Volume 621 Week 74 - Tuesday 16 November 2004 
Volume 621 Week 74 - Tuesday 16 November 2004 
[Volume:621;Page:16875] 
Tuesday 16 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Centre for Democratic Institutions—Sixth Pacific Parliamentary Retreat 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that participants in the sixth Pacific parliamentary retreat of the Centre for Democratic Institutions are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill—Availability of Supplementary Order Paper 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Later in the day the House is expected to begin work on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Could I seek leave to ask the Leader of the House when he intends to make the very substantial 120-page Supplementary Order Paper available to the Opposition in order that we may appropriately participate in the debate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Supplementary Order Paper will be made available as soon as it is printed—it will go to the Bills Office. I will also be seeking leave subsequently once the copies are available to table what is called a redline version of the bill which will look like a report-back version of the bill had the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee been allowed to do its job properly. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it would be worth the House taking a moment for the Leader of the House to explain exactly what he means by a redline version of the bill that would be as the select committee might have reported back. The fact is that the select committee did not report back. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This matter has been dealt with by the Business Committee which the member has been at over the last two meetings and he is well aware therefore of what I am talking about. I will be seeking leave to table a copy of the bill as originally introduced with the amendments as in the Supplementary Order Paper as if those amendments had been adopted by the select committee. The Committee of course will still consider the Supplementary Order Paper as the actual document in front of it but the purpose of that redline copy would be to enable members to see and to read the amendments more clearly in relation to the substantive provisions— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dr Smith may find that disgraceful but I think most members would find it will actually help in understanding the bill. 
Questions to Ministers 
Employment—Labour Market 
1. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has he received on the state of the labour market? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The September household labour force survey released last Thursday reported an increase in employment of 19000 in the quarter and 56000 in the past year taking total employment to 2022000 which is 230000 more people in work than when this Government took office. The proportion of the working-age population in work is 64 percent the highest in 18 years. Females accounted for 16000 of the 19000 increase in employment during the quarter which means they are now getting the jobs they are after. Unemployment fell to 3.8 percent the lowest in the 18-year history of the household labour force survey and the second lowest in the OECD. Members will be pleased to know that job advertisements tell us that these levels of employment and unemployment should continue. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What are the appropriate responses to the current state of the labour market? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have to agree with the wisdom shown by my colleague the Minister of Immigration when he said we need to attract more skilled immigrants but do not want a flood of cheap labour through large-scale immigration as some have advocated. He said we need to solve the current skill shortage through a combination of lifting skills removing barriers to participation by under-represented groups improving workplace practices to retain staff investing in new technology and having employer flexibility as also advocated by Mr Swain’s colleague Michael Barnett Chief Executive of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce. 
Katherine Rich 
: When last October there were 80000 people on all forms of unemployment benefit why are growers such as Peter Falloon of Canterbury mowing their asparagus crops and losing thousands of dollars because they cannot fill vacancies for unskilled work; and what does the Minister say to growers such as Peter Wing in the Waikato who despite offering $20 an hour and transport can still not fill vacancies and last month mowed 12 tonnes of asparagus because he could not fill the vacancies on his farm? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do acknowledge that the enormous drop in unemployment around the country has seen the number of people on a register available for work in many areas where seasonal work is available so low that people are experiencing this. Therefore I have to go back to the wisdom of my colleague the Minister of Immigration when he talked about the need to lift skills to bring new groups such as women into the workforce—making sure they have access to good-quality childcare—to lift wages and to introduce good employment practices. That is the kind of advice I would give that employer. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister provide us with a breakdown of the figures please: the percentage of the workforce permanently employed the percentage of the workforce casually employed and the number of people who are employed for 1 hour or thereabouts a week; and will he assure this House that no 1-hour workers are counted twice in those statistics? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I assure the member of the last point straightaway and tell him that last Thursday Statistics New Zealand released the household labour force survey. Every single one of those questions is answered in absolute detail in that report. I am happy to send him 10 copies if he would like me to. 
Judy Turner 
: What specific steps is the Minister taking to ensure that older unemployed people are able to find work given his response to my question in the House last week that this is “an issue we are dealing with as a country” and in which I pointed out that the number of those on the dole for more than 3 years has actually increased by 24 percent since 1999 with the number of those unemployed for over 5 years doubling over the same period? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will remember that this Government—this very good Government—introduced work testing for people between the ages of 55 and 60 so they could gain access to all the support training that goes with a return to the workplace. We have not introduced work testing for people between 60 and 64. We believe that at the present time those people are best left to re-enter the labour market voluntarily. If the member is recommending that they should be work tested—a 64-year-old for example—I am happy to receive those representations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague Peter Brown asked the Minister a very significant question one that has been on the question paper now for 4 hours. He wanted to know the percentage of the workforce permanently employed the percentage casually employed and the number of people working for 1 hour a week—questions that were all asked at the Financial and Expenditure Committee and of which the Minister and his staff must surely have been apprised. His saying in the House that he had seen a document some weeks ago that had all the answers does not address the issue for the public who take time to watch and listen to question time or for that matter the people in the gallery who came to hear the question answered. That is a dodge from the Minister and given that he has been here a while he should not be allowed to get away with it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that had been the original question and that had been the Minister’s answer the member would have been absolutely correct. We are talking about a supplementary question not the original question. The Minister might want to comment. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Essentially the original question asked what the source of that information was and I therefore referred him to the household labour force survey. However I can tell the member that broadly speaking 2022000 New Zealanders are employed. Approximately 450000 have part-time jobs and about 18000 have small numbers of hours of work—between about 1 and 15 hours a week. The number of people who are under-employed is reported to have dropped by 18 percent in the last quarter. All those figures are available to the member in that household labour force survey. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is precisely my point of order. The Minister could have given the answer and not wasted Parliament’s time. Instead he decided to duck and evade. When put to it he knew some of the facts and he has now shared them with us. That should have happened the first time around. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am glad it has happened now. The member made a point that was useful. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is working very constructively with the horticulture sector on a short medium and long-term strategy and can he also confirm that this is the first time such constructive engagement has occurred between the Government and that industry? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that there is engagement with the horticulture industry that it is the first time it has happened and that it is due to the leadership of Mr Paul Swain and Mr Rick Barker. 
Health Minister—Confidence 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she still got confidence in the Minister of Health; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly make that statement when almost 4000 people died whilst waiting for surgery and on surgery waiting lists in the last 3 years alone and when last year alone well over 1100 died when on hospital or surgery waiting lists; given that at the last Labour Party conference she and her colleagues got up and boasted of the great health services they were providing in this country are not those services at the cost of people in New Zealand dying unnecessarily? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Most certainly not because the numbers of people coming through day-case surgery and inpatient surgery have risen quite substantially under this Government. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she believe that being hard-working and conscientious involves disrespecting a World War II veteran who has waited 4 years for his operation as Ms King did to Mr John Power last week then having the bare-faced cheek to write a letter wrongly blaming others for her shameful display in the House? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No disrespect will be shown to World War II veterans on my watch nor was any shown by the Minister. I myself was in the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can she assure frail elderly New Zealanders who are living at home and totally dependent on home care that her Government will ensure that there are sufficient home-care workers to look after them properly over the Christmas period; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would certainly hope that those who are responsible with the devolution to district health boards for those contracts make sure of that. Of course as the Minister for Social Development and Employment has already said we have record low unemployment so in a number of areas where pay rates are low—and home-care workers is one—there are some issues. Over time the Government will need to grapple with the provision of further support for the skills development and wages of those workers. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can she express confidence in a Minister of Health who in 1988 said that there being 96000 people on waiting lists was criminal and now there are 110000 people on waiting lists the number of people on waiting lists who have died has doubled under this Government and the number forced to give up waiting and go private has tripled; how many more people have to die or pay for their own operations for her to lose confidence in this Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can say that there are more day-case and inpatient surgery procedures being performed now than there were when the member made that statement—considerably more. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister of Health has given sufficient consideration to the idea of establishing a contestable fund in order that both public and private health providers could tender to provide elective surgery so as to reduce waiting times given that last Wednesday her response to United Future’s question that she consider the proposal was a flat-out no; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No the Government would not support a contestable fund. Our view is that the public health system can work and does work well. Where a district health board has more money for surgery than it can use to provide surgery from its own resources it may contract out some operations to the private sector but that should be the exception not the rule. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will she take any responsibility whatsoever for a Minister of Health who has seen our cancer mortality rates become amongst the world’s worst with Ministry of Health figures indicating that 60 cancer patients waited more than the prescribed maximum of 4 weeks for radiation therapy in August alone putting their lives at risk; and when will she take responsibility for the fact that almost 4000 people have died early or unnecessarily while waiting for treatment when she has been the Prime Minister with that Minister of Health? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the Minister of Health will take a great deal of pride in is having been the first Minister of Health to ensure that a national Cancer Control Strategy has been developed for this country. Secondly she has taken responsibility for ensuring that the training of the numbers of people needed to provide radiography and radiology has actually increased quite dramatically. Thirdly it is fair to point out that one may be waiting for a cataract operation and be run over on the road; there are all sorts of reasons why people might not be alive when their number comes around for an operation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does her indication of confidence in the Minister demonstrate her belief that waiting times for radiation therapy of up to 11 weeks in the Waikato and 10 weeks in Wellington are acceptable or that the situation in Auckland where patients face up to 9 weeks’ wait which may or may not culminate in a trip to Australia for treatment is acceptable yes or no; and if she does not believe those waiting times to be acceptable why does she not hold somebody accountable including herself? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Minister that the waiting times have improved dramatically because she has been putting the resources in place. I also take some pride—given that we did not inherit sufficient provision—that this Government has fully paid all the expenses that people have incurred when in Australia where that was required. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Annette King to Mr John Power in which she blamed noise in question time for her rude display; and that is despite our not being allowed to say anything during questions—a point that I got pulled up for before. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I consider that the comment made was a direct reflection on you as Speaker and should be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that there are people who were listening at the time who do not understand my rulings. While questions are being asked there will be silence because we are in a democracy and every member is entitled to ask a question in silence. I do not require silence during answers; if I did it would make my job very simple! As far as I am concerned I did not take that comment as a reflection on me but I will be listening very very carefully in the future. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table figures released by the Health Information Service that show that the number of people who became deceased while on waiting lists has doubled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table information from the Health Information Service that shows that the number of people treated electively has gone up from 68000 in 2001 to 114000 in 2004. The same information was given to ACT but it did not bother to use those figures. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If it is the same information I am quite happy to agree provided that the Government is prepared to allow the rest of the information to be tabled so that we can have a complete picture. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to know whether there is any objection to the tabling— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I do object and now I am going to seek leave for the document that the Minister wanted to present to be tabled together with the document from the ACT party— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot do that. He can ask for permission to table— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Yes I can. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No I can ask for leave to table those documents—most certainly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask for leave to table the document from the ACT party— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is what I am doing. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill—Policy Development 
3.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement of 7 April 2004 regarding the foreshore and seabed legislation that “the government has undertaken an exhaustive process of policy development.”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because we have. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why is a Supplementary Order Paper rumoured to be 120 pages in length being introduced into the House today to change the foreshore and seabed legislation if the Government had prepared it so exhaustively; and how can she expect Parliament to consider legislation on such a matter of such major constitutional importance without having seen its substance until the very day it is asked to vote on it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The reason for the Supplementary Order Paper is obvious: a select committee heard a great deal of evidence. Although the committee itself was not able to report back New Zealand First and the Government parties did listen and have brought back a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister consider it good government that most Maori will not even see the final shape of the legislation which removes their common law rights and their treaty rights before it is passed into law? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The bill does not remove common law rights. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister name one controversial bill outside of Budget legislation that has been brought to this Parliament to be passed under urgency without the Opposition parties even having seen it; and what would be wrong with having the second reading this week and polishing the bill off next sitting week? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question has to be accurate: we are an Opposition party and we have seen it. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and the member will sit down or he will leave. That was not a point of order and the member knows it. It was a political comment. Whether the answer was to the member’s satisfaction is a matter for the House.  
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with that interjection of course is that Mr Peters is trying to get around the fact that he has now become this Government’s doormat and he certainly should not be raising a point of order and trying to get out of that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member also has not raised a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last member who raised the point of order knows he cannot get away with that. It was simply a case of: “Could we fix it? Yes we could.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am warning the member. That is the last warning—if he wants to stay in the House for question time. I now want the Prime Minister to answer the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Peters has quite rightly said that an Opposition party has seen the Supplementary Order Paper and that indicates that the Government is always happy to work with Opposition parties where common cause can be found and in that respect I welcome ACT’s decision to participate in another important select committee on constitutional reform—unlike the National Party which is abrogating its responsibility. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite possible that the Prime Minister forgot my original question which was about her naming one other piece of legislation and my question talked about Opposition parties. I do not regard Winston Peters as anything in Opposition and the points— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am not having those parenthetical comments made during a point of order. I am hearing the member’s point of order which was according to what I have heard—and I have heard sufficient—that the Prime Minister did not address the question. I thought she did. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What does it say of her attitude to major constitutional legislation like the foreshore and seabed legislation that she intends to table some 120 pages of last-minute amendments which most parties in the House will not even see before they have to vote on them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is really up to the National Party if it does not want to read the Supplementary Order Paper before it votes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is bad enough that you have allowed Mr Peters to bail the Prime Minister out by spurious points of order but the question here quite simply was: why will the Prime Minister not make the range of amendments that will be included in this Supplementary Order Paper available to the House in good time before a debate takes place? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: As I indicated before the Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled as soon as possible. It includes the protection of customary rights as supported by the National Party. It supports Crown ownership. It removes ancestral connection orders. What is it they oppose in this bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have asked the Prime Minister to comment on the original question that was asked by the member. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that the Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled later today and there will be plenty of time for the National Party members if they can give up their dinner hour to read the amendments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that every parliamentary party could if they had decided to continue the select committee process have had access to all the Supplementary Order Papers and moreover is the length of the Supplementary Order Paper because of the fact that there are certain members of this Parliament who simply cannot get their heads around this issue and are more interested in shibboleths and myth making? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it be in order for the Prime Minister to comment on the select committee process before the bill is reported back? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Firstly the bill has been reported back. Secondly—[ 
Interruption 
] I am getting a little tired of these interjections while I am on my feet. That is a direct comment to the Government. The bill has been reported back and secondly I consider that the Prime Minister did address that particular question. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Prime Minister name one piece of controversial legislation outside of Budget legislation that has been brought to Parliament to be passed under urgency without opposing parties even having seen it; and what would be wrong with having a second reading this week and the Committee stage next week so that it could be an informed debate? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Under MMP where Government and support parties may not have a majority on a select committee it is quite possible that there will be cases—there have been in the past and there will be in the future—where it was not possible to deal with amendments to a bill in a select committee. In that case the amendments will come back to this House to be dealt with. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Government’s definition of an exhaustive process one where Maori are left completely exhausted and completely ignored? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My definition of an exhaustive process is a debate that has now gone on for 18 months and that has included a discussion paper a full round of hui a further set of proposals and a very full select committee process before being debated in this House. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Government rushing through the Foreshore and Seabed Bill in order to disguise the fact that the label “Crown ownership” is a farce since in practice it is qualified by extensive Maori rights and governance powers; if not why is it suddenly necessary to put the bill through in a matter of hours when the Government has previously indicated it would go through normal processes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would have thought there was nothing about “full and beneficial ownership resting with the Crown” being a sham. I am also aware that others have said that public ownership does leave room for recognising customary rights. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Education Policy 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has he received any proposals to scrap the Government’s policy of 20 hours per week of free early childhood education from mid-2007 for 3 and 4-year-olds in community-based centres? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen a proposal to scrap the free 20 hours per week in favour of 10 hours of free education for both community and private centres. That will come as a major shock to the families of around 28000 children who would have their existing entitlements to morning kindergarten slashed and charges imposed for the 5 hours a week that are currently free. In the case of free kindergarten it would be gone well before lunchtime if Don Brash had his way. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is the Government committed to extending 20 hours per week of free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds to all community-based centres? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Research has shown that children who participate in quality early childhood education are more likely to succeed at school and later in life. Private centres are not missing out. They will receive around half of the $307 million being invested in this year’s Budget package which will allow them to improve quality and decrease charges. That is why major Australian companies and New Zealand private sector chains are investing millions in buying private sector centres in New Zealand. The private sector likes it even though the Tories whinge about it. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe the Minister quoted me in a grossly misleading fashion. I am not sure whether he intended to quote me—he seemed to imply that he was quoting me. I have at no stage said that that was what our policy position would be. I was asked last week by the media whether I endorsed 20 hours of free early childhood education for all children. I said I was not endorsing any specific thing. I objected to discrimination between children going to community-based centres and those going to privately based centres. The reporter I think made the point of whether there could be some other option and I said that it could be 10 hours and 10 hours. But I am not endorsing any particular—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is raising a point of order. He could have sought leave to make a personal explanation. I will not be too restrictive on that. The member was rightly raising a point of order. I would like him to finish it and then I will rule on it. 
Dr Don Brash 
: My impression is that the Minister quoted me in a quite misleading way. I would be interested to see the transcript on the basis of which he made his comment.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s word is to be accepted. Of course it becomes a matter for debate and that is what this place is all about.  
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give the House one good reason why he is so determined to discriminate against 40000 New Zealand children by giving them a fundamentally lesser entitlement to early childhood care than that of other New Zealand children? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because I am not prepared to promote the sorts of cuts that Don Brash suggested on the radio last week. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister to give a reason for his policy—one good reason why one group of children would get a lesser early childhood entitlement than another group has—and he did not even attempt to answer that question.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am ruling in favour of the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because if I went to even a 10-hours-a-week basis as promoted by the Leader of the Opposition on the radio last week it would result in children being charged for 5 hours a week to go to what is currently free morning kindergarten—and I will not do that.  
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister confirm that the estimated cost of extending 20 hours per week of free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds to children in all early childhood education centres would be only $62 million more; and is his unwillingness to agree to that extension fiscal or ideological? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that the member was referring to the annual cost rather than the 3-year cost we had been referring to before.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Ah! That’s pathetic. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well poor old Mr Smith may think that $62 million is pathetic— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please just answer the question and not make parenthetical comments.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government does not think that $62 million a year is chicken feed.  
Communications Centres Police—Piha Incident 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he listened to a recording of or read the transcript of Iraena Asher’s conversations with the 111 police communications centre; if so how many times did she ask for help? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 On behalf of the Minister of Police I reply “No”. However he has been advised that Iraena Asher made three specific requests for help as well as indicating other concerns about her safety.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What responsibility will the Minister of Police take so that 111 callers who do not scream can get police help? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The police have already indicated that this response was not satisfactory. They have also apologised to the family. In addition disciplinary procedures are under way and on top of that the police have announced an inquiry into the way in which the communications centres work.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Government intend to take any action or express a view on the New Zealand Commissioner of Police’s advice that it helps if 111 callers scream? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The commissioner’s response at the select committee was taken out of context.  
Ron Mark 
: How much longer is the Minister of Police going to let the men and women of the New Zealand Police take the rap for his failure to address the staffing shortages the training deficiencies and the consequential increase in workloads and stress within police communications centres brought on by his inability to respond to letters that were written personally to him as far back as 2002; and is it not simply that the biggest problem the police face is that they have an inept and incompetent Minister of Police who cannot secure resources? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The answer to the last question is clearly “No”. Having said that I add that the member will know that 18 additional staff have been placed in the communications centres. As well of course the Minister of Police has been able to secure over $1 billion in police resources. The staff levels in New Zealand Police are the highest they have ever been and the resolution rates are the best they have ever been. The inquiry may show up a number of issues to be addressed. At that point the Minister of Police will raise those with his colleagues. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Exactly how were the words of the Commissioner of Police taken out of context? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that the question was around whether a psychologist should be used as part of the communications centre operations and that the commissioner was addressing that particular issue. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of the commissioner’s appearance before the select committee which makes it absolutely clear he was referring to the question in the House about people having to scream to get police help. 
Document not tabled. 
Prime Minister—Travel and Police Escorts 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What responsibility does she take for her travel arrangements and her police escorts in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Such operational matters are handled by the police Government drivers and any other relevant staff. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister heard of her Government’s taxpayer-funded road safety campaign which encourages passengers travelling in a speeding car to “speak up to slow him down” “speak up and live; shut up and die” and “stop him speeding; put your foot down” or did that campaign directed to the rest of us not apply to her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am still very much alive and I will not comment on any matters that are sub judice. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Prime Minister ever congratulated her drivers or police escorts on meeting her tight deadlines? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not commenting on any matter currently before the courts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely it stretches credibility to say that a question about some past congratulations to a driver concerns a matter that is sub judice or for that matter to say that a comment on the Government’s own road safety programme concerns a matter that is sub judice as was the answer given to Mr Hide. If Ministers are to use that as a defence against answering legitimate questions it needs to be absolutely certain that those matters are covered in the court case. It is hard to imagine how the prosecution of five policemen and a civilian driver will be affected by the Prime Minister answering a question about the Government’s road safety programme or for that matter a question about congratulations she might have offered in the past. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member took too long to make that point of order. The Prime Minister is entitled to answer in that way. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does the Prime Minister feel about leaving the police officers and a VIP Transport driver who tried to do their best for her to face serious charges for their loyal work; and why does the buck not stop at the top where the benefit of their speeding lies? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will make no comment on matters that are sub judice. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How many times has the Prime Minister found herself using the Nuremburg defence whereby the leaders said they knew nothing and the lower ranks said they were simply obeying orders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will not make any comment on matters before the court but I do want to say that I take offence at any comparison made between me and Nazis at a trial. I have taken offence at that and I ask for that comment to be withdrawn. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that you might have missed the end of the Prime Minister’s answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I took offence and asked for it to be withdrawn. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the comment making that comparison was not perhaps the wisest sort of comment to be made. As offence has been taken I would like the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I am happy to take— 
Stephen Franks 
: The Nuremburg defence— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot get up like that. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will now leave the Chamber. He is not to interject while I am talking. He knows that. 
Stephen Franks withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I am happy to take responsibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want you to reflect on your rulings. The fact that there is such a thing as a Nuremburg defence is in common parlance. If a member of this House when accused of adopting a Nuremburg defence can then say that it is being called a Nazi it would be a most extraordinary and unfortunate confinement of the ability of members to question the Government. I say that it is now established as part of international law that one cannot just say: “I was doing my duty.” I believe that when you look at the transcript you will find that Mr Ryall’s question—especially given the nature of this question—was perfectly in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order which was one. If a member however takes offence on personal grounds it is invariable—and has been since I have been here—that the comment must be withdrawn. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That may be so but the Prime Minister did not take offence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes she did. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Or was it another MP who decided to take offence and raise it as a point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the Prime Minister did take offence in her last three or four words. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No she said in her answer that she did not like it but she did not raise it as a point of order or a parliamentary matter. No doubt now she is doing so but I say that the person who raised it as a point of order was her Minister. Following your logic a member could get up and take objection to anything even if it is not unparliamentary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the Prime Minister’s reply and in her last words she took offence at the actual comment that was made. When she takes offence she is entitled to say that and then the comment must be withdrawn. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is worth noting that the Prime Minister did not take a point of order to register the offence that she felt was directed at her by the use of that particular term. Mr Mallard took offence and the Prime Minister then confirmed that she was somehow offended. I would also ask this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be brief. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If a member is simply able to say: “I don’t like what you said. Withdraw and apologise because it is offensive to me.” surely that will severely limit debate in this House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Firstly Mr Mallard drew attention to what the Prime Minister had said because it appeared that you had missed the last part in terms of requesting a withdrawal. Secondly I have been required to withdraw on a number of occasions what I regard as utterly accurate remarks about the Opposition that Opposition members have found offensive. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be leaving very quickly if there is any comment while I am on my feet. No point of order was taken at all. I will listen to the tapes but I am advised that no point of order was taken at all. The Prime Minister did confirm that she took offence. There the matter rests. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling but I ask you to consider the situation that we find ourselves in which is this. The Prime Minister refused to answer the question and said the matter is sub judice. Well that is OK. But then she ended her answer to a question by saying she had taken offence and wanted the remark to be withdrawn. You did not then hear that so it was Trevor Mallard I think who stood up and said that she had taken offence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to what the Clerk said not to anyone else. 
Rodney Hide 
: OK well the Clerk said that she had taken offence. But will it now be the standard situation that a member can ask for a withdrawal and apology that is just tacked on to the end of an answer to a question or is the member required to take a point of order? I would have thought that it is unacceptable that a Minister answering a question can say at the end of it: “Oh and I take offence and want that withdrawn.” and can then force the questioner to have to withdraw and apologise for what was a legitimate question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No of course I do not take that as a general rule. I listen to each case and judge it on its merits. That is why I am in this job. Occasionally it is and occasionally it is not and that has to be my judgment call. As I said I am a referee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister about the distance and the time it took to cover that distance with her entourage which means that if the average speed was 120 kilometres per hour there were times when that entourage must have been at 150 kilometres per hour; is she pleading the fifth amendment on the basis that it may incriminate her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not commenting on matters before the court and of course I will be taking legal advice throughout the matter. 
Crime—Police Investigations 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What assurances has he received that the New Zealand Police is actively investigating all aspects of crime? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have been assured that the New Zealand Police is producing very positive results from the current crime and crash reduction strategies that by their very nature range widely across all major crime types. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why have some police been ordered not to hunt for clandestine laboratories making the drug P? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly that is completely and utterly not true. Secondly in the calendar year 2003 202 laboratories were put out of action and in the calendar year 2004—in just a few months of this year—153 laboratories have been busted. That is hardly the sort of thing that happens if someone had been ordered not to do it. 
Moana Mackey 
: What results are the police achieving as a result of the emphasis on crime and crash reduction? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government has raised the police budget to over $1 billion and there are now more staff than ever before. As a result there has been a drop in recorded crime of 6.5 percent per 10000 head of population we have seen the highest resolution rates—of 45 percent—in 20 years and we have the lowest October road toll figure since monthly recording began in 1965. That is due to the good work of this very good Government and of our great police force. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How can the public have confidence that the New Zealand Police is adequately investigating all areas of crime when its administration ignored the warnings about serious problems with the emergency services until a tragedy occurred when senior detectives are being forced to issue traffic tickets instead of investigating methamphetamine crime and when five police officers have now been hung out to dry by a Prime Minister who was happy to speed to a rugby game? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are three questions there and I will answer two of them. The first point is that we did not ignore the warnings; in fact the number in the communication centres went up by 18. The fact of the matter is that the police see a range of policing as important to reduce crime including the issuing of tickets for traffic offences. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the police are at least investigating all violent crime in light of the fact that they have identified 87 links to past crimes including murder and sexual assault through taking retrospective DNA samples from prison inmates; or does he think that is all terribly unfair on those inmates—a position argued by the Greens who continue to place the interests of criminals over victims and who vote accordingly?  
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The police are doing a fabulous job as far as investigating and completing the work on violent crime is concerned but of course like everyone else they can do better. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If no such instructions have been given then who is the public to believe: a police spokesperson in Wellington or the front-line officers battling the evil of the drug-dealing gangs; and why would so many officers be saying that is happening if it is not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Peter Marshall the assistant commissioner of police has said that he would caution the public to be wary of unsourced commentaries supposedly downplaying methamphetamine. He said that quite frankly it is a nonsense to allude to unwritten orders. I think that member would be very concerned about rumours that there were unwritten orders that the Leader of the Opposition should stay away from Parliament because he is not up to the job. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that last comment was unnecessary. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table two media reports identifying people who confirm the nature of that police advice. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I seek leave to table a media release from the office of the Commissioner of Police about that subject. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Tertiary Education—Voluntary Long-term Savings 
8.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Can he confirm that the Government intends to introduce a voluntary long-term savings scheme for tertiary education; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 What I can do is quote the Prime Minister’s comments about saving for tertiary education made at the Labour Party conference on Saturday where she said: “… we will look at ways of supporting families to plan ahead for the inevitable costs not to replace what the government funds but to be better prepared to meet the costs which fall on students and families now.” 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister therefore confirm that he received support from United Future for establishing such a scheme as part of last year’s Budget round; and that the Ministry of Education’s analysis of submissions in response to last year’s student support discussion document found that over one-half of submitters supported it—by far the single most popular proposal to emerge from the consultation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that United Future often provides support for very good ideas that are put about and in this case it has supported this idea. And yes I can confirm that the student discussion document responses did indicate that a large number of people supported such an idea.  
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What initiatives has the Government previously undertaken to reduce the costs of tertiary education that fall on students and families and what have been the results of those changes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Too many to list. I will just mention a few of the most significant: no interest while studying; fee stabilisation and fee maxima; increased allowance thresholds; and annual indexing of those thresholds. I could go on but it would take far too long. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is not this individualised savings scheme just another step towards the privatisation of education; and whatever happened to the expectation that society provides low-cost tertiary education in return for an obligation on graduates to give back to the community? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the first part of the question no; in answer to the second part this Government stands for low-cost tertiary education and for students being able to contribute to their society. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister confirm that any proposals to introduce a long-term savings scheme for tertiary study would be voluntary and would not legitimise wholesale increases in course fees; and is he confident that the rest of his party would be comfortable with it on that basis? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is a very long way to go with such a policy at this time but yes I would expect that any such policy would need to be voluntary in nature. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Has the Minister given any consideration to allowing the savings scheme to continue to be used beyond tertiary study to perpetuate the savings ethic and to allow the account holders to save for houses or for their retirement; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Health Ministry—Service Providers 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is it her policy to ensure that those contracted by the Ministry of Health to provide services are audited to guarantee health funding is used appropriately? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. A number of processes are in place to ensure that funding for services contracted by the Ministry of Health is used in an appropriate manner. Those processes endeavour to minimise the risk of funds being used inappropriately. It is important to balance the need for accountability with the desire not to tie up providers with bureaucracy. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Was the Minister advised about the alleged corruption occurring within the non-profit organisation Supported Individualised Lifestyle Choices by her colleagues Mark Burton MP for Taupo and Ruth Dyson who is the Associate Minister of Health and the Minister for Disability Issues and from within her own ministry; if not how can she be sure that auditing is appropriate; if so why has she done nothing about it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not believe I am aware of that. However I am aware that the Ministry of Health has many processes in place in terms of audit. Many non-governmental organisations I believe are audited far more than other sectors. However that is not to say there will not be a bad apple in the barrel. We try to find them and stop any bad behaviour. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Why is the Minister not taking seriously the ability for some unscrupulous individuals to easily exploit her auditing enforcement on contracted services and is it not a fact that the moratorium on not allowing families to control their own care packages in New Zealand contravenes the rights of handicapped people and their families; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The two questions are totally unrelated. In relation to the second one if we are talking about the ability to pervert contracts and so on I am sure there are individuals who would pervert contracts just as easily as non-governmental organisations would. We try to ensure there are as few as possible. However they are not related just to the non-governmental sector. For example at the moment there are two private businesses that have attempted to rip off the taxpayers of New Zealand by falsely claiming pharmaceuticals. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister confident that the appropriate auditing measures have been applied to Supported Individualised Lifestyle Choices set up in Taupo to provide care for the intellectually handicapped; why are there people who are still convinced that it was set up as a money-laundering scheme and why has her ministry done nothing about this? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot answer that question in the House today. I am not aware of it but I will undertake to find out the information for the member and provide it to her. 
Schools—Compulsory Fees 
10.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the comment of Linwood College Principal Rob Burrough who said: “We rely on a significant amount of locally raised funds in order to balance the books.” and has he taken any action to prevent schools collecting compulsory school fees? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have a lot of respect for the gentleman concerned. There is a point of difference here. Linwood College raised $60042 through donations last year. Total Government grants were $5.8 million up $1.2 million since 1999. I have not taken any action with regard to that school other than with all other schools when I reissued Wyatt Creech’s circular  
Payments by Parents of Students in State and State Integrated Schools 
 originally issued in 1998. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can he confirm that since he became the Minister parental contributions and donations have risen 34 percent to around $200 million per annum and that his school-funding policy now relies on mid and higher decile school parents paying fees to keep the school viable? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I do not and $60000 is certainly not in that category. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House last week that the New Zealand Council for Educational Research’s research conclusion that affected schools rely significantly on locally raised funds is incorrect; if he does what does that tell us about his opinion of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research’s quality of research? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member is aware that I have to tread relatively carefully in that area because of my close relationship with the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. However leaving that to one side it is fair to say that that particular piece of research ignored the fact that many of the extra teachers have been funded out of the extra operational grants. That is something the council should have referred to and did not and in my opinion that was more than a bit shoddy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree or disagree with the following statement: “Many of the schools I visit rely on local funds school fees and fund raising to pay for basic educational needs. That is wrong. The Education Act guarantees New Zealand children a free State education. The Government is breaching its responsibilities under that Act when schools are forced to fund-raise to provide that education.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: When I became Minister in 1999 I sat down with schools in order to track a path to get out of that position. As a result of that there were 2550 extra teachers paid for by the Government a 10 percent and then inflation-adjusted increase per student and $120 million a year in professional development. That is why that situation does not exist now. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the reason he will not comment on that statement is that it was made by him as Opposition spokesperson on education and will he confirm now what school principals all over the country are telling pupils at prize givings—that is Labour’s policy on school funding relies on parents of pupils in middle and high decile schools topping up State funding with fees and donations and when will he get real and just admit that that is just the way the world is? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister may answer two. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Of course I recognise my own very brilliant statement. It no longer applies. 
Special Education—Teacher and Learning Support 
11.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What moves has the Government made to increase the number of students with special education needs receiving additional teacher and learning support? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Education (Adult and Community Education))  
on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Education 
: 
 Today I announced that the number of special education students receiving additional specialist teacher support and time will increase from 550 students to 1000 a year from next February. The Government is committing $18.3 million over the next 4 years to address the needs of students who are not adequately supported through existing initiatives such as the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme known as “ORRS”. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How does this announcement of extra provision supplement the existing education support? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Around 7500 students with very high needs receive support through that scheme—about 800 more than in 1999. This Government also established the School High Health Needs Fund which supports another 250 children. In total the special education budget has risen from $279 million to $436 million a rise of 56 percent since 1999. This Government takes people’s special needs seriously. 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill—Public Access and Ownership 
12.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Is the Government satisfied that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will provide for public access to and public ownership of the foreshore? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am satisfied that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will provide for public access to and public ownership of the public foreshore and seabed. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why then does the Foreshore and Seabed Bill contain a provision hidden away in schedule 3 that removes the requirement to provide public access over reclaimed land and therefore allows wealthy yachties such as those at Bayswater Marina to privatise the foreshore and exclude the public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suggest the member waits to see how the Supplementary Order Paper emerges on a number of these matters. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it not the case that even with legal requirements to provide public access local councils like the North Shore City Council find it almost impossible to get marinas like the Bayswater one to provide those mandatory marginal strips and is not this bill simply making it easier for the wealthy to privatise the foreshore? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No absolutely not. There are of course always limits on the level of public access even in public areas. I am sure the Green Party would be opposed to people being able to drive their private bulldozers down on to the beach and digging it up. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the clause 21 that we have not seen yet provide the same as what the clause 21 in the bill as introduced did which is what went to the select committee—namely that restriction and prohibition of access to the public foreshore and seabed can be provided with the proviso that Maori can be exempted from that restriction on the basis of customary right? Is that still in the bill as it stands now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will find that the access provisions have been clarified in the bill that will be dealt with in the Committee stage. I can assure the member that from my estimate of the timetable that we are on he will have the Supplementary Order Paper long before we get to the Committee stage. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware that wealthy landowners such as some on Waiheke Island and elsewhere have already used reclamations to exclude people from access to the beach; why is he supporting the rights of wealthy people to privatise the foreshore over the rights of tangata whenua? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not but what the member’s case does highlight is the danger of allowing more private ownership of the foreshore and seabed as she is proposing when her party started off proposing that it should be held in the commons. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister received any reports that make him confident that he can get support from the New Zealand First Party to pass schedule 3 which allows wealthy yachties to privatise the foreshore by reclaiming land? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member has put up the same proposition three times. She has been wrong three times. 
Opposition Member 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That was OK. It will be a point of order when I have finished if the member will keep quiet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjection while there is a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that having put up three fallacious propositions she now seeks to link New Zealand First with it. She cannot do that in any shape or form. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask the same question and the Minister can give the same answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She cannot when it comes to New Zealand First and he cannot either when it comes to New Zealand First. That is my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That particular part of the member’s question was correct. The first part was in order. She referred to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and did not specifically refer— 
Metiria 
Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but I am unclear as to what parts of my question you might be ruling out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Those in relation to the matters that are quoting New Zealand First. The member may ask questions of the Minister about the bill but not about New Zealand First. New Zealand First members are responsible for their policy and the Minister is responsible for his. The member can restate the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I am allowing the member to restate the question. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to take into consideration with all due respect that the question concerned whether the Minister had received any reports about this issue and was not asking him to make any comment on New Zealand First policy. Rather it was about whether he had received reports that made him confident that he could get support from that party for that clause. It was not about New Zealand First policy at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That point now having been made and I have taken advice on this the member is correct. The Minister may answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that I have support to pass the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper which of course is the result of negotiation between the Government and New Zealand First. I am very grateful for the assistance of Mr Dail Jones particularly on some of the technical aspects around land law on those matters.  
Metiria 
Turei 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an article from the  
Nelson Mail 
 of March reporting on Kerry Bateman’s legal action. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: The second document is a letter to the Minister of Conservation in which the Mayor of North Shore begs him to withdraw the repeal of that section of the Conservation Act that gets rid of marginal strips. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A matter arose in that last interchange that I think needs some clarification. You made the point that the Government is responsible for its legislation and that Mr Winston Peters is responsible for his policy. That would be the normal situation where a Government bill has come to the House but we know that what we are going to see later this afternoon is now an amalgam of the Government’s bill and Mr Peter’s input. In the light of that I think your comment was rather harsh; members should be able to ask where there is an amalgam of those two positions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can be asked whether he has support for his bill; to that extent I agree with the member. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had an interesting time in question time. We have been assured by Mr Peters that he has seen the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper and we have been told by the Minister that we can have the Supplementary Order Paper as soon as it is available. I guess the Minister is waiting for a full printed version. We all know Mr Peters; I cannot believe that he would have agreed to something that he had not seen in print. Can we at least have what Mr Peters had seen as that would give us some time to be able to read it before we are supposed to debate it tonight? I would like to make that request through you Mr Speaker to the Leader of the House. If it is good enough for Mr Peters is it good enough for the rest of us? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a reasonable point of order. I ask the Minister to respond. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Peters has had all those documents along with Mr Jones and their colleagues no doubt because they have been involved in discussions about the detail. Some of them obviously consisted of handwritten amendments to the point of consideration by Mr Peters. I am not making those available. We will table at the proper time the fully printed Supplementary Order Paper and I will be seeking— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Proper time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said before that I have made special efforts even though the select committee failed to produce a proper report to have printed a redline version of the bill which will considerably aid members’ understanding of what they are actually looking at in the Committee stage as opposed to our trying to put together the Supplementary Order Paper and the original bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the general attitude that is being conveyed by the Leader of the House which we find unacceptable he did indicate before that according to a timeline he had been provided with the Supplementary Order Paper would be available to the House in good time prior to it going into Committee. I wonder whether he might indicate when that time will be as he seems to know it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not know the time but I am an experienced member of Parliament and we have a Committee stage coming up with three questions—  
Gerry Brownlee 
: Three now! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Transport Legislation Bill has three questions in the Committee stage—Part 1 Part 2 and the preliminary clauses. That obviously will take us some little time—I do not expect the Opposition to be rushing it. We are already at 20 past 3. Therefore it seems likely that we will enter upon urgency some time in the evening. We will have a full second reading debate; I understand there will be some moves to try to extend the length of that debate. The House will lift at 10 o’clock. It therefore seems likely that we will get to tomorrow morning before we actually start the Committee stage of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. New Zealand First and the Labour Party have been staying up late at night working on the bill and I now recommend that to other parties as well.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Quite simply does that mean we will see the Supplementary Order Paper today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I am expecting from my latest information that the member will see the Supplementary Order Paper before teatime. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That of course requires further clarification because if we go into urgency later this afternoon it will still be “today” on Thursday. So I would like to know whether we are going to get it on Tuesday Wednesday or Thursday. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said “before teatime” and as the member can see from my slightly expanding girth I am not likely to wait till Thursday for my next teatime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To me that meant “today”.  
Urgent Debates Declined 
Prime Minister’s Motorcade—Police Charges 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an alleged speeding motorcade carrying the Prime Minister in light of the decision by the police to bring charges in connection with it. This is not a very precise identification of the matter to be debated under Standing Order 373 which must be a particular matter of recent occurrence. In so far as the matter of the motorcade itself it is not a matter of recent occurrence because that took place in July. In so far as the matter is the decision to bring charges that matter is now sub judice so cannot form the basis for a debate under Standing Order 373—see Speakers’ ruling 151/1. Thus however the matter is formulated it cannot give grounds for a debate under Standing Order 373. The application is declined. 
Transport Legislation Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Transport Legislation Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1Amendments to Transport legislation  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I will start with a very generalised call on Part 1 and make it clear— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: One of four speeches. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but all members should be seated or leaving showing courtesy to the speaker on his feet. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: A little delicate flower like me gets offended by that sort of behaviour. I make it clear in my first call—one of four calls as my good colleague Wayne Mapp said—that the Government has made a complete foul-up of this legislation. Had it done most of what was in the bill the Opposition—the National Party for sure—would have supported it. The bill was reasonably technical. It was about realigning some of the transport structures about bringing policy back into the ministry and about saying to people like those at the Land Transport Safety Authority: “You stick to operational things. Places where the Minister has a little bit more direct control over it like the ministry are where we’ll do policy.” However the vast bulk of people who made submissions on this bill—I have a copy of all the submissions that were made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and will refer to them as the debate unwinds—had one serious reservation which I would be very keen for the Minister to try to explain. The reason the National Party will oppose this legislation centres simply on that one issue.  
 Let us look at some organisations some of which I think are pretty respectable pretty decent and pretty sensible: the Bus and Coach Association (New Zealand) Inc.; the New Zealand Marine Transport Association; the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand just to name some that put together a joint submission; and the Road Transport Forum headed by Tony Friedlander who usually makes sensible and constructive comments about legislation and what it could do. If we look at what those organisations have to say we see that in general they all refer to the nebulous concept “sustainable” which is now being introduced into our transport legislation as being an undefined term that no one knows the meaning of. But the one term in the past that everyone could hang their hat on and feel comfortable about was a measurable term—one where we could actually stick some numbers in. There would often be debate about how money numbers went on to the plus side and on to the minus side when working out a cost-benefit analysis but whenever a proposal was put up either by a Minister or by a Government the one thing we could say on transport legislation was: “This will proceed only if it has got safety at reasonable cost.”  
I cannot understand why any political regime—whether the extreme left the extreme right or anywhere in the middle—would not want that to be the test. If we do not make that the test then safety at any cost would mean we could do anything that is wild and madness beyond belief. The current Minister may not do that and the Minister who follows him may not but who knows about the future? When this legislation is on the books we may have a coalition Government in Parliament that has some sort of lunatic-fringe Minister saying: “I’m going to make everybody walk rather than drive cars because it will increase road safety.”—and it would; it would meet the first test which is safety. 
Hon Annette King 
: And obesity. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes. The Minister of Health has a big smile. If everyone walked it would fix a problem in her portfolio as well. If we put in the second part of the condition “at reasonable cost” it would mean that the entire economy would collapse. The entire nation would not function. However if we remove that test a Minister would be able to go ahead and put in such a ludicrous example. I know I am testing Parliament by taking an extreme example but there could be something that is not quite so extreme where the costs are substantially more than the benefits. So the historical thing we have had in transport legislation has always been that test: safety but at reasonable cost. One measures what it costs to do the particular initiative proposed measures what the benefits from it will be and as long as the benefits are more than the costs one goes ahead with it.  
I simply have not had an answer either through the select committee process or through the first and second reading debates in this House and I will be looking to the Minister to give this Committee a realistic answer as to why the Government has removed that almost multipartisan sensible agreed almost guideline guarantee for the public. If there are things to be done in the future in the area of road safety maritime safety civil aviation safety and so on all of which are important why on earth would we as parliamentarians in passing legislation want to remove that one guideline? So I finish as I started by pointing out that we would have supported nearly everything else in this bill had it not been for that one issue. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 ACT is opposed to this legislation. It is a typical example of how misleading this Government has been. When this legislation was being drawn up we were led to believe—which is why we agreed to support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that this amendment to the Civil Aviation Act was concerned only with coordinating search and rescue because of the debacle that occurred down south when people drowned because of the mishandling of the search and rescue operation. But this legislation is a stalking horse for bringing the new filter of sustainability into legislation.  
People out there should ask themselves whether their choice of airline is based on its safety record or its environmental sustainability record. Most people choose on price and safety. That is one of the main reasons why airlines are so vigilant about their safety record. They know that as soon as one of their planes goes down their revenue plummets as well.  
However under this legislation we have downgraded safety to the same level as sustainability. An airline that puts safety first is the one that people choose not an airline or helicopter line that puts the environment first. Under this legislation we will not be able to have it both ways. Safety in the air will no longer be paramount. This legislation uses the vocabulary that came into the New Zealand Transport Strategy. In the Civil Aviation Act the words “maintain aviation safety” have been replaced with “assist aviation safety”.  
I draw members’ attention to clause 7 which deals with the matters to be taken into account by the Minister when he or she is making rules. One of the first matters is the need to assist aviation safety and security. However when we look at paragraph (f)(iv) of section 33(2) of the principal Act we see that the proposed rule must ensure environmental sustainability. “Ensure” is a much stronger word than “assist”. If one ensures something one must make sure it happens. If one assists one just gives it a bit of a shove along or tries to help it to happen. I still believe that it is not too late to change this wording. We tried to get it changed at the select committee. It is vitally important for air safety in this country and for the peace of mind of passengers and not just for big airlines. In fact the Government’s own airline Air New Zealand said in its submission that despite the new legislation that came in which it opposed it would not reduce its focus on operational safety as a result of the proposed law change. 
So the airline that is owned by the Government does not agree with what is happening in this legislation but is nevertheless going its own way and ensuring that people who travel on the airline are safe.  
We will be introducing an amendment to clause 7 to have paragraph (e) of section 33(2) changed to “the need to ensure aviation safety or maintain aviation safety and security including (but not limited to) personal security”. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from helicopter operators that that provision in clause 7 puts them in an untenable position. They pointed out to us that they have to ensure aviation safety—it is part of their job to do so. They would not be licensed or in the air if they did not do it. They have to ensure it. To downgrade it to “assist” is I believe a total insult to human beings whose lives are being put in a lesser grade than the importance of the environment.  
The other issue that the submitters brought up is that they are concerned with the environment. They were at pains to tell the committee that they do take environmental sustainability into account in all of their operations. If we look at the history of air transport in this country over the past several decades it is plain to everyone that air transport has become more and more environmentally friendly as the years have gone by. This is as a result of trying to force this Government’s one-size-fits-all philosophy on to all areas of the transport sector.  
The environmental sustainability filter came in because of the Greens. The Greens had a major role in writing the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It came in because of their antipathy to road transport; especially to trucks but also to motorways and cars. We cannot put the same standards for environmental sustainability that we have on road transport—on trucks and cars—on to air transport as well. It just does not fit because the standards for air safety are much higher. We require them to be much higher. I believe that dumbing this down and downgrading it is a huge mistake.  
What is sustainability? What does the word “sustainability” mean to helicopter pilots? Usually they are owner-operators. One thing they know for sure is that the future sustainability of their business depends entirely on their safety record. Who climbs into a helicopter after having done an eco-check on the machine and the fuel it uses? I doubt whether anyone does that. What people do before they climb into a helicopter if they are really nervous is make a check that that company’s crafts do not regularly plunge from the sky. That is what people are concerned about. They are far more concerned about safety and personal security than sustainability.  
If the Government wanted to promote sustainable yield it might be a totally different kettle of fish. But that is not what sustainability is defined as. In fact nobody can define sustainability. It is as the member said before a nebulous term. If it is to be codified in legislation like this we should at least have a definition of it just as we had a definition before of “safety at a reasonable cost”. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. There was no argument over “safety at a reasonable cost” but we have biffed that out and brought in legislation that calls for ensuring environmental sustainability and assisting aviation safety.  
I think that this wording should be changed. It is some of the most important wording in this legislation and it is not too late for the Minister to agree to change it or to at least take a call and explain to people in New Zealand why he thinks that safety is not as important as environmental sustainability. It is not just semantics that we are dealing with here. I do not want a lesson on semantics regarding the difference between “assist” and “ensure”. I want the Minister to take a call and explain why his Government believes that environmental sustainability should be ensured but that aviation safety should only be assisted. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It did not take long—we are only two calls into the Committee stage and the Opposition parties are attacking the bill from precisely the opposite sides of the argument. United they are not. The first speaker Maurice Williamson stood up and said that the legislation is extremely good except for a problem in one area the only one area that caused the National Party concern—that is we will end up with safety at unreasonable cost because the words “safety at reasonable cost” which members seem to know and love and cannot allow themselves to be detached from have been removed. The first speaker was particularly distressed about that. There would be safety at unreasonable cost and all the submissions said that said the first speaker. The second speaker Deborah Coddington stood up and said that her party would not support the bill. She said that the problem was safety and the reason she did not like the bill was that safety had been downgraded. There would not be enough safety according to her. So the first speaker said there will be too much and the second speaker said there will not be enough. As is often the case the National Party and the ACT party did not get their shall we say act together.  
When we come to the submissions we find unsurprisingly that they also are of the view that there is too much or too little safety. But a very significant number of submitters thought that the bill was just fine. The select committee having listened to the submissions decided to make some changes. The changes were as follows: there would be no going away from the fact that the future of transport will be a whole lot more integrated than its past and there would be no going away from the five objectives of the Land Transport Management Act but in case someone was in doubt as to whether the Government had gone soft on safety we decided in the case of the Civil Aviation Authority to put in the words “maintain and improve”. I ask members of this hallowed Chamber whether “maintain and improve” sounds like a reduction in safety. I do not quite get why “maintain and improve” would be a reduction.  
So it would seem that the ACT party probably has had its prayers answered. Probably the Government moved probably the select committee got the words right probably the ACT party got up in mistake—but wait the aforementioned National Party speaker an earlier Minister of Transport is not assuaged. He is anxious that a current or future Minister might get up one morning and say: “Verily everyone will walk to work” and we would end up with safety at unreasonable cost. That is the argument the member is running and I think he has made a mistake. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No the submitters made that point too.  
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes some of them did. Some of them ran with the opposite point and some of them ran with a third point which is that the bill is just fine. So let us not have it said in this Chamber that all submitters were of one view. They were not. They were all over the place pretty much like the Opposition because they knew what safety at reasonable cost meant—they had had years to get used to it. This is what safety at reasonable cost delivers—if I can go to the same extreme as the National Party contributor did when he opened the debate on the Committee stage: a future whereby traffic jams are just fine because no one will get hurt. If motorways clog up there will be no deaths. There will be no transport or progress but there will be no deaths. That is a logical position to take. That argument is absolutely as extreme as the member’s. I would not have bothered running the argument had the member not run his extreme argument. Or indeed let us get people off their bikes—not withstanding an outbreak of type 2 diabetes or obesity as mentioned by the Minister of Health—in case they get run over by a car. So if we do not have integrated thinking we will end up with some crazy arguments and in our past we have. 
 There has been a decision to straighten the curve there occasioned only by the fact that we have decided to put a higher dollar value on human life. A human life 10 years ago was worth about a quarter of a million dollars. I cannot bring to mind what a human life is worth these days but I think the latest figure ever used was more like $2 million. So a person who was a member of the board of Transit and was going down his or her safety programme to see what engineering should be undertaken would—until the money ran out—simply go down a list of projects that started with the highest cost-benefit ratio and went to the lowest. One needed to leave one’s brain at the door; it was not necessary at the meeting. Of course under National Party funding regimes people did not get very far down the list before running out of money either.  
Now we have a more integrated approach that requires people to think differently. It requires people to take into account a range of factors and to amalgamate them. It moves us away from a safety and efficiency history. It takes us away from fragmentation. It takes us away from: “Let’s do safety here and let’s do economic undertakings there.” and from “Let’s look after human health here and let’s look after the environment somewhere else.” It requires us to integrate our thinking. Now it is pretty clear that some members of the House are not very happy with that. Perhaps they are not able to do that integrated thinking. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We’re supportive of it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh they are supportive of it?  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Of an integrated transport system yes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well that is great. So let us integrate safety which means we cannot have safety at reasonable cost alone; we have to have safety as a matter of balance against the other four objectives. Let us have safety integrated into people’s thinking because when we have that we come up with solutions that are somewhat more innovative than simply going down a listed schedule of “B/C ratios” until we run out of money.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to spend my debating time on two issues the first being safety at reasonable cost. It is quite clear that the Minister has not read or been made aware of the principal industry submissions. If he were aware of those he would know that road transport operators and the aviation industry in particular are very concerned indeed about the removal of the test: safety at reasonable cost. He said there were submitters in support of that. Actually there were. Some cyclists I think came along and said: “Yes yes. We want environmental sustainability.” That is where the Minister draws that “balanced” range of submissions from. Industries that are worth billions of dollars that have billions of dollars of assets thousands of employees and huge research departments understand the difficult financial issues they have to deal with. They know they will get customers only if they are safe. But the Minister weighs all that against a few cyclists. That is essentially the balance the Minister has put on the Table here. I read today that this Labour Party boasts of balance. Well if that is the sort of balance it is going to give New Zealanders then frankly it will fail in due course and we will see that.  
So what Labour substitutes is a clear test: safety at reasonable cost which is well understood and supported by the industry. The Minister and other Government members will know the truth of that but they are substituting un-testable ill-defined propositions that will not guide this Minister or indeed future Ministers. So the proposed rules will have to look at things like: will it assist economic development? I ask how that will be measured—by gross domestic product ratios by interest-rate costs? Will John Key who knows all about economic development in relation to money markets be consulted on the money markets regarding transport roles? Will “improving access and mobility” mean checking airway bridge gates at airports? That is access. Maybe “protecting and promoting public health” means that the ozone layer generated by aircraft will be assessed. Finally the term “ensuring environmental sustainability” has no definition provided for it in the legislation and that has been noted by National New Zealand First and ACT. All three parties were consistent on that matter.  
The failure to define these very open terms these very open concepts that Ministers will now have to look at will lead to uncertain rule making. Surely the powers delegated to Ministers should be clear. There should be a level of predictability so that in future the industry can forecast the kinds of rules it will be subjected to. It will not be able to do that. The Minister and the balance of the Government make great play of the notion that after all this is tested on a balance of the costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed. That is supposed to be the substitute for “safety at reasonable cost” which is an open concept compared with a specific definable concept that has worked well and that the industry wants. That is why the industry made those submissions.  
So National is fundamentally opposed to this particular change in the legislation. Frankly it will lead to uncertainty and that uncertainty will lead to increased costs. The talk of $1 air fares from New Zealand to Australia—if anyone would actually believe that—clearly will now disappear because the costs of rule making will become onerous and unpredictable and New Zealand will be a less attractive place economically for our transport industries to be effective and profitable. I will be referring to one other matter in my second call which maybe can be extended through this one concerning clause 30. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 1 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I think it is a bit of a long bow to draw to say that this bill is only about environmental sustainability. It is about— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I didn’t say that. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: No it was not the speaker before me who said that; it was an earlier speaker. This bill is about safety but it is not only about safety; it is also about the restructuring of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund which we will discuss a bit later on. It is certainly about the coordination of our search and rescue operations which I think all of us in this Parliament who spend so much of our time in the air travelling around New Zealand welcome. If something were ever to go wrong in the safety aspects of our civil aviation network we would of course want to know that well-established coordinated search and rescue services would then come to our aid. It is regrettable that in the past those services have not been as coordinated as they could have been so we welcome this amendment to bring about better coordination.  
We certainly want to have as much safety as we can and we welcome the comments the Minister made earlier. Some are saying there is too much safety and others are saying there is not enough but we will take as much as we can get. All of us when we travel around this country want to be as safe as possible. There will always be some debate about the cost of that safety and whether it is money well spent. I guess that the whole purpose of the submission process on this bill was to hear the various opinions. I personally think that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has arrived at a reasonable conclusion and result in respect of those submissions.  
I refer to clause 7 and to the amendment that was mentioned earlier to paragraph (e) of section 33(2) of the principal Act. The words “maintain and improve” in relation to aviation safety and security are an improvement on the previous word “assist” and strengthen the bill. I will be glad to see that change supported in the vote soon to take place on Part 1 and I trust that the words “maintain and improve” will occur throughout the bill. Also the wording in paragraph (f) has been changed to read: “whether the proposed rule—(i) assists economic development:”. I think it is fairly clear that that test—that it assists economic development—has to be placed in the proposed rule. The converse of that would of course have to be understood as well. If it did not assist—if it inhibited economic development—then the rule would have to be thrown out. I think that gives some security and assurance to those who have been concerned about the removal of “safety at reasonable cost.”  
Further on we come to paragraph (fa): “the costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed:”. That is another test that has to be passed—that the costs of implementing the measures are not as onerous as the benefits coming from the rule. So although we can understand the concern of some to leave the wording that has perhaps served well in the past I believe that the context of “safety at reasonable cost” is still maintained within the legislation through the wording that has been recommended to us by the select committee. This matter is not only in The Civil Aviation Act; it will also be covered in the Land Transport Act.  
I believe it is important to strengthen safety in land transport. We in New Zealand lose far too many lives through road accidents and far too many people are crippled by the head injuries that occur on our roads—injuries that are avoidable yet so debilitating. So we in United Future certainly welcome the strengthening of the need to consider safety in this part. We accept the amendments that have been proposed by the select committee and will be giving our support to this part of the legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to follow the member who has just resumed his seat. If we wait in this Chamber long enough we finally hear something sensible from United Future. I think by and large United Future covered the issues pretty well. Let me state from the outset that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We will never ever vote against safety when it comes to transport. We realise that safety is a very important element in the whole mix of transport so we will be supporting this bill. But that is not to say that what the National Party and indeed ACT said can be dismissed. Without the constraints of reasonableness we get safety at any cost. I take members back to the time a few years ago before we had the provision regarding safety at reasonable cost. I speak from my experience on the waterfront. Anything that was seen to be unsafe somebody stopped something for—stopped a ship from loading or discharging in order to have a look at it examine it and modify it or what have you. It was a totally unreasonable action.  
The submission that sticks in my mind the Air New Zealand submission outlines that pretty darned clearly. I think it implies that if we take the constraint of reasonableness away from the costs of safety then we are unwittingly likely to start a competitive scenario inasmuch as operators will say that they will not get picked up for something that Air New Zealand would be picked up for. Because the other operators think they may get away with something their safety level will go down a bit. Air New Zealand I would say will maintain safety at the appropriate level but there may well be operators who will try to drop the safety net and get away with it. We need only to have one mishap to know that we have paid dearly for having no constraint on safety at reasonable cost.  
I share the concerns Larry Baldock alluded to about roading. I recall a document produced when the Hon Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport. It was called  
Better Transport Better Roads 
 and outlined the fact that 15 percent—I think I am correct on that figure—of road deaths were caused by bad road design poor engineering or something along those lines. 
Larry Baldock 
: You are right. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says I am correct. In those days we were talking about 500 to 600 people dying on our roads each year. Fifteen percent of that is close to 90 people—if the total is 600 people it is 90 people; it is somewhat less obviously if the total is 500 people. That is a lot of people. I believe the cost of a life has now been put into legislation as being something like $2.5 million not $2 million as the Minister said. That is a lot of money. Never mind the human cost; that is a lot of money. I think this bill by having safety at—dare I say—whatever cost will compel the Government to look more seriously at the state of our roads. I know that the Minister knows I welcome that. If he does not know this already let me tell him that I believe the state of our roads has been poorly addressed for years now in terms of funding. I believe that this legislation will give the Government an incentive to say it had better start to look at roads if it is to get rid of the provision for safety at reasonable cost.  
I recall the time some years ago when somebody who was in charge of our motorway network came on nationwide TV and stated almost with a smirk on his face that we did not need to have centre barriers on our motorways. If I had agreed with him then the way that he put his point across would have made me disagree with him. Only moments later the Rt Hon David Lange came on the programme and stated that we would have centre barriers on our motorways. I was grateful for that. I do not know how many lives just doing that has saved—probably hundreds if not thousands.  
Another area I think the Government will be compelled to look at very seriously is the state of our rail-track. A chap called me the other day and asked me to come out and look at a section of rail-track. It was in Tauranga on the line that goes from Auckland to Tauranga which is heavily used by port traffic. The section I looked at runs through the residential area—it has houses on the high side and houses on the low side—in a gentle curve. The guy who asked that I come out there had a few colleagues with him. He bent down and as I did shortly afterwards literally plucked out bolts all over the place. That is not good enough. In fairness I was so worried about the situation that I rang the Hon Harry Duynhoven there and then and he got straight on to it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member may laugh but Harry Duynhoven got straight on to it and addressed the issue. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s like rust; he never sleeps. 
PETER BROWN 
: I can tell the member he was certainly on to it that day. Within a few days there was a team of people working on that rail-track.  
I have seen something else on the same rail-track that concerns me enormously. I will not go into the details now because I would put the whole Committee to sleep. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It’s a good story. We want to hear it. It’s about safety. 
PETER BROWN 
: The National Party is interested which is very good. The track is actually near the foreshore and runs across the seabed. Does that lift the interest of the National Party even more? I am referring to the old rail bridge that crosses Tauranga Harbour. 
John Key 
: I know it well. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member knows it well; perhaps he has dived off it. I can tell him that bridge looks as though it needs some tender loving care and attention. I have raised that with the people involved including Harry Duynhoven and I have had a very positive response. I understand that the bridge will be inspected very shortly if not now. My view of the situation is that I would expect some work to be done on that bridge but I will let some expert tell me whether I am right or wrong. This legislation will I believe put the Government in a difficult position from time to time in looking at things like that. The legislation combines the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and New Zealand First welcomes that. We believe we should get a more professional businesslike approach as a result of that and I believe there will be a closer look at roading and the rail-track. 
 But one little area that I must refer to because I feel that I am running out of time is the issue of when a ship is not a ship. It is raised under clause 25 and it is a little thing that really bugs me. Clause 25 provides that: “land transport—(a) means—(i) transport on land by any means: …” and it then goes on to state: “and (b) includes—(i) coastal shipping (including transport by means of harbour ferries or ferries or barges on rivers or lakes) and associated infrastructure:”. However the bill then goes on—and I know that members are very anxious to hear this—to refer to transport on land although I cannot remember the exact clause. I say to the Minister that that will confuse a few simple sailors out there. They will say they are aground and ask whether they are land transport—transport on land. They will ask what they are and whether they should look up the Land Transport Safety Authority regulations now that they have gone aground. We were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that a coastal ship should be a form of land transport for funding purposes only. Well why does the bill not just state that?  
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good point—that’s why we’re voting against it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says that is why he is voting against the bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But the member is going to vote for it. 
PETER BROWN 
: We will vote for it I say to Mr Williamson. I tell the member that quite categorically. New Zealand First will never ever vote against safety in transport.  
We think that a little tidying-up could be done in this bill which would make for a bit of clarity here and there. But we will support the bill because overall it will put more onus on the Government to address the problems in roading and on our rail-track and we will ignore that little glitch in terms of shipping and what have you and take it for what it is. We will just have to educate all the sailors out there who may understand that they come under the Land Transport Safety Authority for something that they really are not meant to come under it for and tell them that that is not the case. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is always interesting to follow New Zealand First whose members say for 1 minute that they will support the bill and then say for 10 minutes why they should not support the bill and talk about the rail tracks in Tauranga. I know the bridge that the member referred to very well and the Hon Maurice Williamson knows very well about the parking area under it. It is a great parking area and there is a lovely restaurant there. I know that bridge. This bill has a very important subject because it deals with safety. We should never compromise on safety. Although some of the principal elements of the bill are areas that National can support overall we cannot support anything that compromises safety and removes the factor of safety at reasonable cost that previous National speakers have spoken about.  
We support the merger of Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That concept concerns the operational role and we have no problem with allowing that to happen. That body will then become Land Transport New Zealand which is fine. National supports the concept of one body being able to handle those areas. The policy area however moves from the Land Transport Safety Authority back to the Ministry of Transport. That is where the Minister will have control over the outcomes and objectives and that is clearly identified. We support that. We have no difficulty with that at all. There have been major concerns with regard to the way the Land Transport Safety Authority has operated over the years especially from the trucking firms and from the big earth-moving operators in my area that have done much of the work on the roads throughout the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty and on the highways around Tauranga. They have had major concerns with regard to some of the requirements that the Land Transport Safety Authority has imposed on them.  
However moving to the area of safety at reasonable cost that is an area that we have great difficulty with because in our view the bill does downgrade the whole area of safety. If we look at clause 7 which amends sections 33(2)(e) and (f) of the Civil Aviation Act we see it provides that one of the requirements is: “(e) the need to maintain and improve aviation safety and security …”. But the word “assist” which was previously in the bill has now been taken out. The proposed section 33(2)(f) states: “whether the proposed rule—(i) assists economic development: (ii) improves access and mobility: (iii) protects and promotes public health: (vi) ensures environmental sustainability:”. The difficulty that we have concerns the difference between the words “assist” and “ensure” because there is a major difference. When I look at what the word “assist” means in the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which is paramount in terms of being an authority on these matters I see it means to help persons or the process of helping and to take part in or be present at something. That is what “assist” means. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What’s the derivation? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I will not go into that because it goes a little bit further than that. However when we look at what the word “ensure” means—and this is a really important area because in my view the word “ensure” carries far more weight—we see it means to make safe. That is what it states in the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
. It states that the word “ensure” is to make a person or thing safe and in brackets it states that is against risks—to make certain that the thing is secure. When I look at the difference in wording between the words “assist” and “ensure” I would note—and this is my view and National’s view—that it is far more powerful to use the word “ensure” than “assist”.  
However in the bill with regard to clause 7 which I have just mentioned and clause 16A which proposes to amend section 152 in the Land Transport Act concerning the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules the point that I make is that nothing should compromise safety—absolutely nothing. Reading out those definitions from the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which is the foremost authority on these matters makes it very clear that the word “ensure” carries far more weight than the word “assist” does.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Have you checked Webster’s? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I do not have Webster’s 
with me but I know that it would certainly state something similar. The amendment to section 152(c) in clause 16A the new majority amendment provides that the Minister may make ordinary rules to assist economic development and the amended section 152(f) provides that the Minister may also make rules for the purpose of “ensuring environmental sustainability:”. The point that National has concerns about is that greater emphasis is going to environmental sustainability than to the safety aspects that we would consider to be important.  
I want to move to a practical example of that. In my electorate the big dairy company is Fonterra. Fonterra will be moving its products from the Waitoa dairy factory through to Morrinsville where other products will be coming in. They will then move to Te Rapa before they are railed through the Kaimai Ranges to the Port of Tauranga. That is a very sensible move which will get transport and trucks off the road. However the very point that I make about safety is that there is a major highway State Highway 27 that runs through the area at a place called Tatanui. It is a major highway with traffic coming from Auckland and going south and vice versa and there is a rail crossing with no barrier arms on it. In fact I have written about that because I think it is a major safety issue that Transit will need to look at as will the New Zealand Railways Corporation. I am not quite sure who is responsible; maybe the Minister can help me with regard to that. But the situation is that a major highway State Highway 27 comes through and crosses State Highway 26 which runs between Morrinsville in the west and Te Aroha in the east. There are major highways and a rail crossing with no barrier arms there. In recent times the compulsory stop sign at the railway line at Tatanui at which one had to stop when coming from Auckland on State Highway 27 has been taken away and there is now a give-way sign as one comes through on to highway 26.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Under this bill there won’t be a sign at all. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No and the point I make which this Committee needs to realise is that we cannot compromise on safety. I have written to Transit—in fact while waiting to get on the plane at Hamilton Airport this morning I was talking to Transit members specifically about this point—and I have written to Railcorp about it as well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What did they say? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They are going to look into it and that is good. We do not want people to die because things like barrier arms are not there in terms of the safety that one would expect. Certainly we do not want to see deaths occurring on a major highway. We should salute what Toll Rail is doing in moving Fonterra’s products on that section of rail-track. I think that is good because it gets heavy trucks off the road. But it is an example of a situation where safety can be compromised and National will have no part of that whatsoever.  
I come back to the point I made earlier that this bill downgrades the safety factor. The bill talks about “ensuring environmental sustainability” and that is fine but the word “ensure” is far more definite than the word “assist”. In the public’s mind assisting and promoting and “assisting land transport safety and security” are not as great as ensuring that those things will happen. That is the reason why National will not be supporting this legislation. It is fine in parts. We have no difficulty with what will happen to Transfund and no difficulty with what will happen to the policy area of the Land Transport Safety Authority which is to go back to the ministry—we have no trouble at all with that. But where safety at reasonable cost will be a factor then there are issues that we cannot support.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to turn to a specific issue contained in clause 30 “Who must be consulted about land transport programme”. As has become the habit with this Government once again we see separatism creeping into legislation where it has no place at all. Yes that is extraordinary. New subsection (4A) of section 15 inserted by clause 30 states that the following entities and people must be consulted when a land transport programme is being prepared: Transit regional councils; territorial authorities; every affected approved organisation—as opposed to unapproved organisations—the Ministry of Health the Accident Compensation Corporation the Commissioner of Police the Secretary for Transport the Ministry of Justice land transport users affected communities Maori and the public. 
I have to ask the Government—it is a serious question—why Maori have been put in there specifically separate from the public. I thought Maori were part of the public. When we talk about all New Zealanders being treated equally under the law we are talking about the public of New Zealand. That seems a reasonable proposition. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: The legal counsel did a very good job. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I guess that the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia would admit that yes he is a member of the public of New Zealand. He would be consulted in that capacity. He is also a member of his local community up on the East Coast in Ruatoria I guess and he would be consulted as such. If there is a land transport programme that proposes a new road bridge or something of that nature in his area he will be consulted firstly as a member of the public from that area secondly as a member of the affected community and thirdly as a Maori person with a different interest I guess from either his interest as a member of the public or his interest as a member of an affected community. 
I wonder what particular thing the Minister of Maori Affairs would say he would be consulted on as a Maori. Would it be his concerns about taniwha? As a member of the Maori community would he have major concerns about the new bridge to be built in Ruatoria? The Minister seems to be acknowledging that he has serious concerns about taniwha in Ruatoria. Well maybe he does. Would he be consulted on his spiritual needs on the wairua of this land transport programme? Would he as a Maori person also be consulted on the basis of tikanga Maori? On the issues of land transport programmes there is simply no case for Maori to be consulted separately and apart from their capacity—the Minister included—to be consulted as members of the affected community. They have the same interests in land transport as everyone else in the community. Similarly they have the same interests as members of the public. 
One of the things that National is very committed to is ensuring that our laws apply equally to all New Zealanders. That is a fundamental platform laid down by our party. It was set out in the Orewa speech as clearly as anything could be. New Zealanders in their hundreds of thousands have responded to it and the Government seems to have listened to that response in some respects. There is huge public yearning that we all be treated equally. Is that not what last week was all about—the whole issue of the Unknown Warrior of all of us recognising that sacrifice? Despite all of that today yet again we see in general legislation— 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am quite sure that Mrs Wayne Mapp will be very interested in that contribution from “Mr DeneseHenare”. Rather than prolong the debate I will just read a section from the Transit New Zealand Amendment Act of 1995. Section 42L “Maori interests to be considered reads: “No output or capital project which affects or is likely to affect Maori land or Maori historical cultural or spiritual interests shall be included in a national roading programme … unless the Board the Land Transport Safety Authority … regional council or territorial authority preparing the programme—(a) Has consulted every iwi or hapu that in its opinion will or may be affected by the output or capital project;”. I wonder whether that legislation draws this tacky part of the debate to a close. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not wonderful to see that the National Party is influenced by the ACT party? We are so pleased that the National Party is returning to its constitutional roots and recognising the freedom of the individual. The ACT party is quite happy for the National Party to adopt its policies. The Minister of Transport forgot to mention the 1992 amendment to the Maori Land Court legislation which also brought us into the situation we now have with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It gave the Maori Land Court the ability to consider vesting title of the foreshore and seabed under customary rights. But we are very pleased that the National Party has now come back to its senses and is following the ACT party’s lead on this—one law for all.  
 I want to comment on the issue—coming back to this legislation—of downgrading safety in terms of land transport. We got a hint at question time today why this Government is doing this. It is actually a good way for this Government we found at question time to reduce hospital waiting lists. The Prime Minister herself said that waiting lists are reduced because people suffering from cataracts are being knocked down by cars and killed. I would say that the reason people suffering from cataracts and who are on waiting lists for operations are being knocked down and killed by cars is that they cannot see the cars because they have cataracts. 
I want to follow on from what Peter Brown brought up. He said New Zealand First would never vote against legislation that promoted safety. But this legislation pits safety against environmental sustainability. That is the issue. One cannot have the two things. The Minister of Transport says one can. I disagree with that and the ACT party disagrees with that. They are two issues that will be in constant conflict with each other. 
But there was a good point that Peter Brown brought up; people laughed at him but he is absolutely right. If members look at clause 25 “Interpretation” they will see that “land transport” now also means coastal shipping. But “land transport” does not mean only coastal shipping; it also means the infrastructure goods and services facilitating land transport by any means and also in terms of coastal shipping ferries and barges. The reason that that is important to debate is that if we look at the infrastructure goods and services facilitating that transport—that is transport on land by any means—and take that clause in conjunction with clause 30 “Who must be consulted about land transport programme” which provides that the authority in preparing a land transport programme has to consult with Maori we find we will never ever get any infrastructure relating to land transport. I am leaving roads out of the equation at the moment. I am talking bus shelters. 
More important what will happen with jetties and ports when the foreshore and seabed legislation goes through? What will happen with reclaimed land. Every time the authority prepares a land transport programme and whenever local authorities prepare land transport programmes they have to consult Maori. What will happen when those programmes are drawn up and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill goes through? I have to guess because that legislation is being rushed through without our even seeing it properly but we are informed that reclaimed land will be under the guardianship—the kaitiakitanga which is the current politically correct word—of the Department of Conservation and it will be impossible for any form of commercial development in terms of coastal shipping to go ahead at all unless of course as we saw when taniwha popped up around every bend in the roadway— 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this Transport Legislation Bill and pick up on a few points I have been listening to with regard to airline safety. We are concerned about the safety of airlines—everybody is—but airlines are controlled by international safety rules and regulations and we deal with only the landing side of things. Airlines have to be controlled internationally because they are expected to fly internationally. Therefore the whole legislation around airlines is quite a separate issue. 
As far as the search and rescue side of things goes that is controlled here in New Zealand. We do our own search and rescue operations. This legislation is designed to give a much better process for our search and rescue organisations. It will make it a lot easier for them to operate under the regulations we have in place. 
I will now move on to the safety of roads and the state of our roads. We have heard that a large percentage of the deaths on our roads can be directly attributed to the condition of the roads. That is correct. One has only to drive on some of our roads to find that Transit the funding organisation—Transfund—and the local regional authorities have not provided the funding to upgrade certain sections of the road. They keep putting it off hoping that perhaps new legislation will come in that will allow the improvements to be funded from elsewhere. Each organisation keeps passing the buck. Transfund keeps shuffling the money backwards and forwards between projects and not getting on with them. Therefore a lot of projects are sitting on the drawing board and have not been completed. The need for funding has been put aside. A large chunk of funding goes into the consolidated account from our petrol tax; New Zealand First believes that it should be put towards roading. That is what it is collected for. 
What is happening around the local communities now is that speed limits are being reduced rather than roads being upgraded. I have come across reduced speed limits as of 1 November from 100 kilometres an hour to 80 kilometres an hour simply because those particular roads are not suitable for a driving speed of 100 kilometres an hour. Although that reduction is a fine thing why are those roads not being upgraded? Perhaps it is because the communities around that area are expanding at such a rate that the authorities are holding off putting funding in place until they know exactly how large the volume of traffic will be. 
A third thing we mentioned was the state of the rail-tracks. The rail-tracks in New Zealand are in an abysmal state because money has not been spent on upgrading them. My colleague Peter Brown mentioned an area around Tauranga but I am well aware that areas around Papakura in south Auckland have problems with subsidence under tracks. That subsidence has been reported and has been marked off by the authorities that look after the tracks but the tracks have not been repaired. Everybody is silent; members are shocked. Sooner or later further subsidence under those tracks will end up in a train dropping from the tracks into somebody’s backyard; it could well be a member’s backyard if his or her property backs on to those tracks—[ 
Interruption 
] Maurice Williamson is calling out; he may well have been pinching stones from underneath the tracks to build his stone wall out the front of his house! The rail-track and the roading are not getting the funding that they should. 
I would like to pick up on Lindsay Tisch’s comments assist and assure him those words have been struck out. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from the question that was raised about the phrase “ensuring environmental sustainability”. The fact that there is not a definition of “sustainability” has been referred to in a number of the key submissions but my concern relates to what this does for land transport and the costs associated with land transport when applying for resource consent. It will mean now that because we have “ensuring environmental sustainability” in the bill and with the importance and precedence in the legislation that the Government has now given it it will have an effect upon resource consent applications and the ability for objectors to place emphasis on environmental protection. 
 Environmental sustainability is in the legislation in 11 different situations. A huge amount of emphasis has been put on environmental sustainability and I suggest that it is taking precedence over the safety factor. There are situations whereby while parts of the environment are valued and have some degree of real value there are considerable safety issues and environmental value will be compromised as a result of trying to meet some safety issues. The Coromandel Peninsula has a lot of very windy roads and in order to make those roads extra safe some of the corners will need to be taken off. I am sure there are a number of other roads throughout the country in other members’ electorates that are like that. However when there is an application for resource consent for that work to be done there will be objections from people who want the roads to remain windy and who will claim that there is an environmental reason for that. There will then be an argument between the safety aspect and the environmental aspect. Both aspects are written into the legislation but I would suggest that because of the particular purposes of the Resource Management Act objectors will pick up on the environmental sustainability aspect and compromise the importance of the safety aspect of this legislation. That for me would be an overriding concern and I know that it has been raised by other speakers.  
Another matter I would like to raise which was also put forward by the Automobile Association and Roading New Zealand is that new clause 16A looks at the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules. New section 152 inserted by clause 16A states: “(g) any matter related or reasonably incidental to any of the following:” and the first subparagraph states: “(i) the Minister’s objectives under section 169:”. Submitters said—and I concur with their concerns—that it was not appropriate that that be in the bill. I also do not consider it appropriate that that is in the bill. One reason put forward by the Road Transport Forum was that the Minister’s objectives do not comply with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. I do not think that many Ministers are aware that those legislative guidelines actually exist. Perhaps Mr Fairbrother should refer to those guidelines so as to have a greater understanding of what they say with regard to this matter. It is a de facto fetter on the Minister’s freedom to formulate policy in Government and the electorate’s right to vote for parties espousing particular policies. It is impractical inconsistent cumbersome and a surprise that it is there.  
The other matter that submitters were particularly concerned about was the inclusion of the land transport strategy because it makes it much more difficult to change those objectives within the strategy and the Minister’s objectives as well. Does there need to be a legislative change to do that? That matter was raised by submitters and I doubt whether the Minister will be able to answer that readily. Perhaps he would like to take a call and give us an explanation. However there was some concern particularly if the land transport strategy is like some of the other strategies I have seen which are based largely on ideology and does not have the thinking and the grunt behind it to be referred to in the bill. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I shall respond to what the Minister said earlier about how the “safety at reasonable cost” argument put up by National had been debated by some saying in their submissions that yes there was a problem but others said the opposite. I want to play a game with the Minister—“I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.” I have here all the submissions on the bill I have the lot and I am prepared to do the trade. I have a list here and I will read for the Committee the names of some of the organisations on that list. Members should remember that these organisations are huge. For example the Automobile Association which covers the biggest chunk of ordinary motorists states in its submission: “The association is concerned about the removal of the term ‘at reasonable cost’ from the transport legislation as a result of this legislation. We consider efficiency and cost considerations to be an important element of transport decision-making especially when seen from the perspective of our membership who are often required to bear the compliance costs of Government regulatory interventions in the transport sector. The association seeks the term ‘at reasonable cost’ to be retained.”  
That is my first bid and I am happy to go on. We have lots of others. Let us go with the Road Transport Forum which represents all the big commercial operators in the country. The way to fix the legislation they say is by the proposed amendments: “Clause 18 of the bill should be amended by adding the following after the final word of the proposed section 169A of the Act ‘(b) which achieve their purpose or outcome at reasonable cost and (c) for the purpose of this section a reasonable cost is a reasonable cost if the value of the cost to the nation is exceeded by the value of the resulting benefit of the nation’. ” Those are the first two bids. We have the Automobile Association which represents ordinary motorists and the Road Transport Forum which represents the big commercial operators. Let us go with the Aviation Industry Association which represents all the aircraft operators and so on. [ 
Interruption 
] Well the Minister is going to come back and give us his big list of those from the other side of the debate which I understand was from a couple of cyclists. But never mind he will tell us that I am wrong and give us the big listing of the organisations.  
The Aviation Industry Association’s proposal states: “The above amendments should apply to section 72AA.” The Aviation Industry Association represents all the operators of aeroplanes. It states further: “Safety at reasonable cost is presently the cornerstone test for the Minister in determining whether or not a rule change should proceed. Under the proposed changes there is no longer a precise test as to whether or not a rule change will enhance safety. In fact a rule change is only required to assist or help out safety and security. Only if the rule change also assists economic development and so on. It is so murky it is not funny.” So there are three. We have the Automobile Association and we will now go to someone else. How about trying Federated Farmers? That organisation represents all the farmers in New Zealand so they are getting some pretty big blocks here. We have heard from representatives of individual motorists and commercial truck operators and the Aviation Industry Association and what do Federated Farmers say? Their two-page submission which is unusual for them states: “Section 2.5. Federated Farmers is concerned that the Government does not intend to carry over the LTSA’s ‘safety at reasonable cost’ mandate into this new legislation. Federated Farmers is concerned with the lack of emphasis on efficiency in the proposed legislation and recommends the reintroduction of the words ‘at reasonable cost’.”  
How are we going now? Is it looking pretty good? No there are some more big organisations. How about all the port companies. I will not read the names of all of them but they include the Port of Auckland the Port of Otago and the Port of Marlborough. I think that includes all the ports. Their submission which is a one-pager really because after the heading it only fills in the page a little bit more states: “The current Act prescribes the Minister and the MSA’s prime role is to promote safety at reasonable cost. This concept has proven to be very useful when evaluating policy proposals in the past. By failing to recognise the importance of efficiency and cost it could well facilitate the creation of a transport system that is inefficient and consequently impacts negatively on the economy and living standards. This will normally be a trade-off between safety and cost because the alternative is safety at any cost.”  
I do not know how many more submissions there are but I will be happy to take three or four more calls on this. Here we are—a submission from Business New Zealand which represents all businesses. We now have submissions from representatives for the private motorist commercial operators the Aviation Industry Association and the ports companies. Business New Zealand states: “Section 2.2. However we are very concerned with the aspects of the bill that remove safety at reasonable cost and it is our advice to return the words ‘safety at reasonable cost’ into the legislation.” I have shown the Minister mine. It is time he gave us his list other than the names of the two cyclists. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 My honourable colleague Mr Williamson just gave us a very extensive list of organisations that are worried about the removal of “safety at reasonable cost”. I was surprised that the Minister of Transport did not leap to his feet because he has a long list. Air New Zealand and the Aviation Association of New Zealand are not on that list; nor are Orion Origin Pacific Airways or any of those airlines. They are not on that list. The Automobile Association of New Zealand is not on that list. All the motorists of New Zealand—1.5 million; a great many motorists of New Zealand—are not on that list. The port companies are not on the list; nor are the farmers who Michael Cullen was trying to woo the other day by cutting their rates. Every business is not on the list. This is like a game. If it is not farmers or business people and it is not pilots or plane drivers and it is not Federated Farmers then who is it? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I can answer that. 
JOHN KEY 
: Who is it? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Two cyclists. 
JOHN KEY 
: Two cyclists do not mind about “safety at reasonable cost”! This is from a Government that listens to the people of New Zealand! I wonder whether the Government has ever heard the expression: “If it’s not broken don’t bother to try to fix it.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Unless you are a consultant. 
JOHN KEY 
: Unless one is a consultant! It is not broken. Thousands of people were not marching in giving submissions saying that if only the “safety at reasonable cost” aspect had not been in the previous legislation everything would have been fixed up; everything would have been OK. That never presented at all.  
I want to refer in particular to the rail industry. Some months ago the Government injected quite a lot of cash into an entity called TrackCo. In fact it was so much cash that the Minister of Finance is not quite sure how much went in but the initial amount was in the order of around $200 million. The indications are that it was considerably more than that. That money will be going into upgrading the rail track that is in need of repair in many parts of the country. There is a risk I might add that some politicisation of the process will take place.  
But putting that to one side one of the issues interestingly that came up at the time was about bridges and fixing rail bridges across New Zealand in particular on the West Coast of New Zealand. The issue here was that Solid Energy had done some work with people in the South Island to indicate how much needed to be spent on bridges in the South Island. Originally the consultants came up with an amount of $50 million-odd. It then increased to about $71 million. In fact the real cost of fixing those bridges on the West Coast because there are hundreds of them is literally hundreds of millions of dollars.  
The Minister of Finance has the busy role these days of chaperoning the Foreshore and Seabed Bill through whatever political party of the week is willing to support it. It is most interesting. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is like a chameleon. It changes by whatever political party of the particular week is prepared to support it. But putting that to one side I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has had an opportunity to see what is happening in the transport legislation today. He might be interested to know that with the removal of “safety at reasonable cost” and the implication that that could have on bridges in the South Island I suggest that may change the capital requirement of TrackCo. This is not just a few million dollars that we are talking about. We are not talking about the loose change in the pockets of one or two Ministers. We are talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the removal of “safety at reasonable cost”.  
Interestingly enough I am not surprised that the Automobile Association so keenly rejected this legislation. I say that because we have had a few incidents recently where the public has become increasingly frustrated when going out to clip their front bushes only to find a traffic officer hiding under them with his radar gun. People are out there on a Saturday morning with their clippers trimming the fences to make them nice. Someone will ask: “What’s your name sir?”. “It is the Hon George Hawkins and I am here with my radar gun to catch a speeding motorist.” It is quite an interesting scenario that happens on Saturday mornings. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.  
Part 2Miscellaneous provisions  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I think it would be fair to say that Part 2 is reasonably brief in its clauses. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Mapp that I think a fair person seeing this and realising that it goes only to just less than one page would say it is quite brief. However Dr Mapp makes a very good contribution as he normally does about the technicality of that because it does refer to enormous schedules that are to do with which Acts are affected and which come into the new regime and which ones go out. I have to say that this is where I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation about some of the legislation. I look at a particular provision in Part 2 which is clause 53. I apologise in advance to my adoring drive-time audience that I will be really boring by doing this but I am going to read clause 53 and then ask the Minister what it means.  
Clause 53 is headed “General savings provision”. We could say that this is something to do with superannuation or long-term nationhood building. No we should look at the wording: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing or the bringing or completion of proceedings that relates to an existing right interest title immunity or duty.” What on earth does that mean? I will read it out again: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing”—what is a “matter or thing”?—“or the bringing or completion of proceedings that relates to an existing right interest title immunity or duty.” Clause 54 which is lovely stuff states: “Transitional regulations—The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations—(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to or in place of the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:”. How bad does it have to get before someone calls an end to this sort of nonsense where we are allowing for transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act whereby those provisions may be in addition to or replacing those that are already in the current Act? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Labour lunacy. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My colleague is right. I think clause 54 deserves another reading because I do not know what it means and I am asking the Minister to get up and tell us what it means. I will read it out again: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations—” I am happy with that. I know about the Governor-General and about making regulations by Order in Council so that is great. The regulations are: “(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions”—remember this is transport legislation not superannuation or anything—“concerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to or in place of the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:”.  
What does that mean? I think it means that if we have got it wrong if we have messed it up then we have an ability to come back at any time and make some savings and some transitional provisions to cover the ones that we got wrong in the first place. How pre-emptive is that! The Minister is basically saying that because he does not know what he is doing he will put in a clause that allows him to keep changing the legislation as we go along so he can keep fixing up the mess-up he made along the way.  
This bill could have been done more simply. There are a lot of provisions that the National Party is supportive of and a lot of provisions for which we would have been happy to come to the party and save this time on a lengthy debate that will have to be gone through. It would have been all simply handled in Part 1 when the Minister had dealt with that “safety at reasonable cost” provision. He has refused to answer who is on his big list. We will be delving into that later in the debate on the title.  
I am going to leave it to my colleagues to get into some of the details of some of the specific schedules—like technical amendments to the principal Act amendments to various Acts such as the Local Government Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Act and so on. It is quite complicated. We have an absolute right to hear and the Minister has an obligation to get up and explain a few of these bits and pieces. They are quite technical they will involve the lawyers and we have that right.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will take up the invitation of my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson and refer to the schedules. I guess that most people would reasonably think that a Transport Legislation Bill deals with various items of transport— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Cars and trucks. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Some people would even say cars and trucks and so on. I have been carefully looking at schedule 5 and it refers to the Transport Services Licensing Act—fair enough. It refers to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act—fair enough. However there are also references to the Immigration Act the Electoral Act and the Health Act. There is even reference to the Oaths and Declarations Act. There are references to the Privacy Act and indeed the Ombudsmen Act itself.  
So Part 2—innocent though it might seem on the face of it—amends a whole swathe of legislation. In fact it amends 26 separate Acts and that is not speaking of the regulations which have already been pointed out.  
I wish to refer to another serious matter in clause 54 “Transitional regulations”. These are normally quite innocent but what it actually says here is that rather than the Act coming into force on 1 December 2004—we will return to that matter in the next debate—the Minister under these transitional powers is given the power to bring various parts clauses provisions sections and subsections of the Act into force when and as he pleases. So here we are passing legislation virtually under urgency because the bill has to be passed in the next few days yet the Minister is giving himself these extraordinary executive powers to in effect thwart the will of Parliament.  
In the weekend the Government announced a constitutional inquiry. Do members think it will refer these sorts of executive powers to that inquiry? Of course not! When we get serious issues like this with the executive bound to decide when where and if it is going to introduce legislation into effect these sorts of things are expected to go unremarked. I guarantee that the Minister will not take a call on this matter. But maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Maybe he is actually reading up on these issues right now so he can make a proper response. Because he ought to because we need to know that the executive will not abuse the authority of this Parliament.  
The people here are elected are accountable to their constituents and to parties who are part of this Parliament for the legislation we pass. These debates are recorded. Do we think the Minister will be issuing press releases as to when he introduces particular clauses regulations and so forth? No the Government will just do it. It will be a  
Gazette 
 order I guess. How many people read the  
New Zealand Gazette  
these days? How many lawyers even read it? The answer is “very few”. So this Parliament is empowering the Government to pass into law this legislation by stealth.  
I am surprised actually that New Zealand First would want to be part of that. New Zealand First is voting for this bill. It had particular concerns but it is voting for these kinds of clauses. I would like to think that it has properly considered the way this works because it actually flies in the face of the opening clause. No wonder this provision is buried at the very end of the bill! No wonder it is buried in this kind of clause! Because although the Government intended to delude the public that they would get new transport legislation on 1 December 2004—the very first clause says that—in reality we are empowering a Minister of Transport to do this. My colleague has referred to maybe future reckless Ministers doing this. I suggest this Minister will be the reckless Minister who will introduce it whenever and however he wants.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to address clause 51 “Dissolution of Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund”. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a submission and then a follow-up clarification from the Automobile Association. That organisation represents more than 1 million people in New Zealand a quarter of the population many of whom will be listening to this debate. The Automobile Association raised a very important concern—that is the bill dissolves the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and instead forms Land Transport New Zealand but it does not address the end of the funder/provider split. That is the really important issue the association brought up. 
The Automobile Association acknowledged that it is not a complete return to the bad old days when the Minister of Transport who lived out the back of Waipukurau had the road from the corner to his house tar-sealed. The association acknowledges that it is not a return to that but it did specify that in its view not enough was done in the bill to safeguard special interests to provide checks and balances and in its words to ensure that special interests whether local in nature or otherwise were prevented from influencing the transport funding allocation process. 
At the moment as I understand it in terms of current funding arrangements the Minister approves the output classes of funding but when this bill comes into existence he will approve the funding for the national land transport programme. Admittedly under the new situation he will not approve the funding for specific projects project by project so that will provide some independence from political pressures. However when the Minister approves the national land transport programme he will include in that programme specific projects within each funding category. 
Yet the Automobile Association—an organisation that represents so many people and an organisation I might say that supported the overall philosophy of this legislation and the tidying up of Crown entities—has raised concerns about that. This is an important issue and I would like the Minister to take a call and reassure New Zealand that the Automobile Association’s concerns are not valid and that there was no need to address them in the bill. 
We at the select committee asked the Automobile Association to follow up its concern with an example and it gave us the funding of the road safety education programme. Under the present situation the Land Transport Safety Authority has a road safety education programme but under the new legislation other agencies will be competing against Land Transport New Zealand for that funding. I do not have time to go into that example in detail but I would be interested to know the views of other parties in Parliament. I know that New Zealand First always supports the Automobile Association and its submissions and I wonder how that party feels about this concern. 
I finish by summing up the Automobile Association’s concern. It said that there would be a potential conflict of interest for Land Transport New Zealand—that is the new entity—in making allocation decisions regarding road safety advertising education and information provided by itself vis-à-vis road safety engineering and enforcement activities provided by outside agencies. However that issue was not addressed satisfactorily by the current legislation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I certainly share the concerns of my colleagues. I too was alarmed when I saw clause 53 “General savings provision”. I understand that a considerable amount of that $250 million is still in the pot so the concern would be that that money is spent on actual road construction and is not frittered away on a lot of airy-fairy policies with regard maybe to additional road signage or the whims of Land Transport Safety Authority policy. 
I am also concerned about what that means. If the Minister can do what he likes in terms of the effect of the bill and can undertake different aspects of this bill at any time before it comes into effect what does that really mean? Perhaps he will take a call and explain that. 
There are a number of things in the offing and one of them of course is the implementation of the vehicle emission policy. My understanding is that the policy does not exempt pre-1980 cars and that will have a significant impact. There are questions about whether the policy is being implemented for environmental purposes safety purposes or whatever but what will the Minister’s position be in relation to that? How soon will he move to incorporate the Land Transport Safety Authority with Transfund and what will happen to the policy recommendations of the Land Transport Safety Authority at that point? Will he take them over and have some sense brought into that argument? After all when it comes to vehicle emissions there were no cars pre-1980 that were actually designed with a catalytic converter which is now what may be required to be installed. Pre-1980 cars were not designed to have catalytic converters. Of course when cars with catalytic converters were coming in— 
John Key 
: Does your car have one? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: No my car does not have one and it was not built to have one.  
John Key 
: I’ve got a Commodore. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: What year is it? 
John Key 
: 2001. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: 2001? Actually I do not know. But I think it will be interesting— 
Darren Hughes 
: That member drives a Rolls Royce.  
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Really? I am enjoying this. It is just wonderful how we all take great interest in vehicles and in our cars! 
Obviously there is some considerable concern and debate about this particular policy coming through from the Land Transport Safety Authority so it will be interesting to see whether the Minister exercises the largesse provided by the transitional regulations under clause 54. Will the Minister exercise his largesse and actually bring a bit of sensibility to the policy for vehicle emission testing and have an exemption for pre-1980 vehicles because there is some concern about the legitimacy of the basis for that policy. 
The Minister could exercise his rights under clause 54 because pre-1980 cars do not have the ability to have catalytic converters attached to them without some serious difficulty. Perhaps that would compromise safety and given that this bill is meant to be all about safety—however with the emphasis on environmental sustainability—the Minister will hopefully put some rationality into the policies being floated with regard to vehicle emission testing—and I might add into the policies about speed limit reductions that are also taking place. 
Those are two policy areas and that is what this bill is meant to be all about—bringing policy back into the ministry. So perhaps the Minister will use the transitional regulations and actually put a bit more control and sense around the speed limit policy being put forward too by the Land Transport Safety Authority. After all in our area where the average speed limit is about 89 kilometres an hour instead of 100 kilometres an hour the proposal is to drop the limit to 80 kilometres an hour which is absolutely nonsensical particularly as a speed problem cannot be proven with regard to the one or maybe two fatalities on that particular stretch of road. 
So the general savings provision is a concern and we would hope for transparency in any sort of funding that will be affected by this legislation. We want to make sure that that is handled appropriately and of course we are very concerned about this Government’s fiscal capability. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I think that the member who just resumed her seat has raised some interesting issues. They are not entirely within the scope of Part 2 but if she is entitled to raise them it may not be a bad idea for me to respond to them.  
Part 2 is quite simple. Apart from the various schedules that some members seem to have read—which is always encouraging—it is primarily the part that dissolves Transfund New Zealand and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That means that both of those organisations move into a new organisation called Land Transport New Zealand although the policy functions revert to the Ministry of Transport. [ 
Interruption 
] The member wants to know when and the answer is 1 December. I hope that is helpful. 
The member also raised matters about vehicle emissions testing. That piece of work is being ably managed by my colleague the Associate Minister of Transport the Hon Judith Tizard and it is not for me to speak at great length about it. But I do just say that the status of emissions management in New Zealand through cars is probably the worst in the Western World. It is a matter of disgrace that it has not been addressed by successive Governments. 
One interesting little factoid that comes out of taking an integrated approach to transport is that if one looks at human health and safety instead of just safety one finds that a number of people are killed on our roads. I am afraid that the figure looks as if it will just exceed 400 this year—lower than last year and the second lowest figure for decades. So we have managed to take the blip out of the rise we saw a year ago. 
But interestingly about 400 people also die prematurely from air emissions—pollution—arising from transport. Those are not people with names and addresses. 
Deborah Coddington 
: That’s nonsense. Those are nonsense statistics. Are those scientifically based statistics? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed they are. The member has decided to interject. Let me just jump down her throat a little and say that the difference between the two groups of figures is that one group has people’s names and addresses—and indeed those of their relatives and loved ones—and the other group is an epidemiological statistical derivation. But the statistics are still people. 
The fact of the matter is that we have paid careful attention to reducing the road toll—and good on us! It is now time for us to start to get on top of the damage that is caused to human health by emissions from motorcars. That is why we have begun the emissions— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Some of the speed policy is nuts. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That may be but the fact of the matter—because the member raised the issue—is that this is the first Government through the good work of the Hon Judith Tizard to get on top of vehicle emissions. We are at the stage where just a couple of months ago in various parts of the country we have begun piloting so that we can get a look at what is coming out of the pipe now. 
A discussion paper will go out on Monday that will then get the public’s viewpoint on where we might set these standards and how often we might require cars to be tested and on whether for example pre-1980 vehicles should be counted. Those are things the member is welcome to offer her opinion on; we would look forward to it. 
Then progressively the Government’s vehicle emissions policy will be rolled out and we will start to pay attention to the statistical deaths of 400 people per annum in the same way that we pay careful attention to the actual deaths each year of people killed in accidents on the roads.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I will follow on from the Minister of Transport Pete Hodgson and address Part 2 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I note that there are five clauses in Part 2. It is a relatively simple part of the bill which is followed by the schedules. 
In particular I will traverse the ground of what Part 2 does. It essentially recognises the three independent bodies as they are today—the Ministry of Transport the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund—and the fact that each has a part that is policy and a part that is operational. The effect if we like of Part 2 is to strip out operational activities and to put them into one entity. The Ministry of Transport pretty much has a policy element today the Land Transport Safety Authority has both operational and some policy people involved and Transfund also has operational and some policy people. Under this part we will draw those people out and put them collectively in a group of staff at the Ministry of Transport that look at policy. 
Broadly speaking National is supportive of that. I think there is a strong case for saying that across the Ministry of Transport the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund various policy people need to be thinking in the right direction. 
Probably a year or so ago before I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Simon Power 
: Those were the days. 
JOHN KEY 
: They were happy times. In that 12 months on the select committee I learnt much about ships from Peter Brown’s many stories he regaled me with as he sat next to me and I made him coffees. With his general swagger as we had a Tim Tam biscuit together he would put his arm around me and share with me some quite interesting stories. It was touching stuff. 
As I reflect back on that time I recall something interesting about the policy work from the Ministry of Transport the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund. On one particular day someone came along to the select committee and said that there should be a policy differentiation for Maori New Zealanders due to the impact of emissions on them. I asked the obvious question about why Maori New Zealanders—people of the ethnic grouping of Maori—would be any more affected by emissions than any other New Zealanders. It was a pretty fair question. The answer came back that it was because of some of the places where Maori tended to live and because of all sorts of completely rubbishy reasons. Of course that probably would not happen today post-Orewa.  
But I am at least a little bit concerned to make sure that the policy work that comes out of this new body—because it will be pretty important—as combined and with a cadre of individuals involved in it will be a lot stronger than what we have previously seen. Quite frankly some of the policy has been absolutely complete and utter rubbish. 
I want to talk a little about the schedules—in particular the provision under schedule 2 relating to schedule 4 to repeal clause 27(3) and substitute new clause 3. I would term that the “Mike Williams provision” which states: “To avoid doubt—(a) a person who is a member of the board of one entity may also be a member of the board of the other entity:”. Mike Williams being the Labour Party president is on the board of Transfund— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Transit not Transfund. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. He decides which roads are built. My apologies to Mr Williams who is on the board of Transit. He is also on the board of TrackCo—obviously he knows a lot about trains. He is actually on quite a number of Government-appointed boards. That provision is put in this bill to remove any doubt whatsoever for Mr Williams. As he looks at his future appointments under a Labour Government—and he no doubt hopes there will be quite a few of them—and as he looks around the “jobs for the boys” schemes rolled out by the Labour Party he will be able to see that under schedule 4 there is no concern for him. He will be able to have many appointments. He will be able to take on a diverse range of Government appointments under that schedule.  
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I was not going to bother to speak because I think the good sense of this legislation is very evident. However I rise to speak to Part 2. 
The Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will be dissolved. Those organisations have been primarily concerned with providing a land transport system that caters very well to those who drive cars. It is very clear that the future of the car will be different from its past. Peak oil is a reality. I have heard the Minister speak about it. It is likely to hit us; it probably has already hit us. The prices we are paying for oil right now may go up and down a little but they are trending upwards. The demand is likely to exceed supply—if it has not already done so—sometime this decade. 
Transport policy needs to be concerned about health safety and sustainability—they are all linked. Probably the most threatened groups in the community are children cyclists and the elderly who have been poorly catered for by our transport system. Those who cannot drive those who choose not to drive those who are too young to drive and those who cannot afford to drive have been poorly served. Those people’s transport methods are probably the most sustainable. They travel shorter distances they travel only when they need to they do not climb into their motorcars at the drop of a hat and they tend to be healthier as well—except when it comes to the safety angle. When it comes to safety they are the most vulnerable. 
The Minister of Transport mentioned respiratory diseases. He might also have mentioned type 2 diabetes which is a disease the cost of which is likely to blow out to something like a billion dollars per year in this decade and in the next decade from a figure of about $20 million. That disease is largely brought about by a sedentary lifestyle which is the consequence of people spending much too much time in motorcars. 
The Minister could perhaps set my mind at rest however that the new organisation that will replace the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will in fact have the expertise to make sure that the regional land transport strategies documents that set out the roading and transport needs of communities up and down this country do provide for the transport disadvantaged and do ensure that those who drive are aware that they have legs and those legs can be used—that they can catch buses they can walk they can cycle and they can choose other methods to get around. Perhaps the new organisation could look at some land-use measures that would avoid the need to move people around by persuading them to live closer to where they need to be and by persuading town planners to site industries in locations where people can get to them without travelling from one side of their communities to the other at great cost. 
We will be supporting the legislation. It is good legislation. It will ensure that we have a healthier New Zealand that we have a sustainable transport system and that the most vulnerable and most transport disadvantaged can actually get around when they want to. Those who use motorcars will be able to use them efficiently and effectively if this bill goes ahead. We will support it.  
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was actually not going to take a call but then I heard the honourable member Mike Ward make a contribution. For the first time I have to say I am a bit worried about whether we should be supporting this legislation—after listening to his contribution. Clearly he wants to tear up the roads and remove motorists from them but the actual truth in this country is that we need more roads which need to be wider and safer. 
New Zealand First is hopeful that with the dissolution of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and their amalgamation into Land Transport New Zealand a much more proactive attitude will prevail through that organisation. We are hopeful that organisation will have a much more professional attitude a much more caring attitude and a much more businesslike attitude than the current organisations. I am referring more specifically to Transfund than to the Land Transport Safety Authority. 
Roading in this country has not kept pace with vehicle numbers and traffic demand. It is a long way short of those. It is actually shameful that Government after Government and Minister after Minister have just taken dollars from the petrol motorist—thousands even millions of dollars—used them in all sorts of frivolous areas and not spent an adequate amount of funding on roading. If we are silly enough—and I say that with sincerity—to think the motorcar will not play a prominent role in our society then I suggest that we should think again. If there are any members here who believe that we can get rid of the motorcar then I tell them that they are living on the wrong planet. That is not going to happen. [ 
Interruption 
] I am getting a little worried; United Future members are agreeing with everything I am saying this afternoon and that is a problem in itself. 
The motorcar is here to stay. It might become more fuel-efficient. We looked at hybrid cars out on the forecourt only the other day and they are very impressive vehicles. I am told by those who know a little more about them than I do that they can do 65 kilometres to the gallon or thereabouts and they go on to battery power automatically—there is no switch over. It is modern technology. But the motorcar is here to stay. Hopefully more and more people will use public transport where and when they can but it will never take over from the car. It will never take over completely from the car. If we want to get rid of congestion sure we should cater for the travelling public who want to use public transport—and maybe encourage people to use it—but we must improve our roading. That is very very important. 
I am hopeful and New Zealand First is hopeful that by getting rid of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund by bringing them together in recognition of their common goals we will get a far more professional organisation that will look at roading much more objectively that will look at funding and that will have the courage of its convictions to say that we cannot fund roads on a drip-feed basis. I hope it will have the courage of its convictions to go to the Minister of Transport and say: “Look! The average New Zealander doesn’t want tolls. Please think again.” I am very very hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will take such a positive attitude and that when the Minister asks what the best way is to fund our roads—I know he will ask that; he is a very objective Minister—the new organisation will tell him to read the Allen report in detail and see the advantage of borrowing to invest in our roads. The return is thousands of dollars per year in excess of what is invested. Indeed I believe that the return estimated by the Allen report in terms of Tauranga with its strategic roading network is something like $7.60 for every dollar invested. That is a huge return and dare I say—because I know that the Minister is listening—there would not be a greater or better investment of Government dollars than an investment in roading at this particular time in our history. We need to do something positive about our roading and I am hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will do just that.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to the heading before clause 51 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Tonight I want to re-emphasise to the Committee that the National Party has been very very clear on this bill. A lot of it is something we support and we would have been very happy to give our vote to the legislation if not for a few little things—which we probably would have lived with as one always does when another party is putting legislation through—but also for one big thing. That one big thing which is central to this whole legislation is the removal of the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. 
I simply do not understand it. I see Michael Cullen sitting in the House. He is always guarding the purse strings and is careful to make sure that money is not spent in a foolish way. I ask him why he would not want to have a transport regime that stated that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. I bet his officials said—I had better put in an Official Information Act request for his Treasury advisory papers—“Minister you need to go to Cabinet and fight to keep in legislation that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.” I know how it works and I bet that was what he was in there fighting for on behalf of Treasury. 
But the most important thing I think that this Committee and the people listening need to know is that after I had run this matter in the first speech on Part 1 the Minister of Transport got up belittled me and said: “Oh well that’s just National; its members are all over the place—just like the submissions. Some thought that was an issue and others didn’t.” And he is right. Let us go through the list. Who thought it was a serious omission and needed to be fixed?  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Everyone. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well Mr Mapp is not quite right. He said “everyone”; I think that one could say “near as damn everyone” because someone who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said the opposite. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry there were two—two cyclists. That is whom the Minister is using as his weight of evidence. I have been able to show the Committee today that the Automobile Association Business New Zealand the Road Transport Forum the Bus and Coach Association the ports companies through a joint submission the Aviation Industry Association and Federated Farmers opposed it. In fact it is very hard if one goes through my list of submissions to the committee to find anybody in New Zealand other than those two cyclists who is for it—and I need to make sure they are kept in this debate because they are what the Minister is hanging his entire issue on. Every other organisation involved in transport—with some of them like the Automobile Association representing a million or more people—made it very clear that this legislation was deficient because it removed the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. 
I understand why in politics when there is a very strong ideological difference between left and right Government members would want to do that and why they would want to say: “Look we’re taking the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost out of this legislation because …” but we have not heard that. There has been not a mutter not a murmur not a nothing other than the Minister saying; “Oh you’re confused and there were just as many submitting the other way.” Well I tell the Minister that there were not. There was hardly anybody representing anybody saying anything other than: “Why are you removing provision of safety being at a reasonable cost?” because that is the test that will stop some fruit loop in the future from doing some idiotic thing in transport with bizarre costs and almost no benefits. Even right now I simply do not understand why this issue does not transcend all political colours and all persuasions in the entire spectrum or why the Government is not prepared to say: “Yes we accept it.” 
That change was requested by all those organisations. I will not go through the list again but one will not find a major organisation representing transport—or even a minor organisation representing quite a number of affected people—that did not want provision of safety being at a reasonable cost put back in and did not make it the cornerstone of its submission. Let me tell members—[ 
Interruption 
] No Business New Zealand is not a good example because its submission was lots and lots of pages. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Ha ha! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I was just saying—I say to Judith Tizard who is cackling up the back there—that some submissions were only a page long. There was one page from the port companies and that issue is all they submitted on. Federated Farmers’ submission was two pages long; again it was nearly all about the provision of safety being at a reasonable cost. Yet the Government will not even take a call to explain its removal. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to respond to some of the comments made by Maurice Williamson. He was going on and on in his speech about safety at reasonable cost. I think that the problem with the reality we face on the roads today is that every excuse in the book has been used by authorities local bodies and people in charge of transport to avoid having our roads safe. Mr Williamson talked about cyclists. I am a cyclist myself in Auckland. Cyclists have been getting a raw deal for years and years. There are just not the proper provisions throughout most of Auckland for safe cycling. If one cycles down many of the inner city streets—for example Symonds Street is a nightmare—there just are not the provisions there for cyclists. There are some off-road cycleways in Auckland and hopefully Auckland City under its new council will expand off-road cycleways and improve conditions for cycles. I think that this legislation will help the council because it will enable it to work hand in hand with the various authorities in this bill to promote proper safe cycling.  
I have recently visited Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia where a much higher proportion of the population cycles because their Governments make serious provision for cycling. Sometimes they take a parking lane off and put a two-way cycle lane along it instead. It is not only a question of safety but also a question of health if people are to cycle for short journeys. Most of the transport journeys in urban settings including in Auckland are for relatively short distances of a kilometre 2 kilometres or 3 kilometres. These journeys could be done by cycle if there were the cycle lanes and cycleways to encourage that.  
So I very much support the safety emphasis in this legislation which was worked out in very close collaboration between Labour and the Greens. I think it would do people like Mr Williamson and his National colleagues credit if they took up cycling themselves to try to encourage people to use cycles and therefore reduce car congestion. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The Chair will not allow a speaker to be drowned out. I can hardly hear the member. I say to members that chaos may be the parent of creation but in this Committee we will have order. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I will not talk just about cycling but also about facilities for pedestrians. Again in Auckland half the time there are not proper footpaths around the city and there are difficulties at traffic lights particularly for disabled people. Important improvements are needed. There are still a lot of pedestrian accidents including accidents at traffic lights. The turning lanes at intersections are not adequate and often create difficulty for pedestrians and particularly for older citizens. There are still projects going ahead without proper cycling and pedestrian facilities. There was a big debate in Auckland recently in relation to an overbridge over the Grafton Gully motorway extension because it did not have cycle facilities and proper pedestrian facilities. Under the cycling and walking strategy being developed by the Government in collaboration with the Greens on which initial draft discussion papers have been presented hopefully in every road and transport project that goes ahead consideration will be given to proper facilities for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. This is not only in relation to road projects. Each rail development project can have cycling and walking facilities in it. One of the advantages—particularly in a place like Auckland which is rather hilly—is that the railways are relatively level and are good for also providing walking and cycling facilities. So that is one issue that the Greens including the Greens in Parliament will be promoting. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the interesting points about that last contribution was the one that Mr Locke made very early on when he talked about Labour and the Green Party getting together to make sensible legislation. He was very enthusiastic about that point too. Interestingly the Minister of Finance nodded in affirmation because he knows that is what lies in the future for him. He is looking forward to that new coalition. We saw that last week because legislation was passed and—get this—the Labour - Green - Maori Party— 
Keith Locke 
: Isn’t that good?  
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is what Mr Locke said. That is the real choice that will confront New Zealand at the next election—the Labour - Green - Maori Party coalition. That is what the constitutional select committee is all about—the Labour - Green - Maori Party facilitation of debate on that issue. That is the sort of thing those parties are doing. I just wanted to draw that point to the attention of members.  
The only credible support for this legislation—actually it is incredible support—is one submission made by two cyclists. All the other groups as my colleague Mr Williamson referred to representing literally millions of people in this country said no to this legislation. It has been pointed out quite carefully that at least in those circumstances we would expect the Government to defend the abandonment of a principle that millions of people want to retain: safety at reasonable cost. No we do not get that. Instead we get the flimflam of the weasel words that are scattered through this legislation about environmental sustainability and economic benefits. Those are things that we cannot quantify. That is the danger of this legislation: on the one hand we have the certainty and security which is surely a cardinal principle of legislation of safety at reasonable cost and on the other hand we have conjecture hypotheses and uncertainty which are the very enemies of good legislation.  
There is one further thing and we are not just opposed to this. The Government made much play that a former Minister of Transport was in the Chamber and indeed had been the Minister of Transport in 1995 and Government members boasted about their inclusions. I say to the Government that we have listened to the people of New Zealand. We have been listening over a period of time and yes there has been a fundamental change in the way we should develop public policy. Concepts like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi did not elicit great concern 15 years ago but today they do. Surely the lesson from that and surely the lesson for legislators and for those aspiring to represent the public is to listen to the public. The public has made it very clear I suggest that the election will be fought on the principle that the law applies to us equally. That will be one of the great cardinal issues in the coming election. So that is why National has said it might have done certain things in the 1990s but it has listened to the people who have said that it went too far. National has listened to the real concerns about the future viability of this nation and the way that people interrelate together. In the law itself there should be one principle. People should not be sectioned out according to ethnicity and then get special rights and obligations. 
Darren Hughes 
: How’s the polling going? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is exactly what the junior whip wants. He wants to be able to divide people by their ethnicity and to say that some get special rights that others do not simply on the basis of ethnicity. We are opposed to this legislation on that fundamental ground itself.  
Yes I am focusing on the issues contained in clause 30 which are inherent in this bill—in its title and its conception. If we as a nation continue to go down that path and in all general legislation always seek to identify Maori people as a special class with special rights and special privileges then this country will falter. I have listened to many many New Zealanders on the North Shore and they do say they are worried about that trend. That is why there was such an outpouring about it. Even National did not understand the sense and depth of outpouring on that issue from the general public. Addressing that does call for some simple rules that are the foundation of every modern democracy: that the law applies to us equally and that in democratic States we look first to the individual. We put the individual at the apex of our system and rights are connected to individuals not provided on the basis of people’s race and ethnicity. That is a fundamental flaw in this legislation.  
This bill could have been made right and National could have ended up supporting it. All that was required was for the Government to listen to two things. First the Government should have listened to all the submitters who said they wanted to have reference in the legislation to safety at reasonable cost because that was predictable certain and known and people could plan on that basis. Organisations and companies with literally billions of dollars of investments need to be given predictability and they asked for predictability in their submissions. In fact they did more. They subsequently wrote letters to me and to Mr Williamson and I guarantee that they wrote those same letters to the Minister of Transport as well to ask him to reconsider the issue because they could see the danger of shifting away from a tried and true principle. Yet the Minister simply ignored them. So ignorant was the Minister on this issue that he came along to the Chamber earlier today and said there was of course a range of submissions with some people saying yes some saying no and others saying maybe. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A balance. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Labour talks about balance. Its balance I guess is that about 98 percent here and 2 percent there looks like fifty-fifty to it. That is the kind of balance the Government believes in. If the Minister who is after all said to be the responsible Minister on this issue had taken note of the submissions he would have understood that particular issue. So we are opposed to this legislation on that basic issue in its own right.  
The second point is one that I have mentioned but I just want to restate my concern at what I find buried in this legislation—and this is a point of issue around general legislation. We should not be identifying people by race or by ethnicity and then giving them special rights in general legislation. We acknowledge on the Opposition side of the Chamber that there is Maori land law Maori language—all those things—and treaty settlements. In those things obviously we expect to find specific reference to Maori ethnicity and particular references to Maori because we do understand our history. But we are into the 21st century. This Minister no doubt spoke to Shane Jones in the weekend. Shane Jones gave a very interesting interview earlier this week in which he said: “Settling historic grievances was last century’s problem. That should not be the issue that we look toward in the 21st century. In the 21st century we should be looking at people achieving in their own right.” 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 A great deal of legislation that we pass sets out to sustain the unsustainable and to perpetuate behaviour that has no future. That has been true of most of the transport legislation that has come before this House and of most of the transport initiatives that have been followed in this country for a very long time. This bill I suggest is culture-changing legislation in that it sets out to persuade people to behave in ways that give my children a future and to change the behaviour of waste. It sets out in fact to look at the underlying problems and to address them.  
I have never driven. I have managed to live a reasonable life in spite of not having driven. Part of the reasonableness of my life has been that I have not had to run a car. I have worked fewer hours spent less time in going to places and spent less time in travelling than most people. I find it rather bizarre that in a time when we have never had so many cars and so many roads we have never spent so much time in travelling. One has to say that maybe we have been getting it wrong. I would suggest that this piece of legislation in fact addresses that—getting it wrong—and tries to get it right.  
What sort of a future are we looking for? A future where the streets are safe enough to send our kids out on to a future where we actually have choices about how we get to places and a future where in fact we will be able to climb into our motor cars when we need to because I suggest they are going to be around for a while. This bill does that. This legislation is good culture-shifting legislation. As I said before not much of our legislation is culture-shifting legislation. Most of it sets out to perpetuate unsustainable behaviour. We probably do not have a lot of time to get more of this kind of legislation in front of the House. I think we have an aimlessness and a pointlessness out there that this legislation addresses as well. One cannot have two cars in every garage. May I say that in the Tasman District—a district adjacent to my city of Nelson—67 percent of households last year had two or more cars. I tell members that the cost of those cars is that people are working to earn two or more incomes per family. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is their choice. 
MIKE WARD 
: This bill does not take away choice; it gives choice—genuine choice. Having umpteen different models of motorcar is not choice. Having a choice between safe cycling safe walkways safe buses regular buses frequent buses and one’s car is choice and this bill sets out to give that kind of choice.  
I mentioned earlier and I have mentioned at times to the Minister that I hope we will have the expertise to make sure that local authorities in providing that choice genuinely consider the needs of the transport disadvantaged in such a way as the rest of us those of us who do climb into cars—and I am one of those these days; it is somebody else’s car and I pay for it but I do climb into cars—but who actually have other choices. May I say I actually still catch the bus from the airport from time to time and it is probably quicker than getting a cab. One might have to wait a little longer for the bus but it gets one here to Parliament just about as quickly as a cab. It goes through the tunnel and misses out on the queues of traffic. That is the kind of future that I think this bill will provide for all New Zealanders. Wellington does that well. In Auckland one sits in queues of traffic that is going nowhere extraordinarily slowly. I fail to understand the good sense of that; I do not see any good sense in it. But Aucklanders do sit there forever in their cars going nowhere.  
So the Greens have much pleasure in supporting this legislation. We believe it is good legislation. We are proud to have been part of forming this legislation and we look forward to seeing it passed. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ACT party has not been given a call on the title. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave for the ACT party to take one call and for us then to proceed to the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to respond to that absolute nonsense from the Green Party. The title of this legislation—the Transport Legislation Bill—is very misleading. This legislation will do nothing to improve transport in New Zealand. In fact it will set transport back two decades. The Green Party says that it increases choices. How can the Greens say it increases choices and at the same time be so opposed to cars? Cars give New Zealanders freedom of choice. They give old people mothers and families freedom of choice. Why does the Green Party think that bus transport is more sustainable environmentally than car transport? The Green Party members have obviously never been stuck behind a diesel bus that is grinding its way up a hill and belching out black diesel smoke. Cars have become more efficient and more environmentally pure than buses have in the last two decades.  
The main objection that we heard from all the submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was that this legislation codifies for the first time the Government’s specific land transport strategy. We heard from Business New Zealand the Automobile Association the Road Transport Forum the Cycling Advocates Network Federated Farmers Queenstown Lakes District Council and numerous other submitters whose concerns were ignored. They said that legislation should be flexible and robust enough to actually just accommodate a Government’s range of policies rather than spell out in word for word detail the four objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy which was written by Roland Sapsford from the Greens office in conjunction with Heather Simpson in the Prime Minister’s office. A deal was done whereby that strategy would be allowed to go through in return for the Greens’ support on the Supreme Court Bill. That was MMP at its worst.  
Even though we are talking about land transport which includes all the motorists in New Zealand who use the roads let us not forget that this bill actually defines coastal shipping barges and ferries as land transport as well. So this bill includes the users of all those services. New Zealand’s future economic viability is put at stake by this legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Nagger nagger! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: When that member’s voice breaks he may be able to get up take a call and contribute something sensible to the debate. Meanwhile he just sits there chirping away—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please continue. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Overwhelmingly the submissions on the bill requested that the sustainability filter which has now taken the place of safety at a reasonable cost be changed. It has not really been changed; it has been tweaked and tinkered with. We now have more weasel words such as “maintain” and “improve” but the only thing that is to be ensured under this legislation is environmental sustainability. How can one have transport legislation for which the main objective— 
Darren Hughes 
: What a nagger. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That member obviously does not care about safety. He does not care that airlines and the helicopter industry will have to be more concerned about how they pollute the atmosphere than about the safety of their passengers. That is what this bill does in stating that environmental sustainability will be ensured but safety will be assisted. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the Minister of Fisheries is under the influence. I think he was calling out “A party of crooks.” or something similar to that. He is nodding his head. The Minister Mr Benson-Pope is completely out of order and he should be required to withdraw and apologise for those remarks. He should sober up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Prebble. I actually thought that I had heard that myself. If that was the case I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I would have thought that it was a case of pots and kettles. To get back to the title this bill amends already the legislation that we passed just last year. The Government could not get the legislation right last year. How do we know whether next year its transport policy may not change again? The Government itself may change. If that happens we will have to go through this whole process again because this Government will have specifically written into the book its transport strategy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill 
 divided into Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and Maritime Transport Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 300 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill.  
This is so that the bill can be passed before the House rises for a 1-week adjournment and to give legal certainty around the framework on the matter. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to our discussion in the Business Committee I seek leave for there to be 14 speeches each of a maximum of 10 minutes on the second and third reading debates on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. That will be so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Secondly I seek leave to table a document that shows the effects that the amendments proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 302 would have on the text of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill as introduced. The document of course has no official status. It is provided solely for the convenience of members of Parliament. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Seeing as this is quite an extraordinary situation we have here with effectively a new bill just tabled and available for Opposition members perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could have unlimited time—with the first Opposition spokesperson having equivalent unlimited time—so that he can go through and explain the changes and the detail given that the select committee could not give a full report back to the House and that we will move into the Committee stage on this very important bill without having done it justice at the second reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought that the first two speeches have unlimited time. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a second time 
. I would never be so cruel to Mr Brownlee as to insist that he speak at length on this bill—10 minutes will no doubt be an extension of time!  
To repeat a point I made in the debate on the first reading this bill gives effect to the four principles we set out at the start: access regulation protection and certainty. The bill provides a clear unified system for recognising and protecting rights in the foreshore and seabed. It creates a fair and reasonable framework for working through individual cases in the context of a settled concept of Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders.  
I said in my first reading speech that this bill would not satisfy everyone. I doubted that that would be possible given the contentious and complex nature of the issues. But I emphasised that the bill did go a long way to addressing the concerns that have been raised. I expressed the hope that people would take time to examine and discuss the bill and suggest improvements. The select committee report shows that people certainly exercised their democratic rights with nearly 4000 written submissions and over 200 oral presentations. It is disappointing that the committee could not agree on amendments to the bill many of which are simply of a technical nature that would have assisted members and we shall hear a great deal of huffing and puffing about that later ignoring the fact that the parties responsible are those that actually opposed the bill not those that supported the bill. But that has not detracted from the integrity of the legislative process as Mr Russell Fairbrother chair of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee pointed out.  
I turn to the select committee’s report. I would like first of all to express my gratitude to Government members of the committee for their contribution to the work of the committee and for their report. Their advocacy of a reserve status for areas of the foreshore and seabed expressed both in the report and directly has been influential and is reflected in the Government’s proposals for changes to the bill. I shall say more on those later.  
I am not able to compliment National members of the committee on their report. They restate their earlier position that Parliament simply needs to legislate to remove the Maori Land Court jurisdiction that was the subject of the NgatiApa judgment. The bill does a great deal more than that because it has to. Recognising and protecting rights in the foreshore and seabed is a complex matter not one amenable to simple solutions yet National says it supports recognising and protecting those customary rights.  
National tells us that it does not accept the claim that non-Maori New Zealanders can never have the same feeling love and care for or connection with the coastline of this country as someone who is Maori. The Government and New Zealand First reject that too. If National members think that that is what the bill does they have simply not read it through. What they have to consider is whether particular Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed can be acknowledged consistent with the general interests of all New Zealanders and that is what the bill has set out to do.  
Mr Dail Jones made a thoughtful and constructive contribution to the report repeating the position that the bill does ensure the ownership of the public foreshore and seabed by the Crown and the protection of customary rights. That dialogue is continued and the Supplementary Order Paper represents the outcome of that dialogue.  
ACT simply said we were precipitate inconsistent and wrong but never said at all clearly what should have been done. [ 
Interruption 
] Apparently the ACT position was that we should have allowed the law to run as it was and foreshore and seabed should have passed into private hands. We know ACT favours privatisation but we did not realise it actually went as far as that in this respect.  
The Green members’ report is extensive and considered but does not provide a basis for reaching an accommodation with the Government on the issues in the bill because it adopts this notion that in the meantime the Crown has some kind of trusteeship before ownership is transferred to Maori under the current jurisdiction.  
The United Future member made many constructive suggestions and I think probably United Future’s disagreements with the bill are less substantive than those of some other parties in the House. Theirs is more about process rather than the substance of the bill.  
The Supplementary Order Paper incorporates a very large number of the amendments suggested in the departmental report and could have been done at the select committee stage. Other amendments reflect discussions with Government members and with New Zealand First. They cover the following. First of all there is the objective of the bill. The objective is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand including the protection of the association of whanau hapu and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed. That seemed to be consistent with the National Party’s position. 
Secondly right of access: the powers in the bill are to restrict access only to protect activities that are the subject of a customary rights order and relate to sites of special significance. Thirdly statutory criteria for the new jurisdiction of the High Court to consider claims of territorial customary rights that is continuity contiguity and exclusive use and occupation: so far the National Party has shown no sign of recognising that the issue of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is on the table right now and unless the law is changed there is nothing to prevent the High Court from issuing customary title to foreshore and seabed. The National Party seems to pretend that somehow that can be completely ignored in the legislation. Such folly on its part I think is extraordinary.  
The tests that are applied are arguably more liberal than in the common law of other jurisdictions. They certainly reflect the kind of common law test the courts should have applied should any application be made under customary title procedures. The redress for territorial customary rights covers a couple of possibilities. The first is that a successful applicant group where there is redress to be available can apply for the establishment of a foreshore and seabed reserve. That is held for the common use and benefit for the people of New Zealand but acknowledges the guardianship status of the applicant group. The board operates within the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act. Its task will include the preparation of a management plan for the reserve which councils will recognise and provide for in preparing or changing regional policy statements or plans.  
Regional councils will be required to review relevant regional policies and plans within 6 months of a management plan for the reserve being lodged with them. This is so unscary that it is remarkably similar to provisions in the Resource Management Act which the National Government itself passed in 1991. But we will hear vast huffing and puffing for many hours about the supposed effects of that in relation to special privileges.  
The Supplementary Order Paper removes ancestral connection orders. They were widely criticised on the grounds of cost and ineffectiveness and will not proceed. The National Party called for the removal of ancestral connection orders and it will be interesting to see what it says on that part of the bill in the Supplementary Order Paper.  
The new customary rights orders clarify that these must be based on actual activities and cannot be issued simply in response to cultural or spiritual associations and cannot be described as a right to the exclusive use of an area unless it can be justified by evidence of exclusive use.  
Changes in existing infrastructure clarify that the maintenance of and new consents for existing infrastructure will not be subject to the new restrictions on consent applications that would have a significant adverse effect on a recognised customary activity and provided that the effects are temporary or the same as those that existed before the application was made.  
The vesting of reclaimed land: limited exemptions will apply if a resource consent for a reclamation has been granted before the enactment of this bill or if there is specific statute or legal agreement and new provisions will give port companies an automatic right of renewal on leases. They will reclaim the land necessary for port infrastructure while other holders of a lease over reclaimed land that is due to expire will have a right to have an application for a new lease considered. Existing rights are protected and the situation going forward provides adequate protection for reclamations.  
These are significant changes to aspects of the bill. I would have preferred that they be considered on their merits by the select committee and reported on in full to the House. That would have assisted us in taking this bill through its remaining stages. But the obstructiveness of Opposition parties is no reason to prevent the bill from being taken through its remaining stages. That would have assisted in terms of the later debate. The changes strengthen clarify and take account of practical concerns. They do not affect the bill’s basic purpose and direction which centres on those four principles.  
Lastly let me dwell upon a particular point. Ever since the Court of Appeal decision there has been a heroic overstatement of the implications of that decision on the part of many people throughout the country. Many Maori have claimed that there would be automatic ownership of the foreshore and seabed or that already there was effective legal and beneficial ownership of the foreshore and seabed and therefore this legislation takes that away. That is nonsense. Legal ownership is vested in the Crown under existing legislation and existing legislation such as the Resource Management Act is incomprehensible without that assertion of ownership because under it the Crown contracts further ownership on reclamations. But on the other hand people got the notion that somehow or other the legislation was going to hand everything over to the full control and the full benefit of Maori. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes says Mr Richard Worth. Neither position represents the reality at all except of course the National Party is trying to argue both of them simultaneously which only it is ever capable of doing on these kinds of issues.  
The bill represents a delicate balance. It represents a balance that reflects the actual common law rights position codified into statute—no more and no less than that. We shall hear a great deal more over the next 20 hours or so but it will be a great deal of noise signifying very little from the National and ACT parties. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have organised the list of the parties I will call in order. It is on the Table and people can come and consult if they wish. I have already consulted some of the parties. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 A Government that is confident about a bill as important as this would not spend so much of its introductory speech-time pre-empting what the Opposition might say. The Government would not so quickly put itself into defence mode unless it knew that the bill was incredibly divisive and was going to be a problem for it.  
Now some 18 months after the Court of Appeal decision on NgatiApa very little has changed. Government members went around the countryside consulting so-called with Maori and holding hui here there and everywhere. Then just before Christmas last year the Government introduced the Foreshore and Seabed Bill into the House—an appalling bill that now lies in tatters on the Table of the House. The Government has come up with a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper which makes the bill a very different bill. This bill was not put together by the Government; it was put together by the Government’s white knight in this case—namely Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party.  
I will explain what is so significant about this Supplementary Order Paper. The Court of Appeal decision on NgatiApa upheld the premise that the Maori Land Court could issue title to foreshore and seabed to some Maori applicants. In terms of the bill now before us those same Maori applicants can go to the High Court to seek territorial customary rights which lead to co-management or a cheque for compensation. It is clear that Dr Cullen has not read his own press release so for his benefit I will quote from it: “Where a territorial customary rights finding is made and the group does not seek the establishment of a reserve”—that is the co-management bit—“the High Court shall refer the finding to Ministers to discuss other redress options.” Everyone knows “other redress” means a cheque. John Tamihere certainly knows that “other redress” means a cheque. So there is very little change from exactly what was the case 18 months ago.  
The select committee process was a disgrace. However in saying that I do want to pay tribute to the chairman Russell Fairbrother. He is a very able fellow and he must wonder what the heck he is doing in Parliament after his previous illustrious career. He was under an incredibly hard drive all the time from the Prime Minister and Michael Cullen. He knew that he could not listen to people that he could not allow the committee to listen to people and that he could not take on board their views because the Government was always going to do what suited it best. Sadly because the numbers fell over the Government had to go to Dail Jones to write the Supplementary Order Paper and to Winston Peters to help them out in order to get the legislation through. Members of the select committee were fascinated with the goodwill—by and large—that was exhibited by many of the Maori submitters who felt aggrieved and were very uncertain 
. 
 It was interesting to note that the uncertainty felt by Maori submitters was paralleled just as strongly in the non-Maori community. This bill does nothing to allay those fears—on the part of either party.  
Dr Cullen suggested that somehow there was something wrong with National’s suggestion that the Government should have considered Te Ture Whenua Maori Act when looking to sort this problem out. That legislation came before the House only 11 years ago so that is in living memory of many members here. For the benefit of those of us who were not in Parliament then we went back through all the submissions received on that bill and we went back through all the speeches in  
Hansard. 
 We found that not one submitter MP or Maori MP at the time mentioned that the foreshore or the seabed was land. Not one! It was never ever suggested despite what Government members might think that the foreshore or the seabed was land. That was the view of 11 years ago. What has happened within the Maori community that makes them suddenly decide that the foreshore or seabed is land? The Government is in this pickle because Helen Clark overreacted to the appeal court decision. She was caught on the hop when she was asked what the Government was going to do about it. She immediately said that the Government would legislate to fix it. So about 18 months later we have this bill before the House but it will do nothing to change those circumstances—not a thing.  
Maori will be able to make a claim to the High Court to get a declaration of customary rights over an area and a reserve will be created which apparently everybody can walk over everybody can stomp up and down on and everybody can use a boat on but there will be a management committee that somehow will administer that reserve. Dr Cullen knows and everybody in the Labour Party knows that when one sets up committees—and Labour is good at that—then inevitably there will be rules there will be charges and there will be restrictions on use. No matter what this bill says that is what they will do. The bill contains plenty of clauses—[ 
Interruption 
] and the member for Taupo ought to read them—that will allow the access issue to be parked up. How can anybody in this country be confident with the bold claim made by Dr Cullen today that this bill has no more in it to fear than the Resource Management Act? Well I can tell members opposite that their votes their seats are being undone on a daily basis because of their insistence that the Resource Management Act is all fine and dandy and nothing needs to be done about it.  
Dr Cullen challenged National to give a position on the Government’s decision to take the ancestral connection provision out of the bill. Well the Government has not done that. It will argue that it has gone—because those words are not there—but if anyone looks at the purpose of the bill and at clause 2A “Object” it is patently clear that ancestral connection is now very much embedded in the bill. So if one is a Maori one has an opportunity to claim a special connection to specific parts of the coastline. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. It’s gone. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Winston Peters sits there and says it is gone. I ask him to tell us what it means where it states that a Maori group can go to the High Court to have a customary rights finding in their favour.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It doesn’t say that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is exactly what it says. If that is somehow not something special that those of us who are non-Maori cannot claim then what is it? If it is not saying that those groups have a preference in our society what is it saying?  
John Tamihere 
: Ask Georgina. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I wish John Tamihere would shut his mouth because when it comes to dishing out cheques no one in this House knows more than he does. That is what this bill does. This bill is designed to placate Maori with a cheque and convince other New Zealanders that everything is OK when it is not. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 “A little learning is a dang’rous thing; drink deep or touch not the Pierian Spring”. That member knows nothing about this bill and he demonstrated that with everything he said tonight which would be his leader’s position and the position of his party. In a democracy like ours an issue arises now and again that requires us to put aside our differences and act in the best interests of the nation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Refute everything I’ve said. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can refute rebut and debunk everything the member has said. June last year was such an occasion when the Court of Appeal released its ruling on the NgatiApa case regarding the foreshore and seabed. It came from left field and caught all who were involved by surprise. There was a judicial inference that the understandings we always had regarding the ownership of the foreshore and seabed needed greater clarity. The issue seemed straightforward enough. We had all assumed that the Crown owned the foreshore and seabed. But with this in judicial doubt we were required to clarify the issue; and that is what New Zealand First has done from day one. What we have secured is the following: Crown ownership in perpetuity for all New Zealanders; guaranteed public access; customary rights for all New Zealanders regardless of race; one law for all in access to the courts; and certainty particularly in respect of business activities linked to the seabed and foreshore like port companies.  
The issue required a non-partisan approach to clarify what we had assumed to be law. It could have been resolved quickly. Instead many parties in this House chose to play petty politics. They saw it as a chance to promote themselves and to promote different agendas even the legal nonsense of a public domain. If these people thought that the Court of Appeal had made a strange decision in respect of the NgatiApa case just imagine what sort of interpretation a court would have come up with in respect of an alien inappropriate doctrine such as public domain. This had to be stopped and it was stopped.  
We also had some Maori who became obsessed with an aspect of the court’s rulings related to the process of securing customary rights. Some including lawyers who knew better and lawyers should know better helped create the hoax that some people owned the foreshore and seabed because of their ancestry. There is no Maori in this country with a closer connection to the sea than for example myself or Dover Samuels. We and our ancestors have lived smack on the sea for thousands of years. No Maori can contest that so let us put a few facts out there. We must remember that many of those lawyers have been on the treaty gravy train for years. They have been cynical and manipulative and they saw a chance to add to the grievance industry themselves—all division all confusion all disharmony.  
Maori and other New Zealanders deserve better and they have got better. They deserve the truth and they have got it. For a time we were drowned by a media frenzy and all sorts of myths and shibboleths but the truth is now emerging. We have stayed the course on this matter and we have seen off the mischief-makers. The Court of Appeal never did say that Maori owned the seabed and foreshore. It simply said there was a process of procuring customary rights through the Maori Land Court and then it doubted that any such process would ever succeed. Those are the facts—an abbreviated version—and the rest is bunkum. The court never said that Maori owned the seabed and foreshore. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You’ve got the wrong notes. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: If my party was going through the floor I would keep quiet. In fact I would retire. Oh I am sorry; the member is retiring. This issue needs clarity and there will be clarity. I have a warning for those in the Maori Party who believe that their hoax over the seabed and foreshore will sustain them into the next campaign. There will be no mass dissatisfaction. Maori like all New Zealanders will see they have a stake in the ownership of the foreshore and seabed through the Crown and more important for the first time their customary rights are now secure. That is the truth. That is the reality. I have to say they have New Zealand First to thank for that. The next hikoi will be to the ballot box and we will see who is right and who is wrong.  
But it was not just Maori who were engaged in spreading confusion. We had from the National Party the most confused and the most blatant politicking of them all. Sadly that is one more sign of its weak and confused leadership. Where is the leader—the great debater—on this issue tonight? Where is the man who would bore the Rotary club silly on the issue? Where are the words of wisdom from this new clarion-call leader who calls himself the new voice? There is not a mutter not a murmur not a sound not a syllable—gone. That leadership lives and thrives in a perverse time warp. They believe there is no legitimate place for Maori except as subservient workers for their colonial masters. The tea planter strikes again!  
Tonight in the name of Maoridom Gerry Brownlee rises to put a defence. I feel sorry for Maori if the new white man’s burden becomes a cloak laid on the shoulders of the National Party. National members could have acted in the national interest. They could have done what their name suggests but they have long since stopped believing in anything to do with the nation. They are about short-term opportunist opportunity. In that respect they are unparalleled in this Parliament. Even the ACT party cannot beat them at doing that. The ACT party does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha. They are opposed to this legislation but they are going to join the constitutional conference. I say to them: “Would you guys make up your minds!”.  
The whole country is looking for an alternative Government. We know there is leadership here that is an alternative. We know there is a party that is an alternative. There are only 13 of us. We need more who are prepared to get up and put the issues of the day but not like the National Party and the ACT party. They are hopelessly divided with no idea where they are going. They have no principles and no policy; just objection. Why could the National Party not have done its duty? They said the foreshore and seabed must be in Crown ownership. The bill does all of that. But they will not support it. The National Party stated in its report that customary rights must be protected. The bill does that but they will not support it. Why not? “Beaches for all” was what Don Brash proclaimed. Well they will be—but National will not support it. But at Christmas time this year everybody will know who secured the beaches for all of us in New Zealand. They will remember who did it. The National Party could have been part of the solution but instead it decided to become part of the problem.  
Let me just say this: although we do not see eye to eye with the Government on many many things when there is a threat to our common heritage and our birthright we have to act together just like we do in times of war. Nobody should read any more than that into it. But the issue threatened to shake the foundations of this nation and New Zealand First is proud to have fixed it. We said we would fix it and we have—unlike the rest on my right and my left.  
There is an old Maori saying which I will put in English which epitomises our position: “Not like the seagull tossing and turning its head at every wave but like a rock steadfast against the surging sea”. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
Tihei mauri ora! Ki a koutou katoa e tae akeanoi te rongo e Paora koutou katoa e mihi kauana tena koutou. E ngamatawaka a-iwi a-whanau a-hapu hoki tena koutou. Kaua koutou e maharahara e awangawangaraneimo o koutou mana narangatiratanga hoki no te mea kareenei e muruairaroi te Pire o te Takutai Moana. Ka mautonuenei mana moaketonu. Mateneipireina ka whakamanatia e tiaki o tatau mana tipuna ki ngatakutai moana. Ahakoanoateneipire kei te watea te huarahi ki te korero tahi mai te Karauna. Kia ora tatou katoa.  
[ 
Behold the breath of life!  
To all of you Paora who have arrived to listen your presence is acknowledged. Greetings to you all.  
Greetings as well to the ethnic groups tribes families and subtribes. Do not be anxious or uneasy about your authority or independence as well because these will not be confiscated under the Foreshore and Seabed Bill but will be retained forever. This bill should it be passed into law will protect our ancestral rights to the foreshore. Despite this bill the pathway is clear to dialogue alongside of the Crown. Greetings to us all 
.] 
Greetings to the many tribal waka inclusive of whanau and hapu and to those who have turned up here tonight. I say to them not to be fearful or concerned about the protection of their mana and sovereignty because they will not be affected under the provisions of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Such rights will endure in perpetuity. This bill when enacted will protect our ancestral associations and mana to the foreshore and seabed. Under this bill the way is still available for iwi to negotiate with the Crown. That is the norm.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Greetings to Mr Brownlee! I am pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It has been a long journey getting here. We had to sit in front of the hikoi and we had to go around the marae when everybody else went away. We went there.  
The bill is a product of extensive discussion and consideration. It has generated considerable comment from Maori and non-Maori sector groups local government and recreational groups. 
Rodney Hide 
: Who wrote this? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Before I go any further it is important for that person who is yelling to understand—and I stress yet again the need for this House and for all New Zealanders to understand—from the outset that there is a tangata whenua in this country and that is Maori. That factor is most relevant to this bill and it has been at the forefront of the Government’s Maori caucus’s journey in trying to defend that and ensure that we get there. In line with the Government’s view the perspective in this bill is about protecting what was tuku-ed to us. It is about passing on those inherited rights privileges and interests that were passed on to us. It is quite clearly about kaitiakitanga and guardianship o Tangaroa and not about the pervasive perverted speechmaking sessions such as we heard in Orewa.  
This Government has not swayed or moved away from recognising the customary rights of the people who are tangata whenua in this country. We are a Government that is prepared to do the hard work. We confront the issues in this bill. As Maori members in the Government we need to understand some things in the sense of what is relevant to Maori and in the sense of being a mokopuna. As a mokopuna I went around the rocks with my nan to rukupupu—to get kai moana—two or three times a month every month through most of my childhood. I appreciate what the takutai moana has in store for us. It is clearly something that has been passed on to us by our tupuna and we want it to last.  
The way things were heading our kai moana would have lasted but a few years. Our fridge and our covenant are being ravaged pillaged and sold on the black market even as I speak. There are people in this country who want to forget about the tangata whenua; who want to leave things as they are. The great leader from New Zealand First alluded to that—to those on the gravy train and to the great Government contracts with the elite the privileged and the cunning. Most of the members behind that were from that Opposition party over there. We do not want that carry-on.  
In 1992 the customary right was put in a regulated framework. That is where the fishing right went. It was done without consultation. It was done in the dark. It was done in Wellington. It was done by that person and that Opposition. At least we have brought the issue out into the public arena. We stand by what we have done.  
The Government has consulted widely on this bill. I am pleased that by the end of the week traditional Maori rights and interests will be protected guaranteed and enhanced in perpetuity with the passing of this legislation.  
Rodney Hide 
: Who says that? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I say that as a Maori and as a member of the tangata whenua of this great country. I am confident that this bill will preserve the rights of all New Zealanders Maori and non-Maori over the foreshore and seabed. The foreshore is that strip of land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark that people boogie board on that Pakeha go to to make themselves look darker like me that people walk the dog on and that we get kai from. We want to look after that and respect it. When people go to the beach at Christmas—like my former party member friend over there—they will appreciate the serenity and the right that everybody has to that area.  
When this issue first arose the Government developed principles to guide the development of this bill: access regulation protection and certainty. This bill must proceed if we are to have a lasting and certain solution to this issue. The bill will be a lasting solution because it lives up to those four principles. It protects what all New Zealanders want to see protected: public rights of access and navigation on the one hand and Maori customary rights on the other. Maori have nothing to fear with the passing of this legislation. Customary rights and the interests of whanau hapu and iwi are acknowledged and protected. There are those who say we should leave things as they are. I disagree.  
There are those who are muscling up to create fee simple which quite simply is about purchase and sale. If one buys someone’s house or car and sells it kei te pai—that is OK. But some are selling tuku-ed whenua. At the moment there are Maori who are selling whenua that was tuku-ed to them that they inherited that they never paid a cent for and that was a lifetime interest gifted to them due to their genealogical whakapapa connection. Other races are encouraging them to pillage the kai moana and sell it in Auckland in the dark. I want to make sure that my mokopuna—and Mr Brownlee’s if he has any—can go to the beach and get kai when they grow up; that they can go there and get suntanned if they want. If the status quo were to remain they would be denied all those simple niceties that New Zealand people want to participate in.  
This bill will vest the full and legal benefits of the public to the seabed and foreshore in the Crown and will provide for the recognition and protection of ongoing customary rights. It will also prevent the creation of new private foreshore and seabed titles that could be sold off which that person on the Opposition benches helped to organise.  
This bill makes the public foreshore and seabed inalienable except by special Act of Parliament. It gives protection to Maori as much as to everyone else. I thank the members of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and Russell Fairbrother. I especially thank our Maori caucus members on that committee and the other members for the effort they put in and for the heavy flak they had to take. It is regrettable that the select committee was not able to reach agreement on the bill—that is Parliament; that is MMP—despite the effort it made to consider a vast number of written submissions. Even though the committee was not able to reach agreement the Government has heard what submitters were saying. It was not realistic to do away with the bill altogether as some suggested but amongst the raruraru—the concern we heard from a few—many of the submitters made useful constructive suggestions on how to improve the bill. That is what this Supplementary Order Paper is about.  
I will not comment on the amendments because the bell has gone but I will say a couple of other things. If Maori groups get a territorial customary right finding this amendment will give whanau hapu and iwi the powers to manage the foreshore. The foreshore and seabed reserves have been designed especially for this bill. It is not too different from marae—the hundreds and thousands of them around this country are reserved. My learned pakeke Dover Samuels alluded to that. On those reserves our connection to those marae and those meeting houses is through our genealogical and hapu connection. That is a reserve. We can do all those things. We do not pay rates but we certainly cannot build an ablution block without the consent of the local authority. We certainly cannot do all of those things. The reserves are not a new thing in that sense. It is well practised in Maori. We manage them well as Maori. We are respected generally when people go to them.  
There are different tribal cultures and tikanga even with the foreshore. There are no generic models generic aspirations or generic rights that will put everything right. Maori like the National Party at times put things asunder amongst themselves. Maori are familiar with marae reserves. Like those guardians of the foreshore we will continue. We want this to be flexible. I want to remind Opposition members about retention. Quite simply that is what this bill is about. Most of the Maori land that is still intact now was put into a regulated framework by Ta Apirana Ngata and it has stood the test of time. Whether it has been used or has been lying idle it has stood the test of time and we Maori still have it. It is still in our possession.  
That is what this bill is about. It is about looking forward with our young population which does not have all the tikanga skills that people have said. Much of the land that was left out of the regulated framework was pillaged by people who came as visitors to this country.  
 It was ransacked. We were haemorrhaged by it. It was disgraceful. It was not only the visitors who sold our land.  
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Oh so it wasn’t only them? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No it was not only them. Our own people have sold on in recent times whenua that was tuku-ed to them—whenua that was gifted to them through their ancestral connection and their genealogical ties. It was given to them by our ancestors. As I said we have to ensure that we have documents and policies like this that will protect all New Zealanders especially the tangata whenua’s right in this country. I have no hesitation in supporting the second reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I want to thank New Zealand First especially Winston Peters—like me a seafaring person—for coming along at this late stage and helping us to get on with it.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Already this debate has been utterly sickening and I stand with the thousands of other New Zealanders who over the next few days will likewise be sickened by listening to Maori justify the taking of Maori land. So much has been said in the last 18 months about the Government’s abject failure to manage the issue of the foreshore and seabed properly; from Helen Clark’s ridiculous over-reaction after the NgatiApa decision to the arrogant disregard of Michael Cullen and Trevor Mallard for Maori analysis and experience during the consultation hui and to the creation of this legislation which extinguishes customary rights confiscates land and is nothing if not entirely deceptive.  
This litany of failures has cost Labour one of its best members of Parliament and a significant chunk of its traditional Maori and Pakeha support and it has set back Maori and Pakeha relationships by more than 30 years. What a sick achievement for this Government! At one point it looked as if the Government seriously wanted to give New Zealanders the opportunity to be heard on the issue through the select committee process but even that turned into one of this Parliament’s greatest disgraces. Labour and New Zealand First refused to give enough time for the select committee to consider the bill properly and the committee could not hear the thousands of submitters who wanted to be heard. Nor could committee members properly consider the major issues that arose from those submissions; nor in the end did they have even enough time to discuss and recommend any changes to the bill. Of course the submitters themselves were treated with an extraordinary level of contempt and abuse by some committee members.  
The community that we are here to serve is rightly outraged. Submitters were not even permitted the basic dignity of being written to by the committee and thanked for their efforts to make submissions. At least the Green Party wrote to those who sought an oral hearing to thank them for their effort and contribution to the democratic process. Despite the abuse suffered by those submitters who came to the committee many presented their views with compassion and respect. Some certainly expressed frustration and anger. Many brought stories about their ongoing commitment to the coast and their continued efforts to protect the coast from unsustainable development and the damage made by 4-wheel drive vehicles and other destructive human activities. They told of their efforts to protect the planting of indigenous species that are under threat their efforts to protect the nesting sites of rare and threatened birds and of course their efforts to protect their own wahi tapu. Those stories came from the people Maori and Pakeha who live on the coast and are the most affected by any changes to the legal status of the coast itself.  
I have described this bill as deceptive and I say that because for all the rhetoric about the protection of public access the bill turns the foreshore and seabed into a saleable commodity and repeals one of the few requirements for public access. This bill hides a myriad of hidden agendas. Some are just pure opportunism—for example the taking of Te Whanga Lagoon on the Chatham Islands. The ownership of Te Whanga Lagoon is the subject of current litigation—litigation that has been very difficult for everyone involved—but the courts are the legitimate forum for that dispute. This Government is using the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to take ownership of the lagoon for itself even though the lagoon is not within the coastal marine area. It wants to do that just because it can. There is no justification. It is a simple theft.  
One serious deception is the removal of mandatory marginal strips under the Conservation Act. That clause is hidden in the bill and kept quiet by the Government so that no one will notice. Currently the law states that when reclaimed land is vested as fee simple—for example in a marina—a marginal strip must be set aside for public use and access. That marginal strip can be exchanged for similar coastal-access land but it remains one of the few legal provisions for guaranteed public access over private coastal foreshore land. This Government—Labour along with the complicit New Zealand First—will repeal that law with this bill. They will replace the mandatory public access provisions with an optional one. For the residents of the North Shore in Auckland who have been fighting through the North Shore City Council to have Bayswater Marina provide a marginal strip this bill is a direct kick in the guts denying them the public access over reclaimed land they that are legally entitled to and have been fighting for for so long. In a letter the Mayor of North Shore City George Wood pleaded with the Minister of Conservation to remove that clause from the bill but that call has fallen on deaf ears.  
This bill will strip away existing public access provisions and of course any reclaimed land that is in the process of becoming private freehold title is allowed to proceed under the bill. Applications for private fee simple title and reclaimed foreshore land will proceed creating a number of further freehold titles in the foreshore and seabed. That is exactly what New Zealanders Maori and Pakeha have been saying they do not want. Not only does this bill take away guaranteed public access along reclaimed land and create further freehold titles in the foreshore but it also creates saleable customary rights. For Maori that is the ultimate deception and it cuts directly to the bone. For 18 months now Maori have said that they do not want freehold title; they want collective customary title that recognises their full kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities.  
Maori acknowledge that there is a public interest in the beaches and they want to find a way to share them that does not undermine their tikanga. They want what the law says they are entitled to—just as any Pakeha New Zealander would want. But the Government has been spreading the vicious untruth that Maori cannot be trusted. In fact it is the Government that cannot be trusted along with New Zealand First as evidenced in the sneaky provisions of the bill and the 67 pages of ill-considered amendments that the public will not have the chance to see before the law is passed. This bill provides for the privatisation of the foreshore and it sets up an easy process for customary rights orders to be sold off and extinguished forever. The foreshore becomes a commodity and Maori lose forever their customary rights that come to them as taonga tuku iho.  
Maori pose no threat to the foreshore. The Government however hides its real agenda of commodification. With the easy cancellation of customary rights orders along with the repeal of the marginal strip provisions and the existing freehold reclamation applications being allowed to proceed Labour and New Zealand First are creating saleable tradable fee simple titles in the foreshore and seabed—the exact opposite of everything they say they are trying to do. So much for New Zealand First’s supposed campaign for public ownership! In supporting this bill that party supports the trade in New Zealand’s coast.  
The Greens support access to the courts for Maori for a declaration of customary land status and the development of collaborative management in the coastal marine area. We believe that there should be no saleable private and exclusive title granted over the foreshore and seabed to anyone—to New Zealanders in general to tangata whenua or to overseas interests. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act must be amended so that Maori customary foreshore and seabed land has to remain in Maori ownership. Collective customary title to the foreshore and seabed should be upheld and not extinguished by legislation and public access should be protected except for those areas where environmental protection or historical cultural and spiritual significance make that inappropriate.  
We have also suggested that the Government consider the Brookfield model as a potentially politically unifying alternative but practical effective and just solutions will not satisfy this Government. The rights of Maori and of all the citizens of this country are being trampled. The cost of that will be borne for generations to come. The Greens have consistently proposed solutions that meet the needs of all New Zealanders and do not make our community complicit in a 19th century confiscation.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is certainly opposing this legislation. The Government has been lurching from panic to panic from the moment the Court of Appeal brought down its decision last June. The Government has been precipitous inconsistent and wrong at every turn of this legislation and the way in which Winston Peters and his party have at this late stage allowed the legislation to proceed through Parliament is an indictment on them. 
It is bad legislation and I believe that the future generations who will have to live with it will regret its passage. It fails to protect property rights and it is a gross breach of due process which is an aspect of this legislation ACT is particularly upset about. 
We were promised that the bill was based on the principles of access regulation protection and certainty. It certainly will not deliver certainty. It will deliver incredible uncertainty by the very fact that it amends the Resource Management Act—the tool by which this legislation is to be implemented. Who thinks we have certainty under the Resource Management Act? What we will do here is extend the principle of the Resource Management Act—codified tikanga—over the whole management of our foreshore and seabed. That is a recipe for ongoing uncertainty not certainty. 
The select committee process was an absolute and utter disgrace. The committee had 4000 submissions from concerned New Zealanders most of whom wanted to be heard. The Government screened them out and we were able to hear from only 200. Only 5 percent of the submitters were heard by the select committee. 
The Government did not have the numbers on the select committee. In fact Government members themselves opposed this legislation. Do members remember John Tamihere’s public comments the week before the report back? He was going to bring down all sorts of changes because he was opposed to it. That is why the select committee was unable to report back fully. 
To carry on the insult of ramming bad legislation through Parliament only today did the Government show Parliament the whites of its eyes. We saw the detail of this legislation only about 5.30 this evening immediately prior to this debate commencing. That is a disgrace. 
The NgatiApa decision of 23 June last year did not actually say very much at all. All it said was that pursuant to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act there might in some cases be rare and remote instances—and it even stressed that they would be rare and remote—by which some iwi could go to court and establish that they did indeed have title based on customary rights. The Government totally overreacted to that situation. 
People blame the courts and say what a bad decision that was but the more I read the judges’ decision the more I do not blame them. I blame the legislators and the Government of the day—the previous National Party Government—for passing the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act in 1993 because it was vague it was uncertain and it extended by default the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court. As Mr Brownlee has already pointed out not one submitter in the lengthy legislative process in 1993 even referred to the foreshore and seabed. 
That aside the previous Government let through bad drafting that made it quite specific that the Maori Land Court had extended jurisdiction and that it could indeed issue title over the foreshore and seabed. Prior to 1993 no such right existed and it was not an issue so that was the genesis of the problem. 
The ACT party asks why we do not go directly to the problem directly to the mischief—if indeed it is a mischief—and address that issue rather than create a whole new regime of complicated mechanisms codifying tikanga amending the Resource Management Act and introducing all manner of new concepts to manage the foreshore and seabed that are untried unproven and untested and that will certainly create mass uncertainty. 
The Government is saying that it will codify Maori tikanga. Let us remind ourselves that every iwi in the country every iwi that came to the select committee was horrified at that—and so they should have been. What right has a Government to codify spiritual belief? That is what is upsetting Maori as I learnt from the select committee. How dare the Government give itself the right to put bounds and limits on and to codify Maori spiritual beliefs! They are not asking the Government to do that.  
Not only is the Government codifying those beliefs but it is also making an instrument for the Resource Management Act which of course upsets the rest of society—all the non-Maori—in relation to how that will be applied. Somehow it will be used as a tool in resource consents—in whether someone wants to build a marina engage in aquaculture or carry out any development. Any activity on the foreshore and seabed will be subject to that codified tikanga. 
We have had enough problems with the Resource Management Act. It was meant to be for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The fact that previous Governments have imported all sorts of ill-defined nebulous spiritual and metaphysical references into it is a key reason why the Resource Management Act is in such chaos. What we are doing here in part is importing those same principles into the total management of our foreshore and seabed. 
But it gets worse. Can members guess what agency will be the Government’s holder of all the foreshore and seabed? It will be an old friend of ours: the Department of Conservation. All reclamations all management of coastal waters and all applications to do anything with the foreshore and seabed will be controlled and managed on behalf of the Crown by the Department of Conservation. So we have the Department of Conservation having this great big new tool: the amended Resource Management Act. 
That is what Winston Peters is supporting; that is what Dail Jones is supporting—and they say it is good legislation! It is appalling legislation and future generations are going to regret it absolutely. The ACT party will continue to oppose it. 
Now I come to the issue of reclamations. The ACT party says and I say that we should be issuing title to a reclamation. A reclamation creates a block of land. But no it all has to be vested in the Department of Conservation. Let us look back in history. The foreshore used to be right outside the door of this building; there is a little plaque about it on the footpath. Lambton Quay was Lambton Quay because it was the foreshore so all of that land in Wellington is reclaimed land. Henceforth moving on in our history all such land will be vested in the Department of Conservation. Who thinks that that is a good idea? I do not think it is a good idea. Winston does though; Winston thinks it is a good idea. He supported that measure and it is an appalling measure. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was prepared to indulge the member for a while but he cannot go on referring to me by my Christian name. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is absolutely right. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mr Peters supports having all future reclaimed lands under the control of the Department of Conservation. He supports a position where all the spiritual and metaphysical amendments to the Resource Management Act are applied to all future management of the foreshore and seabed. That will not work; it will be a disaster. I am prepared to stand here tonight and predict that it will be a disaster. Just as the Resource Management Act has frustrated all development in this country this amendment to it—this so-called foreshore and seabed legislation—will certainly be a disaster. The ACT party will oppose it at every stage. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I begin my comments on the second reading of this legislation by acknowledging the hard work done by Russell Fairbrother the chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee under very difficult circumstances and also by other members of the committee who worked hard in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. It has been a very interesting year in this specially convened committee. 
I also express my thanks to the committee staff who worked long and hard to try to accommodate the submitters in this process and give them the opportunity within the constraints set by the Government to be heard by the committee. A special note of thanks is also due to the committee’s independent adviser who provided invaluable guidance and assistance throughout the process. My thanks go too to the officials who worked hard to provide advice on concerns raised by submitters—advice that was taken seriously by the committee. 
The submission process at the select committee is a very important part of our democracy and it is something that disturbs us a great deal with regard to this particular bill. Of course it has to be balanced and kept in perspective because one submission is only a part of the total picture but it is a vital part of perfecting legislation in this country so it is important to thank those who made submissions on this legislation. Some were very good submissions and many were very impassioned arguments and that is the strength of our democracy. I only hope that no one is tempted after their experience with this bill to take the view that making submissions is a waste of time. 
With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister I feel that it is a bit rich for him to have sought leave earlier in the House to table a Clayton’s redline version of the bill and then to say that that was done in a similar manner to what the committee would have done had it been allowed to do its job. He said: “had the committee been allowed to do its job” when we all know that it was not allowed to do its job because of the refusal of the Government to allow any extension to the 5 November deadline on reporting back to the House. 
Being given a short space of time to deal with this bill with all its submissions and controversy was hardly fair to the committee. On many occasions we worked 4 days a week to try to do our best from the date of the closing of submissions on 12 July to the report-back date of 5 November which is not much time to deal with 3946 submissions on such a controversial and passionate issue.  
The political goal of the Government and New Zealand First to pass this legislation before Christmas is the real reason we are here today with such a large Supplementary Order Paper before us. I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that process does matter and it is something that United Future has been concerned about throughout the select committee stage. Any leadership that does not understand the importance of process will find after a short period of time that it no longer has the loyal followers it used to have. It is in no one’s interest to see the process shafted somewhat by a rush to pass a bill with indecent haste for no reason other than a political one because when that happens the possibility is that it can cause people to lose confidence in the process and then we all suffer from the apathy of lack of participation. That weakens our democracy. 
I think there are times when urgency is needed to pass legislation. There are times when urgency is legitimately needed there are times when deadlines have to be met and there are times when haste is justified on some occasions—but this is not one of those times. This is definitely not one of them. 
United Future called for an interim report to be given by the select committee to this House so that the people of New Zealand would have an opportunity for more dialogue over the summer months before the committee made its final report early next year. The tabling of a 69-page Supplementary Order Paper by the Minister in charge of the bill indicates how many changes are being made to the legislation and the fact that it has been completed only this morning further underscores the fact that the committee could not have completed a final report back to the House by the deadline of 5 November anyway. 
Changes continue to be made and further changes will be made I am sure as members debate the bill this week. How much better it would have been if the majority of the thousands of submitters had been able to have time to look at those changes before the bill was rushed through the House into law. Many of those changes may well be changes for the good—changes the committee actually recommended rather than changes that New Zealand First demanded as its leader arrogantly claims. However even if the changes are good that does not excuse or negate the affront to the integrity of the process or the frustration and disappointment felt by submitters who engaged in good faith in the process. 
United Future’s position—that of engaging with the Government in the process of addressing the consequence of the Court of Appeal decision in the NgatiApa case—has been clear from the start. It was not an option to do nothing as Peter Dunne made clear on a number of occasions. Despite initial attacks from other parties we took the principled position of ensuring that the foreshore and seabed would be available for all New Zealanders to enjoy. This was implied in the concept of public domain but to suggest that our support for the legislation or engagement in the process could be reduced to a simple discussion about the semantics of a few words is to miss the point entirely along with the commitment we showed during the select committee process to resolving a host of issues raised by the legislation as first introduced into the House and supported by the Government and New Zealand First. 
Because the wording of the bill is now amended to include the concept of public domain and is not simply about Crown ownership the Prime Minister suggested on the radio this morning that somehow we in United Future should now lend our support to the bill—even when the Government has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper of 67 pages with a myriad of changes. That just shows that she underestimates our commitment to supporting only good legislation that is truly in the interests of the people of New Zealand—both Pakeha and Maori and all who have chosen to make this country their home. 
We will not support or oppose legislation based on some gimmick political trickery or political expediency. Certainly we cannot support the second reading of this legislation because it is being reported back to the House by the select committee in the same form in which it was presented at its first reading—and that did not have to happen. After reading hundreds of submissions and listening to submitters I am convinced that of course there is need for substantial change in this bill and we will be engaging in the debate in this Chamber in the next few days. The fact that there is a need for substantial change can reflect only on the measure of how well the Government and New Zealand First did their consultation or listened during their consultation prior to the tabling of the bill on 8 April this year. 
In our report to the select committee I expressed our concern regarding a number of issues in the bill: the rights of access; the removal of common law fishing rights; the Crown claiming reclamations—as was pointed out by the speaker before me Ken Shirley—and ancestral connection orders. It is pleasing to see from analysis of the Supplementary Order Paper that some of those issues are being addressed now as we move into the Committee stage of this bill. 
Another consistent claim from submitters to the select committee surrounded the issue that their concerns about the Crown being trusted not to sell any part of the foreshore or seabed in the future has not been addressed in this legislation. For that reason I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper myself during the Committee stage which seeks an entrenchment of clause 12(2)(a) by this Parliament so that it will be more difficult for any future Parliament to be able to sell off or transfer the ownership of the foreshore and seabed to any other entity.  
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Double entrenchment? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I would certainly welcome a double entrenchment if the member with his party would give us support for that. It would be a very substantive and clear signal to send to the submitters who have that concern particularly in light of ACT’s reputation in the House of selling off important assets considered necessary for the people of New Zealand. 
United Future will not be supporting the second reading of this bill for those reasons but we look forward to ongoing debate through the Committee stage. 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The last time that I was granted leave to speak on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill it was on a defining day in the history of this nation. The nation will not forget the 45000 who marched to Parliament to describe their utter outrage and grief at the introduction of the bill. And the Prime Minister chose to talk to a sheep. The one thing we have in common with Shrek is that we were both fleeced. We were fleeced by a bill that will extinguish another Maori inheritance this time to the foreshore and seabed—an inheritance that is recognised in tikanga.  
 Today is another such defining day in our history—a day when a travesty of justice is being supported into law. Whatever “rights” or “redress” it purports to offer the fact remains that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill takes away the foreshore and seabed from tangata whenua. After 1840 most of the other whenua was of course confiscated under various laws but Maori rights in the foreshore and seabed were never actually extinguished. The bill confiscates what little Maori have left by default. The colonising heritage took from our people their land their whenua their moana with overt violence in the 19th century. Over the last century and more the alienation has become more insidious through the influence of lawmakers. 
The court has found that the assumption of sovereignty in Aotearoa in 1840 means that in accordance with long-established common law title was subject to the pre-existing property rights of tangata whenua. Maori customary title is no different from that of any other common law title which continues to exist until it is extinguished. That is why we have this bill—because it can be extinguished only by an Act of Parliament. What the Waitangi Tribunal found was that the indigenous customary title has always existed. Indigenous customary title is recognised by common law and affirmed by the Treaty of Waitangi. Both the Maori Land Court and the Court of Appeal agreed that the concerns and claims of tangata whenua concerning the seabed and foreshore should be heard. Instead what we have seen over these last 18 months is a whirlwind ride whereby the Government is acting in a reactionary manner attempting to change and override common law the Treaty of Waitangi and the decisions of our nation’s courts and most important of all attempting by proclamation to override the interests of our people. 
I was interested to hear the word “integrity” being floated by the first speaker in this debate. The Deputy Prime Minister should be aware of the definition of “integrity”: the quality of having strong moral principles; the state of being whole; the condition of being unified or sound in construction; and internal consistency or lack of corruption. Our contention today is that this Government in this bill fails to achieve any of these qualities. 
If we had a Government with strong moral principles we would see demonstrated the paramount principle—the principle of justice. That is what we are being denied. Instead the Government tried to mislead the nation by plucking four concepts out of the air and calling them principles. It talked of the principle of access. Our people have always been clear in stating that there has never been any intention to deny people access to the beaches or those areas. It talked of the principle of regulation yet the authority for regulation has been with local councils regional councils and the Department of Conservation; the question of the Crown’s role in regulation has never been questioned. It talked of the principle of protection and what it really meant was that the protection of private property rights would be sacrosanct—protection of private investors of harbour companies of ports but not of the guardians those who for centuries have safeguarded and cared for the takutai moana. It talked of the principle of certainty and the one certainty we have is that there is no way that the Crown is acting in the interests of whanau hapu and iwi. The certainty is a racially divisive bill because in fact the only groups that have certainty are the private property owners. 
Integrity it would seem is also about the state of being whole. The state of being whole is not to pit one group of people against another. I was fascinated to hear Mr Peters say tonight that tangata whenua have New Zealand First to thank for this bill tonight. He spoke also of his belief that this bill was in the interests of all of the nation. Let me be clear: Mr Peters’ interests are purely and simply for the New Zealand First constituency and it was a very clever strategy of Labour to get someone of Winston Peters’ calibre to take responsibility for aspects of the bill that Labour knew were behind the great flight of support for it from the Maori seats. In doing so Labour is trying to move the outrage of the people on to the Maori members of the New Zealand First Party who of course do not stand in the Maori seats. In taking out ancestral rights in limiting customary right to an activity Mr Peters can delude himself into thinking he will be thanked by tangata whenua but we know better. Customary right is not an activity. It is not about being limited to collecting hangi stones and launching waka. It is a development right. It is a property right. The foreshore and seabed have always been open to use and enjoyment for all New Zealanders. Our rights are longstanding. Any extinguishment of those rights is raupatu. 
The third aspect of integrity is the condition of being unified or sound in construction and as we have seen in Mr Horomia’s press release and in his speech tonight this Government is far from being unified. Mr Horomia used the word “fear”. The Minister protests too much. His plaintive plea that Maori have nothing to fear with the passing of this legislation recognises that he knows too well the reality of what our people think of this bill. The reality is that our people have almost universally rejected both the policy and the bill. And these are all of our people including the so-called “haters and wreckers” or the academic elite those on the gravy train the cunning Pakeha mainstream churches—however much the Government tries to dismiss us. The Waitangi Tribunal found the bill was inconsistent with the text in the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination requested that the Government respond to the allegations that the bill racially discriminates. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets the benchmark against which the actions of Governments may be judged. Article 17 of the declaration states that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property” and it is clear that unilateral extinguishment of Maori property rights as envisaged in the bill is an arbitrary deprivation of our property interests. 
The final component of the definition of integrity is the question of internal consistency or lack of corruption. Much has been made of the amendments that are supposedly about creating a day in court. Under the proposed legislation territorial customary rights will be established through the High Court—a compromise position that is meant to placate tangata whenua. A day in court is almost an impossible dream for most Maori as the costs of taking this case through the court are exorbitant—tens of thousands of dollars. So most of our people will be excluded. The Maori Party is adamant that this Government should have treated tangata whenua in the same way as it does all other New Zealanders and allowed due process. The courts must be allowed to do their job and reach a decision based on the law of the land. The nation tonight knows that the Government chose to interfere in the due process of law when it chose to legislate this issue. And we know that as soon as the legislation is implemented our people will lose all that they have lived off for the past 1000 years. 
It could have been so different. The Government could have considered amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Amendment of one section in the Act could have rendered customary land inalienable and would therefore have provided the Crown with security in terms of the foreshore and seabed remaining in New Zealand ownership. The Government could have chosen a conversation a meaningful and honest conversation a conversation based on listening to each other on integrity on the principle of justice—not one squashed into a 20-minute submission that could be ignored or not heard. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Tonight we have an arrogant Government. It is a Government that has tabled a 67-page Supplementary Order Paper as it calls it. In effect it is a complete amendment Act. It is a document that no one in the public has seen yet—no submitter no media outlet no one. The public will not have the opportunity to think about it to talk about it or to write or telephone their members of Parliament about it. Instead the Government intends to ram it through over the next 20 hours or so essentially without debate—without public input. There was an opportunity for the Government—it was given a quite reasonable proposition I thought—to table that Supplementary Order Paper today and to have us deal with this issue in a week’s time. Anyone would think that would be a reasonable way to do it in the circumstances. Even then the Government simply refused. It does not want to debate it and the reason it does not want to debate it is that it is scared. The Government is scared of the debate. 
Let me be clear: National is committed to the foreshore and the seabed belonging to all of the people of New Zealand in Crown ownership. That is our birthright and that should be guaranteed. The initial statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice 18 months ago were correct because they proposed a simple bill—a bill of no more than two pages a bill that would have in fact guaranteed Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. That is our birthright. What we have seen in the last 18 months is this: raised expectations false hui and a distortion of reality by those members in the Government as to how they would protect people’s interests and rights. They were false hopes. They will be seen to be such. 
The simpler and fairer way was Crown ownership by way of a simple bill. National had made a clear undertaking: if that had been presented 18 months ago we would have supported it. New Zealand First members—and I have heard their interjections—say that there is guaranteed Crown ownership. That is what they say. In fact what they have done is strip the substance out of that—totally strip the substance. I say that because we have these kinds of concepts: customary rights orders for Maori which under clause 35 are to be determined by the Maori Land Court; territorial customary orders to be determined by the High Court—and the Government goes around boasting that they have been strengthened—and finally customary rights orders under clause 61. Each and every one of those measures adds up to denying the general public their rights because what they do is deliver particular rights to particular people. That is wrong. We will see in fact over time a steady erosion of the public interest and nothing that the New Zealand First people say can deny that fundamental reality. 
I wish to make a prediction. Within a few years some parts of the foreshore and the seabed—the fee simple—will be transferred to Maori claimants. The Government might like to deny that and I wonder whether it will take the opportunity to deny it. I guarantee that it will not. The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was told by Government officials that the whole purpose of absolute Crown ownership as set out in clause 11 is to enable the transfer of that fee simple title to Maori as part of settlements. The officials said that they had to do that—and I assume it was on instruction from the Minister—to undertake those settlements. In short unless one owns it one cannot transfer it. It is a simple proposition. That is the Government’s secret agenda and that is in fact precisely how it has gained the support of the Maori members. It is absolutely clear that the foreshore and seabed of the West Coast harbours Te Araroa on the East Coast other parts of the northern part of the East Coast and the Karikari Peninsula in the far north will be transferred to Maori as part of settlements. 
The precedent is the Rotorua lakes settlements. For a long period of time almost the entire last century those lakes clearly were in Crown ownership on behalf of all New Zealanders. In fact Te Arawa voluntarily transferred that as part of the settlement— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And received valuable consideration. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —and received valuable consideration. What the Government is doing now is transferring the fee simple—and let us be clear that it is not customary rights and not territorial customary orders; it is the fee simple—to the Te Arawa people. That is the intended precedent for the West Coast harbours much of the East Coast and parts of the far north. The Minister might deny it; we heard in this Parliament the Prime Minister say that is what the Government intended to do. 
Do members know what the protection is? The protection is: “Oh well it will take a special Act of Parliament.” Well no doubt that is true but that is precisely what is provided for in the bill. There is provision for special Acts of Parliament. Each and every settlement of Maori claims has always been preceded by a special Act of Parliament. So we know the real agenda of this Government. We know on this side of the House just how the Government gained the support of its Maori members. It intends to transfer to the Maori claimants parts of New Zealanders’ birthright. 
I would say this. The Government has totally and completely ignored the interests of the people of the North Shore. I just want to recite the history of this matter. I see the member for Northcote over there. She knows about it because I have spoken to her at length about it. She is in fact a former mayor of the city. The city of North Shore actually won a High Court decision that a marginal strip be provided at the Bayswater Marina. That strip was supported by the vast majority of residents. That case went to the Court of Appeal. That appeal is now stayed pending this decision. Would it not be a reasonable thing to allow that case to proceed and whoever wins—be it North Shore City or the Bayswater Marina—that would be the outcome? That is what people mean by fair justice. 
Why do I draw a distinction between that case and NgatiApa? The Government at least claims that this bill is a sort of reflection of the NgatiApa case. In the North Shore City case all that the Government has done is simply strip away the decision and leave nothing in its place. In fact what the Government has done is this. It has said that the Bayswater Marina is the winner by legislative fiat. We have had the Prime Minister go to the North Shore to the Takapuna point—Fort Cautley. She said that it should be public land. She campaigned in North Shore on that. Ann Hartley campaigned on it. It was transferred to the public. We see the complete opposite for Bayswater Marina; the Government has said that it shall not be public land that it shall belong to the Bayswater Marina by way of a lease. That was the result. I will be putting up an amendment to allow that Court of Appeal case to proceed. In the way that our courts work a decision will come. People have a right to have their cases heard and decided—and that decision will be accepted either way—rather than this running over the top of the interests of the residents. It is a travesty and the only answer that the Government gives to the people of the North Shore is to rely on the Resource Management Act which shall be their protection. It is simply not good enough. 
I acknowledge in this particular instance the member for the Green Party who has also been dealing with this issue. I have to say this issue was brought to the attention of the Government and the New Zealand First party some weeks ago and they have ignored the residents of the North Shore. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is indeed an important bill for the consideration of this House. It addresses an area of the law that has long been uncertain: the application of common law customary rights and title in the New Zealand context. The bill clarifies that although the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand is to be held in perpetuity for the benefit of all New Zealanders the customary rights of Maori in the foreshore and seabed are also to be recognised. Furthermore the bill provides a procedure for Maori to follow in order to establish whether in a particular situation those customary rights still exist or have been extinguished. The bill therefore recognises and balances competing rights and interests. It achieves a balance through an application of the principles of access regulation protection and certainty as outlined by Dr Cullen.  
This bill has generated much heat but little light on occasions. Much has been made of the need for more consultation and more time to delay a decision. It is important to state that this bill has been through an extensive process of public and parliamentary debate. Before the bill was even introduced a discussion paper was debated at 10 hui around the country with Ministers and members of Parliament. A total of over 4000 written submissions was received read and listened to. There was also an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing which was supported by the Crown’s petition for urgency in that hearing. At that hearing it is interesting to note that the claimants were represented by 35 lawyers so that their case could be fully heard. The Crown of course was represented by four. The report of the tribunal did lead to changes in the bill that was eventually introduced into the House the most important of which was the statutory recognition of the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear claims relating to territorial customary rights.  
The bill when introduced to the House received as we have heard 4000 submissions. I think that it is important however to place that in context. Although as I have said it is an extremely important bill it is useful to be reminded in this context that the Civil Union Bill received 6419 submissions the Employment Relations Bill 17000 submissions and the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill 8053 submissions. Although this is an important issue Parliament is the place where such issues are heard determined debated and clarified and where laws are made. It was therefore disappointing that the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee could not bring itself to include in its report back a consideration of those submissions thereby showing respect to those who had made them by having recommendations for amendments to the bill that were based on the thoughts of those who had appeared before the committee. However that was a decision for the committee to make. Therefore it became the responsibility of the Government to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen recommending changes that reflected the decisions made. The assistance and response of New Zealand First must be acknowledged in that context and in particular the contribution that has been made to the Supplementary Order Paper by Mr Dail Jones.  
It is my pleasure then to speak this evening in the second reading debate on this bill and to refer to some of the most important changes that are recommended in the Supplementary Order Paper since it is apparent from the speeches already that it has not been read. The changes include first a clarification of the objective and purpose of the bill making it completely clear that the foreshore and seabed is preserved for all New Zealanders as well as preserving existing customary law rights.  
Secondly ancestral connection orders have been removed as they were widely criticised by many submitters as imposing unnecessary cost—not only financial cost but cost in terms of the mana of those who felt that they should not have to come before a committee a court or another body to establish their connection to the foreshore and seabed. That was acknowledged by the Government but because the select committee could not bring itself to agree on that issue the Supplementary Order Paper reflects the fact that the Government having listened to those submitters has removed the ancestral connection orders.  
Thirdly the new criteria for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court are also clarified in the light of the submissions that were made. Such criteria now include the need for applicants to demonstrate that the claimed rights existed in 1840 that they have continued to exist in a substantially uninterrupted manner that they have involved the exclusive use and occupation of a particular area of the public foreshore and seabed consistent of course with public rights of navigation and that the applicants have had continuous title to a significant part of the dry land contiguous to the area.  
Fourthly the Supplementary Order Paper acknowledges the concerns of submitters on the nature of redress and that important point was made by many submitters. It provides therefore new provisions for redress of territorial customary rights. Successful applicant groups are now able either to enter into discussions with the Crown for the purpose of negotiating an agreement as to the nature and extent of the redress to be given by the Crown or to apply for an order from the court that gives effect to the establishment of a foreshore and seabed reserve. Such a reserve will be held in common use and benefit for the people of New Zealand and will acknowledge of course the important role of the exercise of guardianship by the applicant group. It is important also to acknowledge in this context that it is for the claimants to decide which route they wish to take in terms of gaining redress that is appropriate for them.  
This legislation is very much the result of New Zealand’s particular historical circumstances. It has been constructed after a lot of engagement and discussion both within the Government and between the Government and the wider public. The story of its making tells us much about the constitutional architecture of this country. In the end however the bill expressly balances the various rights of all New Zealanders. It balances the rights to continue long-established customary practices relating to proportions of the public foreshore and seabed with rights of access to public foreshore and seabed for recreational purposes and under appropriate controls for commercial purposes. I commend this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper to the House and I look forward to the debate on them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 It is at times like this when Parliament behaves at its worst that New Zealanders like us the least. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before this House in recent times but from the way that the Government has behaved one would not think that. That is an insult to New Zealanders. Even the way that the Government has ignored most of the submissions in the select committee process and has ignored a lot of what Maori have said is an insult. In terms of the way the Government has handled the issue it has ignored not just Maori but a lot of other New Zealanders as well. To put this House into urgency for such significant legislation and to ram this bill through in 2 days tabling Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen at about 5.30 this afternoon a Supplementary Paper that is as substantial as the bill itself without so much as having subjected it to any sort of scrutiny by people outside this place—it is all very well that we in this House have it—is symptomatic of the cynical way that the Government has handled this issue. Having reacted in an entirely inappropriate manner when the matter first burst on to the scene with the Court of Appeal decision in June last year—a knee-jerk reaction I would say—this Government will pass this bill into law some 17 months later in a similar knee-jerk fashion.  
Something needs to be said about the Government’s reaction when the Court of Appeal issued its decision last year. Winston Peters said that that decision came from left field. It did not come from left field. Any Government worth its salt would have been prepared for a decision that went against what it wanted. The Government ought to have been prepared for that. Any competent and careful Minister or Government would have prepared for that outcome to the case that had started to wend its way through the courts—the NgatiApa case—from 1996 onwards when National was still in Government starting with a judgment stated in the Maori Land Court by Judge Hingston and eventually reaching the Court of Appeal. Any competent Government should have been prepared for a decision that might go the other way—against what it expected. 
 This Government was not prepared for that. People may have felt that the law was settled. They may have assumed that the Crown owned the foreshore and seabed but as I say the very fact that the case had wound its way up through the tiers of our courts should have been a warning that maybe someone ought to be properly prepared for it. The Attorney-General was not prepared; neither was the Prime Minister. So what we had on the day after was politics at its worst. It was a knee-jerk reaction that raised the heat—raised the bogey—by saying that Maori could not own the foreshore and seabed because they would bar New Zealanders from going to the beach. From that point on it was all downhill.  
Winston Peters makes reference to and chides those political parties that are not supporting the bill. He is scathing of us and says we are playing politics. He should talk! What does he think he is playing? Principle? I do not think so; he is not. The Court of Appeal decision did not raise any bogeys. Basically the Court of Appeal decision stated that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to entertain claims. That is all it stated. On the basis of what it had seen the court thought it was unlikely that Maori would succeed—they might succeed but in very few cases. So there was no need for the Government to raise the heat in the way it did—no need at all. But of course the Government did that because it wanted to reach out and assure New Zealanders that Maori would not get their way and wanted to tell people not to worry because it would do the right thing.  
The Attorney-General who spoke just before me went through the legislation in the way that she does as if it is all nice and tidy. Well it is not nice and tidy. I had Maori people ringing me from outside this afternoon and they were saying I was the one ramming this legislation through the House. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the member’s speech. I was very interested in what she was saying but we are getting a barrage of sustained and noisy interjections from the Government benches. Government members obviously do not like what they are hearing from the Opposition in this debate. I would ask you that interjections be rare and reasonable and preferably witty. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am very grateful to Mr Shirley As I say politics has been the order of the day. Nobody in this House should deny that this place is all about politics. Let us not pretend that it is about anything else. The Government as I was saying has played politics on this issue right from day one and Winston Peters now on the eve of supporting the passage of this bill into law is playing politics to the nth degree as well so he cannot point the finger either.  
I want to say something to Maori people. I hope the New Zealanders who are listening to this debate will not take that to mean that I am necessarily on the side of their arguments. There is no doubt that the foreshore and seabed belong to all of us. We are all New Zealanders. Most certainly a way had to be found to balance the interests of all. This bill does not do that. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not mind a barrage of interjections from the Government side of the House but those members are not sitting in their proper seats—certainly John Tamihere is not. If he wants to sing out he should go back to his own seat. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Government members they do not have to be kind to me but they should be kind to New Zealanders. We ask for what we get in this House but New Zealanders out there do not. They deserve something better than this. They deserve something better than a bill that on the one hand states to Maori they should not worry because their mana is protected yet on the other hand states to New Zealanders at large that they should not worry because they will have public access. The Government cannot have it both ways. This bill does not deliver either of those things to either group of people and does not make either of them feel that their mana is protected or that they can have confidence in anything this Government has done.  
I want to send a message to Maori people. That should not be taken to mean that I take their side. I hope I am here for the good of New Zealand like everybody else. But I want to say that during the select committee process some angry words were spoken to the Fisheries and Other Sea-Related Legislation Committee at some of the hearings and there was talk of civil action being taken. I want to say to Maori that they should not go in that way. They should keep their dignity. The one thing Maori people asked for and did not get was due process of law. It is very ironic that Maori should seek to have the rule of law upheld and this Government should step right over it. That is absolutely ironic. But Maori can go down in history as seeking only to have the rule of law upheld. They should be proud of that. I want Maori people to think about this. They should not let this setback intrude upon the momentum of development that is clearly coming through. Maori are everywhere in business—they are everywhere in enterprise. They are earning export dollars for this country and are running innovative businesses both here and overseas. So Maori should not let this Government step on their dignity. They should just keep on rolling through and there will always be another day. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I believe that this debate highlights one major issue and that is the question of leadership. The only leader of the Opposition in this House is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was here tonight to front up to this issue. Where was the leader of the National Party tonight to speak in this House? When will he speak in the House tonight? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Might I say that this will be the first of many if that line continues. I understood that it was inappropriate to mention the absence of members from the House. Dr Brash of course is engaged in important work of—[ 
Interruption 
] It is about as important as that useless Prime Minister Helen Clark who has not bothered to come to the House tonight to explain why her Government is stripping New Zealanders of their rights. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened to what Mr Dail Jones said. He did not refer to the absence of a member; he said that he did not front up on the issue. He may well be sitting there for all I can see and not fronting up on the issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just for the record I want to make it absolutely clear that Helen Clark is not here as this is a bill that terrifies her. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is doubly out of order. Both parts of that statement are out of order. The member should learn what the Standing Orders are on the reference to members being absent from the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. 
DAIL JONES 
: I will continue my speech and I would like to thank the honourable Gerry Brownlee for letting everybody know that the leader of the National Party is not here tonight which is not the point I was making. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where is Winston Peters? I take it that he is in the bar. Call him down here immediately. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
DAIL JONES 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters the leader of the Opposition as far as the Opposition parties are concerned has spoken in this House tonight and made a contribution to this debate. We have heard nothing of any worth from the other Opposition parties in this House. I say that this is a question of leadership. When New Zealand First was confronted with this issue in the NgatiApa case the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in this House on 25 June 2003 within days of the decision in the NgatiApa case in  
Hansard 
 Volume 609 at page 6566: “New Zealand First will support any move to ensure that the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed.” That is not a political speech; that is what we said and that is what we are doing tonight. We are making sure the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed.  
Again we said in the same speech: “Maori traditional rights of use must be protected but those rights cannot be extended to property ownership on the basis of race.” 
 That is what we are doing tonight. We are not politicking on this issue. We are giving leadership—something the National Party and other Opposition parties are not capable of doing. We said it on 25 June 2003 and we are doing it—unlike the speeches that we have heard before.  
Again we said in that particular speech: “All Governments must be fair and neutral in matters of race.” When we look at the customary rights orders in the High Court we are making it clear that they can be obtained regardless of race. I look forward to the Auckland Anniversary regatta—which Mr Baldock seemed to think was not an important issue when he mentioned it in the select committee—being able to get a customary rights order as the Hon Wayne Mapp of the National Party established could be the case in his questioning of the officials. I look forward to that as a sign of the equality that is available under this legislation.  
New Zealand First has shown leadership in this matter. We have set out what our principles were and we are now giving effect to them. We have heard nothing like that from the National Party. We heard a speech made at Orewa which could only be described as divisive. We have heard in the last few days that the National Party supports customary rights but when it is faced with a bill that does put up customary rights it opposes it. What sort of leadership is that on the part of the National Party?  
We have heard a speech from Mr Brownlee tonight which suggests that he has not even understood all the submissions he heard and has no grasp of what is contained in this bill. If he has any aspirations for leadership he has shown tonight that he is really at sea on the whole issue. He has no idea of what he is doing and even tonight he has let us know the whereabouts of his leader. That is not the sort of thing that any aspiring leader should undertake.  
It is really a privilege and a pleasure for me to be taking part in the debate on this bill. I must say that as a New Zealand First member of Parliament—I am delighted that I am a New Zealand First member of Parliament tonight—I think National Party members should be ashamed of the way in which they are behaving on this legislation. When I was in the House previously we had a problem with Samoan legislation and we had to take some action and the National Party did. I remember certain Labour Party members being dragged—kicking and screaming—into the Ayes lobby or voting unanimously on that issue. I reread that debate a little while ago and I read the speeches made by some people—who occupy a very high office today—who protested against the issue. But at the end of the day it was a national issue. Something had to be done. The National Party did it and the Labour Party supported it—unanimously. That showed a degree of leadership on the part of the Labour Party and perhaps it was no great surprise that it went on to win the next election.  
This National Party has no regard for the welfare of New Zealand in the types of speeches we have heard here tonight. New Zealand First has set out what leadership should be. We have seen our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters act in terms of what he said he would do in June 2003 and that is what the bill does.  
It is a fairly lengthy piece of legislation one way and another but essentially I will read out a couple of things to the honourable Gerry Brownlee whom I have tried to help from time to time. For example new clause 2A “Object” states: “The object of this Act is to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders in a way that enables the protection by the Crown of the public foreshore and seabed on behalf of all the people of New Zealand”—including the Maori people of New Zealand if I can summarise the end of it.  
So all New Zealanders are protected under this bill and all New Zealanders have the right to use the public foreshore and seabed. That was a clause that was suggested at the select committee in part because the current purpose clause was not adequate enough and the members of the committee from all sides of the debate said that we need to make this clearer and say that it is on behalf of all the people of New Zealand. That was put to the committee and in consideration between the Labour Party and New Zealand First clause 2A was accepted because that is what the committee seemed to think was needed.  
Something had to be done of course because this particular area is in two strands: the first under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the second under the common law. Provisions under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act are tidied up here and hopefully the Court of Appeal will now have no difficulty in understanding that the term “foreshore and seabed” means just that and does not mean “land”. We have got a pretty good definition of foreshore and seabed and I am sure there will be no difficulty in that respect and of course that is important because currently there are 80 applications before the Maori Land Court. If all those 80 applications are successful Maori would own the entire coastline of New Zealand. So something had to be done and this bill does it while still protecting customary rights.  
The second leg is the common law. The NgatiApa decision is based on common law not on the Treaty of Waitangi as some other members have said. Something had to be done to codify the common law situation to make it clearer to everybody and that is what this bill does. I am a lawyer and when people go to court I really feel that after they have gone through the tests set out in this legislation—and the hurdle in this legislation is like Everest and a half with no oxygen; it is a pretty tough test—and they have won they should get something at the end of the day and they ought to have some idea of what it is they might get. It seemed to me to be common sense and fair that we should agree to some sort of clear redress.  
I was delighted to take part in creating a bill in which we tried to specify what it should be. I was a wee bit disappointed that we had phrases like “Maori reservation” and “trustees” although I can understand where the idea for trustees came from and there is a Maori word that means beachside but that I cannot repeat; it was just a bit too much for me. All the witnesses we heard suggested kaitiakitanga or guardianship. They wanted that to be made very clear. That was what they all felt was their way of life and it was a great pleasure to suggest that the phraseology in the bill should relate to guardianship and that we should have a foreshore and seabed reserve.  
But again I am a lawyer and I am a suspicious sort of bloke and I felt we ought to make it clear in the bill that people going on to these foreshore and seabed reserves—the ownership of which is still vested in the Crown and in which there is free access and navigation—do not have to pay to go on them. I can just imagine some bloke with a pickup sitting on the side of the beach saying: “Hey this is ours. You’ve got to pay a few dollars.” and all sorts of problems arise. We have seen what happened at Mount Tarawera. We saw it happen at Lake Taupo—and who gave away Lake Taupo? So this bill makes it quite clear that all New Zealanders have access to the foreshore and the seabed.  
I am reminded of the song which Mr Gerry Brownlee perhaps sang in his day: “This foreshore and seabed is your foreshore and seabed it’s my foreshore and seabed from Stewart Island to Cape Reinga and the Chatham Islands. This foreshore and seabed is here for you and for me and for all of us.” 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—TamakiMakaurau) 
: 
 Kia ora huihui mai ratatau katoa. E te kaihautu me te whakaruruhau ki a matautenara koe Clem. 
[ 
Greetings to us all who are gathered here. Greetings indeed to you Mr Speaker Clem the one who shelters us 
.] 
Dobra vecher dobra vecher. 
This is a further mighty step on the road to fulfilling a nationhood manual. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may not have picked it up but the member in addressing you used your Christian name. That is certainly not appropriate. It is grossly disorderly to call another member by his or her Christian name but to actually address you the Assistant Speaker as “Clem” is certainly out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Not in the context he used it in. The member may interpret for the House—his first sentences—if he wishes. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: This bill is a further mighty step on the road to fulfilling our nationhood manual. We continue to write it. We continue to persevere and we continue to be stoic but above all we must continue to be fair in continuing to write this most important document. We support the foreshore and seabed legislation as part of the continuing and evolving journey of nationhood. We do not care what Tariana Turia says or what Pita Sharples says. We do not much care what Gerry Brownlee Don Brash or Rodney Hide might say. What we care about is building our nationhood. It is easy to oppose. It is easy to walk over justifiable rights that are deeply ingrained in the bedrock of our constitution in terms of our nationhood. They may well walk over them; this legislation does not. This bill would not be here were it not for the finding of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. It ruled that Maori may have a range of existing rights awaiting exploration and crystallisation.  
I am grateful to be a part of the Labour Party. This party represents all New Zealanders’ interests not just the vested interests of a few people in the National Party or ACT. Our parliamentary make-up is the face of the future. It reflects the face of a dynamic go-forward New Zealand but above all it reflects social justice. It reflects an acknowledgment of private property rights. It reflects the ability to bring our races together in this country and to forge them in a way that no other party in this Parliament can. Parties in the Opposition could never forge the continuity that this Labour Party can.  
I acknowledge the leadership of Dr Michael Cullen. I acknowledge the integrity of our leader the Prime Minister in this very fraught and difficult process. But most of all I acknowledge my Maori colleagues who have had to undergo a daily baptism of fire in their electorates on this most important issue.  
We support the Supplementary Order Paper for the following reasons. The first is protection. When our ancestors signed the treaty which is now entrenched and embedded in the constitution and the consciousness of this nation they signed up to three major articles. We acknowledged the first principle of governorship—kawanatanga. In turn the Government acknowledged our rights of rangatiratanga over matters Maori. In the third article our ancestors acknowledged that we would be treated with equality as citizens of this country. In allowing the Crown to assert legal and beneficial ownership over the foreshore and seabed we acknowledge the Crown’s right to govern.  
In governing the Crown has a significant fiduciary responsibility to Maori in terms of the principle of protection. It is well known that common law rights can be extinguished only if they are freely alienated by the holders—the Maori people. We demand the right of equality before the law granted to us under article 3 of the treaty. Just because our rights are different and have a different genesis—Mr Brownlee has to get his limited mind around that—that does not mean they are special and preferential. They are embedded in the bedrock of our constitution. We walk over those rights we take them away at our peril.  
Our ancestors fought—as they did in every battle that is respected around this Chamber—and died for the rights that have been justly obtained under this legislation. The National Party can talk about preference and special rights but they are not. The rights are different because we have a different genesis. We therefore support the legislation. This legislation attempts to codify and explain those rights.  
What about due process? Under no circumstances has the Crown moved to extinguish the right of due process. Maori can and I would argue must proceed to the Maori Land Court and the High Court to assert their rights. This legislation guarantees that. There is now a clear process for doing that and the possible results are now codified.  
Regarding the definition of customary territorial rights we have been somewhat constrained by our colleagues in New Zealand First. I acknowledge that. I leave it at that. That will come out at the Committee stage.  
It has often been said that we have stopped redress. Once the territorial customary right—aboriginal title if one likes—has been found by the High Court the High Court then directs the applicants to negotiate as they must under the legislation.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This call was split by arrangement to give each speaker 5 minutes each. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 All Pakeha must approach this bill with hesitant steps. It was the forebears of we Pakeha who with good intentions may have contributed to the tragic marginalisation that has been the past and real experience of Maori at the expense of accepted Pakeha culture. As a Pakeha I ask myself what my mokopuna—my grandchildren—will say of my endorsement of this bill. I approach the concepts in this bill which are grounded in tikanga and I know I can intellectualise tikanga but I can never live it.  
I also approach the contents of this bill with 30 years of intense and daily experience in litigation—advocacy in the first instance and at appellate level including the Privy Council. I thus believe this is legislation that will become recognised as a law that all New Zealand will be proud of and that this Labour Party will develop as a flag-bearer. The pride will stem from the sound legal and moral basis of the bill. This bill is a reflection of inspired thoughtful intelligent and principled leadership of both Pakeha and Maori leaders of this country. That is also the leadership that truly reflects the face of 21st century New Zealand.  
The work of Dr Cullen Margaret Wilson Dover Samuels Parekura Horomia Mita Ririnui John Tamihere Mahara Okeroa Dave Hereora and Moana Mackey on this bill has been considerable and ongoing. It has not been done in the isolation of some extreme theory or some political petty agenda. We see that in the approach taken in this House by the parties that lament receiving a Supplementary Order Paper today. They had an opportunity of contributing to the development of this bill but they abrogated that responsibility by playing politics at the select committee and by refusing to debate the amendments that would be available. But if one reads the report which surprisingly the members of the select committee agreed would go forward and the report of the independent legal adviser that they unanimously endorsed—the adviser who endorsed the concept of this bill—we can take from that endorsement that the concepts of inalienability of guardianship and of public access are all inherent concepts of our foreshore and seabed and they are reflected in this bill.  
Not once did those lions in this House tackle the concepts articulated by Dr Paul McHugh in his 2½-hour contribution to the select committee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You are a waste of space. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Not once did that man even open his mouth for fear that he would be put in his place.  
Not once did Dr Wayne Mapp who shared the same university background challenge the concepts of Dr McHugh. But when it comes time to politicise and to advocate in the public arena to grab the airways and to inflame boy they are very brave then! But they avoided pitting their wits against the best mind behind the development of this bill. That is why I stand proud. This is a moral bill because it balances— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to keep your ears open for some of the comments that are coming from the other side of the House. We appreciate that this is a vigorous debate and we realise that someone like Russell Fairbrother is going to be somewhat reckless with the truth when he gives a speech like this but it is inappropriate that Mr Tamihere—of all people—makes the comments he has been making. In the same vein as the Prime Minister might I say that I am offended by his comments and ask that he withdraw and apologise.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am afraid that I missed the comments. I apologise for that. I do not know what they were but I accept that the member heard something that offended him. 
John Tamihere 
: In the event that people were offended I withdraw and apologise.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: What we have seen in the reports of the various members of the select committee demonstrates that this is a moral bill because it is balanced. It is balanced because it reflects the different perception use and understanding of property in the Pakeha world—the very refined sense of that—and the different view in the Maori world. This bill successfully brings these two together and no party in any of its reports has undermined the basis of that. This is a legally sound bill. It is legally sound because it codifies a difficult area of common law. It codifies the common law in a New Zealand sense. It reflects the plea of all submitters that what is special to New Zealand goes forward in our legislation. This bill lays a road map for future litigation so that the road map is not developed on the haphazard status of how the case is pleaded—by the inadequacies of a particular lawyer or the over-exuberance of another lawyer. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)