Volume 712 Week 41 - Thursday 17 March 2016Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 712 Week 41 - Thursday 17 March 2016[Sitting date: 17 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9867. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 17 March 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.RetirementsSerjeant-at-Arms—Brent SmithMr SPEAKER: Honourable members most members will be aware that our Serjeant-at-Arms retires tomorrow after 13 years in the role. I am sure that members would join with me in thanking Brent Smith for his service and in wishing him all the best for a well-earned retirement. [Applause]Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I am not applying for the job by the way. When the House resumes on Tuesday 29 March the Government will look to make progress on the New Zealand Business Number Bill and first readings of the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority Amendment Bill and the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill and also progress on the Committee stages on the Order Paper.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Mr Speaker can I just on behalf of the Opposition and in keeping with the statement you made at the beginning of question time today add our thanks to Brent Smith for his 13 years of service to the House. I am told that in that time he has taken only 1½ days of sick leave. So I hope that his successor will have a similar level of dedication and commitment to this House.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.Questions to MinistersPrime Minister Statements—New Zealand Women Leaving for Syria and Iraq1.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Was he advised prior to 8 December 2015 that the so called “jihadi brides” he referred to during the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting were all resident in Australia and did not leave from New Zealand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.Metiria Turei: So the Prime Minister can confirm that he knew that none of those women had left for Syria or Iraq from New Zealand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes and the member needs to be aware that as New Zealand citizens it does not matter where they left from. If they pose a security risk to New Zealand on their return then that is something we are concerned about.Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister not make it clear that these women did not leave from New Zealand when he said: “There’s in my view no question that there have been one or two people who have left and it would appear on all factors that we know that they are going as jihadi brides.”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It was not actually the Prime Minister who answered the question but what I can say is that where they leave from is irrelevant. They are New Zealand citizens they may return to New Zealand and they are of concern to us.Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister not tell New Zealanders that these women were living in Australia when the media were reporting that these women had left from New Zealand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unware of the media reports and not responsible for them. The reality is that they were travelling on New Zealand passports.Metiria Turei: If the Prime Minister knew that no women had left from New Zealand for Syria or Iraq for this purpose why did he not give that information to the Islamic Women’s Council which asked for evidence for his statements?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Where they left from is irrelevant. If they are New Zealanders then they are of concern to us. If they are posing a security risk because they may return to New Zealand that is of concern to us. Whether someone is in New Zealand or not does not remove their New Zealand citizenship—as we have recently found out.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear: why did the Prime Minister not give information to an organisation when they asked for it? It was irrelevant—his answer.Mr SPEAKER: No no but the question was addressed by the Minister—effectively saying that where they left from was irrelevant. That was the way he chose to answer the question. He has addressed the question.Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister allow the misinformation about where these women were living to carry on and was it because he was wanting to build his case for increased spy agency powers?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No the fact is that these women are New Zealand citizens have travelled to Syria and may pose a security risk to New Zealand on their return.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister now apologise to the many Muslim women—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question can be asked.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister now apologise to the many Muslim women whom he alienated when he misled the public into believing that women were leaving New Zealand to become jihadi brides?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No because there is only one person in this House who has identified these people as being Muslim. I will make the other point that New Zealand citizens on a New Zealand passport going to Syria from another country left New Zealand at some point.Economy—Reports2.CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance:Statistics New Zealand has today reported that the economy grew 0.9 percent in the 3 months to December. This took annual growth over 2015 to 2.3 percent. The first half of 2015 was a weaker time for the economy so it is pleasing to see that growth has picked up again in the second half of the year with two quarters of nearly 1 percent growth now. Growth was led by service industries which made up 70 percent of the economy. The construction sector also saw strong growth. Our 0.9 percent growth rate compares positively with other developed countries with 0.6 percent in Australia 0.5 percent in the UK and 0.3 percent in the US. The OECD average was 0.3 percent.Chris Bishop: How is diversification of the economy contributing to sustained moderate growth and delivering more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealand families?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is clear from these numbers that the New Zealand economy is proceeding in a diversified manner. We have a dairy industry that is having a difficult time at the moment but despite this we are seeing solid growth more employment and higher wages. Although we are of course concerned for dairy farmers the important lesson is that it does not mean that the whole economy is in difficulty. And that frankly is a good thing for all of New Zealand. We are seeing continued growth across many parts of the economy. For example tourism is performing well; annual beef exports are now up one-third in the last year; international education was worth $3.1 billion in 2015—and that supports 30000 jobs—and wine exports are now worth $1.5 billion up 14 percent in just 1 year.Grant Robertson: Do the latest GDP figures show the second consecutive quarter of falling per capita real disposable income?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I congratulate the member because he has obviously been in his office trying to find the one slightly negative statistic ever since quarter to 11 this morning. Real GDP per capita which the member used to care about up until this week has gone up in both of the last two quarters. The real gross national disposable income per capita which the member is now so fixed on has gone down slightly in the latest figures.Grant Robertson: Was Westpac senior economist Michael Gordon wrong when he said that GDP growth per capita is “actually very sluggish at present.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Speaking of sluggish—no it is not. The September quarter and the December quarter are both at 0.3 or 0.4 from memory.Grant Robertson: So he’s wrong?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well the Westpac economists were predicting 7 percent unemployment this year at one stage. I note they have been very quiet on that lately.Chris Bishop: What reports has he received recently on reductions in New Zealand’s external financial vulnerabilities?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is good news there too. Statistics New Zealand yesterday released its latest balance of payments figures. They showed a current account deficit of 3.1 percent which of course is significantly better than we used to experience. We were around the 8 percent mark back in the period prior to the global financial crisis before this Government came into office. Statistics New Zealand also reported that New Zealand’s net external debt has now fallen to 55 percent of GDP down from 83 percent when National took office and is now at the lowest level since 2003. These figures represent good progress in improving a longstanding imbalance in the New Zealand economy which we inherited. Lower national debt means New Zealand is better placed to respond to any future economic shocks.Chris Bishop: How is the Government’s responsible and consistent programme of economic management which contrasts with reports of other more knee-jerk approaches supporting ongoing moderate growth in the economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is important that the Government continues to undertake responsible and consistent economic reform that gives businesses the confidence to invest and grow and not just react to the latest news cycle. We are doing that for example through the Business Growth Agenda which includes 350 initiatives like signing up to new free-trade agreements reducing ACC levies by around $1.5 billion a year rolling out the ultra-fast broadband programme and launching three new ICT graduate schools. This all translates into an outlook that is for continued economic growth. In fact Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecast growth averaging around 3 percent over calendar years 2016 and 2017 while the Reserve Bank forecast is similar for the next 2 years.Dairy Industry—Milk Price Downturn3.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his reported statement from February this year that he is not overly concerned about the broader impact of the slump in dairy prices?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: In the context in which it was made yes. As I said earlier there is a difference between being concerned for farmers and being concerned that the dairy sector will drag the rest of the economy into recession. Of course we have seen that that will not necessarily happen because of the GDP figures today. Of course we are concerned about the welfare of farmers but this does not detract from the fact that we are seeing continued growth across the rest of the economy. Despite the fall in dairy prices for example exports actually increased by almost $2 billion for New Zealand last year and as I mentioned in the earlier question tourism beef exports international education and wine are just four examples of that growth.Grant Robertson: Is Waimate mayor Craig Rowley wrong when he says that the dairy downturn is going to have a “massive onflow” in his town and that “There will be no winners. It’s a struggle for everybody.” or should the people of Waimate not be overly concerned either?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Obviously there are some towns that are being affected by the downturn in dairy prices. I can think of a number that I have visited in recent times that are affected on that basis.Grant Robertson: So they should be concerned?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They of course will be concerned because of their local economic environment. My point to the member who constantly says that the only thing in New Zealand is the dairy industry is that the figures we have now prove that New Zealand has a diversified economy that is growing well and that is actually good for all those towns because if we were not growing well at this point they would have more reason to be concerned.Grant Robertson: Is AgriBusiness Group economist Stuart Ford wrong when he says that “The flow on effect for … places like Christchurch are absolutely massive” from the dairy downturn or should the people of Christchurch not be overly concerned either?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Christchurch economy is New Zealand’s second-largest and has a whole range of industries in it.Grant Robertson: So he’s wrong as well?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Grant just quieten down for a little bit—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and wait for your question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Complete the answer please.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My point is that the Christchurch economy is a large economy that is diversified in areas such as ICT high-tech manufacturing construction and the food sector more generally including the meat sector and a whole range of fisheries production. The Christchurch economy is a strong economy. It will of course be affected to some degree by the dairy downturn but as we have seen across New Zealand as a whole the New Zealand economy continues to perform well and is one of the highest performing economies in the OECD notwithstanding the challenges of the dairy industry.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer is not what the GDP numbers actually show is that whatever growth we do have is not sustainable because it does not come through increased productivity or output but rather comes from population increase and debt-fuelled household spending?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. The member’stalking points are simply wrong. But where he has a point is where if you remove every part of the New Zealand economy that is growing you will find that the balance is not growing. It is a bit like a Monty Python sketch but if you remove immigration education tourism the wine industry the meat industry the ICT industry and—for all I know—ethnic restaurants you will find that there is no growth in the New Zealand economy.Fletcher Tabuteau: Does the Minister not think that his current apathy and silence on New Zealand dairy farmers opens this Government up to the very reasonable label of fair-weather friend?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think there are some parties that could be called fair-weather friends of the dairy sector but it is not this one. The Government is very involved and has always been involved in the dairy sector. Where was the member’s party on well the Trans-Pacific Partnership for a kick-off irrigation and on encouragement of the Primary Growth Partnership programme which encourages the development and progression up the value chain of the dairy industry. All of these things this Government has been involved in for a very long time and I am pleased that the member is finally turning up with some concern for the dairy industry.Students with Special Needs—Intensive Wraparound Service4.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on the Intensive Wraparound Service?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. The Intensive Wraparound Service is a personalised service that supports children and young people with high and complex behavioural and learning needs. I recently received the results of a review of this service conducted by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. The review found that it is improving behaviour and educational outcomes for some of the highest-need children and young people who receive this service. Additionally families involved in the study saw the Intensive Wraparound Service as a major improvement for their children. Indeed one family described it as a “lifesaver”. Introduced in 2012 this service gives parents the choice of a locally based wraparound service within their local community and children and young people the support they need to attend their local school.Stuart Smith: What other action is she taking to ensure that students with the highest needs are supported in our education system?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Positive Behaviour for Learning is another highly successful programme. This programme has 10 initiatives to help parents whānau teachers early childhood centres and schools to address problem behaviour improve children’s well-being and increase educational achievement. Schools involved with Positive Behaviour for Learning have reported a dramatic drop in suspensions and resulting exclusions and an increase in student achievement. Teachers report that it has contributed to a more respectful and inclusive school culture improved approaches to addressing behaviour incidents improved school safety and a decrease in behaviour referrals for major incidents. I congratulate families schools and communities on their hard work in making the Intensive Wraparound Service and the Positive Behaviour for Learning initiatives a success.Work and Income—Client Management System5.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: How many applications for benefits superannuation and special needs grants have not been processed because of the issues with the implementation of the client management IT system?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I am advised that Work and Income is unaware of any applications for benefits superannuation and special needs grants that have not been processed due to the introduction of the new client management system. All applications have been processed within normal business-as-usual time frames and client applications and payments have been given top priority. All client services are now operating as usual and any clients with concerns should contact Work and Income.Carmel Sepuloni: Is the reason that she cannot provide a number that the booking system is experiencing serious faults and that staff are unable to edit or load client files into the client management system?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No it is because there are none.Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement last week that “the system is continuing to improve with an expectation of being at full capacity in the next day or so”; if so why are there thousands of client files as of yesterday still unable to be called up by Work and Income staff?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am advised that the amount of work on hand is within the normal range and is being processed within the expected time frames. All work relating to payments is being prioritised the system’s performance has continued to improve since implementation and I have received regular updates on the system. One hundred percent of the staff are now able to use the system and all client channels are operating as usual.Carmel Sepuloni: Have Work and Income staff had immediate access to the high-risk client database the entire time since the rollout of the upgrade to the client management IT system; if not what security risks has this posed to her staff?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding is that there were some systems that were not available for some periods of time but at all times security of staff is uppermost in the minds of Work and Income.Carmel Sepuloni: What additional security measures has she put in place to mitigate the security risks for her staff not being able to identify high-risk clients quickly?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have already said any of those services that were not available were unavailable for only a short period of time. All offices have security officers in place and as I say especially last week the security and safety of staff was uppermost in the minds of all Work and Income managers.Carmel Sepuloni: Is she able to guarantee that benefit recipients who are entitled to the benefit rate increase on 1 April will receive this increase on time?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding is that all benefit payments will be paid in accordance with the normal operating practices. I have particularly asked about the benefit increase from 1 April and I am assured that that will take place but that does rely on all the information being available from applicants.Vote Health—Funding Changes6.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: By what percentage has Vote Health increased since 2008?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I am pleased to confirm that despite tight global financial times since 2008 National has increased spending on Vote Health by over 30 percent. This $4 billion increase has supported the expansion of health services such as free under-13s GP visits over 5500 more doctors and nurses and 50000 surgeries but it has also seen a huge investment in capital projects such as nearly $1 billion on Canterbury’s health infrastructure and the upcoming hospital rebuilds on the West Coast and in Dunedin. Only National can both manage the books and increase access to health services.Barbara Kuriger: Can the Minister confirm that under this Government the average share of the economy invested in Vote Health is 6.5 percent and how does this compare historically?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The share of the economy invested in health is probably the most widely accepted measure of the priority that the Government of the day places on health. I can confirm that the average share of the economy invested in health under National is 6.5 percent and this is much higher than the average 5.7 percent invested in health by Labour from 2000 to 2008.Forestry—Job Losses and Timber Processing7.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he have confidence in his Associate Minister for Primary Industries?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of theMinister for Primary Industries: It is still yes.Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Associate Minister raised with the Minister any concerns about the 6000 jobs lost across the forestry sector at the same time that the harvested volume of logs has increased by 50 percent?Hon JO GOODHEW: As when the Minister was the Associate Minister and also the Minister with responsibility for forestry this is an ongoing issue for the forestry sector. So Minister Goodhew and the Minister have actually discussed this. However what we do know is that there are more logs being processed in New Zealand than ever before. That is of higher value than logs going out. The other thing that this Government is doing is certainly assisting and supporting the log processing sector so that there is a higher value coming back to New Zealand’s workers.Stuart Nash: What has his Associate Minister proposed to remedy the problem in Gisborne where Malaysian-owned Hikurangi Forest Farms refuses to guarantee logs to a locally owned saw mill preferring rather to export them even though the mill owners are prepared to pay export-equivalent log prices?Hon JO GOODHEW: It will come as no surprise to this side of the House at least that this Government is not going to get itself in the middle of a commercial arrangement. We will not require any owner who is harvesting logs to supply at any particular cost to any processor.Richard Prosser: Can the Minister confirm to the House that logs exported from New Zealand ports by vertically integrated foreign-owned forestry companies that own cutting rights to New Zealand in saw mills overseas actually earn New Zealand anything in terms of direct net foreign exchange?Hon JO GOODHEW: Yes.Stuart Nash: Has she expressed any concern at all that Hikurangi Forest Farms may lose its internationally recognised International Forest Stewardship Council certification because of its refusal to guarantee the supply of logs to a local saw mill; if not why not?Hon JO GOODHEW: Minister Goodhew has not raised that with the Minister.Tourism—Visitor Numbers and Chinese Tourism8.BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he received about growth in the number of visitors coming to New Zealand?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism) on behalf of theMinister of Tourism: A record 3.2 million tourists visited New Zealand of course in 2015. In particular there has been a huge increase in the number of visitors from China with arrivals for the year ended January 2016 up by 42 percent on the year before. They are also of course spending more which is great news for us here with Chinese visitors’ spending growing even faster than arrival numbers. In 2015 they spent more than $1.6 billion while visiting New Zealand.Brett Hudson: What are we doing to attract Chinese visitors to New Zealand?Hon Damien O’Connor: Cheap airfares.Hon PAULA BENNETT: This side of the House this Government is doing a great job in actually attracting Chinese visitors and even welcoming Chinese who might want to stay here on their visas and even work in ethnic restaurants. We kind of encourage that as well—if the member wants to chirp up there. Estimates show that up to 70000 people visited during Chinese New Year this year and we need to do all we can to obviously capitalise on this. Regional tourism organisations are working with officials to get better insights on what they can do to attract Chinese visitors to their regions.Brett Hudson: What risks are there to the continued growth of Chinese tourism?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Some of the risks that we actually have in the sector are being able to ensure that we have the right staff and skilled staff working in different areas particularly in hospitality—as you can see actually by the Tourism Industry Association New Zealand which put out a press release. It said it was really concerned that any ban on overseas chefs while working in New Zealand would have a disastrous consequence for the tourism industry and the economy actually for the money that tourism is bringing in. As the quote says: “The policy position taken this week by the Labour Party leader”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no responsibility for that.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that yesterday’s current account figures show that despite an increase in the number of international visitors to New Zealand in the latest quarter total expenditure fell by $57 million?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.Youth Employment and Training—Statistics and Immigration9.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements where the interests of young New Zealanders are concerned?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of thePrime Minister: Insomuch as they are accurately quoted or reported yes.Ron Mark: If the Prime Minister in 2009 said: “We simply can’t afford to leave our young languishing on a benefit.” why are there now 37700 Māori and Pacific Island youth not in jobs education or training?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We have some of the lowest levels of unemployment for people in that category in New Zealand’s history. If the member is serious about supporting young people into work then he would support the expansion of the economy and immediately sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.Ron Mark: How will young New Zealanders access affordable rental homes and ownership when they face competition from a net 65900 migrants a year into New Zealand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not at all pessimistic about the future for young New Zealanders in a country that is led by a Government that is progressive that does want the economy to grow and does have an international focus towards the world that those young people will eventually lead.Ron Mark: Reflecting on his answer to supplementary question No. 1 what on earth is he doing to help young New Zealanders get ahead when our rate of young people not in jobs education or training is worse than that of Poland and the Czech Republic?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The statistic that the member is putting in front of the House is the lowest it has been in New Zealand’s history and the whole programme that this Government is running is about expanding the size of the New Zealand economy to create the sort of opportunity that those young people will want. But do not be pessimistic about the whole of the young people who fit into that neat group. The vast majority of them are in work or training making progress in their lives and will make big contributions to New Zealand. It is a shame that the member’s party does not want to do the same.Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the levels of 15 to 19-year-olds not in employment education or training are the lowest in New Zealand history since that series has begun?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can confirm that. That would be the third time today that I have confirmed it. I hope the member who asked the question on the Order Paper has heard that.Ron Mark: To the Prime Minister—in waiting—why argue that you have the interests of young New Zealanders at heart when your Government has issued over 92000 work visas to foreign students who are doing these young New Zealanders out of the opportunity of working?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We do not see the doors of New Zealand shut and closed to the world as the member’s party does and as he demonstrates by his lack of commitment to New Zealand’s trading opportunities.Ron Mark: Why is the Government allowing these foreign students to squeeze out unskilled Kiwis from jobs in garages supermarkets and hotels because as he knows they will accept substandard working conditions and lower pay rates and for that matter has he forgotten the young people—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is long enough.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The international education sector brings in $3 billion - plus into the New Zealand economy each year and the net employment from that investment by those young people in themselves gives this country an extra 30000 jobs. The member really should take a look beyond the closed shop of New Zealand First.Police—Emergency Response Times10.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: If someone suspects criminal activity and they actually want the Police to turn up in under 10 minutes do they have to inform the Police that they have a gun?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): No.Stuart Nash: What does she say to her constituent Mr Kumar who said about having his dairy robbed yet again that “We can’t do much … apart from reporting it to the cops and the cops never turn up saying ‘that’s not a major issue’”—[Interruption] I do not think dairies getting robbed is a—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been asked.Stuart Nash: No no. I have got more.Mr SPEAKER: The question has been asked.Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to break into an interjection and have a chat halfway through giving a question that is what will happen.Stuart Nash: But I lost my train of thought because there was so much stuff going on over there.Mr SPEAKER: Then because I am in a very generous mood I will allow the member to regather his train of thought to ask his question again and please do not respond to interjections.Stuart Nash: What does she say to her constituent Mr Kumar who said about having his dairy robbed yet again that “We can’t do much … apart from reporting it to the cops and the cops never turn up saying ‘that’s not a major issue’ … I’ve reported so many times that I’ve just lost hope”?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am happy to say to Mr Kumar and to that member that in relation to that matter the police were already on their way to the incident before there was any mention of a gun. The police have advised that the people in the shop waited 5 minutes before calling 111; that is 5 minutes after the youths left the scene. The call came in at 5.52 p.m. Police were despatched at 5.57 p.m. They arrived at 6.02 p.m.—10 minutes. I think that is an outstanding response from the New Zealand Police and by the way people have now been dealt with and the matter is being resolved.Stuart Nash: Has she not failed the country when police say “dairy robberies were not just a problem for Papakura but the district and the rest of the country.” considering that over 60 percent of all robberies do not get solved?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. In fact the people who have failed New Zealand are the parents who have not looked after their children.Stuart Nash: Why will she not admit that her Government has under-resourced—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Could the member start again. I am having trouble hearing the supplementary question.Stuart Nash: Sorry. Why will she not admit that her Government has under-resourced police when dairy owners have to lie to get police in order to get them to respond?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think I have made it very plain. Police responded straight away. They were outstanding. In fact nobody needed to lie and I am sorry that someone now feels that they do need to.Childhood Obesity—Sugary Drinks Tax11.KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Will he introduce a tax on sugary drinks in light of the growing number of countries who have done so most recently the UK and the evidence that it is effective?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The Government’s position on a sugar tax has not changed. It is not something that we are actively considering. We will continue to keep a watching brief on the emerging evidence. I think it is important to note that there is no single solution that will fix obesity. That is why we have implemented the Childhood Obesity Plan with a range of interventions across Government the private sector communities schools and families. We are now one of the very few countries in the OECD with a national childhood obesity target and a comprehensive plan to support it.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister stand by his comments on The Nation in October last year when he said that although a tax on sugary drinks would decrease their consumption it may not decrease obesity because people could drink beer instead?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not think he is reporting those comments verbatim but I stand by the substantive point.Kevin Hague: Why does he disagree with George Osborne the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer who said: “I am not prepared to look back at my time here in this Parliament doing this job and say to my children’s generation: ‘I’m sorry. We knew there was a problem with sugary drinks. We knew it caused disease. But we ducked the difficult decisions and we did nothing.’ ”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Governments in different countries make decisions for a range of reasons. I am not responsible for Mr Osborne’s statements.Kevin Hague: Which side is the Government on: multinational sugar barons like Coke or Kiwi kids whose health is suffering right now because of fizzy drinks?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is a really silly question; I am not going to answer it.Skills Shortages—Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics12.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: Is he concerned about skills shortages in professions that require knowledge in STEM subjects; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): I thank the member for her question which is an area of great passion of mine in this portfolio. To answer her question yes which is why the Government has a comprehensive programme to attract and train more skilled people in science technology engineering and mathematics areas. This includes building the pipeline of students wanting to study science technology engineering and mathematics subjects through A Nation of Curious Minds and the Engineering - Education to Employment initiatives and working to lift Māori and Pasifika participation in these subjects. The good news is there are more graduates in science technology engineering and mathematics areas than ever before with Bachelor’s level or higher graduates in engineering up 36 percent in 2014 over 2008; ICT graduates up 43 percent; and graduates in natural and physical sciences up 24 percent over the same period.Jenny Salesa: How many teachers with science technology engineering and mathematics qualifications have been trained over the past 5 years; if his policies are so successful why are maths and science teachers being pulled out of retirement because of critical shortages?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is interesting the member raises that because I had a discussion with the Ministry of Education in the last week on whether there were any areas of shortages as the member has described. I am reliably informed that actually no there are not widespread shortages in that area. That is not to say they are not looking to train more teachers in maths and sciences but if you look at the advertising of those positions in the last few months since the start of the year my understanding is there are not unusual numbers of ads being placed for vacancies in those areas.Jenny Salesa: How will young Kiwis become proficient in maths and science when only 39 maths teachers and four physics teachers graduated from one institution and none from another?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the teaching workforce again it is a matter of demand and supply. So I take a close look at what the Ministry of Education is saying. The Tertiary Education Commission talks with the ministry on an ongoing basis. If any shortages appear they do look to recruit people and encourage the universities to recruit people accordingly. All I can do is repeat for the member what I said. I checked in the last week on this matter and my understanding is there are not levels of unusual shortage.Jenny Salesa: After 7 years as the responsible Minister what is his response to a school principal who is concerned about “a huge drop or just lack of applicants” in maths and science teachers and has no idea where the replacements are coming from?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: An individual principal may or may not have that view. All I can tell the member is across the overall teaching sector that is not the case and I can tell her that the numbers of graduates in areas such as sciences is up significantly—24 percent over the last 6 years for natural and physical sciences for engineering subjects it is up 36 percent and for ICT up 43 percent. These are big increases. They may or may not be proceeding into the teaching profession but actually again from the information supplied by the Ministry of Education there are not widespread shortages.Joanne Hayes: What reports has he seen of skills shortages in other areas?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am aware of reports that there may be skills shortages in other parts of tertiary education which I am looking into. Of course the one that is perhaps most prominent in recent days has been the area of culinary arts where I understand we are possibly importing Chinese chefs to work in Chinese restaurants and we are also possibly importing Viet Namese chefs to work in Viet Namese restaurants Thai chefs to work in Thai restaurants and possibly even Japanese chefs to work in teppan-yaki restaurants. This is outrageous—it is frankly appalling! We need to stop this immediately and I think the answer is actually to pass a law in this House renaming those restaurants. I think the Little India restaurants should be renamed “Little Invercargill” and we will close this problem down immediately.Greater Christchurch Regeneration BillSecond ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): It is not usual for the Minister proposing a bill to speak in the second reading but this is a bill that is somewhat unique and I think it continues the historically strong support that this Parliament has given Christchurch through the difficult years post the earthquake sequence—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask the member—he needs to move that the bill be read a second time.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh sorry. Well there you go. It just shows that anybody who has been here for any length of time can demonstrate a bit of inexperience occasionally. I move That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill be now read a second time.As I was saying this is I think a historic bill for the House and the events of the last couple of weeks where parties have come together to discuss the final shape of the bill—albeit post the select committee stage—have been particularly pleasing. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work that he and his members did on this bill. It was in hearing the submissions that some of the complexities that needed to be dealt with in the bill were brought to light.The genesis of the bill though started quite some time ago when it was decided that there should be an orderly transition for the Government to exit some of its more prominent roles in the recovery of Christchurch. So in December of 2014 under the chair of Dame Jenny Shipley there was an advisory board set up. It was asked to consider a number of parameters that should be given a fair old going over before any transition plan could be put together and then it was asked to produce a report that would indicate a direction moving forward.That advisory board had on it the Mayor of Christchurch the Mayor of Waimakariri District the Mayor of Selwyn District and the current chair of Environment Canterbury as well as people from the business sector and a number of people from the NGO sector as well. The people who were on that board did I think a splendid job of thinking about the state of the city at present particularly in a governance sense and looking at what might be necessary moving forward. So what we have seen in the last 10 days when MPs have repeatedly met discussed and agreed is a continuation of a consultation process that has gone on for a very long period of time. The arrangements that are now going to be presented in the Committee stage as a Supplementary Order Paper to this particular bill when the House resumes after the adjournment I think are going to put into statute a series of arrangements that will work well for the future of the city.It is particularly pleasing—I will say it again—that we have been able to reach a broad consensus on how that should shape up and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and actually the determined work I should say of all the MPs who were party to that. These were Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First Eugenie Sage from the Green Party Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party David Seymour from the ACT Party Megan Woods from the Labour Party—I think that might cover it. But my point is that when we were in those discussions the general perception of Parliament as being an adversarial place was for a time set aside while there were proper discussions about what the consequences of any law might be. I have to say that the bill is not for example in a shape that I would think meets in every way the requirements that I would see necessary but then I think every other person in the room would have come up with the same conclusion and that I think can give us all comfort that we are probably in about the right space.The most salient points that have come out of those discussions relate to the provisions that will go into the Supplementary Order Paper that effectively strengthen public input into any of the regeneration plans that will be developed in Christchurch City. It will strengthen the leadership of the new organisation Regenerate Christchurch and it will put a degree of constraint—a greater degree of constraint—on the exercise of ministerial powers to alter those plans under clause 42 of the bill.Those regeneration plans you could almost say are a copy of the recovery plan process that has been in place over the last few years. But essentially the bill recognises that although Christchurch has had its emergency and then has gone through a period of recovery and continues to do so we are now at a point where the consequences of the earthquakes have made such significant changes to the city and the greater Christchurch area that sharper processes are going to be necessary to ensure that we do develop new areas redevelop existing areas and renew existing areas in a way that make them most amenable to people’s ongoing living opportunities. So although there will be some who look at this and say “You’re replacing one bureaucracy that is centrally controlled by Government with a whole lot of smaller bureaucracies that are controlled by local organisations with lesser direct authority.” I think that they have missed the point that there are some very separate considerations that need to be put in place.So Regenerate Christchurch becomes the prime body for taking an overview of the city and its surrounds and making determinations about where some of the efforts of local authorities individual developers and others who have an interest in an area can be concentrated and then coming up with plans that will enable that to occur on a much more rapid basis than might occur through the Local Government Act or for that matter some aspects of the Resource Management Act.Then you have an organisation that the council is setting up called Development Christchurch Ltd. That is designed to be a front-face first point for people who are coming to the city who want to invest. One of the things that I hear over and over and have done for the last few years is that people come into town and say “Right we want to do something.” and then there is nowhere to go no one to talk to and nothing gets done. I think that is an overstatement of how things are but the council certainly does have a desire to see things move. I think the first thing that DevelopmentChristchurch has been involved in is the big bike park on the Port Hills which the rest of the country will soon learn is an absolutely splendid facility and I am sure there will be many who come to Christchurch because of it.There is also going to be an organisation referred to as Ōtākaro Ltd. Everyone will know that the Government has invested heavily in Christchurch. It does own a lot of land known as the red zone and does own a lot of land in the central business district where the different precincts are being established. It will hold the interest that the Government has in ensuring that the anchor projects that remain—at this point—unstarted are started and that those that are under way continue to their completion at as speedy a pace as possible.We have cross-pollinated all of those boards with the chairs of each so that there is a good understanding and good working arrangement between those groups. I think the structure recognises local autonomy and recognises the difference between a single body that does everything and the specifics that need to be dealt with and I am confident that they will be able to work together in a very very positive way.This is as I said before a historic bill. It is part of the efforts that this Parliament is making in support of Canterbury and it continues the unanimous support and generous support that the House has given since the days post-2011. The discussion that we will have in the Committee stage will make very clear I hope the unique nature of the structure that we have all agreed will be best for Christchurch.I want to once again thank the members of Parliament and the spokespeople who have been involved in those discussions. I would like to thank the officials for their forbearance with us all. Politicians are very good at coming up with great ideas and then being a little reluctant to accept that some of them might not be as good as they possibly could be. But we were well served by officials from both the Christchurch City Council and from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and I thank them for their work. I look forward to the Committee stage when I am sure they will be on hand to answer any questions that those perhaps not quite so close to the process may have.I do commend this bill to the House. It is a good bill and well worth the House’s unanimous support.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee who has just taken his seat who has taken this opportunity to come down to the House and give a speech in the second reading. Thank you because I think this has been quite a unique process in that we have been able to sit down and we have been able to thrash out what is a much-improved piece of legislation—once we have the Supplementary Order Paper that will be tabled at the Committee stage as the Minister has intimated. The Minister also took the somewhat unique action of outlining Labour’s position on this—thank you Minister for that—and I would like to confirm the Minister’s statement on that. Labour is supporting this legislation on the proviso of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has outlined in his speech being tabled. He described those changes that will be delivered through that Supplementary Order Paper which will be tabled the next time we come back into this House to debate this bill at the Committee stage. We can offer back our support on this bill and I am very happy that that is the case.The Minister talked about the need to have cross-party agreement on the issues that relate to the recovery the regeneration and the governance of Canterbury around this. I think that this is important for Cantabrians. I think that we do need to have certainty as we enter the next phase of our history and Cantabrians can be sure that when the Government changes next year that there will not be major upheaval. So I thank the Minister for thinking ahead to that and for the work he put into that. The reason why we withdrew our support after the select committee consideration was that the bill simply was not good enough for Cantabrians. The bill did not give Cantabrians the locally led recovery that they desired and the locally led recovery that they deserved and needed. I would like to thank the Minister for recognising that. I think it is a pity that some of the Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee had not listened a little bit more closely at the select committee and made that case a little earlier. But I am very grateful that the Minister did that and that we are seeing much better legislation.We are 5 years on from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. I was not a member of Parliament when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation was introduced into this House in the immediate aftermath of the February quakes. I was in fact campaigning for the Wigram seat at the time. Those were emergency powers for extraordinary times. I think we can all think back to 5 years ago in Christchurch and what it was like. We no longer see what look like tanks in supermarket car-parks which is something that I think we are all very pleased to have moved past. We no longer have the military manning a cordon around our central business district. Sometimes it is very hard to think that it was only 5 years ago—or that that was even 5 years ago—that we were seeing these sights on the streets of Christchurch. And for the Labour Party the bill that emerged which is actually the bill that is sitting on the Table here today had not moved sufficiently past this phase of our recovery.The bill that the majority of the select committee reported back to this House was still too entrenched in that immediate aftermath and the emergency powers phase of our regeneration. We know that there is a difficult balance that needs to be struck in Christchurch. We in the Labour Party have never advocated that now is the time to return to business as usual—to go back and pretend that the earthquakes had never happened and completely put everything back as if it were. The Minister alluded to the report of the transitional board led by Dame Jenny Shipley and the report that it produced made it very clear that there was an intermediate step that was required before that return to business as usual. And that balance did need to be struck.We are never quiet on this side of the House when talking about the need for speed in the Canterbury recovery. We do recognise that there do need to be some bespoke provisions in order to have the speed that we desire in the Canterbury recovery and that is why we can support this bill. We also know that the Crown is making a significant investment and that when the Crown is making a significant investment of taxpayer money it needs to have good oversight of that money. It needs to have responsible and prudent oversight of that money and I think that what we are seeing here gives the Crown the oversight and the responsibility that it should take for taxpayer money without having to have overreaching ministerial powers that were only ever going to serve as a roadblock to the recovery of Christchurch. So I think that we have come a long way in terms of getting that balance right. I think one of the things that we can see is that the Minister has said that the Supplementary Order Paper that we have all worked on which he is going to table in the Committee stage—and it has actually been quite an enjoyable process working on that I have to say. I have enjoyed every moment of it Minister and I thank you for it.We will strengthen the position of Regenerate Christchurch. Regenerate Christchurch is an agency that is made up of both Crown appointments and council appointments and I think this reflects very well that balance. It does preserve public input into decisions and regeneration plans that can be made and as the Minister put it it more closely proscribes the power of the Minister which I think is a nice way of saying that it transitions quite a bit of power back into the hands of Cantabrians and that is something that I think is a positive thing. The submissions made it very clear—and there were two very strong themes that came through from the submissions that the select committee heard. Local leadership was something that came through time and time again—80 of the submitters focused on this as an issue that was something that needed to be given strength.I think that those of us from Christchurch and Canterbury can all recognise the energy the innovation and the vitality that has happened in our city in the last 5 years. For us it is in that energy it is in that innovation and it is in that creativity that we want the next 5 years to lie. We think Cantabrians are going to make good decisions about their future.I celebrate a lot of things that are happening in our city that never would have happened before the earthquakes. Just last weekend I spent time on an intersection in Riccarton painting the road. We made a painted intersection in Shand Crescent. The idea around this which is taken from Portland Oregon is about bringing communities together and having the ability of communities to think: “Just because it’s not usually done doesn’t mean we can’t do it.” That is the kind of spirit that has got to define the next 5 years in Christchurch—people taking charge of their lives.I would not like everyone to think I have got too carried away talking about how much I have enjoyed this process. Of course there are questions that we still have around provisions of this bill and they are questions that will be fully discussed in the Committee stage—as is appropriate—of this bill. There are questions that we need to ask about how the agencies are going to work and the Minister alluded to that. We are replacing one agency the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority with several agencies some of them Crown and some of them council. How are they going to work together? What are going to be the limits and the transparencies around those agencies? How is it that we are going to ensure that all that is made very clear? What are the letters of intent going to say—because the letters of intent are a very important instrument that lies beneath this legislation both with the Christchurch City Council and with the Crown entity of Ōtākaro Ltd which is given a very large function in our regeneration. What are that organisation’s responsibilities back in terms of reporting?These are all discussions that we can have at the Committee stage but I am very happy to be able to say that the Minister has been able to win back our support on this bill. It was not with any pleasure that we withdrew our support at the select committee and had to write a minority report. We voted for this bill in its first reading because we thought that it was important that we listen to the submissions. We listened and we are very pleased that the Minister also listened to the very able submissions that were made on this bill. Thank you very much.Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): It is my pleasure too to support this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. There is absolutely no doubt that we all agree that Christchurch has come a long way since 4 September 2010. It has been a bit of an emotional rollercoaster but we are still learning how to reorganise our lives how to manage our emotions and how to cope with grief—cope with grief for the people whom we have lost for the homes that have been destroyed and for the communities that are changed. But together we have all survived that emergency phase. We are managing the recovery and now it is our turn to look forward to regeneration.The phases all morph into each other as our lives and circumstances change and as each of our individual futures evolve at different speeds. But 5 years on is the time to focus on the future and embrace regeneration as the road back to business as usual: local leadership local management and local control.Regeneration is a much bigger and more exciting concept than recovery. It is about building back better. It is about urban renewal and development restoration revitalisation and enhancement. It is our opportunity to improve the environmental the economic the social and the cultural well-being of our city and its surroundings. I think we all know where we want to end up. I think the submitters in the Share an Idea campaign made it very clear. We want to live in a leafy people-friendly vibrant city; a place where all generations want to come to live to work and to play; a city that focuses on community well-being; a city that we can be proud of; and a city that we can all enjoy. I believe we are well on our way towards that.I just want to make a note about the bill. The references to environmental social and cultural well-being have been elevated to the purpose clause of the bill to highlight their importance. Many submitters thought that “regeneration” did not include environmental well-being. Well it does and I am really pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that it should be moved to become more visible.The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill and its Supplementary Order Paper will provide a framework within which we can all work together to get the best possible outcomes for our city and Greater Christchurch. The strategic partners which are the four councils—the Christchurch City Council the Selwyn District Council the Waimakariri District Council and Environment Canterbury—work with central government and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and we have all got roles to play to deliver on this outcome and to prepare local organisations to take over and continue the work in the future. This bill has only a 5-year term but regeneration and urban renewal will continue well past 2021. In fact it should be continual and ongoing so post-2021 Regenerate Christchurch will become a new council-controlled organisation. It is crucial that we get this bill right because it is an exciting opportunity for greater Christchurch.I want to thank everybody who has been involved with creating the bill: the drafters the submitters the select committee and particularly all those members who have worked with Minister Brownlee to make sure that this bill will support the collaborative process that we all need to embrace as we go forward.The bill specifically recognises local leadership through our councils and through Ngāi Tahu and provides each organisation with a role in the decision making under the Act. It requires community input to decisions into the development of regeneration plans and the decisions on the exercise of powers under clause 42. I think the bill represents an important milestone and allows for that much-discussed step change move—the move from recovery to regeneration and from the Crown being in the driver’s seat towards a progressive handover to local leaders.Submitters were really keen that the community be fully included and have a strong voice in future decisions. The Government agrees and the bill provides many opportunities for public input. The key is to develop a vision that will bring local people together and allow regeneration to happen quickly and efficiently. Engagement in the development of regeneration plans will be particularly important and the bill requires proponents at the early outline plan stage to set out the opportunities for public engagement and how that will be undertaken. Regenerate Christchurch also has a statutory role to engage with communities stakeholders and decision makers to achieve the purpose of supporting a vibrant thriving and engaged Christchurch.As I have already noted public engagement on regeneration plans was a key issue for submitters. I want to emphasise that the consultation provisions in this bill are a minimum. The Government expects local leaders to identify a range of public and stakeholder engagement opportunities for the issues covered by the draft plan. We want them to be creative. We want people to be excited and motivated by the possibilities for our city.The St Valentine’s Day earthquake last month reminded us of just what it was like 5 years ago but it also emphasised how far we have come since that time. It gave me real confidence seeing how our new homes and new buildings stood up so well and any damage—damage from rockfall cliff crumble or mass movement—happened only where we expected it to happen which was behind the barricades. There is no doubt that Canterbury will continue to be a shaky place. We know that our geography is constantly changing but I think we can all be assured that our geotechnical experts have got a really good handle on how earthquakes work in our region and I think most of us have learnt a lot about that too.We also know that there is still more work to be done to complete the final recovery work and before we move completely into regeneration and on to business as usual. So I support the continuation of the lands and works powers to finish the implementation of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the final very difficult and complex demolition that has got to be carried out on the Port Hills.I believe the bill that is reported back from the select committee and its Supplementary Order Paper will provide that step change that we all seek. It will support a really exciting journey from recovery to regeneration and from regeneration to the new local business-as-usual. Along the way many doors will open. I think it is really important for the inhabitants of Greater Christchurch that we can embrace the new ideas the new opportunities and the new ways of working. I think that it is our challenge and our responsibility to make really good decisions—good decisions for those who have gone before us and good decisions for those who will come after us. I commend the bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I recall when this bill was first introduced and I suggested to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that he stay in his seat—that he not stand up—because I was about to say that I supported the bill that he had introduced. I am delighted actually that at this stage our support is able to be returned. In between times we unfortunately had to withdraw it because it was clear during the select committee process that the balance had not been obtained to the level that Labour thought was appropriate. I am also delighted that both Minister Gerry Brownlee and I assume his associate the Hon Nicky Wagner listened to the submitters took a lot of time and trouble and made an effort to engage with all other parties in the House to the point I understand that with the tabling of the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister this bill will now receive the unanimous support of Parliament. That is the sort of message I am delighted that Parliament will give to Canterbury. It is not a message that we have had a lot in the past—in the last 5½ years—and I am delighted that this is the opportunity for us to do it and that it has been taken by the Minister.Not much more than 5 years ago in the February quake of 2011 events happened in our city that really redefined Canterbury and its residents. We had the loss of thousands of homes and 185 lives. The fact that Parliament is able to come together for the recovery stage of that experience should be a tribute to those people who lost their lives and to their families and I just want to acknowledge them. At that time thousands of New Zealanders rallied to support Canterbury.I have reflected a lot—particularly around the 22 February commemorations—about the little things that happened that meant so much to people at the time. Of course there were big things that happened as well as my colleague Megan Woods said. We did have the military everywhere. As Dr Woods would know that was not such a bad thing for many in our city. Many enjoyed the companionship but also the feeling of security it gave. It was not an intimidating process at all—even the fact that we had tanks parked in the middle of our roads which sounds bizarre now was reassuring for people. It gave us comfort to know that competent professionals were there.It was the first time in our history that every single state and the Federal Government of Australia sent police to assist our country. That is something that we should not forget. And of course the first country that sent assistance was Japan which not long after tragically needed assistance of its own in a much bigger event. But we had many people in New Zealand who performed small acts of generosity that made such a big difference to well-being.Parliament of course responded in a way that we are now considering in this legislation because Parliament responded with the establishment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—CERA. We do not have women called Sarah in Canterbury; we have CERA as an organisation. It has caused a lot of confusion and could I recommend to all Ministers that they never have an organisation that can be confused with a woman’s name because every time we say CERA in Christchurch we say: “No CERA the department not the person.” It is a silly name but it was not a silly organisation; it was set up for good reasons. It gave wartime powers to the Minister and he needed some of them—some of them he used appropriately as well—and some of them he did not need to use but they were given to him in all good faith from Parliament because we thought they may have been necessary. In the end it did not work quite as Parliament envisaged—good things and bad things but certainly there were some good people.Talking of good people I want to pay a tribute to Michelle Mitchell who was an outstanding leader not just in CERA the organisation but actually in the Public Service. She tragically lost her life—a huge loss to the Public Service in Canterbury; a huge loss to the community. She was an outstanding leader and deserves acknowledgment during this process.This legislation now is the next step and it is a genuine step change which is what we have needed for quite some time. The Minister talked about some of the iterations that have led to this. There was the group led by Dame Jenny Shipley for whom members might be surprised to learn I have a great deal of time and respect. We do not share a single political belief but in terms of her competence and passion she has been outstanding and I think she led that process towards this legislation with courage. She is a pretty fearless person. Even the Minister would not scare her—that is right. I got agreement there pretty swiftly.I also want to acknowledge our three mayors the Hon Leanne Dalziel David Ayers and Kelvin Coe. They have been extraordinary contributors not just to this process but also to the much broader recovery in Christchurch. All three areas are at different stages. Of course Waimakariri and Selwyn were far more adversely affected by the September 2010 quake than by the February 2011 quake so they were able to get some things started and they are smaller areas and they had a different sort of loss. But they have faced huge challenges and I really admire the mayors of the three areas and the councillors for the commitment that they have demonstrated.I also want to acknowledge the community forum which I understand has played a really pivotal role in the Minister’s thinking. I regret that the Canterbury members of Parliament did not have any engagement with it. It was pretty well kept out of sight from us even though it was established under the legislation as a means of communicating community messages to the Minister. But I have heard that the Minister thinks highly of the work it has done so it certainly should be acknowledged. I know that its chairman was recognised in the recent New Zealand Royal Honours and that was a good thing. I also want to acknowledge Tā Mark Solomon and Dame Margaret Bazley who again have played a critical role from their perspective and their part in the Canterbury recovery.Looking specifically at the bill and where we go from here we have had a substantial Supplementary Order Paper signalled by the Minister and I look forward to seeing it and hearing the debate in the Committee stage. As I said earlier it has acknowledged the deficiencies that were in the bill it has responded to the submitters’ and Canterbury leaders’ call for a genuine transition to local leadership and I have confidence that the Minister’s word will be met by the detail in the Supplementary Order Paper. We will certainly be looking at it carefully.There are other parts of this bill that also deserve acknowledgment. One of the big tasks that will face the bodies that are being established under this legislation is determining the future of the residential red zone. That has more significance than disposal of land and I want to acknowledge the way that the Waimakariri District Council has led community discussion about this. People did not just have a wrecked house and leave; they had a wrecked house and they often had lost a life within their family—pretty well everyone in Canterbury knew somebody who died—but they were then told that their house could not be rebuilt in the area that they had been living in and for many of them it was for many years. That loss is not able to be easily described to people who were not part of that process. Living in a red zone became something of a—you cannot explain it to people who were not actually there at the time.So the process of determining what happens to that land in the future needs to involve the people who were displaced as a result not of the quakes but of the Minister’s decision to zone that land red—I think quite appropriately in most cases—but it needs to involve them because they have left a part of their life in that spot where their home was. They left their neighbours and their community.The other big part of the job that is ahead of us in Canterbury is the anchor projects. Some of them are still hotly debated. I am not a great fan of sitting outside on a cold winter’s night watching the Crusaders win—I would much rather sit in comfort in a lounge. So the idea if we are going to have a stadium to have it covered is quite attractive. But that sort of money as a priority—I have never been able to be persuaded on it particularly when I look at the significant loss that has been inflicted on Otago because of its stadium. So we have debates about the anchor projects but whatever the debate is can we get on with some of them? There are only five out of 16 I think that have made any progress and they were the big stars of the previous area.In conclusion one other point that I want to make is that in our community we have something that is outside this legislation but I hope the Minister takes up the charge. We want our school back on its home site in Redcliffs. It is a big part of our recovery even though it is not covered in the legislation and I am sure the Minister understands that need for community schools and genuine recovery from quakes. This is the step change that we need. I commend the Minister for his attention to the submissions and to other parties’ concerns and I commend this bill progressing to the next stage.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): In rising to speak in support of the second reading of the bill I am very conscious that I am the first non-Cantabrian to speak in the second reading debate. As the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered this bill—which has formed a cornerstone of a suite of legislation in fact relating to Canterbury Christchurch and the aftermath of the earthquakes that occurred 5 years ago—I can say it has been a bit of a learning curve and something that I have found as I say as a non-Cantabrian to be a really interesting insight into the experiences the tragedy the heartache and the physical and emotional rollercoaster that the people of Christchurch and Canterbury have undergone since those earthquakes back in 2010.The select committee met in Christchurch for 2½ days following the House’s rising for the Christmas break. We travelled to Christchurch and we heard a range of wonderful submissions from 56 organisations and individuals people who brought to the select committee their experiences their hopes for the future and their plans for their city and their region. We were very privileged I think to hear those submissions. We heard them in the council chamber of Christchurch City. We heard from such a wide range of people from individuals through to the very big and important project leaders and organisations that have been taking the city and the people of Christchurch from that phase that was initially emergency through to recovery and now looking forward to the future and to regeneration where the eyes of the city andindeed the country are upon what is happening in Christchurch now and what will happen in the future.Since 2010 as a Government and as a Parliament we have committed $16.5 billion to the initial response so the State has a very significant role to play in that future direction. This bill continues the historically strong support that this Parliament has provided to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch since the earthquake. Other speakers have made reference to and acknowledged the very good work that has occurred since the select committee reported back. I too want to add my endorsement to that work led by the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee and those other members from across the House who have individually met on a number of occasions with the Minister to work through some of the detail and some of the difficulties that we as a select committee were not able to resolve before reporting back. I am delighted that as the committee moved its report back to this Parliament we were of a mood to say that work still needed to be done. We knew that that needed to occur and we knew—and hoped I guess—that that work would be done. I want to place on record my thanks as chairman of the select committee to those people who have on behalf of their city and their region and their parties and this Parliament and the people of New Zealand made that a reality. That is a great credit to them as individuals but it is also a great credit to their parties and to the people whom they represent.I am not intending to go into the detail of this bill at this stage because there will be opportunity as we come together in the Committee of the whole House and consider the Supplementary Order Paper which the Minister has indicated he will be leading us through but the Supplementary Order Paper will include a number of changes. One will be to ensure that there is more public input into the regeneration planning process itself. I think that is a very good advancement. The second major point that the Supplementary Order Paper will cover is to give Regenerate Christchurch itself a greater role in the regeneration plans in the Christchurch district. It will also strengthen the leadership role of Regenerate Christchurch overall with more emphasis on public consultation around the use of clause 42 with the Minister now required to take public submissions into account. I think that is a good move as well.I want to just again conclude my comments in this second reading of the bill by thanking everybody who has been involved thanking my colleagues on the select committee and thanking the officials from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and our advisers for their good work. I endorse this second reading of the bill to the House.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe; ki ngā mema e huihui mai tēnā koutou katoa.[To the Deputy Speaker greetings; to the members gathered here greetings to you all.]I am very pleased to take a call on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. As Mr Simpson said it has been an unusual process and I thank him and Minister Brownlee for their comments recognising the role of other parties.When the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act expires in April this year with the extraordinary powers that it provides to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—or CERA—it is certainly the opportunity for a major step change in terms of who makes decisions and how those decisions are made about Christchurch’s future. Now that we are 5 years on from the devastating quakes in February 2011 and are over that emergency and immediate recovery phase we do need to see a shift from central government to local leadership. Certainly the Local Government and Environment Committee did make some good changes to the bill as introduced one of them being the way “regeneration” is defined. It includes as Nicky Wagner noted improving the environmental economic social and cultural well-being and resilience of communities. That is a very positive change particularly as the Government has stripped out from the purpose of local government the promotion of community well-being. It is really good to see that at the heart of this bill.But the Green Party opposed the bill as it came back from the select committee because it did not provide for a genuine partnership between central government and local authorities in planning and guiding the next stage of Christchurch’s post-earthquake future. It contained far too many hangovers from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority era and from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. It left far too much power with the executive and with central government Ministers and agencies—particularly the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—in their ability to initiate regeneration plans and then have the relevant Minister approve or decline those plans at the end of the process. This was particularly important because in this bill it is not just the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery who can exercise these decision-making and approval powers but it is also the relevant “Minister” depending on the function being exercised—so that could be the Minister of Transport or it could be the Minister for Land Information.That whole concentration of power at the centre was in total opposition to the strong and eloquent call by submitters during those 2½ days of hearings in Christchurch and through written submissions for local leadership for a reduction in the power of central government and Ministers and for a much stronger role for people in Christchurch. Certainly for me it has been organisations like Greening The Rubble and Gap Filler with their innovative creative community-orientated projects that have been inspiring in showing what Christchurch people are capable of. Some of the private buildings which are quite innovative in their design and their construction particularly where they use our local resource—wood—show what can happen in Christchurch when we have local people making those decisions. It is especially important too when we have had democracy denied to the Canterbury region with the half-pie half-appointed half-elected model that we have got at Environment Canterbury.This bill did need to establish a framework and a structure for decision making that put Regenerate Christchurch as this new agency that is to symbolise and really epitomise the partnership between central government and local government at the heart of decision making. Regenerate Christchurch has four members on its board who are appointed by central government one on the nomination of Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu and it has another three members appointed by the city council. So it is an embodiment of partnership. The bill as reported back did not give it a big enough role. As a result of the negotiations with the Minister and the changes that will be in the Supplementary Order Paper we have got Regenerate Christchurch now having a much greater role in providing advice on what plans should proceed—particularly in the residential red zone where Regenerate Christchurch is the only agency that can be the proponent of a regeneration plan.As Ruth Dyson noted that residential red zone is a really central part of Christchurch because we are a place-based people here in Aotearoa New Zealand and a lot of people who had homes in the red zone still have a very strong connection with it. As Ruth said they left part of their lives there. The Government has spent billions of dollars in acquiring more than 6700 homes and there are very strong views in Christchurch about the future of the residential red zone. We have had an 18000-signature petition presented and considered by Parliament about the residential red zone. Some have strongly promoted parks there cycleways community gardens—a lot of public space. There is a need for improved flood protection using some of that land as a buffer from the more intense storm and weather events that we get. So the whole planning of the residential red zone is critical to the future of Christchurch and under the Supplementary Order Paper Regenerate Christchurch will be leading that.We are very happy that there has been that quite major change there. The bill as it was reported back from the select committee risked emasculating Regenerate Christchurch from the very start because it still left too much power with central government rather than in Christchurch. So it is now giving a much more influential role to this new agency which has yet to be fully established but has a very effective chair in André Lovatt who has led some very inspiring work in restoring the Christchurch Arts Centre. Regenerate Christchurch will be the major proponent of plans in the residential red zone and a major source of advice about whether regeneration plans proceed.One of the other areas in which we have succeeded in getting changes made is in gaining much more transparency around the planning process—making sure that the advice of agencies such as the other councils is made public before the public submissions occur and making sure too that the Minister has to provide clear reasons when he or she decides whether to reject or approve a plan.The Green Party is not totally happy with this bill. We sought that there be a commitment in the planning process to public hearings because a lot of the problems with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s decision-making has been that written submissions have been called for but there has been no hearing process and there is nothing worse than faceless decision makers making quite critical decisions and us not knowing who they are. We did not get that change in the bill but I do encourage Regenerate Christchurch to ensure that there is a public hearing process. It gives people the opportunity to front up to decision makers and to have their say.We remain troubled by the powers that are available to relevant Government Ministers in clause 42 which allows them to override plans and policies that have been prepared through due processes under other legislation and that means some of the district and regional plans under the Resource Management Act Local Government Act planning documents and bylaws and regional transport plans. The Government says those powers will be used frugally and the Opposition will certainly hold it to account on that. But we did succeed here in getting some significant checks on the Minister’s power to use clause 42 in the fact that there now must be public consultation. That was not in the bill as it was reported back and the Minister also has to “have regard to” public views which is a stronger test than to just “consider” them.This whole process has been unusual. The debate desirably would have happened at the select committee but we congratulate the Minister on being prepared to consider change. I think there would have been quite considerable cost to the Government if the bill had remained as reported back from select committee. The negotiations have been good in the way that they have been conducted. I thank the officials who have put a lot of effort into these amazing flow charts which when you are dealing with a plan-making process have been very helpful in showing the different stages and what matters are to be considered at each stage. I would encourage the Government to use more of this consultative process when it is developing legislation and the anchor projects in Christchurch because we get better law where everybody is involved and where there is a strong provision for public input. I think it shows the opportunities that we are losing with the anchor projects and the secrecy around things like the convention centre which is such a critical site in the central city and is so costly. We need to have this consultation both with the public and with other parties. But I thank the Minister for the changes to this bill.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I think this is going to be one of the debates and one of the bills that I will remember most from my time in Parliament not only because it is such an important piece of legislation for my home city but also because of the remarkable degree of collaboration negotiation and in the end consensus that has been generated for the benefit of the people of Christchurch.I want to clear up one thing at the very beginning of my speech because in my first reading speech I said that New Zealand First would vote for the bill to go to the select committee subject to a change to clause 82(3) which said: “When determining the amount of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land the Minister must have regard to the matters in subsection (4) but is not limited to determining the amount of compensation on that basis alone and may determine whatever amount the Minister thinks fit.” We in New Zealand First thought those words “and may determine whatever amount the Minister thinks fit” were far too wide and they have now been deleted so there is now no impediment to New Zealand First looking at the bill as a whole and supporting it.Consequently we have scrutinised the bill and we have looked for a process that will deliver our seven bottom lines. They were firstly to ensure the process for initiation would be locally led and not Crown dominated but would of course protect Crown interests. Secondly it would give the city council and Environment Canterbury the right to be fully consulted. Thirdly it would give plenty of opportunity for public input. Fourthly it would not be secretive but be open and informative. Fifthly it would seek to enhance the environment and/or residential values of the city and/or the red zone not just to facilitate a sell-off of the Crown land. Sixthly it would ensure a much speedier process and progress than had so far been evident but without compromising the collaboration needed between all of the parties. Seventhly and lastly it would bring the public with the parties through good communication.I am very pleased to say that I think that the bill as it is to be amended by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper will get very close to delivering substantially on all seven of those bottom lines. So that means that it will be a pleasure for New Zealand First to be able to vote in favour of the bill.I want to say as others have that I am especially pleased that Minister Brownlee brought us and other parties into the process of amending the bill through that Supplementary Order Paper. His willingness to listen and to change things did produce in the end a consensus. I and New Zealand First appreciate the Minister’s efforts to involve us and we also appreciate the opportunity that we had through that process to hear what Labour and the Greens had to say and also what the Mayor of Christchurch had to say.The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to be debated more comprehensively at the Committee stage will mean having much more public information and opportunity to comment and to have that input genuinely considered and reported on. It will also mean having a much better process for the initiation consideration and approval or revocation of regeneration plans. Regenerate Christchurch is to be the primary body to initiate lead review and advise the Minister on those plans. It is a genuine partnership because Regenerate Christchurch will have three Crown directors three city council ones and one representing Ngāi Tahu.But I would have to say that legislation can go only so far. That board must provide firm leadership and must be bold in what it proposes and must explain it well to the people of Christchurch. It must take the people along with it. We must have faith in it and so must the people of Christchurch. I hope they will given the consensus that has been possible so far.Without trying to pre-empt the Committee stage I want to mention some of the most important provisions and changes that have been agreed to and that led to New Zealand First supporting the bill as it will be amended. One is clause 12A(1) and new clause 12A(3)(c). Those are important changes because only Regenerate Christchurch can now be a proponent for the red zone plans and may be a proponent for the Christchurch district plans as of course the other strategic partners may be as well including Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu.New clause 13A(2) ensures that statements to the Minister on the views of other parties on an outline plan must now be made public on the internet and there are also similar requirements in new clause 20A concerning the views of parties to an approval of a draft plan. It is very important that the public be properly advised in that way.Clause 18(2) requires the Minister in approving or declining an outline plan to “have particular regard” to the views of Regenerate Christchurch and the other partners. Those words are repeated elsewhere for approvals of final plans and for revocations. Those are very important words in order to limit the executive power of the Minister and preserve the credibility and leadership functions of especially Regenerate Christchurch and also of course the two councils that will be involved as far as Christchurch City is concerned.New clauses 22A and 22H set out the process for outline plans for Christchurch City district and for the red zone. They include the need for a clear statement of intentions and scope time frames opportunities for public engagement how the costs are to be met—a very important consideration—and that a proponent must seek the views of its partners. Regenerate Christchurch must get the consent of Ōtākaro Ltd as the landowner but Ōtākaro Ltd cannot refuse “except for reasons that are consistent with the purposes of the Act.” So there is I think an appropriate balance between all of the objectives that are required.I also want to mention new clause 20(2)(j) which sets out the requirements prerequisite to ministerial approval. I think this is a very important new provision. There must be a recommendation by Regenerate Christchurch for a plan for Christchurch District and that must contain advice a statement of the views of the other partners and also advice on how such views have been considered and addressed. There are similar requirements elsewhere for approvals and amendments and of course for revocations which include a requirement for Regenerate Christchurch to review and make recommendations to the Minister. So effectively it is going to be Regenerate Christchurch that leads and advises and it will not effectively—in my view—be the Minister who really makes the decision. His function I think is going to be relatively formal. The grounds upon which he could refuse would be very limited.There is a lot more in the bill—many other changes. But one of the most important ones in the bill is clause 97 which specifies the roles of the city council and the Minister to oversee and manage the interests of both in Regenerate Christchurch. That means there will have to be joint responsibility and commitment of resources as there should be. In clause 97A there may be a letter of expectations along those lines and I hope that there will be because that is a very good way of setting out how that joint responsibility will be met.Finally it is a pleasure to see a consensus on what is going to be a very good bill and a very important bill for the future of Christchurch City and its people. I think it will ensure a robust process focusing on regeneration rather than just recovery that properly balances speedy redevelopment—which is much in need—with the wider public interest especially for an excellent environment and for the hoped-for public recreation facilities. It is going to be a pleasure to support the bill.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. My colleague Mr Scott Simpson acknowledged that he is not a Cantabrian. I too am not a Cantabrian; I am a Southlander. So therefore I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that Cantabrians are still very much on the minds of Southlanders. Our sympathies went out to Cantabrians with the horror that they experienced 5-odd years ago.There is still very much an acknowledgment of what Cantabrians have had to endure and of their strength of character in surviving and living in Christchurch while the recovery has been going on and the city is being rebuilt. There certainly is a strength of character that Cantabrians exude and we acknowledge them for their persistence. But it is certainly a relief now after one of the most ambitious rebuild projects that we have undertaken in New Zealand to be moving forward into a regeneration phase. I am sure it is very much a relief for Cantabrians.This bill—as I understand it having not sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee—is a very good one that through collaboration will establish Regenerate Christchurch which is a jointly controlled Crown organisation with the Christchurch City Council. It will lead the charge in respect of regeneration in the Greater Christchurch region. I think one of the best parts of the bill is that it is returning to a local leadership model in that—well where else should ownership of the design and the planning and the moving forward of Christchurch rest but with Cantabrians themselves?I think this is a great win for Cantabrians as they look to the future as they look to rebuilding a very positive modern city that will serve them well into the future. I wish them all the very best with that. I look forward to the results.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Mojo Mathers—a 5-minute call.MOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. You know it has been 5 long years since the Christchurch earthquakes and the city is still very much in many areas in a bit of a limbo. It feels like time is going past and it is going to be fantastic to actually see the rebuild and things moving forward.I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague Eugenie Sage and other MPs who have helped to make this bill a better bill with the Supplementary Order Paper coming up and who have pushed really hard for local leadership and for Regenerate Christchurch to be at the heart of decision making and to have a much greater role in the development and planning of the anchor projects and the residential red zone areas and so on. It is incredibly important that that does happen and it is a relief to be at this point where there has been sufficient accommodation made for these very important issues that have been raised so that we can now support the bill.What I want to focus on—rather than rehashing what everyone else has said before me—is the importance of all these plans for the city incorporating genuine accessibility and universal design principles into the planning the design and the implementation. This is what the people of Christchurch want. It was one of the most popular ideas and common themes that was put forward during the Share an Idea campaign several years ago and it is absolutely critical to social recovery. We have a golden opportunity right now to rebuild Christchurch as the most accessible city in the world. There are absolutely no barriers to stop that from happening given political will local leadership and a genuine commitment to making that happen. It would be a city that is accessible for all—for children for the elderly for parents for the disabled—and it is critical to the social recovery. I have constantly raised this issue—will the city be accessible and will there be a commitment to accessibility implemented and taken on board by the planners and designers at all stages—and repeated assurances have been given to me that all the anchor projects would be accessible and that there would be independent accessibility audits incorporated into every step from design through to implementation.Now we have seen that some anchor projects have been accessible such as the Bus Interchange which is a very good example of that where all sorts of features have been incorporated to make using the Bus Interchange a generally positive and inclusive experience for many users. But there are other areas where they have not got it right and probably the most striking example of that recently was the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. This was a playground that was welcome. People were so excited when it opened. There was just this massive positive vibe and people were going to it and then a few days later there were people saying: “Well actually my child can’t use it. It’s not accessible for children in a wheelchair. There are not enough facilities for people in wheelchairs to use it.”This was an appalling failure and breakdown of the planning process. It was a reversal of what we really want and what we mean by an accessible city. We must not exclude children from that conceptualisation and we must not exclude disabled people. It must be independently audited because you cannot rely on the various design groups having in-house expertise. These projects right from the start must be independently audited. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Poto Williams—5 minutes.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I must admit that when I reviewed my notes for my first reading speech on this bill I was less generous than I am going to be in this contribution. Before the bill had gone through the process that we have heard talked about in this House this afternoon I had some concerns about whether it was fit for purpose for the people of the area that I represent. My concerns were about the Minister’s powers particularly those to acquire and dispose of land at whatever price he could determine. I was also concerned that the public were by and large excluded from many of the discussions on the facilities and the future use of particular areas in which they would have a significant interest.But I have to say that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has listened to the people of Canterbury and has engaged in a process that has garnered widespread support across the House. It is not entirely perfect but it has gone a long way to ensuring that the interests of the people of Canterbury have been reflected in the legislation and more important in the Supplementary Order Paper that will come to this House during the Committee stage.I really want to focus my contribution on what this means for the people of Christchurch East. I have to say that during the passage of the last few years the people of the electorate of Christchurch East have been very vocal about what they would like to see within the residential red zone which sits largely within the boundaries of the Christchurch East electorate. There have been processes and opportunities for the community to engage with and I want to mention one in particular which happened 18 months ago and that is the EVO::SPACE project. That was an IT-driven consultation process for people to actually tell us—those who would be making decisions about the future of their particular area—what they would like to see done with the residential red zone an extensive area that actually covers some of the most beautiful parts of Christchurch particularly with the Avon River flowing through it.There were some fantastic ideas from treetop cafes and ideas from the Eden Project through to camellia and rhododendron groves and on to things like Barkerton Park—a place to go and let your dog run free. That process was about giving the people of the area—who actually have a vested interest whether they continue to live there or whether they have had to leave the area and leave behind a significant part of their emotional attachment to the area—an opportunity to feel like they could contribute to the future of that particular area.When we are considering plans for the use of the residential red zone I would ask that our ability to communicate well with the community and give it an opportunity to have input into that process is significant because it was not as the Hon Ruth Dyson has expressed it just about the loss of land. There were people who lived there. There were families who grew there. On some of the properties there were heritage trees that had been there for over 125 years. There were people who have significant history attached to the area. So these people have a vested interest in ensuring that their views and their hearts and souls go into any future development.I just want to finish my contribution by saying that I agree with Mojo Mathers that there have been opportunities missed here—particularly around accessibility—but also around ensuring that facilities are not taken out of the area before replacements can be put in. Here I want to talk particularly about the Burwood Birthing Unit which has been lost to the east of Christchurch because of what happened on Valentine’s Day only a few weeks ago—the 5.7 quake—and also the Central New Brighton School pool which is a huge loss to our community as we do not have a pool in the area.I do want to say that this has been a very positive process and along with my colleagues I commend the bill to the House.JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I am very pleased to do this because we are starting to move down the road a bit on this bill and it is a bill moving from recovery to regeneration—regeneration focusing on urban renewal and development and on restoration and enhancement of the city facilities. These are really important because this Government has been working very hard at restoring the various facilities that the city lost in the 2011 earthquake. Some of those facilities are sporting facilities. The Hagley Oval was opened last year and was able to host the Cricket World Cup. It is a beautiful facility. I have been there a few times enjoying a few meetings there. The next one is the Bus Interchange which had a little bit of a spit and a fart there along the way when it first opened and there was a little bit of congestion there with a few little trips. But after everything is said and done people got used to it and it is pumping along very nicely.Then the last facility in 2015 that we opened was the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. That is an amazing playground. I was visiting there just recently and was really impressed with the layout that that has for not only the people of Christchurch but also the people who are visiting because we need these facilities to bring in the tourists and bring in the overseas travellers so they too can bring their money into Christchurch and spend it to help us with the regeneration as well. In addition to all of these achievements in 2015 there has also been the increased funding to the Metro Sports Facility as well as the public sector precinct construction that has been happening. That is billions and billions of dollars’ worth that has gone into the city thus far.I want to take the opportunity to thank the workers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. They were the ones who started the recovery process. They have done a wonderful job to date and as they slowly move out—because they have done their bit; we are morphing into Regenerate Christchurch with a whole new team of people—maybe some of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority people may just go in there because it is quite good to have some old heads in there along with some new heads. We have started working also towards having a governance structure. As the Minister has said we have opened it up and we have seen that bureaucracy does rule and reign within the city as well.In some of the final parts of my contribution I do want to talk a little bit about the flat areas of the red zone which the previous speaker Poto Williams just touched a little bit on. I also want to acknowledge those volunteers who have been caring for the red zone flat areas through donations from the public or from their own personal pockets. I look forward to where we are going to be going with the red zone areas. There is a lot of work and a lot of thinking that needs to go on around there.Finally the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team otherwise known as SCIRT is now over in the eastern parts of Christchurch. It is going along very well. Yes businesses in Parklands and Bower Avenue are feeling the pinch with some of the missed opportunities but by the time the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team has finished which is by the end of this year that area of Parklands and Bower Avenue will look absolutely amazing with its new horizontal infrastructure that is going on at the moment. It does hurt. It does hurt but I can see that some of the businesses have been quite innovative. They have been meeting with Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and Downer Group and the electorate MP Poto Williams and I have been attending these meetings. It is quite good to get around the table and to actually nut out and help to find some ways that businesses can keep flourishing albeit at a slower pace while these repairs are going on.All in all this is a very good bill. I look forward to it passing into legislation with the amendments in the Supplementary Order Papers that the Minister has done. I think it is good not just for the people of this House but for all New Zealand when we can see that the whole of Parliament is working for the well-being of all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I join as a member of Parliament in Canterbury with other colleagues in welcoming the passage of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill. I think it is interesting though to recast a little history. I commend Minister Brownlee. I know that Minister Brownlee and my good self have often had a colourful and wide-ranging relationship and occasionally we have crossed swords—in the best of humour I know.Hon Members: Tell us more.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Tell you more—I could. I could go on for hours but I am sure the Assistant Speaker would fall asleep with some of my anecdotes. However I will say that that Minister Brownlee to use the Thatcherite expression is not one for turning and over many years he has not been a person who has been willing to change his mind on various things. But I do commend him—Denis O’Rourke: He had an epiphany.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: An epiphany yes. Maybe—being a good Catholic like me—he had a road to Damascus moment. But I do commend him on this occasion.I do note that there were members in the Local Government and Environment Committee—some of whom have spoken—who actually opposed the changes that were put forward by Megan Woods and others and I have to commend Minister Brownlee as the person who stepped in and said: “No no we’re going to listen and we’re going to make those changes.” It is difficult in politics to say: “Well there may be somebody with a better idea or a better way to do things.” None of us have a monopoly on knowledge in these instances and Minister Brownlee has indeed recognised—after 5 years but he has none the less recognised—that we have really smart people in Canterbury. We have always had incredibly entrepreneurial people people who have demonstrated—not just talked about it but demonstrated—the wealth of knowledge and commitment that they have to our province and have always been willing from day one if they were allowed to do it over the last 5 years to step up and say: “We’re prepared to have to have a go and work our guts out to get our province and our city back off its knees.” I would point out just for the record that they have not really had that opportunity in a great way over the last 5 years.However let us be positive about this new world order. This bill I think—if implemented correctly—will allow the unleashing of that energy and allow those smart folks in Canterbury to lead that recovery from grassroots to have a locally led recovery and to have local and substantial input that is not just dealt with via lip service but actually makes a massive and real and high-quality contribution to the recovery of our province. That is something that has been a huge chasm a huge gap over the last 5 years.People have talked about the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. People in this House have talked about the Metro Sports Facility an anchor project that we do not have. People have not talked about for instance the great need—and we have got a couple of tourism experts over there—for a convention centre in Christchurch. We desperately need that as an anchor project because we know there is hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of capital sitting there—it will not sit there for ever—waiting to be unleashed in respect of infrastructure and hotels. We know of course that one of our biggest supermarket chains wants to put a massive supermarket I am told right in the centre of Christchurch but it needs to know where the centres of population will be where the business activity will be whether there will be a stadium whether there will be a convention centre and whether these promises will come to pass so that the private sector—which is far better at these projects than I would wager any bureaucrat or politician is—can unleash that capital and build its businesses and bring life back into the centre of our city.So I welcome the bill and I say to my St Bede’s College counterpart Mr Brownlee in all seriousness that I am gratified and grateful that he has been prepared to listen to alternative points of view; that he has been prepared to say “OK we’re going to gut this bill and we’re going to insert these changes.” which ourselves and the Christchurch City Council and others proposed; and that he listened to submission after submission from people who said: “Look we want to lead our recovery as a city as a province. We want to lead it as local people. We want to take responsibility—greater and greater and responsibility.”Those local people are actually the experts because they live there and they have lived through tragedy they have lived through adversity and many continue to do that. They have battled every day many of them to survive and to look after their families in pretty strenuous social and economic circumstances. They have lived it. I said when I had the spokesperson role when the earthquake actually struck that I hoped we did not get an army—no disrespect—of Wellington bureaucrats parachuting in with their clipboards and their penholders saying: “Tut tut tut!” and “We have all the answers.” Sadly I would argue that we have done exactly that over the last 5 years. And it does surprise me that many of the folks on the other side who purport to be great free-marketers—those who just want to let the juices flow as it were whether that be in a business sense or economically or socially—allowed that to happen.Kiwis are smart. Kiwis in Canterbury are smart. People who have empathy are those who lived it breathed it ate it dealt with it and survived through it every day for 5 years; who live with it today; and who lived with it on Valentine’s Day when we had the big shove. We have them every couple of days and people get scared—and there are people in our province who are genuinely scared. There are massive mental health issues and I hope that—because we in politics especially on this side get accused of being political every time we raise issues. It is a nice little cheap shot by some which actually labels and negates any of the positive input. We know in mental health that kids and adults are struggling every day. We know our district health board is under massive strain. For those who thought that in any conventional sort of disaster you throw a few dollars at mental health for a couple of years Christmas comes along in summer the sun is shining and everybody is happy again they have not picked off the case studies around the world of natural disasters and they have not listened to clinicians and experts who tell you quite clearly that it will be 10 15 or possibly 20 years before some of these folks work these problems through in medical terms to get it out of their systems or if they cannot they learn to cope in their own way. To do that they need assistance and they need mental health resources and I implore the Government—using this bill as an opportunity to do so—to address those issues.If anybody thinks they have gone away go and talk to your local high school primary school or intermediate school principal and ask what is happening to many kids in our community. If anybody thinks those mental health issues have gone away make sure you are in town the next time we have a good shove like we did on Valentine’s Day and wander around and talk to people many of whom—I could use some vernacular but I will not—are scared very scared. It just brings that nightmare back again and again. This is not the fault of politicians; this is the fault of mother Nature. But none the less it exists and none the less it is real. So I hope out of this bill that local folks have a greater say and have greater standing with the Government and with the Minister—whomever he or she may be—and Ministers involved within the intertwined portfolios that will deal with the earthquake situation going forward. I hope that those people—those respected community leaders—are listened to.I had a meeting with the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce along with other colleagues and even Peter Townsend the chief executive of the chamber of commerce said to us very clearly some weeks ago that he was deeply concerned—deeply concerned—about the mental health issues and the lack of resources. I hope—he may not feel he can say those things publicly—Dr Megan Woods: You can say it for him.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes well I have helped him out with that. I hope given that he has standing—and he is a respected senior business person a highly respected person in our community and I know he has standing with the National Party and with the Government as a senior business leader—that those members listen to Pete Townsend as he I am sure will make representations if he has not already as a responsible community leader in Canterbury on those issues.I commend the bill. I think it is one of those rare moments in a Parliament where Opposition members were allowed to put up counter ideas and were not napalmed by a Government through political labels—where a Government and a Minister respected those ideas and listened—and I think we have a better piece of legislation. I think the people of Canterbury will say: “Hey those politicians in Wellington actually now and again do listen to us.” I look forward to those wonderful smart community leaders within my province getting to take some of the reins back getting to take some of the power back and getting to put their fantastic skill base to work as we move through serving our community in this recovery.NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It is indeed my honour to be the last speaker in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill’s second reading. It is also my honour as mana whenua from a whānau that comes from that region that can date back over seven generations. One thing that Ngāi Tahu have always said is that it is very important to actually look back to know where you are going to move forward.What I want to do is just quote a speech from our Governor-General on the first anniversary for the 185 victims of the Christchurch earthquake because in a lot of ways what Sir Jerry Mateparae said is coming to fruition with this bill. So just to quote him on the first anniversary he said that while it was a time for reflection the 1-year anniversary marked “the start of a new day and a new beginning for all of us and especially the people of Christchurch and Canterbury.” He said that “a new and vibrant city can arise.” in the future although “Achieving that aspiration will take time.” He said: “Lives communities and cities are not built in a day.” It would be achieved he said because of the resilience and preparedness Cantabrians had demonstrated over the previous year. He said: “It will be achieved because the people of Christchurch and Canterbury do not walk that pathway alone. Your extended family—the New Zealand family—are walking alongside you. … For your tragedy has been New Zealand’s tragedy.Such are the ties of this nation that there are few among us who have been untouched by what occurred.”We have heard today in this second reading a lot of what has happened particularly around the emergency and the incredible things that went on particularly following the aftermath. The thing is that he talked about resilience; he talked about vibrancy. When you look at the stages of the Christchurch earthquake you had the emergency then there was the recovery and then there is what we now call the rebuild and the transition from that rebuild into regeneration. This is what this bill is about.One thing that came out of that speech I think which was also talked about by other speakers on that day was that there also needed to be really good leadership to be able to achieve what was identified on that day. What we have in the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery the Hon Gerry Brownlee is exactly that leadership—that leadership over the last 5 years. When we talk about the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority when we talk about the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and when we talk about the Christchurch Central Development Unit we cannot forget these people either who worked within that because they actually gave their hearts and souls to be able to contribute through all of those phases particularly around the recovery and the rebuild. Just think now that there is a transitional process going on at the moment what they must be thinking around: “Am I going to have a job? Am I going to continue through into this next phase?”. I think it is important that we think about them as well.But coming to the bill it is really great to hear from the other side of the House. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—if Labour was in Government he would be sitting in Mr Brownlee’s seat I am sure and he would have been doing the same thing. I cannot see anything different. Is it not great to see that we do have that sort of cross-party bipartisan thing that we call kotahitaka? What we have is that the major stakeholders have all come together. There are the councils the businesses and also the iwi as well. We have mentioned the iwi here. This is the great thing about being on the Local Government and Environment Committee because we are able to strengthen the input of the iwi. So that is really—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did you oppose it? Why did you oppose the measures that the Minister—NUK KORAKO: I cannot see him so I will not answer. I think the important thing—to keep moving on this—is the fact that nothing was opposed because what we have in the end is that everyone is hoe-ing the waka together. Everyone is moving in the same direction.At the end of the day this bill is a great bill even if some on the other side do not like it. This is a great bill—it is together. This Minister is the Minister who made it happen. He would be damned if he did or damned if he did not but at the end of the day we are the Government that is leading this through and we are actually taking it by the horns and really moving it and developing and Christchurch will be one of the greatest and newest cities in the world. It is all to do with this side of the House or a lot of it but at least we have got some real working togetherness here at the moment even if what we hear on the other side is negative because to those members the glass is always half empty—it is always half empty. Here it is half full. So kia ora. I commend this bill and I look forward to working with the other side of the House on the regeneration of Christchurch. That is what it is about.Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.Bill read a second time.Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. This bill amends the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. A geographical indication is a name—usually a regional name—that is used to identify the origin of goods where a quality reputation or other characteristic of the goods is related in some essential way to their geographical origin. Foreign wine and spirit producers use geographical indications to identify their products. Well-known examples of these are champagne and Scotch whisky.In New Zealand the main user of geographical indications is the local wine industry. Geographical indications used in New Zealand wines include such terms as Marlborough Martinborough and Gimblett Gravels. Over time as an area’s reputation grows the name adds value. New Zealand wines already attract a premium in foreign markets and we want to preserve that and build on it.It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the amazing progress that the New Zealand wine industry has had in the last decade or so. It was only in the late 1990s that the New Zealand wine exports broke the $100 million barrier. It is now worth $1.5 billion in exports in the last year and rising fast. That is part of the diverse export economy that sustains our living standards here in New Zealand. The Trans-Pacific Partnership with its promise of improved market access is a boost to this industry and we have heard a lot about that over the last few weeks. This bill will also help.If I can go and give a bit of background the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—otherwise known as the TRIPS agreement—obliges New Zealand to provide protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits. Geographical indications are currently protected in New Zealand by a range of measures including the tort of passing off the Fair Trading Act 1986 the Trade Marks Act 2002 and the relevant provisions of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.The Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 provides for a registration system of geographical indications but this Act is not yet in force. It was passed in anticipation that New Zealand would soon begin negotiations on a wine agreement with the European Union. However negotiations never began. At the time the local wine industry did not have an interest in registering geographical indications so the Act was never brought into force.More recently however the local wine industry has become concerned about the potential misuse of New Zealand geographical indications in export markets. This misuse has the potential to adversely affect the reputation of New Zealand wine which as I have said commands a premium price in export markets. The further the premium grows the further the potential for misuse increases. The risk can be mitigated by registering New Zealand geographical indications in these export markets. However most countries will not register geographical indications unless they are registered in their country of origin. As a result the Government has decided to bring this Act into force. An additional advantage of bringing the Act into force is that it will support New Zealand’s interest in launching free-trade agreement negotiations between New Zealand and the European Union.Before the Act can be brought into force some amendments are necessary to clarify provisions in the Act and to ensure that the registration process runs smoothly and sustainably. These amendments are contained in the amendment bill. Most of these amendments are minor and technical. Some amendments are more significant; I will just quickly mention these.The geographical indication registration expires after 10 years unless a renewal fee is paid. The renewal fees will contribute towards the ongoing maintenance of the register of geographical indications and help to keep the initial application fees down.The second one is that we provide that the terms “New Zealand” “South Island” and “North Island” will be protected as registered geographical indications without the need for an application to be made. These terms are used as geographical indications by local wine producers but might not otherwise meet the definition of “geographical indication” in the Act.The Registrar of Geographical Indications would be given the power to refuse to register a geographical indication if registration or use of the indication would be likely to be offensive to a significant section of society including Māori. This mirrors the provision in the Trade Marks Act and ensures that the geographical indications that might be refused registration as trademarks on offensiveness grounds cannot be registered as geographical indications.Once the amendment bill is enacted the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act can then be brought into force and it will be possible for interested parties to apply to register geographical indications. The Act will be administered by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand which is also responsible for other registered intellectual property rights such as trademarks and patents.This is I think an important step in the development and maturity of the New Zealand wine industry. I hope that it will provide an opportunity to help sustain the progress that we are making in this important area of the New Zealand economy and it is of course an important provider of much joy and merriment and happiness to New Zealanders and people around the world who enjoy the New Zealand wine in its great variety and wonderful wonderful quality. I do move that this bill now be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a genuine pleasure to speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill at its first reading and for the benefit of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs I will put him out of his misery and let him know that Labour will be supporting this bill. I know that he was worried he might not get the numbers to get this through the House but Labour will be supporting this piece of legislation.I also acknowledge the Minister and that he is taking the lead on this bill. I do realise that when Cabinet approved this piece of legislation it was under the name of both the Minister who just took his seat and also the Hon Tim Groser the former Minister of Trade of our country who is now deeply ensconced in Washington DC and who not only was the Minister for Trade at the time but also is an expert on many things—almost everything. He is also a self-professed expert on wine so I think he will be deeply sad that he is not here to take the first speech in the first reading of this piece of legislation which we think and hope will have a speedy journey through this Parliament because it is one that is relatively non-controversial.The overriding principle around this legislation and the necessity of this piece of legislation is that our wine is good—it is better than good; it is excellent.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The more you drink the better it gets.KRIS FAAFOI: Well that is your opinion. This piece of legislation is needed to protect and also to increase the potential earnings for New Zealand whether it be from Central Otago—and I will come to a story around that of a recent example soon—the Canterbury region the Wairarapa the Hawke’s Bay or Waiheke Island. Our wine is so good that there could be a certain element within the industry that may want to take a geographic indication and pass its product off as one of the quality products that we produce here in New Zealand.The recent event that I was talking about was that I was enjoying dinner with a parliamentary delegation for the Government Administration Committee in Canberra. We were talking to the President of the Senate Stephen Parry at a dinner that he hosted and I had the pleasure of sitting at the table with a former Speaker of the Australian Parliament Bronwyn Bishop. The President of the Senate was talking about how good the quality of Tasmanian wine was and one of our delegates said: “But have you tasted some of our Central Otago Pinots though Mr President?”. Bronwyn Bishop who is no longer the Speaker of Parliament House said: “Oh no they’re rubbish.” She almost caused a diplomatic incident there and we did commit to sending her a bottle of good Central Otago Pinot to prove just how good our wine is. But she has got problems about helicopters and her own transport so I do not think she is hanging out for that bottle of wine.This piece of legislation will ensure precision around where wine comes from. I note that the Minister did go into some detail about the functions of this piece of legislation but I think one of the most important ones—certainly the most important one that the officials are pushing in the regulatory impact statements—is that in the past you could pass off New Zealand wine as being wine from a region if 85 percent of the grapes in the bottle of wine were from that region. We have gone from a situation where you could have 85 percent—and let us choose a region at random; say the Hawke’s Bay—of the grapes from the Hawke’s Bay and 15 percent of the grapes in that make-up of wine could be from anywhere else including overseas.To make sure that there is certainty and integrity in our product this piece of legislation says that that is not good enough to be labelled as being from a particular region in New Zealand or from New Zealand and we are going to make sure that they are 100 percent from that region or from New Zealand. I think that as an exporter of wine our country needs that certainty in other trade markets so that for people buying our wine—and I know that it is going great guns in the UK—they have certainty that it is not a blend of our grapes and Australian grapes but it is a 100 percent New Zealand product.I think that precision of information will ensure the integrity of our exports overseas and I understand that also it is a reciprocal agreement with deals that we are looking to do especially with the EU in that because they want certainty about the product that we send to them we will have certainty about the product that they send to us. It is not so much wine coming across that I think we would want certainty with. I am a whisky drinker so I want to know with a decent amount of certainty that the whisky that I buy of a particular brand and from a particular place does come from that particular place. I think it is even-stevens to make sure that if we have certainty from our end as a consumer they have certainty about the product that we are sending away as well.The Minister also made out the case for registration in that it lasts for 10 years. One issue that I think we will want some certainty and some clarity around in the select committee is how the registration system will work and to make sure—and I am sure that the wine industry will make a submission—that the system around payment and costs for running the registration system is fair and that it is not too onerous especially front-loading it when you register a geographic indication the first time. It gives them the ability to spread it over time to make sure we are not putting a massive burden on winegrowers and wine producers at the very beginning which would make it very difficult for them to I guess at the first instance make sense of that.Going back to some of the indications from my reading of some of the publications that came out when former Minister of Trade Tim Groser said that this piece of legislation would be introduced to the House they said that it would also prevent the use of indications such as “in the style of”. You will not be able to say “in the style of Marlborough” or “in the style of New Zealand” or “in the style of Hawke’s Bay” because I guess some producers could try to use that sneaky language to get out of that.I think that is tricky and sneaky and I think we have seen an example of that recently with “in the style of Eminem” “in the style of Coldplay”—the taking of someone else’s intellectual property and using it for your own benefit and calling it “pretty legal”. In this instance it will not be “pretty legal”; it will be illegal. To say that things are “in the style of Marlborough” or “in the style of Hawke’s Bay” will no longer be allowed. Maybe we could transfer that over to other areas and say well “in the style of Eminem” and “in the style of Coldplay” is not really fair either. So let us see whether we can get some agreement there as well.That aside there is massive potential here for our wine industry to use this as a selling point. I think there have been indications from those in the industry themselves that if we do not take this action with this piece of legislation there will be risks to our reputation and risks to our brand and it will prevent them from telling a story about wine that comes from their specific region or wine that has come from our country.Having a look at some of the media that came out when this piece of legislation was first mooted Blair Walter from Felton Road Wines was talking about his particular brand of Riesling. Again I think the Minister said that this was updating a piece of legislation that was passed in 2006. It has not been enacted yet so we are updating it to make it more modern. Mr Walter said that the rules were made years ago to protect the consumer to ensure that what they were getting was a good quality wine and he is right. But he said that nowadays as that wine producer it is almost becoming a trade barrier if we cannot guarantee that a wine is from a particular area. So I guess it makes this piece of legislation necessary to protect not only the brands and the consumers of New Zealand but also the potential trade earnings we can get from really really good wine that as I said at the beginning of my speech is heading overseas. I understand it was somewhere in the vicinity of $1.4 billion of exports for New Zealand wine to the year to September last year. That is a lot of money—and there is a lot more potentially that we can earn—and there is nothing to protect those potential earnings. This piece of legislation should be supported.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would like to start by acknowledging the knowledge of the previous speaker Kris Faafoi of the subject but I would like to make one small correction: 85 percent of the grapes that go into making up a wine can indeed come from one geographical indicator and 15 percent of the remaining if the grower chooses to must come from within New Zealand. So that still remains but it has been changed to make it clear that the grapes cannot come from overseas if a grower wants to claim that same geographical indicator.I want to bring a little bit of my own personal experience to this debate. I was involved with New Zealand Winegrowers prior to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act being passed in 2006. We sought to have that bill passed and then we sought to have it not enacted really for good reasons around trade. Trade with the EU can be fraught—particularly around agricultural products—and the one card that we had to play was not having the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act enforced in law at that stage.However time has moved on. We are now in a position where we want that to pass through and the wine industry wants that. I am no longer involved in it but I do note that New Zealand winegrowers are present here today. It is a very important bill. The New Zealand wine industry relies on selling on its good name and I think one of things to bring to this debate is how the geographical indication really is so important in selling wine. The consumers like to know the provenance of the product that they are drinking.In fact I thought that one of the things I would talk about today is “terroir” which is the French word that means the place the geography the soil the climate and the people who are involved in making the wine. It does not really have a literal English translation. I have heard it described in a New Zealand context with the Māori word “tūrangawaewae”—a place to stand. I think that is quite appropriate but in the sense that wine consumers can and do recognise styles of wine and where they come from by the taste. The greats like sauvignon blanc chardonnay and Pinot noir are grown all around the world but New Zealand Marlborough sauvignon blanc is a unique product and it has a unique taste to it. That comes from the terroir. Even though you can isolate different flavours down to a part of a vineyard a Marlborough sauvignon blanc is quite distinctive and is easily picked up by other people around the world who know exactly what that is.It is really important that this bill is passed so that those customers and their consumers can have confidence that when they pick up a bottle with “Marlborough” on the label that is what it will be. Likewise with Central Otago Pinor noir. It also has its own unique terroir and you could also say the same for a Hawke’s Bay syrah. So all of those flavours are important to people and they are prepared to pay. My colleague across the House Mr Faafoi likes his Scotch whisky—allegedly well he said so—and the same principle applies allegedly.I think that all these things come back to why the wine industry is so successful. Given that we are in the midst of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement ratification I should mention that the reason that the wine industry is so successful and why we need these geographical indications passed in law goes back to CER being passed when the wine industry had to face the harsh winds of competition and it really made the wine industry fit for exporting because it had to deliver what the customers wanted. Rather than just producing a wine that people had no choice about they had to buy what was available; it did not matter where it was grown—the industry then had to focus on the consumer and that is when all of our unique terroirs were actually discovered. Rather than just being able to grow grapes they were able to grow grapes that made wines that were distinctive. So that is what led to that.The New Zealand South Island and North Island geographical indications which will be an enduring part of this bill are important because if there is a weather event and a wine company needs more grapes to actually make its wine it can still have a geographical indications of the South Island if all the grapes are sourced from within the South Island or New Zealand if the grapes come from across the islands. So that is a really important trade point. It will be very important that that comes in with the bill. Likewise having a renewal of the geographical indications every 10 years gives an opportunity to push boundaries out or pull them back in if that is required as time goes on.It has been a great pleasure to support this bill. It has been a long time coming and I have been waiting since 2005 I think when we really started talking about this until today. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Like others I stand to support this bill. I think we should be incredibly proud of New Zealand’s wine industry. It lines up with many of the products and services that we export.I have spent quite a bit of time in the United States and a number of people will talk about New Zealand wines when they know you are a Kiwi. I remember in Washington DC last time I was over I wandered into the Safeway that is a few hundred yards from the embassy and looked for the New Zealand wines—I think it might be a few hundred yards closer now that Tim Groser is there but however. There were three Americans standing there looking for New Zealand wine and when they heard the accent—not that I am an expert; I know how to buy it but I am not an expert on it as others across the House are—they were keen to talk about New Zealand wine and how fantastic it is.This is an important piece of legislation in an intellectual property sense and in a commercial sense both in protecting Brand New Zealand and those brands within the wine sector but also I think in aiding and abetting the continued promotion of New Zealand wines. I want to commend the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Paul Goldsmith. This is a substantial piece of legislation and very important. It is better than his first effort which was the Standards and Accreditation Bill which I know will go down in history as a fantastic piece of legislation. I suspect though that his colleagues and others watching around New Zealand will somehow take greater cognisance of this piece of legislation than the Standards and Accreditation Bill.It is interesting. I know we do have a number of connoisseurs in the House. I know by reputation that Tim Groser will probably be his own geographical indication in Washington DC by the end of his stewardship. He is a man who is well-oaked shall we say—well-oaked—and he has done everything he can throughout his career as a senior diplomat a world-class trade negotiator inventor of many things and many things yet to come—Kris Faafoi: Splitter of the atom.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Splitter of the atom. By the time he finishes as ambassador he will have done probably what no other person can do as a Kiwi internationally in terms of promoting the New Zealand wine and possibly spirits industries.I note that Maggie Barry is also world-renowned in respect of her appreciation of New Zealand wines. I am told she likes a rough red with a touch of bitterness to it. Todd Barclay I am told also had a passion for gooseberry wine occasionally—slightly green and you know yet to mature. And Judith Collins I am also told was very very fond in her younger days of that wonderful New Zealand wine Cold Duck. So was Trevor Mallard but I think that was in a different life. Or was it that sticky wine noble rot? I am not sure.I know that all the jocularity aside—and that proves that I have not imbibed because I would have slurred that particularly complex word—and in all seriousness this is an important piece of legislation. There is a massive contribution made to New Zealand in terms of export dollars and reputation by the wine industry. I know that Philip Gregan has championed the wine industry for many many years and has done a superb job. I remember some interactions with him when I was on the Primary Production Committee many many years ago. He along with others and with the previous speaker Stuart Smith has been at pains to champion the industry and grow it over the years. The wine industry has moved from the days when Grant Robertson was a great Marque Vue guy I think back in his student days—Grant Robertson: Spumante I think you’ll find.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —Spumante—and you had a limited selection when you went into a restaurant. It was sort of white or red and if you were lucky it was sort of medium or strong if you will.Peeni Henare: In a cask.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In a cask or not—or in Mr Faafoi’s case a bladder depending on what polytech he went to. But it has now moved into a world-class industry from Otago. Who would have thought?I lived in Perth for a number of years and I have to say that way back then you could not really beat a Margaret River red—they were pretty good. I have to say as I send the odd bottle over to friends whom I worked with even they would agree that an Otago Pinot is right up there—right up there. I know Mr Barclay has been proving that point for many months since he made it into Parliament. Equally we are known for sauvignon blanc all around the world. Cloudy Bay of course I would argue was probably the flagship brand for that many many years ago and blazed a trail for the wine industry throughout the world.I think there is more that we can do and perhaps more that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and other Government agencies can do to assist the wine industry to grow especially in the States and in other places. I was recently in Italy talking to a politician and the first thing he said to me was: “Sav blanc—I love your wine.” He had a few bob this guy and he used to import a few cases every year because he loved it so much. When he comes back to New Zealand he enjoys it.Not only is it a great industry and not only is there a bit of fun and humour around it from time to time—even in this place—but I think it actually is a flagship industry for New Zealand. People who go to social functions at our missions and at our embassies are exposed to that. Our diplomatic folk in all seriousness do a lot to promote the industry. It is one of the things that we are known for—little old New Zealand yet again with only 4.5 million people producing a world-class product. The only criticism of it I think is that we do not produce enough for the vast number of people in the world who have come in contact with it enjoyed it and would like to buy more of it.I think this legislation is important to protect those brands. I think it is important in terms of our trading position. I commend all those in that business. It is a risky business. It is a business where you have got to put a lot of capital out you have got to spend a lot of money you have got to do things right and you have got to hope like hell that you have got it right and that the weather does not do you over—[Interruption] speaking of blue duck—and I think it is a superb industry but it is a risky industry. There is a lot of capital put up a lot of risk you have to know what you are doing. You can get it wrong and you can lose your shirt and many people have over the years. So I commend those people who are prepared to guts it up and promote a world-class product and who risk their shirt to grow a business employ people and provide a world-class flagship export product. To those on the other side—last orders.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): That effort by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is going to be a little hard to follow because being one who favours drinking beer myself I do not know the names of the wines quite as closely as he does. But I would actually like to just make mention of Vilagrad Winery which is in Ōhaupō in my electorate which had a fire in the last 12 months and has literally risen from the ashes rebuilt itself and got going again.It is a pleasure today to speak on this bill. New Zealand wines do attract a premium in the overseas market and we do need to preserve and build on this. I want to make note of the fact that for 20 consecutive years year on year the wine industry has had an increase in export value. I think that it is pretty impressive by anybody’s standards from any industry that it has been able to do that. When we talk about geographic indications in relation to wine it is important to note that we have 550000 wine tourists in this country. The definition of a wine tourist is a tourist who visits a winery; it is not a definition of how much they consume when they go there. But it is really important to notice that if we have got 550000 people coming to visit our wineries in New Zealand and they spend almost I understand $3 billion—which was a 2015 figure—then people are interested in the geographical specifics of where our wine comes from.This bill is actually replacing or updating the principal Act which was passed in 2006 but was never enacted for the reason that my colleague Stuart Smith explained before—he has been well integrated into this industry which was that negotiations never began with the EU. But at this point in time there is an additional advantage of bringing the Act into force as that will support New Zealand’s interest in launching free-trade agreement negotiations with the EU.I think it is important to note that in this legislation the geographical indication will expire after 10 years unless a renewal fee is paid and that renewal fee will pay for the ongoing maintenance of running the programme. It is also important to note that the terms “New Zealand” “South Island” and “North Island” will be protected and the registrar will have the ability to turn down any offensive names that come forward.So it is a pleasure to speak on this bill this afternoon and I commend it to the House. Thank you.MOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. We will be supporting it. The heart of this bill is about maintaining the integrity of New Zealand wine and protecting the hard-won reputations of wine from the good wine-growing regions from being undermined by inferior products usurping their names.It is part of a wider thing really of appreciation by many consumers for products from a single origin—for example single-origin chocolate and single-origin coffee are an incredibly different taste experience from the mass-produced commodities. And it is similarly the case with wine. You can have a very different consumer experience and appreciation when you learn to sample wines from different geographical areas. The geographical indications are a way of telling a story about that product: about the region that it comes from about the soil that it has been grown in about the weather that produces that particular flavour of wine—and it is also why the vintage of wine and taste will change from year to year because the weather changes from year to year—and about all of the other people who grow the wine. All of that is captured in geographical indications as a way of furthering the relationships between the consumers and the product. That is something that the Green Party is right behind. It is about building a relationship between consumers and products and the people who produce those products and the area where those products comes from. It is important to really build that awareness.Geographical indication is just one way of helping to build that awareness amongst consumers for the product and alongside that people often want to know about the history of the region. I remember being quite fascinated with single-origin chocolate—discovering where the cocoa beans had been grown and who grew them and how they were transported here to New Zealand to be made into single-origin chocolate. That has opened my eyes to a whole other way of relating to the products that we consume.I think it is exactly the same for tourists who come to New Zealand and tour the wineries. They can then develop an appreciation of where the wine that they are drinking has come from why it might taste and have the flavours that it does and why it will be distinctive to that area and all of this is building individuality and uniqueness as part of bringing value-added products to the primary production sector. That is something that we really want to be maintaining not trying to compete in a sort of mass-produced anonymous commodities market where it does not matter where the product has come from it is all been blended to be standardised and all the uniqueness and variation has been taken out. That is not the way that we should be building our economy.Our economy should be built on diversification and on relationships between the consumers and the product that they are consuming and purchasing and an understanding and appreciation of where it comes from. With that understanding and appreciation of the uniqueness of the product that they are consuming there is very often a willingness to pay a premium for that product because consumers have built that relationship and that is something that we need to be maximising. That is what this bill is doing and that is why we absolutely support it.There is one important amendment that is included in this bill that I think is incredibly important. It now stipulates that the 15 percent of the wine that does not come from the geographical area still has to come from New Zealand. I think that is an incredibly important amendment. It would be extremely bizarre to go through all this effort to create a unique geographical indication and brand for an area and then dilute that with imported wine. So it is absolutely wonderful that this has been included in this bill. With that it is a pleasure to support the bill. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this first reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. This is an area of particular interest to me being a winemaker by trade and I am sure it will be of particular interest to Mr Stuart Smith when we come to consider the bill at the Primary Production Committee under the most able and affable chairmanship of Mr McKelvie.Good things take time and good wine is no exception. It would seem—or at least I would hope because it certainly seems the case—that good legislation is no exception either. I say that because the genesis of this amendment bill lies in the primary Act which is the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. The explanatory note of this bill says that the primary Act was enacted in 2006 but never brought into force. I am grateful for the explanation that Mr Smith gave about the reasons why it was not enacted at the time because it did seem a little bit like making hay while the sun was shining. I wondered whether perhaps back in 2006 things were going so well that Parliament was not very busy. Maybe the House was up to speed with everything and the Government did not have much to do and on that basis it thought it could enact a few laws and just have them on the back-burner waiting to be brought into force if and when there was a rainy day and it needed to be done in a hurry. But I digress a little.The Act was never brought into force and now that it is about to be we have discovered that there are a few things that are not quite right with it. There are things that need to be remedied and brought up to speed as it were before we bring the Act out of mothballs dust it off and fire it up. Hence we are here debating this amendment bill. It is not a monumental piece of legislation. It is not going to set the world on fire. I very much doubt that the 6 o’clock news on either channel will run this as a headline.Hon David Cunliffe: Well I don’t know.RICHARD PROSSER: Well you say that but you never know.Hon David Cunliffe: It’s been a quiet week.RICHARD PROSSER: It has not been that quiet I think. But nevertheless it is an important piece of legislation and it is important that we get it right. So to do that we need to understand why it has come about and what the reasoning and purposes for it are. We will pull all this to bits again in the select committee. We will examine the entrails of the original legislation and so forth.But there is no substitute for going back to the beginning. When I discovered that the Act had been lurking around for 10 years my curiosity was piqued somewhat. So I went back into the archives. I went back and had a look at the Hansard from when the original legislation was introduced. It is intriguing looking back 10 years into Hansard and seeing some of the names that pop out of the pages. Some who have been in the House a long time will remember them and many who were outside the House but followed the proceedings of the House will remember them. They are names that were household names back then walking the corridors of power and so many of them are not here any more but some still are.The Hon Judith Tizard was the Associate Minister of Commerce at the time and moved the original bill back in December 2005. It was 13 December which quite by coincidence—at least I imagine it is by coincidence—was the 363rd anniversary of the day that Abel Tasman first sighted New Zealand. I mention this because it would not have occurred to Captain Tasman back then that perhaps three and a half centuries later the legislature of the islands that he was looking at for the first time would be debating a bill to give recognition to geographical indications of areas that might possibly be bearing his name. I doubt that the Hon Judith Tizard gave that possibility very much thought either. In fact her speech from the files of Hansard gives no indication that that may have been the case.She did however outline the purpose of the bill which was “to put in place a modern efficient and cost-effective process for the registration of geographical indications of wines and spirits which both serves the purposes of our industries and meets our obligations under the TRIPs agreement.” The TRIPs agreement is the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights. The Minister went on to outline quite a bit more about what the bill was intended for and why it would be a very good thing for Parliament to pass it.It was not to everyone’s satisfaction I have to say because she was followed by a certain Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who began his contribution by expressing frustration at what he perceived was the Minister’s lack of understanding of the bill. He chastised her in the inimitable way that Dr Smith did—and I presume still does—for gabbling and for not having the “faintest notion” of what the bill was about. He roundly castigated her for her lack of proper pronunciation. Mr Assistant Speaker I am sure you will appreciate as will others in the House that when you have been castigated by Lockwood Smith for improper pronunciation you certainly know you have been castigated.But he did support the bill. He expressed the National Opposition’s support for it—get used to that term gentlemen—as did Mr Doug Woolerton from the New Zealand First Party in his inimitable laconic style and also Keith Locke and Shane Jones but not the Māori Party. I found this quite intriguing. Before he was an “Hon” Dr Pita Sharples railed against the bill. He said that it breached the Treaty. He began his speech actually by saying it was going to contribute to the extermination of the tuatara. It all seemed to make sense as his speech unfolded. He proclaimed that his party’s opposition to the bill was on the basis of the recognition of tino rangatiratanga. So I will be fascinated to see whether or not the Māori Party supports this amendment bill. Perhaps there is enough in it enough that has been changed to change the minds of the Māori Party members. Maybe they will find it within themselves to revisit that original opposition.So here we find ourselves in the 51st Parliament bringing modification to an Act that was originally initiated by the 48th Parliament and some of the changes that the amendment bill brings about are technical and some are minor. There is nothing as I say earth-shattering—there is nothing in here that I can see in the first reading that we will violently oppose. There are some questions obviously that I will look forward to examining as I say in greater detail in the select committee. The fixed term for a geographical indication limiting it to 10 years with an ongoing right of renewal is obviously a feature of this amendment. It may be a good thing or it might just be a cynical ploy to extract even more in the way of fees from an industry that is already horribly overburdened with taxes and levies and duties but I will reserve judgment on that until we have had submissions from the submitters to the select committee.The provisions relating to the origin of wine we certainly agree with in that the 85 percent requirement for grapes to have been grown in the particular geographical location remains but it also enforces the requirement for the other 15 percent to be at least from New Zealand. It is one thing to say that a Pinot noir is a Central Otago Pinot noir if 85 percent of the grapes were grown in Central Otago and the other 15 percent were perhaps grown in Waipara but it is quite another matter to call it a Central Otago Pinot noir when the other 15 percent—one-sixth of the wine in fact—were grown in Chile Tasmania Bulgaria or anywhere else.So at this stage I do not intend to take too much more of the House’s time but I reiterate that New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee and very probably beyond. I look forward to examining it there particularly regarding the safety of the tuataras. Thank you.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): That was just a very riveting piece of history there from Mr Prosser. It was quite entertaining. I did read somewhere though that Abel Tasman was a beer drinker but I am not what the relevance is to this piece of legislation.Before I begin I just want to acknowledge the representatives from the winegrowers’ association who are here in support of this bill and the reason why I wanted to do that is that I understand that there was an industry-wide push to have this piece of legislation and as Mr Prosser said it has been a long time in the making. So I just want to acknowledge the industry for its contribution to that. I also want to acknowledge the Minister—who is no longer in the House—who is leading this bill Paul Goldsmith—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!TODD BARCLAY: —for his work on this as well as Tim Groser who is obviously no longer—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just interrupt the member and give him a bit of friendly advice. Do not refer to the absence of members even nicely.TODD BARCLAY: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So getting back to the bill the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill as we know it provides a mechanism for the registration of the geographical indicators for wine and spirits. Essentially this enables the identification of wine and spirits as originating from a particular region or a country or an area of the world and representing an electorate that has a small but significant wine-growing and wine business population with areas of Central Otago—particularly the Gibbston Valley—I say this is pretty important. I think it has already been remarked that New Zealand is very well regarded for various aspects of its wine particularly its sauvignon blanc. But Central Otago Pinot noir is also very highly regarded and anything we can do to protect the integrity of our premium brand and our reputation as a premium exporter and just the reputation that we have as a producer of products with a constant level of high quality is really important. I think this legislation is critical in that regard particularly as we embark on the further export of wine products.We have seen that dating back to just 1990—the year I was born—our wine export value was almost insignificant. It was almost nothing and today it is worth up to about $1.5 billion. That is huge and the indications show that further exportation is going to take place and the industry is going to continue to grow. As we look to compete more head-on with various competitors across the world maintaining that integrity and the reputation of our products is going to be incredibly important. Effectively 79 percent of our wine is exported and about a third of that is exported to the US. With the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement the tariff savings will also be a contributing factor in opening up that market for our wines.As I have said the integrity and reputation and the confidence as well that consumers have in what they are buying as being genuine products of New Zealand or genuine products of Central Otago Marlborough Martinborough or wherever are going to be increasingly important as we look to compete at the premium level. The tourism number of around 550000 wine tourists coming to New Zealand last year is significant and it is significant in the Queenstown part of my electorate as well. We see an increasing number of visitors who are well educated in the wine space coming to New Zealand and if they feel like they are not getting the genuine product when they are purchasing wine then that could have a detrimental effect when they go back home and talk to their colleagues and associates about their travel plans.So as a member of the Primary Production Committee it is a great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. I look forward to following it through the parliamentary process participating in that and listening to all of the organisations and individuals who have got a view on this piece of legislation. Thank you.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. I come from Marlborough. I am pleased to hear that there are wine industry people in the gallery above me who are very very keen to see this bill passed. It is an interesting one however that although we acknowledge the provenance that is behind this bill which is the absolute issue of markets recognising where stuff comes from—the paddock-to-plate - type scenario—we actually need to support this all the way. So we need to be sure that the product that we are going to put a name to actually will not negatively impact on the reputation of the regions that we will be using the names of. What I am referring to is the issue of big pesticide use labour issues and other social aspects that go with the industrialisation of the wine industry in my region.When we are having eels or tuna killed in a stream—200 of them recently—probably by glyphosate spraying is it the council or is it from adjacent overseas-owned vineyards? If we are going—and we must go—down this track then we must clean up the act of the wine industry around it. There is some really good news stuff from the wine industry too and that is that it wants to be 20 percent organic by 2020. That is a step in the direction of cleaning up some of the reputation that it has had before.Stuart Smith may chortle but this spring—and I have said it in the House before and I have said it to the industry before—just as in 2007 the member over there who is chortling had 100 percent vineyard herbicide coverage in spring to crank up his soil temperatures using a non-sustainable method. But that can get a sustainable wine-growing tick. It is nuts. There is nothing sustainable about having 100 percent of your surface area sprayed with herbicide every spring and of course we know that we have got herbicide resistance with ryegrass in Marlborough from repeated spraying. So I support this bill and our party is going to support this bill but the reputation in our markets is not through having bulk pesticide and herbicide spraying.I know that there is work done to make sure that there is little if any residue of pesticides in the sprays and it is important that we make sure that products going to market are as clean as possible. They can be cleaner and so can the environment in my region where we have tuna dying from pesticides where we are getting spray resistance from herbicides and where we have a lot of people getting sick but we cannot quite put the finger on why. The pesticides invariably used are carcinogenic or probable carcinogens as the World Health Organization says for glyphosate. Others are endocrine disrupters or neurotoxins.We can improve the health of my region Hawke’s Bay and the other regions where we are growing a lot of grapes. It is a fantastic industry—it is doing us proud at the moment in terms of economic benefit—but it needs to convert to doing a lot better than the so-called sustainable wine-growing that is actually almost a crock of the proverbial. Yes it is integrated pest management and it is not spraying every 2 calendar weeks or whatever—there is a certain level of monitoring and decision making around it—but it is a choice of what products are used when there is a pest outbreak. It is an issue of what systems are being used.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member’s time has concluded.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to take a call in support of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge speakers who have gone before and the contribution from New Zealand First with some of the history of this. It has been a week in this House of bonhomie and consensual decision-making and this is not the first bill that has gone through with most probably unanimous support. I guess that is what the public likes to see—Parliament speaking with one voice. The last one was about protecting fish in the Kermadec Islands and in respect of this one you might say some people drink in that way. This will improve the quality of the perception of our wine. Amongst other things it will require geographical indications that will go from 85 percent to 100 percent of the grapes for the wine coming from the regions that are on the indication and that is a good thing—a good thing.There is an interesting history for this bill. The original Act was passed in 2006 by the Hon Judith Tizard. It lay in a veritable legislative stupor. It was not actually set up and now we are back 10 years later to give it a kick along and improve it with the amendment. I think we are all probably of the same mind that the industry has come of age and it is time to lift the bar on geographical indications to 100 percent. So that is good and we expect that when this bill goes through with the broad support of the House the implementation steps will be taken.We will get such great names as “North Island” “South Island” and “New Zealand” thrown in and then beyond that it is going to be up to the regions to define and agree on their geographical indications. So for members opposite they will have a great interest in Marlborough Martinborough Hokonui in the case of the member for Southland—God knows what it is going to come up with—and Central Otago. He is a member who has got a vast swathe of Southland and a little tiny weeny bit of Central Otago so that he can do his odd weekend clinic in the vineyards so I guess that is a fair apportionment. We all smile because this subject matter brings to mind some of the finer parts of recreation and life in New Zealand.I do want to acknowledge the wine industry—the viticulture industry. There are a lot of hard-working people there doing very well. They have had their ups and downs. Grape prices collapsed a few years ago and they have recovered a bit like dairy being down at the moment. There has been a lot of consolidation in the industry. There are a few people who went to set up vineyards and their own wine labels as a kind of lifestyle choice or retirement hobby and it has turned out to be bloody hard work and there has been a lot of consolidation to group that into more economic unit sizes. But it is a high-quality industry. New Zealand wine can hold its head up very high by international standards and arguably there is no finer sauvignon blanc grown in the world than that which comes from Marlborough in New Zealand. I have yet to taste a Pinot noir that I prefer to the one from good old Central Otago.I want to acknowledge Waipara which is doing extremely well and Martinborough as well as Hawke’s Bay and other regions. We have of course in west Auckland—where I have the privilege of being an MP—a fine tradition of the Dalmatian winemakers. There are the Babiches the Brajkoviches and many others who have come up with brands like Nobilo Wines Soljans Estate Winery and Kūmeu River which makes some of the world’s very finest chardonnay and we are very proud of that tradition in the west.Of course Labour will be supporting this bill. We commend the bill to the House. We look forward to its I think unanimous passage and along with the Kermadec fish reserve we look forward to many more years of research of the product. Thank you very much.JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill—I just wanted to make sure that I could actually say it without stumbling over the words for a start. Coming from Palmerston North I have got to say that I am very much used to the importance of trading off a good name for a geographical location. So it is something that is dear to my heart—the importance of actually being able to stand by your geographical location and being able to trade off that. However when it comes to wine I have to acknowledge that I am not as learned as Mr Faafoi or any of my colleagues on this side. In fact probably I am just one step above philistine when it comes to my knowledge of wine. But what I absolutely am committed to is this Government being absolutely 100 percent behind our exporters—100 percent behind those who are doing very well—and helping them to ensure that their success continues to grow.In 1990 as my colleague Mr Barclay said earlier the wine export industry was basically non-existent. I have brought a little graphical example—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): They have all been pulled out.JONO NAYLOR: What was that?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): All the vines have been pulled out. The Government paid a subsidy to pull vines out.JONO NAYLOR: Oh OK. Anyway—thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; I thought I had done something wrong which is normally when you intervene but OK—in 1990 the export wine industry was practically nil and you can see a sharp increase on this graph up to 2015 when we are now at over $1.5 billion in exports.If we want our exporters to be successful—if we want them to continue to be successful—we have got to make sure that our legislation continues to support and back them. Giving them this ability to trade off their geographical location to ensure that that has some sound basis behind it so that the consumers can be confident that what they are buying is in fact what it is that they are buying is really important. No disrespect to beer making but clearly obviously it is not necessarily that important whether or not Tui is manufactured in Mangatainoka just around the corner from where I live.Kris Faafoi: It is for them.JONO NAYLOR: It is for the people of Mangatainoka clearly but not necessarily for the consumers.I think I have said enough. There has been a good-humoured debate obviously going on with this bill. But what this bill is going to do I hope is continue to allow this graph to grow at the exponential rate that it already has over the last 25 years. I look forward to seeing even greater wine exports from our country with the aid of this legislation.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Happy St Patrick’s Day to everybody.Kris Faafoi: What’s a good Irish drop?CLARE CURRAN: Oh no. Nobody would like me to tell my Irish jokes as we are standing here tonight. I do think that mentioning St Patrick’s Day is important given the topic of conversation and I hope we have all been having a little wine tonight talking about the wine and whisky. Before we get into the serious part of the bill I would say that I am a bit concerned about the spelling of the word “whisky” in this discussion as we will take it through the select committee. In my view coming from an Irish background—and I think on this particular day I am allowed to have an opinion on this and the opinion is allowed to be respected—whisky should be spelt with an “e” and not just a “y”. So I just want to put that on the record for the House.It is a curious thing to be debating an amendment to an Act that was passed 10 years ago and was not enacted. It has been sitting in an un-enacted state—if there is such a term—since then. It seems that the impetus for the amendment that we have before us tonight in this first reading is an amendment that has been driven by the wine industry and imminent free-trade talks with the European Union whereas 10 years ago that impetus was not there from the amount of reading that I have been able to do on the bill. This impetus has now changed and I think the member across the House Jono Naylor who got up before me to speak was quite rightly pointing out that the wine industry is becoming an increasingly important part of our economy. I think somewhere in the regulatory impact statement it might have been there is a prediction that it is going to be $2 billion of value to our economy in the near future and that is clearly important. Our wine industry is a critical part of our economy and we need to ensure that we are doing the best that we can to protect it.I know we are talking about geographical indications which is a curious phrase and no doubt one that we will all become very familiar with over the passage of this bill. I am certainly keen for the geographical indication of Central Otago to become a meme and for that to be a powerful meme as I am sure it is in our export markets with our major export markets being Europe and Australia and the US as I understand it for wine. This bill seemed to come up again with a survey that was done by the Ministry for Primary Industries last year and there were a number of submissions on that and a number of options that are set out in the regulatory impact statement around how it should be dealt with again.As I said the impetus for this seems to have come from the wine industry itself around ensuring that it is protected in the European market. So Labour is supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee because we think that this needs to be looked at again. But as no doubt other speakers have canvassed through the afternoon there are some substantial changes in this amendment bill to the original legislation from 10 years ago in 2006 with the major amendment being to increase the percentage of local—being New Zealand—grapes in wine to 100 percent as opposed to 85 percent. That was the option that was recommended following that survey and in the regulatory impact statement. I think that is clearly something that will be debated in the select committee as to what the implications of that are and what the risks are of sticking with the existing legislation which is 85 percent. I think they used the phrase “cross-country blending” risks as being one of the major reasons for making that substantial change from the 2006 legislation and also the potential for abuse of wines being created in other countries that are labelled as being “in the style of”—for example Central Otago Pinot noir or Marlborough sauvignon blanc or whatever. I am only going to talk about the South Island because that is what really matters when it comes to geographical indications.What is curious—and this is what I would like to tease out a bit more as we go through the discussion on this bill—is that when this legislation was enacted in 2006 it was enacted at a time according to the regulatory impact statement “when it was expected that negotiations would soon begin on a Wine Agreement with the EU. Negotiations were never started and at the time the New Zealand wine industry did not support the implementation of [this legislation]. As a result [it] was never brought into force.” So I think what we have to do is some catch-up around that: why things have changed what the benefits are now what will actually occur as a result of bringing this legislation into force whether there will be any costs—well of course there will be costs but what the implications of those costs will be and whether they will be costs primarily to the industry—the extent to which there will be a bureaucratic system that is set up to keep a register of the geographical indications what that will involve and the pros and cons of that around the benefits to the wine industry generally and to our trade relationships with the European Union particularly as a consequence. So I am looking forward to that.I am also looking forward to—quickly Mr Assistant Speaker—any innovation that occurs as a result of at least having the discussion and possible legislative outcomes on this around tracing. I think this is a really important area of innovation for food and wine and any other beverages and produce from New Zealand around the innovative technologies that are emerging around tracing what you eat where it comes from including the history the soil quality the geographical surroundings etc. There is a lot of movement happening in this area. Fish is a good example of that. If you go into a restaurant anywhere in the world and you buy a fish that has come from New Zealand there is the potential for you to be able to then trace where that fish came from where it was caught when it was caught what the circumstances were of it being caught and what the surrounding environment was like. That is value-adding for New Zealand food and beverages and I think that this legislation is taking a step in that direction in marketing the importance to the world of the wine industry the grapes and the amazing environment in which they are grown. That can only be a good thing so we are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking a very short call to support the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill in its first reading. It is really good to see the support for this bill.Just this morning I was in a meeting attended by my colleagues and some business people who are exporting 95 percent of their products. I asked them what the value of Made in New Zealand was to them and the answer was that it is huge. So this bill is about adding that value to our wine and spirit products. The reputation of products that are made here in New Zealand is important to us and if the geographical origin of wine and spirit products is registered giving a clear indication of the specific region it is coming from that will give confidence not only to consumers but also to makers because then they can claim a special place in the market especially the export market. I do not drink but I understand it is very important for those who do drink. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.Radio New Zealand Amendment BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 10 March.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I last spoke about this bill last Thursday night. Just to recap very briefly we are addressing the passage of a bill that has been sitting on the Order Paper since 2009 following a review of the Radio New Zealand charter that took place in 2005—so this is 11 years after a review took place.There is a statutory requirement for a review of the Radio New Zealand charter to occur every 5 years. In essence we have skipped two reviews. Therefore by the time the legislation before us tonight is actually passed it may be out of date. I want to put that on the record. I think that what that represents is the lack of commitment that the Government has shown towards public broadcasting in this country and its disdain for ensuring that we are keeping up to date and taking seriously Radio New Zealand’s role in how our democracy functions and the importance of public broadcasting for public debate and commercial-free discussion and programming.Radio New Zealand operates in very difficult circumstances. As a result it has been under a funding freeze since 2009. It is doing the best job it can and that job is pretty good. It is making the transition to multimedia broadcasting and it is doing that in difficult circumstances. Unfortunately the chair of Radio New Zealand revealed to a select committee a couple of weeks ago that it would not be making a funding bid in this Budget. That is very disappointing and sad quite frankly but whatever. Radio New Zealand is also undergoing restructuring while it adapts to a multimedia environment and that has created some pain within the organisation.We support this legislation; we support the review that took place. We know that the minute this legislation gets passed Radio New Zealand is no doubt going to go into another cycle of a review so it kind of makes a farce of the whole process.We also note that the Minister of Broadcasting submitted a substantial amendment in the Committee stage and did not speak to that amendment until briefly in the third reading. The essence of that was to make provision for multi-platform provisions and for the generation of new content-related revenue streams overseas assuming that it can find any buyers. It is a bit like the BBC versus BBC World Service where the commercial arm generates revenue but the core services are still subject to public service provisions. However Radio New Zealand does not have any plans at this point that we know of to generate revenue in that way and it is very constricted by its current funding environment.Lastly I would like to put on the record that there is a member’s bill in the ballot called the Radio New Zealand (Catch-up Funding) Amendment Bill which does increase funding for Radio New Zealand by around 20 to 25 percent using inflation and population growth as the way to make those adjustments. This would make a difference and would ensure that this bill actually does have some meaning when it finally is enacted by making Radio New Zealand the efficient meaningful organisation and provider of value to the New Zealand community that it should be and ensuring that it is properly funded. Unfortunately this bill before the House tonight rings hollow because of the situation that Radio New Zealand finds itself in.MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the final reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. Before I actually get to the substance of the speech I just want to respond to the comments that were made by Ms Curran. Having been a broadcaster myself—having actually worked for Television New Zealand and having actually run a production company—sometimes having more money does not necessarily mean better quality. I am a proponent of local content and I think that has been put on the record. I support the work that the great many people in this country actually do to create local content and I celebrate that but more money does not necessarily mean better quality.This side of the House has been committed to ensuring that the New Zealand Public Service delivers more for the country and this includes the continuing support of our public radio broadcast service a service that is reliable and consistent for today’s listeners. The bill we are debating today will make a stronger statement about our plan to support good independent broadcasting. The bill of course has the Radio New Zealand charter as one of its core components. The charter states that the purpose of Radio New Zealand is to be a public broadcaster that works for all New Zealanders. It also provides a number of provisions that indicate how the broadcaster is able to deliver this admirable goal.We are now entering a new age of public broadcasting where many New Zealanders are now going online to listen to podcasts of Radio New Zealand shows from home to work and at leisure. Often I think a lot of people rely on the app that they have on their mobile phones to listen to Radio New Zealand as well and I commend the work of Radio New Zealand for creating a great app for the convenience of its listeners.More New Zealanders from different walks of life are also tuning in to listen. They are no longer listening to the programmes on the end of the old radio transmitter. They are also doing it time shifted as well—not only are they listening but they are also watching pictures on radio. I have seen many radio shows where they include pictures. In the old days when we were talking about radio it was radio with sound but without pictures and when we talked about television it was just pictures with sound right? But now there is a convergence in the medium and radio often also has pictures as well. It is modern technology that is actually providing that.It is also important to remember that most New Zealanders are no longer waiting for announcements—as I said we are time shifting. Busy lifestyles mean that we are never actually in one place tuning in at the right time waiting for that broadcast. Throughout the last week Radio New Zealand had a number of programmes that let us discover new and exciting stories about our country and the world we live in. I look forward to seeing what new ideas its production team has coming up in the near future.Members should also remember the role of Radio New Zealand as a lifeline during times of natural disaster. Radio New Zealand was a key service many Cantabrians looked to during the aftermath of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. The role of Radio New Zealand as a support entity with obligations to the Ministry of Civil Defence and wider emergency services must also be noted by the House as a key component of the community support role that it provides.Radio New Zealand as a broadcaster has over 500000 listeners a week comprising nearly 20 percent of the market share of audience. These numbers show how highly regarded the broadcaster is in New Zealand and I celebrate that.I should also note to the House that the Commerce Committee which I chair recently reviewed Radio New Zealand during our annual review process and it was great to hear about its current operations and how it seeks to tackle future changes in technology and also the listening habits of the audiences. It was also interesting to note how it is looking into the ethnic diversity of New Zealand’s population. It was looking into more representation in terms of programming representing the ethnic diversity as well as the content for the younger generation in the digital age.Indeed the Commerce Committee has had a long history with the bill as members opposite have actually mentioned. It began the hearings in 2009 and it is appropriate that now 6 years later this House can send a strong message to the nation about our belief in what the Radio New Zealand services should be achieving for the people of our country.As members of Parliament we have a duty to New Zealand to maintain Radio New Zealand as a key broadcaster for this country. We also have the duty to help the Government fulfil its responsibilities towards Radio New Zealand. These responsibilities can be fulfilled only through our recognition of the digital era we are in and the impact that it will have on the traditional mediums that for a long time Radio New Zealand has operated under. This bill actually works for changes and looks ahead to the future vision of our nation so that Radio New Zealand can continue to be a good public broadcast service. In summary Radio New Zealand is well trusted and will remain so in our country and I commend the bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a genuine pleasure to speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and I want to acknowledge Melissa Lee the speaker who has just made a contribution who is the chair of the Commerce Committee and who as she pointed out herself was a broadcaster and—importantly I think—a broadcaster who was making her own programmes in that creative space. So she does know what she is talking about when we are talking about the broadcasting industry at large.I also want to acknowledge the people who work for Radio New Zealand. I think that—and it has been mentioned on this side of the House—given the financial constraints that it is under and the digital change that the whole industry is undergoing it has responded to those digital changes and the financial challenges in a very effective way. But I think it could have been better and that speaks to our disappointment about the passage of this bill. I think that if you look at the details of the bill itself and the functions of this bill you have to say it is a good bill because it puts in legislation the charter for Radio New Zealand and it enshrines some very important things in my view as a former broadcaster who spent most of his time in public broadcasting. Radio New Zealand by law has to deliver services of the highest quality to inform entertain and enlighten the people of New Zealand to challenge innovate and engage its listeners and to foster crucial thought and informed and wide-ranging debate. As a citizen and as a former broadcaster I think that those functions are very good functions and are ones that hopefully we all support.Unfortunately the last words in this piece of legislation tell the sorry story of the journey of this bill. Melissa Lee pointed out in her contribution that this piece of legislation was introduced on 2 June 2009 and we are here—and there is a degree of hypocrisy here on my part because we are speaking to it and it has taken so long and there have been so many delays but I think it is important that we point this out. I do not want to overly prolong this debate—I want this piece of legislation to pass—but I think it is important that we do point out that in 2009 this piece of legislation came out the select committee reported back in December of that year and it has taken us 6 years as Melissa Lee pointed out herself for this piece of legislation to pass. I think that speaks to the priority that this Government has put on public broadcasting and I think the 6-year wait shows that it is a low priority. It is dangerous not only for some of the functions that I spoke about that are enshrined for Radio New Zealand but also because of the quickly changing nature of the media. If we want Radio New Zealand which I think is our shining light of public broadcasting to be just as good as the ever-changing market with New Zealand Media and Entertainment with Fairfax with our other public broadcaster Television New Zealand and with other media outlets in New Zealand we have to support our radio public broadcaster to make sure it can change with the times and ensure that the high-quality standards that we expect and that it delivers can be delivered as well.Melissa Lee spoke about the convergence—that radio is no longer radio alone. On air at the moment I believe is Checkpoint and it is not just radio alone now. John Campbell since leaving MediaWorks now does his show online—you can watch him do his show. That is why I want to congratulate Radio New Zealand on branching out into that area. But I think the financial constraints that this Government has put on Radio New Zealand are restricting Radio New Zealand’s ability to do more. If we want our public broadcaster to do more—to challenge to inform to have those debates that the charter talks about and to keep that quality—it also needs to be at the forefront of technological changes. I think that the lack of commitment over those 6 years has seriously hamstrung Radio New Zealand. I think you just need to look to Television New Zealand and what the current Government has done there as well. Removing TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 again shows a lack of commitment to public broadcasting. I do not know why because I think it is an important thing for our nation to have scrutiny—unbiased scrutiny with integrity—and I think that comes from having a public broadcaster.So when we look at this piece of legislation the functions are great; the journey is awful. Six years is too long to wait for this piece of legislation to pass through this House. A funding freezesince 2009 to keep it to just under $32 million for Radio New Zealand is not good enough for what I would hope we are which is a good functioning democracy.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. It now gives me pleasure to be part of a historic process and the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 29 March 2016.Debate interrupted.[To mark the retirement of the Serjeant-at-Arms Brent Smith members stood and applauded.]The House adjourned at 6 p.m.