that Te Pūtahi Pāoho body specifically because we as a select committee were written to by the Minister when we raised these matters. We received a letter from Minister Sharples which was received here on 20 August stating that Te Pūtahi Pāoho was going to have a meeting on 28 or 29 August to consider the membership status of certain organisations specifically the National Māori Congress and Kawea Te Rongo. I know the Minister mentioned in his opening speech that those two organisations have withdrawn from Te Pūtahi Pāoho.I am just seeking clarification from the Minister whether recommendations and an Order in Council have actually gone through to that effect. As I understand it—and I may wrong but it seems clear—under section 14 of the Act it requires an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister at the advice or request of the chair of Te Pūtahi Pāoho. Only then can there be the addition or removal of names from Te Pūtahi Pāoho.The reason why I am seeking clarification is I think it is very important that given all the issues that we have raised around whether certain bodies are defunct or whether they are operative and whether certain members who are representing those bodies have been validly appointed we get a record really of the decisions that have been made by Te Pūtahi Pāoho—a record of the paper trail I guess—and a record of that going all the way through to the Order in Council. I think ultimately that we need the Order in Council because despite what the Minister may say the fact that those certain bodies like the National Māori Congress and Kawea Te Rongo have withdrawn and until those measures have been put in place and given effect to technically they would still be part of schedule 1 of the Act.What has added to my confusion is that when I looked at the Te Pūtahi Pāoho website and looked at the page where it lists all the members of Te Pūtahi Pāoho it is woefully out of date. It is either that or I may be mistaken as to who certain members are or who certain organisations are on Te Pūtahi Pāoho. For instance it still lists Tūwhakairiora Williams as the chairperson. It still lists Kawea Te Rongo as a member and a member representing Kawea Te Rongo. This is the actual website itself of Te Pūtahi Pāoho which again is misleading because as I understand it there is a press release that came out from Te Pūtahi Pāoho announcing the appointment of Willie Jackson as the new chair and the appointment of two co-deputy chairs.All of that goes to show that if the actual administration of Te Pūtahi Pāoho is not displaying the correct composition or membership of the board it does not give us much confidence. It does not give us much confidence that the Minister knows what he is doing the ministry knows what it is doing and Te Pūtahi Pāoho knows what it is doing in terms of who the members are who the organisations are who the members are who represent those organisations on Te Pūtahi Pāoho and indeed how valid the decisions are that it is making as a decision-making body.It is an important body because it is going to be managing significant management rights of the spectrum and it is a Treaty partner to the Crown in terms of Māori broadcasting. I think it is incumbent on us to ask the Minister to provide us with theOrders in Council to give us proof as to which organisations are definitively in Te Pūtahi Pāoho and who the members of those organisations are in Te Pūtahi Pāoho. Until we get that comfort I guess it could be not validly constituted because we have to make sure that the legal mechanisms have been put in place to make sure that Te Pūtahi Pāoho is a valid organisation.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Kua puta māku e whakahoki kōrero ki a rātou kua kōrero mai ki a mātou ki ahau i tēnei rā. Tuatahi kei te mihi au ki te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori. Kua oti pai ā rātou mahi ā tēnā koutou. I rongo au i ngā kōrero ā mo ngā mahi kua oti i a koutou i ā koutou hui. Kua whāia e au tēnā me taku tari tēnā ake koutou.[It is for me to respond to those who addressed us and me today. First I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. You have completed your work effectively so thank you collectively. I heard the comments in respect of what you as a collective completed at your hearings. I and my office have addressed that. Thank you indeed.]I was just acknowledging the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that it is doing. To everybody in the House who has raised issues they are all good questions about process and representation and so on and I am very happy to respond to those.Te Pūtahi Pāoho is a group that has been given the management rights of the spectrum. It is essentially an electoral college which involves those pioneers working in Te Reo Māori to contribute to a whole moving forward of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori. It keeps the kaitiakitanga separate from the operations of a commercial enterprise. This is a common thing for Māori. The electoral college for fisheries represents the tribes in that case. They appoint people on to the board and that is how it goes. Similarly this electoral college involves members from the following organisations: Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori Te Tau Ihu o Ngā Wānanga Ngā Aho Whakaari Te Rūnanganui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa Te Rūnanga o Te Ataarangi kōhanga reo Māori Women’s Welfare League Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i Te Reo Māori and Te Kaunihera Māori o Aotearoa. Those are the organisations that have somebody in that electoral college. The two that stepped down as a result of inquiries—from both within the Māori Affairs Committee and outside—were the National Māori Congress delegate and also Kawea Te Rongo. In addition to that Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i Te Reo Māori got itself reregistered as an incorporated society—it was incorporated but it let it lapse and now it has reregistered itself—to be in accord with the new Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill that has come out now. That is why Te Pūtahi Pāoho exists and that is how the members on that group are selected.Te Pūtahi Pāoho cannot provide the use of the spectrum to any third party without the consent of the Ministers involved—there are two of us the Minister for Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance—and without the consent of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori. So Te Pūtahi Pāoho has to actually get the Māori Television Service to agree with anything it does with this. It provides to Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori certainty of tenure for its operation. In fact Te Pūtahi Pāoho has the same rules and parameters of management of the spectrum as for all other spectrum provided by the Government.On the other question that was asked about the quality of Te Reo I need to tell you that there is one particular clause in this bill that is directed at the growth of Māori programmes for native speakers—ngā mea tino matatau ki Te Reo Māori ngā mea i tipu ake i roto i Te Reo. It is for those speakers so we can have that lot progressing and enjoying and contributing as well as those who are just arriving at Te Reo Māori i tēnei wā. That is definitely an aim in this new bill.On the question of ōna tikanga—ngā tikanga Māori—and I have got to remind you that these are iwi leaders and native speakers and people working in the Reo who are half of the people on the board of Māori Television Whakaata Māori. It was felt that ōna tikanga shows that Te Reo is in fact part of a culture and a way of life as opposed to existing side by side with some customs. That is basically how we have always referred to Te Reo me ōna tikanga [the language and its customs] to show that it is an essential leadership role but it is also part of the whole culture. So some of the comments that were made earlier actually can be explained by what I have just said now about the place of Te Reo Māori and ōna tikanga kei roto i Te Ao Māori [its customs in Māoridom].So it is all a whole.As to the question of the selection of the chief executive officer—when people brought areas that they were worried about to my notice I immediately contacted the chairperson and the deputy chair and they went to see whether due diligence and proper process was being applied to the selection. They gave me their assurance so I am waiting for a report when they have made their examination of the whole process and every event in it. Because I am the Minister I have to stay at arm’s length from that process but as soon as the report is made I can do something about it and have a look at it and I intend to do so.Those are some of the answers to some of the questions that you asked. But I ask you please to understand that Whakaata Māori is part of the Māori world and in the Māori world we sort of own everything. We are sort of kaitiaki katoa mātou o ngā taonga Māori katoa [we are all guardians of all of Māori culture].So it is hard for people to be excluded from anything and that is perhaps why we have these electoral colleges operating—to allow more viewpoints to come in on the running of the thing. That is all I have to say at this time just to answer some of those points that you have raised.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Clare Curran.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Such a quiet voice Mr Chair. First of all I would like to say thank you very much to the Minister of Māori Affairs for getting up and taking a call and clarifying his position on some of these issues that have been raised this evening in the debate on this bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I take in good faith what the Minister has said on all of the issues that he has spoken about and I appreciate and acknowledge what he had to say. I think that given the number of issues that have been raised the importance of some of these issues and the context in which they have been raised that is something that this Committee and this side of the Chamber must acknowledge.Obviously we on the Labour bench still have concerns and I will go straight to the appointment process for the chief executive and the request for a report which I think is a sensible thing to do. But the problem remains that the report that will be received will be after the fact and going back in time going back in history to the early part of Māori Television’s history when there were appointments made and regrets made around those appointments as they did not turn out the way they could and should have. Those lessons should not be repeated and in any process that is undertaken I would hope—and I know that the Minister is certainly listening tonight—that it would not be a situation that what we would end up with had to be fixed up afterwards rather than be dealt with beforehand. I think that has been at the essence of the concern from the Labour side right from the very beginning.As my colleague Kris Faafoi said in his second reading speech the Opposition’s role in asking the questions and raising the issues is a vital role in our democracy. Most times it is an essential role and it can be raising issues that can be dealt with before they become bigger issues. I certainly think that the Minister is listening to that and we are certainly very interested in the information that is supplied during the report.With regard to the comments the Minister has made around the electoral college and its role at the governance level I certainly think that all of my colleagues who have spoken in the debate tonight have acknowledged the importance of that role and also the history of that role. The problems are—I hesitate to say “operational”—around the composition the fact that that governance body ended up being questioned in terms of its ability to govern and what the status was of all of the individual bodies that made it up. It was so serious—and the Minister would certainly know this—that it was mentioned and a great deal of attention was given to it during the discussion on the bill in the Māori Affairs Committee and it was also in the committee’s report back to the House. That seemed to me to be quite an unusual situation. A live issue that had not been dealt with was drawn to Parliament’s attention as something that still had yet to be dealt with in order for this bill to turn into legislation that was workable.I also would like to mention—and this is something that has not been mentioned in the debate today—that one of the core amendments to this legislation was to try to find a way through if there was going to be debate around the management of the spectrum. This was certainly supported by the Labour members and I say thank you to the officials for inserting it. It amends clause 10 of the bill to insert a new section 24DA into the Act allowing the appointment of a mediator if the responsible Ministers and Te Pūtahi Pāoho could not resolve any disagreement about the administration of spectrum management rights that would require their joint determination. What that means is that there is an acknowledgment that there could be disagreements and that there could be the need for some resolution of them. How that mediation would work I think is still up in the air. I think it is of concern that it would even have to be anticipated but I certainly think that it was a sensible amendment to the bill because it provides a way forward if there is the need.What it presupposed was that the management of the spectrum—and this is the essence of Labour’s argument tonight—is a concern and there is still a question mark around what its future use will be. Given that we are moving into the digital environment given that there will be more spectrum available and given that not all of that spectrum is allocated to Māori Television the big question remains as to what its future use is going to be and what the Government’s position on that is. What is the Crown’s position?This is Parliament. This is where we get to discuss these things. If the Minister is not able to take another call or is not of a mind to take another call in the Committee stage I certainly hope that in his third reading speech he will go to that point and tell the House where the Government’s thinking is and where the Crown’s thinking is on that matter. In terms of the Māori Television Service’s future and the next 10 years of its existence I think this Committee needs to be assured that in the Government’s mind it is a future that is about expansion and the golden age as has been referred to by another member in this Chamber. I think this Committee needs to be assured that there will be a golden age for Māori Television and that that is very much at the forefront of the Government’s mind.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I also join my colleague Clare Curran in thanking the Minister in the chair the Minister of Māori Affairs for taking some time to answer some of the questions that we have asked through the Committee stage. I think he has done a very honourable job of that and gone a long way to answering some of thequestions particularly around the management of the spectrum and he touched briefly on the appointment process for the chief executive.If he is able to could he enlighten us more around the spectrum management and the fact that the management of the part of the spectrum that was held by the Māori Television Service is now being handed over to Te Pūtahi Pāoho. He did mention to us that if there was going to be any change in the way that the spectrum was used it would have to go through him and also the Minister of Finance. I think I heard him say that the service which I am led to believe is the Māori Television Service would also have to approve that. That does not necessarily mean that there will not be revenue gathered or that the spectrum that is within that packet of spectrum will not be used for another purpose and in fact it gave us a process as to how that can be used. So my question to the Minister in the chair is what will be some of the parameters as to how the spectrum can be utilised? If it is leased out where does the revenue from that lease agreement go to? Will it stay within the realms of Te Pūtahi Pāoho? Will it be passed back to the Government as pure revenue? Will it be used elsewhere with Te Reo to promote the use of Te Reo?I think there might be an argument that because that spectrum was given to the Māori Television Service originally any extra revenue that might come from the future utilisation of it might be reinvested back into the Māori Television Service. Obviously this argument is very prudent and timely at the moment because of the budget freeze that the Māori Television Service is under. With advancing technology moving forward and becoming more costly those costs will increase over time for the Māori Television Service so that it is able to meet the demands and needs of the changing technology. I guess if we can get from the Minister in the chair some more specifics about how the revenue that might come about from the utilisation of that spectrum will be used and how it might be used—will it be poured back into the Māori Television Service or will it go to some other avenue that could perhaps promote Te Reo or the Māori culture? Or as I mentioned earlier could it go straight back to the Crown as money to go back into the consolidated fund? That is just one particular aspect in terms of the questions that the Minster answered. If he can give us some more clarification that would be useful.Just to conclude—also the process around the investigation into the appointment process of the chief executive. I wonder whether—and I am not sure what the terms of reference might be—the investigation might be able to look further than just at those involved in the process and those who might have wanted to include themselves in the process. I mention that because I understand that someone from Television New Zealand may have approached either a board member or someone at the Māori Television Service during the appointment process with what I understand to be concerns about one particular candidate. I think that that needs to be addressed. If we have someone at the State broadcaster with concerns about someone who is applying for a job—the chief executive role at the Māori Television Service—and those concerns are not being able to be passed through that is a major concern when we look at the interests of public broadcasting in a wider sense. If there is concern at the major broadcaster about the suitability of someone for a position then you have got to wonder why that is not being passed on to those making the decision about the chief executive role at the Māori Television Service now—that is a very very important decision for what someone called a treasure to Te Reo and to Māori culture established by the previous Labour Government. Also we need to make sure that there is independence and a solid decision being made about an entity that receives $36 million in taxpayer funding each year.I am going to stop there and potentially maybe get some answers from the Minister in the chair.Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Kia ora. The mediator idea is not really necessary because Te Pūtahi Pāoho does not have anything to do with the actual management of the Whakaata Māori spectrum. That is totally Whakaata Māori’s province. Te Pūtahi Pāoho is a group that represents Te Ao Māori who are kaitiaki of that taonga. They are there because they represent groups who are fighting for the survival of tō tātau Reo.If we go back to 1960 the reo was in a very poor state and it began with Ngā Tamatoa and Kaiwhakapūmau i Te Reo and we grew. In 1980 you would have been hard put to find any MPs in this House who could name more than four tribes because the Government did not trade with Māori at all. So we have come a long way and there will be mistakes made along the way. Just to answer your question a mediator for Te Pūtahi Pāoho would be unnecessary really because that does not involve its role.As for the future use of the spectrum I think one of the most important things there is Whakapiki i Te Reo so that we can make sure there is growth in Aotearoa and so that we can provide programmes on Māori Television that complement the work done outside by Panekiretanga kura kaupapa wānanga and those others right down to kōhanga. If you go into Māori homes that are involved in one of these Te Reo Māori programmes you will find all the family and the little children are watching Māori programmes in the main until the teenager wants to switch to TV2. So that is the most important thing.The second thing is the quality of Te Reo Māori to actually provide programmes that lift the bar in terms of Te Reo Māori and expose different tribal authorities or experts in Te Reo Māori speaking and debating on the marae but also discussing topics like Halley’s Comet and how often it comes combustion engines or whatever is topical. That requires a degree of excellence in Te Reo Māori to be able to carry that.The other thing is to have relevant programmes for Māori to grow as a people in this country but also to embrace New Zealand as a single culture. It is a fact that they did remove from the first draft the idea that it is there for all parts of—I have forgotten the actual wording. But they have taken away the clause to cover the needs of all New Zealanders because it has a particular function. You cannot do everything so it is focusing on Te Reo Māori and through that out to the rest of New Zealand.So more Reo content more quality Reo content are our desires for that. Also there is the international involvement. Whakaata Māori has led the world of indigenous people to create a network of indigenous television and it is really exciting that we are able to share programmes of other indigenous peoples’ journeys and note the parallels and so on. So that is some of the stuff that I can give off the cuff about the plans for Whakaata Māori.There is no change in the spectrum use of Whakaata Māori allocation. So it is in fact still the same allocation to pursue those goals. It is not going to change halfway through as some thought might happen. That is not going to happen because of if you like the direction that they have written down to take.I think it is important to note the support that Whakaata Māori provides to other Māori initiatives that consummate if you like the fact that there is a Māori culture in this country—like during the Rugby World Cup. Māori Television was getting some of the games to broadcast but even more important it was showcasing Māori rugby in the waka Māori down at the waterfront and there are other activities that it does in the public arena like as you have mentioned Anzac Day tangihanga of leaders and things like that. People get an insight into that. The reaction is very very positive and it should be because it is real and it is New Zealand. It is for all New Zealand. So that is all I have to say at this stage.Parts 1 and 2 and clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 391 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): I moveThat the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Kai te korero au i Te Reo Māori. Hai Te Māngai hai Te Whare tēnei ka mihi mō ngā ekenga o tēnei pire ki tāna pānuitanga tuatorutanga. Ka riro māna e whakanikoniko i te waka nei o Whakaata Māori i roto i ngā tirohanga ō nātatanei. E kite ana kai te pai te hanga o te waka kai te pakari ngā kaihoe o te waka kai te ārahi ngā kaiurungi i te waka ki tōna pae tawhiti arā ko te oranga o Te Reo Māori tērā. Tā tēnei pire he whakanikoniko i te waka.Ehara i te mea he waka hōu tēnei i roa te tārai ā kua tekau tau e hoe ana. Ka nui aku mihi ki ngā kaitārai me ngā kaihoe. Ko ētahi ō rātau kua riro ki te wāhi ngaro pēnā i a Parekura. Ko tā tātau maioha ki a rātau mā he hāpai i ngā hoe o te waka nei. I ētahi wā he moana pukepuke ka hoe i ētahi anō wā he moana marino. E tātau mā ko taku kupu ki a tātau i tēnei wā ki te hoe tēnā tātau.Hai Te Māngai nō mua rā anō a Ngāi Māori i aronui ki ngā hangarau pāoho. Nō muri noa mai i te hainatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi i tāia ko te niupepa Reo Māori tuatahi. I kaha hāpai a Ngāi Māori i tēnei kaupapa ā he nui atu i te whā tekau ngā niupepa Reo Māori i waenga i te tau 1842 me te tau 1930. I te taenga mai o te hangarau hōu ka hāpaitia e ō mātau tīpuna me te tau mai o ētahi kupu hoki ki Te Reo Māori pēnei i te “waea” me te “terewhonu”. Ā i ngā tau toru tekau ka riro mā Tā Āpirana Ngata te waea ki tawhiti tuatahi mō Aotearoa nei nā Aotearoa ki Ahitereiria ā ko ana kupu tuatahi hoki he kōrero Māori. Taro ake ki te wā nei o te pouaka whakaata me maumahara me whai whakaaro ki ngā pakanga ka kitea he hōtaka Māori pēnei i aKoha i aTe Karere i aWaka Huia. Kai te ora tonu ēnei kaumātua o Te Ao Māori. Ka puāwai ngā mahi pāoho Māori i ngā tau a waru tekau e rātau nā te aranga mai o ngā teihana irirangi Māori.He hītori tēnei ki a tātau e pā ana ki te hangarau mō tō tātau Reo Maōri. Kāre e kore kai te maumahara ētahi mema o te Whare nei ki ngā kēhi me te pāoho Māori ki mua o Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi me ngā Kooti. Ka whai hua ngā mahi nei i te Haratua o 2003 i te whakaturetanga o te ture mō Whakaata Māori. Nā haere tonu haere tonu ngā mahi ka puāwai. Ko ngā mahi hai whakapiki i Te Reo Māori me ōna tikanga ki te iwi Māori me te motu whānui mō tātau.Kāre te pire nei e tino whakarerekē i ngā ritenga mō Whakaata Māori ka whakanikoniko kē i te ture matua arā ko Te Ture mō Whakaata Māori. Ka riro mā te pire e whakakaha te aro o Whakaata Māori ki āna mahi hei whakapiki i Te Reo Māori. Kua whakatakotoria he tikanga hōu mō te whakahaere i te ara tūātea kia tukuna mō ngā mahi pāoho Māori. Ka riro mā te taha Māori mā Te Pūtahi Pāoho e pupuri te ara tūātea ā māna e tuku raihana ki a Whakaata Māori mō āna hōtaka o nāianei o anamata anō hoki. Ka whakaritea mai he tikanga arotake i tēnei ture ā muri ake nei ā kawhakamana i ētahi paku rerekētanga ki roto i ngā whakahaere a Te Pūtahi Pāoho me Whakaata Māori.Ko tētahi tikanga nui i ngā āmenamana nei he whakarite i a Whakaata Māori mō te huri ki te tikanga pāoho mamati arā digital. Ka oti ngā mahi a te huri mamati hai te kotahi o Hakihea 2013. Koia nei tātau ngā take me pāhi i tēnei pire i tēnei tau tonu nei. Koinā au e mihi atu ki a koutou mō ngā tautoko i tēnei wā. I te tīmatatanga tētahi arotake i te Ture mō Whakaata i te tau 2008 nā runga i te whakahau a section 56 o taua ture. Nā ngā Minita o taua wā a Tā Michael Cullen rāua ko Parekura Horomia me te heamana o Te Pūtahi Pāoho a Tūwhakairiora Williams i whakatū tētahi kāhui arotake ki te tirotiro i te ture. Heoi anō e hoa e te marae o Ngāhiwi Parekura kai te tangi tonu kai te mihi tonu mō ēnei mahi nāhau i mahi nāhau i kōkiri i roto i ngā tau. Ko te kāhui arotake nei ko Tainui Stephens ko Jane Hūria rātau ko Hone Edwards. Ka oti tā rātau pūrongo i te tau 2009 ka whakatakotoria ki tēnei whare. Nō muri mai ka whakatau te kāwanatanga ki te whakanikoniko i te ture mō Whakaata Māori ā ka tau mai tēnei pire ki te Whare i te Here-turi-kōkā te tau 2012 ā he ota kaunihera. Nāu tēnei pātai mō te Order in Council.Ka oti kē taku whakamōhio i te Whare nei mō ngā whakarerekētanga ki te hunga e whai wāhi ana i Te Pūtahi Pāoho. Kua rihaina te National Māori Congress me Kawea Te Rongo i Te Pūtahi Pāoho nā runga i ngā tikanga o section 14 o te ture mō Whakaata Māori. Kei te kōkiri au i tētahi Ota Kaunihera (Order-in-Council) ki te whakaoti i ngā rīhainatanga nei. Kei te haere pai tēnei kaupapa kei te Governor-General i tēnei wā māna e tautoko ana. Mēnā tautoko ana anā kua oti. Nā reira me mihi anō ki te komiti mō te take Māori ka tika. Hai Te Māngai ka riro mā tēnei pire a Whakaata Māori e whakarite mō te huringa mamati. Ko te wāhanga hōu tēnei o ngā kōrero mō te whai wāhi a Ngāi Māori ki ngā hangarau pāoho mai i ngā niupepa Reo Māori a ngā tīpuna. Kua tae mai nei te ao e pāohotia mamatitia Te Reo Māori.[I will be speaking in Māori. I acknowledge this bill’s achievements in making it to its third reading. The third reading will embellish this vessel the Māori Television Service in respect of recent findings. It should be noted that it is in good shape and that those who manage it the paddlers are sturdy and leading the navigators to its long-term goal that being the well-being of the Māori language. The embellishment of the vessel is the function of this bill.The vessel is not a new one. Fashioning it has taken a while and the paddling has gone on for 10 years. I commend the fashioners and paddlers some of whom have passed on to the place out of sight the world of the gods and spirits such as the Hon Parekura Horomia. Our tribute to them is to raise the paddles of this vessel aloft. At times the sea has been mountainous but the rowing continued. At times it has been calm. Fellow colleagues my word to you at this point in time is to keep rowing.Greetings to us. Māoridom have had an inclination towards broadcasting technology for a very long time. Following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the first newspaper in Māori was published. Māoridom really picked this up and between 1842 and 1930 there were more than 40 newspapers in Māori. When the new technology arrived our ancestors elevated it with the arrival also of words like “waea” and “terewhonu” into the Māori language. In the 1930s it was left to Sir Apirana Ngata to make the first long-distance call from this country by New Zealand to Australia. His first words were in Māori. Eventually we arrive at this moment of television to recall and ponder over the conflicts witnessed before Māori programmes likeKohaTe Karere andWaka Huia were found. These elders of Māoridom who were involved are still alive today. As a consequence of them Māori broadcasting functions came to fruition in the 1980s because of the rise of Māori radio stations.In terms of technology and our Māori language this is historical for us. Without a doubt some members of this House are recalling the cases on Māori broadcasting that went before the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts. The Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act in May 2003 was the outcome of the cases before those courts. And so the work continued and blossomed. The work related to promoting the Māori language and its customs to the Māori people and to the nation at large on our behalf.The bill does not alter the provisions for Māori Television significantly but rather it enhances the principal Act of 2003 instead. The bill will strengthen the focus of Māori Television on its work to promote the Māori language. A new procedure about the management of the spectrum is being proposed for activities relating to Māori broadcasting. The Māori component Te Pūtahi Paoho will hold the spectrum and issue licences to Māori Television for its current programmes and for those thereafter. It will consider a subsequent review protocol in this legislation and it will effect some minor administrative changes for Te Pūtahi Paoho and Māori Television.A significant change in these amendments is the consideration that Māori Television will change the method of broadcasting to digital. The transfer to digital will be completed on 1 December 2013. These are matters that must be passed right now in this bill in this year. This is why I am complimenting you for your support at this point in time.At the beginning was a review of the Broadcasting Act of 2008 pursuant to section 56 of that Act. Ministers at that time Sir Michael Cullen and Parekura Horomia with the chairman of Te Pūtahi Paoho Tūwhakairiora Williams established a review panel to examine the Act. And so dear friend Parekura we continue to mourn your passing and to acknowledge these tasks you dealt with over the years. The review panel consisted of Tainui Stephens Jane Hūria and Hone Edwards. Their report was completed in 2009 and was presented to Parliament. Afterwards the Government decided to enhance the Act for Māori Television and this bill came before the House in August 2012 as an Order in Council. You sought for this Order in Council.I have already informed this House about the changes to those that have an interest in Te Pūtahi Paoho. The National Māori Congress and Kawea Te Rongo have resigned from Te Pūtahi Pāoho under section 14 of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act. I am dealing with an Order in Council to complete these resignations. This matter is progressing well and it is with the Governor-General currently awaiting his approval. If he approves it then it is done. So it is fitting indeed that I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. This bill will enable the Māori Television Service to make the digital switch-over happen. This is the new part of this conversation about Māoridom’s participation in the technologies of broadcasting from the newspapers in Māori of the ancestral forefathers. This world of broadcasting the Māori language digitally has arrived.]We have come from a newspaper in Te Reo Māori to now digitisation of Te Reo Māori. Kai te hīkaka katoa ahau. I am really really over the moon about this. Ki ngā āhuatanga o te ao hangarau nei. Māori mā kia kaha tā tātau ruku atu ki te hangarau pāoho e hua mai e hua mai. Nō reira huri noa i tēnei Whare whakapiringa tangata ka mihi kau atu ki ngā mana nō tuawhakarere ā ki a tātau i konei i tēnei rā. Nā reira huri noa tēnā koutou tēnā tātau tēnā tātau katoa ā kei Te Māngai kei raro.[To the nuances of this world of technology Māori we must be strong and dive into technology broadcasting. Results will come to bear—results will come to bear. Therefore I salute the pioneers from the past and us here today throughout the House of the people. And so greetings to you to us and to everyone throughout. I resume my seat.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you to the Minister of Māori Affairs for his speech. Thank you to the Minister for his engagement during the debate on this bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. Tonight it feels as if there has truly been a debate with some meaning in this House on a piece of legislation that actually we are in agreement on because Labour supports this bill. As I think everyone will have noticed we have reservations. But actually having a real debate where the questions are asked and there is an attempt to engage and to answer them is what this Parliament should be doing on every single piece of legislation where there are questions and where there is genuine debate and genuine engagement from the other side of the House. So I would like to make that point because I think it is an important point and I do hope that there are members listening and taking note of that.There is too much debate too much superficial debate in this Parliament on important pieces of legislation where the other side of the House refuses to engage because it wants to push a piece of legislation through. So all credit to the Minister of Māori Affairs who has genuinely attempted to answer some of the questions that have been raised. Even if those answers are not necessarily as fulsome as we would like they have been genuine attempts and we acknowledge that.I do want to again make mention of the importance of Māori Television to our country and as a great example of what can be done in the area of public broadcasting. Māori Television has become as has been noted by a number of people tonight the default public television broadcaster in New Zealand. However it does not have the mandate to be a full public television broadcaster. It does not have the funding to be a full public television broadcaster. Because of the absence—because there is a gap—of public television in this country it has ably attempted to fulfil that although its primary mandate is around the promotion of Te Reo and the importance of Te Reo in New Zealand and we absolutely applaud that and support it. Again tonight I want to acknowledge the work done by Parekura Horomia in helping to set up Māori Television and his vision lives on and hopefully will live on for many decades to come through this broadcaster. On that going to the appointment process—the important appointment process—of a new chief executive which has taken up much time in the debate tonight we on this side of the House are watching very closely.I think that there is a will in New Zealand for Māori Television to lead the way and to do that it must be above all question and must not have any shadows hanging over it in terms of how it is being run and the governance structures and the way that those decisions are being made. I certainly think those points have been made well tonight and I certainly think that the Minister has been listening.I also want to acknowledge the work done in the Māori Affairs Committee by all members of the select committee and in particular by my colleagues Shane Jones; Parekura before he passed away; Nanaia Mahuta; and Rino Tirikatene. They were all members on that committee and they have all contributed today in the House on this issue. Also I note a number of the issues were raised and my colleague Kris Faafoi has been very vigorously debating the issues around the spectrum its management and how it is going to be used. Those issues that were raised in the select committee must also remain on the record and that is the composition and the governance of the electoral college Te Pūtahi Paoho and how that is working out. I think that certainly tonight there has been constructive discussion around that.It feels as if there is constructive movement towards resolving some of those issues but I certainly want to make sure that the House knows how that plays out. How those management and governance arrangements play out will certainly be being watched very closely in the future in respect of not only the general management of MāoriTelevision but also the management of that spectrum because our concern is that there are other plans or there may be other plans. I have heard what the Minister said tonight around the future use of that spectrum around lifting the bar and around quality as well as quantity of programming on Māori Television. But we certainly are concerned that there may be other plans for that that may impinge on the ability of Māori Television to develop in the way that it could and should in our country in the next 10 years.So that issue remains as does another issue which is a critical issue and a wider issue because it goes to the Government’s management of spectrum generally right across the board. This is a very topical issue at the moment because if we are going to embrace the digital environment both in broadcasting and across into the mobile technology space then we have to have a consistent logical plan that has the interests of New Zealanders at its heart and is about a true competitive environment in the mobile technology space and in the broadcasting space. It is about the ability for all New Zealanders to access television services and to receive a high-quality public broadcasting service through their taxpayer-funded money.Unfortunately though at the moment we do not have that. We do not have a strategy. We do not have a plan. It is all very ad hoc and we saw yesterday the Minister for Communications and Information Technology Amy Adams make an announcement that she was going to undertake to put out the remaining spectrum in the 700 megahertz band which is the information and communications technology side of it the mobile technology side of it which could have been and should have been held back for strategic purposes. Oh no—in order to make a quick buck because that is where the Government is at it is going to be put out to the highest bidder through auction. What we could end up with and what we are likely to end up with is an environment that is not as competitive as it could and should be and where there is likely to be movement towards that 1990s approach to a monopoly in an important growth market for New Zealand.Then we also have as has been mentioned by me and Kris Faafoi the hand-back—the interesting and somewhat inexplicable last-minute hand-back—of an important body of the spectrum by Sky TV in the broadcasting environment to the Crown with no idea and no public discussion about why what deal was done around that how it is going to be used whether some of it is going to be kept aside for the public arena or whether it is going to be hocked off as well. These are important questions. They go to the Government’s ability to manage an important market. This is a market and an environment that crosses broadcasting and telecommunications space. It is called convergence in case the members on that side still have not woken up to the fact that that has already happened and that there should be a strategy in place. Unfortunately there is not and these things are being managed in a very ad hoc way. Government members are really hanging their heads a bit at the moment because to be honest none of them could get up and give a speech on this topic. That is what is required.We support this bill but we have reservations about it. We will be watching the governance processes very closely we will be watching the appointment process for the new chief executive very closely and we will certainly be providing a comprehensive strategy for the management of these important parts of our economy and our broadcasting environment.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): At this time I would like to acknowledge and thank Sir Graham Latimer who was the driver behind the Māori Language Act which established the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act which we are now talking about amending.This bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill is about the protection and promotion of te reo me ōna tikanga. This isnot a bill about the spectrum. This is not a bill about being a public broadcaster. This is about the promotion and the protection of Te Reo via a free-to-air digital terrestrial television network. I thank my colleagues across the House for recommending and commending this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. Someone earlier on in this debate mentioned the word “taonga”. The translation of that word in to English is treasure. The previous speaker Claudette Hauiti thanked Sir Graham Latimer and I also want to pay tribute to a former colleague Parekura Horomia because this is one of the treasures that Pare left us. I think that from what I have seen from the Minister of Māori Affairs at the Committee stage when he was in the chair and in his third and second reading speeches he absolutely understands that the Māori Television Service or Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori is a treasure. The notion of treasure—and the translation of the word to treasure—in Māori is I think more than just something of worth and value. It is also something that has to be respected.I think that although this bill does deal with the spectrum the increase in the use of Te Reo and getting more coverage of Māori issues and the culture to Māori and non-Māori there are some issues within this bill that we have concerns about. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister because I thought he went some way to addressing a lot of the concerns that we have. We do still have some concerns as to how that may play out—certainly where it pertains to the spectrum—but there have been some other issues at Māori Television recently that have concerned us in particular around the process of the appointment of the chief executive role.I wanted to take some time to talk about the concept of taonga because the Māori Television Service with the hard graft of many people has the very important job of protecting the language. It is not the only avenue that this Government funds and that previous Governments have funded to protect the indigenous language of Māori. We do not have that language anywhere else in the world so to make sure that we have an avenue through which we can see and hear Māori voices and Māori people celebrating educating and I must add entertaining is very very important.So the spirit of the place is different from that of any other public broadcaster that we have in New Zealand. Television New Zealand (TVNZ) a State-owned broadcaster appeals to the masses and it is not its remit to basically look after Te Reo or the Māori culture. That is the job of Māori Television and it is a very special job. I think that we have seen some messy scenes in the process of the appointment of a chief executive. So what I would like to see is maybe some independence there in terms of a governance model to make sure that we do not have any ugly scenes—whether it be from that side of the House or from this side of the House—and to make sure that there is some independence at a governance level so we do not see this kind of thing happen again.Metiria Turei: Does TVNZ do that?KRIS FAAFOI: No I do not believe that it does. That was a response to Metiria Turei. But we cannot let a taonga have a dirty mark like this put on top of it. That is absolutely wrong. So I think that that is the challenge that I might put out to the Minister—to make sure that it does not happen again and that we have some sort of separation from this place to make sure that that kind of thing cannot happen again. I am not calling into question the people behind the decisions that get made but in this case there seems to have been a close personal relationship with an individual who went for a job and also an employment record and then some criticism of questions that were asked on this side of the House. We do respect that the Māori Television Service is a very special broadcaster that it is a treasure and that we need to respect it as a taongaand make sure that these kinds of things and these issues do not happen again. So we respect that and we need to make sure that that is respected as well.In relation to the use of the spectrum—because a large part of this bill is about the spectrum contrary to other speeches that have been made in this House—it is very important for the future of digital technology. The way that it can be used and utilised in the future means that what might be junk today could be very very important when it turns into digital technology in the future. In effect you can take an analog signal and turn it into eight digital signals. The ownership of that spectrum has been moved from the Māori Television Service to another entity Te Pūtahi Paoho and is going to be managed by it. I thank the Minister because when he was in the chair he said that the management of that will be taken with a view to making sure that in the future if any of that spectrum is going to be utilised by anyone other than the Māori Television Service we have been told by the Minister—Hon Todd McClay: Like an old rerun ofCoronation Street. Stop him.KRIS FAAFOI: You can go watchCoronation Street if you want. You are not making any contribution here. We have been told by the Minister that it will be very important to utilise it especially for the use of Māori culture. So I would like to hope that that follows through to ensure that it is utilised for the purpose for which it was originally given to the Māori Television Service.Around the larger overview of the spectrum resource—because the Māori Television Service is not the only entity that has had part of the spectrum allocated to it—the Government’s management has been at best haphazard but it has got an opportunity to make good with the packet of spectrum that has just been given back by Sky. Clare Curran has spoken about the timing of that but regardless of it the Government now has four packets of the spectrum that it will have available to it which it can either do nothing with or can as we have seen in the past hock off.But what we on this side of the House would like is for the Government to ring-fence one of those packets of the digital spectrum which can broadcast eight television stations for any future use around public broadcasting or potentially regional broadcasting. It is very very expensive at the moment for regional broadcasters to get themselves a piece of the spectrum action but it is also going to be very expensive for any future Government that wants to start up a public service broadcaster if there is none of the spectrum available to it.We have seen what the Government has done in its commitment to public broadcasting over its 5-year tenure. It closed down TVNZ 7 and TVNZ 6. So given its track record over the last 5 years I do not hold out much hope for the Government taking a forward-looking approach to any broadcasting. In fact it is a challenge to the Government that maybe if it did reserve some of the soon-to-be-available spectrum that has come across from Sky it might have at least a passing interest in public broadcasting. So that is my challenge to the Government to make sure that if it has any long-term vision for the spectrum—[Bell rung] I just wanted to keep it going; Tim Macindoe is very happy—it does square away and ring-fence the spectrum. But unfortunately I do not hold out much hope of the Government having a long-term vision around that spectrum or public broadcasting.But just to return to the bill and to wind up this is an important bill for the future of the Māori Television Service. It is doing a very good job of meeting its objectives and making sure that it promotes educates and entertains to make sure that the Māori culture is promoted. It is unfortunate that there are some messy scenes at the governance level. I would hope that when the review comes back to the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance we look at another way to independently deal with thesesituations so we do not have messes that do not deserve to be anywhere near the Māori Television Service.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party supports this legislation the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased that it has been brought to the House and is about to be passed. That is great.I want to make just a few comments before taking my seat again. One of them is to acknowledge again the role that Māori Television plays in the promotion of Te Reo Māori and tikanga Māori and also the fantastic role it plays in connecting our communities together—the Pākehā community and the Māori community. It shows our own country and the world all of those stories about the reality of Māori lives and all the good stories about Māori lives that do not get shown anywhere else. It is a fantastic service that this station is doing for our country for our relationships and for the process of post-colonial issues that we are having to deal with.I just want to issue a word of caution around some of the comments that have been made this evening. My question to my colleague Kris Faafoi about how Television New Zealand appoints its chief executive was a genuine one. I was not shouting just to be mean. It was a genuine question because there is actually a bit of a fine line between even-handed regulatory oversight for which this Parliament and its agents are responsible and a kind of paternalistic approach to Māori organisations. Māori organisations have suffered paternalistic control and management by the State by State agencies and by Parliament for decade after decade after decade. That has tended to strangle the innovation and opportunities that Māori organisations at all kinds of different levels have but at the same time there is public money that needs to be properly considered.Where there is public money going into any agency anywhere there needs to be even-handed and proper regulatory oversight. From my point of view I absolutely do not think that the structure that determines who the chief executive officer of Māori Television is should be any different from any other structure that is established for any other similar organisation. I think there is a real issue around the way that Māori organisations can often be treated. There are issues around the appointment of staffing or chief executive officers and there are all sorts of issues that arise from time to time with any agency any organisation that receives public funding. Yes the use of that funding should be questioned but Māori organisations must not be treated in a way that exerts more control over them than any other organisation and any attempt to do so is a furthering of the colonisation process. And when you are talking about something like Māori Television which is operating to undo some of those negative impacts of colonisation it undermines the whole effectiveness of that organisation.Having heard all of thekōrero through the second reading some of the Committee stage and even tonight at the third reading I really think that we need to be very cautious about how we treat Māori Television in this context. It is doing a great job. Every organisation is going to have its problems. Yes it is right to question where there is public funding but beyond that there must be absolute caution in making sure that that questioning is even-handed and careful so that Māori organisations are not treated differently from other organisations.Beyond that this is a great bill. It is great to see it passed. It is going to help Māori Television move into the digital age and expand in all sorts of innovative and fantastic ways and we look forward to that future. Kia ora.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora anō tātau. E te Pika o te Whare tēnā koe e hautū nei i a tātau i tēnei pō. Kua riro he 10 meneti te roa o tēnei kōrero māku te katoa otēnā tāima e whakapau kia whai pūkenga ai ō tātau hoa ki tēnā taha o te Whare i a rātau e āmene ana i te kaupapa i roto i te pire nei.Ko te pouaka whakaata me āta whai taringa mai rātou ki Te Reo Māori e kōrerotia ana kātahi ka ngoto mārika ki roto i ō rātau hinengaro ki roto i ō rātau ngākau wairua o Te Reo Māori e kōrerongia ake nei he taonga mai i ō tātau mātua hei kōrerotanga mā tēnei reanga hei tukunga mā mātau ki ngā tamariki ki Aotearoa whānui. Tēnei mātau te tautoko i te pire nei. Ahakoa ōku kōrero horekau he tautoko ki te Minita me hāngai tonu ki te kaupapa o te pire ko te reo Māori me ōna tikanga. Me wewete i ngā take o te Minita ki te taha me hāngai tonu ki ngā take i whakakorikoringia ai ō tātau mātua i te tuatahi.Nā hoki ōku whakaaro ki te matua nei ki a Tā Hēmi—ki a Hēmi Tau. Ka hoki mai ai tēnā kaumātua i te Pakanga Tuarua. Nāna i arataki mai i ngā hōia o te Hokowhitu a Tū. Ka makere mai i te kaipuke nā rātau i whakahoki mai ki Aotearoa. Ka hoki ki te kāinga. Nā ka puea ake te wairua te moemoeā kia pūmau Te Reo Māori i waenga tonu i āna tamariki wāna mokopuna wāna hapū i roto i Te Tai Tokerau. Tahi ka piri atu ki ētahi atu o ngā mātua. Nāna i roto i te rīpoata nei Te Kāhui o Māhutonga tētahi waiata i waiho hei kōrerotanga hei whakamihi mā mātau mō Te Reo Māori. Nā reira tika tonu me mihi atu tātau ki ēnā kaumātua. Ētahi atu ko Charles Mohi ko ngā tuākana ngā tēina o te whānau o ngā Huata ētahi atu ko te kaumātua Tūwhāngai.E mahara ana ahau ki te pīki hui i tū ki roto i Waiwhetū. Ko te tau 1980. Nā i tērā wā ko te tangata nei a Kara Puketapu i te hautū i te tari Māori. Nāna te pūtea i te wā i a Ben Couch nāna te pūtea i rauhī kia tū ai tēnā hui. Ka puta mai ngā kaumātua katoa. Kātahi ka tū mai tētahi o ngā mātua o Whanganui ka tautoko i te kaupapa nei kia whakatōngia he purapura mō Te Reo Māori. Ko tētahi o ngā kaiwhakahaere o tēnā hui ko Ruka Broughton. Ko ia tētahi o ngā pūkenga o te ao Māori i awhi wawe i roto i a mātau i te noho ki Pōneke i tērā wā kia whakawhiwhia tonutia Te Reo Māori i mua i te tukunga mai o te pūtea kia tū ai ngā kōhanga.Nā ētahi atu kaumātua te hia noa atu ēngari ko tētahi wahine i reira nāna ngā kaumātua i tērā pō me ngā kuikuia i whakamātautau i whakataratara. Ko te wahine nei a Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi. I mōhio tātau i a tātau e kōrero ana mō ngā take mō Te Reo Māori arā noa atu te toenga o te kapa whaea kapa matua o tērā wā e toe tonu ana nā rātau tēnei waka i whakarite hei hari i ngā moemoeā o tō tātau iwi. Nā reira i a tātau e mihi ana ki te pire e mihi ana ki te kaupapa kaua tātau e wareware ki te hunga kua whetūrangitia. Ētahi ō rātau e toe ana hei mōrehu hei mihinga mā tātau ō roto i te Whare nei ka mutu ko ngā ingoa o ngā rōpū kua whakaritea hei noho ki Te Pūtahi Pāho.Ahau e tautoko ana i te kaupapa nei. Waiho ko tētahi kēwai o te kete taukawe o te kete e pupuru ko ngā rōpu kei tō tātau ao Māori. Horekau ōku kōrero mō rātau i a rātau e whakarite ana me pēhea te whakahaere. Mā rātau anō tēnā e whakatatū tā te mea ko ngā kanohi o te ao Māori e tau ana ki runga i a rātau. He mōhio nōku ehara rātau i te iwi kūare me pēhea rānei tēnei taonga e poipoia ai e whakakonihi ai hei taonga kia ranea ake te aroha kei ā tātau tamariki mokopuna ki tō tātau Reo Māori. Nā reira ko tāku he tautoko.Ko tāku ki te Minita me rapu tētahi wāhi pūtea pea me whakawhiwhi atu ki ētahi āpiha pea hei āwhina atu i a rātau e mahi ngātahi me te Karauna. I te tuatahi i te ohooho ahau e te Māngai o te Whare ka riro ko rātau hei rangatira mō ngā taonga e karangahia nei he iarere ēngari kua tatū taku ngākau ināianei me taku mōhio horekau ōku hoa i rata mai ki ēnā whakahē ōku kātahi au ka tuku ki raro. Ēngari ko te mahi hei kōrerotanga i tēnei pō kia kaha tātau te whakaaro mai i a koutou e noho ana ngā Minita kia whai huruhuru ai rātau ki te whakatutuki i ngā mahi i roto i te pire whakaarongia ana hei mahi mā rātau. Ka mutu ko ēnei take mō te āhuatanga o tō tātau Reo. Kaua tātau e teWhare e waiho mō tēnei taonga ko pouaka whakaata anakenake hei whakapuāwai i ngā moemoeā kei tēnā hapū kei tēnā iwi ka mutu ko te motu whānui. Waiho tēnā take hei amonga mā tātau katoa. Kia kaua rawa atu Te Reo e whakangoikorengia i roto i ngā kura. Kia kaua rawa atu Te Reo e whakatahangia i a tātau e rapu nei me pēhea rānei ngā manuhiri o rāwāhi e whakataungia ai. Me pēhea rānei ngā hākinakina papai o Aotearoa e wehea mai i Te Reo Māori. Koia tāku e tautoko nei i te kaupapa o ngā Kapa-ō-Pango i a rātau e rapu nei me pēhea rānei Te Reo Māori e kīnakitia ai ki ngā kaupapa ā-rēhia ki ngā kaupapa hākinakina e ngākaunuitia e te whānuitanga o te motu.Ka mutu Te Reo Māori i roto i tēnei pire e whakaarongia ana e kore Te Reo e tika ki te kāhore ngā tikanga noki e tautokotia ka mutu ka waihotia he hōtaka ka waihotia he pakipūmeka hei hari hei hāpai i ngā tikanga nōki. Ka mutu te hunga ka tino whiwhi inā oti i roto i ēnei mahi hōu me kī e whakaarongia ana i roto i te pire nei ko ā tātau tamariki ēngari ko ā tātau hoa Pākehā anō hoki me ngā huanga mai i ngā motu o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. Tāku e īnoi ake nei ki a tātau whakaarongia tētahi tauira ka riro ko Te Reo Māori hei kōrerotanga mā mātau te iwi Māori otirā hei whakarangatira hei whakamihinga hei whakamīharo mā Aotearoa katoa. Nā kia tū ngā kaupapa whakatau i roto i ngā kura kaua e whakatahangia i Te Reo Māori. Kia tū ngā kaupapa kei ngā kaunihera takiwā kei ngā kaunihera kei ngā rohe kei ngā koromatua tukua Te Reo Māori kia rite ki te raukura kia rangatira ai ngā ritenga me ngā tikanga i roto i ngā kaunihera. Ēnei mea katoa e oti mā roto i te pire nei māku ki a tātau ēnei mea katoa ka oti.Ka mutu e te Māngai o te Whare tā mātau i pōuri tā mātau hoki i mānakanaka ai roa rawa te wā tēnei take e tārewa ana. Ka nui noa atu te mānakonako o waenga tonu i a mātau e matatau nei ki Te Reo Māori e īnoi nei ki Te Atua ki te wāhi ngaro kia whakawhiwhia Te Reo Māori ki a mātau tamariki mokopuna ēngari me hāngai. Kaua rawa ēnei take e waiho kia whakatārewatia. Ki te tārewa mārika māku ki a tātau ko ngā kaiamo ko ngā kaitautoko kātahi ka manawa kore kātahi rātau ka ngoikore haere. Nā koia tāku e mea ake nei ki te Minita kia kaha te tautoko hāunga anō i a Pouaka Māori ēngari ko ngā irirangi Māori anō hoki. Arā noa atu te māra hei whakatupu i ngā māhuri āpōpō ka rite rātau hei pupuru i ngā tūranga teitei kei tēnei Pouaka Māori me kī.Kaua e waiho ko tēneki anake hei titiro mā tātau i a tātau e whiriwhiri me pēhea rānei Te Reo Māori e whakapakaringia ēngari tirohia anō hoki ngā irirangi tirohia anō hoki ngā kōhanga. E kore au e kōrero kōhanga ki te aroaro o te Minita he mōhio nōku āhua wera tonu ana tēnā take māna me Hekia Parata mā e rapu me pēhea rānei he rongoā ka kitea kia kaua rawa atu ngā kinonga o te poari whakahaere e māturuturu ki waenga tonu ia kōhanga ia kōhanga.Nā reira e Te Māngai tēnei mātau i te tautoko te mihi atu ki te Minita ahakoa āhua kārawarawa tana tuarā i ahau i mua e pai ana. He kaitōrangapū ahau tū mai tū atu. Horekau ōku raruraru kia puta i a au he kōrero ka whakautua tēnā kōrero ki ahau. Nā reira tēnei mātau te tautoko kia ora tātau katoa.[Greetings to us once again. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker of the House as you lead us here this evening. This address will take 10 minutes and I will use up the whole time so that our colleagues on the other side of the House can acquire new skills as they endorse the gist of this bill.The television audience must listen intently to the Māori language being spoken and then impress it implicitly in their minds feelings and in the spirit of the Māori language used here as being a treasure from our ancestors for this generation to speculate over and as something from us to the children and the whole of the country. We support this bill. Despite my comments that I do not support the Minister I must remain focused on the essence of this bill which is the Māori language and its customs. We mustdisengage from the matters for the Minister and leave them to one side and remain focused on the matters that our ancestors were negotiating in the first place.My thoughts go back to this elder Sir Hēmi—Hēmi Tau. That elder returned from the Second World War with the soldiers of the Māori Battalion. He disembarked the ship that brought them back to New Zealand and returned home. It was then that the dream manifested for the Māori language to be fixed permanently within his children grandchildren and his subtribes in Northland. Then he consulted other fathers. He left a song in this report of Te Kāhui o Māhutonga for us to talk about the Māori language and to celebrate it. Therefore it is only right that we salute those elders. Others were Charles Mohi elder and younger siblings of the Huata family and Hēnare Tūwhāngai.I recall a huge seminar that was held at Waiwhetū Marae in the 1980s. This person Kara Puketapu was the Secretary of the Māori Affairs department at the time. He put together the funding required for that seminar in Ben Couch’s time. All elders attended. One of the chiefs from Whanganui then stood up and endorsed this proposal about the Māori language and the seed was sown. Ruka Broughton one of the convenors of that seminar an expert in Māoridom and of the Māori language who was living amongst us in Wellington at the time quickly embraced the proposal that the Māori language be made available immediately even before funding to establish language nests had been allocated.Now there were other elders a huge number of them but there was this one particular woman present with other elderly women who tested and challenged the elders that night. This woman was Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi. In our discussions about matters pertaining to the Māori language we must recognise the fact that there are still teams of remaining mothers and fathers of that era left who considered that this would be the vessel to carry the dreams of our people. So while we are paying a tribute to the bill and the proposal we must never forget those who have passed away. Some of them remain as survivors to be acknowledged by us in this House and furthermore as names for the organisations considered to sit on Te Pūtahi Pāho.For me personally I support this proposal and leave our Māori organisations to hold one handle of the flax basket as they ponder over how Te Pūtahi Pāho should operate. I have nothing to say to them. They will have to make those determinations for themselves as they are accountable to Māoridom. I know for a fact that Māoridom is not ignorant in terms of how this treasure should be nurtured and treated with a great deal of stealth so that the love that our children and grandchildren have for our Māori language will well up in abundance. So my part is to support it.I urge the Minister to provide a portion perhaps of the funding for officials to perhaps help them work collaboratively with the Crown. At first I was wary Mr Assistant Speaker of the House that they would end up being the owners of property called spectrum but I am satisfied now knowing that some colleagues of mine were not too pleased with my opposing views so I sat down. But what we should be doing this evening while seated is to work hard to come up with strategies so that Ministers have the tools to work with to fulfil the tasks in the bill under consideration. Furthermore these matters relate to the state of our language. We the House must never allow this property the television set to be the sole means of bringing the dreams of that subtribe tribe and nation to fruition. We should all bear that responsibility. The Māori language must never be weakened in the schools and put to one side while we contemplate how visitors from overseas are to be welcomed or for that matter how top sports in New Zealand can be extricated from the Māori language. That is why I support the All Blacks’ philosophy as they seek ways to embellish well-liked pleasure and sports pursuits at a national level with the Māori language.As well as that the Māori language being considered in this bill would not be appropriate without its supporting customs too and what is more it is left to a programme a documentary to bear and take up the role of customs. As well the ones who will really benefit from these new applications being considered in this bill will not only be our children but also our non-Māori friends and Pacific Island relations. My plea to us all is to consider a model where the Māori language is left for us the Māori people to articulate treat with dignity eulogise and admire for the whole of New Zealand. So when there is a welcome ceremony in schools the Māori language is not parked up on the side. When it comes to ceremonies at local government council regional and mayoral levels allow the Māori language and its customs to prevail just like a plume a treasure so that council proceedings and protocols are conducted with dignity. I assure you that all these things can be accomplished in this bill.Beyond that Mr Assistant Speaker of the House we were disappointed and anxious too about the length of time this matter has been hanging around unresolved. There is much desire among us the ones fluent in the Māori language to have it made available to our children and grandchildren and we pray to God and the place out of sight that this happens. But it must be relevant. These matters should never be suspended and left unresolved. If this is a deliberate ploy then bearers and supporters will become disheartened and listless. That is what I was alluding to when I said the Minister should work hard to provide support not only to Māori Television but also to Māori radio. There are many plantations where saplings for tomorrow are planted so that their like can fill high positions at this Māori Television shall we say.We should not focus on this alone as we consider how to strengthen the Māori language but should examine the situation relating to radio and language nests as well. I will not mention language nests in front of the Minister because I know that is still a somewhat hot topic for him Hēkia Parata and others as they continue to look for a remedy to ensure that problems at Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust will not trickle down directly to each and every language nest.And so Mr Assistant Speaker we do support the bill and congratulate the Minister even though I inflicted some welts on his back in the past but that is fine. I am a politician through and through. I do not have any problems with expressing a view and the response that is made to me. So we do endorse this and greetings to us all.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I support the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. The Māori Affairs Committee worked hard on this bill. We considered all the issues in detail and we believe that this bill will empower and enhance the Maori Television Service and allow Māori Television to better protect Māori language and culture for the long term. I commend this bill to the House.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. We can celebrate 25 years of the Māori language being an official language. We now have 27 iwi radio stations broadcasting on 68 frequencies promoting Māori language and culture. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou i te Whare. I am very pleased to speak at this third reading of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Māori Affairs and my honourable colleague Shane here—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Full name—full name.RINO TIRIKATENE: —Mr Jones Mr Jones—for their contributions in Te Reo Māori because that is really what this bill is about. Sure there has been a long whakapapa to this particular bill but the essence of it is the protection and promotion of Te Reo Māori me ōna tikanga. We have empowered the Māori Television Service through this bill to enter into the digital age. It is going to be exciting to see what the future holds in terms of the digital platforms and the different mediums by which we will be able to consume content from the Māori Television Service but fundamentally it is about te reo me ōna tikanga.So yes this is a significant occasion. My thoughts go to the late Hon Parekura Horomia the instigator the champion and the Minister in charge of the establishment of the Māori Television Service who enshrined a review mechanism that has now led us to this review coming up to the 10th anniversary of the Māori Television Service. So we acknowledge those who have passed rātou ki a rātou but tātou te hunga ora. We are delighted to usher in this new chapter for Māori Television and the clarified and sharpened functions for the service. But there is also the conferring of rights to Te Pūtahi Paoho which will manage the spectrum that will be allocated which will allow the Māori Television Service to broadcast through the 4G digital platform in high definition—yes the wonders of modern broadcasting. So we commend this bill.We do support this bill. Sure we have raised some concerns regarding the composition of Te Pūtahi Paoho. But I notice that there is one name and one organisation on here that I do acknowledge—and I am so pleased that it is still there—Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo. I acknowledge the koroua kaumātua Huirangi Waikerepuru who was as I understand it one of the original claimants before the Waitangi Tribunal. They also took a case all the way to the Privy Council to fight for the recognition that the Crown has an active obligation. That Privy Council case established that the Crown has an active duty to protect and promote Te Reo Māori. It is a legal obligation on the Crown based on the Treaty. That rangatira who is still on Te Pūtahi Paoho is what this is all about. We need those elder statesmen and those kaumātua to be on those bodies in recognition of the contribution that they have made in fighting for our language for its survival.It is just wonderful that we can recognise those bodies and I guess we are looking forward to the Minister of Māori Affairs sharpening up the composition of Te Pūtahi Paoho. Sure if there are some redundant organisations that have been withdrawn or are discontinuing let us tidy that up—you know kei te pai—and then let us get on with the mahi.I do have one story which has actually just come back to me. In a former life of mine I suppose a few years ago I was a corporate lawyer—in the mid to late 1990s. This was around the time when there were a lot of asset sales going on. There were the sales of Contact Energy and the Auckland International Airport and we were doing some work for a very big corporate investment banking firm whose people had flown in from overseas. We were talking with Treasury and in those days the sale of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) was very very close to happening.Hon Maurice Williamson: I tried—I tried.RINO TIRIKATENE: Lo and behold it was that Minister opposite over there. So it was very close to taking place. I was involved in that and I had to give the advice to the investment bankers as to what the risks were and what was going to happen. The essence of my advice was that the Crown could not proceed with the sale at that time because it was too risky because of the legal obligations that the Crown had to Māori particularly in terms of the protection of the Māori language. So fortunately yes my advice was correct because the Government did back down from the sale. It backed down because it did have a legal obligation. It took a Labour Government to actuallyfulfil the obligation under the Treaty that led to the creation of the Māori Television Service. So here we are nearly 10 years on and the Māori Television Service is thriving. I certainly do hope that TVNZ is not on the radar of this Government for any potential future sale—that is all I can say.In passing can I get back to the core functions of the Māori Television Service. It is about the protection and promotion of Te Reo Māori me ōna tikanga and I am looking forward to seeing more creative content. In particular we have amended the functions of the Act to take into account the quality the integrity of Te Reo for native speakers—first-language speakers—as well. We may see the proliferation of more channels or more avenues for content for different audiences. We are seeing that with the Te Reo channel that it has already and we might see further refinement. It might be particular iwi—who knows? The future is definitely exciting.I do look forward to seeing Māori Television progress. I look forward to the announcement of its new chief executive when that person is finally appointed. Māori Television definitely needs a new chief to steer that waka.Hon Maurice Williamson: I wantMister Edin Te Reo again. He was good.RINO TIRIKATENE: Well there might beMister Edin Te Reo but I am looking forward to the—oh I forget the name but there is the NBA—the free-to-air National Basketball Association games which screen on Māori Television. I am looking forward to hearing Pierre Lyndon giving commentary with his great Ngāti Hine dialect—“The ball goes down to Steven Adams in the low post. He does a move and he goes down the keyhole and he does a two-handed slamdunk in the face right on top of LeBron James.”—all in the most beautiful Reo language. So it is exciting and I might be able to watch that on my mobile phone or through high-definition TV.I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to considering it further and I wish Māori Television all the very best. Kia ora tātou.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a short call in this third reading debate and to join members from across the Chamber and on the Government side in commending this bill the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill to the House for favourable passage through the House.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution in the third reading to support the passage of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Iriranga Māori) Amendment Bill. It would be a great sign actually and a milestone in fact if members in this House were to continue to promote in 5 or 10 years’ time what is happening in the Māori Television space. There is innovation. There is excitement. If members in this House could point to a number of programmes there because they see it as reflecting the face of New Zealand then I think that that in itself speaks volumes for the contribution that Māori Television makes not only to broadcasting but to increasing the knowledge amongst many New Zealanders in many communities of just how vibrant our country is.On 28 March next year the 10th anniversary of Māori Television will be reached. There have been some ups and downs sure but by and large what we have seen in the broadcasting space with the contribution of Māori Television is a clear role for a Māori broadcaster to protect and enhance Te Reo Māori not just for Māori but for a broader range of New Zealanders. Why is this important? It is important because in our daily lives many of our children interact with all sorts of other children and they want to appreciate each others’ culture. Recognising the unique identity of our children is I think a step towards increasing tolerance appreciating difference and seeing the unique potential of our young people as they grow up in our wonderful country. I do believe that Māori Television has a part to play in this process.Parekura Horomia was the Minister who initiated Māori Television and he did it with a simple ambition: we want more of our kids to wake up in the morning being proud of who they are speaking their language and being unafraid to exercise their culture and their heritage in a way that can contribute to the well-being of their communities their whānau and their country.But let me say this: the types of innovation we have seen in Māori television are like when Te Matatini the biennial senior kapa haka competition is live streamed as it is happening on the day. I look forward to Te Matatini being live streamed from Christchurch to many people who will not able to travel there. Also what we have seen in terms of Māori Television contributing to the public broadcasting space is the promotion of events that some New Zealanders would have to pay for—the Tua fight against Cameron the Rugby World Cup. Those are two types of events where Māori Television said “Well actually this is a public event of some interest. We want to participate on this front.” I applaud its efforts to recognise that it can fill a certain niche within the public broadcasting space that contributes to the vibrancy of this country and that opens up a world of opportunity and insight to the Māori world view and more important to the global view of indigenous people.We have seen a number of innovations in the programming space. Some entertainment value has been got from my comment of being a mum of young children and being delighted thatDora the Explorer was going to be promoted in Te ReoMāori. Why? Because my children like watching all sorts of cartoons and I am really optimistic about their ability to access cartoons in Te Reo Māori because I can continue to uphold what happens in our home which is promoting and speaking as much Māori as possible but at a level where my children can understand. Having access to cartoons actually is one of those ways of doing that.In the Māori Affairs Committee we talked about some of the I guess concerns aroundTe Pūtahi Paoho as I had mentioned previously so as not to impede the bill but to raise with the Minister ofMāori Affairs our concerns about the governance body. The Minister has since said that he has assured himself that this is in hand and that this is something he will ensure will be given some attention in the ongoing governance arrangement between the Crown andTe Pūtahi Paoho.By and large we have seenMāori Television grow at a time where its budget has flatlined. We have seen Māori Television take the necessary steps to tailor its activities but not its imagination to its budget. It has a Facebook page. It is engaged in Twitter. Its programming engages the audience whether it is through Facebook and Twitter through 0900 numbers to vote on its various shows or by getting all sorts of people from all walks of life into its programming or into programmes that are promoted on Māori Television. I applaud that because I believe that in a country like ours where we have so much vibrancy and where we have so much opportunity to promote how diverse our country is a public broadcaster should be doing this. I believe that Māori Television is doing it very well.I do want to see Māori Television grow. I do hope that this bill is a step towards that. It is signalled within the context of this legislation that ongoing reviews will happen and should happen with the agreement ofTe Pūtahi Paoho and the responsible Ministers. But more important it continues to carve out a key role thatMāori Television has in the broadcasting space to promote the very best of our culture language and heritage to every New Zealander should they want to access it. I am delighted about the way in which the broadcasting landscape has been broadened. I look forward to the day when Pacific television emerges on that landscape because I can see—Hon Maurice Williamson:Mister Ed in Samoan.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —that this is a real opportunity to again reinforce—the Minister may make a gibe aboutMister Ed but that is more a reflection of his time and the one-syllable sentences that people of that era understood. That is why we all find it good entertainment value. But there is no problem with havingMister Ed translated into any type of language. If it means that the Hon Maurice Williamson will watchMāori Television because ofMister Ed then I say Māori Television has succeeded.The real point of this contribution tonight is to say that given that Māori Television is 10 years into its operation—it has had some ups and downs mainly ups—there is still a lot of entertainment value in this station there is still a lot of contribution that the station can make in the broadcasting space and there is a whole lot of opportunity for a lot of young people who see the digital age as an opportunity to engage their talent and potential in new and dynamic ways. I support the bill. I support its intent.Ki a koe te Minita ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke mō ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire nui te mihi atu ki a koe. Kia ora tātou.[To you the Minister regardless of the ups and downs of the speeches in respect of this bill I acknowledge you greatly. My thanks to us.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I also support this bill theMāori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill. I thank all members for their constructive contributions to the debate. I congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs on bringing it to this point.Me whakanuia e tātou. [We should honour it.]Bill read a third time.Building Amendment Bill (No 4)Instruction to CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that consideration of all parts and schedules of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be taken as one debate in Committee.Motion agreed to.In CommitteeParts 1 and 2 schedule and clauses 1 to 3Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I am pleased to take a fairly brief call at the beginning of this. I hope I will cover off what I think are the key issues in this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). It is indeed a piece of reform that got started well and truly before this Government came into office. I give some commendation to the Hon Shane Jones who was my predecessor. In fact there are many people out there who will say that I am the best Minister for Building and Construction since Shane Jones. Given that I am the only one since Shane Jones that is at least a compliment.The reform of that whole sector which started with the Building Act 2004 now has to have a number of other things added to it. This bill has got some elements about consumer protection and about needing written contracts if the work you are engaged in with a builder is worth over $20000. But there are some issues that I think were raised along the way. I just want to try to cover them off quickly and then I will shut up and allow the members to make their comments.First I think the almost slightly valid criticism was that this bill is a bit piecemeal in dealing with the sector because it is only a certain part of it. I make no excuse for the fact that I have had to do this in tranches. When we did the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) this bill’s predecessor it had stuff about risk-based consenting which by theway we can trigger only once this bill is through. That has enormous impacts for Christchurch. If we are going to really make some progress in the Christchurch rebuild we do want to have risk-based consenting—that is the very very low-risk stuff will have almost no relative scrutiny compared with stuff that is at the very high end of the risk. So this bill completes probably the last of the criteria needed to trigger the regulations for risk-based consenting.But I could not get it all done in one hit even though I would have loved to. I would love to have had one huge building amendment omnibus bill. So we did the No. 3 bill got that through got it in place and when the No. 4 bill tonight is finished it will allow us to trigger things like risk-based consenting. So I would hope that instead of members seeing this as being a bit piecemeal this was stuff that needed to be held over while we got through.The second thing is that I have heard people say that the bill should provide for proportionate liability in the building sector particularly in light of the Supreme Court decision on The Spencer on Byron Hotel and so on. Can I say that this is the greatest bugbear of my life about the building sector: I think that joint and several liability is wrong. I think you should be held accountable for the things that you do but you should not be held accountable for things that you did not do. But sadly under our current liability rule which is called joint and several liability you are joined with everybody else and if they did something wrong you can be caught in that web as local authorities found to their chagrin.It is a harder issue than any of the members of this House will give credit for. We have kicked it off to the Law Commission and it is doing an in-depth piece of work and will report back to us—hopefully by the end of the year maybe or early in the new year—as to whether we could go to proportionate liability. I want to say to members that other jurisdictions around the world do have proportionate liability and it works so I do not see why we could not. I will repeat it again: you should be held accountable for the things that you do; you should not be held accountable for things that someone else did wrong but then you are the last man standing. I know that a number of territorial local authorities got caught up in all the leaky home syndrome when in fact they ended up being the last man standing.I think that one of the other issues raised before the Local Government and Environment Committee was that the bill should require mandatory home warranties. That is pretty closely related to that whole liability issue and it is again a real pet hobby of mine. I would love to go to some mandatory warranties. If you buy a new car you get a warranty. If you buy a new plasma screen you get a warranty and it is guaranteed fit for purpose. But sadly under the current regime if you get a new house there are some issues about what liabilities are sheeted home to whom and whether there is a warranty. So we will have to wait for the Law Commission’s report but I give members an absolute watertight guarantee that if the Law Commission gives us some room to move then I will be pushing to move to proportionate liability.One of the other issues raised at the select committee I think was that the bill does not go far enough in protecting consumers. Although I think that that is always going to be an issue I am hopeful that this bill has got the balance right. It requires everybody involved in work over $20000 to have a written contract. I think the amendments in the bill will be supported by the consumer information that is there. Education and advice over the next few years will tell people involved in the building sector what their rights are and how to get better information. And I think an effective monitoring regime also in place to track improvements in consumer awareness is part of what we are bringing in here.There are two or three other items. All parties—that is consumer building professionals and building consent authorities—continue to be financially exposed even for defects that are not their making. Again that is under the liability aspect. I think it is fair to say that we have just got to wait for the Law Commission. Hopefully we will get a good report.The bill does not address the huge skill deficit in the sector. That is true but it is not the role of this bill. I was with my colleague Steven Joyce today out inPētone where we were launching a new construction training unit at WelTec. The new apprenticeships scheme has got 8000 more enrolled in the building apprenticeship scheme than we had anticipated. So yes there will be a skills shortage from time to time. That is just the nature of this industry—peaks and troughs. And Christchurch is coming on stream. When it does come on it will be huge. With the shortage of housing in Auckland there will be a big demand.I can forecast now—and I want to go on record now—that the big complaint that will occur in about 18 or so months from now is that there are not enough skilled practitioners in the field. But let me actually add the next complaint. In about 3 years from there maybe 4 years from there there will be a complaint that there is not enough work for all the skilled practitioners. That is just the nature of the cyclical beast of the way this industry works.There are a couple of other bits in the bill that are sort of almost add-ons but I just want to cover them quickly in the 2 minutes I have got. There was a complaint that the bill is weakening a dam safety scheme that is currently in the Building Act. I want to make it clear that we think that this is about the right level of risk management without imposing unnecessary compliance costs. A number of local authorities and regional councils have been to me and said “Please don’t make it that we have to get involved in a lot of bureaucracy on quite small pools of water that shouldn’t be called a dam. But we understand that if they are big pools of water with a lot of height and a lot of volume they can pose a risk.” I think that what we have done in dam safety in this bill will target dams that are higher risk and that should be subject to the scheme and improve the effectiveness of the dam safety scheme.Finally the last of the complaints was that a select committee change to the definition of a large dam captures even more small dams making the regulation more onerous. I would say that amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 357 will remove that unnecessary compliance cost while ensuring the select committee’s intent—that is to address potential safety concerns.I am going to sit here. I am not going to take too many more calls because I think people get sick of hearing from me but I think this is an integral part of the Building Act reforms. It is a very exciting night for me with this No. 4 bill going through because I think it completes them. I want to repeat that I give some credit to my predecessor Shane Jones and actually a number of building Ministers before him because I think Labour had about six building Ministers within 6 years. This was the path that had already been set out when I read my briefing as an incoming Minister. This reform of the sector was already in train. I am delighted that we are going to get it through the House tonight.RAYMOND HUO (Labour):Ni hao. Following the good spirit of the Minister for Building and Construction who has just resumed his seat I would like to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones Labour’s spokesperson on building and construction who was an experienced Minister for Building and Construction as the current Minister just acknowledged. I am lucky to be his associate and to be his understudy.I would also like to acknowledge the current Minister for Building and Construction. I should say that the more I have got to know about the issues involving building andconstruction the more I appreciate the complexity involved in the Building Act review. I do feel for the Minister for Building and Construction especially whenever he was accused of taking a piecemeal approach for various reasons as he just outlined in his contribution. But that does not mean that he is exonerated.Last but not least I would like to thank the officials for their thorough analysis for their thorough departmental report and for their advice which was very very helpful. The departmental report on this particular bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is one of the best of this kind. The departmental report and indeed the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) itself covered a number of issues. Some of them are outside of the scope of this bill but are a very important part of the Building Act review.Labour supports the Building Act review but our position remains the same and that is that we cannot—at least at this stage—support the passage of this bill. Two events would have played a certain role in affecting our position. As stated in our Local Government and Environment Committee minority report given the range of serious issues that have been raised by the submitters and the fact that the Government would be considering the findings of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes it would make more sense to separate off the elements of the No. 4 bill that relate to dams and to hold back the provisions that deal with consumer issues in relation to residential properties. If that happened as indicated in our minority report we would have no problem in supporting the provisions in relation to classifiable or referable dams.The second event is related to the review of the non-ductile column buildings built between 1982 and 1995 with three storeys or more. The purpose was to establish whether there were any buildings with similar design flaws to the CTV Building which collapsed in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake killing 115 people. I should say the approach taken by the Minister for Building and Construction was sensible and professional. There are two building owners who have refused to engage with the review despite the council asking them to get an engineering assessment. The status quo does not give councils or the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the power to compel at-risk building owners to have their at-risk buildings assessed and their problems addressed. I agree with the Minister who found it unacceptable and I understand he has been investigating options to increase accountability.The options that the Minister has been investigating are either a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill or stand-alone legislation. If the Minister introduces such a Supplementary Order Paper it may affect our position with regard to the bill in its entirety. It is more in sorrow than in anger that we have no other choice but to decide to vote against this bill. Having said that I should reiterate that our position as stated in our minority report in the Building Amendment Bill (No 3)—now the 2012 Act—has remained the same as well. It is an opportunity lost in that the Minister has so far taken a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach.I do find the Minister’s explanations to some extent acceptable. However I am not quite sure how many stand-alone bills the Minister is going to introduce or when he is going to introduce for example the Building Amendment Bill (No 5) (No 6) or (No 7). It sounds like the Minister is competing against Steve Jobs in releasing iPhones 5 5s 6 or 7 but the building sector needs certainty. We legislators need to look beyond the status quo to introduce effective measures to prevent a repeat of the man-made leaky buildings saga and to prepare us for rainy days both in the literal and figurative sense.There are some other issues that I would like to touch upon at this Committee stage. The first one is related to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. The No. 4 bill states that owners of dwellings that suffer from building defects that are not remedied by the liable parties can seek redress through arbitration the Weathertight Homes Tribunal or thecourts. These courses of action are already fully available to aggrieved owners. But certainly in the case of the courts and even the Weathertight Homes Tribunal they are ruinously expensive.This bill does nothing to reduce this cost to improve the technical ability of these judicial bodies to arrive at technically correct findings or as stated above to ensure that responsible parties are held accountable. Whereas the Government could reasonably claim that a review of joint and several liability vis-à-vis proportional liability—by the way I do accept the explanations given by the Minister in his earlier contributions—and the technical performance of the courts are matters for the Law Commission to consider the effectiveness of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal should have formed a major part of the Building Act review and as a consequence this suite of legislation.The other related matter is a mandatory home warranty. I support Wellington City Council and Christchurch City Council two of our largest city councils and a number of other submitters who have called on the Government to introduce a home warranty insurance scheme and urge the Minister to refer the matter to the Law Commission for review. As pointed out by the Home Owners and Buyers Association if the parties responsible for defective building work have either gone out of business died or left New Zealand the consumer is left exposed and faces having to cover the costs. Building law should be amended to offer greater protections. Oddly the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) now before the Committee to be passed under urgency was forced to amend its report to the House. The committee and public were led to believe that the Minister had referred the matters of both joint and several liability and the mandatory home warranty scheme to the Law Commission for review. However the Law Commission later informed the chair that mandatory home warranties had never been referred.For the general public it does not matter as to who misled the committee but I continue to urge the Government to refer this issue to the Law Commission and establish a system that provides meaningful and effective protections and guarantees for consumers and consenting authorities. We must legislate to prevent a repeat of the man-made leaky buildings saga especially in light of an imminent construction boom in parts of the country. New Zealand consumers deserve protection and the Minister needs to make sure that the law ensures that contractors and suppliers will be held accountable. The Government’s piecemeal approach will not work and introducing inadequate measures or partial instalments is not the answer.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I would like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction and my colleague Raymond Huo who until recently was shepherding this shadow portfolio through our caucus and I endorse a number of the things that he has pointed out this evening. I am quite sure that the Minister himself realises that it is a work in progress.I would say that the difficulty with this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is that the train has left the station and it is on its trajectory. This debate is about how to get the balance between those consumers who want efficiency speed and the delivery of the product because many of them have upset wives or husbands at home and they do not want the hammers being bashed around too long for renovations etc. and those—and my colleague Raymond Huo has highlighted their identity—who believe that the fallout of the leaky homes saga is such that we should always go for a belts and braces approach.It is a rather unique collection of individuals we have here. We have Mr Cosgrove a former building Minister; we have the Hon Maurice Williamson; and we have my good self. The problem I have is that I was also the Associate Minister of Immigration and I can tell you that that was far more hazardous than being the building Minister. Buthaving said that quite a few of the things in the bill we do think will work but it did not quite get there from our perspective.But having said that we are conscious of what the Minister said. A number of these refinements—it is the genuine belief of the Minister and his colleagues and I guess the professional advisers—will expedite work in Christchurch but not the highly technical demanding work that needs a whole panel of engineers. And I am not talking about the disgraced engineer Alan Reay whose name unfortunately blighted the splendour and majesty of this Chamber recently. But that aside I am talking about those who are proud of their profession. I am talking about those who realise that to have a durable city you need accountable professionals.I do feel that we should if we can at all times enhance the importance of consumer protection whilst at the same time giving a bit scope and space because as we go forward during this transition nothing is static and there will be a need to refine it as we go forward.I will not talk too much about dam safety although unless Nick Smith’s stewardship of the Ruataniwha dam fiasco proposal improves this bill will not ever have any application in Hawke’s Bay in terms of dam safety. That is a bit of a shame because I was born and bred on a farm and I realise the importance of irrigation etc. but now that I am a professional politician and a member of the august Labour Party caucus the importance of process has been brought home to me as well. The processes that we had in Awanui and Kaitāia were possibly a tad more pragmatic than what I have learnt to accept is resource management law—but that is for another discussion.I would say that this is work that we initiated and the Minister for Building and Construction has carried it on. Phil Twyford looked at it and more recently Mr Huo has looked at it. Let us acknowledge that there are areas that we slightly agree on. We are all deeply committed to ensuring that the building framework meets not only the needs of consumers but also the needs of the regulator. I hope that they can make a call and shift the balance. I am of the view that if you can rely on an electrician and if you can rely on a plumber then what we thought we were doing—the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and I in Helen Clark’s time quite apart from listening to every word that she ever uttered—[Interruption] Well there were one or three words that I conveniently overlooked. But it was as the Minister for Building and Construction that I recall saying: “I don’t think it’s a good idea that we should actually regulate for the amount of water that comes out of the showerhead.” I was acquainted with the fact that it was Green Party policy and I should defend it—it is sad that nobody came to my defence when I was caught in the trenches but you learn these things when you are No. 18. We cannot support the bill but we support the sentiments in there. Kia ora tātou.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I would like to make a short contribution. The Green Party is opposing this legislation and I want to just briefly set out why for the Committee’s information. The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) deals with consumer protection recommendations from the Building Act review. We supported the bill at its first reading and we were interested to hear the submissions and the response to the legislation because there had been concerns with the previous bills that came out of the review about the piecemeal approach to dealing with the original review’s recommendations. So we did support the bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We have heard the responses from submitters. It is our view now that the bill does not deal with consumer protection sufficiently to justify our vote so we will not be supporting it any further.We did support the original bill because we are very much in favour of increased consumer protections. It is crucial that the regulatory environment for building and housing in New Zealand is first class. There is no room for substandard regulatoryreform. There is no room for substandard consumer protections. Of course we have had far too many lessons in this country that prove how necessary it is to have a first-class set of regulatory laws around building and housing.We have the substandard quality of most of the rental housing stock in this country which is largely old stock that is poorly insulated often poorly built damp and makes our kids and our families sick. We have had the debacle of the leaky homes which was the direct result of a previous National Government’s deregulation obsession. It has cost families and councils and communities millions and millions of dollars. Of course there are the weaknesses tragically discovered after major events like the Christchurch earthquakes. Given the very dynamic nature of New Zealand’s environment and our land and the importance of housing and building to the safety and protection of our families there just is no room for a substandard approach.So from our point of view having looked at the bill and heard the submissions we do not believe that this bill makes the sufficient reforms to justify the support. We did want to see a higher minimum standard if you like set in place. We agree with the Home Owners and Buyers Association that a mandatory warranting scheme with an independent authority was a better option. We do understand that there is likely to be more reform in the future and we are pleased about that. We welcome that and we will look very seriously at supporting future measures where there are stronger consumer protections. We look forward to more debate on that in time. But until those protections are genuinely stronger and provide sufficient support we will not support something that is substandard. So unfortunately this is not the bill that provides the kinds of protections that we would like to see put in place. We look forward to future legislation that does that. Until that time we will be voting against this bill. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). It was somewhat disappointing to hear the Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Maurice Williamson use most of the time in his address to talk about what was not in this bill rather than what was in this bill. To hear the Minister say that low-risk building will have next to no scrutiny—low-risk building will have next to no scrutiny—really does raise alarm bells for New Zealand First and indeed for many New Zealanders throughout New Zealand who have seen the effects on building such as with the leaky building situation that came out of the National Government in the 1990s.This bill is more about excluding things and if you read the bill it seems to exclude more things than include things. When you start looking at what is exempted you see that it exempts in the future any compliance requirements from a local authority to build the likes of carports pergolas outbuildings 10 square metres or less and interior alterations to non-residential buildings. It moves into retaining walls and all sorts of other things that become excluded. When you start excluding all these various things you open up a situation where consumers the public of New Zealand start being put at risk. People do stand on decks. People do stand under pergolas. People do walk through or park in carports. And if many of these structures start to be thrown up by any old person without any compliance requirements at all we will end up with a very very Mickey Mouse situation in building in this country. I can foresee that as we saw in this last decade with the leaky home situation when much of this is now going to be self-regulating—the likes of the Registered Master Builders Federation and other such entities will be self-regulated—there will be far less scrutiny by local authorities and councils. As a result of that we have the potential here of setting up for the next decade and the decade after that another whole leaky building situation brought about by yet another National Government.It would seem that the National Government does not learn from its past mistakes. Minister Williamson certainly appears not to having been in a National Government in the 1990s which changed the building code which allowed monolithic cladding to be applied directly to kiln-dried timber and then we ended up with that very monolithic cladding cracking and moisture getting into the untreated timber and rotting houses as a result. That same National Government some 15 or 20 years later now is saying: “Let’s take away a lot of the safeguards. Let’s remove a lot of the local authority controls in terms of oversight of building. Let’s have a much more self-regulated building industry.” on the premise that this will reduce building costs. Although it might on the face of it reduce some compliance costs of building what is the long-term cost to New Zealand? What is the long-term cost in terms of health and safety of New Zealanders if structures are put up that basically do not come up to scratch?This bill as the Minister also said does not address building skills in New Zealand. So we could be faced with a situation during this whole period through this decade as a result of this legislation that builders may not necessarily have qualifications that would be expected of them because they may for instance not have been trained in this country. They may have been trained under different circumstances in other countries where perhaps their building codes are not quite the same or their building practices are not quite the same as in New Zealand. We may well find in the future that questions are asked as to why a carport fell down or why a pergola suddenly dropped—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Andrew Williams.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chair. You did not have to look around—I was the only one standing. But thank you Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I always look around.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Yes. It is very fortunate this debate will be inHansard because if it is inHansard where the warning bells are given and where the Government is on notice that what it is doing is once again revisiting a potential situation of putting New Zealanders at risk then let us look at thisHansard recording perhaps in 10 years’ time and ask how this happened. And why did we change all these things bring in self-regulation and bring in this legislation that basically saw the leaky homes thing revisited all over again?It mentions in this bill that contractors who exceed $20000 worth of work will be required to provide a written contract. But what happens if the contract is for $19999.99 and that contractor does one bit of the work and his brother who is a different contractor does another bit of the work for $19999.99 and then his cousin does some more of the work for another $19999.99 and multiples of that? What happens then? Where is the written contract for that and where are the safeguards for New Zealand for multiples of that? The bill also says that these entities will be required to give written contracts and their background as to their capabilities. Again how often have we seen Mr XYZ Builder 2008 Ltd. not being around and then disappearing and starting up a new thing as Mr ABC Builder 2010 Ltd. in a totally different guise? How will that be addressed? I would ask the Minister to take a call on this and tell us how these sorts of things will be addressed.How will multiples of under $20000 be addressed? How will people going under various names or through various window companies or through various other entities that they may be operating—how will that be addressed? How will the building skills requirement be addressed? How will we know that builders who may not have been trained in New Zealand and who may have come from other jurisdictions with other practices in building are doing what is right by New Zealanders? And how will we know for instance because there is no requirement for any permit in the case ofbuildings that are less than 10 square metres—and that is a reasonably sized room—that these small structures will not be going up all over the back lawns of Auckland because of the housing shortage?For many people in Auckland who are currently squeezed into three-bedroom homes with large families how will we ensure that they are not themselves putting up substandard 10-square-metre outhouses on their back lawn for children or family or extended family to live in with next to no scrutiny by any local authority as to how that structure was built whether it is fire-code compliant whether it is structurally sound or anything? Tell us Minister how will we stop people putting up such structures of under 10 square metres across Auckland back lawns all through Manukau and all through your electorate Minister? So there are a lot of questions in this.The Minister also mentioned about the situation of joint and several versus proportionate liability. Again that is long overdue and it should have been addressed before now as it has been in other countries because the last man standing in this country always tends to be the local authority because everybody else has disappeared. They have gone west. They have closed their companies or they have shot through to Australia or wherever else and the only one remaining tends to be the local authority that perhaps was involved in signing it off. So New Zealand First would like that addressed as well. But there are many many things—you could drive a bus through half of this.But at the end of the day this bill is more about exempting things. This bill is more about National making it easier for things to be done without compliance and this basically means that New Zealanders face another risky decade or so coming up where perhaps New Zealanders will be asking how we lowered the standards once again.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the schedule be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I moveThat the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. We have just been through the Committee of the whole House stage of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) and I was asked by one of the speakers to put a bit more time into what is in the bill. I do not intend to take a long time going through the bill but I do want to say that the most important ingredient in this bill makes it mandatory for a builder to provide a written contract for any work if it is over $20000. So it is not mandatory if you are getting your kitchen cupboards redone or you are getting a door to the laundry changed and so on but it is mandatory for any work that is more than slightly trivial.There are some really important ingredients. First of all the builder must provide to the consumer a checklist of what information is available to the client including their rights and their obligations under the building work process so that the consumer becomes well-informed. They need to disclose to the client information about their skills their work history and their business. They need to show to the consumer: “This is what I am in terms of a skilled qualified practitioner. This is the history of my work programme”—which the client can go and look at—“and this is what my business is structured like.” in terms of whether it might fold because it is so delicate. That is I think vitally important to the consumer. Finally the builder has to enter into an absolutely written contract so that it is actually watertight.I thank the House for processing this through but I think it is worthwhile covering just a couple of points especially the points raised by Metiria Turei from the Green Party about National’s deregulation of the building sector. These points that I want to make now are not to try to play silly games or anything; they are just straight factual. The Building Bill of 1991 was introduced into Parliament by Labour by the Hon Margaret Austin. She introduced it in 1990 because Labour thought that the whole building sector needed dramatic reform and to be absolutely honest National agreed with that. So when we became the Government in 1990 we finished off the bill by passing it through its third reading and making it become an Act. But it was not ours to start with.In fact I have got some wonderful quotes from George Hawkins when he became the Minister later on saying: “National don’t dare claim credit for that Act. That was ours. Yes it might have been passed when National was in Government but it was our bill which Margaret Austin introduced and Labour deserves the credit for it.” So be very careful about accusing National of being the deregulating Government that changed the legislation in 1991. We did not introduce that bill. We did not put it through its first few stages including through the select committee. We gave it its third reading only because we agreed with it. So it was a Labour Act.The second thing that I think is worthwhile covering is that the key cause for our leaky homes syndrome was not anything to do with this Parliament it was not anything to do with a Minister and it was not anything to do with a member of Parliament or anything else. There was an independent agency—completely independent of Ministers and this Parliament—called Standards New Zealand. It was Standards New Zealand after a lot of advocacy from the big timber companies Fletcher’s and Carters saying that treated timber had all sorts of arsenics carcinogens and all sorts of ghastly stuff that could leech into the builders’ skin and so on and that we did not need to use it any more. Interestingly if you read the report—because I have read it with great interest—it said that borer was no longer an issue. That is why we had mainly treated timber up until 1995 for borer. So Standards New Zealand—and not any Minister in any Government or any select committee or any member of Parliament was involved in it—decided to allow kiln-dried timber as an acceptable solution under the Building Act.In hindsight that proved to be a huge mistake and the country is paying billions.PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated it to be $11.2 billion already and it could be double that. So be very careful of laying the blame on any political party and be very careful of laying the blame on any Minister for the decision to go to untreated timber. It was no Minister even if at the time they had known it—I do not know who the Minister was in 1995 but I do not think they would have even known that it was an issue because Standards New Zealand just did it independently and announced that decision.Then finally Andrew Williams said that he does not like the idea of risk-based consenting—that is things that are at the very low end of the risk curve. These are things that are using stock standard products using stock standard design treated timber three-bedroom—he does not like the idea of that having a lot less scrutiny than something that is at the high end of the risk curve. Well I say to Mr Williams that we used to have the full scrutiny the 18 inspections the building consent process and the actual code of compliance on all those buildings.And did that give consumers protection? Did that save them from the disasters that they have had? So why he would be advocating that we need to stay with the full set of consents and inspections and the code of compliance when it did not give thousands of consumers the protection—why would you then say: “Well that’s what we should stay with.”?Andrew Williams: Of course it gave protection.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It did not give them protection and if he thinks it did there are tens of thousands of people out there now who are dramatically out of pocket and hurt by it.The whole purpose of it—and this was the whole direction of the review—was to say: “Why don’t we look at things that are at the low end of the risk curve? Why don’t we look at things that are almost a guarantee not to be an issue?”. And we have already done it with a thing called MultiProof where we have said to people: “Come and get your consent for the building once and only once and then when you go out and build multiple copies of it around the country you don’t need to keep going to the local authority for each individual version of that building.” which is a good move.But I also say to them that what we have got now—and it is another thing I do not think Andrew Williams is giving any credit for—as of March last year is the licensed building practitioners scheme. What that says now is that if you are going to build a house and be involved in either the structural integrity or the weathertight envelope of that building you actually have to be a qualified practitioner. You have to have been through a whole series of processes to evaluate your skills your talents and your qualifications and you then become a licensed practitioner. Up until March of last year all you needed to do to build a house was to have a cellphone a dog and a ute. Anyone—anyone—could have gone and built a house up until March of last year. Nolonger can you do that. You now have to be a qualified person or be supervised by a qualified person. So why would we then say to a qualified practitioner: “The regime is like it is. You’re qualified. We don’t need all the scrutiny but in fact we still think we should have bureaucrats pour over you for something quite so simple.”In the end I thank some of the Labour members for their words. I know they have not thought that the bill goes far enough and let me say that I think I agree with them. But it is better that we make some incremental improvements as time rolls by than try to find a way of solving all of the problems in one hit. I would really hope that we get the Law Commission to give a report about moving away from joint and several and moving to a proportionate level. So I am really happy to move that the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As Shane Jones said the Minister for Building and Construction heads up a unique alumni of Ministers for Building and Construction both present and past along with Mr Jones and myself and the Minister Mr Williamson. I cannot recall—I am sure Mr Williamson might—when we were in Government how many Ministers for Building and Construction there were. There were a few and I have to say from the outset that the intent I think of all those Ministers from both sides was to try to solve a series of difficult problems and particularly as the Minister says the weathertight homes issue which was visited on us for a variety of reasons.I accept the Minister’s thesis in part that it was for a variety of reasons and a variety of contributing factors. I would though mention one as it sort of latticed together those factors and that was that in the old days—possibly well before some of us were here—we had things called apprenticeships. We had a building regime that generally—and many of our State houses are living testaments to it. You could fire a howitzer at some of them and though they were built pre-insulation and though they are bit draughty they still stand up to most things today. But many of our houses throughout our history were build on a handshake and builders and construction folk came back if there was a problem and fixed it. They were constructed well and those builders were trained in a thing called an apprenticeship.Before I entered this Parliament—and I remember as Minister making a couple of points to the then Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who at the time—I think it was 19—Kris Faafoi: Right honourable.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Right honourable. I was going to say Sir but I presume that is yet to come.Hon Maurice Williamson: No no no—it is Sir Lockwood.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh he is Sir. That is right—of course. I apologise. The Rt Hon Sir Dr Lockwood Smith—I hope I have got it and honourable somewhere in there—Hon Maurice Williamson: School C.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yeah—bistro and bar. But he—I think it was in 1995—as tertiary education Minister abolished a thing called the Apprenticeship Act in the vain hope that the market would sort it out and people would go and get the skills and those sorts of things. I recall when I originally and Shane Jones took and launched the licensed building practitioners regime. The hope I think we had once we transitioned those builders who had appropriate skill levels who may not have had the trade certificate or an apprenticeship but did have a very good track record of building—once they were sort of through it—was that we could almost turn the clock back and say to the 15-year-old at high school: “Son if you want to be a builder you have to get a thing called an apprenticeship.”. That is why we introduced the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. The Minister is right in that you could strap on a tool belt callyourself a builder and do anything. But I think that was a contributing factor. In the old days people were trained through a 3 to 4-year apprenticeship and they knew what they were doing.Though we support the review process in respect of the Building Act we find ourselves on this side of the House unable to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). I say to the Minister—he made a couple of comments to Andrew Williams I think it was and said: “Well we had 18 inspections. We had council inspectors running around the place. Take weathertight building homes—they did not get it right and we still have the problem.” I have got to say that I agree with the Minister to a certain extent because I remember going to a number of local authorities as Minister for Building and Construction and actually talking to some of the building inspectors and on one occasion they said: “Oh we stopped the ‘drive-by inspections’ only a couple of years ago.” I said: “What do you mean ‘drive-by’?”. They said: “Well to be honest the pressure was on us so much that we just sort of drove by waved at the building and then signed it off.”To be fair though the answer in my view—contrary to the Minister’s—is that less scrutiny does not reduce the risk. What I think should have happened and what we did do was that we started to accredit councils to make sure that building inspectors actually had the knowledge. There is the old joke that you know the building inspector is the failed builder—not always. But to ensure that building inspectors and local authorities had the skills to actually inspect and check and if it was not up to scratch to then require change—and not drive by the house and go “Yep. It is all done.” and never even look because it might have been their mates or they were under pressure or they did not have the resources—we started the accreditation of councils.I do not agree with the Minister that less inspection less scrutiny means less risk. Appropriate scrutiny by trained people who actually do the damn job can actually mean less risk. It used to be—again going back many years—that the last line of defence for the homeowner was the building inspector from the council who would come in and make sure the bits joined together and tick off those items.I suppose the thing that concerns us is that this bill seems to be a sort of piecemeal approach. I agree with the sentiment of the Minister which says that in theory low risk means we should be able to get on with it without a lot of bureaucracy—if you want to build the outhouse outside well OK maybe. But I still do not really get from the Minister—and I still think the definition of what is low risk is too loose and has not been adequately defined. You could make an argument that fitting your hot-water cylinder is pretty standard pretty low risk. Well if she blows it causes a heck of a lot of damage. So it is very easy and I think very politically popular to say: “Look low risk we’re just going to flick it through with minimal scrutiny. It’s not going to affect the envelope of the house; it doesn’t matter. Just away you go and do it.”I think there needs to be a more holistic approach to this—a far more holistic approach—where all these facets are looked at. I say again that I do not understand the logic that less inspection means less risk. Appropriate levels of inspection by skilled and appropriate inspectors or professionals who can call to account the person who has constructed or done the work—and make them fix it or do it appropriately—generally means a higher degree of confidence for the homeowner.So I say in concluding that although I accept that every Minister for Building and Construction has from time to time—often under duress from the odd chief executive officer or senior official I might add; some no longer with us—had the best intentions to try to get this right I do not think that this bill is the way to go. There should be more scrutiny and there should be an overarching regime not a piecemeal sort of uncoordinated approach.We will not support this bill. We support the sentiment and we look forward to the day when the Government will take this issue a tad more seriously. The truth is that as we all know—and as has certainly been brought home to us by Christchurch and Canterbury but for a natural reason if you will called an earthquake—the biggest asset people have generally or the biggest transaction people will have in their lives is the purchase of a home. If there is anything good to come out of the leaky homes fiasco and even sadly the earthquake in terms of home scrutiny I think it is this. Those of us who purchase property or who look to purchase property understand that we are just like most people when they buy a second-hand car take it to the Automobile Association and say: “Is it a dunger or is it not? Is it OK? Is it worth the money?”. We had this mind block that we would not do that with a house but most people now—and it is germane to today’s ChristchurchPress actually—will have a professional look at the home very closely. They will check the work to ensure that the asset they buy with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they outlay of their own money is well worth it and that they are not buying a dunger—not buying a dunger.I finish on this. If you look at construction—I just digress for a short point and that is that if we look at the Fletcher Construction project management in Christchurch the legalised monopoly it is astounding that with the accreditation system and other things in place we find that one in three house repairs executed by Fletcher EQR is a dunger—is a dunger. I think that even with all that and even with the monopoly and the regime that the Government set up to have those figures—one in three a dunger—is not acceptable especially to those who have had their lives torn apart by an earthquake.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise to support the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) which has gone through a tremendous amount of scrutiny since the review of the Building Act carried out in roughly 2009 flowing on to 2010. It is worth noting that the construction sector is a critical player in the New Zealand economy. It is the fifth-largest sector in New Zealand. It employs 174000 people which equates to somewhere roughly between 7 and 9 percent of the workforce overall. It contributes to about 4 percent of the GDP. It employs large numbers of Māori and lots of those of course leaving school and looking to upgrade their skills in that very sector.It is not surprising that in a sector employing so many working so hard in this country and contributing so much to our GDP there would be a few if you like cowboys out there. The idea of this legislation is to reform the building rules such that they “build it right first time”. New Zealand in some senses in some parts of the country and with some building companies has been seen as something of a wild west historically and of course that must stop because although we talk about the very high-level figures for New Zealand the reality is that if it was just one home that was built in New Zealand by one builder contributing very little to the GDP to that particular family it is a complete tragedy if their largest and most valuable asset actually crumbles underneath them and they are left essentially with big bills to pay on top of a mortgage.This legislation will ensure that homeowners can make informed decisions about their homes and who builds their homes. Improvements to productivity efficiency and accountability can be achieved only if building work is designed and constructed right the first time and meets the requirements of the building code. The review did find an over-reliance on building consent authorities. It is important that we do have the monitoring the policing and of course the accountability that comes from that. The reality is that we want to trust the builder in the first place to give good advice and do an excellent job on site.The changes will enforce in law what is already best practice in the industry. The majority of builders who have already behaved professionally have nothing to fearwhatsoever but the cowboys do and that is a good thing. I am sure that this House agrees. The major change is that homeowners will be better able to identify between a professional and those who are lax in their work. And of course the drawing up of contracts and the obligations on builders to provide some sort of transparency about their business and what they are going to give I guess to their clients have been fully opened up. I commend this bill to the House. It has taken a long period of work by this Parliament and the Minister to pay attention to detail. I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee on its work and I commend the bill to Parliament.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Labour supports the Building Act review and our focus is on the protection of consumers building practitioners and building consenting authorities—namely ratepayers. For that reason we cannot at least at this stage support the passage of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). We look forward to supporting any new bills that provide such protection.Two events as explained in my earlier contributions would have played a certain role in affecting our position. It would make more sense to focus specifically on issues in relation to dams and hold back the provisions that deal with the consumer issues in relation to residential properties. The second one is concerning the review of the non-ductile column buildings built between 1982 and 1995 with three storeys or more. The purpose was to establish whether there were any buildings with design flaws similar to those of the CTV Building which collapsed in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake killing 115 people.The current legal regime does not give authorities the power to compel owners of at-risk buildings to have their at-risk buildings assessed in the interests of public safety. The Minister for Building and Construction had earlier indicated that he would explore options to address the issue by introducing for instance a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill but neither of the two events occurred in terms of the progress of this bill and therefore our opposition as outlined in our minority report has remained the same. It is more in sorrow than in anger that we have no other choice but to vote against this bill.There are a number of issues I wish to bring to the attention of this House—firstly the definition of buildings. The Building Act as its title suggests is meant to cover all the infrastructure commercial and industrial buildings and structures. However one major problem with the drafting of both the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) and indeed the entire Building Act review is their obsession with homes dwelling units. It appears that they have confined the definition of buildings to that of homes dwelling units or residential buildings.Given the very serious problems that have come to light with large structures especially stadiums the Building Act review and the two bills introduced to implement its policy decisions should have covered more than dams and dwelling units. The Supreme Court’s decision on the Spencer on Byron Hotel case has reinforced the view that the Building Act review and the bills introduced should be taking a wider look at those issues. It is therefore important to note that we are dealing with only part of what the Building Act is meant to cover and further that the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) addresses only residential buildings and oddly dams.Secondly we find the rationale to replace code compliance certificates with consent completion certificates less convincing. We agree with the submissions and the views that until such time as the licensed building practitioner regime matures this is a step too far. According to them at this stage the regime is more a system of ticking boxes than a means to upskill the industry. The new consent completion certificate is significantly different from the old code compliance certificate and this change willalmost certainly have a detrimental effect on consumers seeking redress for severe loss. I note the Minister has not triggered the new consent completion certificate regime for good reasons and that has reinforced my view.Thirdly contrary to the purpose of this bill the measures introduced would reduce the means by which an aggrieved owner can seek redress for significant financial loss and hardship. One overarching concern from the submitters is that this bill sought to redistribute the responsibility and liability of the building consent authorities and therefore intended to ring-fence them in the event of building failures. We agree that the liability that has until now rested with the consenting authorities as the last man standing is unacceptable. This is because ratepayers have had to eventually bear the cost of negligence claims brought against the consenting authorities. It is equally unacceptable that it is now the consumers who will be left to pick up most of the bill for any claims resulting from substandard building work. Further no measures have been taken to ensure that builders and other parties who may be responsible for serious defects have sufficient assets and insurance to cover their liabilities. That is the reason why this afternoon I released the Labour media statement urging the Government to include the home warranty insurance scheme in the Building Act review.I support two of our largest city councils—the Wellington City Council and the Christchurch City Council—and a number of other submitters who have called upon the Government to introduce a home warranty insurance scheme. As pointed out by the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand if responsible parties for defective building work have gone out of business died or left the country the consumer is left exposed and faces having to cover the costs. The building law should be amended to offer greater protections not reduce them.I turn to the fourth point with regard to company failures. Concerns were expressed about companies that are formed for the sole purpose of a single building project and are then liquidated as soon as the work is completed leaving no legal entity that can be directly held to account for defective work that is later discovered. As it stands the bill fails to offer consumers any effective remedies when left in the lurch by a $1 shell company despite the fact that the building sector’s failure rate is higher than the rate of all businesses before 2003 and after 2008. Even legitimate contracting and subcontracting firms have often ceased to exist by the time defects have come to light.Fifthly—a product’s warranty—we welcome the introduction of a responsibility provision for product manufacturers or suppliers. It is widely accepted that the leaky buildings saga was primarily caused by the use of inappropriate building products or systems or incompetence in or lack of adequate oversight of their application. The Minister pointed his finger at Standards New Zealand and he must be correct given he is so experienced. However given the complexity of the issue particularly where the prescribed compliance with the building code is often difficult to establish the provision in its current form fails to address the problem adequately. In addition it is essential that building product manufacturers do not escape liability because the specified installation requirements are impractical. All materials must be able to be installed on site using good carpentry joinery plastering or similar trade skills to reasonable tolerances and without the demand for laboratory-type conditions.Lastly there are also drafting issues in terms of how the provisions in this bill will be implemented. Many provisions in this bill are yet to be prescribed or determined by regulation and without proper definition it is difficult to put the clauses into context which hinders the interpretation and implementation of the Act. There are other deficiencies in this bill—for example the practicality of prescribing—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to take a short call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). The Green Party opposes this bill. We are not against the general premise behind the bill and the aims of it—the consumer protection aspects—and we look forward to a much better bill in the future that will address those issues.The bill has brought up some things for me from when I was an owner-builder. I have watched from the side because it is not the area that I normally work in but I have noticed the flip-flops through the building regulations and also through the materials aspect. The Minister for Building and Construction mentioned earlier what has gone. We had gone to kiln-dried. We had had the chemical issue and we have gone back to that. I wanted to use as you might expect fairly natural products. I wanted to use naturally resilient timbers and the like and then some of those got ruled out I would say by the industry groups that somehow managed to organise that we had a Pinus radiata - focused industry which clearly led us into trouble later on.I am looking forward to when we get into ensuring that there are consumer protections. We can have a really good relook at the same time at the materials that are allowed in building and the style of construction. I have got friends who are fairly creative in their building styles and of course some of the regulations some of the legislation that we look for can actually constrain that. I think that the building law needs to have a fairly wide provision and in a way in some aspects this bill may allow for that.Underlying all of that regardless of the bill’s breadth and its creativity it has got to have a strong consumer protection part. That is just inadequate in this bill. It might be that the liabilities that are not adequately covered in this bill—that may be difficult for some creative home building—need to be addressed through future legislation. I look forward to that at some time. I find it appalling that at the moment in New Zealand so much is based around the Fletcher’s-type products and the Hardie’s-type products—the sheet sizes and everything—to suit a vested interest rather than maybe around what could really happen from a localised building and timber industry.We are importing as well at the moment through the free-trade agreements Chilean plywood that does not even meet the standard—it is going up. There is not enough work being done around that. I ask the Minister whether it going to be addressed by this bill. Are we going to deal with the fact that we are allowing it? We have got a massive timber industry and wood processors are going to the wall and yet we are importing—because of being open to competition it appears—Chilean timber into New Zealand and Australian timber into New Zealand when we already have the same species. If there is something unique and beneficial for New Zealanders for New Zealand home builders and there is other construction that cannot be done here you might say fine let us look at that. But to be opening up our borders allowing rubbish material to come in and pushing our own timber processes out is concerning.I am looking forward to a better bill. The Green Party was supportive of this bill through to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We seriously wanted to hear what the options were and what the possibilities were. There are some good aspects in the bill but obviously we have spotted the things that are not adequate. We want better consumer protection and we will be opposing this bill. Thank you.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) has a number of important provisions in it that will be beneficial to the building industry and most important to those New Zealanders who are contemplating building or building their home.Raymond Huo: Be a bit more passionate!JACQUI DEAN: The member opposite says “Be more passionate about it.” Well actually we are and that is why Maurice Williamson has brought this bill to the House and why the Local Government and Environment Committee has worked—Hon Maurice Williamson: There is no more passionate member than Maurice Williamson.JACQUI DEAN: There is clearly no more passionate Minister than Maurice but this is a good bill because it makes some pretty sensible changes to the Building Act. It reduces compliance costs. Who has not heard of a call to reduce compliance costs? Compliance costs for the sake of compliance costs—they are going. It reduces complexity and reduces delays by reducing reliance on building consent authorities. That is good news whatever way you look at it. It will make building contractors more accountable by requiring that they disclose information and that disclosure will contain information about the legal status of the contractor—whether they are operating under a limited liability company or not. They will have to disclose the people who will carry out the work and their track record—their work history dispute history skills and qualifications—and what if any financial back-up or insurance they have to cover the cost of fixing any faults should they be found.Other provisions in this excellent bill protect consumers by requiring written contracts for most residential building work and information in a contract could include the parties to the contract and the dispute resolution—how they are going to get around anything if there is a dispute. There are a number of aspects to this bill that do nothing but improve the safety of building work for New Zealanders and I commend the bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 4). Was it not interesting listening to the speech of the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson defending the indefensible of the 1990s and the leaky building situation that we now have in this country? The Minister said: “Oh nothing to do with us nothing to do with the Government nothing to do with the Minister—that was Standards New Zealand’s problem not ours.” He omitted to mention that Standards New Zealand is a Crown entity—it is a Crown entity.Hon Maurice Williamson: Independent.ANDREW WILLIAMS: It is autonomous but it is still a Crown entity. It has three out of its seven board members appointed by the Minister of Commerce Minister. Three of the seven board members are ministerial appointments. It does have accountability. The current chair was announced by Minister of Commerce Simon Power when he was a Minister. The Crown does have oversight of that entity in terms of what it sets.Certainly Minister back in the 1990s under the National watch—and sure it may have inherited the building legislation review in 1991 from the former Labour Government but your Government in the 1990s allowed it to continue to pass into law. That saw as a result reduced standards in the 1990s which then saw Standards New Zealand allowing reduced standards in the building code which then saw materials such as kiln-dried timber and monolithic cladding being used which then saw $30 billion and rising of New Zealand property ending up in leaky building situations. The Minister has said: “Well we should also just blame that on Carters and Fletcher’s which convinced Standards New Zealand to allow the kiln-dried timber.” Well that is all very well Minister but what are you now doing about that situation?The Ministry of Education this year announced it has $1.5 billion worth of leaky schools throughout New Zealand—many hundreds of leaky schools throughout New Zealand. It has entered into a court case against James Hardie Industries aboutmonolithic cladding throughout New Zealand schools. But the Minister mentioned tonight that Carters and Fletcher’s provided the kiln-dried timber. Well Minister what are you doing about chasing Carters and Fletcher’s to get some payback on all that kiln-dried timber that is now rotting in the schools of New Zealand rotting in the hospitals of New Zealand rotting in the public buildings of New Zealand rotting in the defence and other ministry buildings of New Zealand and rotting in the homes of good average New Zealand Kiwis whose houses are rotting around them? What are you doing Minister about chasing the likes of Carters and Fletcher’s which you stated tonight were responsible for it? You are doing nothing.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am not doing nothing.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Oh no no sorry. The Minister is doing nothing. The Minister is doing nothing. It is all very well to point the finger at Carters and Fletcher’s. Minister please go and chase those people and hold them to account for the $30 billion or $40 billion or $50 billion perhaps that it is going to end up costing for leaky buildings right across New Zealand’s commercial public and private sectors.I will carry on with this particular bill and why New Zealand First is not supporting it. You can drive a bus through half of this. For instance under the exemptions it says that demolition of a detached building is maybe permitted. The complete demolition of a building that is detached and is not more than three storeys does not require a consent; you can just knock it down. The member for North Shore sitting over there might be asked this question in her electorate of the North Shore—I wonder what the people in Devonport who have a particular affinity to heritage might be thinking when—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She’s a fossil!ANDREW WILLIAMS: Well no not that heritage; I am thinking of younger heritage than that member. What will the people of Devonport be thinking when for instance under this bill demolition of a building under three storeys is permitted with no problems at all? So basically in Devonport a heritage building—it could be an outhouse or something or an old stable; it could be a lovely historic building that currently must have a consent from the local authority to be demolished—could be pulled down. Imagine the impact on heritage buildings throughout New Zealand as a result of that when people can basically just say: “Oh we don’t need that particular building out there any more. Let’s just pull it down.” Under the current situation if it has heritage value it will be covered.When you look at all the other exemptions which include porches and verandas carports retaining walls fences and hoardings decks platforms bridges and boardwalks not exceeding 1.5 metres—all sorts of things where there are structures. Again you get back to situations where—we all remember what happened at Cave Creek with the collapse of that particular deck. It was shown in that very sad situation that inadequate skills and materials had been used in terms of that particular deck construction. But in this situation where basically so many of these things—and this is including exemptions for alterations to non-residential buildings such as shops offices libraries factories warehouses churches or schools. So schools are also now exempt from such building work because they are categorised alongside offices libraries and other things.Again do we have a situation where some alterations are done in a school and they say: “Well this was a school that didn’t need a consent. We didn’t have to go to the local authority to check whether it was permitted.”? It is done and then something happens in that school and they say: “Gosh how on earth did the legislation go through that exempted schools from requiring consents of this order?”.Marquees and tents of 100 square metres will not require anything from any authority. They can be put up—100-square-metre marquees or tents. Those are majorstructures and I know from having been involved in many community events that some of those marquees are very very significant. When they are put up—and they are often put up in perilous situations on sloping areas for public events and all that sort of thing—they certainly do need and require the scrutiny of an independent authority at times to check that they have been constructed in the right manner. Are we going to have a situation again where a large marquee—a 100-square-metre marquee—is put up by just any old Joe Bloggs without any independent authority checking that it has been put up adequately? And then we find a large number of people gathered at an event whether it is a wedding function or some other public gathering and then we find that the structure fails.This bill is all about providing loopholes and exemptions and lowering the standards in New Zealand. We do want to reduce costs to consumers in New Zealand of course. We do want to reduce expense to consumers and the public of New Zealand but not at the expense of the safety of those structures. It is very regrettable that really if this bill was properly and independently analysed—it is opening up a huge can of worms for future potential risk to New Zealanders. It is opening up a situation where shonky jerry-builders can for instance be fined $2000 if they commit an offence in terms of the prescribed disclosure information and checklist—a $2000 fine. Or if they commit an offence under subsection (3) it is up to a $20000 fine. Well is that not ridiculous? Those could be large large constructions. The builders do not do it. They provide some sort of shonky-looking certificate that makes out that they are legitimate. They are self-regulating. They are not controlled by any authority in terms of what they are doing and then they are subject to only a $20000 fine if they are caught out. Again this is opening up a situation of cowboy building in New Zealand cowboy controls in New Zealand and self-regulation where it will basically be a free-for-all.The National Government will rue the day that in 2013 it brought in this bill—as it did the leaky homes in the 1990s. It will be leaky homes and leaky buildings revisited.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.Financial Reporting BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Mr Chair it is a pleasure to give a speech in the Chamber when you such a venerable individual with such great experience are in the Chair. This is one of those rare moments in this Parliament colleagues where both sides agree on a pretty substantial bill—one that is designed on the one hand to create a high degree of transparency for business where it is needed and where it is in the public interest and on the other hand to not be so burdensome and onerous especially for those smaller enterprises depending on their agreement in terms of compliance costs. I refer to Part 1 of the bill the Financial Reporting Bill in terms of clause 3 “Purpose” where it talks about the various financial reporting standardsauditing standards and assurance standards. We agree with and will be supporting this bill. It is appropriate. The aims are trying to streamline reporting procedures cut compliance costs and bring together a whole series of principles that will aid business but also aid those who are attempting to get information from business.Could I touch just for a moment given the nature of the purpose clause on where it talks repeatedly about standards and where it talks about in this part transparency. We agree that this is a good bill—the Labour Party has contributed admirably to this bill—but we question a couple of things. We agree and we know the Government has acted in good faith in terms of its promotion of standards and transparency within this piece of legislation but I have got to say that it is in stark contrast to a number of other issues around a lack of transparency or standards that this Government has been involved in whether it be the financial deals around Rio Tinto where $30 million was given away to a multibillion-dollar multinational company allegedly to protect jobs—a botched negotiation where no security was asked for or guarantees sought to protect those jobs. We found out of course that the Minister in charge of those negotiations the Hon Bill English Minister of Finance did not have the intelligence to even ask for a guarantee around those jobs—low standards low transparency.In fact there was very little transparency around that deal as the Government firstly left it to the Meridian Energy board and then leapt over the top of the Meridian Energy board without actually telling the board that it was doing a side deal and gave away not only the kitchen sink but the kitchen as well and $30 million was thrown in for zero gain. So when it comes to issues of standards and transparency we are glad that these principles are right up front in this piece of legislation but I would hope that the Minister of Commerce might have a word with his colleagues in other portfolios to bring the same level of standards and transparency to other parts of this Government.If we look at other transactions like Solid Energy the Government was completely asleep at the wheel. There was no transparency around the fact that that company was driven into the ground by this Government because this Government will have no transparency no ministerial inquiry and no select committee inquiry. They were all blocked. The last port of call—thank goodness we live in hope—is the Auditor-General who is still looking at the need for an inquiry. But again there is no transparency and no standard of behaviour around that particular transaction.We look at the Chorus transaction. Again it was done behind closed doors botched completely—a very low standard there—and absolutely stuffed up to the point where the Government rather than—Maggie Barry: Your area of expertise botching and stuffing up. You’re an expert.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That was for the uninitiated the “Venus fly-trap of the New Zealand Parliament” one Maggie Barry who every time she sort of—Maggie Barry: What are you?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That interjection may well have been sponsored by Jim Beam and Johnnie Walker; I do not know. It is late at night.Maggie Barry: Are you a heavy drinker Clayton?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: She may be too close to the fertiliser the nitrogen or the compost—who knows? Gardening leave is appropriate. Actually gardening leave is appropriate as we talk about the lack of transparency around Solid Energy because we know that the chief executive officer has seen a lot of gardening leave for a long time on about $300k or $400k which is something I suggest that member on her salary of—what is an MP’s salary $150k-odd—has actually been on. She has actually been on gardening leave since she has been elected to this place.But anyway getting back to the bill because it is appropriate as the budgie chirps away in the background over there—that was a botched negotiation. We moved toChorus of course. There was no transparency or high accounting standards around that deal—none at all zero. There was no transparency around that deal to the point where the Government is in such a bind that even though it is the bastion of the private sector it will not actually look at enforcing the contract as you would in a private sector situation. Last time I checked where you negotiated better than the other bloke and you won the deal and the other bloke or the other person or the other party could not come up with the goods you enforced the contract. You did not wave the white flag of surrender and say you would bail them out or nationalise them or take an equity escape or interfere with the regulatory process in respect of the Commerce Commission. But oh no these guys do anything—these guys do anything.We would like some transparency. We would like some transparency even from old “Venus” at the back. We would like some transparency around those sorts of transactions as well. That is what we would like some transparency and standards on because the difficulty with this legislation even though it is good legislation is that this Parliament can be seen by those in the commercial sector to pontificate to them about the standards they should adhere to and the levels of transparency they should adhere to. But the Government does not practise what it preaches in other areas.Maggie Barry: Go on sit down. Spare us all idiot.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I think you might have to get the Xanax for that member. She may need a wee bit of help. I say this—Maggie Barry: Bring out the Roundup—spread it on your hair.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Keep going it is great. It shows that member for the inept member she is. Even this late at night people will be picking up on that. So this is a good piece of legislation. It actually deals with cutting down many of the compliance costs—Maggie Barry: Down to stump size like yourself.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Sorry?Maggie Barry: Down to stump size like yourself.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well that is a brilliant interjection. That is an intellectual effort from somebody who has been too close I think to a variety of garden substances—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —over the years. It is all right I do not need protection from her. Good God help me if I did.The interesting thing I want to touch on is in respect of charities. The Commerce Committee spent quite a bit of time looking at the level of compliance that charitable organisations would have to go to. To be fair to both sides we looked at this with a great deal of seriousness because although we wanted a generic set of standards and standards to apply to financial information in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice and currently there are no requirements for the content of this financial information we were—and I know the Minister appreciates this—very careful to look that we were not burdening or requiring an onerous set of arrangements in respect of charities given the nature of the work they do. They are not businesses. They raise money for good causes. Members of Parliament on all sides are involved in many of those charities and we did not want money going in an onerous way from the public good if you like into a myriad of bureaucratic and administrative compliance costs.I think it does strike the right balance. I think we had very good feedback from the submitters in the charitable sector but it is an area that I think many of us on both sides were concerned about. Public money private money and charitable money of course are three different pots there and there is a requirement—a high requirement—on each of those areas in our community to have appropriate financial records and appropriatestandards. My hope is that these financial standards will embolden people to increase their donations to the charitable sector knowing of course that there is belt and braces—Hon Shane Jones: Donations?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —donations indeed—and appropriate financial standards and transparency around the charitable sector as there generally is even prior to this bill. That gives people the confidence to give hopefully in a greater way and to support those entities in a greater way. I would be interested whether the Minister is prepared to make a couple of comments of reassurance perhaps around that charitable sector to get on the record what exactly we are striving for and to give some confidence to that sector.There is very little if any politics in this bill because it does have bipartisan support. I look forward to the Committee stage as we work our way through this legislation—the purpose clauses and the other clauses. I know my colleague Dr Clark will have some interesting comments to make in respect of the Inland Revenue Department and its role in this. I look forward to some of the very interesting comments of members opposite. I am sure they will make a wonderful contribution as they have in the pre-emptive stages of this piece of legislation rather than making the odd inane comment as a few vapours whizz through past the back row over that side. I am sure it is a long night tonight but I think we should give this bill due consideration and we should act in an appropriate way to support this legislation given that it amends around 80 Acts. I look forward to this debate continuing.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā koe. Because members on this side of the House are absolutely convinced of the merit of reducing compliance costs and our rhetoric unlike that of the other side of the House is not inversely related to reality it is a pleasure to stand and support the Financial Reporting Bill. Why should we support it? Because it is premised on the notion that there should be discretion.Those entities that have shareholders seeking to opt out of unnecessarily onerous compliance arrangements should be able to make that choice. However for those that are of a size where systemic damage might flow or where significant impacts would negatively fall on the country’s reputation or indeed on the reputation of our commercial sector there is a range of arrangements and compliance obligations that should be adhered to.I was wondering though whether we can use this bill in relation to as my colleague said earlier the defective Chorus deal. I think you can illuminate dry legal text by looking at a real case example. We have a case with this particular company where disclosure of an adequate nature probably was not made when the company entered into the defective deal conjured up by the Associate Minister of Finance Steven Joyce. It actually took Sue Chetwin and a host of activists in the information and communications technology sector to actually point out that a company known as Chorus failed to fully disclose that the equation it was using to cover the costs of the broadband infrastructure roll-out was deeply flawed.As a consequence the Minister who negotiated that flawed defective deal with Chorus—and it was worsened by the Prime Minister saying that it was technically insolvent or words to that effect. An outrageous statement. I wonder whether those members will themselves show any responsibility in terms of a financial reporting stance which they might reject given that 40 percent—a catastrophic failure—of the equity value of that entity has gone down the proverbial.So there is an example where those people who sit on the various risk and audit committees and lord it over the rest of New Zealand have failed actually to meet the existing set of regulations. So I shudder to think how on earth they are going to copewith this enhanced set of regulations because we have all learnt that when you have poor transparency and poor compliance with reporting provisions—as we saw with South Canterbury Finance and a host of other financial companies that soon became political calamities—people lose dough.So I think an area where the Financial Reporting Bill perhaps could have gone a bit further was its treatment of overseas-owned entities in New Zealand. I look forward to hearing the speech from my colleague fromŌtepoti—Dunedin—where I was yesterday spreading pixie dust on behalf of my great party with the chief executive officers of the various ports of New Zealand convincing them that—well that is another matter which is really electoral victory. I will just pass by that for the moment so I can return to the bill. But I look forward to my colleague talking about how this bill could perhaps enhance and improve the accountabilities that should be sheeted home to the banks currently owned by foreigners and a host of others—largely the insurance companies—but taihoa help is on the way in that regard. And the power companies as we speak disappear further down into the deep foreign pockets of the owners that are buying as we ensure the wheels of democracy grind on adequately tonight.I think that the public needs to realise that when we are dealing with this bill we are not talking only about requirements to account to the existing shareholders but we are also talking about the entities operating in our country and not necessarily owned by our countrymen and countrywomen. If there is an area where there is a glaring omission it lies in the space of whether or not those foreign-owned entities are paying their way. Are they paying their way or are they fleecing our system our taxpayers and indeed in some cases New Zealand employees? And are they running a double set of accounts—a set of economic accounts that sits on their bench table overseas?Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Kia ora Mr Chairman. I rise to speak to this bill the Financial Reporting Bill. We in the Labour Party will be supporting this bill because the principles that it is based upon are ones that we can agree with. It is delightful to stand in this Committee and to be supporting a bill that is actually incredibly important and might be likened to the oil that greases the wheels of commerce. It is so important to have transparency and clear concise and easily understood reporting requirements so that information can flow to stakeholders and so that good decision-making ensues and our country prospers.The bill itself really has three key components. One is increased public accountability. An entity needs to be accountable to the public if it is effectively owned by taxpayers and ratepayers. That includes Government departments Crown entities and local authorities. I guess there is some irony which will not be lost on those following the debate at home in that this bill is designed to increase accountability across Government departments Crown entities and local authorities. Not long ago we passed legislation about privatising our energy assets. There is a referendum coming up. The postal ballot is starting tomorrow I think on this same topic.That particular debate involved not only selling down New Zealand’s best revenue-generating assets—taking them away from taxpayer ownership and putting them into the hands of a few—but also reducing transparency. In that legislation the Official Information Act used to apply in respect of State-owned enterprises. Members of the public could request information about them. There was a level of transparency there that was required. They were required to appear before select committees to be scrutinised so that the taxpayer interest was being looked after. Now even though they are to be majority State-owned—only just; 51 percent—a lower level of scrutiny is to apply. So here in this bill we have the flip side of that. We say again that scrutiny is important. So there will be no irony lost there I am sure in the Government’s other actions which we know were done for politically expedient reasons and were based onan ideology of selling off privatising the gains and socialising the losses. That is something we have seen so often from this National Government.Returning to the bill the scrutiny that is going to apply will apply to the bigger end of town where there is a public interest. For example an entity that takes deposits from the public or that holds assets in a fiduciary capacity for broad groups of outsiders—like banks insurers mutual funds and those kinds of things—will be required to report transparently. That is a good thing. Those who receive donations and bequests from the public will be required to have increased transparency.There is a test in the bill about economic significance. I guess that boils down to the idea that size matters. There are some large entities that ought to report because their failure could have a regional economic impact. That does apply I guess to the cases raised by my colleagues just before. The failure of those entities could have a regional impact that could be quite negative. We think there of Christchurch and the lack of progress that is being made. There are other examples of course. Down my way there is a proposal to gut the Invermay Agricultural Centre take the scientists out of Otago and well just destroy it—Clare Curran: Somehow transplant it.Dr DAVID CLARK: —and somehow transplant a highly functional scientific organisation somewhere else when the staff do not want to transfer and have said they will not transfer. That is another example of a failure in the regions. That is despite Steven Joyce’s rhetoric about needing to have strong institutions in the regions to support business growth.So there is some deep deep irony in passing a bill that talks about the importance of economic entities to regions and the importance and economic significance of transparency when there are deals being done that are anything but transparent in terms of the business case for Invermay. That is a very very good example of where it has not been made public where information has been withheld and where it seems that an ideological position is driving something rather than something that is genuinely in the public interest.The third criterion in the bill is around separation. That separation principle requires that owners or members of an entity are likely to need financial statements if they do not manage the entity. So all of these things make sense at a fundamental level. It reduces compliance costs where they are not required—where they are small entities and where shareholders agree that they do not need comprehensive accounts to the extent that they are actually just simply about compliance. Then there is a clear requirement that where it does matter—where entities are public large or managing public funds—there is a higher level of compliance required. That is a very sensible step.We know that good markets make excellent servants and poorly regulated markets make bad masters. That is the basic principle that I think sits behind this kind of legislation—good regulation and making sure things flow well. We think of the global financial crisis. If there had been greater transparency there some of the worst edges of that and perhaps the whole financial crisis might have been avoided certainly in respect of the hedge funds involved.Simplification of reporting processes is something that creates efficiencies and that is good when our businesses and our country spend so much time on compliance. The Government opposite talks often about being business-friendly. Certainly we see that when it comes to one or two of its mates and in respect of Skycity and we think of the casino deal where Skycity is laughing all the way to the bank. It has got all the extra pokie machines is building a casino off the back of problem gambling and will have profits for years to come all because the Government had cornered itself throughputting itself in a non-transparent deal and committing to getting something through before negotiating the deal to its end.We think of Chorus and what is coming up there. It has all the hallmarks of another deal by the Government for the big end of town. We think of Rio Tinto where money was handed over but was not—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Thrown at them.Dr DAVID CLARK: Thrown at them—money was thrown at them but no jobs guarantee was asked for so restructuring began the next day. That is the kind of shoddy deal that this Government does with big business.But all the while small business is suffering in New Zealand. This Government has passed so much compliance regulation legislation that has disadvantaged small business. We think of the child support payments that employers may now be required to enforce—handling private information about their employees which could lead to personal grievances in the worst possible situations; information that it was not previously thought to be appropriate for business owners to have to handle or to have responsibility for—and all the other compliance responsibilities. It has just been lumped upon them. There was no consultation. That went through in a rushed Budget process.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No transparency.Dr DAVID CLARK: There was no transparency. Again we think of the paper boy tax. There are now compliance requirements that were not there before.This is a Government that keeps heaping compliance on small business but then it talks about tax simplification. The Minister of Revenue Todd McClay has talked about consulting on tax simplification. Well it has been done overseas. There are plenty of working examples. This Government is big on talk when it comes to things that would support small business but very very very poor on action. We simply just do not see it. This is a Government that is not a friend of small business and that is a shame.That perhaps goes some way towards explaining why 2500 fewer small businesses are being created every year under this Government. This is a Government that is failing—is failing—to create jobs is failing to create new businesses. It is no wonder that it has the worst economic record of any Government in New Zealand in the last 50 years. It has an appalling economic record. It has an appalling record on jobs. It is a Government that should hang its head in shame. I guess I am at least comforted that some helpful pieces of legislation some sensible pieces of legislation—no doubt pushed by officials—are sneaking their way through. This is one small step toward helping to make our economy a little bit more efficient and to take out some of the unnecessary compliance and that is why we are very pleased to support it on this side of the Chamber.Finally I would just say that we wish there could be more of this kind of thing—less of the deals done behind closed doors with big business and more of the cutting of compliance. That is what we in Labour would like to see. We are sick to death of the additional burden put on businesses. They say that something like 15 percent of the revenue for the smallest businesses in New Zealand—typically 15 percent—ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Thank you very much Mr Chairman for calling me and I hope you are feeling well this evening after your chocolate pudding at 7 o’clock. I chose the fresh fruit salad and I can say that 3½ hours later I feel absolutely excellent but I am sure that the heaviness will be dwelling upon you right now knowing how heavy that chocolate pudding was.Having said that we come to the Financial Reporting Bill—[Interruption] Because this is quite a dry piece of legislation and because it is heading towards 20 to 11 at night and some of us have been here since 9 o’clock this morning I guess that those ofus who have been here since 9 o’clock and who are still here at 20 to 11 at night do have the right to have a little bit of levity to try to ease the pain. But—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It didn’t work for Maggie Barry.ANDREW WILLIAMS: No it did not work for Maggie Barry. No it did not. She had to leave—she had to leave. But anyway New Zealand First supports the Financial Reporting Bill. This is large bill that covers a lot of ground. It has had the scrutiny that it merits. But New Zealand First is satisfied that this bill represents useful improvement and will deliver actual benefits to New Zealanders.Financial reporting is at the heart of business accountability. Effective and thorough financial reporting is fundamental to public confidence in financial matters. Financial reporting must have integrity. This bill sets the ground rules for financial reporting and strengthening the reporting regime at this time makes sense. The bill reduces compliance costs while strengthening accountability and transparency.We also note that under this bill charities will be required to prepare financial performance statements in accordance with accepted accounting practices. We believe that it is only right that New Zealanders do receive adequate financial reports from the very many charities that New Zealanders are so willing to give to.Overall New Zealand First considers that the bill strikes a reasonable balance in terms of reporting requirements and does not impose excessive or burdensome reporting requirements. We see this bill as enhancing New Zealand’s economic performance which is a good thing. This is because a clear and effective set of financial reporting ground rules will establish the right context for organisations and enterprises to operate within.For these reasons New Zealand First supports this bill. It is creating credible financial reporting requirements for New Zealand. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 External Reporting Board standards and provisions that apply to other enactmentsCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): In this part there are a number of points to be made and I am certainly keen for the Minister of Commerce should he feel moved to take a call to explain to the Committee the rationale behind the substantial Supplementary Order Paper that has appeared before us tonight in order to provide the Committee with some of the information that lies behind it. I think that presumably within this Supplementary Order Paper lies an important rationale and explanation as to why—particularly for the overseas companies—we have moved to the position that the Minister has taken.It is also important to say that this Financial Reporting Bill—which has taken some time to go through the committee—has been a really substantial piece of work and there has been a lot of work done by the Commerce Committee on this. I would like to acknowledge all the officials here tonight for the work that has been done and also the good solid work done by the committee generally.It is actually 20 years old this piece of legislation that is being replaced and it is an amendment to 80 pieces of legislation. So it is quite a substantial piece of work and it has taken quite some time to move through. It is part of a number of pieces of legislation that have come before the Commerce Committee on the reform of financial accountability and around the importance of transparency. I know that my colleagueshave talked quite a lot about both of those things tonight—transparency and accountability—and I will certainly be doing that myself. But I think it is absolutely an acknowledgment that moving these things forward in this modernised piece of legislation is really important and it should be acknowledged for all the work submissions and considerations that have gone into it.In talking about transparency and accountability though I think it is really important that if we are being serious about these things—and I am sure the Minister in the chair would acknowledge that—we have to practise what we preach. We are seeing time and time again examples where there are questions being raised about the transparency of particular contractual arrangements and the transparency of practices that are emerging.Chorus has been mentioned a number of times tonight. I do want to touch on that obviously because there is a piece of legislation that underpinned the demerger of Telecom that then turned into a contract for Chorus which has been rolling out over the last couple of years. But since then we have had a decision by the Commerce Commission that the Government and Chorus did not like then we have had a review instigated by a Minister that has questions around its legality and is now under judicial review and subsequently we have another inquiry which was announced last week into the viability of Chorus.All of those things have taken place as a result of a lack of transparency and a potential lack of the disclosure of information that should have been made right from the very beginning whether it was through the demerger process the legislative process or the contractual process. All of those things have resulted in a situation that is costing the taxpayers more money through reviews and inquiries through more officials’ time through legal bills and through all kinds of procedures and impacting on the viability of a substantial infrastructure project.It all comes down to transparency and disclosure. It would seem to me that if we are going to be serious about the legislation that we are pushing through which is about requiring accountability by companies to their shareholders and accountability to the taxpayers then we have to practise what we preach.This particular instance which I know is embarrassing to the Government is going to be an increasing embarrassment to the Government—in fact it could be described as a running sore for the Government. This is going to go on and on and ultimately the shareholders are going to be demanding accountability from their company from Chorus and the taxpayers are demanding accountability from the Government around the disclosure—or the lack of disclosure—around that accountability.I think what that all boils down to is that there is a disconnect between what the Government says it is doing and some of the good work that is actually being done through legislative processes. On this occasion the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce has presented to the Committee this reasonably fine piece of legislation that has had a lot of cross-party work done on it and agreement on it but alongside that is a process that is running counter to it. I think the people listening to this at 10 to 11 at night if they are listening have got the right to ask how that can be why that is what is happening about it and where the accountability is on it.I do want to raise one other matter in this legislation at clause 45 “Meaning of specified not-for-profit entity”. It is essentially around the threshold for determining a specified non-profit entity which I think is one of the examples in this bill where there was very good work done and good listening and understanding of the impact of this legislation on the not-for-profit sector. It was important to ensure transparency and disclosure. But also it had to be acknowledged that for the 2000 to 3000 churches around New Zealand that had operating expenses that being initially in the bill meant that they would have to have a much greater requirement for operating for disclosureand for the compliance—and they rely hugely on voluntary treasurers and hugely on other voluntary people to meet the requirements of the bill as it stood originally—they would have had to end up employing professional people at great cost.So I would like to commend the committee for the advice that it took and for the conclusions that it came to around this where the compliance dropped so that it was not going to be such an onerous task for these organisations—these 2000 to 3000 churches around New Zealand. I think that that was a very responsible outcome. There are still compliance requirements and that is extremely important but I think that what it showed is that this bill this particular bill had the ability to be flexible and to recognise the importance of the not-for-profit sector in particular for the impact that it would have on churches.I would ask that the Minister take a call to explain Supplementary Order Paper 376 and the rationale behind it in terms of the overseas companies that carry on business in New Zealand and their requirement to file audited financial statements. It was proposed that there would be obligations removed if the New Zealand business had both total assets of no more than $60 million and total revenue of no more than $30 million. These amounts have been changed in this bill through this rather large Supplementary Order Paper to $20 million and $10 million respectively. I am curious and would like to know what the rationale is for that and I just wonder whether the Minister will take a call.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 393 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to the proposed amendments set on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in his name to clause 44 be agreed to.Amendments to the amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments as amended agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Miscellaneous provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 3 debate on clauses 49 to 60 includes schedules 1 and 2 stand part.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This part refers to the standards and provisions relating to auditor qualifications and access to information. I am sure members of the Committee would have looked at this part of the bill very closely and will be debating the finer points. I am interested to see whether anyone from the other side takes a call or whether the Minister of Commerce will get up.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They haven’t so far.Dr DAVID CLARK: They have not so far. They have not so far. They are a bit quiet on regulations that are designed to reduce compliance. They do not quite know what to say. It is a new experience for them I suspect.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Especially for John Banks.Dr DAVID CLARK: Especially—especially for John Banks. The interesting thing about this one is that when we specify the qualifications of the auditor as we see in clause 35 “Qualifications of auditor” they must be a chartered accountant and so on they must be a member of this organisation; the notice must be put in theGazette they must be eligible to act as an auditor in a country State or territory outside New Zealand and so on and so forth—all of these rules and regulations. They must be a fellow of this or that institution. It means nothing at the end of the day if no one listens to them.In this bill the Financial Reporting Bill it is expected that businesses will comply but the Government’s own record on this stuff would send a very different message. We think of some of the examples of that. We think of the recent Earthquake Commission report that found huge failures—huge failures. The Auditor-General found disastrous processes there. I will not rehearse all of the terrible things that were found in that process but the Government dismissed it immediately. So we see a Government that says that it is above any kind of auditing any kind of review of its work and that arrogantly carries on as before.We think of the Law Society advice on the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) bill—damning of the process. Why would you pass such an important piece of legislation under urgency? Why would you not have a process in place to review decisions? All of these things are basic fundamental democratic processes that were obviated or not complied with by the Government. The Government arrogantly said that it would not agree with them that it does not listen to them and that they are talking a load of nonsense. This is the behaviour of a Government whose members say there has to be a standard for businesses there has got to be a standard for citizens but it is not for them. They are on their own level. They are out of touch they are arrogant and New Zealanders are getting sick of it.The other example that springs to mind is the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme. We think back to that one. This Government may have lost New Zealand taxpayers $500 million.Andrew Little: What?Dr DAVID CLARK: It could be up to $500 million Mr Little that was lost in the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme as a result of a failure—an absolute and abysmal failure—to monitor that process. The Minister of Finance did not ask to have regular updates. He basically signed a blank cheque. The scheme itself was a sensible scheme. It was put in with the right intentions in the nick of time to stop a run on the banks and that was a very very sensible thing to do. But thereafter when the National Government took over it did not monitor the scheme and the liability grew. One of the deposit takers had its balance sheet increased tenfold—risky loans left right and centre—but the Crown was guaranteeing it. It is no wonder that people were piling money into it but that was at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayer.Then we had South Canterbury Finance. Everyone remembers that one. Its loan book blossomed. It bloomed with all this dodgy debt and again there was a failure of monitoring. The Minister of Finance had his head firmly in the sand. He did not ask for reports Treasury did not ask for reports it could have got from the Reserve Bank to tell it how much that scheme was costing the New Zealand taxpayer over time and they failed to put measures in place to stop those dodgy loan books growing. But that is a Government that has failed to monitor.If we remember back what happened next was that the Auditor-General—again the Auditor-General the same one who wrote the Earthquake Commission report said there was a failure of process. What did this National Government do? Just as with the Earthquake Commission report it said: “It doesn’t matter. We don’t care. We’re just going to carry on. We won’t read it.” That is John Key’s favourite line. When he gets the police report on John Banks’ conduct he will not read the report.This is the kind of arrogance. Everyone else must comply. Everyone else must be audited the auditing must be accurate and precise and it must be done to these standards and those standards. But when it comes to the Government’s own conduct it is dismissive—completely dismissive—of the Auditor-General. In the case of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme there are a whole lot of anomalies there and$500 million of taxpayer money was probably lost unnecessarily by this Government but it would not hold an independent inquiry into that. It would not go further.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4 Amendments to other ActsHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I want to put a couple of questions that were raised with the Minister of Commerce in the first speech on Part 1 of the Financial Reporting Bill. I note that he has not taken a call in the hour that we have been debating this bill. I think there has been a bit of barracking from the other side but no actual substantive speech about the legislation. The first question is in respect of the amendments in respect of charities the amendments to the Charities Act 2005. I said previously that the Commerce Committee members from both sides of the House to be fair laboured long and hard as we went through these provisions to ensure that there were appropriate standards and levels of transparency. Although we are all in favour of transparency and accountability and appropriate accounting standards for charities we all acknowledge I think that many charities are made up vastly of volunteers and many charities are of varying sizes and have varying capabilities in terms of administrative and accounting control functions. As I say although we were keen to ensure that there were appropriate standards and levels of transparency we were also keen to ensure that we were not overburdening charitable organisations with bureaucracy and with compliance costs because many of our charities such as the Cancer Society the Salvation Army and others do pride themselves on the donations that are provided by the public the vast majority of which go directly to the stakeholders that require it—whether it be medical research whether it be assisting those less fortunate—and are not sucked up into onerous administrative requirements.I do note though in new section 42B in clause 77 that there are some very substantial penalties for those who fail to comply. It states: “A charitable entity and every officer of the charitable entity commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50000 if—(a) the financial statements of the charitable entity referred to … fail to comply”—with relevant standards in summary—“and the charitable entity or officer (as the case may be) knows at the time that the financial statements accompany the annual return when it is sent or delivered under section 41 that the financial statements fail to so comply.” No one would disagree with that in terms of somebody knowingly committing an offence and knowingly contravening not only the legislation but their obligations. But what I would like to hear from the Minister of Commerce is the view he has from the submissions which presumably he has read as we did on the Commerce Committee as to whether he still believes that those penalties substantial as they are are pitched at the right level and are appropriate.Further to that and just as important are the transitional provisions in clause 78(1) and (2)—there have to be appropriate levels of transitional provisions. More so I think for the charitable sector. We had submissions from I recall churches and others. Many of the churches have individual entities. They are not one conglomeration; they are individual incorporated societies or entities around parishes or whatever. For many of those organisations there will be a substantial transition to move to these standards—even though from memory there was substantial support for them—to further professionalise the financial standards and transparency of charities. It will not be as a business if you like with one entity transitioning across. It will be many entities andsub-entities within those charitable organisations. So I would be grateful if the Minister would look to take a call and in this Committee stage just for the record in the future give us some assurances around those two issues.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): Just a quick call on a couple of issues that have arisen. The member Clare Curran asked a question before about the size of Supplementary Order Paper 376. The Supplementary Order Paper is basically the revision-tracked version of the Financial Reporting Bill. There are one or two kind of Supplementary Order Paper - type amendments in there and one of them is the point the member raised around the thresholds for large—or not—companies that are overseas-owned and operating here in New Zealand. So the size of the Supplementary Order Paper is no reflection of changes. In fact there are not too many changes as per the good work that the Commerce Committee did. I do acknowledge the fine work and the cooperation and acknowledgments from speakers about how we have got to this point and the very good ownership of the bill.Just one point on charities which the member just asked about before—yes I am very aware of those issues and the select committee also did good work. I think in fact that the committee itself raised the threshold from $40k to $125k for charities reporting anyway. Actually the professional organisations such as the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accounts and the Certified Practising Accountants are themselves undergoing quite a bit of educative work out in the voluntary sector for public good and social good to ensure and to just try to alleviate some of the concerns that the member did raise.Another point that was raised just in general conversation in regard to charities—in fact now there is the availability for organisations to have quite sophisticated and structured accounting packages online. Even though some of the members who have traditionally done some bookkeeping may not be all that comfortable working online with some of those cloud-type accounting packages actually the ability for an organisation to produce quite robust fair and transparent accounts is now much more apparent than it was. But I do acknowledge the concerns. I have heard those and I think the Commerce Committee also did a good example of those. We have to contrast that though with exactly what we have now because some not-for-profit organisations actually do have some quite substantial assets and it is only fair for those members who raise funds or who donate or give to them or who work for them that we do actually improve the current situation which is more like do-it-yourself bookkeeping. There is no checking really of some of the robustness or the integrity of the accounts as well-intentioned as many of them may be. As the previous member noted the committee spent a lot of time on this and it came to pretty good conclusions as is now reflected in the bill.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 376 and 393 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to insert new schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is with delight that I rise to speak to the title and commencement clauses of the Financial Reporting Bill. This bill as I noted in my earlier contributions is something that we on this side of the Chamber can agree with. Although we think it may have slipped through unnoticed by the Government that here is a bill that actually does reduce compliance on small entities that do not need it certainly the Government’s record suggests that it is interested in doing otherwise and I raise the matter of the child support payments that come on to small businesses now the compliance requirements around the paper boy tax and so on and so forth. I note the red tape that this Government has built—it has tried to do an iPad tax and it has tried to do a car-park tax. There is a constant flow of additional requirements on small businesses. But this one—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They came a gutser.Dr DAVID CLARK: They came a gutser—they certainly did come a gutser. The word “gutser” is a technical tax term which my colleague is using. There is an opportunity in this bill for the compliance to be reduced where it is not required. So that is why we heartily support this bill. It was well debated in the Commerce Committee and we have covered the charities matters there. The “Financial Reporting Bill” is probably a good title for this bill I would suggest. That is what it is about. We might even want to add in there “(Transparency and Appropriateness)” as descriptors because the transparency arrangements here are ones that we can agree with. If there is no wider public interest and if shareholders are comfortable with the arrangements unnecessary reporting requirements should be abandoned and that is one idea that we on this side of the Chamber are quite comfortable with.However we need to be really clear that where there are public funds at play there should be transparency. That is why of course when it came to the Supplementary Order Paper 376 changes and the energy companies were being sold off—being flogged off—for less than the $5 billion to $7 billion that Bill English said that he might get when he sold New Zealand taxpayers’ best revenue-generating assets we protested at the loss of public scrutiny of those entities. So we have a principled stance. We are glad to see that that is reflected in this bill. It does not seem to be normally the Government’s practice where it does these shady deals with the casino deal being the most obvious one—John Key meeting with the Skycity chief executive saying one thing to him whilst there was supposed to be a transparent process running. We know that this Government has a bad track record of doing deals behind closed doors and the business community is sick of it. Those in the wider business community whom I meet with are saying that they just want transparent arrangements so that they know that when they are bidding for something it is really being taken seriously.That means that in this case where there is a sensible offering being put forward—and I thank the officials for their hard work. They will have put many many hours into this Financial Reporting Bill and put many more hours in over the years in background and supporting papers and consultation. I thank the officials for their work. It is a good bill and that is why we on this side of the Chamber are very pleased to support it.We wish that the Government would apply these transparency principles to its wider practice and that it would not put those ideas I guess of transparency and responsibility to one side when the Auditor-General makes a criticism in say the Earthquake Commission report or of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme. We wish that the Government would adopt these principles for its own practice not just for the wider business community. We know that there are examples. We think of the power sector and the $4.3 billion worth of price gouging that was estimated to have occurred between 2001 and 2007 by the world’s leading modeller of energy markets at the time Professor Wolak because of effectively cartel-like behaviour where market power could be used to extract excess profits from the market at the expense of mums and dads at home.Of course that risk is going to be increased with the asset sell-offs where the interests are not aligned with the taxpayer. The silver lining back then was that much of that excess profit went back into the taxpayer purse. We now know that so much of that is going offshore. Treasury said that those State-owned enterprise sell-downs will take the Government books backwards by about $100 million a year—$100 million a year.So I urge people at home to vote “No” in the referendum when they have their chance to say no to the asset sales that this Government has put in place. Say no to the lack of transparency that goes with the deals that it is doing around those energy assets and around deals more generally and say no to this Government at the next election.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I disagree with my colleague Dr David Clark in one respect and it is simply this. The title of this legislation is slightly incomplete in that it could well be the “Walk the Talk Bill” or the “Practise What You Preach Bill” because if we look at financial reporting in this piece of legislation the Financial Reporting Bill—which we support—we see that this Government has the great habit of preaching to everybody about standards transparency and accountability until it comes to itself.One of the best examples of that—and I do partly blame Treasury for this; it stood by and allowed it to happen—is the fact that the Government in its budgetary documents booked the proceeds from the sale of State-owned assets that it had not sold and it estimated that they would be $5 billion to $7 billion. We know that Bill English ain’t even going to get close or he might get close to $5 billion at best. The Government booked the proceeds from the sale of assets before they had been sold but did not book the loss of dividends from those sales once the assets went out the door. So the Government booked it coming in but did not book it coming out. So these guys are great—even though we support the legislation—at preaching to everybody else about standards and accountability whether it be to a beneficiary or to a flash guy on the high street. It is very very good at preaching about accountability and transparency and standards and even accounting standards until it comes to itself.I have been in business. A number of people in this Chamber have been in business. Can you tell me of anybody in their right mind who would book the proceeds from a sale that has not happened—the Government did not know how much it was going to get; “best guess” was the quote from the Minister of Finance Bill English—but fail to book the loss of dividends that would flow from said sale? That is dishonest—Paul Goldsmith: Well you get interest from it.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and “Goldfinger” at the back knows it. That is dishonest—utterly unaccountable utterly un-transparent and totally dishonest. So I say that maybe this bill should be called the “Financial Reporting (Walk the Talk) Bill” the “Practise What You Preach Bill” or “Do Unto Others” to quote the biblical phrase.Those members ought to actually look at themselves as they pass this piece of legislation. It is right that we have appropriate and high-quality standards in our financial businesses—and generally businesses do actually; they do—and in ourcharitable sector and for those transacting business. But as the Government passes this legislation tonight or tomorrow morning I wonder whether those businesses are looking at how a Government cooks its own books in respect of the mixed-ownership model—$5 billion to $7 billion? No it was $7 billion from the get-go. Then it went to being from $5 billion to $7 billion. Now we think that it will be about $4.8 billion or $4.9 billion.It is $1 billion down on Meridian Energy $100 million down on Mighty River Power and those members get up and they celebrate because they got $100 million extra—$365 million for Air New Zealand—which equates to 36 hours of operating expenditure for the Government. They say: “We got $100 million. We’re heroes.” Yeah! So it has gone from a $1.1 billion stuff-up to a $1 billion stuff-up. “Grab a seat grab a share we are all happy.” and they take the dough and run. But they did not account for it appropriately and they did not live up to their own accounting standards which they preach in this legislation. So I say to the Minister of Commerce that he might want to reflect on that and his own colleagues might want to reflect on that in the passage of this legislation. I am sure that there might be—David Bennett: Yeah who sabotaged the sale?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —one or two people even in Hamilton or the outer-terrestrial areas that that member comes from and there might be a few businesses in his patch that actually look at this and say: “Well if we’re expected to adhere to these standards why doesn’t the Government? Why doesn’t the Government adhere to these standards if we are expected to?”. What business in that member’s electorate would book the proceeds from a sale that had not happened but not book the dividends? I ask the member. Does he know of a business? Oh the old “Billiard Ball”—yes the old can rattled. But there is silence. The silence is deafening. There is no such business. They would be in jail I say to that member as he crawls behind his desk.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 392.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Financial Reporting BillFinancial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) BillThird ReadingsHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I moveThat the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill be now read a third time. It is important to consider the two bills within the broader context of the Government’s package of financial reporting reforms. Parliament passed two Government-sponsored bills in 2011 that have improved the financial reporting system. The main change in the Financial Reporting Amendment Act 2011 was to consolidate all accounting and auditing standards and set them in the External ReportingBoard or XRB so that standards are set by a body that is and is seen to be independent of the interests of the accounting profession. The second major reform was the enactment of the Auditor Regulation Act 2011 which came into force on 1 July 2012. The Act ensures that only top members of the auditing profession can carry out financial sector and issuer audits. It also requires independent oversight of professional accounting bodies—the auditor regulatory system—by the Financial Markets Authority. These audit reforms were driven by concerns about finance company audits being carried out by practitioners who did not have the necessary skills and experience. The changes are fully consistent with international auditor regulation developments in recent years.However the financial reporting picture is not yet complete. The Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill implement four more important changes. First they reduce the compliance burden on many non-issuer companies. Companies with annual revenue of between $2 million and $30 million will no longer be required to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice. Small overseas companies will no longer be required to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies. It is expected that these changes will come into force in 2014.Second the legislation will strengthen public confidence in charities by increasing charities’ accountability to the donating and taxpaying public. Registered charities are required to attach financial statements to their annual reports. The current situation might be described as “do it yourself” reporting because there are no accounting standards to govern what is prepared. This problem is being rectified by these bills. It is expected that the accounting standards will come into force in 2015.Third the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill includes a century of tidy-ups by making amendments to more than 80 other Acts. Those changes will make financial reporting requirements fully consistent with the goals of financial reporting and replace archaic language. Fourth the two bills make financial reporting legislation more user-friendly by placing provisions where most users would expect to find them.The Financial Reporting Bill also repeals the Financial Reporting Act 1993. This means that the provisions in the 1993 Act that constitute the External Reporting Board and describe its powers and obligations are being included in the Financial Reporting Bill largely unchanged. Core accounting definitions are consolidated within the Financial Reporting Bill. This includes retaining existing provisions in the 1993 Act and moving other definitions from the Companies Act 1993. The Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill places all substantive reporting obligations in sector industry and entity-specific Acts. Those Acts cross-refer as necessary to the standard definitions in the Financial Reporting Bill.The Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill changes the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 by consolidating the reporting requirements for all Financial Markets Conduct Act reporting entities. Most of those obligations currently appear in the Financial Reporting Act 1993 but they also appear elsewhere such as in the Building Societies Act 1965. Splitting the bill into two bills will mean that there will be a short Financial Reporting Act of about 35 pages comprising the provisions that will be referred to for decades to come. The Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Act will be about 150 pages. It is likely to be of little interest beyond 2016.I would like to thank the External Reporting Board for its significant contributions to these reforms. These bills deal with the “who” question—who is a reporting entity? It is for the External Reporting Board to answer the “what” question—what accounting standards each class of reporting entity must comply with. These questions are likely tobe linked and the External Reporting Board has been working very effectively with the Government. The External Reporting Board submitted a reporting strategy to me in March 2012 and I approved it in April 2012. The strategy is fully consistent with the policy of the two bills. The External Reporting Board has been implementing its strategy to the extent that it can under the Financial Reporting Act 1993. It has also issued exposure drafts for not-for-profit entity accounting standards that will apply to registered charities. Those standards are being finalised and will be issued once the two bills have been passed.To conclude the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill will make major contributions to strengthening the financial reporting system in New Zealand. I commend these bills to the House.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Can I thank the Minister of Commerce. The Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill have bipartisan support. In fact I do not believe—maybe there is—there is a party in Parliament that is opposed to them for logical and common-sense reasons. Can I also thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself in respect of transacting this report. I think that members of the Committee across the House have done a pretty good job to come to grips with it.Labour will support these bills. They are admirable bills and they are necessary in respect of all the things we have debated tonight over and over as we head towards midnight in terms of appropriate accounting and financial reporting standards transparency accountability et al.I want to particularly say that we on this side of the House believe that reducing unnecessary compliance costs for all entities but especially for small entities is appropriate. I well recall being the Minister for Small Business for a time in the last Labour Government. It is a bit like being the Minister for Building and Construction in that there is a decent alumni of small business Ministers past and present in this place. The dilemma for a Minister for Small Business is that when you attempt to reduce compliance costs your colleagues in Cabinet with their own portfolios and with all good intentions are trying to solve other problems and in doing so although they have the best of intentions and are acting in good faith they can often pile those compliance costs back on.But I will say that the Minister of Commerce has acted in a far more effective way than the then Minister for Small Business the honourable—I use that word advisedly—John Archibald Banks whose greatest contribution to the body politic was to stand in this House last year I think or within the last 12 months and promote a piece of legislation that had at its heart getting rid of 31 spent Acts. For the uninitiated—because I was—I had to ask the Clerk and a spent Act is effectively an Act that in all essence has been repealed. In essence it has no effect on anybody—it does not exist. So he was repealing 31 Acts that had no effect on anybody. That was the Hon John Archibald Banks’ great—Hon Member: High point.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —high point as Minister for Small Business before he got into a high degree of difficulty involving his second court appearance after being convicted in a previous life of a criminal offence elsewhere. So he is rather preoccupied with his own compliance costs and I suspect there might be a few more compliance costs as he heads through the court proceeding trying to defend the indefensible.In terms of transparency and standards I hope that Minister Foss might perhaps give the former Minister John Banks some advice on how to maintain high standards of accountability and transparency possibly in his own personal affairs for which he is now accountable before the courts. That may lead to some lifelong learning for MrBanks as he contemplates doing other things as he perhaps looks through striped sunshine in the next few years.I return to the legislation and I am particularly grateful for the clarification around charities. I do take the point which I think a number of colleagues have made that the more appropriate level of financial reporting and the more openness transparency and accountability a charity can have—though it is somewhat burdensome to make any changes—will promote I do hope as the Minister does further giving from people. They will have a greater confidence that the charitable dollar that they are donating will be used—as it generally is in 99 percent of cases—in an appropriate way and will get to those who are in need either medically or because of their personal circumstances. They will have a greater confidence that the money gets to where it needs to go to assist people.I come back to a couple of points I made previously. I say to the Government again even though we are supporting this legislation that it ought to look to its own conduct in terms of when it is promoting standards accountability and transparency. In a previous speech I touched on the rather shoddy slipshod and totally morally wrong way in which it dealt with the provision for sale and the loss of dividends from the mixed-ownership model. I just say again to the Government that it will be difficult for some as they read this legislation and are required to spend quite a bit of money in many respects to make the relevant changes and then look at the Government’s own record of accounting standards aided and abetted in this case sadly I have to say by Treasury which allowed this behaviour to be got away with. They may look at this Government and say: “Well if it’s good enough for us why isn’t it good enough for you?”—as in the Government not you Mr Deputy Speaker.I think that the behaviour has been reprehensible. It was done simply for political purposes and sadly the Government ought to realise that in some ways you do not actually need a piece of legislation in order to be accountable because New Zealand is a small village. Everybody knows what everybody is doing and the people saw through that act of incompetence and negligence—an act that was completely wrong. They have now seen through that as we have gone through several botched mixed-ownership model sales. People are not silly. This Government ought to work that out. They know when they are being snowed. They know when there is a snow job and they know when one is trying to be put across them. So I say that.That also goes in terms of standards and transparency for some of the other deals—bizarre negotiations like the ones with Rio Tinto done behind closed doors with no explanations and no claims about job security. That is why the Government paid 30 million pieces of silver to Rio Tinto—on a claim that it was securing jobs for Southland. Without bringing the Deputy Speaker into the debate—I know that he is a very parochial Southlander who stands up for his patch very well—Dr Rajen Prasad: He’s a hunter.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He is a hunter indeed. The commitment was made in this House that $30 million effectively bought job security for those Rio Tinto workers. We now know two things. Before the ink was dry on the cheque on the Tuesday in theSouthland Times Rio Tinto was already announcing the fact that it was laying off maintenance workers. We now know—Hon Anne Tolley: What’s this got to do with the legislation?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Anne Tolley asks what this has got to do with the legislation. Well that says it all. A day late and a dollar short from that one over there. Ms Tolley it is about accountability transparency and walking the talk. When you promote a bill that requires a high level of financial reporting accountability and transparency for others one would think that you would do that from a position ofmoral authority where you could stand up and say the Government is going to adhere to the same standard. That Ms Tolley is what it is all about and as I was saying in terms of the Rio Tinto deal $30 million—[Interruption] Well she still does not get it but that is all right. Get Nick Smith to explain it to you out the back over a coffee afterwards. If Ms Tolley does not know what it is about that says a lot to the community does it not? That says a lot. Ignorance for that member is bliss absolute bliss—hear no evil see no evil.The facts are that $30 million—$30 million—was promised to secure jobs and then we find out that the Minister of Finance did not even ask for a jobs guarantee. He may not have got one—fair enough—but he did not even have the brains the gumption or the professionalism to ask for that. There was no transparency with the Chorus deal either—no transparency no accountability. In terms of the Solid Energy deal the Government was asleep at the wheel. There was no accountability and no transparency and there were some pretty dodgy financial reporting standards amongst that. [Interruption] Oh they have woken up.I say to those members opposite that if they are going to apply this sort of legislation which is appropriate to everybody else they might want to look at their own financial conduct their own conduct in respect of State-owned enterprises Chorus the SkyCity deal and the Ruataniwha Dam project which that Minister is involved with in various surreptitious ways and say: “Maybe we should have the same level of openness accountability transparency and standards.” That Ms Tolley is what it is all about: walking the talk practising what you preach and not being—well I cannot use the “h” word of course. It is not about the Government saying one thing—demanding and demanding that people outside this Chamber adhere to high standards of accountability professionalism reporting and transparency—and doing another. It is not about the Government saying: “Oh that’s OK for them the plebs outside here but it’s not OK for us. We’ll set our own standards. We’ll lower the height bar as we see fit and anything will go.”I say in conclusion that we support the tenure of this legislation. We support it. [Interruption] There is a bit of verbal biffo going on across the House between a couple of members but that is OK. We are getting close to the bewitching hour and I am sure there will be a few broomsticks flying out of here from time to time. I say that we support this legislation. It has bipartisan support but I just wish the Government would actually look at it and say: “OK if it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for us.”JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and commend this legislation arising from the Financial Reporting Bill to the House.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Let us see whether I can outlast the chair of the Commerce Committee Jonathan Young who shepherded the Financial Reporting Bill through Parliament with great care and dignity. I guess no one can accuse him of hypocrisy because this legislation which has great principles in it is being passed through. He is supporting it but he is not going any further than that. He is not explaining why. He is not getting into the detail. He is not contrasting it with the Government’s current behaviour in the way that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has so eloquently done and as he so eloquently does.I want to speak a little bit about the public sector management principles that sit behind this legislation. I can actually hear people turning their TV sets off as I say that. I will try to make it vaguely entertaining or as entertaining as it can be. This legislation is not particularly exciting it has to be said.Hon Anne Tolley: No. Nor is this member.Dr DAVID CLARK: It is not the bright lights kind of thing. Ms Tolley says that no it is not. But it is actually exciting for those entities affected by it. It is exciting thataccountability where it is unnecessary is being done away with. And where it is required where there is a public interest angle where an entity is too big to fail without having ripples through the community proper and clear accountability is being required.As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has contrasted the Government’s behaviour inside this place and in its deals with the expectations of those who are outside in the business world I want to bring another example to the table. That is the example of the AgResearch restructure that is going on currently. AgResearch has brought a proposal which it has put to the shareholding Ministers Ministers Steven Joyce and Bill English which they have signed off called theFuture Footprint Business Case for AgResearch. It is based around an idea that you cluster things together you get hubs of activity and it is more productive. There is nothing wrong with that as a general principle. Broadly it has been agreed with. It has been agreed with in the reviews inside the organisation that those principles are good ones. But what has not happened has been a transparent process around assessing whether that is what is really achieved in the restructuring proposal. That is not what is achieved argue three separate reports that have come out subsequently.The executive leadership team—very close connections there into the Minister’s office—has defended the current plan which was signed off by the Minister. The Minister may be embarrassed because the original plan seems to lack some good principles behind it in terms of the way the different options have been compared. It was very detailed so we know Minister Joyce had the plan for about 6 months. He received it on 31 October last year and had it on his desk until at least the end of March. He must have worked through all those details of how many jobs were going to be lost in Dunedin and thereabouts and how many jobs were going to go out of Hamilton.The member David Bennett opposite must be furious at the way the AgResearch centre there in Hamilton has been gutted by Steven Joyce without going through a proper process. Maybe he is just rolling over and letting his belly be scratched—I do not know. But if I were him I would be furious because Minister Joyce is steamrolling this ideological vision through without having a transparent process and without having the proper business case requirements that Treasury would demand.Again there we see a level of hypocrisy. When the Government commits itself to a deal it puts transparency to one side. In this legislation we are seeing that everybody is required to comply with transparent processes if it is in the public interest except the behaviour of this Government. That is the record that we are seeing. There is one rule for everyone else and one rule for the National Government. On the Invermay Agricultural Centre debacle we have had many many independent investigations—three now. Well one was an internal review which said: “You’ve got these objectives but you’re not meeting them Invermay AgResearch by breaking up the Invermay cluster in Dunedin.” There is a productive hub there. There is private enterprise. There are productivity gains—a huge history of productivity gains that are extraordinary in New Zealand terms and that contribute to our agricultural sector which is so important as it is. In fact you have got the whole “-omics”—genomics and so forth—cluster there which is working effectively.It could be working more effectively in fact if you transferred more resource into it. That would be good for New Zealand. That would actually achieve your goals. But it seems at this stage that the Government is wedded to it although Minister Joyce does say he is going to look at more detail. He has asked for more detail and I commend him for that.It is a little bit disappointing perhaps that the National Party list member who lives in Dunedin has not been out there putting the pressure publicly on Minister Joyce to look at those things carefully. There has been no statement. There has been silence from the list member who is based in Dunedin and that is disappointing.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Rubbish! Don’t tell fibs.Dr DAVID CLARK: I expect him to take a call. He is saying “Rubbish!” so I look forward to his rebutting that. But I certainly have not heard the echoes of his complaints through the media so I will listen with interest and I will look to the newspapers for criticism as those jobs which benefit New Zealand’s economy are ripped out of Dunedin. The productivity of our country is dependent on good science and on good research. This Government seems determined to run a non-transparent process and in that case to rip out that functional hub in the south. It is doing harm to New Zealand. Let us put aside the regional interests. It is doing harm to New Zealand.But when it is ideologically wedded be it a casino deal be it a Rio Tinto golden handshake be it a Chorus deal sorted out behind the scenes where it is big business and corporate welfare this Government is willing to do the deal with its ideological blinkers on. It does not matter that the electricity sector for example had that history of price gouging that I referred to in the Committee stage where $4.3 billion of price gouging was identified between 2001 and 2007. Simon Bridges says that the current market model works and that it just needs a little more time to bed in. I think that is an exact quote: it just needs a little more time to “bed in.” Fifteen years down the track this Government is not prepared to stand up and say when something is not working.Dr Rajen Prasad: Too early to tell he said.Dr DAVID CLARK: It is too early to tell—too early to tell. We will wait and see. But not the Labour Government. The Labour Government of the future will step in. It will make sure that we regulate the power market so that it is run in the interests of New Zealand citizens so that people do not pay too much for their power and so we do not have blackouts across the country. Those are the kinds of things that this Government will tolerate in the interests of making sure that the money from the asset sell-offs goes offshore and that its mates are looked after. The Government is ideologically wedded to it. It will not even look at the NZ Power model which is so well-championed by the Labour Party and also a variant put forward by the Green Party down the back of the House.Unfortunately this Government is so wedded to this ideological position. It is one thing for the Government and its deals—the way it does its business. It is expecting in this legislation the citizens of New Zealand to do something different. It is a pity the Government cannot take its own advice. It is a pity the Government cannot apply those simple principles that I referred to at the outset the public sector management principles: clear objectives transparent reporting sanctions and rewards and clear lines of accountability. Those kinds of simple principles that we find embodied in this legislation looking out for the public interests seem too far beyond this Government for it to adopt itself. That is a great shame because this Government if it applied these principles to its own practice would be acting in the interests of New Zealanders more broadly.But no it seems to be out of touch. It seems to be increasingly arrogant. We saw the dismissal of the Earthquake Commission—the Auditor-General’s report. We saw the dismissals of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—the Auditor-General’s report. We saw the dismissal of the Law Society’s advice on the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation saying to slow down have a clear process have some clear oversight of the agency and have a proper review for goodness’ sake! But no this Government does not want scrutiny. It does not want areview. The Government says that this is not for it. The Government says “This is for the people of New Zealand but it is not for us. We are a Government that is not interested in the wider public interest where it applies to us. We will do our own thing.” This is a Government that is out of touch with New Zealanders out of time and New Zealanders will be well advised to get rid of it at the next election. Thank you.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): It is a pleasure to take a call in the last 15 minutes at a quarter to midnight during urgency. The Green Party will be supporting the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill even though they are not perfect because we do not think that perfect should be the enemy of the good and this legislation on balance does quite a lot of good things. It has been widely canvassed and the details have been worked on for a very long time by the officials who I think have done quite a good job.The main purpose of this legislation as we have heard is to make all general-purpose financial reporting consistent with the primary objective of the financial reporting system which is to provide information to external users who require that information and cannot demand it. In other words the legislation should make the requirements to disclose and report more fit for purpose to the organisations that are required to report.The Green Party supports a much smarter approach to regulation. This legislation does that by easing some of the burden of financial reporting for non-large non-issuing entities. In other words it simplifies reporting requirements for small and medium companies charities churches and the like. It also tightens up some of the requirements for large entities to bring it in line with the Financial Markets Conduct Act which was passed recently.Financial reporting is important for a few reasons. Firstly it is especially important for public accountability. There is a public interest in organisations that are funded by taxpayers like Crown entities Government departments and State-owned enterprises. But it is also important for banks insurers mutual funds and any organisation that is a deposit taker or issuer of debt and charities and other organisations that receive public donations. Secondly it is important for large organisations that have significant economic significance. This would apply to organisations that are “too big to fail”.There is no such thing as a pure or perfect free market. If we examine the objective evidence and the historical record there is simply no evidence that there is perfect information and transparency and the ability of markets to self-correct for that reason. The whole theory of free markets and the invisible hand was based on the idea that there were much closer relationships between the people who were purchasing things and the people who were manufacturing or providing those services. Adam Smith wrote that at a time when the relationship between a producer and a consumer was much closer than it is today. It is very difficult today for consumers and investors to understand exactly all of the factors that are involved in the nature of the business that they are purchasing from.The complexity of our current global economy reduces accountability. It makes it harder for there to be accountability and that is why it is incredibly important for there to be robust public oversight and regulation. Financial institutions are central to the functioning of our economy. As the financial crisis showed it is important to have that rigorous public oversight because when there is not that oversight there is a tendency for organisations to get creative to do things that are quite unwise in the medium and long term and in the case of some of the investment banks and organisations particularly in the United States to actually do things that are completely illegal in order to make more money. Eventually when the reckoning comes it is not those organisations that suffer the consequences of their actions. Huge amounts of wealthhave been wiped off balance sheets all across the world and that has very real consequences for ordinary people—people who lost their jobs lost their houses and lost their livelihoods.It is so important to get the balance right. I am no fan of regulations that are not effective. I am a qualified planner who would be the first to criticise onerous regulations and city plans that have led to quite undesirable outcomes. I think that we can do things much smarter but it would be wrong to say that we need to get rid of all regulation that all regulation is bad and that all compliance costs are bad because what might cost us a little bit in the short term could save us quite a lot in the medium and long term.The Green Party supports the changes in these bills theFinancial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill because it seems that the general direction set by these bills is good. We have some concerns about whether or not enough organisations will be caught by the definition of “large” organisation and so it will remain to be seen. Certainly with this whole new framework for financial reporting it will be important for the Government and the Opposition—Parliament—to pay attention to what is happening see whether it is working and whether indeed external users are getting all of the information that they need. It seems to me that it is going to rely a lot on decisions made by the External Reporting Board about accounting and reporting standards and that process. So Parliament will have to monitor whether or not that is working and whether or not truly all of the information that needs to be available for the public interest is available.Finally I think there is one big missed opportunity in this whole restructure of the financial reporting framework that has been undertaken over the past few years and that is the lack of exploration of guidelines for environmental and social reporting in addition to financial reporting. That is known as triple bottom line accounting. There is increasing awareness around the world and particularly I think amongst younger generations that maximising short-term profit at the expense of people and the planet is not sustainable. Climate talks are happening right now in Warsaw and the situation is very very straightforward. The scientists have told us we have to transition to a low-carbon economy or we are going to impoverish the future of our children their children and their children. So it is important that we start paying attention to more than just the dollars and cents in the short term.It is a commonly understood principle I think in private business that one cares about what one measures. At the moment most organisations—including the Government; especially perhaps this Government—have a single-minded narrow focus on dollars although there are a number of other things that are important for human well-being. In order for New Zealanders to have good lives and in order for people all over the world to have good lives we have to pay attention to more than just the dollars; we have to pay attention to the cleanliness of the environment the air that we breathe the water and the stability of the climate. We want to make sure that other people are looked after because that has an impact on our well-being.I can go out work really hard start up a business and make lots of money but if I live in a society where other people do not have the opportunity to do that for a variety of reasons then that is going to impact on me because ultimately I will have to suffer the consequences of a society that has more crime or more injustice and is not well looked after.I would like to see at some point during my time in this House a move towards incorporating greater accountability in areas that are not just financial. I would like to see guidelines for environmental and social bottom lines so that we have an understanding of exactly what it is we are working towards and trading off. Thank you.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): These bills theFinancial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill will improve the financial reporting system in this country. They will build a brighter bolder better future for all New Zealanders. I commend these bills to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): New Zealand First supports theFinancial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill. They reduce compliance costs strengthen accountability and improve transparency. We support the bills.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Labour does support these bills the Financial Reporting Bill and Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill and most of the debate tonight has come from this side of the House. Well pretty much all of the debate has come from this side of this House as usual.One of the things that is critical when we are looking at these bills is that the primary aim of Government should be getting on with doing its job of growing and creating jobs which unfortunately is one of the things that this Government is not doing. One of the ways of doing that is reducing unnecessary compliance costs for businesses and it is creating good standards—standards of transparency and accountability—and joining the dots between those things. Unfortunately as we have heard from numerous examples given tonight whether it is the mixed-ownership model whether it is Invermay Agricultural Centre or whether it is Chorus—and there are numerous other examples—the dots are not being joined in terms of what is in these bills what the standards are that are being expected of other companies and what is actually being delivered by this Government. It does not add up.However we support these bills. There was a lot of good work done in the select committee and we commend these bills to the House.Bills read a third time.Sittings of the HouseDr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It seems like we have made good progress this evening. It is a late hour for starting a new bill—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to put the House into Committee and then take that point of order or someone else may who is the Chair.Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): We have made good progress this evening. It is very close to the witching hour and I seek leave and suggest that we end at this point whatever the motion—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are seeking leave for the Committee to be suspended at this time? Leave is sought for the Committee to be suspended at 2 minutes to 12. Is there objection to that course of action? There is none.Sitting suspended from 11.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)