Volume 655 Week 15 - Wednesday 17 June 2009 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 655 Week 15 - Wednesday 17 June 2009 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 17 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
List Member Vacancy 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Campbell Gordon Calder has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Richard Westwood Worth. I understand that Campbell Gordon Calder is present and wishes to take the oath. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right. 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Campbell Gordon Calder who then took his seat in the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I received this question back from the Clerk’s Office it was addressed to the Prime Minister as being appropriately addressed to that Minister. It seems that the National Government has transferred it now to the Minister of Finance. Can I confirm that it has done that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: [ 
Interruption 
] I remind members that a point of order has been placed in front of the Speaker and it should be dealt with in silence. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows full well that it is up to the Government as to which Ministers have responsibility for answering which questions. That is an old custom in this House. I do not think the point of order was necessary. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 There has also been a tradition in this House when a change of this sort has been made that not only are people informed but also the question wording if necessary has been changed so that it makes sense. One does not need a degree in English literature or usage to know that this question in the way it has been approved by your office no longer makes sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Labour Party—the member’s party—was informed of the change of direction of the question to the Minister of Finance. The question still makes sense. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to ask it. 
Budget 2009—Protecting the Vulnerable 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by the statement in his Minister of Finance’s Budget speech that “Protecting the most vulnerable is a priority”; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; a key objective of the Budget was to give people a sense of security in the depths of a recession so despite declining Government revenue we have preserved national superannuation benefits student support and Working for Families at their current levels. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why then did the Budget cut $2.5 million in funding for the most vulnerable people in our community the children in physically disabled units in schools with the consequence that those schools and those pupils will now suffer a loss of physiotherapy speech therapy and occupational therapy to the serious detriment of those pupils? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Clearly the intention of the Government is that a group of students like that have the services they need in order to participate in education. Across the board the Minister of Education and the Government have made a number of decisions about priorities. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Minister say to the parents and the teachers of those children who tell me that those children’s safety and well-being will be damaged by the Government’s cuts; and will he front up to schools like the Mount Roskill primary intermediate and grammar schools and tell the families who are affected why he has picked on them in order to disadvantage their already disadvantaged children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The first thing a responsible Minister would do would be to verify the claims made by that member given his extravagant and misleading public claims in recent months. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just been informed by way of a text message that your television service is showing Mr English as answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I ask that you investigate that and have it corrected please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member and I am sure that it will be looked into immediately. 
Chris Tremain 
: Will the Government guarantee a range of entitlements in future Budgets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Maintaining national superannuation entitlements benefit levels student support and Working for Families at their current levels is factored into all the Budget projections of future expenditure. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister deem it to be more important to provide an extra $35 million to private schools when most of the children at private schools come from advantaged backgrounds than to take $2.5 million off severely disabled children who are the least advantaged in our school system and in our community? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any New Zealand child has the right to a 100 percent free education. The National Party made some commitments prior to the election to make a marginal increase in the subsidy for children who go to private schools. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. It asked why the Minister decided to spend money on that group rather than on the other group. I do not think the Minister actually addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I heard the Minister’s answer he explained why the Government has chosen to allocate the money in the way that it did. The Minister spoke of the commitments in the Government’s election policy programme. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it acceptable that 150000 New Zealand children are living in poverty; and will he commit to raising the benefit levels so that these families can live on their benefits without descending into poverty while they are out of work? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is concerning if any child is living in poverty because that tends to limit his or her life opportunities. The Government will need to make it a priority in the next year or so to deal with the large number of additional people who are coming into the benefit system and we are getting the Ministry of Social Development and the Government set up to handle that growing volume. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister decide to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme which was a proven success at helping those who are most vulnerable to unemployment by giving them jobs and skilled training when both of the Ministers in this area would agree that that scheme was a success and was achieving positive outcomes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any number of schemes that were running in past years had some merit. However because the fiscal outlook has changed dramatically and the economic outlook has changed dramatically the Government has had to make a series of decisions to focus on the core priority of supporting people who are losing their jobs and maintaining entitlements for those who are most vulnerable and cannot adjust to the recession. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Who is telling the truth: the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett who said she consulted fully with Pita Sharples before deciding to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme or Pita Sharples who said he had not been briefed on this at all? Both of them cannot be telling the truth. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a bit rich coming from that member who is losing public support because of his inability to be open with the truth. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You surely cannot accept that as being a valid answer to the question. There are two opposing statements made by two Ministers. I am asking the Minister of Finance which one of those statements is accurate and truthful. That is straightforward. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just wish the honourable Leader of the Opposition had asked which one of those statements was accurate. Instead of that his question implied that an honourable member of this House may not have been telling the truth. He asked which one was telling the truth. The member knows from past rulings in this House that one cannot allege that someone is telling lies or not telling the truth. I allowed the question to go but in fact the way that the Minister answered it was not unexpected given the allegation that someone was not telling the truth. Had he asked how the Minister accounted for two apparently conflicting statements then I could have assisted the honourable member more. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Had my question been out of order I would have expected you to rule it out of order. My understanding is that it is not outside the Standing Orders to ask the Minister which one of those statements is truthful. That is what I did but the answer to that was not given. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to the advice that you just gave him because he is now getting into a different interpretation of things. But in any event Speaker’s ruling 163/3 makes it very clear that there is now greater scope for the way in which questions can be asked in the House. By the same token there should also be an expectation that there be greater scope in the way in which questions are answered. The way in which the Hon Bill English answered that question was not at all unreasonable given the way in which the question was answered. That was nowhere near as distinct and precise as the suggestion you made to the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need to take more time on this matter. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that he cannot allege someone is not telling the truth. There is a way of asking that question. I am sure he is perfectly capable of asking the question and he has further supplementary questions available in which to do that. 
Economy—Reports on Imbalances 
2.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on imbalances in the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports on this issue. The economy was in recession from the first quarter of 2008 and the global recession has shown up some fundamental imbalances. For instance the tradable sector of the economy including manufacturing the primary sector and export of services such as tourism has been in recession for the last 5 years while the non-tradable sector which has been about consumption housing and Government spending has grown remarkably fast over those 5 years. 
Amy Adams 
: What were the main causes of these imbalances? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: At least one cause of these imbalances was the previous Government’s policy over the last 5 years of having significant increases in Government spending but without much focus on its effectiveness. Core Crown expenditure grew by 50 percent over those 5 years. That put upward pressure on interest rates and the exchange rate and meant that the export sector which we generally rely on has been in recession for 5 years. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the Minister’s criticism of the level of investment in the export sector over the 5 years which he expressed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning does he agree that keeping initiatives such as Labour’s $700 million Fast Forward Fund in agriculture the research and development tax credit and improvements to KiwiSaver would have signalled to New Zealanders that the Government really was committed to an export-led recovery? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealanders had an opportunity to look at that programme and they rejected it. 
Amy Adams 
: What plans does the Government have to reverse these trends? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is no clear and obvious way to reverse these trends quickly. However we will focus on getting better value from Government spending and in obtaining better and smarter public services for the same or less money rather than recklessly increasing spending levels as the previous Government did. We will also move to get rid of widespread problems with red tape that hold back business investment. 
Hon David Parker 
: What Treasury reports has the Minister seen about the imbalance resulting from the decade of deferrals to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in last month’s Budget given the Secretary to the Treasury’s reported comments on Radio New Zealand National on 10 June that “We’ll have to give something up.”; and why does the Minister not openly admit what is obvious to others which is that future cuts to superannuation are part of the Minister’s long-term plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because that is not true. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three papers. If I can I will take them one at a time. The first answers the request from the Minister of Finance. It is a letter to Mrs Anne Tolley from Mt Roskill Intermediate School talking about the rights of disabled children being compromised by the cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The second document is the response by Pita Sharples to a question for written answer saying that he had not received any briefings on funding cuts to the Enterprising Communities initiative. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The third document is an answer by Paula Bennett to an oral question saying that she consulted fully with the Minister of Maori Affairs before announcing the axing of the Enterprising Communities initiative. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that is a  
Hansard 
 document. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is from  
Hansard 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a  
Hansard 
 document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the transcript of the radio interview with the Secretary to the Treasury of 10 June where he predicts that something has to be given up as a consequence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that radio transcript. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Primary Health Care—Cancellation of Conference 
3.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement that “we are living through a time of serious financial pressure both internationally and domestically”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: So why did he waste more than $100000 of taxpayer money cancelling a primary health care conference and was it his embarrassment over that wasted money that caused him to refuse my request for details of the cancellation until the Ombudsman instructed him to release it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As that member knows the cancellation of that conference saved the health sector several hundred thousand dollars. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why does the Minister claim to listen to front-line health workers but then spend over $100000 on cancelling a great opportunity to listen to front-line health workers? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As that member knows cancellation of that contract saved the public health service several hundred thousand dollars. Many of the people attending the conference would have been flying at the taxpayer’s expense; they were also to have their accommodation paid for. Money is very scarce in the New Zealand public health service and I would rather put it into more important areas. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How is the Government dealing with the serious financial pressures facing the health system? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes they are serious financial pressures made somewhat harder by the fact that the previous Government cut $150 million out of the health budget over 2 years. Half of all new spending over the next 4 years is going to health; this is a reflection of the Government’s priorities. The increase in funding for the district health boards is a record $530 million. Although the district health boards will make their own decisions any changes to services will not be as a result of a shortage of Government funding. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Did the Minister cancel the conference because he knew that his decision to under-resource the primary health care sector in this year’s Budget would force doctors to raise their fees by 6.5 percent this year? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Official documents will make it clear that the Government is in fact investing much more in primary health care and has increased subsidies for general practitioner visits. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 6.5 percent increase. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well the 6.5 percent cap should be compared with a 6.1 percent increase approved by the previous Labour Government but actually the increase in the general practitioner subsidy this year is higher than the increase in that year. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Did the Minister cancel the conference because he knows that New Zealanders will be outraged that the lower doctors’ fees and prescription charges brought in by Labour are now under direct threat and neither he nor John Key wants to be filmed at any negative event? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There are no direct threats to funding for primary health care unlike the direct threat approved by that member’s benchmate David Cunliffe who last year in the month before the election cut $17.5 million from primary health organisation income cut $10 million from the funding pool for people with disabling chronic medical conditions and cut $20 million— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That is not true. That was an underspend and you know it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh it was an “underspend”. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the evaluation of the cancellation of the primary health care conference which shows that the total cost incurred by its cancellation is $113491 of taxpayers’ money. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Air Quality—National Environmental Standards 
4.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What action has he taken in respect of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality in response to concerns raised at the Job Summit? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Ninety percent of New Zealand’s air quality problem is actually from home heating and vehicles with less than 10 percent from industry yet the previous Government’s air-quality regulations penalise only industry for non-compliance. Ten towns and cities are unlikely to meet the standards by 2013 and the consequence is that no renewals of new consents for industry would be allowed. This would put tens of thousands of jobs in Canterbury and Auckland at risk for no fault of industry. That is why the Job Summit recommended a rethink and why the Government is doing that. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister been able to find any technically sound reason from his officials for punishing only industry over failure to meet air-quality standards when industry is a fraction of the problem; or were the regulations a product of the anti-jobs anti-industry mindset of the previous administration? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Officials have not been able to give me any sound reason why we would have a regulation that punishes industry only when 90 percent of the problem is in fact from home heating and motor vehicles. The Government does intend to address this problem and that is one of the reasons we have committed $323 million to insulation and to clean-heating technologies. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that the Government has already stalled the emissions trading scheme scrapped biofuel obligations and signalled more thermal generation and a review of drinking-water quality standards what assurance can the Minister provide about any improvements to air quality in the time frames he envisages? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me illustrate just one of the points that the member has got wrong. Rather than a nanny State regulatory approach to biofuels this Government is providing a financial incentive to new technology. The difference from the Labour Government’s environmental policies which were anti-growth and anti-industry is that this Government is serious about prosperity as well as good environmental policy. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government remains absolutely committed to improving air quality noting its importance to public health and to New Zealand’s “clean green” brand as stated in National’s 2006  
Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 and its policy at the 2008 election? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes this initiative does meet the commitments that National made in its policy and in the  
Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 document. The terms of reference make plain that this Government is serious about clean air in New Zealand but we want to do it in a practical way that does not put jobs at risk. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister confirm that car pollution is a major component of Auckland’s air pollution; if so will he recommend to the Minister of Transport that instead of spending seven times as much on roads and motorways he instead invest dollar for dollar in better buses and trains and safer cycling and walking? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is a Government that is investing heavily in cycles with the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for the cycleway. Today my colleague the Minister of Transport announced a new initiative around supporting clean-energy technology in the form of electric cars one of which I am the proud driver of. I also point out to the member the very significant investment that this Government is making in public transport. But I say to the Greens that congested traffic is awful for pollution and this Government is going to address and improve that. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What response has the Minister received to his announcement of the review? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The review of air quality standards has been strongly and widely supported. I note that the Christchurch  
Press 
 said that the group appointed to conduct a review is very well qualified and well balanced with strong medical as well as technical and economic skills. I also note the support from many local authorities from the Hawke’s Bay where I particularly acknowledge Chris Tremain and Craig Foss who have made representations. Also in the South Island at least four authorities have indicated their strong support for the review. 
Adult and Community Education—Cuts 
5.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: How does she expect cuts in adult and community education to “… ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens” as she has stated previously about the Government’s aim in Vote Education? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 As I told the member yesterday the Government remains committed to adult community education and will spend $124 million over the next 4 years on the sector. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How many people does the Minister expect will benefit from the improved literacy and numeracy skills coming from an additional $35 million that is going into private schools and how does that compare with the number of people who will suffer from the cuts to adult and community education? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think Labour has to get over its obsession around private schools. Children who go to private schools are New Zealanders who have a right to a 100 percent free education. They are much cheaper for the taxpayer because we pay only about 35 percent of the cost of their education. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What reports has the Minister seen on individuals spreading misleading information about adult and community education reprioritisation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen reports most of them from the member who asked the primary question that say adult and community education funding will be cut by $152 million. That is simply wrong. The Government has made changes to $67 million of adult and community education funding and we have shifted it to other areas of education spending. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister compare the return on the investment of $35 million into private schools with the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ calculation of the return on the investment in adult and community education funding in 2008 of between $54 and $72 for each dollar of funding? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well if we believed PricewaterhouseCoopers’ evaluation we would spend $10 billion on adult and community education and would have an economy that is twice the size it currently is. That is clearly the kind of nonsense that the previous Government relied on.  
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. What reports has the Minister received on the number of people who could lose access to reintroduction to learning other than literacy courses that could possibly lead to jobs as a result of the cuts to adult and community education? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot directly answer that question in detail but I can tell the member that we have seen reports of thousands of people who are losing their jobs and going on the dole. We are doing the best we can to keep them connected to the world of work and to help them to obtain skills for when the economy does pick up—particularly if they are young people who are a higher priority than others. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister understand the concept of embedded literacy and numeracy skills; if so how does the Minister think Moroccan cooking classes can be completed without acquiring or developing literacy and numeracy skills along the way? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes; and I understand that course is funded by the participants and will not be affected. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does the Minister consider Maori or Samoan language courses such as those run at Wellington High School to be hobby courses or to be courses that improve literacy skills? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have said the Government will be spending $124 million on adult and community education over the next 4 years and anyone who is offering a course will have the opportunity under processes set up by the previous Government to get it funded. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was hardly an answer to the question my colleague asked which was about Maori and Samoan language classes being considered to be hobby courses or to contribute to literacy skills. Does the Minister have a definition of hobby courses? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I heard the answer the Minister acknowledged that organisations that are running these kinds of courses will apply for funding for the courses to continue. The impression I got from the answer was that the Minister cannot predetermine which courses will be funded. I do not believe that a further more precise answer to that question can be given at this stage. 
Citizens Initiated Referenda—Parental Correction Referendum 
6.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that it “might make sense” for new rules to be drafted governing the questions that can be asked in citizens initiated referenda; if so is it Government policy to change these rules? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The answer is yes I stand by the statement. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Prime Minister been advised that today the Green Party put forward a member’s bill aimed at improving the rules on referenda so that questions are clear and people know for certain what they are voting for; if so does he support our bill? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I am aware of the bill although I have not seen it; and yes the Government caucus may consider supporting the legislation. We agree that it is important that referendum questions are clear and we believe that the one that will be before the New Zealand public in a few weeks’ time is quite ambiguous. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that our country is spending around $9 million on a referendum that is so confusing that even MPs from parties across Parliament say they will not be voting because they do not think the question makes any sense? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I am concerned about spending $9 million but I think it is important to acknowledge that we operate in a democracy. A legal process triggered that citizens initiated referendum and on that basis we will be following through with the cost. 
Sue Bradford 
: If the bill I am putting forward is not drawn from the ballot this week or if there is no ballot this week will his Government consider adopting it as a Government bill in order to ensure that future referenda will not be loaded with ambiguous complex leading or misleading questions? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot comment on that option until we have had an opportunity to see the bill but it is possible. I have received some advice in relation to the current legislation particularly section 10(1) under which the Clerk of the House is responsible for determining the wording of questions. She is we believe in a difficult position of trying to refine the question to make it more easily understood while not being seen to change the intent of the question and she has to do so with the goodwill of the promoter. The member raises an interesting point; I think it is worthy of consideration and the Government will take a good look at the bill. 
Vehicles Electric—Incentives for Uptake 
7.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What steps is the Government taking to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government is announcing today that we will be exempting light electric vehicles from road-user charges for an initial period of 4 years. This is to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles as commercialisation of this technology progresses. The policy will come into effect on 1 October this year and will apply until 2013 when we will reassess the initiative. 
David Bennett 
: How will increasing the number of electric vehicles in our fleet help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The combination of highly efficient electric motors with our competitive advantage in renewable electricity generation will reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector as well as the harmful emissions that affect air quality. Electric cars can also decrease our reliance on imported fossil fuels. The Government sees private vehicles as continuing to be the most significant method of transportation for most New Zealanders. It is important that we encourage the use of affordable fuel technologies in order to help meet our environmental obligations over time. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Purchase of Queen’s Wharf 
8.  
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he consider that the Auckland Regional Council’s decision to jointly purchase the Queen’s Wharf fits within his definition of a “core service”; if not does he think that a referendum would be suitable? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Local Government 
: The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance identified the development of Queen’s Wharf as critical to the future of Auckland and New Zealand. The member should be aware that the definition of a “core service” is a work in progress. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How can the Minister continue to maintain his view that councils should be required to hold referenda on major decisions when the first major decision made in the Auckland region will be sent to the Government’s hand-picked committee for approval without the people of Auckland having a say? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The matter of core services and referenda are a work in progress. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Will the Minister explain to the House how he reconciles his view that he would not expect local councils to be involved in property development with his council’s support of the Auckland Regional Council’s $20 million involvement in the purchase of Queen’s Wharf without the issue being put to the public by a referendum? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The matter of Queen’s Wharf was referred to by and in the royal commission’s report but the matter of core services and the definition thereof are a work in progress. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How does he respond to the concerns of Local Government New Zealand that this is yet another example of the Government saying to councils “Do as I say not as I do.”; or is it the case that even his colleagues are so concerned about his radical plans to strip back local government that they are getting these decisions made before his reforms are introduced? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The simple answer to that is that the local government sector is being and will continue to be consulted on this issue as we develop it and define the matters of core services and referenda. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Is he concerned that these actions by John Key and Murray McCully have undermined his proposals in the same way that Judith Collins is undermining his super-city proposals by suggesting that the local boards are nothing more than “tea and scone clubs”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Unlike the member opposite and his party this Government actually takes seriously the reorganisation of governance in Auckland. We are consulting the public of Auckland. We intend to continue consulting the public of Auckland. The public of Auckland will have an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the present bill and the third bill and to the Local Government Commission. Of course the Minister of Local Government will continue to hold public meetings across Auckland along with John Carter the Associate Minister of Local Government to ensure that there is proper consultation. 
Citizens Initiated Referenda—Parental Correction Referendum 
9.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that the wording of the referendum “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” is “a bit ambiguous”; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because I think it is. 
John Boscawen 
: Why does the Prime Minister continue to support legislation that makes a smack for the purposes of correction a criminal offence thus making good parents into criminals; and how can New Zealanders have any respect for the rule of law when the Government has told the police not to enforce it? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think that when the Parliament voted on this matter some years back it actually sought to reach a compromise. That compromise was to send a strong message to the police that we did not want good parents to be criminalised for lightly smacking a child. It is my belief that the police are carrying out the wishes of that Parliament—and indeed I think those carried forward into this Parliament. On that basis I think that good New Zealand parents have nothing to fear. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that my member’s bill that is going into the ballot tomorrow and is based on the amendment from Chester Borrows will not take us back to the situation that we had before in which parents could in certain narrow circumstances hit their children with a riding crop for example; if so will his Government be supporting my common-sense legislation when it comes up for its first reading? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly let me answer those questions in reverse order. I say that the previous National Party caucus had an agreed position. That agreed position was reflected in the law that was passed. I cannot tell the member whether we would support his bill because our caucus has not had an opportunity to discuss that matter. We will not consider that matter unless or until the member’s bill is drawn from the ballot. I say that in my view the current law is working. I have given New Zealand parents a commitment that if the law did not work I would change it. I stand by that commitment. But I have seen no evidence to date that the law is not working. 
Dr Richard Worth—Confidence 
10.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I refer the member to my response to question No. 12 yesterday. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister decide to not go into specifics yesterday because he judged it not in the public interest to do so as allowed for under Standing Order 377(1)? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister judge it not in the public interest because it may hamper some police inquiry? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is possible but also on a wider basis I do not consider it in the public interest. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If it is possible that the reason that the Prime Minister would not go into specifics yesterday was that it may hamper some police inquiry why did he tell journalists on Monday that it was “nothing of a legal nature.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because that was the correct answer. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How can it be that on the one hand a possible reason for the Prime Minister’s not disclosing the reason for his decision to sack Dr Richard Worth as Minister was that it may hamper some police inquiry and on the other hand he said to the assembled press gallery that the reason was “nothing of a legal nature.”? If it was nothing of a legal nature how could it possibly hamper the police? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a number of factors and I made that clear at the press conference on Monday. I urge the member to go and read the full transcript. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Given that the Prime Minister advised the House yesterday that he had told his Cabinet in “broad outline” of his reasons for losing confidence in Dr Richard Worth has he told his Cabinet anything substantive that he has not made public? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I repeat the comment I made yesterday. I went into a broad description but not specifics. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377(1). Here is a little reminder as to what that Standing Order says. It says: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” My question was whether the Prime Minister having briefed his Cabinet on the reasons for dismissing or losing confidence in Dr Richard Worth had told his Cabinet anything substantive that he had not made public. You should note Mr Speaker that I did not ask what he had told his Cabinet but simply whether he had told his Cabinet anything substantive that was not yet public. I put it to you that he has not sought to address that question and because of the wording of the question he has no public interest reason to deny addressing it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I respect the honourable member’s important point of order but I come back to the point that only the Minister—or in this case the Prime Minister—can judge the issue of public interest. That is why the Standing Order is written that way. My assessment was that the Prime Minister answered the question given the constraints of his judgment around the public interest issue. I believe I cannot ask him to do more than that under the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to examine your ruling and previous rulings with regard to the question of public interest. My understanding from the I think two occasions that I have seen that Standing Order applied by Ministers in the past is that they have in fact elected not to give an answer or to give an answer that says that they cannot give that answer because it is not in the public interest. I have never seen that Standing Order used before to judge whether an answer addressed a question. It goes to whether an answer is to be given and whether that is in the public interest not to the quality of the answer or whether it addresses the question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think that if we were to turn to Speaker’s ruling 165/6 then the situation becomes a little clearer. The Prime Minister gave an answer to the question. This is a Speaker’s ruling from the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt. It states: “The Speaker does not judge whether ministerial replies are adequate or make political judgments on how well Ministers have responded to the House or indeed how well other members are performing. Those are matters for members themselves the press and the public generally.” The Prime Minister has made it clear. He has given an answer to Mr Hodgson as far as he can. It would seem to me that by relying on this particular Speaker’s ruling we would see an end to the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it would be advantageous to give a couple of examples of where my understanding of this Standing Order is designed to be applied. One example would be in the area of foreign affairs or defence where there is a point of conflict and New Zealand interests would be at risk either in a trade sense or a defence sense. The other occasions in the examples that we have been briefed on have been in police cases where an active police operation is occurring and it would not be appropriate for a Minister to give an answer. That Minister could not give an answer that was truthful in any of those examples where it would be in the interests of the country. Those are the sorts of areas that in my opinion and certainly in the briefings that we have had from the previous Clerks are covered by the Standing Order. It does not extend to a judgment partway through a question that answering the question properly is not in the public interest; it relates to whether the question is answered at all. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well I think that anyone observing this would know that this is a question that comes down to the issue of political exchange. If we look at Speaker’s ruling 163/6 also a ruling by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt we see that he acknowledges within that ruling that there are questions that are matters of political exchange. It makes it very very clear that the Speaker cannot be put in a position of judging the adequacy of either the question or the answer. The Prime Minister has given an answer in so far as he can and is prepared to and that should be acceptable to the House.  
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I simply want to remind the Speaker that I have raised a point of order on a very narrow issue not to do with Speaker’s ruling 165/6 which is to do with the adequacy of the reply but to do with whether the Minister addressed the question. It is a narrow issue. He must seek to address the question unless there is a public interest reason for not doing so. Similarly Speaker’s ruling 163/6 is irrelevant to the point of order that I have raised. The Hon Trevor Mallard makes a very good point which is that if it is not in the public interest to give an answer then that is what we would expect to be told. In fact the Prime Minister has said in his answer to my primary question that it is not in the public interest for him to give further detail. So I changed my questioning to ask who else had that detail but I did not ask for the detail itself—because it is apparently not in the public interest. At that point I think the Minister must seek to address my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members because this is an issue that I accept is not absolutely black and white. But in fact when the Hon Trevor Mallard was recounting Speakers’ rulings or briefings on the matter he overlooked the one by Speaker Wilson just last year which is Speaker’s ruling 162/4. It actually gets into the issue of matters of public interest versus privacy as well and there are issues to be covered there. 
Let me come back to the fundamental issue that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised first about whether the public interest question should be something that prevents a Minister from answering at all or whether it can actually constrain how much of an answer the Minister gives. I think in fairness it is not an all-or-nothing thing. Whether an answer is in the public interest is not a matter where either no answer is given at all or an answer is given. It is not a zero-sum game situation. If a Minister wishes to be helpful a Minister can answer a question in so far as he or she believes he or she can do so consistent with the public interest. 
I believe that on this occasion the Prime Minister—instead of saying that he was not going to answer the honourable member’s question because it is not in the public interest—gave an answer that went as far as he believed was acceptably consistent with the public interest in his opinion. I believe as Speaker that that is inconsistent with Standing Order 377(1) and also very much consistent with previous Speakers’ rulings—in particular Speaker’s ruling 162/4. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth was he in possession or was he not in possession of substantive information that is not yet public? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was in possession of information that meant I no longer had confidence in Dr Worth and at that point I believed he was not fit to be a Minister. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that neither the spirit nor the letter of Standing Order 377(1) has been met by the Prime Minister’s answer to that question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. Both those senior Labour members know they cannot interject like that during a point of order. This is a difficult issue and I believe that I owe the House the courtesy and the respect of taking it seriously. I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Numerous Speakers in the past have ruled that although an answer can be sought the answer that is given may not be adequate for the purpose of satisfying the questioner’s inquiry but is perfectly adequate in terms of the Standing Orders. Numerous examples from Speaker Wilson and earlier make that abundantly clear. I do not think we are in a different situation here. The question was asked an answer was given and that answer related to the topic. The fact that the answer was not as specific as the member wanted it to be does not mean it is in any way a breach of the Standing Orders. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I offered the Prime Minister the opportunity to tell us whether he had or did not have substantive information that was not in the public arena. If he did not have it then it seems to me that the Prime Minister is entitled to tell the House that. If he did have substantive information but he did not want to tell us what it was because it was not in the public interest to do so he is absolutely entitled—absolutely entitled—to say that to the House. The truth of the matter is that he took neither of those options and I assert therefore that he did not seek endeavour try or attempt to address the question and he ought to do so. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker if you think back you will recall that the Prime Minister said he had sufficient information to lead him to have a loss of confidence in the former Minister. How more specific would he be required to be given that he had been within the Standing Orders in answering the previous lines of questioning? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The particular question on this occasion was whether the Prime Minister had information that was not in the public arena at the time he made his decision. It is absolutely the Prime Minister’s right to determine whether it is within the public interest to answer the question but I believe that it is not acceptable for him to ignore that question. I invite the honourable member to repeat his question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth was he in possession or was he not in possession of substantive information that is not yet public? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was in possession of information that meant I no longer had confidence in Dr Worth. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say “ibid” in terms of the previous point of order which my colleague Pete Hodgson raised. That answer no more addressed the question than the previous answer did. In fact it was very close to being a repeat of the original answer which you ruled did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gave the honourable member the chance to repeat his question. What has been made clear is that in the Prime Minister’s judgment it is not in the public interest to give further information on it. He has given as much information in his answer as he believes is consistent with the public interest and I cannot insist on any more than that. I gave the honourable member the chance to repeat his question he has made his point and the Prime Minister has answered as far as he believes he can consistent with the public interest. I think that is as far as the House can take that matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the problem we are getting to now is that you are providing an answer for the Prime Minister that he himself is not prepared to give. What you have done in your ruling is indicate that it is the Prime Minister’s view that it is not in the public interest to give further information. If that is his view then it is incumbent on him to say so. It is not incumbent on you to interpret—in fact you should not interpret—that the Prime Minister is saying that because it could well come out later that that is not the fact and effectively the Prime Minister will be hung by your ruling. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is an unacceptable attack on the integrity of the Chair and I do not think it should pass lightly. In any event let us turn to Speakers’ ruling 162/6 a ruling by Speaker Harrison that was later repeated by Speaker Arthur. It is a long-standing ruling. It has survived many many Parliaments since those two gentlemen occupied the seat in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The ruling states: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given nor its content.” Mr Speaker the Opposition is asking you to overturn that ruling and in fact to become the adjudicator in the case of those rulings which would mean that subsequent ruling 163/6 and numerous rulings on page 165 would also be overturned. I assert again that the question we are dealing with is in the nature of a political exchange as described in Speaker’s ruling 163/6. I think it is unfortunate that the Opposition is asking you to be put in a position where you are judging the quality of the answer when in fact previous Speakers have strenuously attempted to stay away from that particular position. The Prime Minister has given an answer it is a reasonable answer in all the circumstances and I think this case being in the nature of a political exchange does override any other consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard quite sufficient on the matter. The member asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question and was concerned about the answer. I accepted that his question had been a pretty straight question and had not been directly answered; that was why I allowed the member to repeat it. However when he repeated the question he got a further answer from the Prime Minister that clearly indicated the limits to which the Prime Minister felt he was able to go within the public interest. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee has pointed out I cannot then judge the quality of that answer. The member asked his question it was a straight question he got the answer and he can draw his own conclusions about it. But there is no way that I as Speaker can take it a step further and start adjudicating on whether an answer was adequate. I believe that the Prime Minister gave an answer as far as he believed was consistent with the public interest and that is where the matter for today must lie. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would ask him to be sure he is not questioning my ruling. I have just ruled on the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not at all but I think the matter could be easily cleared up by the Prime Minister indicating that that was in fact what he meant. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was absolutely no necessity for that whatsoever. 
Land Public Works—Return to Former Owners 
11.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Has any land no longer required for public works been offered back to its former owners; if so at what increase of value? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Yes; in accordance with the Public Works Act 1981 land is offered back to the former owners at the current market value. 
Rahui Katene 
: Why has there been such little progress made since the last round of consultation reviewing the Public Works Act in 2001; and when can New Zealanders expect to see the prompt return of any such land as soon as it is no longer required for a public work? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There has been a reasonably long litany of deferrals here as the member quite rightly points out. The Public Works Act was actually reviewed the review was conducted in 2001 and the Cabinet then considered a review of that and the proposed legislative changes in 2003 but then that review and those changes were deferred. A further paper considering policy proposals was considered in February 2005 but consideration of that was further deferred. A review of the Public Works Act and the Land Act 1948 was put before the Cabinet in 2008 and a legislative programme bid was made for the Land (Acquisition Management and Disposal) Bill but again that was deferred and not put through. So there has been a long history from 2001 of proposals and reviews but nothing happening from them. I can assure that member that all land that qualifies to be sold back to the original owner is indeed sold back. 
Rahui Katene 
: What response can be made to the submissions to the 2001 review that suggested that compensation provisions for the offer back of land were deficient in that they did not take into account spiritual cultural and social values associated with land? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am told—and given I have been in the portfolio for only 24 hours I am struggling with some of this—that as part of phase 2 of the reforms to the Resource Management Act this Government is investigating whether compensation for landowners under the Public Works Act 1981 needs to be more generous. Similarly the Government is keen to streamline and better integrate the process under the Public Works Act and other legislation such as the Resource Management Act. That work is currently going on. 
Youth Initiatives—Youth Development Partnership Fund 
12.  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to help build partnerships between young people in communities around New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Last week we announced a new round of funding from the Youth Development Partnership Fund which will help to support a variety of projects to benefit youth at a local level. More than $700000 will be provided to 11 councils for projects such as youth mentoring and upskilling. 
Simon Bridges 
: Can the Minister give us an example of one local authority that has received funding and the project it plans to implement? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I certainly can. The Wairoa District Council will be working in partnership with the Wairoa Community Development Trust on the YROA YNOT! project. This project will assist young people to develop safe activities create safe places to gather develop leadership and mentoring projects for young people and encourage young people to engage with education and training. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: How does the Minister think that the cuts in Budget 2009 to skills training the scholarship schemes that help low-income young people to attend university and the Enterprising Communities fund which schemes like the Otorohanga youth apprenticeship support programme depended on will help young people in communities around New Zealand when these cuts represent a loss of over $160 million? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Actually that figure is not correct. I am proud that this Government has a real focus on youth—youth in jobs and youth in training. I think the Youth Guarantee will make a huge difference to those young people being able to continue through the spectrum to training and upskilling. 
Simon Bridges 
: How does the Government plan to address the rising rate of youth unemployment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Youth unemployment is increasing and that is very serious. The Youth Guarantee is just one step in a number of Government measures that are currently under way to address that issue. As I said the Youth Guarantee will make a fundamental difference to those young people as they stay in training and education and that will lead them to take further steps. The Mayors Task Force for Jobs has been doing good work around some of the job summits which means that those youth will stay in work. This is important and it is something this Government is concentrating on. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I seek leave to table the Budget 2009 documents that demonstrate that the schemes I just listed do tally up to over $160 million in cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just check this. Is the honourable member seeking leave to table the Budget documents which have already been tabled? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Yes. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it a document a series of documents or something that is going to be tabled later? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am trying to establish what on earth the member is seeking leave to table. Is it a single document out of a set of Budget documents or which Budget document is she is seeking to table? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I am happy to do a consolidated short list if that is easier— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat. Is the member now making it clear there is no document she is seeking to table and it is a set of information that she wishes to table? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I am seeking leave to table the Budget documents because the Minister questioned my figures which came directly from her Government’s Budget. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not have this. The Budget documents are all in the public domain. I invite the honourable member just to reflect on the time of the House she is wasting. [ 
Interruption 
] I have been very tolerant today in terms of putting leave for press statements and radio transcripts but there is a limit—[ 
Interruption 
] Both sides of the House will be quiet. There is a limit to how much time we waste on point-scoring when the procedure under the Standing Orders for leave that is being sought to table documents is there to provide information for the House that it does not otherwise have access to. Clearly the House has access to the information in the Budget documents. I invite the honourable member to reflect on how she is contributing to the good order of the House by seeking leave to do this. Does she still wish to proceed? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This point is one that I have brought up before and it is a question about whether members do have the right to seek leave. At the moment under the Standing Orders they have the right to seek leave to do anything. I would make two points. The first is that I actually agree with you; I think the Standing Orders need a change. But the second is that until the Standing Orders have that change made I think we would be losing more time by your interventions than we would have lost by the leave just being put and turned down. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is members’ day I guess! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is true that members do have a right to seek leave for anything that the House might consider to be outside the Standing Orders’ prescription. However in the case of leave being sought to table a document the House has a right to know what is proposed. In this case the document does not exist. That member has also changed her position from at one point saying she was prepared to collate some information for the House and table that to then saying she would table the page out of the Budget documents etc. The Budget documents have been tabled; they sit on the Table. So it was important that we bored down to find out the actual fact that what was being asked for was something that does not exist. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in a curious situation. I accept the point the Hon Trevor Mallard has made absolutely. Although I am trying to discourage the seeking of leave to table documents that contain information the House already has in its possession the Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct that as Speaker I am obliged to put the leave when it is sought. But also I am obliged to make sure it is clear that it is a document and not something that the member proposes to collate subsequently. If the document already sits on the Table then really I do question the ability of a member to seek leave to table a document that is already sitting on the Table in the House. I will come back to the member once more. Is the document she is seeking leave to table already sitting on the Table and is it a clear document? I give her the chance to answer those questions and describe the document clearly. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: To be clear it is from a tabled document. I would take excerpts from the Budget for the ease of the Minister’s reference to demonstrate the figure that I have mentioned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to re-table parts of the Budget documents. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Six weeks ago at the start of the Mt Albert by-election campaign the National Party said that winning Mt Albert was a big test for Labour—a big test for Labour. Halfway through the campaign National members subtly changed that to saying that winning the campaign really well would be a big test for Labour. But following Saturday night they are saying nothing at all. Labour did not simply win that by-election; Labour demolished National by a margin of 63 percent to 17 percent. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: By 63 percent to 17 percent. The National Party needs to ask itself some basic questions and it has started to ask those questions. Around the backbenches some National members are talking about Jonathan Coleman. They have a new nickname for him. They call him “The Maestro”. 
But more seriously I think that the way National has scapegoated Melissa Lee as being to blame for that defeat has been grossly unfair. I want to say something about Melissa Lee. On election night she was on her own—she was on her own without a leader the very leader who had hand-picked her to be the candidate for Mt Albert. John Key had said that Ravi Musuku was just a token and that National would put him up while Helen Clark was there but as soon as there was any chance of winning he would be gone—disrespecting both Ravi Musuku and the community he represented. Mr Key picked Melissa Lee personally for that position but then she began by making an unfortunate mistake in the campaign. It could happen to anyone but a good leader would have been there alongside his candidate giving her the support she needed. That is what a good leader would have done. But no—it was all Melissa’s fault. And it was a dreadful sight on election night; Melissa Lee was traumatised by that result and clearly upset. But where was the Prime Minister? He was holidaying at Huka Lodge while his candidate was being humiliated on election night and he did not have it in him to stand alongside her. I think that that is appalling. Melissa Lee as somebody who had not stood for an electorate in a by-election campaign deserved support; instead John Key walked away from her and left her to hang out to dry. Some people said that just as he had done with Dr Worth he washed his hands of her. And that has biblical implications. Melissa Lee deserved more than she got from the National Party. 
I think it is important for National members that they learn the lesson from this campaign. Just 7 months ago National was elected to govern this country. It had a mandate. But within 7 months that National Government has become smug and arrogant. Members should just look at the look on Jonathan Coleman’s face—there it is smug and arrogant—though that member has absolutely nothing to be smug and arrogant about. The difference between Labour and National was that Labour never took Mt Albert for granted. It engaged with the people and the communities of Mt Albert and it listened to the people. It listened to people; National did not listen and it is still not listening. There is a super-city proposal that the majority of people in Auckland have said they reject; 5:1 the people of Auckland have said they have not been consulted by this Government on the super-city. But what does John Key say? He says: “So what!”. He has the same smugness the same arrogance and the same refusal to consult and to listen. Aucklanders hate hypocrisy. Before the election John Key in a member’s bill promised there would be a referendum but now he has rammed through legislation preventing the right of people in Auckland to have their say. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Well was not that a laughable contribution from the man who thinks he is the leader of the Labour Party! What did we learn from the Mt Albert by-election? All the public learnt from the Mt Albert by-election was that if Labour tries really really hard and has front-benchers out there standing on traffic islands and grinning like fools it can actually hang on to the second-safest seat it has in the country. Phil Goff has plenty of time to wander around the country trying to find people who actually want to talk to him when in fact he has had only two things out of that by-election. The by-election has been a Trojan Horse for Phil Goff because it has brought into Parliament the next leader of the Labour Party. I can tell members that David Cunliffe and Maryan Street are not too happy that Phil Goff has brought in the man who will take over from him. 
The other problem he has now is that he has an albatross around his neck as a result of that: Phil Goff’s man has gone around Auckland saying that he would build a $3 billion tunnel through the middle of Mt Albert and how that will be paid for at the next election is now something that Phil Goff has to explain. All the members have their heads down over there on the Labour side but they know that that is a big big problem for them. There is $3 billion totally promised of unfunded spending to add to the $2 billion a year they are putting into the Cullen fund. 
I tell members that the public of New Zealand want sound economic management. They do not want someone like Phil Goff who will say absolutely anything to get elected; they want someone who will actually get this country back on track. That is why one million New Zealanders voted for John Key at the 2008 election. They had completely lost faith in the Labour Party. They know that that party over there will not be on the Treasury benches for a long time—not until it focuses on what is wrong with the economy in New Zealand. 
The Budget we have just had was a sensible prudent response to one heck of a hospital pass that the Labour Government handed the incoming Government. Quite frankly when one looks at the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update one can see that we were looking at a billion-dollar deficit. In December a month after the election it was $4 billion. It has gone absolutely bonkers and quite frankly if we did not have the prudent measures that were put in place in the Budget our international credit rating would have slipped completely. 
These guys opposite would spend spend spend but they have no plan to get us out of economic difficulty and the public do not trust them. Phil Goff can crow all he likes but he has lost his credibility with the public and with his party. The public and the press do not think he is up to it at all. Labour members all sideshows aside can wallow in the gutter and talk about irrelevancies but the bottom line is that the public of New Zealand want sound economic management and that is why they are backing John Key. That is why John Key is the most popular Prime Minister in decades—in fact probably in living memory. The public trusts John Key to get this country right. He is the man with the mandate for change and he is making the hard decisions that will get the country back on the economic track. 
When we look at Labour’s record in health care and education it had lost the way. In health care there was no plan to get New Zealanders greater access to services. In education one in five kids was coming out of school not being able to read or write. It is all very well for Phil Goff to grasp at any photo opportunity he can possibly get but the fact is that Phil Goff’s future as the Labour leader is a complete joke. He will not be there. He will never be a Labour Prime Minister. 
Maryan Street can shake her head but she is pretty happy. What she is really worried about is how she and her party can come up with that $3 billion. The public does not like politicians who lie to them and when they find at the next election that Labour has no way of providing that $3 billion those guys will pay for it big time at the polls. 
Mr Shearer is a man of integrity but until Mr Shearer is in that front seat on the front bench Labour will really struggle. Mr Cunliffe is very very unhappy to see Mr Shearer come into Parliament because he knows that he will take the position that he covets. That is the fact of things. That is absolutely what will happen. These guys on the backbench are waiting for Mr Shearer to come in because they have had enough of Phil Goff. He has not proved to be up to it. If all that Labour can take out of these things is the fact that it can hang on to a safe seat the future of the Labour Party is very dismal indeed. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Last weekend our co-leader Tariana Turia announced the establishment of a whanau ora task force headed by Professor Mason Durie. The aim of the task force is to focus on a new approach to whanau well-being—an approach that is singularly interested in outcomes for whanau. This is not about propping up bureaucracy with projects that never make a difference out in the real world; this is a focus in which whanau ora is the driver. Whanau well-being across health education and social development becomes the priority. We have had enough of projects limited by a focus on indicators only of disease and deficiencies. Although we know that many statutory agencies are charged with providing services directed at whanau the supply is often fragmented. In the race for contestability of contracts providers become distracted by the challenge of competition and are often distracted from the real goal in sight which is the opportunity for whanau ora. In addition to all the conflicts we are acutely aware that agencies from various sectors do not always coordinate activities and on too many occasions are fixated on the means rather than the end. To top it off the compliance costs of managing contracts the overlapping and blurred boundaries between funder and provider and the piecemeal approach to single issues and single individuals have created a mindset in which crisis management is the prevailing mode of operation. 
Today we are breaking the mould. We have the ability to change the vision to suit today’s reality and the Maori Party is proud to respond to the challenge. We need the innovation and the capacity to create solutions. The complicated and convoluted contracting practice of Government has stymied best practice. There has been a growth in the proliferation of providers and a limited and narrow focus has dominated. Instead of promoting a strategic view funders concentrate on the minutiae reducing their interest to all that can be included in the narrow objectives and indicators. For example if we are treating nan or koro with a diabetes management plan then we should be educating the whole whanau about lifestyle changes to prevent diabetes. We should be addressing budget management to invest in healthy eating. We should be taking a comprehensive approach to ensure a whanau focus drives any interventions put in place. I have some concerns that the front-end funders—say district health boards—are retaining funding that is intended to be open for tender right across their rohe. Instead they may keep the funding back at their own level of operation. 
It is time for a fundamental overhaul of existing funding and delivery policies. We want a new approach. We want to see an emphasis on relationships investment in collaboration and cooperation and support provided for whanau in a holistic way rather than for isolated individuals in a whanau. What better time to do that than in the spirit of Matariki? With much pleasure I announce that tomorrow I will be submitting to the ballot the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill. As we welcome the advent of the new year and reflect on the year that has fallen the Maori Party has chosen to put forward this bill as our contribution to Matariki the Maori new year. Although this member’s bill has been in the Maori Party since 2006 this is the first opportunity in the forty-ninth Parliament to put it in the ballot. The bill proposes that Matariki must be observed as a public holiday throughout New Zealand on the day of the next new moon following the day in which the moon rises in the months of May or June. 
Tonight in honour of Matariki a Matariki lantern parade will be taking place at the top of Te Tau Ihu in my home town of Nelson. Further south in Te Tai Tonga there is a star-weaving event in my new home town of Linwood Christchurch. Tukutuku panels are being woven in New Brighton while here in Whanganui-a-Tara where my children and grandchildren live any one of us can go down to Kura Gallery and visit the exhibition Matariki - The Navigator. It is a beautiful exhibition by seven Maori women artists that celebrates the significance of Matariki. We too in this House can do something to celebrate Matariki and that is to give widespread support to my bill when it is drawn from the ballot. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 A man who cannot manage his own caucus cannot manage the country and what we have seen in the Mt Albert by-election is a man who cannot manage his own caucus. How does a leader manage a caucus? A leader manages a caucus by demanding and giving loyalty. That is something New Zealanders understand. They understand that loyalty is a two-way effort. It is something that cuts both ways. If one expects loyalty one gives loyalty. 
New Zealanders do not expect team members to desert their own team members when they run into difficulty. So where was Mr Key? Where were Paula Bennett Judith Collins Steven Joyce Tim Groser Wayne Mapp and Murray McCully? I mention only National’s Auckland members. Where was Maurice Williamson? Where were the members of the Government’s executive who reside in Auckland? I mentioned only the Auckland-based ones. Where were they when Melissa Lee was subjected to that debacle and defeat on Saturday night? My heart went out to her because that is not what one should expect of one’s leader. As far as one could see the only senior members who were there were Pansy Wong and Jonathan Coleman. There were no senior Ministers present to support Melissa Lee. Where was Bill English? If the leader could not be there because he was on holiday why could the deputy leader not be there? Where was the party president? I have been through a difficult by-election as party president and it was absolutely imperative for me to be there at the time with our candidate to show loyalty and support and to give back some of what she gave us by standing in an unwinnable seat. That is no more and no less than should be expected of the leaders of a party. 
Steven Joyce for example refused to visit the electorate after previously promising TV3 that he would. Why did he not just simply pick up the phone and tell Melissa Lee—even if he was not going to tell Jonathan Coleman who should have read the Cabinet paper anyway—about the Waterview Connection instead of allowing her to walk blindfolded into the valley of Death as it turned out to be for her. What about some of the other Auckland members? Where were Jackie Blue Tau Henare Paul Hutchison or Allan Peachey? They are old-timers; some of them are second-termers but some of them are old-timers as well. Where were they? Were they in support of Melissa Lee? Where was Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga on the night? Perhaps he could not be there; perhaps he was at a council meeting. Where was Kanwaljit Bakshi? Was he there? Was Nikki Kaye there on the night? 
Nikki Kaye 
: Yes I was there! 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: If she was then I commend her for that. But I say to Nikki Kaye that I am sorry; that is not good enough. Her party’s leaders should have been there. It is not good enough. Paula Bennett prides herself on representing the battlers from “Struggle Street”—a description of National’s candidate if ever I heard one. Where was she? Why was she not there providing some support? 
In the end Melissa Lee was hand-picked by John Key. She was chosen to begin the maiden speeches of the new cohort of 2008. When she started to stumble his support evaporated. It goes to the question of political management and the competence of the Prime Minister. Melissa Lee went into the by-election full of confidence but she discovered the hard way that politics is harder than she thought it looked. Comparably John Key has gone into the job of Prime Minister full of confidence but he is discovering daily that it is harder than it looked. The great gaps in his knowledge his ability and his instincts cannot be glossed over with a smile. I tell Mr Key that it takes more than a smile to run a country. The debacle of the loss—the profound drubbing—in Mt Albert that has been served up to National is a complete reflection on the leadership of the party. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I would like to change the subject. I would like to talk about what the Government is doing while Labour is languishing in lassitude and collapse. The economy is the important aspect and with National the economy is in a very safe pair of hands. I will go further: it is more than safe. As is demonstrated daily during question time the economy is in the hands of a set of splendid superb excellent and exceptional minds. This Government is made up of magnificent men and wonderful women whose collective business experience is substantial. 
Years at the coalface of industry enable National’s political team the Government’s team to be well-equipped to manage the economy and navigate the turbulent waters in order to survive these difficult times. They have the kind of skill and acumen that Captain James Cook exhibited during his first two voyages to New Zealand when he not only had to stay afloat but also had to unflinchingly ride the waves into new and uncharted territories. He had to provide new and original solutions to difficult problems. That is what we have to do now and that is what the Government’s leaders are doing during the difficult weeks and months we are living through. The economy is the  
Endeavour 
 and after the previous Government ran it aground we are in the process of repairing the ship and setting it on course for bigger and better things. 
If Labour had won the last election the economy would be more like the  
Titanic 
. The economy would sink under Labour. The Labour Government’s last quarter had New Zealand in a technical recession. We heard about that. They ask the questions— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this rubbish? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I wrote this rubbish—and it is not rubbish. Well it is because at the moment I am talking about what the Labour Government did and that was a load of rubbish. We will soon get out of the rubbish and on to the good stuff. 
The previous Government squandered the golden years and failed to put in place measures that would set up our economy to weather the bad times and to take advantage of the good times. In the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update we were looking at a deficit of a billion dollars. By December it had deteriorated into a debilitating and dreadful $4 billion dangling the putrid prospect of a decade of deficits. That is the rubbish that we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Labour left a legacy of a languishing and lamentable economy and now instead of facing up to the fact that this country has some difficult policy decisions to make Labour continues to think that lavish spending on excessive extravagances is the answer. Those members’ attitudes are of continuing and increasing concern to commercial interests. How do we describe the Labour Party’s approach to the economy? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Tell us! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Would members like me to tell them? We say that Labour’s approach is a “Whack-it-on-the-bill-Phil-osophy” which has permeated past protective practices. Labour’s answer is to spend more and the “Whack-it-on-the-bill-Phil-osophy” would massively increase debt and impose an irresponsible irredeemable and irreversible burden and those members know it. The next two generations of New Zealanders— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Who are you? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: If the member asking that question listens carefully all his questions will be answered. 
Under Labour each household would be beholden to somehow return to the Government thousands of dollars just to take the country out of the red. The other side of the House would like to spend billions of dollars on maintaining the superannuation fund contributions—borrowing to invest it at a loss—and billions of taxpayers’ dollars on the Waterview Connection. In fact it would spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars on just about anything at the economic cost of future generations. Quite frankly it is a fundamentally flawed philosophy. We had 9 years of plenty but nothing was done to protect promote or preserve productivity. 
This Government on the other hand has taken the necessary steps to help get the books in order but at the same time we still have announced initiatives that will benefit the economy and the public. We are sensibly investing in front-line emergency services maternity services roads home insulation and the police. We are improving the Resource Management Act in order to reduce compliance costs and encourage growth. Ultimately we are doing everything we can to set New Zealand on a path of prosperity and productivity. 
While we specialise in the economy all the other side of the House specialises in is an unhealthy discredit by innuendo. The road to recovery is through trimming bureaucracy and expenditure and promoting positive new policies. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I was proud to campaign for David Shearer and Labour in the Mt Albert electorate. I knocked on a lot of doors and talked to a lot of people during the campaign and I was at the Labour Party’s headquarters on Saturday night to show my support for our candidate. It was a real privilege to be there with Labour supporters and anyone in the room would have seen what I saw: a resurgent Labour Party full of energy and drive well led and ready for the challenges of the next 2 years that lie ahead until the next general election campaign. What a victory it was for David Shearer. Although the final results have yet to be declared the election night results are significant: 63 percent of the vote to Labour—as Phil Goff said—17 percent to National 12 percent to the Greens and 5 percent to ACT. 
But those results would have been no surprise to anybody who was knocking on doors in Mt Albert during the campaign because the same four themes came up time and time again on people’s doorsteps. First people were really proud of a legacy of excellent representation by fine Labour MPs most latterly Helen Clark and Warren Freer. There is no doubt that David Shearer was the beneficiary of that proud legacy. The second theme was transport issues including the incredibly arrogant decision not to proceed with the State Highway 20 tunnel. The third theme was another arrogant decision after 18 days’ consultation to bulldoze ahead with a super-city model that differs significantly from that advocated by the royal commission without any thought of giving Aucklanders a referendum to enable them to have their say on the proposal. And the fourth theme was a further example of arrogance in the refusal of the Prime Minister to say why he lost confidence in one of his Ministers Dr Worth. 
I believe that John Key’s decision not to tell the public why he lost confidence in Dr Worth not only is the height of arrogance but to claim that his refusal is on public interest grounds and then decline to set out those grounds raises serious constitutional issues. Earlier today in question time the Prime Minister continued his confused and unsatisfactory series of answers on this issue. I believe that it is time he fronted up to the House and to the public and told us why he lost confidence in Dr Worth and explain the inconsistencies. John Key is refusing to tell the public why he lost confidence in Dr Worth but the public are entitled to answers and accountability from the Prime Minister for his decisions. Dr Worth was paid more than $100000 over his time as a Minister but the Prime Minister is refusing to say why he lost confidence in him. At question time on 16 June the Prime Minister said: “As I said I will not go into specifics but it is fair to say that I lost confidence in Dr Worth and on that basis he could not remain a Minister.” But the Prime Minister told the media 2 weeks ago that the reason he was silent was that he did not want to contaminate any criminal investigation. The Prime Minister’s words were “I do not think it would be appropriate for me to contaminate that investigation by making loose comments.” This raises some serious questions. Why did John Key say he was not commenting because of legal contamination when the reason he lost confidence in Dr Worth supposedly was not related to that at all? What is the new standard of behaviour for Ministers? And why does the Prime Minister think there is no public interest in his decisions of this nature as Prime Minister? 
It is also not clear when John Key lost confidence in Dr Worth. The Prime Minister has specified no fewer than three different dates as the time when he lost confidence in Dr Worth. The Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday afternoon that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on 26 May he told Leighton Smith that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on 29 or 30 May and he told  
Native Affairs  
that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on Sunday 31 May. Those dates are from the answers he gave those three different sources. This raises some further serious questions. Just when did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Dr Worth? Was it on the Tuesday as he told Parliament? Or has there been a misleading of the House? Why are John Key’s stories on when he lost confidence in Dr Worth so inconsistent and all over the place? Is the Prime Minister trying to hide his own poor judgment on the issue? And what is the status of all the decisions made by Dr Worth after John Key had lost confidence in him? Dr Worth was in office for a week after John Key lost confidence in him so whom did Dr Worth as Minister appoint what decisions did he make without the confidence of the Prime Minister and how arrogant is it for the Prime Minister to ask the public to just trust him when he has let a Minister of the Crown in whom he has lost confidence make serious decisions affecting the lives of ordinary Kiwis? Finally how is it satisfactory for John Key to simply assert that there is no public interest in the answers to these questions? 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 The Opposition has learnt absolutely nothing since the general election. All it knows how to do is attack the Prime Minister and spend. This Government is focused on helping people. It is really tough out there for people at the moment. People are trying to live on less money as New Zealanders spend less and tighten their belts. All that the Opposition is interested in is attacking the Prime Minister and in my view advocating people to spend money they do not have. Some of the people who are being hardest hit by the recession are the hundreds and thousands of self-employed people who do not have the security of regular salaries but rely on the customers they get. They are the people who are battling out there. They are the taxi drivers of central Auckland and Wellington the dairy owners and people who own a small business in the food industry and the self-employed builders around New Zealand who are finding it tougher as people do not have the cash to pay their mortgage let alone spend a bit on DIY. 
The reason our Budget was so well-received is that New Zealanders understand this very simple fact: if New Zealanders are having to tighten their belts because of having less cash then so should the Government. The Budget has been very well-received around New Zealand both on the streets of Auckland Central and in other members’ electorates. Members of the public businesses and commentators have acknowledged that the Budget is well balanced sensible and prudent for these tough economic times. In fact Westpac said “Budget 2009 strikes a reasonable balance between delivering support in the economy’s hour of need and being responsible about long term expenses and debt.” 
The fact is that times are tough but they would be much tougher if Labour were in power. Labour rather than showing fiscal restraint in an understanding of the situation that hard-working New Zealanders are facing wants to spend more—not just a little bit more; it wants to spend $5 billion more. Labour’s fantasy commitments include promises to restore KiwiSaver $947 million; research and development tax credits $221 million; and the Fast Forward fund $650 million. The list goes on: more overseas aid $65 million. Let us talk about Mount Albert. Labour wants to spend an extra $1.5 billion on 4 kilometres of Waterview tunnel. That must be the most expensive 4 kilometres in New Zealand. 
We are in a recession and Labour wants to talk about attacking the Prime Minister and spending more; not just a little bit more but $5 billion more. Members opposite have been referred to as the “credit card Opposition” but I am not aware of a credit card that has a $5 billion limit. Are other members aware of such a credit card? Labour’s approach is irresponsible and puts at risk our economy in the future. The next generation of New Zealanders would be faced with an albatross of debt around their necks. 
The other thing New Zealanders understand which Labour does not seem to have grasped is the dramatic change in our economic position. When we were elected last year the economy had already started to decline and the world economy has been fast deteriorating since. In the 2008 Budget we faced a $1 billion surplus. By the time of the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update just before the election it had turned to a $1 billion deficit. In fact Labour has left us with a decade of deficits. The current situation shows falling economic growth rising unemployment high inflation at 3.4 percent and a rising current account deficit of $16.1 billion. Times are tough and we have delivered a Budget that reflects the change in our economic situation but also reflects what the many New Zealanders out there understand and are doing. They are tightening their belts not going on a giant spend-up as Labour would have New Zealand do—a $5 billion spend-up that there is no money for. 
Let us look at what the members on the other side of the House have focused on today. They have not focused on the economy. They have not talked about the hard-working New Zealanders who are struggling out there. They have talked about the Mt Albert by-election. Well I will tell you one thing right now: if you do not start to focus on what matters if you do not start to focus on how to help those New Zealanders who are really struggling at the moment then you will be staying on the opposite side of the House for a very long time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Come on! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member does not comment when another member has raised a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think I let the first four references to “you” go but at the next two I interjected on the member to try to help her. I think it was on the seventh reference that I thought it was probably time to say something. She is an experienced member around here Mr Speaker and she should be able to stop bringing you into the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. I remind members that they must use the third person and that when they refer to “you” they are referring to the Speaker. They must not bring the Speaker into the debate. It is for good reason that we use the third person. It is less personal and leads to less disorder. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: You always know that you are giving a good speech when Trevor Mallard interrupts you. The Budget has been very well-received because New Zealanders are realistic and they know— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really hoped that the member would be able to get two words out without breaching the Speaker’s ruling that has just been made. She is an intelligent member and she is generally a likeable member but she has to learn how to speak in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point. The member speaking must not use the word “you” in any circumstance because it always refers to the Speaker. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you to Mr Mallard. The Budget has been very well-received because New Zealanders are realistic and they know the challenges ahead. It was so well-received that we improved our credit rating. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I welcome the applauding member Cam Calder to the House. I hope he has a good career here—not too good of course but I hope he has a good time. 
Only one person in the land had the control needed to manufacture his own double-booking on the evening of Saturday 13 June and that person was the Prime Minister. Only he knew that he had a private engagement at Huka Lodge that Saturday and only he had the authority to pick 13 June as by-election day. He did not pick 6 June 20 June or any other Saturday in June. He picked 13 June so that he would not need to be there. If National had won the Mt Albert by-election last Saturday Mr Key’s longstanding private engagement at Huka Lodge would have been rescheduled on the spot and a ring would have been put around that date. He would have been there; there is no doubt about that. I ask the members which engagement was decided first. Was the by-election day of 13 June decided first or was the so-called longstanding private engagement at Huka Lodge settled in the Prime Minister’s diary first? One can play it either way. 
My guess is that the longstanding private engagement at the exclusive Huka Lodge in Taupo was put together in a hurry only a few weeks ago. That would be my guess because 8 weeks ago the Prime Minister was speaking confidently of the distinct possibility of victory with his personally chosen candidate Melissa Lee. So I reckon the date of the by-election was settled first and the longstanding private engagement at the exclusive Huka Lodge came later probably about 3 or 4 weeks ago when the Prime Minister thought that he and his party would get done over and that it would be a dog’s dinner. He thought he needed to get out of Auckland where he lives because it would be best not to be around when the drubbing came. He realised he could not go to Hawaii because that would seem a little bit too far a little bit exclusive and a little bit eyebrow-raising. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to go to Huka Lodge! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yeah! He could not go to Wellington or Christchurch because there would be too many television cameras there—they have networks you know. He thought it would be better to go to Taupo where there are not so many cameras. What is more he could go to the exclusive Huka Lodge and therefore be excluded. So the Prime Minister was over and out for the night of 13 June. I think that is what the Prime Minister did. His personal management was to get the hell out of there become excluded and stay away from media coverage. 
His management of Cabinet was no better. His strategy was every man for himself and Melissa Lee for herself. There was no support no loyalty no lines no tactics—nothing. It was a case of getting out of there and waiting until the by-election passed. The Deputy Prime Minister was not around. He was no doubt off on urgent public business in Dipton. There was no member from the front bench Aucklander or otherwise. As far as I can work out only two members of the executive turned up. That means that 26 members did not turn up including as Maryan Street said a bunch of folk from Auckland. The president of the National Party was not there and when she was asked where she was on the night she squealed that she was told by Jonathan Hunt that there was heaps of support— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Coleman! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Jonathan Coleman; I apologise to both men. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Jonathan Hunt is twice the man he is! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is quite true. Anyway Jonathan Coleman told the president of the National Party Judy Kirk that there was heaps of support around and “heaps” as far as I can work out meant him and Pansy Wong. Jenny Kirk was less than supportive in her own remarks. Let me read them to the members. Jenny Kirk said— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Judy Kirk! Jenny was one of yours. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Judy Kirk said this about her own candidate: “She is emotional. I have seen that on a couple of occasions when she has gone to speak and it may be her culture”. Who needs friends like that? If I were Melissa Lee I would be unimpressed by that comment. Melissa Lee was hung out to dry. 
Charles Chauvel has taken up the cudgel of what the Prime Minister failed to do in that week not to do with the by-election but to do with Dr Richard Worth. He has gone through that story very very well. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I will save the member opposite from any confusion by introducing myself—I am Jonathan Young. I think it would be a great time right now to remind the people of New Zealand the members of the Opposition who tend to forget and my colleagues on the Government benches that on 8 November 2008 New Zealand chose a different plan forward. They chose a plan for a better New Zealand than that proposed by the previous Labour Government. It is a bitter pill for Labour to swallow no doubt. We hear bombastic skiting about recent polls but right now in the electorate of New Plymouth and perhaps in electorates all around the country the Labour Party is actively asking what it did wrong. That is the question that people in New Plymouth are being asked. 
Two issues struck deep at the heart of New Zealanders and they are issues that still deeply concern them. The first issue concerns being able to afford to live in times— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Never thought I’d hear them say “Bring back Harry!”. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: —I say to Mr Mallard that I am sorry but I cannot hear him—that are increasingly becoming difficult because of the international recession. The economy was the No. 1 issue concerning New Zealanders. Following that personal safety was the second issue that New Zealanders were concerned about and they remain concerned about that. One year ago the previous Labour Government presented in its 2008 Budget a surplus of $1 billion. As we have heard within 5 short months that surplus had turned into a $1 billion deficit. By the end of last year the hole had mushroomed to four times the size in as many months. There was a $4 billion deficit and before anything regarding a world recession was hitting our shores we were already in trouble under Labour. We had falling economic growth and rising unemployment. We had higher inflation which Treasury informed us was contributed to by the $4 billion spend-up over Budget last year. We had a rising current account deficit. New Zealand was quickly getting into trouble so when this Government took the benches in November last year it received a hospital pass. Then of course the game got a lot rougher with the global downturn. 
But one thing New Zealanders are feeling up and down this country is that we have not dropped the ball; we have caught the ball by relentlessly concentrating on things that matter to them. We have a safe pair of hands. Right throughout our Government we are staying focused on making sure we deliver where it counts for all New Zealanders. Productivity is the key for our future success. This is a story that we need to understand. We were elected on a platform of unclogging the country’s economic arteries. We were sick economically but Mr English’s Budget is an important step in the right direction. We have seen an increased investment in good-quality productive infrastructure that can boost productivity unlock economic potential and lift growth. 
One of the things that the Opposition has criticised us for in recent days— 
Hon Member 
: Just the one? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Well it has criticised many things of course. But its opposition and criticism have largely come over National’s decision not to continue payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund through the fund set up by Michael Cullen. We need to constantly remind the Opposition and New Zealand that the fund was set up to have surpluses invested into it. That means money left over. Given the climbing indebtedness we inherited at the end of last year—going from a $1 billion surplus to a $7.7 billion deficit within 12 months—we ask where the common sense is in continuing to borrow in order to lend to others on the world stock market during a time of the greatest level of uncertainty since 1930. The Cullen fund lost 25 percent of its value in just a few months. We are still in incredibly uncertain times. We could borrow $2 million to lose more than that and then have to pay the principal back plus the interest. Setting up the Cullen fund for saving surpluses made good sense but when the Labour Opposition continues to criticise us for not borrowing in order to save in a shaky market it confirms to all New Zealanders why a change of Government was desperately needed. Labour asks where they went wrong; we have a better legacy to leave our children than that sort of recklessness. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 If I learnt one major lesson during last year’s election campaign for the seat of Dunedin South it was to never assume—not to take for granted that I would win because it was a safe Labour seat. I felt I had to earn the position and prove that I was worthy of getting people’s votes and I did. I also know that I have to prove that I am worthy of keeping those votes. None of us are elected as of right. We do not have an entitlement. We are here because we are expected to represent the people of New Zealand. Last year the National Party earned the votes of enough New Zealanders to become the Government. It was a tough campaign hard fought on both sides. National deserves credit for its win and Labour needed to learn from its loss. That is what we have been doing for the last 7 months: listening to people taking stock doing things a bit differently being committed to reconnecting with people and groups and seeking out new groups to engage with. 
Members might not have seen it but there is a really good example of this. It is called Red Alert and it is a Labour MPs’ blog. Members can Google it and have a look. The blog is the voices of Labour MPs on issues that we care about. It is new it is different and it is about actively engaging with people. We are also committed to solid grassroots campaigning and we demonstrated that last Saturday. 
Labour does something else well and that is solidarity: standing together and standing by each other. That is why we won the Mt Albert seat. In this debate I do not want to talk about why Labour won Mt Albert but rather why National lost and lost so badly and what the lessons are for National. John Key must take responsibility for Melissa Lee’s defeat last Saturday. Why did he not show up to support her? Labour does not abandon a candidate because he or she has made a mistake. We do not abandon a campaign because it is clearly not getting traction and is not going to win. We know how to show real leadership. 
We do something else well: Labour’s leader does not run away and hide when there is a failure; he sticks around stands up for us and takes responsibility. That is what a leader does. That is the mark of good leadership. When I look across the House as I have done every sitting week for the last 7 months three things stand out for me: arrogance incompetence and an agenda. Now there is another one: cowardice. The arrogance is palpable. Of course all parties and probably all politicians are guilty of arrogance at times and Labour is not immune from such criticism. But crikey not on this scale! It is the sense of entitlement that gets me. The public do not get to see the naked display but it is there all the time in this House. John Key and his Government are arrogant after only 7 months in Government. They are arrogant by their refusal to allow Aucklanders to have their say on the Auckland super-city proposal—incredibly arrogant. John Key is also being arrogant and cagey in terms of the Richard Worth saga by not telling the public why he lost confidence in Worth as a Minister. 
Incompetence—we see it every day in the House and we are seeing it with the mismanagement of political issues. We are seeing it with the debacle of the Mt Albert campaign the debacle of the super-city and the debacle of the Richard Worth saga. Then there is the agenda—the real agenda or as I prefer to call it National’s rhetoric versus the reality. It says one thing and does another. There were lies about tax cuts. John Key lacked the courage to front up to New Zealanders before the election and when the legislation was pushed through under urgency to admit that the tax cuts were fiscally untenable. He made a pledge to the New Zealand people to never touch their superannuation. But what did his Government do? It slid around that promise and stopped contributions to the Superannuation Fund pushing this huge problem into the future for another generation of Kiwis to deal with. He and his Government are also pushing a radical deregulation agenda that is designed to reduce compliance costs for business by trading off Kiwis’ democratic rights and laws that protect the environment and the public interest. 
Then there is courage or lack of it. It was most blatantly on display last Saturday when neither John Key nor any other senior officials or leaders— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have frankly listened to enough abuse and lies but one thing we will not take is that last point. You know as Assistant Speaker that one cannot accuse a member of that. These members know that and I ask that member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member does not help himself by putting lots of strong language in his point of order regardless of how he feels. I accept the member’s point of order that he is objecting to the use of the phrase “lack of courage” as unparliamentary. The member is correct in that. Clare Curran will withdraw the phrase and apologise. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the words used in the point of order by Dr Coleman. You have reprimanded him but I ask that they be withdrawn and apologised for as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: It was most blatantly on display last Saturday when neither John Key nor any senior officials or the leader of the National Party would front up and be counted. I feel sorry for Melissa Lee—not too sorry but sorry that her leader and her colleagues have not stood beside her. I do not like much of what she has to say. I found a number of things in her maiden speech offensive. But at least she says what she thinks. My message today to Mr Key and his National Government is that despite the Mr Nice Guy thing and despite the rhetoric and the spin the people see through it and they will see through it. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Huri noa i te Whare tena tatou katoa. I am proud to stand today and participate in the debate from this side of the House and to be part of a National-led Government that is looking forward and is focused on the needs of New Zealanders into the future unlike the Opposition which spends the whole time looking backwards while occupying an alternative reality of amnesia and equivocation. The Opposition spends all its time dwelling in the past and digging up irrelevancies and distractions without getting on with the jobs that confront New Zealanders today and in the future. 
What did we inherit when we became the Government? We inherited falling economic growth of 0.2 percent rising unemployment of 4.6 percent high inflation of 3.4 percent and a rising current account. Labour members seem to be continuing to labour under the misapprehension that they left the economy in good shape. They did not; they left the economy on the brink of collapse. This Government inherited not only that situation but the challenges of the world’s economic recession. This Government has set about trying to answer those challenges. 
What has been the alternative answer served up to the public of New Zealand by the Opposition? Spend more. Most recently the promises being made on the Waterview tunnel are symptomatic of the approach the Opposition takes. The Opposition’s approach is that it does not matter whether the country can afford it; let us have credit card economics and let us do what we try to counsel New Zealanders not to do and live in debt. The Opposition personifies exactly what we are trying to encourage New Zealanders not to do which is to live beyond their means. Labour while in Government took us to either the greatest heights or the deepest depths by showing us how to live on a promise. The Labour Government did not fund anything but allowed the public to believe that they could rely on getting the services and outcomes it told them to expect. 
We have moved from credit card economics; we have moved to focusing on the future. One thing the world knows the New Zealand public know and members on this side of the House know is that these are tough economic times. We need to focus on what matters. We need a suite of policies that focus on the short medium and long term. We need a suite of policies that try to soften the sharpest edges of the recession for the most vulnerable New Zealanders while at the same time investing for sustainable growth in the future and minimising the debt burden that New Zealanders might struggle under now and into the future. 
This Government has been prepared to confront this very challenging balancing act and according to all the commentary it is doing so successfully at the moment. We have a Prime Minister who is in touch with the pulse of New Zealand. In the first 100 days of Government we did not—as the previous member said—deliver rhetoric; we delivered the promises of our election campaign. We did it within the 100 days as we had committed to and we have gone on since then with traction momentum and pace to continue to deliver. 
We have done so under the leadership of the Prime Minister who is in touch with New Zealanders. He is supported ably in Cabinet by Bill English the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance who has experience capability and cognisance. All of those skills have been ably reflected in the very balanced Budget 2009 which sets New Zealand on the road to recovery. 
Let us take just a moment to remind ourselves of some of the key elements of Budget 2009 and of how they will assist us in navigating the road to recovery which all New Zealanders are interested in. Budget 2009 takes steps to ensure that New Zealanders are cushioned from the sharpest edges of the worst global recession since the 1930s. We have safeguarded entitlements. Our Prime Minister and this Government have said that one of the most important aspects of living in a time of turbulence and change is to ensure that there is certainty and confidence. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I am delighted to welcome Cam Calder to this House. I rise to address the question of the possible redeployment this year of the SAS in Afghanistan. I trust that the Government will accept my comments in the constructive spirit in which they are advanced. No more responsible decision befalls a Government than deploying a country’s armed forces overseas. This pertains especially to the deployment of our highly capable SAS. The skill and courage shown by people such as Willy Apiata simply heightens that political responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to ensure that any deployment we make overseas is lawful so let me address the legal implications of what we are being asked to do. 
Since 1945 member States of the UN are free under the charter to use armed force on two occasions only. The first occasion is in self-defence under article 51. The second occasion is when the United Nations Security Council authorises force under article 42. On 7 May in answer to a question from me the Minister of Foreign Affairs the Hon Murray McCully stated that the Government always ensures that its force deployments are made pursuant to relevant UN Security Council resolutions. 
Yesterday in answer to another question from me the Minister advised that the previous Government cited Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 as the legal basis for the deployment of our SAS in Afghanistan from 2001-05. He is at least factually correct in respect of Resolution 1368 which expressed the Security Council’s readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks—namely the right of individual or collective self-defence. But the inherent right of self-defence is an interim right—to use force in response to armed attack. Under article 51 that right must not affect the authority of the Security Council to take action necessary to restore peace and security. The Security Council did that when it established the stabilisation force the International Security Assistance Force under Resolution 1386 in December 2001. 
Resolution 1368 2 months earlier neither mentioned nor explicitly authorised the counter-terrorism mission that subsequently became known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Since September 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom has mutated into an indefinite counter-terrorism campaign unguided by the United Nations. The Security Council never even acknowledged its existence until October 2003 22 months later and then only by meekly calling upon the International Security Assistance Force to work in close cooperation with the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition. Today resolutions authorising the International Security Assistance Force endorse collaboration between it and Operation Enduring Freedom. At no stage however has the Security Council authorised Operation Enduring Freedom in its own right. This critically important point was totally lost yesterday on the Minister of Foreign Affairs who kept getting confused between the two operations. 
Eight years after Resolution 1368 was passed it might reasonably be queried whether UN member States have a legitimate self-defence claim in 2009 in Asia after the attacks of 2001 in America. It is of course politically self-evident that Operation Enduring Freedom reflects US perceptions of its self-defence against terrorism and by extension that of coalition partners that share a similar view to that of the US. But that does not in itself meet the higher threshold required in the UN era of ensuring the lawful use of force under the charter. Alas the point was simply too challenging yesterday for the Minister who pleaded for more time. 
It fails the standard test of our era to turn a blind eye to military power when the use of that power is not sanctioned in law. Operation Enduring Freedom I repeat has never received an explicit UN authorisation. An oblique reference from a different force’s mandate does not suffice. It would be folly for New Zealand to agree to any further deployment of its SAS in Afghanistan without an explicit mission mandate from the UN Security Council. In the event that the Government consciously flouts its binding obligations in international law let us be very afraid for the future. I call upon the Government to provide an assurance that under the current legal situation there will be no further SAS deployment by this country to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Thank you. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 27 May. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Good one because that’s what we’re on. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Indeed! But I believe the legislation is fundamentally flawed in its approach. Before I begin the substantive part of my speech let me place on record that I consider climate change to be a huge consideration both globally and nationally that we have to take account of. 
I believe that human activities can have a negative effect on climate change but I am not a scientist. The extent of my scientific knowledge most recently I guess comes from having read Bill Bryson’s  
A Short History of Nearly Everything 
 but the scientists I met at GNS Science told me that reading that book is a very very good start. I am pleased to say that I have read it twice; I found it very very interesting. It tells us that the climate has been warming since the 14th century which is when we had the last mini - ice age so of course global warming is a consideration and a reality. 
Human activities during the industrial revolution will have caused a steep increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases which certainly appears to be having a detrimental effect on the planet. All countries I feel must make an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and this is something that we in the National Party take very seriously. That is why the new Government has set up a special select committee to review climate change policy. This was in part a response to the record of the Labour Government which oversaw emissions rising at a rate of—and this is quite a figure—over 1 million tonnes per year. 
Climate change policy is something that we as a Government need to put a lot of work into getting right. This bill will not do that. It is not the way to go. First of all the very nature of the bill runs contrary to what we are trying to achieve with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill which I have been privileged to spend quite a bit of time being involved with as it goes through its processes. The bill we have before us has the potential to build extra layers of bureaucracy within our regional councils. At the very least it will give extra work to those regional councils. Very recently we have seen how well or otherwise they are performing against expectations and it does not make very good reading. So the consequence of giving the councils extra work would be an increase in the unnecessary delays and costs which the other bill the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is doing its very best to reduce. 
What this bill would do in general is make applications for resource consents more onerous more time consuming more costly and significantly more restrictive. Were this legislation to produce better decision-making there may be a valid argument that it would be worth it. However I would suggest that it will do nothing of the sort. Instead it will make decision making more problematic and more time consuming and it will produce massive inconsistencies throughout the regional councils of the country. We already have the most devolved system of environmental planning in the world. That is why we are having to pull together the activities under the Resource Management Act to try to introduce some efficiencies and consistencies. I am sure that as well-intentioned as this legislation may be the Green Party would not seriously want to introduce a bill whose effect would be to allow an ad hoc approach by regional councils to resource consents. That would have a very serious consequence to the economy. 
If this bill were passed into law it would have some very serious and unfortunate consequences—some of them unintended I am sure. Let me quote from the explanatory note of the bill: “Clause 5 repeals Section 70A of the Resource Management Act 1991 in order to allow regional councils”—here is the bit—“to control discharges to air of greenhouse gases on the basis of their effects on climate change.” If these decisions were left to the discretion of the regional councils and their ideas on the extent to which differing amounts of greenhouse gases have an effect on climate change—and that would put them in a very very hard decision-making basket—then we would see different regional councils making different decisions and we would have inconsistency. It would be a mishmash. It would be incoherent a reprehensible muddle and a regurgitated dog’s breakfast of outcomes. It would not be pretty. 
To ensure that different councils have the expertise to make the judgments—which by the very nature of this legislation would be inconsistent throughout New Zealand—more work and more effort is required. The consequences of this bill would be one giant mess—albeit well-intentioned. The issue of climate change surely requires a national rather than a regional approach. National approaches by definition provide consistency throughout New Zealand and avoid the sort of scenario whereby a regional council in acting on its discretion will not be prevented from developing its own resources and setting low standards all for the sake of improving its own economic standing. That is one of the problems that can occur and my good friend and colleague Eric Roy mentioned it during the first reading debate. 
Climate change must be dealt with on a national basis. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill sets up an environmental protection authority that allows a framework for a nationwide approach that will enable national consistency and that is the kind of approach that is called for here. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s right. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am glad that a Minister sitting with me agrees with that. 
The very essence of what the proponents of this bill want to do is made clear in clause 4 the purpose clause. I quote it in its entirety: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure regional councils are able to take into account the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change including when—(a) considering applications for air discharge consents: (b) developing rules in regional plans.” The second part of that clause paragraph (b) highlights my argument—and indeed the theme of my speech—about the fundamentally flawed nature of the bill and that is that the bill would enable regional plans to develop rules surrounding climate change issues. 
If this was not such a serious issue one could take it quite light-heartedly because we are talking about the same regional plans that five out of 85 local authorities still did not have in place in October 2008 and the same regional plans that have taken on average an astonishing 8.2 years to devise. I spoke to about 60 planners from councils just last week and they acknowledged that there are real problems associated with plan development not least of which is the cost. I cannot imagine how much longer this bill would add to the average number of years for a regional council to devise a plan but the mind boggles. This would be far beyond the concept in which regional councils would make decisions that take climate change into account based on a national framework which would be far better. 
This bill would let the councils make the rules themselves. Different people in different regions would be making different rules if this bill progressed. We would need to employ more people to devise the rules and to ensure the required limits on discharges for greenhouse gases. Regional councils do not yet have the required scientific and economic expertise to deal with these issues. Some may but how can we be sure they all do? I suggest that most regional councils do not have the immediate capability to deal with these scientific aspects. Experts would undoubtedly be required for each regional council if they were all to achieve a modicum of good decision-making. Again that is a very good reason to support a national approach rather than rely on the varying expertise of regional councils. And when are different so-called experts ever on the same page? 
The essence of my feeling is that the absence of a national environmental standard will result in markedly inconsistent decisions being made. This bill would make a lot more sense if there were a national environmental standard to adhere to but even then it would still be beset by many of the problems I have mentioned thus far. The criticisms of this bill could be endless. We should not allow this bill to become law as it is a poorer piece of legislation than it is an improving one. Instead of improving streamlining and speeding up applications for resources consents it will conversely make it more complicated and cumbersome for no clear gain. 
I do not have an ideological opinion that opposes anything that might increase a time delay for a resource consent. But it is not something that would ever be ideal particularly in the current economic climate in which job creation and protection is more vital than ever—even though that is ignored by people on the other side of the House. If I could be convinced by a good argument that this measure is necessary I could be persuaded but this bill does not even begin to persuade me. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I first acknowledge Jeanette Fitzsimons for putting forward this Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to rise to support the bill because I believe this is very important legislation that we must support. This bill is basically very simple. It allows regional councils to take into account the effects on climate change of greenhouse gas emissions when considering applications for air discharge consents and developing rules for regional plans. There are really only two issues there. The bill repeals sections 70A and 104E of the Resource Management Act. I think that is very important. 
Unfortunately we have just heard a whole lot of garbage from the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole. The member accepted that he is not a scientist and does not know much about this topic; obviously somebody has written his speech for him. I for one can say that I am a scientist and know something about this subject. I have personally measured some of these greenhouse gases. I have measured nitrous oxide in the agricultural area I have measured carbon dioxide. I am very familiar with the topic so I can say with some authority that I know something about this subject. 
The Government really has no policy in a number of areas—and I mean a number of areas. If we look at the forestry sector the emerging issues in the whole carbon sector and the biofuel industry there is nothing there. Also there is the area of electricity generation. The Government cancelled a whole lot of environmentally friendly plants that had been planned and it has a whole lot of new generation on hold. I am really sad to see that this Government over time has changed its stance on this issue. 
Let me quote a couple of views from the Prime Minister. In May 2005 he stated on climate change: “This is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—”. Then he went on to state in November 2006: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have. Like most New Zealanders I take the risks caused by climate change seriously. The scientific analysis indicates that the world is getting warmer and if this doesn’t change the results could be catastrophic for our society as well as for our environment.” Then in December 2008 last year John Key stated: “I believe that human-induced climate change is accurate.” What a somersault what a flip-flop! 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Slow learner. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: It takes time and it seems that since National members have become the Government they have not really done anything at all in terms of doing something for climate change issues. 
As I said this bill is a very simple bill. It clearly states that regional councils should “take into account the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change” when making new rules and also when considering applications for air discharge consents. Clearly this is a major issue in New Zealand particularly in agriculture: 50 percent of our gas emissions is from agriculture. Carbon dioxide nitrous oxide and methane are the major issues for us. This Government has really done nothing in this area to ameliorate some of the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change. Similarly on the whole waste management area there is nothing there. 
On land management and on the crop production system New Zealand has done quite a bit of work over the years. For example I have been doing some research myself including at Massey University in measuring nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from various cropping systems and from various land management systems where there are crops and pasture and in other plant production systems. But this Government has no strategy on how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which is a major issue for us in New Zealand. 
Similarly there is no waste management strategy—particularly anything to do with the recovery or management of waste with energy efficiency or with regard to conservation. Again major savings if you like could be made in terms of economic development if some of these issues were to be seriously considered particularly in the agriculture area. I keep saying that I am an agriculture guy; I have been personally involved in that research. In New Zealand we have a serious issue in controlling emissions from agriculture and this Government has done nothing in terms of promoting more sustainable agriculture particularly in the land management area. Nothing has been done. 
I am really disappointed that this Government is not taking any of these issues seriously because its members do not believe in climate change. I do not believe that the Prime Minister and his colleagues actually believe in a whole lot of the issues around climate change so there has been only lip service in this area. Labour certainly had an emissions trading scheme and I do not believe that this Government is sincere in following the scheme. We are sure that the emissions trading scheme will be one of those useful tools that we have in New Zealand to promote more sustainable transport and agriculture. 
We heard recently about the issues in Auckland over transportation. We now have the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide saying that he is concerned with what is happening in Auckland with the Auckland Council. He is another Minister who does not believe in climate change. In October 2008 Rodney Hide the leader of the ACT Party was speaking against the emissions trading scheme. He stated: “I think the idea that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing the globe to warm is a theory just a theory. It’s an interesting theory. It’s been around for a long long time and I think the evidence doesn’t support it.” 
I think this Government needs to take this issue seriously. I am delighted that Jeanette Fitzsimons has taken this stand and promoted this member’s bill to ensure that our regional councils when doing their planning in terms of consents and making rules take into account greenhouse gas emissions. This century I believe is a century in which we need to make sure that we leave the resources that we have whether land or other resources for future generations so that they can enjoy the benefits of those resources. If we continue as we are and keep using resources particularly oil resources and land resources in the way that we are then it will be a disastrous future for our children. Having said that I am delighted to support this bill and I commend it to the House. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Local Government and Environment Committee received a whopping 1925 submissions from the public on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. A significant majority of the submissions were in favour of the bill and an even greater number again expressed support for action on climate change. It is therefore without dispute that this bill and more particularly climate change has an impact on the lives of people. 
At a forum held just a few months ago in New York the president of the United Nations General Assembly revealed that climate change has a specific and especial impact upon indigenous peoples. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues released a statement saying that indigenous peoples are “most directly affected by environmental degradation caused by climate change” and are “the stewards of some of the most precious biologically diverse regions of the world”. I am proud to advise the House that Professor Margaret Mutu and Catherine Davis both born of the north are currently representing Aotearoa at the 2-week United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. On this very day Wednesday 17 June climate change issues are on the agenda. So it may well be that decisions we make in this House today are able to be influential on the world stage. 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has concluded that there will be a particular and detrimental impact on traditional indigenous ways of life. The indigenous peoples of the Pacific South-east Asia the Himalayas North America South America Africa and Europe all stand to be threatened by global warming as an immediate consequence of their direct dependence on natural resources. In the Arctic region the Inuits are prevented from continuing their traditional hunting practices as the ice breaks up around them. Pasifika people are losing coral atolls beneath rising seas. The tribes in Borneo watch as their rainforests catch fire. In Tibet the people suffer as they see their medicinal alpine plants disappear before their eyes and their sacred glaciers melt. And for tangata whenua our traditional links through Hineahuone to Papatuanuku to the land are a consequent reminder of the full spiritual emotional and moral implications of climate change for our people.  
Our special relationship with the land waterways and other natural resources as expressed through kaitiakitanga also provides us with a strong foundation for making a commitment to environmental integrity by addressing climate change. So we support the intention of this bill: that climate change be addressed via local government and the Resource Management Act process. The bill is the manifestation of that old 1970s catchcry “think global act local” or as the Japanese multinationals have coined it “think ‘glocal’ ”. Acting “glocal” might mean that local government actually turns to tangata whenua to understand how our traditional knowledge has been applied in order to lessen the impact of natural disasters.  
We all understand that climate change is a major threat and is already having adverse effects on the environment. As all the submissions pointed out there is a desperate lack of action on the issue. We also know that urgent action is needed to meet Kyoto obligations. Given that knowledge it just does not make sense that the select committee recommended that the bill not be passed. The rationale for failing to support the bill was that the committee thought that climate change should be addressed nationally not via local government and the Resource Management Act. It should not be an either-or situation: we can take action at a local level and at a national level too.  
The Maori Party has a different view. As the independent Maori voice of this Parliament we believe that it is dangerous to delay any further given the urgency in dealing with emissions at the regional level. Taking action to adapt to climate change and ensuring that tangata whenua are actively involved in this action is critical. The cost and the regulatory burden that were rejected by opponents to the bill must be seen in the wider context of urgency and the extent of the challenge posed by climate change. The bill merely seeks to reinstate one tool of regulation while recognising that many tools will be needed to address the issue.  
We thought the submission from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright was of particular relevance. The commissioner expressed qualified support for the bill given the regulatory vacuum following the 2004 amendment to the Resource Management Act. She also recommended an amendment to the bill to ensure development of a national environmental standard to provide national guidance on effective use of resources. It was a perfect example of support for action on climate change by demonstrating a national approach and local government responsibility hand in hand. That is a holistic approach where we all recognise that we play a part in maintaining and strengthening the resilience of healthy ecosystems.  
I cannot help but contrast such an approach with all the goings-on around the emissions trading scheme. The revised rules for the emissions trading scheme make it clear that big industries—the major emitters of greenhouse gases—will receive over $1 billion in subsidies and rebates for about 90 percent of the electricity price increases coming out of the scheme. That is great for the big emitters but more doom and gloom for ordinary New Zealanders. Household consumers will pay the full price rise. The fairness test surely requires that all sectors should pay in the same proportion at each stage. There should not be blanket exemptions in some sectors while families suffer. The emissions trading scheme reform came up with over 90 percent of the charges resulting from the new amended scheme falling on consumers who account for just a third of the emissions.  
Coming back to this bill the original intention was that councils should be required to consider climate change when issuing consents or formulating policy but do so in conjunction with a national policy statement or national environmental standard to provide guidance. It was literally the best of both worlds: all sectors committed to change starting at the same time. Tackling climate change requires action at a local level as greenhouse emissions occur from a wide variety of sources. Yet what did we find when the bill came back from the select committee? It was very much the same scenario that confronted the emissions trading scheme reform. Ironically the opposition that was attached to this bill—opposition to making climate change a local government responsibility—came from much the same sources as the opposition to the emissions trading scheme. I am referring to the submissions from business industry groups local government energy generators and some environmental and community groups. The same groups that oppose the emissions trading scheme are also opposed to supporting fair mechanisms that make positive steps towards addressing climate change.  
The Maori Party’s core position is that we believe that the ability of councils to consider climate change ought to be in place at least until a national instrument is well established and shown to be effective. Why put off till tomorrow what can be achieved today? We believe that the intention of this bill was to strengthen both the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 in ways that would consider the effects of greenhouse emissions—and the discharge of contaminants on to land and into air and water—on climate change. The existing legislation lacked teeth in both these areas and the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill was a key means to create an opportunity for regional councils to consider such effects and impacts. We are proud to speak up and out for urgent action on climate change and to declare the support of the Maori Party for this important bill.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I do not intend to speak for long on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. The ACT Party will not be supporting the bill and I would like to explain why. I think the last two speeches illustrate the point very well. Rahui Katene has just explained that households—ordinary New Zealanders—will pay for the costs put on them by the emissions trading scheme; ordinary households will pay for the cost of this bill. 
Before my colleague Rahui Katene spoke we heard from Mr Choudhary. He described the emissions trading scheme as a “useful tool” to provide sustainable transport. But it is more than a useful tool; it is actually a tax. It is a tax imposed on businesses and more important on consumers. It is a tax felt at the lowest end of the income scale by the people who have no alternative but to buy energy buy food and buy things that the emissions trading scheme would impose costs on. 
Mr Choudhary cast doubt on the Prime Minister’s comments in regard to climate change. Let us be quite open and honest: the ACT Party does not oppose the concept of climate change; we acknowledge that climate change is happening. The Prime Minister acknowledges that the climate is changing all the time. In fact the scientific evidence is that the climate has changed over generations and generations over centuries and centuries over millennia. The temperature of Earth has warmed and cooled over many many millennia. The issue is whether it has warmed and cooled because of human inducement or human change; whether human activity has contributed to that change. Although it is very easy to say that the science is settled the reality is that the science is not settled. I have had the privilege of sitting on the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee as a substitute for Rodney Hide on occasions over the last couple of months. Evidence was produced that the temperature of the Earth has actually cooled since 2002 and that it has not risen since 1998. There was no evidence that I saw or heard that discredited that fact—none whatsoever. 
Last Thursday I attended a meeting of the Unite trade union. It was a function that my colleague Melissa Lee also attended and one of its purposes was to launch the campaign for an increase in the minimum wage from $12.50 to $15. The Green Party co-leader Russel Norman and the Labour candidate were both very anxious to sign the pledge: “Let’s sign up. Let’s increase the minimum wage from $12.50 to $15.” But I said to the people of the Unite union that it is not a question of gross income earned; it is a question of living standards. It is a question of what is actually earned after tax. It is a question of what is earned after living expenses have been met. The emissions trading scheme imposes a cost on the community and it imposes a cost on households as Rahui Katene has just said. Yes it is very easy to sign up to increasing the minimum wage but what a trick that would be. We need to look at reducing people’s taxes in order to reduce the cost of living and to increase the standard of living. 
So the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill; it will be opposing this bill. ACT has championed a review of the emissions trading scheme and we are very proud to have done that. Countries around the world—not least of which was Australia in the last 2 months—have moved in the last 6 months to defer the introduction of their own emissions trading schemes. I believe that the role the ACT Party has played in forcing a review of that bill will go down as one of the most significant achievements in this parliamentary term. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 The discussion in the House this afternoon has been very interesting. I thank Dr Ashraf Choudhary for his comments and I assure him that we respect his knowledge of science particularly his knowledge of agricultural science. I also thank Rahui Katene for her comments and for pointing out how important dealing with climate change is for indigenous people. We all agree that there is a need to do something about climate change but the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment bill is not the right way to do it. 
This bill is a member’s bill introduced by Jeanette Fitzsimons and first read in March 2006. I sympathise with Jeanette Fitzsimons because since the 1980s she has been well aware of climate change and has been actively calling for policy to deal with this issue. Her pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears. This bill was an attempt by Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens to do something but it is a last resort and a very poor one at that. The bill was born out of frustration. It was an attempt to get some traction—any traction and any legislative provision—to tackle climate change. 
The House must remember that back in 2005-06 when the member mooted this bill there was absolutely no legislative instrument to deal with climate change or greenhouse gas emissions because in 2004 Labour had removed the only piece of legislation that dealt at all with climate change or gas emissions. In 2004 Labour amended the Resource Management Act to remove the ability of local government to consider the effects of emissions on greenhouse gases or climate change when making rules on regional plans and determining discharge consents. It was a provision of the Resource Management Act that had been used quite successfully in the past—for example in 1993 in the consenting of the Taranaki combined-cycle power plant and in 2001 when Genesis Power was granted its consent for the new Huntly plant. 
As I said this bill was born out of frustration. Jeanette Fitzsimons was frustrated because Labour had removed the one and only piece of relevant legislation actually in place and Labour had not been able to make any new nationally consistent climate change legislation stick. Back in 2005-06 Labour’s environmental policy in terms of climate change was a mess and everybody knew it. I will give a short history. In June 2003 Labour announced the animal emissions levy. It failed. The Government then announced its energy efficiency target aiming to get a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency within 10 years. That also failed. The Labour Government then announced a carbon tax. That was voted down. It then attempted to negotiate greenhouse agreements with big industry players and that failed too. Despairing at the lack of progress Jeanette Fitzsimons produced this bill although she and everyone else was well aware that a national economic instrument was a far better way to deal with the issue. Jeanette Fitzsimons introduced this bill to fill the void left by Labour’s bungles. 
Well we do not need it now. The National Government has set up the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee to review policy and the emissions trading scheme and Jeanette Fitzsimons is a member of that committee. This bill was always recognised as a poor relation in terms of dealing with the issue and we now have better options. A national financial instrument like the emissions trading scheme is the right way to deal with climate change. It is an issue that should be dealt with on a national level not a regional level. Rules to manage greenhouse gas emissions must be consistent across the country across the industry and across sectors. 
Councils are certainly not experienced enough or equipped well enough to deal with one of the most important global issues of our time. We do not want ad hoc inconsistent local applications of rules on a case by case basis. Councils are already struggling to deal with their responsibilities under the Resource Management Act and we have seen the survey from the Ministry for the Environment just this last week that tells us that many councils are struggling. After 18 years some councils have still not got operational plans under the Resource Management Act and many are struggling to process consents effectively and on time. We certainly do not want or need the duplication of a messy local council system running alongside the new emissions trading scheme. We do not need any further complexity in the Resource Management Act just when we are putting in place the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill which is designed to simplify the Resource Management Act’s processes in order to cut costs and lengthy delays. Compliance with this bill would be both time consuming and costly for regional councils and the ratepayer and it would have no real benefit. 
In fact no one likes this bill. Even Jeanette Fitzsimons herself has acknowledged that the idea that a member’s bill could fix global change is absurd and that it is just an attempt to put back some controls that used to be there. Well we have moved on and we now have greater expectations of our legislation. Mrs Fitzsimons has said that the bill was proposed back in 2006 only because there was no carbon charge or carbon trading; it was never the instrument of first choice. Even then Jeanette Fitzsimons admitted that a national environment standard would be better. As I said no one really wants this bill. At the Local Government and Environment Committee the majority of submitters on the bill favoured a national approach rather than a local government solution. The Ministry for the Environment was not supportive of the bill and finally after hearing all the evidence the select committee recommended that the bill should not be passed. The committee was dead right: this bill should not be passed into law and I oppose it. 
The National Government supports emissions trading as its preferred option for addressing climate change. The cross-party Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee is in the process of debating how that legislation should perform and Jeanette Fitzsimons is part of that process. Everyone agrees that a nationwide scheme such as an appropriate emissions trading scheme will be far more efficient and effective than this bill. An emissions trading scheme will mean there is far more compelling economic incentive to adopt new cleaner technologies and processes and to make real changes in our businesses in our organisations and in our personal lifestyles. 
We all know that New Zealand needs to do its part in tackling climate change. We need to be an active part of the global solution and at the select committee table right now we are debating just how we should do that. I tell Jeanette Fitzsimons that I understand her frustration at how long the process is taking. She has been talking climate change for decades and I understand the motivation for this bill. But we all know that it is not the right way to make progress on this important and pressing issue. The National Government opposes the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise as the final speaker in this debate to call for the adoption of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. Let us briefly recall the background to the bill. In 1991 the National Government introduced the Resource Management Act which was adopted by this House. Among other things this Act accorded the power to regional councils to consider climate change matters when issuing air discharge consents. In 2004 the Labour Government amended the Act removing those powers. Shortly thereafter in 2004 the Green Party submitted this bill which seeks to restore those powers. I acknowledge Jeanette Fitzsimons for her insight and perseverance in this matter. 
Neither National nor Labour denies the magnitude of the climate change problem. To quote Eric Roy: “Am I worried about climate change? No I am not; I am absolutely terrified by it.” To quote Steve Chadwick: “Climate change is a very serious challenge.” one in which “We have to play our part”. For its part the Maori Party was pleased that the bill was having a reading because it was forcing Parliament to confront global concerns. Yet National opposed the bill in its first reading. Its stated reason was that regional councils would face invidious decisions in respect of their own areas and that the problem with climate change was a global and national issue only. Members cited Franklin District Council in whose area New Zealand Steel is located and Southland where a local authority might encourage coal extraction and whose people might welcome global warming. This is a bit rich considering that National put on indefinite hold the national instrument that was passed last year. 
The Labour Government opposed the bill on the grounds that a national policy was required and it intended to introduce a carbon price. Moana Mackey expressed concern over the regional inconsistencies that could arise from leaving something as important as climate change to regional councils. Labour apparently believed that it was something that only central government should do. Labour of course did not have the carbon tax voted down as the previous speaker just said it simply dropped it and switched to an emissions trading scheme but it delayed the emissions trading scheme so long that with the change in Government it is now subject to review. So no carbon price has been set and now Labour is changing policy and supporting the bill. I thank Labour for its unflagging commitment and consistency in our time of national need. 
Of course Labour could have legislated for its proposed carbon tax before the 2005 election when it had a majority with the Green Party—it did not. It could have legislated in 2006 with the Green and Maori parties—it did not. It could have supported this bill last year and at least restored the power of regional councils to consider carbon in air discharge consents. It did not. It is voting for the bill today in the exculpatory knowledge that it lacks the numbers to pass. 
The rationale for this bill remains as strong today as in 2004. It is to restore the status quo ante when the 1991 Resource Management Act accorded regional authorities the power to consider climate change in making decisions. It is not Franklin District Council that would make such decisions but Environment Waikato. That regional council is entirely capable of taking into account the global national and local interest in combating climate change. No doubt if the regional council succumbed to the siren call of local global warming the Government would be empowered to override such irresponsibility. But we should not underestimate the wisdom of our best local policymakers especially on issues such as climate change which threatens our children. 
It should be noted that of the 1925 submissions a significant majority favoured the bill including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Those opposed offered three arguments. The first was the quaint logic that restrictions on industrial emitters were unfair if none were placed on vehicles or livestock. But the Resource Management Act requires air discharge consents for stationary industry not vehicles or livestock. No one has ever to my knowledge suggested it should. The second was the misguided fear that local government lacks the scientific and economic expertise to deal with the issue. The short answer is that such expertise often does reside in regional councils and national experts are there to assist in any event. The select committee heard evidence that the bill would work better if the National Government put in place a national environmental standard guiding councils on how to consider carbon in their deliberations. That would have been our preference too. The third was a simplistic belief that action against climate change should not be a local government responsibility but a national one. Of course as has been remarked it is both. 
We all know that throughout this country and now in this House—with the singular exception of the five erstwhile ditherers among us—we are currently failing in our struggle with climate change. We have been cognisant of climate change since the early 1980s. We commenced political action in the mid-1980s. We identified the global interest to combat it in 1992. We introduced our first weak global legislation in 2008. So a quarter of a century has passed before the global ship of State is even considering turning round. But the required 90 degree turn-round remains at the level of consideration only. In fact the global economy remains on a fixed course to disaster. It is as if humanity is poorly attuned to the pitch of the alarm siren. Certainly Mr Boscawen and his ACT Party cannot hear the pitch whether it is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the majority of submissions to Parliament’s Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Over those 25 years our global emissions have risen. Yet if we are partially deaf we are certainly not mute. We still bicker vociferously over the next critical step. 
New Zealand must do everything within its power to play its part. This is not an act of altruism. We are not aspiring to be a global leader—no one would notice. It is simply in our direct national interest. We must act at the global level the national level and the local level. There is no inconsistency between these levels in pursuit of the common good. Each has a responsibility to act. Each must play its part. Let us adopt this bill without further delay. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill confronts what can be done immediately to reduce the harm associated with alcohol advertising. The specific measures proposed by the bill are to amend the watershed for liquor advertising on television from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and to return the exclusive jurisdiction of liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. In front of us today is a small measure to reduce alcohol-related harm. Television is a small but influential component in our fight against the ills that alcohol inflicts on our communities and especially on our youth. It is my view that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians representing New Zealand communities to refine current rules as best we can and as soon as we can. 
The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is one of several similar bills currently before the House. This bill aims to reduce alcohol-related harm along with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill introduced under the previous Labour Government which looks towards local alcohol plans. It is important to note that the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill differs from Metiria Turei’s Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill also currently before the House. This bill does not seek a complete ban on liquor advertising but simply a change in the watershed and jurisdiction of liquor advertising to further align liquor legislation with international norms and with the important premise of upholding the public’s health. I suggest that this bill complements the bill that is now in the name of the Hon Simon Power the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. That bill also seeks to ensure that liquor advertising is consistent with the promotion of responsibility and moderation in the consumption of alcohol and to ensure a reduction of the overall exposure of children and people under the age of 18 years to liquor advertising and liquor promotion. There are provisions in that bill to stop liquor advertising and liquor promotion from holding strong appeal to children or young people. However whereas the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power has liquor advertising playing a supporting role this bill that we are considering tonight allows that issue—a key to the proliferation of New Zealand’s binge drinking culture—to take centre stage. 
This bill would actively reduce the overall exposure of children and people under the age of 18 to television liquor advertising and promotion and change the watershed when adverts can first be screened from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. The second provision of this bill is to return the oversight of liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The bill recognises that alcohol-related harm is a public health issue; as such it should be under the jurisdiction of the Government. Again the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power has provision to give the Director-General of Health the ability to pull liquor adverts from the air. This recognises that the Advertising Standards Authority as an industry body can only go so far in addressing concerns about public health. This bill clarifies that rather than leave the important task with an industry body liquor advertising should be brought back from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Such a move would show that this Parliament is willing to acknowledge that although the Advertising Standards Authority does a commendable job in regulating advertising at large liquor is not simply another commodity. As a public health issue it needs to be dealt with by the Government. 
The current review by the Law Commission outlined recently by its chair Sir Geoffrey Palmer supports the facts associated with alcohol-related harm. The societal and cultural damage caused by alcohol is systemic and this bill taken in conjunction with the Hon Simon Power’s bill seeks to have us as parliamentarians acknowledge that we need to act on behalf of the communities we represent. 
I will mention some background to this bill. It was originally sponsored by the Hon Matt Robson before being passed to Martin Gallagher in 2005. The bill had two parts: firstly to raise the purchase age to 20 years and to strengthen the provisions relating to the supply of minors; secondly to provide a statutory restriction on broadcast liquor advertising before 10 p.m. and transfer the jurisdiction of liquor advertising from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. 
After the bill’s first reading the Law and Order Committee divided it into two separate bills the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill which was defeated in 2006 and the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill which is back before us today. The select committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with the following amendments: that the watershed relates only to television broadcasting of liquor advertisements; that exceptions to the watershed include one for advertisements in which liquor depiction is incidental to the advertisement’s purpose so as not to create problems with for example televising international sporting events; and that the exclusive jurisdiction of liquor advertisements on television by the Broadcasting Standards Authority be clarified. 
The history of broadcast liquor advertisements goes back to 1981 when the advertising of alcohol-related outlets on broadcast media was permitted. In 1991 brand-name alcohol advertising on television and radio was permitted as a result of a decision made by the then National Cabinet without the consultation of Parliament. These changes combined with the proliferation of liquor outlets in our communities and the lowering of the alcohol purchase age in 1999 have had adverse effects on alcohol-related harm which I think we all acknowledge. The current regulatory environment for liquor advertising on television comes under the jurisdiction of the Advertising Standards Authority. It works in partnership with the Advertising Standards Complaints Board and the Advertising Standards Complaints Appeal Board which is the final arbiter for complaints. This bill moves to reinstate the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s jurisdiction over liquor advertising which it lost in 1993 after the Hon Maurice Williamson’s Broadcasting Amendment Bill was passed with staunch opposition from Labour. As stated it also seeks to amend the current liquor advertising watershed from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. 
Some points members may wish to consider include the fact that youth exposure to liquor advertising increased by 20 percent in 2003 after a panel appointed by the Advertising Standards Authority brought the watershed forward to 8.30 p.m. The self-regulatory framework that the Advertising Standards Authority is governed by means that the industries involved could unilaterally alter the watershed. It was believed that by adding a new principle that stated that liquor advertising must observe a high standard of social responsibility the watershed could be relaxed. That premise is misguided. As the Advertising Standards Authority is an agency driven solely by public complaints social responsibility on the part of advertisers cannot be guaranteed. Research conducted by the New Zealand Drug Foundation shows that despite the Advertising Standards Authority’s intention that liquor advertisements do not use heroes of the young or unduly masculine themes or behaviour in fact television advertisements are largely associated with exaggerated mateship masculinity and boisterous group scenes. Under the Advertising Standards Authority all those advertisements pass industry pre-vetting. That indicates that there is a reoccurring issue with advertisers’ interpretations of the code. 
There is now a call from constituents asking us as parliamentarians to address the concerns of alcohol-related harm. This bill asks that we take a small responsible step and give regulation to a body with the public interest as its primary concern and also move television liquor advertising to a later commencement time. I believe that it is expected of us as parliamentarians to do our best to align the bills currently before the House. The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill complements the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power by providing a specific focus on the power and influence of television advertising. I commend this bill to the House and I seek the support of members who of course are allowed to exercise their conscience vote on this measure. Thank you. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I note that the bill was originally introduced by the Hon Matt Robson in May 2005 so it languished for some considerable time before it was resurrected here today and it currently stands in Brendon Burns’ name. At its first reading this bill was treated as a conscience matter because it contained provisions dealing with the minimum legal purchase age and the supply of liquor to minors. This bill was split into two separate bills at the select committee: the first bill being the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and the second bill being the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. 
This particular bill seeks to make a number of changes to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. It does so firstly by extending the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It seeks to do that so that the Broadcasting Standards Authority alone has the jurisdiction to deal with certain specified complaints that are currently dealt with by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. So the bill is essentially moving those complaints from one agency to another. The Broadcasting Standards Authority does a very good job of exercising control and self-regulation over certain specified complaints relating to the broadcasting of liquor advertising. It has firstly established a fine not exceeding $100000 for a breach of this restriction and secondly it has restricted the broadcasting of liquor advertising. 
This bill seeks to restrict the broadcasting of liquor advertising to between 10 p.m. and midnight which has been termed “the watershed”. At the select committee National members were not convinced that the so-called watershed needs to be limited to between 10 p.m. and midnight for television and radio broadcasting of liquor advertising. In fact there is a compelling argument that the watershed should not apply to television and radio broadcasting. Many young people aged between 10 and 19 watch television and listen to the radio between 9 p.m. and midnight meaning that their exposure to alcohol advertising may actually increase if this bill passes without amendment. If advertising is condensed to between 10 o’clock and midnight and these young people are watching a significantly increased amount of advertising during that period their exposure would be far greater than if the current provisions prevail. That is why National members of the select committee were not convinced. I guess that raises some of the issues the Law Commission refers to in its report which is titled  
Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor 
. The report refers to some of those concerns around robust legislation. I might go back to it later. 
This bill is essentially surplus to requirements. Although it might be said that it could be concurrent with the current investigations and legislative proposals along the same lines I suggest that the bill is superfluous to them and should probably have been dropped way back in 2005 since when it seems to have languished. The bill has been overtaken by the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which had its first reading this year in March. The bill really is quite extraneous superfluous over the top or whatever you will. In short it is unnecessary in light of the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which had its first reading in March. However in spite of that Mr Burns has persisted and we have this bill before us now. 
The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also deals with the advertising of liquor and the more recent bill provides an integrated approach to addressing under-age drinking with a focus on increased responsibility for families and friends of the youths as well as the youths themselves. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also sets clearer standards around advertising and ensures consistent monitoring with a focus on advertising that targets young people. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also targets the areas of youth drink-driving by making it clear that any driver under 20 without a full licence cannot consume any alcohol. Finally the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill addresses licensing laws to give communities more input into licence applications and to provide clarity around when it is appropriate for an outlet to have an off-licence. 
I will come back to the drink-driving issue. It is a significant issue that has been raised by submitters to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill who would like to see serious offending through repeat drink-driving taken much more seriously and with far greater penalties in sentencing. In talking about the Law Commission and its review of the Sale of Liquor Act I tell members that it has been made clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for the Government. The commission has been asked to bring forward the report-back date and the commission in light of this direction from the Minister is to release an initial discussion document in July. The piecemeal and fragmented proposals set out in the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill provide another example of why New Zealand needs a coherent comprehensive response to liquor law reform. 
The Law Commission report I referred to earlier talks about the idea of a party-based vote for alcohol laws and suggests that the conscience vote for alcohol bills is in place largely because of historical precedent and that it would be preferable to have standard party-based voting rather than a conscience vote for future bills relating to the sale and supply of alcohol. The key reason for this is that conscience votes pose a problem to the quality and coherence of legislation and that tradition alone is not a satisfactory reason for continuing with the premise that the sale and supply of alcohol liquor laws should be based on a conscience vote. The suggestion from the Law Commission about alcohol bills is that there should be a move away from conscience votes because that would create a parliamentary environment that is stable and able to produce better legislative outcomes. 
Also in the report is a comment by the New Zealand Police which expressed support for a comprehensive review of alcohol laws. The statement was from 2008. The police voiced reservations about the use of conscience votes for the resulting legislation and it was their view that the benefit of any legislative changes to be realised had to be adopted as Government policy and that the tradition of addressing alcohol-related legislation as a matter of individual choice is not conducive to delivering a comprehensive and cohesive legislative framework. That was the view of the Law Commission and the New Zealand Police. So here we have a member’s bill that will be voted on with a conscience vote and is really superfluous to the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which had its first reading in March. That is why I will not be supporting this member’s bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I wish to support the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I pay tribute to all of those members who have been involved in its travel through this Parliament—my former colleagues Matt Robson and Martin Gallagher and of course my current colleague Brendon Burns—who have really championed an important cause in respect of this legislation. 
On the one hand I was heartened by the comments from Sandra Goudie because we have had here today a very clear statement from National members that they will be supporting the removal of the conscience vote for liquor bills which is fantastic. I really really commend the member for her statements to the House tonight that National will vote as one on this legislation because they agree that the conscience vote is outmoded and that it is time for it to go. Our party has not yet determined its position on the report of the Law Commission. I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to prepare a report for our caucus in order to debate what is a very very important issue. But I take great heart that the Government of the day National has decided to eschew the conscience vote on alcohol issues. It is a major step forward for this Parliament and I am very very heartened by it. 
There is a book that I think every member in this House should read. It was prepared by the World Health Organization and has contributions from public health professionals all around the world. It is called  
Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity 
. This book is extremely relevant to the legislation we have in front of us today. It is also why I am disappointed that Sandra Goudie stated that National would vote as one against the continuation of this particular law. The reason why I believe that the member would vote this way is that she has not looked at the evidence around the question of reducing consumption and alcohol-related harm. This book makes it very clear that if we want to have an evidence-based approach to the question of dealing with alcohol issues five very simple steps need to be adopted. The first is to increase the price; second to increase the legal drinking age; third to reduce the availability of alcohol; fourth to reduce the advertising; and fifth to increase drink-driving surveillance. Those five measures are evidence-based internationally as mechanisms or means by which we can reduce alcohol-related harm in this country. 
I presented a submission on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which the member Sandra Goudie referred to in her comments in the House today. I can say that that bill does not cover the areas that are covered by this bill which is why it is perfectly acceptable that members vote for this bill and also support the Government measure that is currently in front of the select committee. I will tell members why. Two things are covered in this bill that are not covered in the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. One of them is the watershed time issue which my colleague has traversed in some detail. It was a decision of the Advertising Standards Authority to bring back the watershed time to 8.30 p.m. To be honest I was not aware that the authority had brought back that watershed time because the last time I appeared in front of the authority was Wednesday 22 April 1998 when the watershed time was much later than it is today. It is really important that Parliament gets to decide these issues. They are important issues. We know that alcohol advertising has an impact on the environment and on the way that alcohol is being treated as an ordinary commodity in this country. 
The second issue that this legislation deals with is the transfer from the Advertising Standards Authority back to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Again this issue is not dealt with in the sale of liquor legislation that is before the select committee at the moment. So I reject the previous speaker’s comments that we should vote against this bill because another bill before a select committee deals with other ways of addressing some of the concerns about the type of advertising that the current law allows. 
I believe that this bill must be supported because it is a very positive public health matter. It seemed strange to me and I was a member of Parliament at the time when the then Minister of Broadcasting was also the Associate Minister of Health. I could not quite get that he would be responsible for overseeing the jurisdictional transfer from the Broadcasting Standards Authority to the Advertising Standards Authority. I wonder whether as a Government Minister today he really stands by the decision that he made at that time. 
Sue Moroney 
: Who was it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Maurice Williamson was responsible for that decision. Although I very strongly support the need for stronger supervision in this area which is why I very much support the transfer back to the Broadcasting Standards Authority I do not believe that the issue was properly debated at the time. The genie was already out of the bottle to use an expression I have used in another context. The reason the genie was already out of the bottle was that we already had brand advertising on television by the time the transfer was made. That was not something that Parliament had an opportunity to debate. I recall being a brand new member of Parliament and being quite frustrated by this major shift in social policy which was occurring without the opportunity to debate it within the House. The amendment to the broadcasting legislation that my colleague Brendon Burns referred to in his contribution actually occurred some time after the real decision about broadcasting alcohol advertisements on television had already been made. 
I will comment on a few of the things that I said back in 1998 even though in a way nobody wants to be proved to be prophetic in that regard. One of the arguments that was used against reducing limiting or indeed banning—which is my personal preference—alcohol advertising on TV was the question of whether there had been an increase or decrease in consumption. Those who were arguing for the public health message were being asked to prove issues around the question of consumption rates. The industry itself was never asked to prove whether the rate of decline would have been higher had the industry not been able to push those advertising buttons. 
The other issue is the question of aggregate figures hiding the impact on certain groups who are much more exposed. At the time I used the example of the youth unemployment rate which was over three times higher than the New Zealand aggregate. Often the aggregated figures hide the real problem and in this area the youth drinking problem is being hidden. I used the argument that from a public health perspective we had to argue the other side which was about what alcohol advertising does to the environment and what it does to enhance the public health of New Zealand. We know from the Business and Economic Research Ltd estimates that alcohol as a whole causes $5.3 billion worth of damage in terms of the cost to our economy on an annual basis. We are talking about a major harm here. So I ask why we are on the back foot arguing around alcohol advertising when the industry should be defending its right to advertise instead of it being the other way around. 
I mentioned at the time that we had a visiting public health expert in New Zealand. She worked in a busy emergency department in a large city hospital and kept seeing the results of violence. It did not take her long to work out that violence has to be treated as a public health issue. She talked about the different forms of interventions: primary secondary and tertiary. She used the example of smoking. A primary intervention would be a programme designed to prevent people from taking up smoking a secondary intervention would be a smoking cessation programme and a tertiary intervention would be an operation on a cancerous lung. She asked whether health promotion dollars would be best spent on surgeons doing the operations. The point is that no that is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We are spending an awful lot of money at the bottom of the cliff—on prison for the offenders and on hospitals for the victims. This bill deserves support. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I want to clarify that there will be a personal vote not a party vote on this bill from the National side. The National members understand that. All sensible thinking people would agree that liquor abuse is a hugely vexatious issue for New Zealand. I commend the intention of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. The Government has made it clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for the Government. With direction from the Minister of Justice the Law Commission is working on documents regarding the whole issue which are becoming available to us as we seriously review the concerns that New Zealand society has about the harm caused by liquor especially to our young people. 
The intention of the bill before the House is to reduce the harm of liquor to the lives of young people—and who would not agree with that intention? Just as important the intention of the bill is also to reduce the harm on all those who are affected by young people under the adverse influence of liquor. The sponsor of the bill calls it a small step. I believe that the bill does not go to the lengths needed to effectively address the problem. 
The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Amendment Bill that has been presented by the Government to the House also seeks to amend the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and to address the issue of the harm of liquor to youths in a more comprehensive and integrated manner. Like a multitude of parents of teenage children I am extremely interested in legislation that will make our children’s worlds safer for them and their peers. About the time when teenage boys become interested in liquor they also become increasingly interested in fast cars which is a dangerous and volatile combination as we know. 
The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill sponsored by Mr Brendon Burns seeks to address the issue of advertising but in ways that I believe may—as my colleague mentioned before—make little change to liquor advertising or may possibly even increase the exposure of teenagers to liquor advertising. The bill seeks to restrict all advertising of liquor to the 10 p.m. to midnight time frame. However the probability that teenagers will not watch TV or listen to the radio between 10 p.m. and midnight is extremely remote. In fact if liquor advertisers have only that time frame in which to advertise it is likely that the concentration of liquor advertising during that time frame—a time when a lot of teenagers are viewing TV and listening to the radio—may increase. An unintended consequence of the bill could possibly be that teenagers actually get increased exposure to liquor advertising than is currently the case. Another title for the bill could be the “Compulsory 10 p.m. Bedtime for All Teenagers in New Zealand Bill”. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What’s wrong with that? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I was of course being facetious with that last comment. Research indicates that parents are the main suppliers of liquor to minors: 60 percent of minors identify parents as the primary source of their liquor supply. Around 30 percent of liquor is supplied by friends and 10 to 15 percent is purchased by minors from licensed premises. 
I will read out a quote from the New Zealand Medical Association’s  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 from 2 June 2006: “The severely worsening statistics for alcohol harm especially for women and young teenagers call for radical thinking about the multiple causes and their long-term solution not just regulatory pricing or policing measures important though they are … Highly sophisticated advertising some electronic is largely ‘beneath the parental radar’ and promotes youth alcohol culture. Scottish researchers have found that the industry knows the distinct preferences of even 11-14 year olds (who like inexpensive sweet drinks and colourful wacky packaging) and 15-17 year olds (who prefer sophisticated adult brand names).” 
In reading that quote I am saying that there are issues and problems in our society regarding the consumption of liquor by young people—we do not doubt that—but the association says that there are multiple causes and that the long-term solution is not just regulation pricing or policing as important as they are. I believe that the association is referring to attitudinal changes that our society needs to embrace and adopt. The issue will not be addressed just by further regulation of TV and radio advertising. 
I believe that the problem has to do with the attitudes of the public at every level. For instance when a drink becomes popular amongst teenagers because it is called Cocaine—it is available in some local supermarkets—we ought to wonder not just about advertising times but about attitudes in our society whereby the name of a class A drug can be normalised in the pursuit of financial gain. We have to ask how far over the edge of the cliff we are willing to let our young people lean. 
Coming back to the issue of the harm of liquor to youths the fact that 60 percent of liquor is provided by parents puts the issue of liquor supply and potential harm strongly with the parents’ attitude to liquor. I believe that parents are the best way for teenagers to learn how to handle these sorts of issues and the responsibility regarding them in a very positive way. Although electronic advertising is not an issue to be ignored the biggest promoter of how to manage liquor is the lives and examples of parents and caregivers. Responsible attitudes to liquor are very important to the mature development of our young people. 
One principle of the code of advertising liquor from the Advertising Standards Authority is “Anyone visually prominent in a liquor advertisement depicting liquor being consumed shall be and shall appear to be at least 25 years of age with their behaviour and appearance clearly appropriate for people of that age or older.” That principle is to ensure that in advertising the consumption of liquor is seen as an adult activity and that the behaviour associated with it is deemed to be responsible in keeping with that age. 
A number of liquor advertising complaints have recently been made to the Advertising Standards Authority particularly about some of the adverts that are probably enjoyed most of all by teenagers. None of those complaints received by the Advertising Standards Authority was upheld. That does not mean that the complaints were superfluous by any means but rather reflects that in the balance of things the authority felt that the advertisers did not contravene the principles of the guidelines. One complaint that was upheld was an advertisement that stated “Sometimes you can have a hell of a day and still have a hell of a night.” The majority view of the authority was that the advert crossed the line by implying that liquor created a desirable change in mood—to turn a bad day into a good night—and as such did not meet the “high standard of social responsibility” required by principle 2 of the code of advertising liquor and was in breach of the guidelines. 
I believe that social responsibility is the key aspect we need to see in the thinking and attitudes of New Zealanders regarding the use of liquor and its associated influence on teenagers. Social responsibility is the one mitigating component that ensures that liquor consumption is not harmful to others. The National Government’s legislation takes a comprehensive approach that seeks to highlight social responsibility as the most powerful modifier of the abuse of liquor by seeking to support a more moderate drinking environment and a culture that reduces normalisation of youth drinking. 
I reiterate the New Zealand Medical Association’s comment: “The severely worsening statistics for alcohol harm especially for women and young teenagers call for radical thinking about the multiple causes and their long-term solution”. Although regulation is a means and a lever to address alcohol harm—and it touches on the issue of advertising—society itself and the environment of the home will provide the deeper and longer-lasting solution. Thank you very much. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Let me state at the outset that the Green Party will support the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. We agree that there should be much stricter regulation of alcohol advertising in New Zealand. However I say with respect that we do not believe that this bill goes far enough. Indeed we have our own bill in the name of Metiria Turei the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill which would remove broadcast advertising of alcohol from television and radio. 
The aggressive promotion of alcohol features strongly in New Zealand society. This cannot but exacerbate the problems of alcohol abuse. In 1992 alcohol brand advertising was introduced into broadcast media leading to a 42 percent increase in advertising expenditure and a fourfold increase in televised alcohol advertising in the first 3 years. By 1998 there was approximately $52 million of alcohol sponsorship and advertising on television and radio and in newspapers and magazines. The money spent on health promotion messages is a fraction of that amount. As a result the primary source of information for most people about alcohol and how to use it is alcohol advertising. 
Alcohol advertising in broadcast media is characterised by the association of alcohol brands with desired lifestyle images. The message coming from that advertising is that if one wants to have what it takes one has to be able to take one’s drink. The Green Party bill seeks to address the problems associated with this kind of advertising by regulating the marketing advertising and promotion of alcohol products through the broadcast media. However our bill has not been debated yet and we look forward to the day when it is debated. 
Alcohol is a drug like any other drug. When used in moderation by adults its harms to the individual and the community are generally considered low and acceptable. However as with all drugs there are many who abuse and misuse this particular drug which causes considerable harm to both the individual user and to the public at large. In order to manage those harms while retaining the principle that adults will and do engage in non-problematic drug use a strong regulatory framework is inevitably required. In the case of tobacco the community harms are severe. This drug alcohol similarly causes severe harm. Therefore it too should be subject to a very similar regulatory framework that applies to tobacco. To this end it is Green Party policy that the public health measures should include the following: firstly a ban on broadcast of alcohol advertising; secondly a requirement for compulsory health warnings on all alcohol and tobacco products; and thirdly support for the use of pricing mechanisms including taxes duties and levies to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol. 
This bill as I say with respect does not go far enough to address these concerns. Yet none the less we will support it as far as it goes. We encourage the House to support any and all measures that will reduce the harm that this powerful drug causes in our own national community. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The key mechanism we are voting on this afternoon is to support a specific restriction on the broadcasting on television of liquor advertising. It is a debate set within the context of the current regulatory framework for alcohol advertising: the power of the message. In this respect when I consider the steering group gurus—the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Youth Affairs the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry for Culture and Heritage the Advertising Standards Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Authority—there is no denying that those organisations with the power over the policy are able to guide the House to know whether this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill sets the standards that it suggests it does. So when I read the views of ALAC that more detailed research is needed to understand the impact of advertising on Maori and Pasifika peoples and that dedicated resources should be set aside to address the impact of alcohol use on Maori I think that those views should be listened to and respected. 
This bill will take the blatant advertising of booze off our television screens. That is a good thing but it is small speck in an ocean of desperation; a system in which meagre benefits are transferred straight into the hands of grog sellers and where the owners of the alcohol outlets profit from the addiction of the people. In terms of this situation of misery the Maori Party is particularly concerned with the outcomes for Maori and particularly our rangatahi. We know that amongst young people there are no significant differences in the prevalence of alcohol consumption between males and females or between Maori and non-Maori. For once we are all equal. Starting with the good news first the 2003 ALAC study of New Zealand drinking trends showed that 50 percent of the population of 12 to 17-year-olds are non-drinkers. So often this place is obsessed with fixing up the problems and telling the country what is wrong with it. It is a classic case of the glass being half full or half empty. We need to be looking at this 50 percent figure. What is it that stops our rangatahi reaching for the bottle? What sort of whanau support is in place to mean that alcohol is not the answer? 
The other fact we need to promote is that the actual number of young people drinking alcohol is not increasing. The issue lies in how we drink. This is particularly so for rangatahi Maori. Maori youth drink less regularly in comparison to youth in general but Maori youth drink heavily when they do drink. According to ALAC’s study Maori youth drinkers were significantly more likely to have consumed large amounts of alcohol at least once a week at 23.8 percent compared with non-Maori youth drinkers at 9.8 percent. The culture of binge drinking across all sectors of our community has a particular impact on our young Maori kids. It is the nature of binge drinking that makes for high risk. I am pretty confident in assuming that it was our Maori kids that Maori MPs were thinking of in 2005 when 14 of them voted in favour of raising the sale of alcohol age to 20. 
We believe we need the sort of leadership that is legendary amongst Maori. That leadership dates back to a group of staunch Tai Rawhiti women who stood up against their men as those men composed the famous haka “Poropeihana” in opposition to the introduction of legislation on the prohibition of alcohol. Those women called on Apirana Ngata to stand tall to promote the message that alcohol abuse was not part of the Maori dream. I think now about all those cause champions in Kaunihera Whakatupato Waipiro or ALAC who are promoting the message: “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” It saddens me to think that we are still struggling with the “go hard and drink until you drop” culture and the glory of getting wasted and getting out of it almost a century after those Ngati Porou wahine called on Ngata for intervention. When we think about this bill and the restrictions that will be placed on TV advertising perhaps we need to think more carefully about messages pointing out the hazards of drinking frequently and consuming higher volumes of alcohol. 
In researching the background to this bill one of the things that got me going was that over half of the young people aged between 12 and 17 years who binge drink said that their parents gave them alcohol and a staggering 48 percent of them reported that they are not supervised by an adult when they drink. So when we look at youth alcohol abuse just as I think the alcohol outlets should be targeted and not the boozers maybe our energies need to stop going into attacking young people and instead need to target whanau. We need an all-out comprehensive approach that holds us all responsible. We could look at how many parliamentary functions would be shut down if we started putting some limits around alcohol advertising sponsorship. Any members who go out on night patrol with the cops around their electorate will witness the cells filling up with grossly intoxicated young people on Thursday Friday and Saturday nights. How many fights are fuelled by liquor? How many convictions result from drink-driving or alcohol-related crashes? How many young people are referred to Youth Aid for disorderly behaviour? Will this bill address the fact that alcohol is a contributing factor in around 25 percent of fatal crashes and 20 percent of serious injury crashes on our roads? 
The Maori Party supports the regulations and prohibition placed on advertising by the liquor industry. Let us be clear: the industry is not interested in public health or youth development when it glamorises the power of alcohol as a mind-altering substance. The essential evil of alcohol is the attitude we hold towards it. I take great pride in being a non-drinker a non-smoker and drug-free knowing that for so many of our whanau alcohol exacerbates the issues that already confront them. I also take pride in being the mother of five Maori children who thankfully made it safely through their adolescence. But my youngest daughter had several friends who did not make it through and in many cases alcohol was the cause of their deaths. 
Sixty percent of Maori inmates say that alcohol or drug use was a factor in their offending. Whanau destruction goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse. We do not need to see any more photos on the 6 p.m. news bulletins of houses with bottles lined up outside against the wall to see the connection. Sure the booze barons and the corporate giants must be held responsible for peddling a killer substance across the counter but I have to ask who takes the first step in initiating change. We need research to liberate our families from dependence on alcohol. We need restrictions in place to ensure we put the brakes on a drinking culture that is motivated by getting totally legless and off one’s face. Most of all we need to have real alternatives to replace the keg or the bottle. We need whanau who can have fun without the booze recreation that does not depend on liquor outlets as the only venue and real opportunities to turn away from drug and alcohol dependence. 
Alcohol is still the most damaging drug in our society and the most frightening thing is that this drug is legal from the age of 18 years. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: It should not be a matter of “Just say when.”; it should be “Just because we can.” or “Just because we care.” We will be supporting the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Kia ora. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise tonight to speak to the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break I listened to the very interesting speech made by the MP for Te Tai Tonga Rahui Katene. I share her concerns about the tremendous harm caused by the misuse of alcohol and the insidious nature of the companies that peddle alcohol. Societal harm from alcohol is all too common. 
There can be no question that we all wish to reduce the amount of harm caused by alcohol particularly as it relates to young drinkers. Alcohol-related issues are a priority for this Government—we have made that very clear since the very early days of our Government. I think that all members would agree that this is a significant issue for our communities that it is a major driver of violent crime—especially domestic violence—and that it causes a significant number of problems for our health system to deal with. 
Since I was fortunate enough to become a member of the House I like many of my colleagues have spent time with local police. In speaking with them and spending time out on patrol with them in their cars one message has kept coming through and that is the tremendous amount of work caused for them by the abuse of alcohol in our society. Some of the police I have spoken with have estimated that as much as 90 percent of their average workload is related in some way to alcohol. I am particularly concerned about domestic violence which often affects women. It also affects children and older folk in our community. 
These issues are tremendously enhanced by the long hours that drinking establishments are allowed to be open each day and each week. Equally I have found when speaking to colleagues in the health profession particularly those in the emergency departments of our hospitals that the story is the same. If they did not have to deal with alcohol-abuse issues their lives would be far easier and the pressures on our health system would be considerably reduced. 
So it is clear that heavy drinking is not putting only our young people at risk. It puts at risk their families and any stranger who may have the misfortune to encounter them at the wrong moment—perhaps when they are behind the wheel of a car. It also puts at risk the hard-working members of our police force and our health system. It also puts at risk our fire crews and our ambulance drivers none of whom ask for this problem to come to their doors. 
Against the backdrop of the harm caused by alcohol I commend any member of this House who tries to find ways to address some of these serious issues. But that does not mean that any attempt to deal with alcohol issues should be supported without careful thought. These are serious issues but they are complex and as a politician I am seriously wedded to the need to ensure that we guard against doing something just for the sake of it. Too often this House has passed laws that have been driven by the need to do something but that do not address the real mischief. I understand that we all feel a need to make a difference but we have to be careful when we pass laws. It is an extreme responsibility and we need to be very careful that the laws we pass will actually make a significant difference. 
As I said this is a complex area. My strong preference is not to play around the edges and take a piecemeal approach but to consider the whole of the problem which has many aspects and look at real substantive solutions. When I considered this bill and how I wanted to vote on it I came to the conclusion that its measures will not make a meaningful difference. I was not lucky enough to sit on the Law and Order Committee which considered the bill so I acknowledge that I do not have in front of me all the information that the members of the committee had but I am called upon to make a decision. I have given it careful thought and I simply cannot see that the two elements of the bill will really do much more than give the members of this House a warm feeling of having tried to do something. 
The transfer of responsibility for alcohol advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority from the current jurisdiction of the Advertising Standards Authority seems to me to address a problem that does not actually exist. I have not seen any real evidence that the Advertising Standards Authority is not handling the issues competently. The more substantive measure in the bill is to restrict alcohol advertising on TV and radio to between 10 p.m. and midnight—the so-called watershed. 
I was particularly affected by the argument that a lot of the young people we want to target are more likely to watch TV and listen to the radio in the later hours of the evening—certainly from 9 p.m. to midnight. A real concern worth reflecting on is the fact that if we limit alcohol advertising to those hours there is a real risk that the proportion of alcohol advertising that young people will be exposed to will in fact increase. That is something we certainly should not take lightly. 
I will not be supporting this bill. Although I applaud its focus I am simply not satisfied that it will achieve anything in real terms. New Zealand deserves a comprehensive response to liquor-related issues and that response I believe is already in progress. The good work that is under way needs to be looked at as a whole. 
The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill is already before the Justice and Electoral Committee. That bill covers a number of the issues addressed by this bill and provides an integrated approach to youth drinking issues. It is not a silver bullet and I do not hold it up as being one but I think it provides a more comprehensive approach to the issues. It certainly includes provisions around the advertising of alcohol. We are better placed if we leave this Parliament and the select committee to complete their work on that bill rather than try to muddy the waters around the edges. 
In addition—and I know that this has already been mentioned in the debate—we have to be mindful of the fact that the Law Commission which is a specialist body that considers such issues is in the process of completing a comprehensive piece of work on the issues around alcohol abuse. One of this Government’s first actions was to indicate through Minister Power that it wanted that to be treated as a priority item and it asked for the report-back date to be brought forward. 
The first volume of that work has already been released. It relates to conscience voting and to how that has had an impact on the quality of our liquor legislation. Certainly that has provided food for thought. My understanding is that we can expect the remainder of the report to be released sometime within the next few weeks—I understand that the commission is working to a date sometime in July. In light of the fact that a comprehensive bill is already working its way through the House and that the Law Commission is completing important work on the issue we really need to take the approach of doing it once and doing it right. We should not try to muddy the waters. 
In conclusion I say that I applaud the work of the members who have brought this bill to the House seen it through the select committee and continued to support it but for my part I do not feel able to support it. It falls into the camp of doing something for the sake of doing something. I do not see that it will make a real difference in terms of these important issues. I would prefer that the House focused on the important pieces of work that are looking at this issue more comprehensively. Thank you. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. It is indeed my pleasure to stand in support of my colleague the MP for Christchurch Central Brendon Burns and his Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. 
This bill is very important because it confronts the reality that we all need to take collective responsibility to reduce the harm associated with alcohol advertising. Everyone in New Zealand—adults young people children families and communities—is affected by alcohol advertising. The two specific measures of this bill are to amend the watershed for liquor advertising from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and to return exclusive jurisdiction for liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. 
I have been really impressed with the amount of research and consultation my colleague Brendon Burns has done in relation to this legislation. He has worked with many groups including the New Zealand Drug Foundation and looked at alcohol advertising policy the  
Review of research on alcohol advertising and sponsorship 
 and the report of the steering group for the Review of the Regulation of Alcohol Advertising. One of the biggest reasons why we need to take collective responsibility is seen daily through the evidence particularly of our young people the impact on them of excessive alcohol consumption and also the huge influence of advertising. 
I want to point out some facts from the research and from the huge amount of consultation that Brendon has done for this bill. First of all we should approach this issue with the knowledge that 99 percent of New Zealand children watch television. In fact in many families television is a babysitter for our children. Ninety-two percent of 12 to 13-year-olds 68 percent of 9 to 11-year-olds and 24 percent of 6 to 8-year-olds are still up after 8.30 p.m. on weeknights and consequently are exposed to liquor advertising. The other point the research has brought out—and this research is all sourced—is that young people learn their drinking behaviours from those around them. The results of the secondary school survey conducted in 2007 showed that 72 percent of our students have tried alcohol and 54 percent of students sourced their alcohol from their parents. Dr Sue Bagshaw from Christchurch’s Youth Health Centre sees around 7000 teenagers every year. She says that for a teenager in New Zealand binge drinking is a rite of passage and that nothing will change until the marketing of alcohol and of alcopops in particular is restricted based on looking at what we have achieved with nicotine. 
A lot of the evidence of the impact of advertising on our children and young people is there. Of course we see evidence in relation not only to crime but also to drink-driving and binge drinking. In my own electorate of Mana there are nine alcohol outlets in Porirua East where the majority of the 19000 residents are aged between 15 and 24. We have seen huge evidence of the negative impacts of excessive alcohol advertising and easily accessible liquor outlets. Alcohol advertising will have contributed to the fact also that over the 10-year period from 1990 to 1999 14 to 17-year-olds doubled the amount they drank on a typical drinking occasion going from drinking two to three drinks to drinking five to six in later years. The information acquired by the Group Against Liquor Advertising from Statistics New Zealand showed that teenagers from 14 to 17 years of age drink about $2.7 million worth of alcohol per week. 
The other group that has concerns about this issue in relation to our young people are parents. Eighty-four percent of parents surveyed in the  
Seen and Heard: Children’s Media Use Exposure and Response 
 study from the Broadcasting Standards Authority in 2008 registered concern about their children’s exposure to television content. The steering group for the Review of the Regulation of Alcohol Advertising set up in 2007 after a recommendation from our Health Committee said that the goal of the review was “to see whether the existing regulatory framework for alcohol advertising fits with the Government’s alcohol policy.” At the core of the work of that steering group was the recommendation—a strong recommendation—to minimise the overall exposure of our children and young people under the minimum purchasing age to alcohol advertising. This is a big issue for us; it is the role of Government to look after the welfare of its citizens especially our young and especially our children. The review also showed that alcohol advertising plays a role in shaping the culture of drinking that has proliferated in New Zealand; it reflects and amplifies drinking practices in the context of a country’s social and economic and cultural history. It is important that we take responsibility for this issue as it is very very serious. 
The other thing with the Broadcasting Standards Authority jurisdiction is that voluntary health and community sectors have long advocated that alcohol-related harm is a public health issue best regulated by Government hence the importance of moving that advertising responsibility to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It is a public health issue; it is an issue for all of us. 
What was also interesting from the work of the steering group was that it showed a call from our youth for Government regulation. Submissions from youth-orientated organisations all over New Zealand proposed that alcohol advertising should be Government regulated. These organisations wanted regulation of alcohol advertising within broadcast programming and other alcohol advertising brought under one body and that call came from the young people also. It is really important that we hear that call. 
One of the most important issues in relation to this bill sponsored by Brendon Burns and it is why I encourage everyone to use their conscience vote to support it is that we have to take responsibility. That is why we are in these public roles; that is why we are members of Parliament. Our role is to make sure that we minimise alcohol harm but also ensure that it is a public health issue—it is an issue for all of us. We are expected as parliamentarians to do our best to align these bills before the House; of course the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill complements the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. The spirit of being able to rise above party politics is to use our conscience vote in a way that can really make a difference. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is really just an example of what we will face in this Parliament and have faced over many years with regard to this issue. It is not a new issue; it is not something that has just arisen in recent times. In fact this bill has its genesis in many other members’ bills that have been put forward to deal with the issue. That constant relooking at the issue of youth alcohol the advertising of alcohol and the alcohol drinking age is something that Parliament is grappling to come to terms with. In reality the constant number of members’ bills in this area reflects a concern in the community and in this Parliament but also an inability to find solutions. Governments of all descriptions have been grappling with the problem just as the members have. Members did not come to a unified approach in the last term of the previous Government and this Government is making attempts through the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill to remedy the issue. 
When we look at this bill we need to reflect quite deeply on the history and the nature of this issue. I remember that Martin Gallagher took over the bill from Matt Robson who originally brought it to the House. That was some time ago in 2005. Martin Gallagher was a member from Hamilton like me and he was a very good member. Tim Macindoe has taken over his seat representing it on behalf of the National Party and he is dealing with the very same issues in his electorate now that were there then. When Martin was bringing this bill forward he struggled to get votes for it as well. He found it difficult to get support across parties because the reality is that this Parliament has not judged the issue on its full merits yet. This Parliament is trying just to find some solutions and some stop-gap measures for something that it does not really want to face or has not had the courage to face in the appropriate manner. That is probably at the heart of what we should take from tonight’s debate. There is an issue that needs to be dealt with but this bill may not be the best way to deal with it. There may be better ways if we take a more cohesive approach and look at the wider issue and what we are actually dealing with. I think that is why from my personal point of view we will not be or I will not be supporting this bill. In the sense that— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: “We”? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No that is my personal view and I am allowed to have my personal view. There is an issue here but it needs to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. The appropriate manner is to find a cohesive solution that deals with the issue. We have been talking about members’ bills in this area for many years now and we have not received the response we needed. National has made an attempt as a Government to do something in this area. If we look at the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which had its first reading in the first part of this year we see that it also deals with the advertising of liquor and provides a more integrated approach to dealing with that issue. It focuses on families and youth in dealing with the issue and providing for personal responsibility. That bill deals with the advertising issue and sets clearer standards and provides consistent monitoring. 
One of the negatives of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that we are debating is the restriction on broadcasting of liquor advertising in the sense of that watershed period of 10 p.m. to midnight. Basically a young person in the age group that would be engaged in drinking will be up at that time of night. The really young will not be up then but for the others 10 p.m. to 12 p.m. is not late. That is probably the time when the TV programmes that are more suitable to their age group would be on and they would be watching them. That is why we have to look at the heart of the bill that we are debating tonight. It does not provide the right solution and that is why I am not voting for it. If it provided the right solutions then we would have a better chance of getting this bill through. 
When we look at the bill we see that it has separated out the purchase age from the restrictions on broadcasting which we are essentially talking about tonight. That purchase age is actually quite a heated issue and is part of the equation that needs to be dealt with along with the broadcasting issue. Breaking the issues up is an attempt to get one part of the approach through while leaving the other more contentious part out of the political arena at this time. From a political point of view that may be a savvy decision but it does not show that the bill intends to deal with the issues that we need to deal with. It probably shows an attempt to try to just deal with part of the issues— 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I point out that this bill does not have any reference to age issues. That matter was dealt with by the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: My whole point was that this bill does not have any talk of the age in it. If that member had been listening he would have been aware of that. But he was not listening to the nature of the debate. He did not take cognisance of the issues that have been raised and that is a shame when we consider that he is promoting this member’s bill. 
The bill should take into account the wider issues and deal with the nature of the problem rather than have a part taken out of it when that member thinks that it is politically expedient to do so and that it will enable the passing of the legislation. The reality is that we need a cohesive approach to this issue. We need to take a constructive approach where we look at the nature of the issue and work for some common solutions that will deal with the problems. We do not need to start up a patchwork of solutions which members think they can get through this House just because a bill deals with part of the issue. We need to take a more open approach and look at it in a wider sense. That is why the bill does not have my support anyway. 
When we look at the legislation that we can pass— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Well I do not see Labour members making alcohol illegal. That really goes to the heart of how we should deal with this issue rather than using slogans like “Tough on crime” when we are debating a bill that deals with a very important issue in our community. 
There is an opportunity for the House to delve into this issue at some stage and come to a constructive solution but this bill does not provide that solution. It is an attempt to provide part of the solution and in doing that it does not take into account the real issues that we are dealing with. We encourage members to look at those real issues in the future and to look to legislation that provides real and meaningful solutions rather than a measure that has been cut down for political expediency just to get it through the House. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Before I get under way I offer my congratulations to my colleague and friend Dr Rajen Prasad on becoming a grandfather for the first time today. Dr Prasad can see that the whole House is congratulating him and his family on the beautiful baby girl who has joined their family. 
But getting down to business I say I gave the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill quite serious thought because it is after all a conscience vote on the bill tonight although people may be surprised to hear that if they have just tuned into this debate. Earlier on in the debate Sandra Goudie made the slight mistake of using the word “we”. I do not know whether it was the royal “we” but she accidentally said: “We will not be supporting this bill.” I thought: “OK the National Party has had a bit of this lately. It doesn’t quite get around to telling its junior members exactly what its position is on everything.” After all that happened to Melissa Lee with regard to the Waterview extension. She was not quite told what National’s position was on it and then she was hung out to dry. I thought the use of the word “we” might show a lack of communication but then as the speeches went on we heard the same arguments being made over and over again. Obviously the National research unit did not produce very many notes on this bill so we heard the same arguments the same reasons for not voting in favour of this bill. 
Then the previous speaker Mr Bennett let that royal “we” slip in there again just by mistake I am sure. It was just a slip of the tongue. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It wasn’t a mistake. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It was not a mistake at all. It is not that the National caucus is not talking; actually the conversation at caucus probably went something along these lines: “We can’t whip you but here’s how you’re going to vote.” Members opposite have all been whipped into line even if just quietly— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been listening very intently since that gentleman rose to his feet but I have not heard one thing about the bill. All that he has spoken about so far is how supposedly National members are going to vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member makes a point but this debate does tend to be a little wider ranging than the member’s expectation. I would have to say that some other members have transgressed in that respect. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: This is a conscience vote and I know there have been some discussions of that. If I get time this evening I will refer to the Law Commission’s  
Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor  
and the commission’s thoughts on conscience voting to do with alcohol issues. 
This bill as we have discussed several times tonight does essentially two things: first it amends the watershed time for liquor advertising from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and second it seeks to transfer the jurisdiction for liquor advertising from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Mr Burns has put in a lot of work to make sure the Labour caucus is very well informed about the history of this bill. It was first introduced to the House by Matt Robson back in 2005. The torch was then passed to Martin Gallagher and it has now been passed to Brendon Burns. That is not a reflection at all on the quality of the bill; it is simply the nature of members’ bills I think. We have very few members’ days and members’ bills can languish at select committees. 
This is a good bill. It is a small step but a step very much in the right direction. We do have problems—not a problem but problems—with alcohol in this country and there is an expectation that we as politicians will be prepared to do something about that. We have heard from a lot of speakers on the other side of the House tonight about how we must do something about alcohol or about how we as a society must accept that we have to do something. But given the chance to do something that will do no harm—this bill will do no harm whatsoever; although this step may be a small step it is a step in the right direction—given the chance to take a step in the right direction and given the chance to take a favourable position on a public health issue the Government has failed to do so. The Government has absolutely failed to do so. Those members have been pulled into line on a conscience vote and— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They know. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right; those members know. Some of them should surely be able to see the merits of this bill and of getting in behind a small step in the right direction. 
When we talk to the police to social agencies to community drug and alcohol treatment services or to youth workers we find that they all want to talk to us about alcohol: about how alcohol is a driver of crime a driver of social deprivation and a driver of family and domestic violence. We have heard already this evening about the economic impact of harmful alcohol misuse and abuse. The cost to this country of alcohol abuse is $5.3 billion annually and that is out of a total cost of $6.2 billion—that is just $0.9 billion more—associated with harmful drug and alcohol abuse. That $5.3 billion cost is attributable to alcohol. Alcohol stands out; by far and away the single biggest drug issue we have in this country is the harmful misuse and abuse of alcohol. Yet given the opportunity to take one small step to do something about it the Government has failed to do so. 
We get nervous about tackling alcohol issues. Why is that? It is because there is a reasonable sociable and responsible way to use alcohol. I am sure that most members in this House probably enjoy a drink or two from time to time and enjoy it in an absolutely responsible and socially acceptable way. We get nervous around alcohol but we do not get that same kind of nervousness when we are talking about other drugs. One of those other drugs in particular at the moment is methamphetamine. Methamphetamine has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever—none whatsoever. It is highly addictive just like alcohol but it does not foster any social behaviour patterns in the way that alcohol can. The damage caused by methamphetamine use is absolutely minuscule in comparison with that caused by alcohol yet the Prime Minister amongst others has been banging on and on about P and methamphetamine. I do not disagree that we need to be vigilant about the harder drugs but why do we have such a disproportional attitude and response to something that has such a tiny impact in comparison with alcohol? I think that that is something we really have to come to terms with in this House. 
Alcohol is a drug. Geoffrey Palmer is on record as saying “Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is a drug. Alcohol would be classed as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 if it were treated on its merits … Obviously that is not going to happen but the properties of alcohol are the reason why it must be closely regulated. Alcohol like any other drug can do harm.” The opportunity is here tonight for members to take a small step and it is an opportunity where we are not being whipped but can stand up and speak on our own behalf and say what our position is. But unfortunately the Government is not prepared to take that opportunity. It is not prepared to take that opportunity at all. 
Some people would say to us that the advertising of alcohol does not really have very much of an impact and that it does not really encourage people to drink more. Do members know what I say to that? Yeah right! That Tui advertising campaign is now so much a part of New Zealand culture that it almost does not stand apart as an advertising campaign in itself. It is part of our culture. It is as much a part of our culture as binge drinking is. It is part of the normalisation of a harmful approach to alcohol. So advertising does work and I am sure most people will remember an example of that—and we are going back a couple of years here—namely the Lion Red Chin Heads advertising campaign. The penetration of that advertising to minors was illustrated through research that showed that 97 percent of minors recalled seeing the Chin Heads ad 71 percent knew that it was for Lion Red 92 percent had positive views about the ad and 64 percent thought the Chin Heads humour would appeal to minors. OK advertising works. It is why the liquor industry engages in advertising it is why Coca-Cola engages in advertising and it is why the tobacco industry has found the one last bastion of advertising which is point-of-sale advertising. 
We know that advertising works so an opportunity to restrict the consumption of alcohol should be leapt at. But Government members—and I say this again—have absolutely failed to take that opportunity. As I have said I have given this bill considerable thought. It is a small step but it is a step worth taking. I am very very pleased to vote in favour of this bill and to support my colleague Brendon Burns. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise as the last speaker on this bill the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. This is a conscience matter and the bill was originally introduced well before my time in Parliament but it deals with some really interesting matters that I think affect my family and people I know. It is ironic that the bill is being sponsored by the member for Christchurch Central given that the last two members who have sponsored the bill are no longer in the House. It does not create auspicious occasions for that member. 
Amy Adams 
: Bill of doom! 
AARON GILMORE 
: It is a bill of doom. I am opposed to this bill and opposed to it for some good reasons. I am not opposed to some of the bill’s aims but I am opposed to its means. It seeks to go about achieving its aims in ways that I just cannot agree with. This bill in effect has also now been superseded. 
We are all worried about the impacts of alcohol; we are all worried about the impacts of alcohol on young people in particular. As one of the youngest members of this House I have recently experienced and seen many of the things that alcohol can do to young people. In my time as a young man I have been one of the generation that has been a guinea pig for alcohol laws. We are the ones who have grown up with booze in our dairies we have had ads for brands blasted at us 24/7 and we have seen the good bad and ugly after the lowering of the purchase age from 20 to 18. Working part-time in a bar as a student also made me see the stupidity of the old law with the purchase age at 20 years and the lengths that students would go to in order to deal with some of the law’s potential loopholes like selling meal tickets and other strange behaviours. 
It is also ironic that the focus of this bill is solely on youth when we know that young people get a bit of a bum steer. I was interested in Rahui Katene’s mention tonight of how this bill is focused on youth and how youth are not always the sole problem in regard to drinking. I can tell members that the most scared I have ever been in my entire life was when I was a bar manager in Christchurch on the night of a male strip review and 20 middle-aged women were liquored up to the max to the extent that I was frightened to leave the building and I locked myself in the toilet. I was the most frightened I had ever been in my entire life. When 20 drunken middle-aged women were chasing me looking for action I can tell members that that was the most frightening moment of my life. 
Hon Member 
: Come on—you enjoyed every moment of it. 
David Garrett 
: You can see your six-pack from here. 
AARON GILMORE 
: That is right—that is right. I have seen many many middle-aged people out of control from drinking. A number of members of this House have had their problems with drinking with drink-driving and with other things needing professional help for their drinking. Some of those members have spoken tonight. Alcohol abuse cuts across society not just youth. We are fooling ourselves if we think this bill will solve that problem. It is my experience that most young people watch television and listen to the radio—shock horror—late at night. Yet what is this bill designed to do? It restricts the advertising of alcohol to late at night. 
What would that mean in practice? Let us talk about some of the research. According to research by ACNielsen—which by the way the research unit did not come up with—total drink advertising expenditure in all media in 2005-06 was 21 percent lower than the level of advertising in 2002 which is a drop of about $11 million. This drop in advertising was accompanied by an increase in per capita consumption of 7 percent. So the relationship between advertising spend and alcohol consumption is not quite as valid as one might think. 
Hone Harawira 
: Hiding in the toilets eh! 
AARON GILMORE 
: That is right—hiding in the toilets. I can tell my friend that it was a frightening evening. What would happen if we shortened the time for advertising? It would intensify the effectiveness of the TV broadcast dollar spend. That $41 million or $50 million would be spent in a shorter space of time. We would have wall-to-wall advertising showing all sorts of things that we do not really want to see. To borrow a phrase from one of the liquor providers if members think this would solve the problem—yeah right! I can see the billboards now—“Yeah right!”. Will this bill solve the problem? Yeah right! This bill also tries to tidy up some perceived crossovers in responsibility between the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority in relation to TV. I can tell members that my 6-year-old son knows that the “Yeah right!” billboard that we drive past every week to go to rugby practice advertises Tui and Tui means beer. But he also knows that beer is not for kids or teenagers because he has good parents who teach him that. 
This bill would fragment liquor regulation of the media and that seems to me to be just nuts. More important this bill is not just about using the wrong tools to solve problems that we wish to solve; it is being superseded by another bill—the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. This bill deals with the problem in the advertising of liquor. That bill gives us a better more thoughtful way of dealing with and approaching these issues. Yes I agree as do many members in this House that our alcohol laws need some change. But this bill we have tonight will not do it. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill goes further. 
I enjoy a social drink with my friends and whanau and I would hate to see a move to restrict too far the law-abiding people who wish to pick up a bottle of wine at the supermarket and enjoy it with good food or to see a restriction on my ability to know what is the biggest special on wine at my supermarket. 
Tonight we have heard many arguments from across this Chamber. Most agree that we need to do something about this problem. Most have spoken in favour of the bill from the opposite side of the House. But even those members opposite who have spoken admit that this bill will not solve the problem of youth drinking. Members opposite claim that this bill is a step in the right direction. I say that this bill will not go far enough and the bill that is soon to become before us— 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s window dressing! 
AARON GILMORE 
: That is right; this is just window dressing. This bill will not solve our problems. It is better that we stop we wait and we see the work of the Law Commission which is currently doing a good job and this work is about 6 weeks away. The Government has indicated to the Law Commission that it will give priority to liquor issues and to the advice of the Law Commission. Many members would have seen the early work that has come out from the Law Commission and it talks about all sorts of things that I think we need to have good discussion about. The Law Commission which is led by a former Labour member has put forward some good ideas on how to deal with some of these problems. It is 6 weeks away. It is wrong to go off half-cocked and get to a situation where we have processed this bill but then have to change it or amend it to fix some of its problems. 
I look forward to seeing the results of the Law Commission review and the debate we will have on it at that time. I think we need to sit down and think about it. Is this a bill that would solve youth drinking? No. Is this a bill as borne out by statistics that would stop the advertising of liquor? No. Is it a bill that may increase the effectiveness of spend in a period of time? Yes. Does a reduction in spending on alcohol advertising result in decreased alcohol consumption? No it does not. This bill should disappear. Research has shown that in 2005-06 a decline in expenditure actually led to an increase in alcohol consumption. ACNielsen did that research. It is a very good research company that is independent of everybody sitting here tonight. I say to this bill: haere ra! 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Boscawen Garrett); Maori Party 5. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Douglas Hide Roy); United Future 1. 
Question not agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 58 
Ardern J 
Delahunty 
Jones (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Barker 
Fenton 
Katene 
Prasad 
Beaumont (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Kedgley 
Ririnui (P) 
Boscawen 
Flavell 
King A (P) 
Robertson G (P) 
Bradford (P) 
Garrett 
Laban 
Robertson H (P) 
Burns 
Goff (P) 
Lees-Galloway 
Sepuloni 
Carter C (P) 
Graham (P) 
Locke 
Sharples 
Chadwick 
Hague (P) 
Mackey 
Sio 
Chauvel 
Harawira 
Mahuta 
Street (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins 
Mallard 
Turei (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hipkins 
Moroney (P) 
Turia 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson 
Nash  
Twyford (P) 
Curran (P) 
Horomia 
Norman 
Dalziel 
Hughes (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Teller: 
Davis 
Huo 
Parker(P) 
Dyson 
Noes 62 
Adams 
Douglas (P) 
Kaye (P) 
Shanks (P) 
Dunne (P) 
Key (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Auchinvole 
English (P) 
King C  
Smith N (P) 
Bakshi 
Finlayson (P) 
Lee (P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Bennett D 
Foss (P) 
Lotu-Iiga (P) 
Tisch 
Bennett P (P) 
Gilmore 
Macindoe 
Tolley (P) 
Blue (P) 
Goodhew 
Mapp 
Tremain 
Borrows (P) 
Goudie (P) 
McClay (P) 
Upston (P) 
Bridges (P) 
Groser (P) 
McCully (P) 
Wagner 
Brownlee (P) 
Guy (P) 
Parata (P) 
Wilkinson (P) 
Calder 
Hayes (P) 
Peachey 
Williamson (P) 
Carter D 
Heatley 
Power (P) 
Wong 
Carter J 
Henare (P) 
Quinn 
Woodhouse 
Coleman 
Hide (P) 
Roy E 
Young (P) 
Collins (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Roy H 
Teller: 
Dean (P) 
Joyce (P) 
Ryall 
Hide 
Motion not agreed to. 
Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an issue that has been at the heart of dealings between whanau hapu local government and public entities. This bill—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that we have just had a personal vote and that people are moving around but because this bill is very important to my heart and my soul I would appreciate it if members could move quickly so that I can deliver the sort of speech that will make my people—in particular our Maori Party—proud this evening. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member’s point of order has had the desired effect. He has the attention of the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: This bill is the first that we as the Maori Party have prepared and finally seen in the House under our own banner—i a! The bill was drawn up after the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill which as we know has been set in abeyance while it is considered by a review panel. This bill arriving here tonight is a significant event for our party so I acknowledge all of those in our team who have given advice especially Judge Heta Hingston the former judge of the Maori Land Court. 
If one were to ask the purpose of this bill one can read in the explanatory note that it is “to ensure that former owners of Maori or general land taken or acquired by the Crown for the purposes of a public work are given the first right of refusal to purchase that land where the Crown no longer requires it for the public work for which it was originally taken and/or acquired.” The bill covers a complex area which none the less has had a long-lasting impact on our whanau hapu and iwi and indeed on many New Zealanders. In essence we are talking about people who have borne the cost of the land being taken by either so-called agreement or compulsion. 
I say for those who do not know that the origins of the 1981 Public Works Act emerged out of English law. The 1882 and 1928 Public Works Acts were the road maps to developing the infrastructure of what the colonists thought was their new country. There have been numerous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal resulting from the historical use of public works legislation to dispossess Maori of their land. Agents of the Crown have endeavoured throughout the years to come to grips with the problems of land taken under the Public Works Act and no longer used for the purpose for which it was taken. The last big round of consultation was held throughout 2001 and resulted in a series of policy options that appear to have been “deferred” or filed away in the back drawer. This is an issue then that has been parked for many years yet an issue that has never ever been resolved. 
When this bill was drawn from the ballot in July 2007 it became obvious within hours that the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act was still a hotly contested issue. We heard about two blocks of land on Panepane Point on Matakana Island in the Tauranga area that are currently owned by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council which acquired the land through the Act. We heard about a maze of paper roads that run through Te Urewera. We learnt about the impact of the legislation on the whanau associated with the Paraparaumu Airport lands Te Whanau a Te Ngarara Inc. The airport land was taken by the Government under the Public Works Act to build a Second World War aerodrome. It was then sold to private interests by tender with the tender limited to people participating in the aviation industry for goodness’ sake! 
At home in Rotorua we had the same concerns when in the early 1960s about 81 hectares of the hapu land that was the paramount tribal settlement of Ngati Uenukukopako was taken under the Public Works Act for the establishment of an aerodrome. Claimants from Ngati Turangitukua have asked for the mandatory return of land that the Crown took under the Public Works Act in order to develop the town of Turangi in the 1960s. There has been a call from the New Plymouth hapu Ngati Te Whiti against plans for council-owned land near the Te Henui cemetery. Ngati Te Whiti Ahika have petitioned the New Plymouth District Council that the site is ancestral land and should be returned to the tangata whenua. There is also the case of the land overlooking the harbour at Te Atatu. The land was acquired by the Auckland Harbour Board in the 1950s under the Public Works Act for development as a deepwater port. The Waitakere City Council set aside part of the land for a marae project in 2002 but the actual site is encompassed within land that the original descendants of that whenua believe should have been offered back in the 1990s to the original owners. 
Further north near Moerewa there is the case of Orauta School which was established on Crown land reserved for Maori school use. In 2005 an occupation was held by local Maori who stated that Maori had a right to the school’s occupation and use for educational purposes as gazetted in 1940 when the land was taken under the Public Works Act for a native school. At that point the Ministry of Education decided to offer back the land to its original owners a move that we warmly welcomed but that is not necessarily universally applied. 
In my own tribal nation of Ngati Rangiwewehi in Rotorua the Public Works Act is a sore point—firstly because it took land; and secondly because in taking the land it fenced off our people from a key piece of our history. Taniwha Springs is a reference to our taniwha Pekehaua our kaitiaki and our guardian. Fresh water gushes from his lair; that place just happens to be on the land that was subsequently taken in 1966 by the public works legislation. Taking the land allowed for access to water to feed the township of Rotorua but nothing went back to our people. 
These examples are just some of the many examples of land that was taken under the Public Works Act for a specific purpose and is no longer used for that purpose. The examples show the distaste many people have for this Act. Of course it is not only Maori who have suffered from this policy. I give a case in point: the  
Independent Financial Review 
 on 1 December 2006 reported a case involving a Pakeha family—the Lambie family in Auckland to be precise—who had their farmland compulsorily taken by Auckland International Airport in the 1970s. The crux of this matter is that whether the land was confiscated or taken under the Public Works Act the original owners want their land returned whether it is private or Government-owned land. This bill then attempts to respond to these longstanding grievances. 
Regarding the types of arrangement for the offer back of and payment of compensation for acquired land to Maori there are some strong recommendations from both the submissions in the  
Review of the Public Works Act 
 and the Waitangi Tribunal. In the 2001 review Maori wanted land to be offered back in all cases preferably at less than the current market value or at no cost. There was also a call for compensation because with that land the acquiring authorities had also acquired the benefit of that land use. We expected that the Crown would act in good faith be well informed and redress any grievances in a timely manner but as the history record proves the Crown has failed to respect Treaty interests and in doing so has neglected the need to recognise and protect the rangatiratanga of the claimants who have been affected by the legislation. 
The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Bill also provides for solatium payments to be made for loss of land and/or opportunities associated with the use of that land where land was acquired or alienated for a public works use for which it was not actually used. Where the former owners of the land are deceased these rights may be exercised by their descendants.” The fact that the land is offered back generally at market value is often inappropriate when land has been acquired for many years and has appreciated considerably. Although the nature of any improvement of the land might be assessed at current market value we know that many claimants have recommended that a base value of the land be taken as at the date of its being taken. This is particularly so where breaches of the Treaty have occurred in relation to original takings which should be a mandatory consideration in the assessment of the value. 
Usually land has been developed for the public good and generally the community has benefited. Yet despite making this contribution Maori have missed out on the opportunity for development of their land and then have had to try to purchase the land at the current value which has increased due to the developments by others around the land itself. There are many instances where land has been sold to the Crown for a specific purpose and only for that purpose. This bill according to the explanatory note “proposes land sold to the Crown should be offered back to the original owners and/or their descendants.” It is also proposed that the land taken under the Public Works Act and no longer used for the purpose for which it was acquired not be land banked to settle Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Public Works Act has been responsible for a vast amount of State acquisition of Maori land. Indeed some would call that the State-sponsored theft of tribal whenua. Every opportunity should be taken to return this land to the original owners if the public purpose has expired. 
In closing I and the Maori Party would like to thank in advance all of the parties in the House for their—I am sure—support for this particular bill and for the opportunity that will come with its going to public submission and through the parliamentary process. I very much appreciate the support given by members to the bill. Tena tatou katoa. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell on his important speech which marked the very first member’s bill for the Maori Party. This bill concerns the handling of land taken by the Crown under the Public Works Act 1981. Mr Flavell and the Maori Party are particularly concerned about Maori land. Mr Flavell gave us a whole kete of examples of where land has been taken and is now being used for a different purpose from what it was intended for originally. This bill also concerns the land of Europeans Pakeha and all nationalities in our country. 
This bill has two purposes. The first is to make sure that the former owners of land taken under the Public Works Act are given the first right of refusal to purchase land that is no longer required for the purpose it was taken for. It is also to provide for solatium payments where land taken for a purpose is not actually used for that purpose. The first right of refusal for original landholders is already provided for in section 40 of the Public Works Act but this bill amends section 40 and provides more certainty for landowners. It deals with a whole series of different scenarios. The Public Works Act introduced a new regime to protect landowners and their ownership rights. It required that when the Commissioner of Works—whose equivalent now is the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand—or a local authority was disposing of land no longer required for public works the land was offered back to the original owners. When the former owner had died the land was to be offered back to his or her successor. Then finally it would be offered to the public for public sale. 
I have seen situations in central Christchurch where that has happened very successfully in the case of Pakeha land. One example is when Christchurch Girls’ High School moved from Cranmer Square in the central city to a new site across the park and the properties around the school that had been taken under the Public Works Act for school use were offered back to the original owners at market value. My local doctor had had his surgery next to the school taken 20 years previously and he was offered the property back. In actual fact it was his son who negotiated the sale. In that case the law worked well. But nothing is ever simple. There have been many situations where original landowners who may have expected the opportunity to get their land back have not been able to get their land back. 
There are a number of examples where land that has been taken for a specific purpose such as railways or roading then is no longer required for that purpose. Under the current law the Crown or the local authority may retain that land to use for another public purpose or the Crown or local authority can transfer that land to another public entity as long as that will be used for a public purpose without triggering the offer-back provisions. The result is that although the land was taken for a dedicated purpose and is no longer required for that purpose the original owner still has no opportunity to regain ownership. The original owner still has no opportunity to regain ownership despite the fact that the land is not being used for the purpose that it has been taken for and despite the fact that the purpose for which the land was taken formed part of the agreement between the owner the Crown and the local authority. The use of that land for another purpose is arguably in breach of this agreement. Furthermore the original owner does not get any compensation for his or her lost opportunity arising from the land being taken for a purpose for which it is not being used. There have been suggestions that sometimes the land has been sold on to Crown entities and that the use of that land is for profit with no benefit returns to the original owners. 
In this bill section 40 of the Public Works Act is amended to deal with those issues. The first amendment removes the ability for public bodies to transfer the land to another public purpose without triggering the offer-back provisions of the Public Works Act. The second removes the provision that land need not be offered back if it is impractical unreasonable or unfair to do so or if there has been a significant change in the character of the land since it was acquired. The third part of the amendment requires land to be given back at no cost if compensation was not paid when the land was originally taken for the public purpose. 
Most New Zealanders agree that the Crown must act in good faith. It is potentially in breach of good faith to take land for a specific purpose and not use it for that purpose and then not return it. In the case of Maori it is a breach of the good-faith partnership established under the Treaty of Waitangi. The second part of this bill provides for solatium payments in cases where the land is not used for the public works for which it was taken. The original owners or their successors may apply to the Land Valuation Tribunal for a solatium payment from the Crown for the loss of use and the loss of opportunities associated with the loss of that land. The bill requires that when accessing the amount of solatium payment regard must be taken of the means of the former owners and the circumstances surrounding the compulsory acquisition of such land. 
The Government will be supporting this bill through its first reading and will allow it to go to a select committee for more detailed consideration. There has been agitation for a change in the Public Works Act for some time. There was a review in 2001 and there has been a lot of talk a lot of papers and a lot of proposal about change but nothing has happened since then. 
Paul Quinn 
: Since when? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Since 2001. 
Paul Quinn 
: Who was in Government? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: I believe it was a Labour Government. We recognise that there are a number of significant concerns about this bill in its current form. However important issues have been raised and they deserve the consideration of the select committee process. We encourage the public and Maori in particular to make submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an important issue for Maori and for Pakeha and it is important to get it right. We support this bill. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next member I observe that the next calls are all 5 minutes long. If they wish I will give the members a warning bell at 4 minutes. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill Te Ururoa Flavell for his efforts. I register the intention of Labour to support the first reading of the bill. I also note that the bill will be sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee and I support that intention. In terms of the issues that will be raised within the context of this bill I think it will be useful for the select committee to hear them. 
The intent of the bill is to rectify longstanding grievances which have already been discussed by the sponsoring member. Those grievances are about how under the Public Works Act land has been acquired for specific purposes but has been retained long after those purposes have expired or perhaps some of the purposes have changed over time. I know from a number of local examples throughout the country that there are situations where land acquired has not been used for the initial purpose for which it was acquired and has been the subject of a number of Treaty of Waitangi claims. The point has been well made that the bill will raise a number of issues in that regard. 
The bill also applies to general land and there are numerous examples throughout our various communities and cities of very important and serious issues to do with the way in which the Public Works Act has or has not achieved its purpose. 
The bill raises a number of questions. Given that I have such a short time in which to speak I want to put some of those questions before the House. I hope that in the fullness of time and through the submission process the select committee may make some useful amendments in support of the intent of this bill in order to help it achieve its purpose. In that regard the first issue that I see is the definition of “the Crown” and who that signifies. If one looks at the way the Public Works Act works one sees that the definition should include requiring authorities it should include local government it should include Crown entities and it should most definitely include Crown agencies. That is the first point. 
The second point is in terms of the solatium payments. When Matt Robson initiated the review of the Public Works Act in 2001 a number of submissions stated that the issue of the solatium payments should be considered further in order to broaden the implication of the solatium payment. I understand that the intent of the bill aims to achieve that. 
I want to raise for further consideration by this House—and I hope it comes up through the submission process—the way in which solatium payments will be negotiated on a case by case basis with landowners. There is some indication in the bill that the circumstances in which lands were acquired should be taken into account when the solatium payment is decided. But more important the issue of lost opportunities that have or have not occurred on that land should be taken into account. That is a really important point because some lands that were acquired for a particular purpose have been used and then no longer utilised and development on those lands has not been taken into account—for example lands taken for education purposes which may have buildings on them; and lands taken for railway purposes which may have some developments on them. So that is an important issue that should be raised and I hope it comes up at the select committee. 
The last matter I raise for the consideration of the House which may be answered further on down the track is the application of this bill with regard to current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. Is it the intention that this bill will supersede current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal that are about issues to do with the Public Works Act or is the intention that the claims process for the Waitangi Tribunal and the process proposed by the bill will operate in conjunction with each other? I do not think those questions could be answered fully in the House in this regard but they should be pursued further at the select committee. 
Without further ado I again acknowledge Te Ururoa and his fine efforts. I hope the select committee draws on some of the findings of the 2001 review because they will be a useful contribution to the consideration of the bill. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this particular Maori Party member’s bill the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. 
I reinforce what the previous speaker from this side of the House Nicky Wagner said and confirm that this side of the House will support sending this bill to a select committee. We will support the first reading. Having said that I say that I stand for a reason which is that I have had firsthand experience in respect of Treaty of Waitangi settlements around this Public Works Act. Although I can sympathise I guess with the previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta I think that in reality she misses some of the actual detail because they are not the real issues. 
I think it was timely that during question time there was a question that I could almost have asked myself; in fact by some sort of divine guidance it was asked of the Minister for Land Information by a member of the Maori Party. It was pointed out in that question—notwithstanding the difficulties that this particular Act has caused Maori in terms of their Treaty settlements which I want to share with members very shortly—that the Government of the day between 1999 and 2008 had three separate reviews of this Act and each time it parked it. Now members of the Opposition stand here and say what a great thing this bill is. Their behaviour is just another example of procrastination of deferring and of setting up a committee to review the committee’s work to review another report because they were spellbound and had no idea what they should do. I thought it was ironic that that question should be asked on the very day that this bill comes before us. It is a timely reminder about the previous Government’s lack of work on understanding of and commitment to these very real issues that face Maori in terms of Treaty settlements. 
I want to say why this bill is important to this Government and to me personally. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Who did your settlement? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Ngati Awa. I could speak for days on this but sadly I have only another 3 minutes left. Ngati Awa in fact had land declared surplus under section 40 in 1999. Ngati Awa had to go through two Land Information New Zealand reports and two High Court judicial reviews to prove that the Whakatane District Council was not the rightful body to which the land should go. The Land Information New Zealand report had decreed that it should go to that council. That is the sort of expense that Maori Treaty claimants had to go to under that Government because it was unprepared to stand by the principles that its members now espouse. That is the expense that Ngati Awa had to go to in order to prove its claim. Do members know that even now we are still waiting for a third report? 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Shh! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Well it is just that Parekura is speaking so loudly. We are now waiting for a third report. I could go on for days because I know about section 40 and section 50 of the Public Works Act. I know everything about this matter. I am just glad that we are supporting the opportunity to send the bill to a select committee to discuss all these issues—the issues that are dear to the Maori Party but also the issues that are dear to other Maori groups that are confronting the Public Works Act. I am very pleased that this Government is getting on with the job. It reaffirms once again its commitment to action and to getting on with the job. I support the Maori Party in sending this bill to a select committee. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 If Mr Quinn and his party were so enthusiastic about the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill if they wanted to see action and if they wanted to get right behind it then it would be a Government bill. 
We have seen already tonight on a members’ day how long it takes for a member’s bill to get through this place. Tonight we have been debating a bill that was first tabled in this House back in 2005. This bill came out of the ballot—here is the press release from Mr Flavell—on 26 July 2007. That is when it came out of the ballot. But by the nature of member’s bills here we are in 2009 having the first reading of this bill. If Mr Quinn was not being so disingenuous about it if he was serious about it and if he did not speak with two faces on it then he would be encouraging his colleagues in National to get behind this bill and make it a Government bill. It is fine for that member to stand up and say that the previous administration did this and that the previous administration did that. You are in Government now. You are in charge. Get on with it—govern. Do your job. Do your job man! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Hey! Hey! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: My apologies Mr Assistant Speaker Barker; I did not mean to bring you into the debate. 
This bill is quite simple. I had no intention whatsoever to speak for long on this bill. The aims of this bill are quite clear and simple and the Labour Party supports them. There are two aspects to this bill. The first aspect aims to give the land’s previous owners the first right of refusal should public land become available. The second aspect aims to offer some recourse to those people whose land was acquired under the Public Works Act but was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. 
Potentially an interesting situation will soon arise around what happens to State-owned land that is used for defence purposes. The Government has said that there is a possibility that some land used for defence purposes will be privatised. The Government has talked about selling off the land to private owners then leasing it back from them. This is a good National Party ideological position: to sell it off then lease it back. But should this bill go through there may be a flaw in that plan if the original owners of that land want to take the land back. My colleague Nanaia Mahuta raised several questions that will hopefully be addressed in the select committee. I would like to add that situation to the mix as a potential tripping point should the Government continue with its planned sale of defence land. But with regard to the bill’s first reading and its referral to the select committee the Labour Party is very happy to support it. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. The Green Party is extremely supportive of the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. We congratulate the Maori Party on its first member’s bill. We are extremely supportive of the kaupapa that Te Ururoa Flavell has brought to this House. 
It is often said that whatungarongaro te tangata toitu te whenua. People perish but the land remains. In essence the land does remain but thanks to the Public Works Act and a large number of other instruments of colonial rule 96 percent of Aotearoa was removed from tangata whenua to benefit Crown objectives from the mid-1800s to this day. This bill seeks to patch up a jigsaw of justice that will never be complete but each piece has the potential to build a more harmonious picture. 
We have been looking at clause 4 “Purposes”. There are many things in the clause that we feel are very good and we are sure that the select committee process will make them even better. We are a bit confused however in relation to the wording about the first right of refusal for former owners of land taken under the Public Works Act to purchase back the land when the Crown no longer requires it. The Green Party believes that that provision is a little bit mean. A thief or a conman should not be able to come back to the victim many years later and offer to sell back the stolen items at current market rates saying “Here you are; I have brought back your treasure. It has been a bit damaged but it is worth heaps compared with when I stole it from you so now you can pay me at current market rates. But hey you get the first choice!”. I recognise that the bill will not solve all of these problems but at least it makes a start in the right direction. 
I support the comments that the date on which something was taken should be the time when the price is set. Virtually all the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal make reference to the effect of the Public Works Act in facilitating the taking of land from the tangata whenua in Aotearoa. In some instances as clause 4 seeks to redress compensation was not paid at the time. For example there was compulsory acquisition of Ahuriri Lagoon from Ngati Kahungunu back in 1851 and no money was paid. Whatever the land was used for—whether or not it was used for the supposed purpose at the time—we need to give it back and celebrate the clauses in this bill which will give it back with no cost. 
Clause 4(c) is also vital. The descendants of those who were disenfranchised must be recognised and allowed to have their birthright back. Paul Quinn said he could talk for days about the many instances of disenfranchised descendants—and I am sure we all hoped that he would—but I will talk briefly about Hauraki a place where I come from and live. In Hauraki the Maori trust board made a submission to the Local Government Rates Inquiry in May 2007 in which it pointed out that both willingly by gift and unwillingly by the Public Works Act Hauraki Maori have made significant contributions to community infrastructure and facilities such as roads schools churches and halls. Thus Hauraki Maori have contributed to the public good but have very rarely benefited from that public good. They still pay rates but have not received justice yet under the Public Works Act. 
The Green Party supports this bill because it is a way of overturning a process that has been going on in this country for a very long time. First there were the missionary and the musket. Then there were the measles and the flu. Then there were the gunboat and the Native Land Court. And then there were the Public Works Act and many of its unpleasant legal colleagues. This bill is a good start in terms of overcoming that process. 
I will also talk about another example that is dear to my heart: Tai Rawhiti Turanganui a Kiwa. I went to the Turanganui a Kiwa claim. On the last day of the claim I was the only Pakeha in the room who was not a lawyer. One of the problems we have with this situation is that so few Pakeha have engaged seriously in understanding what has gone on in the removal of the rights of Maori because they do not attend or participate in processes that are about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and about justice for all of us not just justice for Maori. Let us take Watson Park a sportsground in the middle of Gisborne. Watson Park is the whenua of Rongowhakaata. It was taken by the Crown for a Pakeha cemetery for Gisborne City. It was then not used for a cemetery; it was used as a rubbish dump then as a playground and sportsground and now the Gisborne District Council would like to toss it back to tangata whenua to Rongowhakaata but at market rates. 
We need these sorts of bills to redress these issues and I hope the select committee will make this bill even stronger. We support the bill’s purposes. We vote for this bill as another step towards reconciliation plus resources which together become a recipe for justice. Tena koutou katoa. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next speaker I remind members that they are not to bring the Speaker into the debate. We have now had a number of speeches where it is about “you”—“You did this” and “You did that”. Well the Speaker did none of those things. I remind members that such references should be in the third person. It is difficult I know but we need to improve. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill in its first reading. 
Sadly I am in the position we often find ourselves in of having to question whether the Green Party members have actually read the bill that is being debated. We have just heard a passionate speech about land being stolen then sold back at market rates. Well unless I am much mistaken clause 5(2)(d) requires that any land that has been taken for which compensation was not paid must be offered back to the owners or their successors at “no cost where the Crown originally acquired or alienated the land for no compensation;”. I find myself on the same side as the Green Party but once again it would be really good if those members were to read the bills that they speak to. 
The reason I have got up without having planned to do so is that I thought the member in charge of the bill referred to the Raglan golf course issue— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Read the bill—you’re talking about 4(a). It’s not that hard! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Well I just did. The member should have a look. Clause 5(2)(d) inserts a new section 40(2)(ba) into the Public Works Act. 
I come from the generation for whom the Raglan golf course land confiscation and the consequences that flowed from it were a huge issue. For the benefit of those younger members who are not entirely familiar with the issue the land that became the Raglan golf course was taken from the Maori owners during the Second World War for use as an airfield which was never built. I understand that the late Eva Rickard from the end of the war until her death agitated furiously and stoically— 
Hone Harawira 
: Successfully. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —and successfully for the return of the land. At the time I often found myself in a minority of one. A lot of the Pakeha whom I knew said things like: “Well why should we give it back to them? It will just grow lupins when the Maoris own it.” I used to say that that was their choice—it was their land. I said that if they wanted to grow lupins on it or kumara on it or whatever—or just look at it—it was their business. But people used to say that it was great land. That whole injustice went on for years. It caused huge dissension between Maori and Pakeha and it caused incredible resentment—and rightly so. Why on earth should it have been any kind of issue whether the land would be returned? It was an absolute no-brainer. It should have been a no-brainer but Muldoon maintained for years the argument that it would be used only to grow lupins. 
I see this bill as a no-brainer. It requires that land that was bought or taken from people be offered back to them first at market rates if it had been bought at market rates. I cannot quite see how the Greens could object to that. If land was stolen with no compensation then it is to be offered back; that is how I read the bill but if I am wrong we will find out at the select committee. 
ACT has great pleasure in supporting this bill being referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Tena koutou e te whanau. The Minister for Land Information revealed today a staggering list of delays and deferrals associated with the many reviews of the Public Works Act the most recent of which attracted 90 submissions from Maori—more than 30 percent of all submissions received. This clearly shows the level of interest that Maori have in this issue and is perhaps why so many delays and deferrals have been caused by the Crown—if Maori are interested then let us do nothing. Or perhaps it is because challenging the compulsory acquisition of Maori land is an issue best swept under the carpet to be cleaned up by another Government further down the track or to be revisited when Maori are too tired to fight any longer. 
If we look through the submissions from the 2001 review we see that the concerns that have arisen from public works legislation going right back to 1864 have torn at the very soul of Maoridom and created a clear perception that the many institutions of Government have worked against Maori in the past and offer little hope for making a difference in the future. The challenge for the Maori Party was that any review of the public works legislation had to be based around the notion of redressing those injustices and re-establishing the connection between tangata whenua and whenua lost. 
The issue of protecting Maori land is not new. My thoughts go back to 1975 when Te Roopu o te Matakite was formed to fight the continuing alienation of Maori land and when Whina Cooper led the nation in a historic march from Te Rerenga Wairua to Wellington under the banner of “Not one acre more” to raise public awareness of the massive loss of Maori land and to signal the determination of Maori not to accept the continuance of that situation. I think of the 5000 marchers who carried the hopes of the Maori nation of the petitions signed by 60000 people and of the memorial of rights signed by 200 of our kaumatua and kuia. 
We all know about the Maori land struggles that have been debated in this House on many many occasions in the past. There have been countless reviews and petitions to Parliament tablings of proceedings of the Waitangi Tribunal and debates about the righteous occupations that aimed to restore Maori ownership of Maori land that was taken improperly by the Crown right throughout the country. Most notably and most recently this has occurred in Raglan Bastion Point and even more recently in Tuwharetoa Hauraki and Ngati Kahu. 
I congratulate my good Ngapuhi brother Te Ururoa Flavell on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill which responds to the people’s call that enough is enough that too much land has been lost into Crown hands and that it is time through this bill to begin to right those wrongs and redress in a small way that massive imbalance. The bill targets section 40 of the Public Works Act which deals with the disposal of surplus land. The current provisions of section 40 do nothing to protect the interests of those who want their land returned. Until section 40 of the Public Works Act is strengthened those interests will continue to be ignored. 
I am proud today to speak for the Maori Party to speak in support of the member for Waiariki and to speak on behalf of all those whanau hapu and iwi who have waited for generations for this issue to come before the House. I mihi to Te Ururoa Flavell for this the very first bill to be drafted and delivered by a Maori Party member in the history of this Parliament. I sincerely hope this bill will be positively received and supported by all intelligent parties in this House. 
Jonathan Young 
: That’s us! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: That is all of us—hopefully. 
These amendments will mean that land that was taken for public works and never used for that purpose or land that is no longer needed for that purpose is offered back to the original owners in the first instance. It is simple—this is not rocket science. This is about offering back land that is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired. Yes there may be issues around whether facilities originally included in the public works have changed over time but these are not insurmountable problems; they are just technicalities that can be easily dealt with if the Crown is willing. Yes there may be issues around whether compensation is sufficient to purchase replacement land of equivalent value but again if the desire for justice is there those issues too will be resolved easily enough. 
This bill is simply the application of good common sense whereby land no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired is offered back to the original owners. The Maori Party will support this bill without reservation. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 E tu atu i runga i te karanga o te pire nei. E mihi kau ana i a koutou te Ropu Maori ki a koe e te tuakana e Te Ururoa tena koe. Na te mea e mohio atu tatou mai ra ano e rongo atu ki nga korero e korerotia atu a Hone ma me nga korero a nga pati mo te take taumaha nei. Na te mea mohio atu tatou te tangohia a wera o nga ropu te Kawana nga kaunihera ratou ma te whenua e kore mo te hoki. No reira tena tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I rise to take a call on this bill and acknowledge you the Maori Party and my elder by descent Te Ururoa Flavell. Greetings to you. We have known and heard for a long time what Hone and others as well as parties have been going on about how heavy this issue is. We know quite well that land taken by those organisations Governments councils and suchlike will never come back. So greetings to us 
.] 
I join my colleague Nanaia Mahuta in stating that the Labour Party will certainly support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill going to a select committee. This bill is a test of the Public Works Act and it has a whole lot of ramifications. I wish that my rugby-playing colleague Paul Quinn were here because we could discuss the issues that are relevant to Treaty settlements and could take on board the salient question raised by Nanaia Mahuta of the impact or impression that this bill will have on certain aspects of settlements. It is important to address that. 
The history of this bill is quite simple. In the early years soon after the settlers had turned us into one of the last settled societies in the world Maoris looked up to the postmaster the policeman the teacher and the preacher. The postmaster had the coupons the policeman would lock us up if we did not do what he wanted the preacher would save our souls and the teacher would take our kids and teach them the new way. It was all about a new way. One thing that went with that was land. Land was used to build schools and Maori gave it incredibly generously. One of the real failings is that on half of the land that was given to build schools no school ever ended up being built. If we look at schools in this country we cannot see many that were not built on land that was a gift from Maoridom. Education was certainly important; people could see that at the time. Hone Harawira talked about Te Roopu o te Matakite. Those organisations those groups that struggled and people like Eva Rickard Dr Sinclair and others fought over a period of time to get those lands back. Councils took land and put their markers on it quarried it leased it out for long periods and then turned it into freehold title land. Some properties that have been well developed will not be returned but there are still a hell of a lot around that can certainly be returned. Some of the land was purchased by Pakeha families. 
But for Maori this is very important. I am proud that we were around in 1997 when the great Government of that time sorted it all—Te Ururoa Flavell will agree with that. During four terms when we were in Government the then Opposition members who sat here at the time did not support this. So it is heartening that over a period of time some people can change their view. Some people will suggest it is a flip-flop but certainly they are very supportive and we need to recognise that. There are a whole host of things that come with this: the valuations and how we set them up. The Mangatu case is critical in relation to the Public Works Act because those people did attack and win in relation to the valuations and the rate take. A lot of the properties that are valued up in this case that Maori may want back and that were taken from them come back with a real heavy weight around the neck. My friend from ACT was saying that was not quite right. It is right because there is a long history behind this stuff. I certainly want to commend Te Ururoa Flavell. 
I hope everybody in the House is genuine about supporting this very very important take because it is that. Maoris did give; a lot of land was taken. But a lot of this public works land Maori actually gave for the betterment of the country—a lot of the quarries a lot of the school sites a lot of the hospital sites Maori actually gave them. They did not sell them; they did not get paid for them. And that is the test to work out how we quantify the return cost if there is a cost. I suggest that there should not be a cost. Kia ora. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Let me acknowledge the generosity of the Maori people over the years in supporting this great nation of New Zealand that we are building together. I also acknowledge the excellent effort that Mr Te Ururoa Flavell has put into presenting this Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill from the Maori Party. I congratulate him on his first member’s bill which we as a Government are very very happy to support being referred to a select committee. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I look forward to the opportunity to go through this bill and be part of the discussion and debate that will see some of the issues come to the fore. 
I will just bring clarification to a matter raised by that colleague in the ACT Party David Garrett. I say that I am also pleased to acknowledge that although there was a long dispute regarding the area of land in Raglan that was turned into a 9-hole golf course—it was going to be turned into an 18-hole golf course—back in 1981 it was returned to the local iwi. Significantly my father the Minister of Lands at that particular point in time was part of the facilitation of that. So I count it a great privilege today to stand here in this House to speak on such an issue an issue that I believe is of the utmost importance to the people of New Zealand’s plan as a nation to go forward together as people of this great territory. As my colleague Nicky Wagner has so aptly stated the Crown must act in good faith towards Maori. To take land for a specific purpose and not use it for that purpose without returning it to its original owners is potentially in breach of the good faith that we believe we must be engaged in to go forward as New Zealanders. So we support this bill in its first reading and support it proceeding to the select committee. 
This is a significantly complex bill not necessarily in its drafting—although I congratulate the drafters on their good work—but in its implementation. It touches on many aspects of public amenity. If a public amenity has been moved from its original purpose—for example a railway station may have been converted into a public park—it is deemed to be surplus and will be offered back to the original owners. That creates a complex process of implementation which is why at the select committee level we are going to enjoy working through the intricacies that this bill presents. But it is a process that I believe is important to pursue in order for this nation to continue to go forward. 
In 1981 a new regime was introduced in New Zealand to protect the original landowners. It required the Commissioner of Works now the Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand or a local authority to dispose of land no longer required for a public work to the person from whom the land was acquired—the former owner. In the case where the former owner was deceased the land was offered to the former owner’s successor. If there was no successor then finally the land was offered for public sale. 
It is the current policy of State-owned enterprises to offer surplus public land to the land bank that holds public land for Treaty settlements. This allows the land to be made available to iwi as they progress in their Treaty of Waitangi settlements. However although that may appear to be a reasonable action to enable the redress of Treaty issues there is the issue that the original owners of the land a specific hapu or iwi may not actually be part of the iwi group who negotiate with the Crown for that land. So in a sense although Treaty issues can be redressed through that measure possible disenfranchisement may continue. This bill seeks to offer land acquired for public works back to the original landowner at the time when the land was acquired or taken. This in fact will stop the process of unused land being land banked. 
I believe that this is a bill that New Zealanders will want to participate in discussing and we encourage New Zealanders—Pakeha and Maori alike and all people who count New Zealand as their home—to participate in making submissions to the select committee. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answers To Oral Questions 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation correcting an answer given in the House today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education today I answered a question regarding Moroccan cooking classes. I told the House that this particular course was self-funded. That is not in fact correct; it is funded by the Government. 
Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. A kati huri noa i to tatau Whare kia ora tatau. Ki te hunga kua tae mai i tenei po ki te tautoko i tenei o nga kaupapa ka nui te harikoa kua tae mai koutou ki te whakarongo ki nga korero. Koinei te mihi o te ngakau ki a koutou otira tatou e noho nei i roto i te Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. Me mihi ra ki a koutou katoa nga kaikorero i te po nei i te mea orite o tatau whakaaro. Ae he take nui tenei me korero i te take nei me wananga i te take nei na runga i te mea he take kua roa e noho tarewa ana. Ko te harikoa i roto i toku ngakau kua mau pai i a tatau te tikanga o tenei pire. Ehara i te mea kaore tetahi i te paku mohio ki tona tikanga kua marama katoa tatau ki tona putake ki tona aronganui a me ki ki te paerangi. 
Ko te mea pai ki a au ehara i te mea no roto i te Pati Maori nga tauira. Mai i tena i tena i tena tenei taha tera taha i muri nei kei a tatau nga tauira e whakaatu nei i te kino o te putake o tenei pire. Ko te mea pai ano hoki kua marama tatau ae he take nui tenei me whai atu i tetahi huarahi hei whakatikatika i te he o tenei pire. I nga tau kua hipa kua puta nga mahi arotake a wetahi o roto i te Whare o roto hoki i te Taraipiunara o Waitangi ki te ata titiro i nga nawe o roto i te pire engari auare ake. Ko te ahua nei ana kua orite o tatau whakaaro ka anga whakamua te pire nei ki tona taumata. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings Mr Assistant Speaker and indeed to us all throughout the House greetings. To those of you who have come here tonight in support of this one of the policies I am overjoyed you have come to listen to the addresses. I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to you and especially those of us seated about the House greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. I must acknowledge all of you who spoke tonight because we were of the same mind. Yes this is an important matter and we should discuss and debate it because it has been on hold for quite some time. The pleasing aspect is that we have a good grasp of the intent of this bill. There is no lack of understanding and awareness of its intent. Let us say we are fully aware of its rationale direction and focus.  
The pleasing aspect for me is that negative examples of this bill have come not just from within the Maori Party but also from that one and that one from this side and that side and from the back. We have all come up with examples. A positive aspect as well is that we have an understanding. Yes this is an important matter and we should pursue an avenue that will amend a flaw in this bill. In the past some in the House and the Waitangi Tribunal have undertaken reviews to examine flaws in the bill but nothing came out of it. It appears that we are unanimous that this bill should progress to its ultimate conclusion. 
] 
I say in closing on behalf of myself and the Maori Party to all our supporters across the House that I appreciate their support. Clearly people understand the issues and they have examples and therefore I look forward to the bill going to the select committee for the debate to continue. I acknowledge National our coalition partner in the sense that it would have been all too easy for National to move towards a financial veto and I am pleased to say that National has managed to leave that one to the side. 
I close with a little bit of insight in that today is a spiritual day. I say that because 2 years ago—and we know how hard it is to get a bill drawn out of the ballot—the Maori Party put the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill into the ballot and as soon as it went in it was drawn out. That bill has now been referred to a select committee. The second bill we put in the ballot was this bill the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. We know that the chances of putting a bill in the hat and having it drawn out on the same day are pretty slim. But what happened? Well I did a very good karakia on that day because out came the bill! And 2 years on here we are tonight debating this bill. 
I say also that today of all days I was asked to speak at a Treaty forum—and what should be on the agenda for me to speak about? It was this bill to amend the Public Works Act. It was this day—not yesterday not tomorrow but today. So I say to Mr Assistant Speaker Barker that he is a lucky man. He is a part of the spiritual history and the spiritual realm that this bill will travel through easily smoothly right to a conclusion that will be to the happiness and joy of my people. Na runga i tera kei te harikoa te ngakau kua penei rawa wa tatau korero. Ki te reo karanga Ngati Rangiwewehi ka nui te mihi. Koutou tatau kua tae mai i tenei po tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Kei raro. 
[ 
Because of that I am overjoyed that our speeches were of this tenor. I acknowledge Ngati Rangiwewehi greatly and those of you who came here tonight. And to each of you and to all of us greetings greetings greetings. I resume my seat. 
] 
Waiata 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Voting 
Correction—Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a vote cast earlier this evening on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. A vote was inadvertently cast on behalf of Jim Anderton Progressive and I would like that vote removed from the voting schedule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The vote of the Hon Jim Anderton will be removed. 
Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill 
First Reading 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill be now read a first time. 
 The progress of members’ bills over recent years has been glacial. This bill was written in 2005 to amend the Land Transport Management Act 2003 which was quite new at the time. The bill was put in the ballot immediately. After a couple of years it won the ballot in November 2007—18 months ago. It has sat on the Order Paper for 18 months and it finally gets its first reading tonight. During those 18 months there were changes that would require that the bill be amended by the select committee: Transit and Transfund New Zealand no longer exist; reference to them would need to be replaced by reference to the New Zealand Transport Agency. That correction is not beyond the power of the select committee; that is why we have select committees. 
It is ironic that this bill is finally read a first time when the new Government is proceeding as fast as it possibly can in the opposite direction from that advocated in the bill. I will come back to that point. 
Put quite simply the bill shifts funding gradually away from funding roading projects and into funding alternatives: a modest 20 percent for alternatives in the first year—which is still a lot better than now—moving up to about two-thirds for those alternatives in year 5. The alternatives are public transport; cycling and walking facilities; travel demand management like walking school buses and workplace travel plans; coastal shipping; and rail. It also ensures that transport projects that achieve the same purpose can receive the same level of central government funding. It is called a level playing field; the field has been on a very sharply tilted angle for a very long time. 
The bill seeks to address the two huge challenges facing transport policy in the 21st century—challenges that are barely recognised and certainly not addressed by current Government policy. The first challenge relates to how long we will be able to continue to import oil and at what cost. Even the International Energy Agency which has long been the one outstanding optimist and peak oil denier said last year that the oil supply would be severely squeezed by around 2015. Many experts and analysts think we have already passed the point where the rate at which any new discoveries can be brought on stream fails to match the rate at which existing oil fields are declining. The total world production is unlikely to ever go much above what it is now and the trend from now on will slope down. All oil producers apart from those in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries have now probably peaked and Saudi Arabia may peak around now. When Saudi Arabia has peaked certainly the world as a whole has peaked. 
Oil costs us around $8 billion a year on our overseas account even at today’s prices. It is set to double quite soon reflecting the spike to over US$150 a barrel last August. Achieving our transport goals with less oil is surely an overriding objective. 
The second challenge relates to the fact that transport is the source of over 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions and that fact will soon cost us dearly too. There is no time here to recount the awful risks of climate change to our civilisation to our way of life to our farming and to our survival. Nor is there time to go through our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our emissions. Transport is one of the fastest-rising sources of climate change emissions and this bill would help to lower our emissions. But current transport policies are designed for an era when oil cost US$10 a barrel which we had as recently as 1998 and we had a limitless atmosphere in which carbon emissions disappeared into infinity with no effect whatsoever. 
Even the easy things to reduce oil dependence are not done. Our vehicle fleet uses double the fuel per kilometre of the new European fleet standard and cars continue to guzzle more gas each year than previously. We have the second-highest per capita rate of car ownership in the world after the US with which we sometimes vie for first place. We have more kilometres of sealed road per person than virtually every other country yet we pour billions of dollars into creating more sealed roads. We are a heavily car-dependent country and an extremely fuel-inefficient country. There are easy answers but successive Governments have not adopted them. Instead we pour billions and yet more billions into new motorways and we starve trains buses and active modes of transport which if they were funded could get people around safely and quickly with far less fuel and far less carbon emission. 
The Government not content to inherit Labour’s biggest motorway-building spree since Julius Vogel as Labour members were proud to point out in the last Parliament has now stolen a further $420 million of the measly funding allocated to public transport and active modes and given it to motorways along with another half a billion dollars from the taxpayer. When it comes to building roads money is no object and there is no recession. The Minister responsible for this theft says that because 85 percent of people travel to work by car we must spend $7 on roading for every $1 we spend on everything else put together. He does not seem able to understand that if all we offer people is more roads and if trains and buses are few expensive uncomfortable late unreliable and with limited range then most people will take the only option he has given them: travel by car. We saw what happened last year when the price of oil went up. Traffic on Auckland motorways actually dropped and public transport numbers increased by a record amount despite the unsatisfactory service. That is a measure of the unmet demand that is out there 
Members of the previous Government used to say to me in the House that tradespeople with their tools cannot take the train instead of their ute and that buses need roads too. They seemed incapable of understanding that if those people who commute on their own used a bus or a train instead of roads the roads would no longer be congested for the plumber with his tools and for buses and we would not need to keep building more roads. That is why it is to the advantage of road users to pay for others to have the public transport they need; it is a faster way of relieving congestion than building motorways. Other countries have recognised this. Even Los Angeles long the motorway heaven the Minister dreams of has realised that one cannot motorway one’s way out of congestion and it is investing in rapid transit. We can look at Toronto Fremantle or most European Union cities for the answer. 
I spent a weekend in Bruges a couple of years ago and two acres of bikes were parked at the railway station because biking was by far the easiest way to get around. It is a civilised city compared with cities in New Zealand. 
There are two major obstacles to sustainable people-friendly transport systems lower oil costs and lower carbon emissions cleaner air and liveable cities. The first obstacle is the extreme imbalance of funding and I have described how the bill remedies that fact. The second is something obscure called the financial assistance rate. I will give members an example. If the Auckland Regional Council decided to build a brand new motorway across Auckland 100 percent of the cost of that motorway would be paid by central government out of the National Land Transport Fund. It would not cost Aucklanders a penny. On the other hand if the council decided that a more efficient way to carry people from one side of Auckland to the other was by train and that it wanted to invest in a new rail system it would have to come up with half of the funding itself from Auckland’s rates. That is why for decades public transport has not been built but roads have. This is the tilted playing field I spoke of earlier. 
This bill creates the opportunity to vary the financial assistance rate for projects so that some public transport projects qualify for 100 percent funding from the National Land Transport Fund just as roads qualify now. It also creates the obligation before the allocation of funding in the National Land Transport Programme to ensure that there is support in the local authority regions through which those projects will run. That is a basic democratic principle of the Land Transport Management Act. There is also an obligation for the Minister to publish a review each year of whether the Act is meeting its objectives of safety sustainability integration and responsiveness to local needs. The Act was ground-breaking legislation in 2003. The Greens and Labour worked together on it and it is time that its very fine objectives— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired. It may have escaped me but did the member indicate to the House the particular committee that she intends the bill to go to? I did not hear it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I had it in my notes Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like the bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Very good. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think it is a very wise choice by the Green members to send the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is a very fine committee. It has great chairmanship and a great membership. It will do a fine job. But saying that the bill should go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is the only good thing that the Green member said; the Green Party disappoints me in this case. 
The Green Party should be representing new ideas and seeing the vision of the future. It should be a party that tries to take this Parliament towards some goals and ambitions that Parliament is not ready to move towards. That is the whole idea of what one expects from a Green Party. However this Green Party is looking back at a technology that is going out of business. The whole assumption of this legislation that the Green Party is putting forward is that cars run on fossil fuels and therefore roads are no good because cars run on roads. That is the assumption the Green Party is making. It is making the assumption that cars run on fossil fuels. That was true 50 years ago but a party of vision a party that looks to the future would understand that there is technology there is development and cars will not run on fossil fuels in 50 years’ time. Cars will run on different fuel sources. The Green members will not admit that. They are looking to the past. They say that the automobile industry can only ever have one source of fuel and that is fossil fuel. 
I disagree completely that that is the way things are going. Anybody who had an idea of what is going on in the automobile industry would see that the big investment now is in non - fossil fuel car energy sources. If we look at what is happening in the US automobile industry we will see that the big car makers are shutting down. They are being made to come back and produce electric cars because that is the market of the future. In 50 years’ time the most efficient form of transport will be the roads and the roads will have electric cars on them. That is the future of the world in transport. 
The Greens are looking backwards at an old technology. They are not taking into account the way in which the world is progressing the way in which the big automobile industry is progressing or even the way in which fuel companies are progressing. Do members not remember that BP changed its name from British Petroleum to “Beyond Petroleum”? What was the reason for that? The branding was done because the company knew that there was going to be a different future. The Green Party will be consigned to the small ranks of political destiny if it does not think outside the square and if it does not look at technology and use that for green purposes. 
The National Government is willing to accept technology and we are working towards it. Today in question time the great Minister of Transport in this National Government put out the policy on electric cars. We made an incentive for electric cars to become part of the New Zealand transport mix. National is looking forward at technology. We are looking forward at delivering a green vision for transport. We are not looking back at old technology at old ways of doing things and at an old party political philosophy which is what the Green Party aspires to. That is the difference between National and the Greens and the people of New Zealand know that. They know the future and the world economy knows the future. 
An electric car is the best investment that a young person could make. In the next generation the richest person in the world will not be the Bill Gates of our generation. The richest person in the world will be the person who cracks the issue of how to get fuel sources into automobiles in the next 10 years. That person will be the new Bill Gates of this world. That person will find a way of transferring energy into what we use as our main mode of transport. If anybody can crack that—and someone will crack it—it will become the big opportunity in transport in the future of the world and in this economy going forward. 
That is an opportunity that many countries are taking up. If we look at countries like India and the US they are investing huge amounts of money in technology to get electric cars to a commercial stage. They probably have the technology now but to make it commercial is a different ball game. There are incentives to buy electric cars. At the last US election people got a discount if they bought an electric car. That was one of the big policy planks of some of the political parties. They know the future. They are not looking at old policy and old dreams about fossil fuels driving our transport sector. They are looking at the future of our transport sector but the Green Party denies that. 
The Green Party is hell-bent on the measure that the only answer to solve our transport woes in regard to environmental concerns is public transport. I remember that in Hamilton at the last election Labour Party members jumped on that bandwagon. They went into the election campaign saying: “We want to have the greenest way of travelling from Hamilton to Auckland.” They proposed a rail link between Hamilton and Auckland because they thought that was what the Greens had always said was the best way of doing it. Little did they know that the only part of the main trunk line that is not electrified is from Hamilton to Auckland. Those members would have dirty diesel trains on that line with no people on them. Would that be environmentally friendly? No! That is the nature of the debate that the Green are having. 
The Greens do not understand public transport. They do not understand what it actually means. They say: “Let’s look at cities like Los Angeles and Toronto.” I ask those members what the populations are of those cities. They should think about that. Public transport works very well where there are large densities of population. It does not work as well where there are spread-out cities or where there are cities of a smaller size within 2 hours of each other. That does not work well with public transport. 
I had the fortunate experience of going on Mexican public transport in January. In Mexico people can go any way around Mexico City from point to point for one peso. That is because there are nearly 30 million people in that city. Their officials can deliver a train system where people can go into a train and it is literally packed. Those trains go all the time and they are efficient smart and clean. The reason for that is that there are the numbers of people required to make it work which is what public transport demands. It demands high concentrations of people. 
The other thing I want to look at in relation to this legislation is what the National Government is actually doing. National is actually investing in the infrastructure of New Zealand. We are looking forward and we are investing in our roading structure. The previous Labour Government did not invest in road construction going forward. Labour spent money on the maintenance of roads not on the construction of roads. That is the difference between these two political parties when we look each party’s roading policy. National wants to build roads that will have clean green vehicles on them in the next 50 years. That will save people time and expense in travel and it will provide jobs in the short term as we build those projects going through the economic recession. 
In all ways our economic policy is interrelated with our transport policy and it is environmentally friendly at the same time. We cannot help but win with that policy. That is the nature of it. We have considered the options and we have come up with a policy that is effective yet environmentally conscious. We have taken into account the need to invest in public transport and we have done so. We are continuing the electrification in Auckland; we are not making grandiose promises that are not reality. We are looking at what can be done to make public transport as efficient and effective as we can but we also realise what the future of transport will be and our roads are going to be important parts of that because those roads will have clean green efficient electric cars on them before this generation is out. That is the future of transport and that is the future of environmental consciousness. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As Labour’s spokesperson on climate change issues I am delighted to say that Labour will vote to send the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill to a select committee for public submissions. It is interesting to follow the previous speaker David Bennett because I think we should examine the National Government’s record to date. Its policy statement on land transport funding has allocated funding away from public transport. That has put at risk important projects that the previous speaker spoke about such as the continuing electrification of Auckland rail integrated ticketing for public transport in Auckland and in other areas and walking and cycling facilities. By those actions this Government has set back public transport so far that the only way to rekindle the debate is to support this bill. By doing so I hope we will be able to show the public that there is a political will within Parliament to support public transport to a much greater degree than the Government is currently prepared to do. 
It was also interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about the record of the current Minister of Transport. He is fast tracking seven highways of so-called national significance and he claims that the National Land Transport Fund will provide $10.7 billion over 10 years for investment in State highways. That needs to be seen in perspective. In Budget 2006 Labour announced a 5-year $13.4 billion spending programme in New Zealand’s largest ever roading programme. So much for calling it maintenance as the previous speaker did! But our approach to transport funding was also based on a multimodal programme involving not only State highways and local roads but also public transport sea freight and rail. Labour believes that we cannot just keep on building motorways even if we have electric vehicles being signalled up as a large growth sector in the future. Inevitably those motorways would soon reach their capacity and we would be back to where we started with gridlock. We believe in an integrated approach to getting people off the roads and into more efficient and attractive public transport systems because taking the pressure off the roads lessens the immediate need for more motorways. That is an obviously sensible approach demonstrated in many forward-thinking cities around the world. 
But sadly Mr Joyce’s approach means that the balance between public transport and roading projects will be lost very shortly. He is effectively robbing metropolitan areas of effective public transport systems in order to pay for a few big-ticket motorway items that will please his friends. In order to justify this position Mr Joyce claims that Aucklanders do not use public transport. Well people use it when it is available. Whenever improvements are made to public transport such as the Northern Busway—which my friend and colleague Darien Fenton knows about—patronage increases sharply. 
It is interesting to compare National’s policy on land transport funding released in May—last month—with our last statement while in Government which was released in August 2008. The numbers are as follows. Public transport service funding is down by $85 million. Public transport infrastructure funding is down by a quarter of a billion dollars. Walking and cycling facilities funding is down by $15 million. The major communities that are suffering in these cut-backs will be those in Auckland. So much for the Government’s super-city plan! How can Auckland grow without having an effective transport system? 
Finally I will say just a few words about coastal shipping and rail. It is well known that Labour was developing coastal shipping because within a relatively short time frame our roads will be unable to cope with the projected increases in total freight volumes. An integration of roading with an upgraded rail and coastal shipping network is the only possible solution as we look 10 to 20 years into the future. We bought back KiwiRail with that integration is mind but now this Government has cast a cloud over the future of rail by not guaranteeing the funding that is needed for an infrastructure upgrade. We put $30 million into helping to get coastal shipping up and running so that rail wagons could be rolling on and off ships at various ports throughout New Zealand but now that development funding is cancelled and the future of coastal shipping seems to be uncertain. What is certain is that the containers will now be on trucks being driving up and down our State highways thus creating an ever-increasing hazard for Kiwi motorists. 
The record of this Government is dismal which is why we must support the referral of this bill to a select committee. Thank you. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.