Volume 705 Week 16 - Tuesday 19 May 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 705 Week 16 - Tuesday 19 May 2015[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3357. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 19 May 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersBudget 2015—Economic Programme1.CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2015 progress the Government’s commitment to manage the Government’s finances while delivering better public services?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): We will follow the same approach of stable and predictable management of the Government’s finances with the objective of better public services for New Zealanders. We know that this is working because there are today 42000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago and 194000 new jobs compared with 4 years ago. Core Crown expenditure this year will be around $4 billion lower than we thought it would be back in 2011. These changes are making a real difference to people’s lives.Chris Bishop: How will Budget 2015 help New Zealanders and their families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait until Budget day to see the whole plan but we have already made some announcements that will benefit New Zealand families. ACC levy cuts will bring about $500 million worth of savings to New Zealanders. We have announced $98 million for more timely elective surgery and improved orthopaedic treatment and also $32 million to strengthen compliance with minimum employment standards. And we are putting $33 million towards more immigration officers because New Zealand is such a success story that we are getting more visitors migrants and tourists and need more capacity at the border.Chris Bishop: What other Budget 2015 decisions have been announced?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are providing the Inland Revenue Department with an additional $29 million for greater property tax compliance. We already tax the gain that people make when they sell a property that they bought with the intention of reselling it and that is fair. We are sharpening up those rules to make it easier for the Inland Revenue Department to enforce them and help ensure that people understand their liabilities. So everyone will have to provide their IRD number on every property they buy other than their main home and everyone will know there will be a 2-year brightline test meaning that gains from property sold within 2 years of purchase will be taxed except if it is the main place of residence or inherited or part of a matrimonial settlement.Grant Robertson: Does he recall saying in the 2014 Budget speech “There will be a small surplus next year and increasing surpluses are forecast over time.” and now having broken that promise will he be using exactly the same sentence in this year’s Budget speech?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do remember making that statement as part of the 2014 Budget and it indicated significant progress from an $18 billion deficit to what will turn out to be a $500 million or $600 million deficit. It falls short of the surplus that was budgeted by a bit and that means we will achieve surplus next year.Chris Bishop: What particular measures in Budget 2015 apply to property investors who may be based overseas?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As well as having to supply a New Zealand IRD number all non-resident—that is non - tax resident—buyers and sellers must also provide their tax ID number from their home country along with a current ID such as a passport. This will enable the Inland Revenue Department to share tax information with overseas authorities. Also to ensure that our full anti - money-laundering rules apply to non-residents they must have a New Zealand bank account before they get a New Zealand IRD number. Finally we will be looking at introducing a withholding tax for non - tax residents which if adopted means we will take the tax off immediately when the property is sold and the foreign owner will have to square up with the Inland Revenue Department later.Andrew Bayly: How does the increased compliance on property gains fit within the Government’s response to escalating Auckland house prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The real issue in Auckland is that there are too few houses to meet demand. So the problem is pretty simple but ensuring more supply is the most effective long-term tool for bringing some order to the Auckland property market. So we are working on a number of fronts: changes in the tax regime which may dampen demand; setting up special housing areas to free up more land; and concentrating on redeveloping extensive Government landholdings in Auckland—for instance transferring Housing New Zealand properties to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company.Andrew Bayly: How do those decisions sit within the Government’s commitment to control its spending?Hon BILL ENGLISH: These commitments are all being financed by a relatively low level of new Government initiatives. So for instance the total annual cost of new initiatives in this Government’s last six Budgets is around $3 billion. The last six Budgets of the previous Government had $20 billion of new initiatives and at the end of that time even supporters of it such as the Salvation Army were led to conclude that despite all the spending there were no better outcomes for New Zealand communities. With less new spending we are getting better outcomes.Housing Market—Auckland2.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that there is no housing crisis in Auckland in light of the fact the average Auckland house price has risen by $100000 in the past year and the Reserve Bank says this is “increasing the risk of financial instability”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes because over the last few years I have heard many overstated claims of a crisis in various parts of the economy. The previous one was apparently in manufacturing. The Government and the Reserve Bank have both acknowledged that we need more houses built in Auckland and we need to make that happen faster. That is why the Government has taken significant action to increase supply and speed up land development.Andrew Little: Why has he introduced a measure that looks like a capital gains tax but which he says is not one to fight an Auckland property market that is in crisis but which he says is not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Just to quote Mr Little he said the policy is “not a capital gains tax”. What we have done is said that for anyone who is an investor in a 2-year period we will take the ambiguity out of the current situation because we believe that that is reasonable. And for foreigners whom we do not have good records on in New Zealand—yes they will be forced to pay their fair share of tax.Andrew Little: In light of his finance Minister’s comment that it is “a bit unclear” what impact his new measures will have by how much does he say the new brightline test will slow the growth of Auckland house prices; and if he does not know why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well we have not modelled that but what I can say is that of the additional money we are putting into inspectors—which is $29 million in this Budget and $33 million from Budget 2013 which is yet to be spent; that is $62 million—the expectation is that we will get $420 million. The reason we are likely to get at least $420 million if not more is that the ambiguity is removed. I will say though that the intention test has been around for a very long period of time. Funnily enough and I have not actually bothered to go and look at it if one was to go back and look at all the advice that the previous Labour Government got when house prices doubled under its watch one would probably look at this issue as an issue that was raised back then. But guess what? Labour did nothing; National acts.Andrew Little: How many property speculators who are not already caught by the intention test will be caught by the brightline test; and if he does not know why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The analysis of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment suggests that between 17 and 18 percent of Auckland’s housing transactions currently involve houses being bought and sold within 2 years. I would be pretty surprised if all of those owners are paying tax on that and I would strongly suggest that quite a few more will as a result of the brightline test.Andrew Little: Why has he announced a tax policy when he does not know how well it will work whom it will catch or what the rules even are?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know whom it will catch and they are people who buy and sell an investment property within 2 years. They are foreigners who are currently non - resident income taxpayers who are not paying their fair share of tax. Yes the Government takes a careful and cautious approach in this regard but that is the right thing to do because in the end taxpayers are entitled to have some clarity in what they are doing. But I do think and the Government has thought this for quite a long period of time that the intention test needs reflecting upon and that was the very reason why we asked the Inland Revenue Department to look at this very issue back in 2010. The officials in 2010 said they did not think we should move on it; in 2015 they changed their minds.Andrew Little: Why will he not just be straight with New Zealanders and admit that his new policies will not fix the Auckland housing crisis and that he is just doing the bare minimum and hoping the problem will go away because he does not have a clue what to do?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Under this Government we have special housing areas of which there are about 90 in Auckland. Under this Government we have reduced the duty on imported materials. Under this Government we have reformed the Resource Management Act and we are looking to do more. Under this Government we have introduced a new brightline test for those who buy and sell investment properties. We have done a lot in the housing area. I know that Labour members do not like it but house prices doubled under their watch. Actually Auckland house prices went up by 79 percent under the previous Labour Government. When they asked Andrew Little last week what—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.Housing Market—Overseas Buyers3.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by the following statements: in May last year “There is no housing crisis in Auckland.”; also in May last year “I do not believe there is a crisis in housing.”; in June last year “It’s not a crisis.”; in April this year “So I don’t think you could call it a crisis.”; and just last month “I don’t believe a capital gains tax works.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I stand by all of those statements. Interestingly enough if you look at the information by the Real Estate Institute figures across New Zealand actually show that although Auckland house prices are up the rest of the country is very mixed; some are actually down. And interestingly enough if you look at the equivalent period of time under the last Labour Government house prices doubled. Under National they have gone up nationally by 35 percent.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by this statement made by himself: “I don’t believe foreigners buying the odd house in New Zealand is what’s driving the escalation of prices”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I believe that statement is correct. I think that there is quite a degree of confusion actually about the people who buy houses in New Zealand who may come from overseas originally or may not be Caucasian. But I think the number of very large purchases of properties in New Zealand that are from offshore is likely to be quite a low number—lower than what people expect in my view.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with Lyndon Fairbairn of All Property—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the Leader of the House contain himself. Will the member please start his supplementary question again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with Lyndon Fairbairn of All Property Solutions who when asked on Morning Report this morning whether the Government’s measures will be strenuous on foreign buyers replied “No not at all.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is an interesting view that the gentleman might have—and I do not know who he is. But let us put it this way. If the rules are as they will be that a foreign buyer or a non - resident taxpayer—because that is the test actually a non - resident tax status—has to provide their IRD number has to provide a New Zealand bank account and by the way by the middle of next year will have withholding tax taken off any sales of properties and they will then have to reverse the burden to get that tax back. If that is no effect then that is a very interesting world that that gentleman lives in but I would suggest it is one that is quite a long way away from reality.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he not just stop tinkering around the edges and to use his words “get some guts” and back New Zealand buyers and stop foreign non-residents buying New Zealand land and houses?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We know Mr Peters’ views about foreign investment and the likes into New Zealand. But interestingly enough maybe the member when he returns back to his office for a nice cup of tea this afternoon might want to have a look on the Sydney Morning Herald website where they actually talk quite openly about how house prices are rising much faster there than they are in Auckland. And the article goes on to say: “It would be nice if there was a single guilty party—foreigners investors negative gearing local Government capital gains discounts cheap money population growth—but it’s much more complicated” than all of those.Child Support—Reforms4.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “we believe the strong underlying economy and responsible fiscal management can deliver a surplus when the final Government accounts are published next October”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement made at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update which was: “falling dairy prices and low inflation are restricting growth in the nominal economy and Government revenue. This makes it more challenging for the Government to achieve surplus in 2014-15. However we remain on track to reduce debt to 20 per cent … by 2020. Although this latest Treasury forecast predicts a small deficit for the current year we believe the strong underlying economy … can deliver a surplus when the final Government accounts are published next October”.Grant Robertson: Can he explain to the House how it is an example of “responsible fiscal management” to allow a blowout in expenditure from $34 million to $210 million for the upgrade of the Child Support system at the Inland Revenue Department?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may want to delve into the details of that. As I recall it at least a fair bit of the expenditure came from two sources. One was that the complexity of the proposals was underestimated while trying to take into account the income of multiple parents with regard to particular children. Further changes were then made by the select committee which made it even more expensive. Underlying the expense is the fact that the Inland Revenue Department’s computer system is now so old that it costs an enormous amount of money to make relatively small changes. That is why we are investing in a 5 to 10-year programme to upgrade the Inland Revenue Department’s system. We believe that children deserving the support of their separated parents cannot wait around until the Inland Revenue Department’s system is all changed.Grant Robertson: How is it “responsible fiscal management” to ignore the advice of Treasury which told him “We believe the costs of the proposed change outweigh the benefits.” and which recommended postponing or not proceeding with the proposal? How is that responsible?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be surprised but the Government quite often disagrees with Treasury. Occasionally I wish it would agree with Treasury more but it quite often disagrees with it. In this case the Government decided that it needed to make changes to what was a 25-year-old formula for child support. Families constitute themselves differently these days and there are different sets of expectations so we went ahead.Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House to table a memo from Treasury dated 6 August 2012 in which it recommends postponing or not proceeding—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this particular memo from Treasury. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: How is it “responsible fiscal management” to ignore the further advice of Treasury the State Services Commission and the Government Chief Information Officer which recommended that the delivery of the Child Support system reforms be discontinued despite the large sunk costs?Hon Gerry Brownlee: They didn’t get elected.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think my colleague Minister Brownlee made exactly the right point. In the end the Government makes decisions as the elected representative about what it believes is going to work for the community. Officials saw that the costs were higher than expected. The Government decided to incur those costs; they did not. I have to say that it is more fiscally responsible than that member protesting for excessive wage increases and now saying that the Government should prop up a failing social services provider—more money for every problem.Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House to table an email from Treasury dated Tuesday 18 February 2014 at 2.51 p.m. with advice from Treasury the State Services Commission and the Government Chief Information Officer that the Child Support—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described enough for the House. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: Is—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can we ask Treasury what Labour’s policy is?Grant Robertson: Hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted is funny is it Gerry?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called Grant Robertson to ask his supplementary question.Grant Robertson: Is one of the reasons that he will not be delivering a surplus in this Budget or any meaningful changes on child poverty because he wasted hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing a project that all of his key advisers on fiscal State sector and technology issues told him to bin?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No and the member should try to get his head around what changes have been made to child support. As he will know as a constituency MP for the last 20 years families have been complaining about the way the formula works. It is always difficult to change it but it was changed in ways that Parliament and the select committee decided were fair. It did cost more than was expected. The Government came to the view that it was in the interests of the thousands of families affected by child support to make those changes.Accident Compensation Corporation—Levies5.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for ACC: What indicative reductions to ACC levies are signalled in Budget 2015?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): Budget 2015 will signal that ACC is on track to provide further levy cuts of around $375 million in 2016-17 and $120 million in 2017-18. These indicative levy cuts represent a total saving for New Zealanders of around $500 million and will be spread across the motor vehicle work and earners accounts. The indicative reductions if confirmed will take total levy cuts since 2012 to around $2 billion benefiting all New Zealanders. These cuts are possible only because of good financial management. This is great news for New Zealanders.Sarah Dowie: What factors could see these indicative levy reductions change?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Although there could be some change to the total amount into the per year amounts the Government is committed to reductions of at least $500 million across the three accounts. Before the Government makes final decisions on levy reductions this year ACC will consult under existing legislation with levy payers and make a recommendation. The final decision will take into account other factors like claim numbers and discount rates. It is important to understand that the exact amounts for each year may vary depending on the consultation. However I can confirm reductions of at least $500 million—and that is $2 billion since 2012.Sarah Dowie: What recent announcements has the Government made about improving the transparency of the levy-setting process?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Last week I introduced the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill to the House. The bill will make a number of amendments to the Act to improve the levy-setting framework. The bill will also amend the Act to allow the collection of residual levies to be discontinued earlier. New principles will be introduced into the legislation to ensure greater levy stability and solvency over the long term. The Government will be required to publish a funding policy and the long-term implications of levy decisions. This will ensure there is maximum transparency around ensuring enough money is available to pay the lifetime cost of people’s injuries. It is also my hope that levy payers can see levies are as low as possible while ensuring our most vulnerable have greater security for the long term.Sarah Dowie: What reports has she seen on alternative approaches to setting ACC levies?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have seen a report about people suggesting going back to a pay-as-you-go approach. The advice I have had is that this would lead to higher costs for claims and increasing levy rates over the long term. It would also be a big step backwards for some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders whose quality of life depends on long-term rehabilitation. It would also mean less certainty and stability for New Zealand businesses. These reports come from Andrew Little at the same time that Labour has removed its ACC policy from its website. He needs to front up to New Zealand and actually tell people whether Labour’s plan is to raid the ACC coffers.Sue Moroney: Why will she not cut levies immediately as recommended by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment by Treasury and by ACC itself; and what possible excuse does she have for overcharging ACC levies now that the Government will not even get to its promised surplus?Hon NIKKI KAYE: We are cutting ACC levies now. There is $480 million worth of cuts this year. There are several reasons why we have put a 2-year $500 million policy in. The first reason is that there is still volatility in the accounts. The second reason that—[Interruption] You need to listen to this Labour members. If you go down too far in terms of levy reductions the overall levy path over the years means that you can have increases in the out-years. The members are going to have to understand this. The facts are: $2 billion since 2012 compared with a $480 million hole under members on that side of the House.Child Poverty—Measurement6.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Metiria Turei: How poor does a child need to be under his “definitional difference” which he told Paul Henry about yesterday when he claimed that there were only 60000 to 100000 children living in poverty?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have from the Ministry of Social Development material deprivation index is that there are indeed between 60000 and 100000 children who are living in more severe material hardship. They are children who based on that index lack nine to 11 items from that deprivation index.Metiria Turei: Under his “definitional difference” is a child living in poverty if their parents cannot afford to buy them fresh food if they do not have two pairs of shoes if they cannot afford a school uniform and if they do not have their own bed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refer the member to the Ministry of Social Development’s material deprivation index.Metiria Turei: Is the Children’s Commissioner wrong and are his experts who worked on the solutions to child poverty wrong when they state that there are between 180000 and 200000 children who are materially deprived—that is they go without three or more essential items such as fresh food warm clothes their own bed and good shoes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It seems to me that the member picks and chooses her index depending on what suits her argument but all I can tell the member is that if one looks at the number of children who are deemed to be at the most significant level of deprivation in New Zealand based on the Ministry of Social Development index it is 60000 to 100000. But I would say that this Government is very focused on all children particularly those who are less well off and there are degrees of how less well off they are. That is why the Government introduced free GP visits. That is why the Government has put more money into providers like KidsCan. That is why this Government has worked alongside Fonterra and Sanitarium to provide free breakfasts. That is why the Government has supported having social workers in all low-decile schools. It is why the Government has introduced Children’s Teams to work with at-risk children and families. That is why the Government has insulated every State house and it is why the Government has worked to insulate 240000 other homes and has given them clean heating. This is a Government that in the very worst of times in New Zealand has maintained benefits and entitlements that provide support for the very children whom that member is talking about.Metiria Turei: Did the Ministry of Social Development fail to give him the 2014 Bryan Perry report that showed that there are 260000 children in poverty and that 205000 of them are living in severe poverty where their parents earn less than half the median income?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will note—if she wants to refer to that particular report that she is talking about—how consistently the numbers that she is talking about have been at that level of deprivation. In fact there were about 240000 to 260000 children living in poverty under Labour at the height of what was theoretically an economic boom. But what I can say is that Bryan Perry’s new annual report—and the new edition will be out very soon—will make it quite clear that in terms of what they define as severe material hardship there are between 60000 and 100000 children and they have between nine and 11 conditions on the deprivation index.Metiria Turei: Would the Prime Minister agree that by promising to tackle child poverty and then changing the definition of poverty to exclude most of the children who are actually poor he is breaking yet another Budget promise?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is being extremely selective with the comments I have made. If she actually goes back and looks at the interviews that I have done on this topic ever since the last election she will see that I have consistently said that there is a disagreement between ourselves and those who claim that there are 260000 children in that category. We have made it quite clear that we see a group of 60000 to 100000 as our priority. It does not mean that we do not provide either services or support for the wider group; we actually do. I listed a great many and I will not repeat them now. But our primary area of focus and attention is on those who are most in need. I think most New Zealanders actually would say that the Government having a focus on those who are in the worst of conditions is putting our resources in the right place.Jacinda Ardern: Does he stand by his previous statements in this House that there are many measures of child poverty in light of his position now that there is just one material deprivation which just so happens to be the smallest of all the measures that are used by the Children’s Commissioner?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by the view that there is no one single measure but I am simply saying that the material deprivation index according to the advice that we have had from the Ministry of Social Development is the best. That is one measure but there is no one single measure of poverty in New Zealand and I do not think there should be.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister just admit that he has made up an Oliver Twist definition of poverty so that he can ignore some 200000 New Zealand children who suffer from poverty every day?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member risks being a little bit silly. I listed a few moments ago a very wide range of support that we provide for all New Zealand children and in some cases obviously the support is much more focused on those who are in need. I have made it quite clear that I think there is a group who are in worse hardship than others and that is supported by the material deprivation index which evolved actually from the European equivalent. It is a very thoughtful process that Bryan Perry goes through and it looks at very detailed analysis. I am more than happy to have the debate with the New Zealand public but I think you might find that the New Zealand public supports the view that those who are most in need deserve the most support. That does not mean that other children do not get support; they actually do. But this Government is very focused on that group and I think most New Zealanders would say that is the right thing to do. The member shakes her head but if we followed her economic policies a whole million of New Zealand children would be in hardship because none of their parents would be in work.Relationships Aotearoa—Funding7.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: How much in real terms has Government funding for Relationships Aotearoa changed since 2008?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): In so far as I have ministerial responsibility baseline funding from the Ministry of Social Development for Relationships Aotearoa in 2007-08 was $3.1 million. In 2014-15 it received $3.8 million. In addition to this Relationships Aotearoa has received around $13 million from the Ministry of Social Development in one-off grants for recession funding services and capability building during this time.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer what Consumers Price Index adjustments has the Ministry of Social Development made to its contract with Relationships Aotearoa in the past 7 years—has it been zero 1 percent 2 percent?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am advised that the whole sector that the Ministry of Social Development works with has had no inflation adjustments since 2010-11. However if you look at the baseline funding that I have just enunciated the 2007-08 funding of $3.1 million would—Chris Hipkins: What about the total funding?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If you would just listen—just listen—it is coming. It would be the equivalent of $3.6 million in today’s terms. Therefore I repeat: Relationships Aotearoa has received $3.8 million which is more than that CPI adjustment.Hon Annette King: Why did she state on Television One recently that Relationships Aotearoa had received “a number of one-off grants from the Ministry of Social Development” when in fact it had received one grant for its IT system not towards delivering services?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because the member is wrong. It has received a number of grants. In fact I can tell the member that it received just under $2.5 million in community response funding. That was for two separate grants I understand. It has received just over $9 million for Canterbury earthquake recovery services and it has received $1.4 million for capability investment funding.Hon Annette King: Why does she—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Apologise.Hon Annette King: Beg your pardon?Hon Dr Nick Smith: The member should apologise.Hon Annette King: The member should take a—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should just ask her supplementary question.Hon Annette King: Why does she continue to denigrate Relationships Aotearoa by claiming it has made no attempt to be financially sustainable when it has one reduced expenditure and two laid off around 46 people last year while at the same time providing much-needed services to earthquake-affected people in Canterbury?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have made no comments that denigrate Relationships Aotearoa but what I have said is that with taxpayers’ money which is funding organisations like Relationships Aotearoa we have a duty a responsibility to make sure that we get the services we are paying for and Relationships Aotearoa has not fulfilled its contracts for quite some time. We also have a responsibility to make sure that these organisations can live within their budgets. Relationships Aotearoa has run deficit budgets for the last 4 years—in fact this year there is a large deficit that we are not sure how it is going to be able to fund.Hon Annette King: Why have she and her office knifed Relationships Aotearoa publicly by leaking incorrect information to the media while knowing that the Government has cut $4.8 million off its budget since 2012?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member makes a number of assertions—Hon Ruth Dyson: That are true.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —none of which are correct. It is not true. I have not knifed it in the back. In fact I met with the interim board this afternoon and we had a very constructive discussion and negotiations are under way. That member needs to take a breath and go back to her sources because they are dead wrong.Information and Communications Technology Industry—Performance8.JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in developing New Zealand’s ICT sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Last week I along with the Hon Amy Adams released the New Zealand 2015 Information and Communications Technology Report. This report provides in-depth analysis of New Zealand’s information and communications technology sector and showcases New Zealand’s very strong performance over the last few years in this sector with the positive support of the Government. The report shows that the sector has been growing at the rate of 9 percent per year since 2008. The industry is expanding. The number of IT businesses has topped 10000 for the first time and IT stocks now make up about 10 percent of the value of all listings on the New Zealand Exchange main board compared with 1 percent 5 years ago. It is clear that New Zealand’s information and communications technology sector is an increasingly important contributor to our economy both as a strong platform for future business growth and as the driver of the digitisation of our economy.Jono Naylor: How is New Zealand’s information and communications technology industry performing on the world stage?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well. Exports have grown at 14 percent a year in the information and communications technology sector—that is 14 percent a year—over the last 6 years and are now worth just shy of $1 billion a year at $930 million; a doubling in value since 2008. To succeed internationally it is important our companies are linked with the world and encouraged to develop their products and ideas when they enter new markets. We are doing that through the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband through partnering with Callaghan Innovation to encourage research and development and by working with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to make the most of opportunities offshore. The information and communications technology industry is just one example of a number of industries that are expanding and diversifying New Zealand’s economic base with the encouragement of this Government.Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Treasury Forecasts9.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What is the range of potential costs to the Government resulting from New Zealand’s current forecast for increasing net greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2021-2030 as reported in the Treasury’s climate change briefing dated 6 October 2014?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The range of figures contained in the redacted part of that now rather dated document was between 0.3 and 0.8 percent of GDP and crucially even at the very highest levels of carbon prices used took no impact whatsoever on our emissions. Happily I can inform the member that a lot more professional work has gone into modelling since then. Only yesterday we published modelling that has involved a range of agencies including the New Zealand Treasury which puts the cost of a minus 0.5 percent target between 2020 and 2030 at the rather more reasonable cost of $3.6 billion—not a small sum of money but not nearly large enough to meet the member’s political narrative.Dr Russel Norman: In light of that answer what exactly did Treasury get wrong when it said in this paper that the cost to the Government of not cutting our greenhouse gas emissions was up to $52 billion—as Treasury said in this paper?Hon TIM GROSER: I think what Treasury got wrong was that it did not use sufficiently sophisticated software to conceal the redacted information.Dr Russel Norman: It is nice of you to admit that Minister. Why is it that the Government’s climate target consultation paper makes the unsubstantiated claim that the annual cost of cutting emissions is up to $1800 per household but does not happen to mention Treasury’s rather detailed analysis that says that the cost of not cutting emissions is up to $3400 per household—if we do not cut emissions?Hon TIM GROSER: Well we will let modellers debate the relative merits of these models. What we have done is commission a first-class piece by Infometrics with all the agents involved and the figure they have come up with is the figure the member mentioned.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister finally admitting that the redacted number in this paper for the cost to the Government of not cutting emissions is up to $52 billion?Hon TIM GROSER: No I am not verifying that. That was a matter of a so-called independent forecaster drawing two dots together that really should never have been joined together. I recommend to the member and the members of this House that they look at the very professional analysis that we put on the Ministry for the Environment’s website only yesterday.Buildings Earthquake-prone—Strengthening Requirements10.BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What changes is the Government proposing to ensure New Zealand is more resilient to the significant risks we face from earthquakes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): We have made two significant announcements. The first is about taking a more targeted approach to strengthening older buildings. We have zoned New Zealand into three categories of risk and have varied time frames to upgradeaccordingly. We have also sped up the time frame for strengthening higher risk buildings like schools hospitals and other emergency buildings in medium and high risk areas. The result of these changes will reduce the estimated cost in net present value terms by about $500 million while at the same time retain the safety gains of 330 fewer deaths and 360 fewer serious injuries. Today I have also made announcements about post-emergency building management. We are ensuring that we learn the lessons from the experience after the Christchurch earthquakes so that we manage our building stock as efficiently as possible so that people can get into their buildings quickly and also so that we ensure public safety. This is part of the Government’s broader programme for ensuring we are more resilient to these risks.Brett Hudson: What response has he had to taking a more risk-focused approach to the strengthening requirements for older buildings?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s revised approach to earthquake strengthening has been widely welcomed. The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc. Local Government New Zealand and the Property Council New Zealand have all endorsed the approach. Fundamental to it is understanding that the level of risk from earthquakes varies very significantly around New Zealand as reinforced by the report today from GNS Science. In this city an MM8 earthquake has got a frequency of once every 120 years and in Auckland of only once in every 7400 years so it is appropriate that our response takes into account that sort of risk profile.Brett Hudson: How do the changes on post-disaster building management announced today learn from the tragic experience of the Christchurch earthquakes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think every member of this House can recall the huge tension about post-earthquake management after the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. Some owners and tenants of buildings were incredibly frustrated that they were not able to get access and there was confusion about the stickering system. So consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry we have changed that system. We are proposing to make changes to the Building Act and I am confident that with these changes were New Zealand—hopefully not—to experience a similar earthquake we would be far better prepared to be able to manage those safety risks and at the same time get people access to their buildings more quickly.Hon Damien O’Connor: What support will the Government offer the business owners in Franz Josef who have been told by the Westland District Council that they can no longer develop their businesses and must over time shift away because of the earthquake risk?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The community of Franz Josef is not different from areas in my own constituency of Nelson where there are landslip and earthquake risks or from the risks in Napier and all over the country. I note that during the 9 years that Labour was in office the member made absolutely no progress in convincing his colleagues—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a relatively simple question without any political loading in it. It was simply asking the Minister what support will be supplied to the community of Franz Josef. The Minister has not yet addressed the question and has simply begun an attack on the Labour Party.Mr SPEAKER: No the Minister was attempting to. He is certainly not answering it as directly as I might have hoped. I am going to invite the Hon Damien O’Connor to ask the question again but I think I can suspect the answer. I will ask the member to ask the question again.Hon Damien O’Connor: What support will the Government offer to the business owners at Franz Josef who have been told by the Westland District Council that because of a report identifying earthquake risk they may no longer further develop their businesses and must over time move from their current locations?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The issues faced by the community of Franz Josef are not different from those faced all over New Zealand where those risks are being better identified. What I can promise the member is that this Government will give those businesses in Franz Josef a better hearing than they got under the previous Government when representations were made and were ignored.Veterans—SupportRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This question—[Interruption] This question is for the hirsute gentleman over there—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question on the Order Paper.11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement on 14 October 2013 when he said in regard to this country’s veterans: “our Government has been firmly guided by a keen sense of fairness and a sense of the need to honour our current and future veterans in a dignified way.”Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case is it true that while he was at Gallipoli and New Zealand was remembering 100 years of Anzac sacrifices behind the scenes cynical moves were under way to treat veterans as a burden on the State?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not got a clue what the member is talking about.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well half of that is correct—he has not got a clue. How can he stand by that statement when his Government sent out this letter to veteranson 30 April 5 days after Anzac Day signalling cuts to the services that they receive—this letter?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know what letter the member is talking about.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a letter from Veterans Affairs New Zealand dated 30 April 2015 written to veterans 5 days after Anzac Day.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! It has been tabled—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Leave has been put leave was granted and the document will be tabled but that does not stop the member now from proceeding with his supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that what is proposed is a serious cut and privatisation of the services to veterans does he not think that a better use of public money would be to use the $25 million that he is spending on a referendum to change the flag to support those who have fought and died for the flag?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is making it up.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect that is the second time. The first answer was that he said he did not have a clue—well I did not disagree with that.Mr SPEAKER: But he is allowed to say that if that is the answer he has got. The second point?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well OK. The second one is that now he is doubting my honour and that is the real issue here because as you know it is beyond question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is not a valid point of order.Child Poverty—Government Initiatives to Address12.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that “it’s a priority for this term of Government that all New Zealanders benefit from the growing economy with a focus on children who are living in hardship”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes.Jacinda Ardern: How many children living in poverty have benefited from the growing economy while her Government has been in office?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As we have heard before there are a number of ways of measuring poverty. What we do know is that in the long term children who live in homes that are dependent on a benefit have considerably worse outcomes in life than those who do not. This Government has seen the number of children living in benefit-dependent households fall by almost 42000over the last 3 years.Jacinda Ardern: If child poverty is a priority does that mean she was right when she claimed last year that she was working on a new child poverty package for the 2015 Budget that was “a really big piece of work” or was Bill English right when he said today that there would be no new specific initiatives?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Prime Minister is always right and he has said that hardship is going to be a focus of the Budget.Jacinda Ardern: If child poverty is a priority why will her Government not measure it or target it? But will she in the interim sign a petition by Tick for Kids that calls for Budget 2015 to be the Budget that ends child poverty; if not why not?Mr SPEAKER: Any of those three supplementary questions—the Hon Anne Tolley.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member will just have to wait for the Budget.Point of Order—Content of Questions and AnswersCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just been reflecting on the interchange between Mr Peters and the Prime Minister and I would like to ask you to go back and review the matter and come back to us with a more deliberated-upon ruling around Ministers questioning the word of a person asking a question. It is against the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings in the House for any member to question the word of another member and I ask you to reflect upon the answers given in that particular exchange but also to come back to us more generally with how that rule should be applied in question time.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I am sure that when you do consider that you will consider it against Standing Order 380 around questions and their content and you will take note of the fact that to assert something in a question as being a fact when it is not is equally offensive to Parliament.Mr SPEAKER: I will reflect on the answers that were given but when you consider the nature of the primary question that also needs to be considered. It was a very general primary question: “Does the Prime Minister stand by all his statements?”. There was a subsequent interchange around a particular supplementary question that was asked and from memory the Prime Minister’s answer was that he could not understand what Mr Peters was saying. Well that is an answer. There was a subsequent answer given to the next question that I think the member is more referring to. I will certainly have a look at that but I will only come back to the House if I consider it of value to do so.Environmental Reporting BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 7 May.JOANNE HAYES (National): I am pleased to stand again to take my 4 minutes on the Environmental Reporting Bill. This is an excellent bill. I just want to recap a little bit about the actual bill itself given that it has been a whole week since we have been away on an adjournment break. I just want to bring it all back and give a bit of an overview on the bill itself.This bill creates a national level environmental reporting system. It ensures that reporting on our environment occurs on a regular basis and that it can be trusted—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. There is too much noise both in the Chamber from members leaving and also from the gallery. If people wish to leave I would be grateful if they did so more quietly.JOANNE HAYES: As I was saying the report can be trusted by the public because it is conducted by an independent fair and accurate person. I will talk a little bit more about that particular person.The provisions of the bill require reports from five key domains and they are atmosphere climate air freshwater and marine domains. These are set out as I said by independent reviewers and they are the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician. They will also be responsible for making sure that there is a synthesis report that will look across domains at trends and interactions once every 3 years. It also ensures that the producers of our reports are independent. That is what I was saying about the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment. It also allows our Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who holds a very important independent role to be able to give some strong analysis and review on the reports being produced.When I last stood here I talked about the marine environment and I talked a little bit about the exclusive economic zone legislation that we are putting in. This is making sure that we take out the potential risks and activities within the marine environment like petroleum exploration seabed mining marine energy generation and carbon capture development while making the Environmental Protection Authority responsible for consenting and enforcing these activities which is all part and parcel of the water domain which I spoke about quite in depth the last time I spoke in this debate.Finally I just want to talk about the air domain. This is really important. Just recently I was in Christchurch at an event hosted by the Electricity Networks Association. They talked about the various things that they are doing within the provision of cars run by electricity. This is actually helping to reduce emissions into the environment. They also showed us where they proposed to put I suppose all their plug-in areas—instead of petrol stations—that electric cars can park up in to be recharged so they can make the journey. That is from the top of the North Island all the way to the bottom of the South Island.I believe that this is a very good bill. It is a strong bill. It is the first time that we have had a bill that looks at our environment. It has a step change that we implemented in 2011 and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. James Shaw—5 minutes.JAMES SHAW (Green): I rise to speak on the Environmental Reporting Bill. The Green Party would have liked to be able to support this bill because we do suffer in this country from a lack of information about the state of our environment. We did support the referral of the Environmental Reporting Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Unfortunately we are not able to support the bill in its later stages because of the lack of independence over who is going to be determining what gets reported on.I started my career at PricewaterhouseCoopers in the UK where we were starting to look at non-financial indicators of reporting and that included environmental capital natural capital social capital intellectual capital and so on. What was critically important was that the public and investors actually understood that the criteria that were being reported against were independent and not determined by the company that was being reported on. This bill kind of fails that standard.One of the previous speakers on this bill did say that they felt that it is better to be doing something than nothing and given that we have such woeful inadequacy around our reporting at the moment that is not an unreasonable argument to make except that doing something like this and enabling Ministers to be able to determine what gets reported on is actually worse than doing something. It is a bit like the Government’s approach to climate change. You see having an emissions trading scheme enables the Government to say: “We’re doing our bit. We’ve got an emissions trading scheme.” But given that actual emissions are increasing and will increase by net 48 percent by 2020 it is actually saying: “Well it’s OK. We’re doing our bit. We’ve got in place an emissions trading scheme. We’re one of the world leaders.” But if your actual emissions are increasing then the policy has no impact and you might as well not do it. It is merely a smokescreen.Unfortunately because of clause 18 in this bill we cannot support it through to the later stages. There are a number of options to solve this. One is that the Government Statistician could simply decide what the areas to be reported on are going to be. Another option is that the areas that are going to be reported on could actually be laid down in law. I have a member’s bill in the ballot at the moment called the Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill which actually covers a number of different areas that would be laid down in legislation if we were interested in actually having an independent set of criteria where we said: “Well these are the things that we ought to be reporting on.”We can only have credible reporting of any kind including environmental reporting if it is independent and free from the interference of Ministers. Unfortunately this bill does not do that. The Minister here actually does have full control over what gets reported. I think that the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee during his speech on the bill earlier said that this is exactly the same as in our financial reporting. It actually is not. What gets reported in our financial reporting is actually laid down in law.I am sorry to say that we are unable to support this bill. We did support it through to select committee. We note that there were well over 300 submitters and the vast majority of them talked about this matter of independence. I think that if this was an education report we would have to finish with the words “must try harder”. With that I am afraid that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill through to its next stage.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to join in opposition to this bill for the reasons that have been outlined by Mr Shaw. Although the Labour Party supports the intent of this bill—and we did support it at the first reading—unfortunately the main thrust of the bill is its lack of independence. It is all great to have experienced officials—the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment—involved in producing these reports. However the actual topics that those reports will cover are completely in the domain of the Government.Hon Member: It’s not true.RINO TIRIKATENE: It is true. Therefore there is no better example of our opposition to this bill than the speech from the member who just resumed her seat earlier Ms Hayes because she talked about the so-called independence; she talked about the wonderful work that has been going on in the various domains—water quality air and various other domains that are covered by this bill. However—and I am referring back to her speech before she was interrupted the week before last—she was basically giving us the Government’s spin lines through its blue-tinted lenses as to what it is doing around the environment. That is the very reason why we are opposing this bill because that is the very reason why it lacks independence.We are the only country in the OECD that does not have a legislative basis for independent environmental reporting. All Kiwis want to know and be sure that we have trusted independent reports on the state of our environment. That is critical. This bill fails. It completely fails because the actual content the topics that will be covered by these periodic reports—be they on the domains or the other sequential-type reports that will be coming—will be completely set in place by regulation through the Ministers. So it lacks independence.But I also want to touch on the irony of the Government because just prior to the last time we were debating this bill we were debating a bill on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The members opposite were lauding the virtues of the independence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I believe it was Mr Bishop who said in his speech that we are politicians and we are not best placed to make investment decisions. Well the same could be applied to this independent environmental reporting. We are politicians—that is right—and we are not best placed to make decisions or to actually provide independent reports on the state of our environment. It was demonstrated by Ms Hayes and Mr Bishop that this Government is lost. It really has not got a clue in terms of what is required for providing independent reporting on the state of our environment.It is a shame on this Government that it is pushing this bill through when there are deep flaws in it—deep flaws. We need to make sure—and this is very important; it is a very important topic—that we have independent reporting on our environment. Well let us make it independent. Let us take the topics out of the realm of the Ministers and let us make sure that the independent Government officials who are charged by statute—that is the irony again. If we look at clause 14 I believe it is the statute says that the Government officials—the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment—have to act independently of the Government. That in itself shows you how flawed the bill is because how can you have an independent report when the actual topics that will be considered in the report are actually cooked up by the Ministers themselves?Sure the Ministers may have to consult and follow a statutory process around how they finalise the decisions but at the end of the day the decisions the topics that will be covered under the reports are completely the domain of the Ministers. Therefore the reports lose all credibility—all credibility—and that is why we oppose this bill. Cheers.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour to rise to support this very important bill the Environmental Reporting Bill on its second reading. Can I first acknowledge the work of our environment Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his work in the space of protecting our environment in New Zealand. Also I acknowledge our Local Government and Environment Committee chair Scott Simpson for the dispensing of a very busy select committee and also the previous select committee chair the Hon Maggie Barry.I was not on the select committee at the time of the submissions but reading them through overall it is time for this environmental reporting system to be implemented. This bill creates a national-level environmental reporting system to ensure that reporting on our environment occurs on a regular basis. This is important so it can be trusted—so the public can trust it as independent fair and accurate information. Why is that important? Because there are people parties and organisations that through political or financial motives want to bring down our clean and green image of New Zealand.A good example of this was a few years ago when the British Green Party decided it would come up with an approach that our lamb production—growing our lamb in New Zealand and exporting it overseas to the UK—had a bigger carbon footprint than locally produced lamb. As you would expect in the consumer-driven market in the UK it led to a drop in New Zealand lamb sales in the UK and drove up locally produced lamb production in the UK until some bright sparks at Lincoln University got together and used evidence—they used research and science—and reported that in fact even with the lamb production in New Zealand and the carbon footprint of sending our lamb by plane to the UK we still had a smaller carbon footprint than British-produced meat. That was because of the intensification of their farming. This is a good example of why we need this environmental reporting system in order to provide independent fair and accurate information to the public so that it will inform and enable informed discussion and debate.This Government has a great record of environmental management and of balancing our environmental responsibilities plus our economic opportunities to preserve and protect our natural environment. It is amazing that we are the only OECD country that currently does not have an environmental reporting system of this standard. So once again it takes a National Government to bring in this first for this country very much like it has brought in the Environmental Protection Authority to protect the environment in the petroleum exploration space as well as our freshwater standards to ensure that our rivers come up to a national standard and that any rivers that are below that standard are focused on to ensure we have a national standard of freshwater quality and management. Quite simply you cannot manage what you do not measure.I suppose that if I reflect on my career in health care before I got into politics we used the Hawthorne effect which basically says that when you start measuring something you focus on it and the performance will naturally increase and improve behind that—the Hawthorne effect. It is quite right that we cannot manage this unless we measure it. It is right that we start measuring it through this environmental reporting system. A key part of reporting data analysis and interpretation is we have to move past the data quality debate. What happens is that every time we have a report people who just want to attack it for whatever reason will resort to asking: “Is the data quality correct?” and “Is the data valid?”. Having this environmental reporting framework will ensure that.A good example is found by going to the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report this year. Its state of the nation report demonstrated that child poverty was tracking downwards. It stated that it had handed out fewer food parcels than previous years. Was the first question that was asked: how do we support that continual decline in poverty and food parcels being handed out? No; it was: how can you ensure there is correct data quality? It is right that because we will have this environmental reporting framework we will move the discussion and the debate past the data quality stage to look at analysis interpretation and supporting initiatives because ultimately we are all working for the well-being of this country. So it is good information on the state of the environment that will allow us to fully understand both natural occurrence and the impact human activities are having.When we dig a bit deeper and look at the detail of this reporting framework it is great to see the different domains that will be reported on. There will be five of them. There will be air atmosphere and climate land freshwater and marine. So each of those domains will be reported on every 6 months and every 3 years there will be an integrated report that will inform public and political discussion and debate.It is great to see the insertion of clauses 6(1A) and 9(2) which will require Ministers to present reports jointly to the House so that political accountability is encouraged. I suppose that a key tenet of this National Government is around accountability. That is our blue-green movement. We have seen today the Greens not supporting this bill which would probably represent their red-green movement but for us it is blue-green. I know that for an electorate like mine it is very important that we think in this way. “Waimak” is the third fastest-growing electorate by population growth but in its history it is still very much a proud area of primary production. We know that “Waimak” is like the rest of New Zealand: when farming is doing well the whole country does well. “Waimak” is no different: when farming is doing well the whole region benefits. With that primary production there are risks for the environment and it will be good that this environmental reporting framework will look to ascertain the current data and the findings around that—the risks of nitrate leaching and the risks of water management.What we need to do is use reporting like this and use research and innovation to develop and come up with the right solutions to those issues. If we come up with the right solutions not only will it make our land more productive which means we will export more which means the well-being of this country will continue to grow but it means we will actually have come up with solutions that many other countries are currently wrestling with or will wrestle with in the future and that is great for economic development.I think that for an asthmatic like me one of the significant domains that this reporting framework will focus on is around air. Two weeks ago was World Asthma Day. We know that New Zealand has the second-highest rate of asthma in the world: 550000 schooldays every year are lost because of asthma 69 deaths in 2011 were attributed to asthma and 7000 admissions every year in our public hospitals are to do with asthma. So it is great to see a reporting framework like this. We will be able to tangibly ascertain the pollution in our airways. I suppose growing up in Christchurch which was synonymous with smog you would go out for a run in the late evening or in the early evening and you would wonder whether you were actually doing more damage in going for the run. But through that we have been able to ascertain by particles in the air that it was things around log burners that we have been able to address and to drive through the new technology of ultra-low emission burners.In conclusion just to recap you cannot manage what you do not measure. That is exactly right and this is why we are implementing this legislation. It is great to see that we will have this legislation and I commend it to the House. Thank you.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker o te rā. Tēnā tātou katoa. It is my honour to take a call on this very important piece of legislation the Environmental Reporting Bill 2014. The aim of the bill is to provide for environmental reports including the type of information and its quality and timeliness. When the then Minister for the Environment commented on the first reading of this bill she stated then that New Zealand was one of only a few OECD countries that did not require independent reporting on the state of the environment. The media release stated that the scope of the proposed reports will be comprehensive going beyond the current non-statutory programme of environmental indicator updates and would not just cover the state of the environment but also describe the pressures driving environmental trends and the impact of these trends. Comprehensive information will be provided on five key environmental domains: air climate and atmosphere freshwater marine and land with biodiversity as a theme across all the domains. One of the environmental domain reports will be released every 6 months and a comprehensive synthesis report covering all environmental domains will be released every 3 years. I needed to remind myself of the importance of such a bill.In this House when we debate legislation we tend to either support or oppose it. As I stand here there is almost a third position which is yes but not quite. It is fortunate on the Labour side that we stand opposed to this bill for the very reasons that my honourable colleagues Rino Tirikatene and Dr Megan Woods have raised. They were not raised just from our side but actually raised in the course of the select committee hearings where over 300 submissions made it very very clear that the issue of this particular legislation is that it does not provide the independence that submitters were seeking. So I cannot support this piece of legislation because it does not go far enough in ensuring that the Minister for the Environment is not involved in setting what those priority indicators are for both the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment to report on.Like I said over 300 submitters submitted to the select committee process. In Dr Megan Woods’ contribution to this bill she highlighted two particular submitters and I would like to again emphasise what they said. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright made it clear that the independence issue was critical for this legislation to have the impact that we also desire which is independent environmental reporting on issues that make up an important component of our economy which is the environment. What did Dr Wright actually say? She made it really clear that she felt that the bill itself did not offer the level of independence that a piece of legislation should provide. She made it really clear that she did not think it was actually a satisfactory function for her to play that role given her statutory function within the piece of legislation. What she was seeking was a more independent voice that set the tone of these reports. So clearly the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her own submission made it clear that more independence was needed to ensure that this piece of legislation was not interfered with politically.Another major group that submitted during the submission process was the Environmental Defence Society which said: “Allowing Ministers to select topics to be covered in synthesis reports and domain reports will politicise what should be an independent process as topic selection could be utilised to introduce bias into environmental reporting.” Like I said many submitted and I wanted to highlight those particular submitters because of the standing that they have in the environmental space to ensure that we are putting through legislation that can uphold the very purpose in which it is being presented to the House.I want to comment on the Government’s chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee who in his debate contribution made the statement that this side of the House was opposing a piece of legislation simply for the sake of opposing. Unfortunately that is the role of the Opposition—to ensure that all pieces of legislation that come through this House have gone through the proper process of a select committee and more important has factored in the submissions that were presented to the select committee. It is concerning that the chairperson of that select committee has made a statement in terms of our members who sit on that select committee who uphold the submitters who come to the select committee. Yes as you know in all select committees the Government members outnumber the Opposition members and it has clearly come through with this piece of legislation coming to the House for this second reading. What I contend is that unless we acknowledge the importance of the select committee process in designing robust legislation we are almost sending a signal to future submitters that whatever their concerns or submissions are—and in this case the majority have asked for independence—this Government is simply not listening. In terms of coming back to the bill Labour supports the need for independent environmental reporting but the bill falls well short of that requirement. It is fundamentally flawed. Labour is disappointed to oppose this bill as we believe it is a vital piece of legislation to protect our environment.Like earlier mentioned for too long New Zealand has lagged well behind international best practice. We are the only country in the OECD without an ongoing commitment in law to independently and regularly monitor the state of our environment so much so that our colleague—again Dr Megan Woods—in her contribution offered up Supplementary Order Paper 74 where she suggests that we remove the Ministers from making the decision and replace the Ministers with both the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment and the Government Statistician thereby ensuring that there is no politicising and there is no political interference and the priorities we set for this legislation in terms of environmental impacts will be safeguarded. I really do wish that we had taken that Supplementary Order Paper to heart when this legislation was coming to the House but it was not to be. It again smacks of the hidden agendas of this Government which we are seeing time and time again—a bit of out of touch; a bit of promising with one hand and taking away with the other.Can I end by saying that our environment is an important part of who we are as New Zealanders. We are its guardians the kaitiaki. What legislation we bring into this House must guarantee that at the end of the passing of any legislation we protect our environment and that we leave it in a better state than what we have inherited particularly for the future generations. I oppose this bill. Kia ora tātou.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak in favour of the Environmental Reporting Bill. If I could have the House’s forbearance for perhaps 30 seconds or so I do want to acknowledge in the context of local government and environment the good work of the Tauranga City Council and staff in response to the tornado that hit my electorate late on Thursday. I saw there an example of what actually happens when you have a natural event of some magnitude and the impact that it has on individuals and families. It was a very distressing scene amongst a couple of dozen homes that were dreadfully affected that Friday morning when I walked around and saw them all but by lunchtime most of the obvious effects had been cleaned up and cleared up. That was a great example of a local government working in tandem with its community and I do want to put that on record to acknowledge Tauranga City Council for what it did there. Well done.You can also see actually the best in community collaboration when it coalesces around an idea that is supported by good data. I think we are seeing examples of that around the country at the moment as various councils reflect on the obligations that have been imposed on them by the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—a superb piece of reform that this Government brought in over the last few years that requires real action in respect of water quality improvement. Those conversations have begun around the country. They are not easy conversations. In many respects they are quite hard because the data is not complete and there are various trade-offs that are required to get streams and rivers to mahinga kai - able to drinkable to swimmable. It is very challenging for communities particularly when they do not have that full complete data set but it is great to see that that is under way.It is a real achievement of this Government. I appreciate that there are few on the other side who would give us any credit for this but this is a Government that takes a reform-based approach to managing the environment and that has actually delivered outcomes for communities. What we got when we arrived here in 2008 was a complete vacuum—a vacuum of ideas. There was a vacuum of frameworks and processes to deal with this. There is shaking of heads on the other side but you had 9 years to deal with this. You are great on rhetoric but actually putting frameworks in place—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!TODD MULLER: Sorry—the Green Party and Labour are great on rhetoric but in terms of putting frameworks in place that are enduring and that get results it does not happen on the other side. It happens on this side and it is great that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is in the House today to get some acknowledgment for this side for the reform agenda that he and Amy Adams have driven through over the last few years.It is easy to forget that at that time—2008—you could take water without needing to measure it. There was no National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. There were no national objectives frameworks. There was no Land and Water Forum. There was no framework to enable stakeholders—who only ever saw each other in the courtroom—to actually sit around a table and say: “How are we going to deal with this? How are we actually going to progress this debate in a meaningful and enduring way?” and that is what this Government under the leadership of Nick Smith and Amy Adams has brought to the table. This is why this Environmental Reporting Bill is so important. It builds on and continues that 7 years of reform that I touched on.As my colleague the great Matt Doocey from Waimakariri—what a fantastic MP; what a great part of the country that is—noted only moments before we are one of the few OECD countries that currently does not require independent reporting as has been mentioned and I think this obviously is going to be redressed shortly with the passing hopefully of this bill. But I do want to make the point that it reflects a party philosophy on this side of the House around progressive transparency. You saw that many decades ago with the Financial Reporting Act but—as mentioned by I think Nick Smith himself when he spoke to this bill—an example more recently is the national standards. We heard it again from Matt Doocey earlier in terms of the Environmental Protection Authority which is an example and of course there are the various Better Public Services targets that we have in place. This is a party that says that unless you can measure it you cannot manage it. So forget the nice rhetoric—put frameworks in place that enable you to measure it. Then from that evidence base you can drive improvement forward and that is what we are doing here in this case. In short in respect of this bill we are not the party of hollow rhetoric; the other side certainly is and I will come back to that shortly.Essentially to protect our environment while enjoying and encouraging economic prosperity we need to be able to have an honest debate about the interactions between the environment and the economy and we need to have a clear picture of the trade-offs and opportunities that are in place and that are on the table and of the impacts particularly of the choices that we make. Any argument that presents only half of that picture is a very undercooked argument indeed. That is why the Environmental Reporting Bill is so important and is a key piece of the reform agenda that we have driven in this space to enable an evidence base to build over time to enable those conversations to be deep and have some meaning so that communities can reach the right considered outcomes.I think it is appropriate that we have very clearly specified the domain areas of water quality air quality biodiversity and of course managing our oceans. The approach of being really specific in terms of the pressures on those particular environments the current state of them and particularly the impacts of various approaches allows you to take a broader view of these issues. As I have noted I think this will lead to more informed debate and better options for the public. I think it will be very helpful that we have the 3-yearly synthesis reports to enable some trend analysis. I will touch on that shortly.What is very important and has been completely lost in some of the nonsense that we have heard in this debate over the last half-hour and certainly a couple of weeks ago is that the topics must be selected on the basis of significance of statistical rigour of evidence and of a strong connection to the environmental state and this requires significant consultation. The debate that we have heard around clause 18 particularly from the other side I think is quite frankly nonsensical—to hold a view that somehow it is inappropriate for the Minister for the Environment to have a view as to what the topic should be and ultimately through the Cabinet process sign off what those should be particularly when you consider the philosophical underpinning of the parties on the other side that are suddenly now talking about the importance of purity and independence. Every sinew in their political body calls out and cries out to getting involved in people’s lives. They cannot help it; that is the way their political philosophies have been built up. It is absolute nonsense.Sometime in the future in the mid-2020s when eventually the Green Party forms a coalition with New Zealand First and Labour—and will not that be fun—they will stand over on this side. To think that the Green Party Minister for the Environment will not want to hold a view as to which topic might be covered in an upcoming domain report is absolute nonsense. From my perspective and from our perspective it is not underpinning the reality of what is going on here. It is absolutely appropriate for a Minister for the Environment to hold a view. The changes that have gone on and the various clauses that we have reflected on to ensure more consultation with iwi and affected local government talk to a process that has rigour and will deliver the right outcome for this country and not some sort of straitjacket nonsense that we have been having to listen to over the last half-hour or so.I do want to spend just a moment before I conclude talking about the value of the synthesis reports particularly in terms of being able to build up a picture of trends over time. I am sure that when the first domain reports come out the reporting will be very binary. It will be black and white. I suspect on one side all the negative connotations will be pumped up and perhaps on the other side we will be talking about the positive inclinations of what those reports say. But the real value for me is what that will say over time because it shows trends in performance and improvement and trends in terms of where the pressures are building. If you are really true about building an environmental picture that can inform public policy and community discussion then that is where the value is and that is the value that is inherent in this bill. It deserves acknowledgment and in my opinion deserves support.In conclusion I do want to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams who started this and the Hon Nick Smith who is concluding it. The rigour of their intellectual—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Reserves and Other Lands Disposal BillSecond ReadingHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I move That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that I move the second reading of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. This is an omnibus bill that is provided for in Standing Order 262(1)(e). The intent of such a bill which I will refer to as a “ROLD” bill is to make changes to a land status that cannot otherwise be dealt with easily. “ROLD” bills deal with authorisations transfers and validations of matters relating to Crown land reserves and other lands held for public or private purposes. Such bills can be used to correct historic oversights and errors or to clarify and simplify issues regarding land status—particularly when determining whether a certain use or method of management is legally permissible. The last “ROLD” bill was enacted in 2003 and by 2008 sufficient matters had arisen to warrant this present bill. It is being read again in the House today as a result of a comprehensive consultation process and thorough consideration of public submissions. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Primary Production Committee—which at the time was chaired by Shane Ardern—and to all the other members of the committee who have been involved in progressing the bill to this point.Among the provisions considered by the committee are several that provide benefits to communities and community organisations throughout New Zealand. For example clauses 38 to 41 of the bill remove a restrictive clause from a 1901 statute and make it possible for the Dunedin City Council to regularise a long-term lease for the use of reserve land by the Port Chalmers Bowling Club thus ending many years of uncertainty for the club. If we go further north clauses 28 to 34 remove specific hospital-related purposes and other constraints on five titles for land held by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. That change will enable the board to make more effective use of the land when providing health and disability support services to the Nelson-Marlborough community. And in Northland clauses 21 to 23 formalise a community-supported agreement that reserve land in Māhinepua Bay be vested as a Māori reservation with the trustees of the adjoining Māori reservation.Shortly I want to go through two substantive changes to the bill but first I would like to comment on a general issue that was raised during the select committee process and which is referred to specifically in the Primary Production Committee’s commentary on the bill. An overriding issue which arose in discussions on a number of clauses in the bill is whether applications that could be considered controversial should be included in a “ROLD” bill. The convention is for “ROLD” bills to deal with non-controversial matters. However several applications—and two examples are the Auckland City Council’s application relating to Albert Park and the Department of Conservation’s application relating to land adjoining Auckland’s volcanic cones—were considered by some to be controversial. The committee questioned whether a “ROLD” bill was the appropriate legislative vehicle for some of these issues. The committee felt it was being asked effectively to rubber-stamp what were controversial issues and it questioned whether or not councils may view the bill as an opportunity to avoid other difficult and time-consuming legislative processes. This is a matter that Parliament may wish to consider. However it is worth noting that the convention that “ROLD” bills deal with non-controversial land matters was intended to ensure that changes remain technical. The reality is that most of the changes in this bill as reported back by the committee are technical changes that deal only with administrative and technical details.The Primary Production Committee recommended two substantive changes to the bill. The first was the result of a decision by the Department of Conservation to withdraw its application relating to the Sugar Loaf Islands in New Plymouth. The committee has recommended that clauses 42 to 44 which relate to this application be deleted. This change had the consent of all parties involved and I am comfortable with the removal of these clauses. I believe the committee has also recommended the insertion of clauses 34A 34B and 34C which deal with a parcel of esplanade reserve land at Ōpua in the Bay of Islands. I believe the committee acted with good intentions when it recommended the insertion of these clauses; however I do not believe they are suitable for inclusion in the bill. To that end I intend during the Committee stage to move a Supplementary Order Paper seeking their deletion and I will provide detail of that in the Committee of the whole House.I will also seek your support during the Committee stage for a number of other proposed amendments. Most of these are of minor and technical nature. For example updates are required to reflect the changes in Auckland local government that have taken place since the committee reported the bill back to Parliament. Clause 5 which amends the Reserves Act 1977 is to be deleted because the matters dealt with by this clause have since been resolved by the statutes amendment legislation that was recently enacted in this House. Technical amendments are also proposed to clauses 21 to 23 which as I mentioned earlier formalise a community-supported agreement to have an area of esplanade reserve at Māhinepua Bay in Northland declared a Māori reservation. These amendments clarify the process to be followed to achieve this aim. Clauses 18 to 20 concerning Waitaki District Council’s application regarding Lookout Point are to be deleted. These clauses are no longer required because the matter they deal with has been resolved by the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Lands Empowering Act. I also intend to recommend the deletion of clauses 10 to 11 which concern decision making for earthworks on Auckland volcanic cones and clauses 24 to 27 which concern Marlborough District Council land in Picton. I have made this suggestion in order to allow further consultation with interested parties.I wish to make a few final comments on one of the provisions mentioned in the committee’s report. Clauses 6 to 9 enable a technical change to the status of a parcel of land in Albert Park which has been designated as a local purpose art gallery reserve. This change is administrative and amends the definition of Albert Park in Auckland City for this purpose. The provisions in the bill enable the amalgamation of land in Albert Park with the adjacent parcel of freehold land which the gallery sits on. Having both parcels on the same title will avoid costly and time-consuming administrative issues. The committee’s report outlines the concerns that some members shared with submitters who were opposed to the expansion of the gallery. Submitters were under the impression that the “ROLD” bill was enabling what they viewed as an alienation of reserve land in Albert Park. In a technical and legal sense the clauses in the “ROLD” bill were not enabling any alienation. The former Auckland City Council reclassified the relevant land as local purpose art gallery reserve land in accordance with the Reserves Act 2006. The council submitted a notice of requirement for a designation under the Resource Management Act 1991 which was approved by the Environment Court in August 2008. Resource consents for works within Albert Park not covered by the designation were also granted by the Environment Court in its 2008 decision. It was these processes that gave the council the necessary authority to proceed with the expansion of the gallery.Members of the committee acknowledged that there had not been any technical alienation; however they felt that although the council had followed due process and was within its legal rights to begin the gallery expansion the park was originally classified as recreational reserve with the intention that the land be preserved as open space. The Primary Production Committee did not approve of the city council’s approach to dealing with this matter and I do have some sympathy with its view. However any problematic issues with the gallery development occurred in processes beyond the scope of this bill. The clauses in the “ROLD” bill will prevent Auckland Art Gallery management from having to deal with unnecessary administrative difficulty in operating the gallery as it is. This will benefit all Auckland ratepayers by enabling the efficient and effective management of an important cultural and entertainment resource.The provisions in this bill will give effect to applications by local authorities and Government agencies for technical changes to land status that remove administrative and technical barriers that would otherwise prevent owners and lessees from effectively and efficiently managing and administrating the land. I commend this bill to the House.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I stand in support of this piece of legislation. However it has taken a while to get here. As the Minister for Land Information outlined there was a bill that went through in 2003 and this bill was put up in 2008. As the Minister said about every 5 years these sorts of bills come before the House because there are antiquated pieces of legislation or local government rulings etc. etc. that need to be changed. They are supposed to be non-controversial. There were some controversial measures in this and I will allude to those a little bit later on.In 2008 this bill was brought before the House. In fact David Parker was the Minister who brought it before the House. Here we find ourselves 7 years later in 2015 and it is almost time for another one of these bills to be introduced—or what we do is we put forward a whole lot of Supplementary Order Papers so they negate the need for another bill. But the bottom line is that it should not have taken this long for this bill to get to its second reading. I think that even the Minister would acknowledge this. Richard Worth would acknowledge this if he was still in the House but he is not. Maurice Williamson would probably acknowledge it if he was still the Minister of Land Information but he is no longer. In fact I think we were on about our fourth Minister for Land Information before we actually got to the second reading.The Minister alluded to a number of Supplementary Order Papers that are changing original parts of the bill. We support these. We are talking about the Ōpua esplanade reserve land except the Albert Park piece of land. But the fact that there are about four Supplementary Order Papers accompanying this bill and that they talk about changes that need to be made to the original bill just shows I think that this is a little bit sloppy. The reason I say that is I think that as a Parliament we need to send a message to local government authorities or to district health boards or to the Department of Conservation or to whoever are approaching their MPs on behalf of constituents to get these sorts of changes made that they need to go through a robust set of consultation meetings.What we find here is that these changes end up in a bill and then suddenly people go “Goodness me I didn’t know about this. There was no consultation whatsoever.” The Ōpua esplanade was a classic one. There was no consultation whatsoever and then they approached their local MP and they approached their local council saying “We need to change this. This is not right.” and a movement starts and it ends up in a Supplementary Order Paper as mentioned. It is reasonably non-controversial but a good robust process must be gone through before legislative changes are made or else it ends up just in a whole lot of mess.There are couple of things that I think the Minister glossed over. She talked about the volcanic cones. She said that some thought that this was controversial. The vast majority of submissions were against this. Again this is a classic case where I do not think that Parliament listened to the wishes of the local people. Albert Park is another classic one to the point where the select committee actually made a recommendation in the paper saying that this is not good law. And it is typical of John Banks—he was mayor at the time. What the council did was run roughshod over the process and then come to Parliament and say they wanted to change the law for something they had already done. Typical Mr Banks—we know where that ended up do we not?I was not on the Primary Production Committee. I was not in Parliament when this came forward. But I look at the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board land. There is a proposal by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board—the member Nick Smith may have comments on this—to remove specific hospital-related purposes and other constraints on five titles to land held by the board.When I read something like this without knowing the full details alarm bells go off because what that says to me is that this is the district health board wanting to sell down land. It cannot sell the land because it was either gifted or something else to the district health board or the health board way back when and it was designated “hospital land” and as a consequence it could not be used for anything but health purposes. It wants that designation removed I suspect to sell it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the member opposed?STUART NASH: I am just saying that red flags go up whenever I see this sort of stuff. That is all I am saying—that is all I am saying. The other thing that I must admit did make me smile was when Minister Upston stood up and said she had great pleasure in bringing this bill to the House. I do not know whether she had great pleasure because it has taken 7 years to get the bill here or whether she had great pleasure in the fact that this is the first bill she has actually brought to the House. At this point in time the Minister for Land Information should be one of the busiest members in that Government and the reason for this is that there is a whole lot of concern right across the country that overseas investors are having a free ride into this country.Every single overseas investor who wants to buy a piece of sensitive investment land which is usually defined as over 5 hectares must get consent through the Overseas Investment Office. It is a reasonably rigorous piece of legislation and the consent process takes a little bit of time. But again what concerns me about this is that in the last 3 years not one consent has been turned down and part of this might have been the case law actually that came out of the sale of the Crafar farms. Under the Overseas Investment Act in terms of buying land—talking about the Minister for Land Information and her portfolios which she discussed in her opening speech—there are three tests and one of them was relevant experience and core competencies.The case law in respect of the Crafar farmlands gave that such a wide definition that I think it opened the way for any single overseas investor who wanted to buy sensitive land in this country to just go ahead. There are very very few restrictions on that at all—and Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard if I had known you were going to be in the Chair I would have talked about that first as opposed to last. But anyway Labour does support this bill. But as the Minister mentioned and I think it is worth coming back to this there is sort of an unwritten rule with these sorts of omnibus bills. They are supposed to be non-controversial. This is information brought to Parliament everyone agrees on it it goes through the House it goes through a process and there are usually very few submissions because there is no contention here whatsoever. The Minister herself has outlined two areas that were contentious and I think that is against the spirit of this bill.Let me if I may just quote what the select committee mentioned with regard to the Albert Park change: “A majority of the submissions we received concerned the Auckland Art Gallery development in Albert Park. Almost without exception submitters were opposed to the development and the way the Auckland City Council has proceeded with the development under the assumption that a non-controversial bill would be ‘rubber stamped’ by Parliament. Many submitters would have liked the clauses relating to the gallery’s development to be deleted from the bill.”I must admit that if I had been on that select committee in 2008 I would have shared their concerns because the Albert Park case contravenes the spirit of this bill I believe in the sense that it was hugely controversial. In fact I can remember when I moved from Auckland back to Hawke’s Bay—and what a fantastic move that was believe me. I love being in the regions. It was wonderful to get out of a city where it takes me an hour to get to work and go back to Hawke’s Bay where it takes me 8 minutes to get to the airport and I do not even live on the flight path.But anyway I remember when this was going ahead and I was approached by some of the submitters because I had worked with them on a couple of other issues and they asked me to advocate on their behalf. At the time I was involved in Labour Party politics. I was not a member of Parliament. I looked at this and I thought this was very very poor legislation. It is not the way that legislation is supposed to be done. By that I mean that you go and do something and then you beg for forgiveness through a piece of legislation—it is not the way that councils should operate.I would just like to sum up by saying that I think what we need to do as a whole Parliament is send a message to these district councils to the health broads and to the Department of Conservation. We need to tell them that whenever they put up a bill of this nature they need to ensure that they have undertaken a reasonable amount of consultation and that their residents and their ratepayers or their constituents have had a say. When I read through the notes and the select committee deliberations it became very apparent to me that this was not the case in a number of instances. Thank you very much.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is somewhat ironic I guess getting to speak on a bill that went through the Primary Production Committee some time ago. There were some members on that select committee whom I do not know and there are some whom I have never heard of. There is one in the House today who is dead lucky to be here still and he is the last remaining one—the member for the West Coast. So it is quite an unusual situation to find oneself in. I remember of course 3 years ago coming here for the first time getting to speak on a lot of bills I knew nothing about so to come here 4 years later and get to speak on another one I know nothing about is quite an irony.But none the less I now know a lot about the bill and I am going to make a few comments on it because although the previous speaker from Napier made the point that this bill is not meant to be controversial and I am sure that by the time it gets to Parliament it is not controversial most of the issues that are dealt with by bills like this including this one have gone through at times some quite controversial local consultation. In other words they go through local councils. Almost invariably they are to do with local councils—their ability to use to swap to transfer land or to even sell land—and often these are quite controversial issues in small local communities. By the time they get to the House no doubt they are no longer controversial.As a person who formerly dealt with—or lived in—the local government precinct for quite some time I had a lot to do with these sorts of things. They concern all sorts of things—things such as houses that are across boundaries of reserves and have been there for generations. In fact I have got one in my electorate right now of a very similar nature where there is a house across a piece of land that was swapped under a Treaty of Waitangi settlement and the house is occupying a piece of that land. So councils need to move to try to rationalise these issues and they need to come before Parliament and the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill deals with these issues on an infrequent basis.These issues accumulate over time. It is not unusual for cowsheds to be across road reserve boundaries. It is not unusual—in fact it is very common for road reserves or roads to be on reserve land where at the time they were put there of course there was no cognisance taken of where the boundary was but none the less they became part of a reserve. That is a frequent thing that councils come across. In the 2004 floods in the Manawatū-Rangitīkei for example there were numerous roads that needed major repairs made to them often going across private property going across reserve land and in all sorts of places and these necessitated land swaps and all sorts of issues like that. They would come before the council and often because the roads were on reserve land they needed to come back to the Government for a decision.So there is a lot of consultation going on around this sort of stuff in councils. Often as I said in small local communities there is quite a bit of interest in the small piece of reserve land that gets dealt with. This particular bill of course is dealing with some larger issues than that and some of them are quite old. As the Minister said there will be some significant changes made to this bill as we move along through Supplementary Order Papers. That is necessary as well as things change pretty quickly really in this type of process and decisions are made and we move on.I want to talk also about a reserve in the Manawatū district for example that was transferred to the regional council’s governance. The transfer needed to come through Parliament or become an Act of Parliament in order for it to take place because it transferred between one local authority and another. You would not imagine for a minute that that would be necessary but that is one of the complications that happen in the course of our law around land over hundreds of years in fact. I notice in this bill that there is an item around the Winton racecourse. Racecourses are often governed under the Racing Act. Many of them are in reserve or put in reserve and held in perpetuity for community use. Whether they are racecourses or not in the long term of course is a matter of conjecture but none the less when they go to have their use changed they often have to become the topic of an Act of Parliament to get the land use changed.Agricultural and Pastoral Society showgrounds throughout New Zealand are in a similar situation. The 1908 Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Act controls a large number of Agricultural and Pastoral showgrounds right throughout New Zealand and often these also have to become part of an Act or a local bill or a private bill is needed to change the land use of those pieces of land. The Palmerston North Showgrounds in Palmerston North is a classic example of that. It required an Act of Parliament in order for the city council to be able to take it out of the Manawatū and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Society’s ownership. Of course the showgrounds have moved over to Feilding now.As the Minister referred to there are two substantive changes referred to in the select committee report on this bill. Interestingly I think it will be the intention to withdraw both of those or cancel both of those as a result of consultation that has taken place since this bill came to Parliament in I think it was 2008. It is not surprising I guess that there are some changes needed to be made as a result of that. I am quite sure that we can see a number of further changes made to it during the course of the Committee stage as a result of the same debate because as I said earlier these types of issues are constantly before local government and they constantly need to be reviewed. So although this is a very slow process—I think the previous bill came to the House in 2003; scarcely in memory—we now have got to 2015 and we are just about to pass the next bill. Fortunately most organisations that are dealing with these kinds of things are not frustrated by the time factor because they have been here for ever and they are going to be here for ever in the future. It is often just a pedantic issue of who has control of the land and who is able to make decisions on it.Interestingly as a result of the sale of reserve land the Government pockets half of the money anyway. So it is not of great interest to local communities to sell reserve land because they give half the value of that land to the Government. The other half the councils get their hands on. So who knows whether the local community is going to get a great deal of benefit out of this anyway? It is really a rationalisation process. In the case of councils they often have quite large tracts of land—not in one place of course; many many small pieces of land—that are in these types of situations. They are expensive to administer and they are a little bit of a nuisance but they are very hard to deal with as well so it is really in councils’ interest that we get bills like this before Parliament every now and again and make sure we get them I guess passed in a form that enables the community to move on to the next step really.I am very pleased to see that at least the Labour Party is supporting this bill. I am sure New Zealand First will support this bill. I cannot guarantee that my colleague down there in the Greens will support it though. He is not here today Steffan—oh I am sorry. Apologies Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Your apology is noted on the record.IAN McKELVIE: He is here in spirit. I am not sure whether he will support it or not. But it is an interesting topic and it is one as I said that is very complicated in the background but relatively simple when it gets to Parliament to be passed. I am also very pleased to see that a few members of the Manawatū district have come to listen to this debate as enlightening and as exciting as it will be.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And I will just remind the member that referring to people in the gallery is a breach.IAN McKELVIE: Apologies Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is now on the record as well.Hon Damien O’Connor: They don’t want to be associated with you.IAN McKELVIE: No. The member for West Coast - Tasman is probably quite right. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support this bill as it moves to the next stage in Parliament. I am sure that the Committee stage of the debate and the Committee stage of this bill will be highly enlightening and I look forward to listening to that debate with interest and even participating in it. I notice that the member for West Coast - Tasman just cannot wait to get up so thank you.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I acknowledge the previous speaker Ian McKelvie. I think he did a very good job given the fact that he was not on the Primary Production Committee at the time and he has been around for some time. The best way to summarise this bill is that it is the best non - non-controversial legislation that I have seen in this House. The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is traditionally supposed to be non-controversial. Well there was not much about this bill that was non-controversial I would have to say.I can run through some of the things to be fair that there was not huge debate around. One of them is the Winton Racecourse Reserve Management Ordinance of 1873. Trustees were to be on there for a lifetime. We have in fact provided for them to be there for 3 years. There are some sensible amendments through the bill—some land to go into roading in Paparoa National Park and Taieri Airport land to be changed. But there were as was raised in earlier speeches a few controversial issues that I do recall. I have read through a few things and in fact I was reminded of them when I met with a group in Ōpua about 3 weeks ago. I had hoped that the issue would have been resolved but alas it has not been. It is the issue of the esplanade reserve at Ōpua in the Bay of Islands. I do not want to—in fact I do not have the time—to go into the whole history of this but this bill was an attempt to resolve an issue that has been around since 1966 when this boatyard was built and reserve land was utilised. When the new owner came into this and purchased it in 1994 he needed to utilise some reserve land to run his boat operation. There has been a lot of to-ing and a lot of fro-ing and a lot of arguments over the years to try to get some certainty for the boatyard owner. We had some sympathy for that. The select committee in an attempt to offer some security and certainty did insert some clauses that now the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is going to remove. The question of why has to be asked.There is quite a lot of litigation. The fact is that there is an informal agreement to allow the boatyard owner to utilise reserve land and he was uncertain about his future and he wanted to get it tidied up. We thought that it was a reasonably non-controversial issue so we inserted it. It is controversial and I would say that it did push the boundaries of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill’s intention. However since the bill was introduced and since being processed in fact there have been legal rulings on this the most recent one being from Judge Heath on 10 March 2015. The judge decided to quash a 2013 decision and ruled that “the decision whether to consent to such easements be remitted back to the Minister for reconsideration”.The issue here is whether the district council or the Minister of Conservation has the rightful authority to offer the gentleman some certainty. Unfortunately I suspect that the Government’s removing these clauses from the bill would have given parliamentary certainty but that easement right would have ended with the sale from this gentleman to someone else as was the intent of the select committee. The attempt to hand the right back to the district council means that potentially the district council just writes out a right or issues a right I guess it thinks in perpetuity over what is rightfully Crown land under the jurisdiction of the Department of Conservation and thereby the Minister. So in fact all the debate and all the consideration of the select committee amount to nothing—to nought. I feel a little sad about that because I think the select committee genuinely tried to reach a solution that was a fair one—that is issuing easements for current use but not perpetuating the property rights and handing them over to the person because it is quite a complex issue.In the meantime the letter that I have received—it is a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of Conservation the Hon Maggie Barry—points out that actually because of the controversy there was potentially going to be a gift of significant waterfront land to the community of Paihia but that gift has been withdrawn. So this issue has not gone away in spite of the attempts of the select committee to deal with it in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. The Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister actually hands back to the council and to the Minister a dilemma that they will have to work through and that ultimately I believe will come back to the select committee.I will just deal with a few other issues in the bill. As was pointed out by a couple of speakers Auckland Council had an interest in this. It was in fact the development to set up the Auckland Art Gallery at Albert Park. There would be many around the country who would probably say “Who cares?” but indeed it was an emotional issue for many people in and around Auckland who were tied up with heritage and with the art gallery. I think the issue was to do with the process by Auckland Council—I think the mayor at the time might have been Mr Banks so it is little wonder perhaps. Anyway that issue is hopefully resolved here.There were some submissions about the Auckland volcanic cones. People were concerned about handing back to the Minister of Conservation the right to take control of it. The Primary Production Committee was comfortable with that having heard those submissions. Then of course we had the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area—again an area that the select committee decided there had not been enough consultation on so it deleted the intentions and the provisions in the bill for that.The insertionsto deal with the Ōpua situation—which as I say was an unusual step for a select committee—have now been taken out. The Minister could possibly claim that they should be taken out because nothing in this bill should be controversial. Controversy around the other issues is relatively minor and it is still relatively major over Ōpua. I just ask of the Government in taking these provisions out that it considers very fairly the situation up there because there is a lot of feeling on the matter. There is a view and a suspicion that the district council might just override conservation land intentions and hand the rights to the gentleman. I think the gentleman might have to beaware—and I am not going to use his name—that if the council does that it will offer no certainty into the futurebecause there is likely to be litigation. In fact a group is taking a challenge to the courts on that ruling. In the end hours and hours of select committee work have not resolved something that does need to be resolved.I will just go back and make reference to a couple of other things; I am not going to drag this out other than to say that I acknowledge my colleague the Hon David Parker. He was introducing a bill to try to resolve and tidy up a whole lot of these issues. I think that the select committee way back then—I am the only remaining member—did its very best. I think there probably will be a few other issues brought to the table in the passage of this bill through the House in the weeks going forward—the Ōpua one being among them I guess.The other issue I must mention very briefly is that of the Waitaki District Council and Lookout Point land. There was a view within the community that the transfer of land to what it deemed as reserve land into the hands of effectively developers and the council in fact to develop—Jacqui Dean: Nonsense! It went to the council.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh there is the member Jacqui Dean down there. I would say she should be very careful about advocacy in this area. It was a very tricky issue with a number of people involved in it. The money is supposed to be used in Ōāmaru for the purposes of heritage and I acknowledge that. But there was a lot of emotion and a lot of feeling. The select committee did what it hoped was the best thing with this and that land is indeed going to be transferred and will be developed with some risks.This was an attempt by Parliament to deal with non-controversial legislation. In my view it is non - non-controversial. I guess we will have a few debates on it over the next couple of weeks.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): That is quite a mouthful—“non - non-controversial”—but I take the point of the honourable member Damien O’Connor.The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—otherwise known as the “ROLD Bill”—is quite an interesting bill when you look at some of the history. It is sort of a journey through history really and through the interaction of local government with central government and some of the errors that need to be dealt with in this bill. The bill makes a number of non-controversial changes—and I guess I am in a different camp from the honourable member Damien O’Connor about those—to land statuses resulting from applications from local authorities and Government departments. There are nine changes proposed by the Department of Conservation six by local authorities and one each by the Ministry of Transport and the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board which is of course in the Kaikōura electorate.Matters included in a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill are identified as being non-controversial which is a point of some debate at the moment and they have the consent of all the parties involved. So it is right that we deal with these things through the House today in a bill like this. It is absolutely essential that we get these things sorted out so that the land concerned is actually now used for the purposes that are needed by the people who really should have control of it. The bill corrects historical oversights and removes restrictions on land that are no longer relevant. Time does move on and I will touch on that a little bit later but the bill updates legislation and makes it fit for purpose. It provides for better community use of the land and I think a lot of these particular changes go back to community uses of land that have long since ceased to exist particularly one around the district health board which I will touch on later.It is in line with current Government policy about dealing with rules and regulation and trying to cut through red tape and rules that are no longer fit for purpose or duplicative and in this case that are not even hitting the mark at all. Currently we are running through with the Rules Reduction Taskforce and focusing right on these particular matters. I have had the pleasure of holding two Rules Reduction Taskforce meetings where we have engaged with the councils and with various industry sector groups identifying issues that might be dealt with. My understanding is that there is an interim report going to the relevant Minister who will be able to come up with some really good changes that will get rid of some of those duplicative rules so we avoid having to wait as long as we have in this case with some of these rules and mistakes going right back to the 1800s. That is really a long time ago and they should have been dealt with many years ago I would suggest.Touching on the points made earlier that it really should not get to this stage and that councils and district health boards should not be seeking law changes just to suit their purposes with the land that they own after they have carried out some sort of change it really is not apparent that it is a problem until you are part-way through the process and the relevant authorities get to a position where they were—in the case of the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board at Wairau Hospital—already in the process of upgrading or rebuilding the hospital. I can report that the Wairau Hospital rebuild is actually complete now but none the less it still needs to be brought up to date with these relevant changes.Clauses 24 to 27 relate to the land that the Marlborough District Council’s Picton office is on. The council wishes to validate a previous dealing with the land and remove the interest in relation to the Picton Institute Act 1864 from the title of the land. So as I said it goes back quite some time—in fact in 1864 in Picton they had their own council. They no longer do; they come under the Marlborough District Council. In 1864 there was somewhat of a boom going on in oil—whale oil not mineral oil—and in fact the whole area and landscape has changed. This demonstrates I think how these bills and things have got completely out of whack. Interestingly I had Ron Perano in my office the other day. The Perano family are a very famous whaling family who go right back to the beginning of whaling in the Marlborough Sounds. He had some really interesting stories to tell about how they coped in those days whaling and using their whaleboats around the Sounds. Yes I am coming back to the bill Mr Speaker.The Picton Institute Act of 1864 authorised a superintendent of the province of Marlborough to convey the Picton office land to trustees as a site for the Picton Institute. The transfer took place in 1903. Land was unlawfully transferred to the representatives of the borough for Picton. Accordingly clause 26 validates the transfer of the land in 1903 and clause 27 repeals the Picton Institute Act of 1864. The reason this all happened back in 1903 was that the last of the trustees died and replacements could not be found for them. Then the institute unlawfully transferred the land. So that mistake goes right back really to the unfortunate demise of the trustees and nobody stepping up to take their places. Had they done so things could have been dealt with in a lawful manner. We would not be dealing with this today. However that is history. As I said the building itself is no longer used. It is used by the Marlborough District Council but there is no Picton Institute any longer—there is no Picton Council. So it is quite right that this bill deals with that.Clauses 28 to 34 relate to the five pieces of land owned by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. One of those pieces of land is a bit of land out at French Pass for a public health nurse. That is no longer used. There is no public health nurse stationed out there. Back in those days of course when this was dealt with all of the Marlborough Sounds was being farmed. It was cleared of trees. There was some logging done initially. It was cleared of trees and being farmed. We had a large population living in that area in the Sounds. If you have ever been out there or if anyone else has been out that way it is a very long winding drive on a modern road. You can fly in and perhaps that is the best way to get in or go by boat but in those days communications were very difficult and it was quite right and proper that the district health board had a station out there for public health. That is no longer required hence this bill. In fact today much of that land is reverting back to native as it should do and it is very beautiful. Accordingly clauses 30 to 34 remove the relevant trusts from the titles and revoke any reservations of the land as reserves.I would like to turn now to what the member from the Opposition mentioned earlier—the Overseas Investment Office relevant to the Land Information office. I think it really should not go unchallenged. He talked about some of the approvals that have gone through and mentioned the Crafar farms which has been bought by Shanghai Pengxin. I had the pleasure with other members of the relevant committee for this bill the Primary Production Committee of travelling around and looking at the Shanghai Pengxin operation which is run by Landcorp now. I think it has demonstrated that actually the Act does work and the Land Information office and the Minister are doing their job. Shanghai Pengxin had as part of its conditions undertaken to spend $18 million upgrading that farm and actually it had spent $22 million. I think that brings back the importance of the Land Information office and the Minister responsible for this bill.One other thing I will just touch on before I finish is the Ōāmaru and Waitaki District Council land which is Lookout Point or Forrester Heights. That goes back to the 1885 1937 and 1947 Orders in Council all one after the other putting error on top of error. So it is appropriate that this bill deals with that. It is with pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I think the fact that we are debating this bill shows the emptiness of the Government’s legislative programme. The bill was developed by the former Labour Government and the former land Minister the Hon David Parker introduced it in July 2008. It was reported back from the Primary Production Committee in September 2009 and it has languished on the Order Paper ever since.I would much rather be debating a new reserves bill to improve the protection of our marine environment. The National Government has been promising a new marine reserves bill for several elections but it has yet to deliver. New Zealand was once a world leader in marine protection—in 1977 we established the first no-take marine reserve at Leigh off Cape Rodney—but we now lag well behind. We have got less than half a percent of our sea space protected as marine reserve and most of that is around the Subantarctic Islands and the Kermadec Islands. But we are debating this bill instead of a new marine reserves bill. I am pleased though that we are not debating the changes to the Resource Management Act which was another piece of legislation that the Government promised but has stalled.The Green Party is supporting this bill. We opposed it at its first reading and that was largely because of the changes associated with the Auckland Art Gallery and the extension to the art gallery taking over some land in Albert Park. The bill enables some of the land in Albert Park to be alienated so that it can be amalgamated with the title of the Auckland Art Gallery. That has now happened. It is a fait accompli. The legislation is retrospective in legalising that so we will be supporting this bill.I would like to pick up a few comments made by the previous speaker Stuart Smith. He seemed to associate the bill with the Rules Reduction Taskforce. I would be very concerned if that is where the Rules Reduction Taskforce is going because this bill and the Reserves Act are about proper legal process when it comes to decisions about land status. Certainly this bill is making some small changes to the status of particular parcels of land where roads have been widened—for example in Westland Tai Poutini National Park Kahurangi National Park and Paparoa National Park—but it is not seeking to change fundamentally the content of legislation which I think was where the member was heading with the Government’s efforts to undermine good regulation that actually protects the wider community interests.Although I am grateful to the Hon Damien O’Connor for his detailed explanation of what the select committee did in relation to the esplanade reserve at Ōpua and the additional clauses that the select committee recommended be included they were very controversial because those clauses were effectively overriding the Reserves Act and the processes under the Reserves Act and were enabling the Far North District Council to grant easements over the esplanade reserve which would be contrary to the provisions of the Reserves Act. That is why we strongly support Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the Minister’s name which takes out clauses 34A 34B and 34C because they are controversial. I think that had they been in the bill as originally introduced then potentially it would have attracted a lot more submissions because of the precedent nature of those changes to the Reserves Act to make it much easier for councils to accommodate commercial activities on public land that have no place to be there. We are very pleased that the Supplementary Order Paper is going through to take those changes to the Reserves Act out of the bill because they are controversial.I think that some of the other changes—particularly the ones where there are changes to land status in three national parks to accommodate road widening—highlight the need for really good process when development activities that will affect reserve land and the value of that landare going to occur. The road widening at Punakaiki for example resulted in the clearance of some vegetation in the national park—some of the magnificent Nīkau palms there. It occurred right opposite the entrance to the Pancake Rocks walk and it certainly allowed a lot more parking for buses and cars but it has meant that there is quite a transition in what was quite a narrow corridor through the park which made people appreciate the park more—its landscapes—and which made traffic slow down. It is now a very wide tarsealed road. It has happened. It is appropriate that it be authorised through the bill but it does demonstrate that perhaps the process that the Transport Agency and its predecessors went through was not that robust—the fact that it has now come to Parliament seeking retrospective provision for that. We are supporting the bill and we are very pleased with the Supplementary Order Paper that removes those provisions around Ōpua. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise to take a fairly brief call in the second reading of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is quite a long time since the first reading of this bill—6 years in fact. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the Committee of the whole House but only because it is at that stage that we intend to recommend that the bill be returned to the Primary Production Committee for reconsideration. Either that or it be thrown out because it is difficult to envisage how anything that is contained in it can be so desperately urgent as to warrant the expenditure of further time in the House when it has languished for so long on the backburners of Government priority. Irrespective of what other members have said about it being non-controversial and irrespective of the fact that some matters take 5 or 6 years to come back to the House life goes on.We do not seek a return to the select committee because I as a member of the present incarnation of the select committee have any particular desire to undertake a rather soporific delving into the technical detail of a somewhat elderly omnibus bill. Rather it is that in the 6 years that have passed between the first reading and now the second reading of this vitally important piece of legislation a number of other enactments have it would appear superseded or otherwise overwritten—overwritten overridden—parts of the bill as it stands as other members have made mention of.Looking back at the Hansard from 5 March 2009 when this bill received its first reading and was sent to the Primary Production Committee is a wee bit like looking back in time. The list of names of honourable members who have now long since departed these halls for what we can only hope are better and greener pastures for them is testament to the present irrelevancy or otherwise of the bill.I am referring to Shane Ardern the chairperson with whom I had the pleasure of serving as an observing member on the Primary Production Committee in the last term of Parliament; the Hon Jim Anderton a name known to everybody; Brendon Burns; the Hon John Carter a predecessor of yourself in the Chair Mr Assistant Speaker; Dr Ashraf Choudhary; Sandra Goudie; the Hon George Hawkins; Colin King who was previously my member of Parliament and was replaced by Stuart Smith a current member of the select committee and also my current member of Parliament because I live in the Kaikōra electorate—not for long however as I am about to cross the border of the Ashleigh River and actually become a resident of the Waimakariri electorate so Mr Matt Doocey who is my colleague will become my new member of Parliament—and Sue Bradford.All were very fine members and I have no doubt that their individual and collective contributions to this bill were of great merit. Perhaps the one surviving member of the select committee the Hon Damien O’Connor may be in a better position to comment on the relative merits of the contributions.New Zealand First has no institutional memory of this bill. Mr McKelvie remarked that the bill came about before he was in Parliament and in actual fact this bill came through in the 49th Parliament when New Zealand First was on sabbatical as it were. I have to say that it is now generally accepted of course that Parliament was the poorer for our absence and the nation now rejoices in our triumphant glorious and long overdue return. But I digress somewhat—I will come back to the bill. I apologise for that. I just pre-empted your wise judgment Mr Assistant Speaker.The bill itself deals with a number of issues 17 in total listed with some 58 clauses pertaining to them. A number of those as the Minister alluded to have been addressed by the passage of time or at least altered by other separate legislation in the interim. Some matters it would seem could not wait long enough for this bill to work its way up the priority ladder—up the popularity ladder—and come back to the front of the House on the Order Paper. Just as an example and this has been mentioned before Lookout Point in the Waitaki was dealt with in 2013 in the form of a member’s bill in the name of Jacqui Dean. A splendid bill it was; I am sure I voted for it. The Auckland volcanic cones land which is now under a completely different and separate piece of legislation has different legal ownership different status and different management under a deal that was settled with iwi in 2012. And any number of pieces of road on the West Coastto which this bill pertains which my colleague from the Greens made mention of are now probably made very largely irrelevant because of one of the more onerous clauses in the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Act which was kind of bulldozed through this House in the face of all reasonable questioning just last year and made changes to the ways in fact in which roads can be created on the West Coast under the ordinances of that bill.Mr McKelvie also made mention of road reserves and the boundaries of those road reserves and the issues that local councils have to deal with when things occurred in the past and where boundaries were perhaps not given the due regard that they would be given today. Things just happened and although there was a road reserve on paper rights of way were established across it. When problems cropped up the councils had to go back and revisit those particular issues the boundaries had to be redrawn there were land swaps and of course these types of titles that are placed in a road reserve are altered by councils from time to time anyway—under due process and in consultation with the people who elect those councils.In actual fact I have been dealing with one such issue in my local rohe I will call it. I cannot call it my electorate obviously; I am not the electorate MP. But in the area in which I am based one such issue is happening at this very time. There is a controversy between some residents of a particular area and some other residents as to the nature and status of an old-formed legal road reserve that is now subject to some altered use. It is a bit of a headache for the council but one which hopefully it will resolve to everybody’s satisfaction.Dr Richard Worth back in 2009 remarked: “This legislation deals with some very iconic areas of New Zealand. I am sure that not too many pieces of legislation can lay claim to resolving issues with three of our national parks Kahurangi Paparoa and Westland; one of the most iconic features of Dunedin city the Octagon; all of the volcanic cones dotted around Auckland city; and an offshore island marine sanctuary. The benefits of this legislation are considerable. There will be real benefits for people throughout this country from the community in Port Chalmers whose residents will see their local bowling club’s lease formalised to the Otago Aero Club which will have its future secured and to the art aficionados in Auckland who will appreciate the extension of the Auckland Art Gallery.”So the benefits of this legislation are considerable. That is what the good Dr Worth stated and indeed they might well be—or perhaps they might well have been had something been done about it at the time. But I do not know what has happened over the last 6 years with regard to the issues pertaining to this bill as far as the Dunedin Octagon is concerned. Perhaps Mr Woodhouse could inform us of that—never mind the Port Chalmers bowling club the Otago Aero Club or indeed the Auckland Art Gallery. I have no idea and I would hazard a guess that I am not alone and that many members of this House probably have not followed those issues through in detail.So that being the case in closing I reiterate that New Zealand First will support this bill reaching the Committee of the whole House where these matters might be addressed. And because we recognise that it could the way things are going be another 6 years before that Committee stage comes about I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House in delaying that prospect any further. Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): It is a great pleasure to take a call in the second reading of the Reserves and Others Lands Disposal Bill. I do so not only as the previous Minister for Land Information but also as the National member of Parliament based in Dunedin for whom the three issues that this bill relates to in the Dunedin area are very important. I want to take issue with both Mr Prosser and Ms Sage over the inference that this bill is somehow before us because the Government is running out of work to do. I suggest that quite the opposite is the case. As the Minister I was working very hard with the Leader of the House in what was a very crowded legislative programme in the lead up to the 2014 election to bring this bill back and to have it passed into law.There are some very important things in this bill and Mr Prosser and his party seek to have the bill dismissed. Well that will make him welcome at the Port Chalmers Bowling Club I am sure. They will be buying drinks for him; as will certainly the members of the Taieri airfield who are very keen to ensure that the changes being made through this bill are passaged in a timely manner. And indeed they have been lobbying me—Hon David Parker: Come on—a timely manner?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well in a more timely manner. And I think Mr O’Connor did articulate the problem that has been faced by successive Ministers of Land Information insofar as the bill is intended to be non-controversial and there were a couple of matters that were quite the opposite. Mr Parker is the architect of the bill and I would make no criticism about that because those matters did become apparent after the bill’s introduction.I want to acknowledge and congratulate my friend and colleague the very smart Jacqui Dean member for Waitaki. Mr Prosser has mentioned—but others may not be aware—that the issues concerning Lookout Point have been dealt with through a local bill brought to this House by that hard-working member for Waitaki because of the importance that the Waitaki District Council and the people of Ōāmaru placed on those issues. I presume that Minister Upston will be bringing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage to have the relevant clauses—18 to 20—removed because indeed the effects of those clauses have already been made thanks to that local bill.I do want to turn to the issues related to matters in the greater Dunedin area and in particular the Octagon. I think the matter is important to the Port Chalmers Bowling Club in respect of the recreation reserve and its ability to be able to formalise the leasing arrangements with the Dunedin City Council. I daresay they will not be building statues of Louise Upston down the main street of Port Chalmers any time soon—or of any National MP for that matter—but they may be building statues in the Octagon.Hon David Parker: Was the Star fountain an illegal structure?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well Mr Parker raises a very good question about the Star fountain. It was built before I was born and when that member was in nappies—I think it was about 1963. But actually in order to tell that story one needs to go back to the very early stages of the establishment of Dunedin City. In 1854 in fact the Dunedin Public Lands Ordinance proclaimed that “it shall not be lawful to erect any building whatever within or upon the centre area of the square called Moray Place”. Of course Moray Place shrouds what we now know as the Octagon and it was a barren piece of land for about 10 years. Even after the gold money came rushing into the city in 1861 Bell Hill was a barrier between the Exchange and the Octagon which really prevented the Octagon from being the true spiritual centre of the city that Charles Kettle envisaged. So when with hammer and sickle Bell Hill was cut through not only creating a passage through the Octagon but also joining effectively the city together with one main street the Octagon then became the centre of the city.Despite that ordinance it appears to have been completely ignored for over 100 years. In fact Cargill’s monument was first erected and then when the central carriageway was erected the monument itself was moved south to the Exchange. Of course the Burn’s statue then fast followed and other structures in complete breach of first the Dunedin Public Lands Ordinance and then the reserves legislation that was passed in 1957 which confirmed the prohibition on the erection of buildings or other structures—they did not have to be buildings. Thanks to an endowment I think from The Star the Star fountain was erected in 1963. It cost about £5000 in old money. I am sure Mr Parker and other MPs who grew up in Dunedin have fond memories of heading there on a Friday night and watching the display of the fountain and the magnificent colours to the tune of the Waltz of the Flowers I think it was. I am trying to remember when it was. It was probably in the early 1990s. When the last big renovation of the Octagon was done the Star fountain was taken away and a stage was erected. It was intended to be a permanent structure but the 1957 legislation that this bill intends to remedy prevented that structure from becoming permanent. Years after it was built and it had become the centre of plenty of events—I think the Christmas lights were switched on from that stage and so on—the council was required or took it upon itself to de-erect that structure because it was in breach of the present 1957 legislation. This bill changes that. That is actually very important.I have been approached by those city leaders who are in charge of the commemorations for the First World War—the WW100 committee down there—and they have a plan which is as yet not funded but I am hoping that they will be able to raise some funds to create a statue of a soldier and his mother looking down lower Stuart Street towards the Dunedin Railway Station. They have got a very elaborate structure planned but it will be unlawful to erect that structure in 2017 or 2018 as they hope to do unless this legislation is passed. So I challenge Mr Prosser and his New Zealand First committee to come back to this House during the Committee stage and say why this is so trivial and unimportant to the people who are affected by it including in Dunedin that it should be dismissed. Certainly the Taieri Airport stakeholders have been on at me and probably to many other Dunedin-based MPs to have those changes made and indeed I was talked out of following the clever thinking of Ms Dean in creating a local bill because of the undertaking that we had that this bill would be passed now that the controversial features of it have been removed.I want to acknowledge John Bezett probably the longest-serving Dunedin city councillor his advocacy to get this thing through and his colleagues. I also think that the stakeholders in the Winton Racecourse the Braemar Hospital and the Wairau Hospital will appreciate the many other benefits that will come out of this bill when it is passed. We have probably stacked up a few other reserves issues around the country in the time since this one was last fashioned and I do hope that we can get back to the cycle of passing one of these bills in a reasonably more timely matter every Parliament or two. These are important matters for local communities. I support this bill. I am pleased to see it up. I am looking forward to its passage and I commend it.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. It is an honour to take this brief call on this important bill the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill in its second reading. Labour supports it. I have heard previous speakers talk about it being a non-controversial bill but looking at the process by which this bill has come to the House it is anything but non-controversial.Let us look at when the bill was first introduced. I note that it was introduced on 15 August 2008 by a fine colleague of ours the Hon David Parker who I understand did an enormous amount of work to bring the bill to the House at that point in time so I want to acknowledge Mr Parker for that. We had the first reading on 10 March 2009 and the Primary Production Committee reported back on 29 September 2009. We are now in 2015.Previous speakers have made comments around the delay taken to get this piece of legislation in front of the House. I acknowledge the previous speaker Mr Woodhouse saying there are competing interests when it comes to determining what is on the legislative programme. But seriously one of the risks that we run in delaying such important legislation from my perspective is that things change in our communities. I want to particularly point out the change in iwi Treaty settlements and ensuring that those parcels of land that are protected and reserved for Māori interests are protected through this piece of legislation.Like I said the Hon David Parker introduced the bill in 2008 to change the status of some selected parcels of land. We continue to support it though we have a few reservations which we rightfully raised at the select committee. The select committee reported back in September 2009. This illustrates how desperate National is and how lacking it is in ideas.It is so lacking I guess it probably pays to acknowledge the Ministers in charge of this bill. Firstly we had Dr Richard Worth who was the Minister in charge of the bill from that side of the House at the first reading. Since the end of his career in scandal it was taken over by Maurice Williamson whose time as the Minister ended again in scandal. So it is probably the intention of the current Minister the Hon Louise Upston to make sure we get the passage of this legislation through as quickly as possible.I want to touch on two parts of the legislation which were raised at the select committee namely by the number of submitters who presented who overwhelmingly were not happy with the process. Labour joins with those submitters in saying that the process followed by the Auckland Council probably could have been done a wee bit better. Just to highlight what I mean by that the Auckland Council under the then mayor John Banks thought that it could make some decisions and then bring to Parliament some legislation that retrospectively approved some of the decisions at council level—and we all know that legislation passed in retrospect throws its own risks and challenges.I earlier mentioned how things change in our environment given that we are now 6 years on since the select committee reported back and I did mention briefly the importance of iwi Treaty settlements and the controversial land. I want in my closing remarks to make the point that in the Supplementary Order Papers that were introduced on this bill there are two particular parcels of land that I want to acknowledge: the Māhinepua Bay reserve land and the esplanade of Ōpua. I want to make sure that the Government of the day can assure the House that no individual particularly of Māori interest will be disadvantaged by the passing of this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to be taking a call on this billthis afternoon the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. The progression of this bill will be welcomed by the community groups wanting recognition of their right to use the land specified within this bill and it will give community groups certainty. This bill actually passed through a previous Primary Production Committee of which I am now a member. Like others referred to in the House this afternoon I did not meet or know many of the people on that committee and many of them are not here as parliamentary colleagues now. One of those members who was on the committee was my predecessor Shane Ardern who was the chair and I note that he has spoken on this bill before.For me this bill really deals with getting outcomes for communities and I want to reinforce what Minister Woodhouse talked about before—about the importance of what we are trying to do here for the local communities. It does not give me any pleasure to sit here and listen to members of Parliament on the opposite side of the House talking about this bill having come back to the House because we are lacking in ideas. I am sure the members of those communities that are waiting on the outcomes of this bill are not sitting there thinking that there is a lack of ideas in anything that we are trying to do here.This bill is designed to deal with non-controversial matters. It is largely administrative and technical and it is actually the administrative and technical things that frustrate people in the community when they are trying to achieve something in their community—when they just want to get up and running when they just want to get started and when they just want clarity about how they are able to use land in certain situations. Certainly our community groups do not need any more red tape than necessary any more legal costs or anything of such a nature put in their way when dealing with the administrative and technical matters that we are covering off in this piece of legislation.Others who have spoken today have referred to the Rules Reduction Taskforce and I know from the meetings that I have attended that nothing frustrates people in the communities more than having things standing in their way when they can see a need in their community to have something that is better and more exciting. It is frustrating enough for individuals and it does become extremely frustrating for people who are working in the community. So it is important to deal with these issues so that communities know where they stand.Communities can be parochial. I know that because I come from Taranaki and people often tell us that Taranaki people are parochial. That is because they are proud and they actually see practical solutions. I would suggest Taranaki is no different from the communities in Dunedin and in Winton that are being referred to today which are really proud of where they live and of where they are placed and which want these issues sorted out so that they can get on with their projects.I really would like to take issue with the question of relevancy in the New Zealand First member’s presentation when he asked how relevant this legislation is. This is really relevant for the people who live in those communities and who need this legislation to happen. The member also referred to the fact that life has gone on. Life does not go on for the communities that are involved. We might be busy every day taking care of the things that we need to do looking at other bills and looking at other pieces of legislation but for the people in those communities who are working hard to try to get these things done life does not go on.When I look at the places and the needs of these communities for getting this piece of legislation passed we are looking at things like art galleries. We are looking at things like reserve land. We are looking at things like bowling clubs and racecourses—obviously the Taieri Airport is part of this. We are looking at things like health boards that are looking to better utilise land for health and disability services. A lot of people in those communities are actually volunteers and they are actually working in the interests of the whole community. From my experience in my electorate when I go around it is the volunteers of these communities who actually keep those communities up and running and we should not make things any more difficult for them than we need to. It is all about keeping the communities running. They do it for the love of it. Those people in that bowling club are actually doing that particular activity because they know it is going to make something better and special for their community. So I think it is an absolute no-brainer that we move forward with this bill.The controversial sections have been removed as we have heard about this afternoon. This seems to be a piece of non-controversial legislation. I have not been privy to any of the submissions in terms of being present but it seems as if we have come out with a piece of legislation here that is very very sensible moving forward. I think Government has an important role in dealing with authorisations transfers and validations of matters relating to Crown land reserves and other land held for private and public purposes. This Government takes the role very seriously and it is now moving this bill forward following a lengthy select committee process. It has been a lengthy process but it does not make it any less important for those people who are working to get this done.When we look at things like the Winton Racecourse in Southland—clauses 56 to 58—this will provide wider community and independent input into management of the racecourse. Under these clauses the Minister of Conservation will be able to appoint at any one time up to five trustees for the racecourse and will be able to limit each appointment to a 3-year period. Currently three trustees are appointed for life and responsibility for their replacement lies with the Minister of Conservation. To me it is not productive for a community to have people appointed to a board for life and to have somebody else outside that community having to take that responsibility when those people either come to the end of their life or when they come to the point where they are just unable to do the job any more. So it is just common-sense non-controversial legislation that we are trying to take care of here.Reserves and other lands disposal legislation is enacted from time to time as matters arise in order to effect non-controversial changes and when a land issue cannot be dealt with in any other legislation. For that reason alone it is very very important that we keep moving with this piece of legislation. It deals only with authorisations transfers and validations of matters relating to Crown land reserves or other land that is held for public and private purpose and I just think that the people in those communities would be very very grateful if we kept this bill moving forward. It is my pleasure to speak this afternoon and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The last speaker said that life does not go on for communities. I hope that they were not holding their breath during the 7-year delay that we have had so far with this bill otherwise those members would have turned cold and blue like the members of the National Government. [Interruption] I have got to liven this debate up. It is getting a bit quiet in here is it not?You know it is somewhat sad. As other members have noted I was actually the Minister—I was considerably younger—when I introduced this bill in the House on 15 August 2008 I am told. A Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bill is meant to be a mechanism whereby Parliament tidies up things that have gone wrong in the status of pieces of land most of which are generally reserves. Occasionally those pieces of land have been wrongly described as to reserve status and so they cannot be used for the purposes for which they were intended. Pieces of land to which this applies crop up periodically throughout the country and there is generally a piece of legislation like this that tidies up a lot at the same time. It does not mean to say that no one disagrees with the outcome in respect of any one piece of land because there are always a few naysayers—not always but often—who say that the opposite to that which the Crown thinks is the case is in fact correct.Indeed there are a number of bits of land that have had their status changed or clarified pursuant to this legislation where there was discontent. One example was in respect of the Auckland Art Gallery development where there was controversy as to whether a relatively small encroachment on to the adjacent Albert Park by the extension or the renovation of the Auckland Art Gallery was to be permitted. The Auckland City Council thought it was legitimate. The Labour Government of the day with the agreement of other parties agreed and that is why it found its way into this bill—to clarify that uncertainty.Another one that has hung around for a long long time—and shows why this bill ought to have been progressed earlier—relates to what is described in this bill as Lookout Point land but what is colloquially known in the Ōāmaru region as Forrester Heights. Because this bill was so delayed in Parliament a lot of the agreements for sale that the Waitaki District Council had in respect of selling that land fell over. It had a clause that said that the subdivision had to be completed by a certain date and that it was subject to the title being granted which effectively meant that the status of the land as being endowment land held for whatever purposes the council wanted to put it to—including its sale and turning it into money for purchasing other assets—needed to be made clear before that subdivision could proceed.Because there was such delay on the part of this Parliament occasioned by the National Government not giving this bill a reading those agreements for sale and purchase passed their critical date and they were voided and those lands cannot now be resold at the same price. As a consequence the Waitaki District Council has quite a hole in its budget with the money already having been spent mainly on the restoration of the Ōāmaru Opera House. That particular saga dragged on for so long that a local bill had to be presented by Jacqui Dean covering exactly the same clauses and putting an additional cost on the parliamentary system because it had to be done again separately and this also caused a fee that had to be paid to the Parliament as is the case with every local bill. So the Waitaki District Council suffered the double blow of both having its land sales fall over because of delay and then having to pay a fee in respect of a local bill to do what this bill was designed to do.Another example—and I may bring forward a Supplementary Order Paper in respect of this—is that for some historical reason that I do not think anyone quite understands the Otago Aero Club land status is unclear and this bill makes it clear that the land does belong to the Otago Aero Club rather than anyone else. But then the Crown has got its hand out at the side and says: “Oh if in the future the Otago Aero Club decides to sell its land half the proceeds of sale have got to be paid back to the Crown.” I would hope that we could get the agreement on both sides of the House Mr Woodhouse to have an amendment to that particular clause in the bill—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Come and lobby me.Hon DAVID PARKER: Sorry?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Come and lobby me.Hon DAVID PARKER: Come and lobby you. This is in clauses 45 and 46 of the bill. New section 9(2A) to be inserted into the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1973 by clause 46 says that “if the Taieri Airport Trust sells the land it must pay half the net proceeds of the sale into a Crown Bank Account.” and the only reason that is in there is that the Crown said that it would not do it otherwise. So there is no principle lying under it. It is some sort of unlikely future eventuality that in the end the Taieri Airport Trust agreed to but I am sure that the member Mr Woodhouse would understand that it is an issue that vexes Mr Julian Smith amongst others and that it is quite unjust. So I hope that we can agree to an amendment to remove the words “However if the Taieri Airport Trust sells the land it must pay half the net proceeds of the sale into a Crown Bank Account.” It would be a better bill for that.The other mistake that was made in respect of this bill actually occurred in the Primary Production Committee and that was to insert into the bill at that late stage provisions relating to Ōpua esplanade reserve land which was inserted in the select committee through proposed clauses 34A 34B and 34C. The bill that went to the select committee did not have that in it. The select committee was somehow convinced that it should go in there but it was quite controversial. It changed legal rights in respect of that piece of land in a way that plenty of people up north thought was wrong. So it should not have been put in this bill particularly because all of the people who were of a different view never got the opportunity at the select committee to put the opposite point of view. So I am pleased that the Government has now agreed to bring forward a Supplementary Order Paper to take out those clauses 34A 34B and 34C which were inserted at the select committee.This is not particularly controversial or significant legislation but it is the sort of machinery of government legislation that should be passed promptly. I have already given you the instance of the losses which would go to many hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars that have been occasioned to the Waitaki District Council because of the lack of alacrity in passing this bill. I am sure that there have been other losses in other parts of the country caused by the uncertainty that has occurred in the period from 2008 until now. From 2008 until now is 7 years—7 years of delay. It should have been cleaned up by 2009 at the latest. Indeed had the Government come to the Labour Opposition and to the other Opposition parties and said “Look we want to get this piece of legislation through. It’s not controversial. You’ve all agreed to it at earlier readings of the bill or just about all of you have agreed to it. Let’s not muck about. Let’s actually get this through. Let’s not have the full length of speeches taken in the debate. Let’s just do our duty and get certainty.” we would have agreed. We would have agreed. This would have been done years ago but this feckless Government did not have the wit to come and say: “Look you guys you actually introduced this bill. Can we get it through?”. We would have cooperated.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): After those sage words of advice from David Parker I will gladly take my 10 minutes to talk about some aspects of this bill. The previous speaker I guess bright-eyed and bushy-tailed back in 2008 introduced the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Here we are today and thank goodness we are not debating Power New Zealand policy or any of those other ideas that the member was proposing.As I read through this bill as the member for New Plymouth I note that there is a section in this bill entitled “Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area”—clauses 42 43 and 44—that has been deleted by the Primary Production Committee in its consideration of the bill. I bring out this point because this bill is being promoted to bring contentment around land issues that individuals or councils need to have straightened out and sorted. But the reason why these three clauses were deleted by the committee is that they created discontent. Perhaps it was done in all good faith and maybe not understood why at that particular time when the bill was introduced but certainly as time progressed it became very clear. As I read through the commentary of the committee under that heading “Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protection Area”—which for those who do not know where that is it is just off Port Taranaki 1.5 kilometres offshore from the fantastic city of New Plymouth or Ngāmotu as these islands are also referred to. The committee—Kris Faafoi: Is there a polling booth there?JONATHAN YOUNG: Actually prior to European arrival in the area iwi did live on that great island offshore from that great city. There was also a whaling station. In fact when James Cook came around New Zealand he looked there in 1770 at the guano deposits. They reminded him of the way that sugar in Europe was stored in heaps or loaves. He named the islands the Sugar Loaf Islands. I think Mr Deputy Speaker you would like to know the reason why. This issue around the Sugar Loaf Islands is very important. The committee said regarding the Sugar Loaf Islands: “We recommend the deletion of clauses 42 43 and 44 from the bill. Removing these clauses has the support of all the parties who made submissions on these clauses of the bill. This would allow further consultation with all affected parties and enable the Government response to the report of the Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 to be incorporated in any future resolution of this matter.”So we go back to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004—the legacy of the caring and sharing party opposite. Peter Moeahu a colourful and well-liked leader in our community who comes from Te Ātiawa noted that the Foreshore and Seabed Act has had no bearing on the already good relationship that he has established with the Department of Conservation and the New Plymouth District Council over the Sugar Loaf Islands. This relationship has protected interests and ensured involvement in the management of the islands. That has been taking place through all these years and then the Foreshore and Seabed Act just overrode all of that. This is what the bill says in clause 43—“Transfer of land to the Crown”—that is the heading of clause 43—“The fee simple estate in the following land is transferred from the Taranaki Regional Council and vested in the Crown:”. Further down in subclause (2) it says: “The fee simple estate”—and it names a number of the islands—“is transferred from the New Plymouth District Council and vested in the Crown.” The reason why these clauses were deleted from this bill is that these islands were incredibly important and significant to local iwi to Te Ātiawa and to Taranaki. Members on the other side when considering the Foreshore and Seabed Act missed that. Then it was included in this bill to vest the ownership of those islands in the Crown. I am sure Peter Moeahu and others of Taranaki and Te Ātiawa would have come and presented to the committee to say: “We want those islands to be vested back to us.”It is this Government—this Government this National Government—that has done more for Māori than the previous Government. I have to tell the story that back in 2009 the Hon Chris Finlayson Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations came to meet the iwi of North Taranaki. He heard from their lips and from their hearts the story of the Land Wars that started 150 years prior on 17 March. He said to them: “We want to sign the head of agreement on the 150th commemoration date of the commencement of those Land Wars in order to start to redress and peel back the issues and the harm that happened.” In August 2014—and Mr Deputy Speaker you will know and see how relevant this is to my speech—it was reported that the Crown had signed a deed of settlement for the historical Treaty claims of Te Ātiawa at the Rangiātea complex in New Plymouth. The Crown was represented by the Hon Chris Finlayson who is held in the highest of regard by iwi in Taranaki. The deed signing was witnessed by the New Plymouth member of Parliament Jonathan Young. The settlement provides—Kris Faafoi: Name-dropper.JONATHAN YOUNG: Name-dropper? I drop the name of the Hon Chris Finlayson any time I can. He is such an excellent member of Parliament and excellent Minister. The settlement provides for the joint vesting of Ngāmotu Sugar Loaf Islands in Te Ātiawa and Taranaki iwi. The joint vesting of Ngāmotu was supported and approved by the New Plymouth District Council and the Taranaki Regional Council after consultation with the public. So here we see a redressing. The best thing I can say is that in this bill there are three deleted clauses because they return to the iwi of Taranaki and the iwi of Te Ātiawa those historic lands that they hold so precious. Thank you.Bill read a second time.Standards and Accreditation BillSecond ReadingHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Standards and Accreditation Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to ensure New Zealand’s standards and conformance system is viable and well functioning and meets the needs of business regulators and consumers into the foreseeable future. The bill achieves this by putting in place new arrangements for New Zealand standards development and approval and by updating the institutional arrangements for the Testing Laboratory Registration Council to better reflect the nature of its functions. The bill brings together the law relating to standards and accreditation of conformity assessment bodies and it repeals and replaces the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972.The new arrangements for standards include the establishment of the New Zealand Standards Approval Board and the New Zealand Standards Executive. The board will approve New Zealand standards and membership of standards development committees and advise the responsible Minister on the currency of New Zealand standards the priority areas for the development of New Zealand standards and the review of existing New Zealand standards. The Standards Executive will be an independent statutory officer located in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. The Standards Executive will be responsible for standards development and will assume responsibility for New Zealand’s membership of the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. These new arrangements will replace the Standards Council which will be disestablished.I have heard the concerns regarding the independence of the standards system. Stakeholders can be assured that this has been a key consideration in the development of the new arrangements. The Standards Approval Board and the Standards Executive are statutorily independent. Neither is subject to the direction of Ministers. The board will be guided by decision-making criteria in the legislation when considering proposed standards and proposed membership of standards development committees. The Standards Executive will be required by the legislation to continue the practice of developing standards by using independent committees of technical experts approved by the board reflecting an expectation of international and domestic standards communities. I am confident that these and other measures will continue to support the independence of the standards system. I also note that there are a number of different institutional models for standards around the world including where the standards development function is located within the Government agency.The current cost recovery model for standards will be strengthened by this bill. The bill provides a framework to allow the Standards Executive to enter into arrangements that cover the life cycle of standards balancing initial development and approval costs with ongoing costs for maintenance and access. This will provide a sustainable financial footing for the standards system—a key driver for change.In relation to accreditation the bill updates the provisions of the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 to reflect the contemporary nature of the functions of the Testing Laboratory Registration Council that relate to accreditation of testing and inspection services. The bill will also rename the council as the Accreditation Council.I commend the Commerce Committee for producing useful commentary in only 4 months and I thank those who submitted on the bill for their contribution. The committee’s analysis of submissions has resulted in a number of sensible recommendations. I am pleased to say that the bill has been amended to provide a more flexible pragmatic and proportional approach to managing actual and perceived conflicts of interest for standards development committee members.As I mentioned the standards will continue to be developed using the committees of technical experts and the representatives of consumer and worker organisations. It is important that any conflicts of interest are identified and managed to ensure transparency and confidence in the standards development process. The bill now strikes a more appropriate balance between ensuring people with the right knowledge and expertise can participate in standards development committees and avoiding capture by a particular interest. The definition of “personally interested” has been altered to narrow the range of interests that it captures. Second potential standards development committee members must disclose any interests to the Standards Executive before their membership is proposed to the Standards Approval Board and on an ongoing basis if interests arise while they are on standards development committees. Third the bill is now explicit that a chairman with statutory functions will be appointed for each standards development committee. The chairperson must not be personally interested.A new provision gives the chairperson a role in managing conflicts of interest in consultation with the Standards Executive. The Standards Executive will support the chairperson in managing the conflict of interest. The register of interests relating to a standards development committee will be available to the Standards Approval Board when it is considering a draft standard for approval. This allows the board to have regard to the nature and extent of the interests when approving or declining a proposal.Another aspect I would like to highlight is the addition of provisions to clarify that New Zealand will continue to participate in standards development committees run by other standards organisations such as Standards Australia. This has always been the intention but the bill now makes it clear that the Standards Executive will propose New Zealand nominees for international and joint standards development committees whom the board will approve or decline.Some changes were also made to clarify the existence of copyright in standards which was a particular concern of some stakeholders. Other changes to the bill are minor and technical in nature and include the deletion of definitions no longer required.In conclusion I once again thank the members of the Commerce Committee and those who provided submissions. I reiterate my view that the bill is stronger for having been through this process and is more able to provide a sustainable responsive standards and conformance system that can facilitate trade provide a platform for productivity and innovation and contribute to health and safety outcomes. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I thank the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for his contribution to the beginning of this second reading of the Standards and Accreditation Bill and also thank the Commerce Committee. We supported this bill at the first reading because we wanted this bill to go through the select committee process. We had concerns that we expressed at the first reading and we thought that because we wanted to hear from the sector those who are experts in putting the standards process together. We wanted to make sure that the concerns that we had heard from the industry and that we had ourselves got a public airing. It was not an adversarial select committee process; it was respectful. We heard a lot of submissions from people who are experts in this area. Those submissions only solidified our concerns that we had at the first reading of this bill. Therefore from this stage on unless we see a significant amount of amendment at the Committee stage—and I am not necessarily that hopeful—Labour will not continue to support the Standards and Accreditation Bill through its further passage through Parliament.It may sound like a mundane piece of legislation but it actually is very important. Standards affect us every day. Whether they be in a health and safety setting the processes we use are very important in a health and safety context and in some of the equipment that we use. Some may have varying degrees of opinions as to what kinds of standards we should have in our health and safety area but it is very important that we do have standards to make sure that workers and their customers and anyone else who is in a workplace is as safe as they possibly can be.Of course we have seen through the Christchurch earthquake that having standards around construction is very important. There has been a royal commission into one particular incident. So making sure that we have the process right in terms of building and construction and what is proposed in this bill is very important in terms of the safety of our buildings for the population of New Zealand. Also in an electronic sense we are becoming a much more digital world and we need to make sure that we have got good standards in place there. So although it might sound mundane it is very important that we have a very effective and sustainable standards process.But we do not believe that the proposals in this bill for a number of reasons will create an effective and sustainable process for coming up with standards in New Zealand. There are a number of areas that we had concerns about before the select committee process and we continue to have them. They do go to the independence of the new body that is created within the bill. As the Minister said the standards body that precedes the new body is to be disestablished and is going to be morphed into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment one of the superministries of Steven Joyce. We have an issue with the independence and it is not just us. A number of the submitters as I will get to later have an issue with the perceived and real lack of independence of that body now that it is located within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.The Minister also mentioned that one of the key drivers of this piece of legislation was to make sure that the standards process was financially sustainable. We and others through the select committee process have real concerns about that and also about the ability to produce public-good standards and who pays for that. There is an argument that if a private business or an industry wants to come up with a standard there is a commercial benefit to it but there are a lot of standards where the standard is of a public good and I guess the big question mark around that is who pays for that. That was obviously one of the drivers behind the review of the standards process. We do not believe that this piece of legislation addresses that especially when it comes to the issue of public-good standards. Also again around health and safety our good friends at the Council of Trade Unions believed that there was not enough input in the process.Brett Hudson: Very good friends.KRIS FAAFOI: Well they are our good friends. They represent workers and being a party of workers we will stick up for workers 7 days a week 24 hours a day.Can I first move to the cost issue and point to a submission—if it is OK with you Mr Deputy Speaker I am going to be quoting quite extensively from some of the submissions to the select committee—from Diane Baguley who has been a member of the joint Australia - New Zealand committee for quality management standards since 1995. She has a lot more expertise around this area than me. I must add that this submission is dated 1 January. It was important enough for Diane Baguley to be sitting at her computer to put this submission together on the very first day of this year so this is not something that she is taking lightly. The fifth objective in the overview was around the financial sustainability of the standards process and her submissions did say: “It is a practical rather than a strategic imperative and could conflict with the first three objectives. However it seems to have been the main driving force for the change. I consider that there have been clear reasons for the Standards Council being unable to maintain financial viability under the … Act”—which we are amending—“in particular refusal by the relevant Ministry to support a strategy for funding public good standards … together with lost opportunities by government departments to reduce duplication of effort in standards development.”I think what you have got there is a clear indication from someone who has had 20 years in this area and has a major concern that when it comes to those public-good standards that I talked about before—ones where a commercial entity might not necessarily be the one that wants to front up with a bill—there is an onus on the Government of the day to fund the Standards Council as it stands currently to make sure that those public-good standards are done. Diane Baguley obviously is saying here that this Government just basically refused to do that. I think that would be a concern to most New Zealanders who would want to see a lot of these public-good standards processed.She also went on to say that the British Standards Institution pointed out in 2012 that it was “extremely rare that a national standards body exist with no financial support from the government.”—that is the British Standards Institution looking at our situation. She said: “The development of standards and active engagement by New Zealand in the international standards community are essential parts of the infrastructure for”—I want to make sure I emphasise this—“trade innovation and consumer protection.” So here we have an expert in her field saying that by the very fact that this Government is kind of stepping away from its responsibility to properly fund the standards process in the eyes of the international sector that looks at standards this could seriously affect our reputation and our future in trade innovation and consumer protection.I also want to talk to the lack of independence concerns that we had before this piece of legislation went to the select committee. I do want to quote from a submission from the Centre for Advanced Engineering—again people who have much more experience than I in this field. In its very opening remarks in its submission it says: “The Bill presents a very major change to the way Standards are prepared and approved. [The Centre for Advanced Engineering] is concerned about the lack of rationale for these changes that the Bill contains provisions which appear unworkable that much detail about how the new system will work remains unclear and that the proposals could lead to significant dysfunctionality and poor outcomes for industry.” It goes on to list some examples of what it thinks may happen.I do acknowledge that the Minister did say that there were a number of changes that were made in the select committee but that goes nowhere near close enough to the concerns that we have about the lack of independence of the new standards body now that it is going to be put within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. This decision was not taken lightly because we know that this process is very important for every New Zealander in everyday life and in every walk of life. We want to make sure that we get the standards process right. We do not believe that our international reputation is enhanced that the efficiency of the standards process is made any better or that the driving force behind this change is whether or not it is cost-effective. We do not believe that it meets those three tests.MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the second reading of the Standards and Accreditation Bill. I begin by thanking the member who just sat down Kris Faafoi. In his opening remarks he talked about the way that the Commerce Committee actually operates in a collegial manner and I have to agree with him—Chris Bishop: Very well chaired.MELISSA LEE: Thank you very much Mr Bishop. I have to agree with him that I think we do try as a committee to work together and respect the fact that different members may have a different view. We even run a Twitter competition on who in our committee bakes the best cakes and so far I have to say that the effort that Judith Collins and Clare Curran—[Interruption] They actually did much better than some of the other members who had gone and purchased their cookies and some of their names will remain hidden.The purpose of this bill as the Minister has laid out and spoken about is to amend and consolidate the law relating to standards and conformity assessment bodies and to repeal and replace the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 to ensure that New Zealand’s standards and conformance systems are in fact viable well functioning and meet the needs of businesses regulators and consumers into the foreseeable future. When we actually look at standards I guess we need to discuss exactly what standards are and why they are in fact so important to New Zealand’s economy and safety. Standards are agreed specifications for products processes services and performances. In addition they are generally voluntary. Firms can choose to use them to support competitiveness firm productivity and trade. If for example an electrical product is marked as having met a standard it has satisfied the minimum safety requirements and therefore it is easy to see why standards are crucial for our safety.But what impact do they actually have on our economy? I think earlier other members have talked about the Standards Council. Currently the Standards Council maintains a catalogue of more than 3200 standards where 82 percent of those are joint Australia - New Zealand standards many of which are based on international standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization and International Standards Certifications. Standards underpin billions of dollars of exports and enable New Zealand firms to be internationally competitive. Standards provide access to markets and give quality assurance of products and technologies that New Zealand uses on a daily basis. Standards improve the effectiveness safety and reliability of many goods and services used by consumers and businesses.The purpose and aim of the Standards and Accreditation Bill I have actually mentioned before. Standards solutions help to keep homes public buildings playgrounds electrical appliances and health services safe. For example in New Zealand we can go to a doctor knowing that they have received the appropriate formal training needed to be a doctor and to best serve the interests of the patients concerned. However in some other countries patients do not always have the peace of mind that they have in New Zealand and question the standards that are set in place—for example for the training that the said doctor might have actually gone through. I think in the previous reading in the first reading I talked about electricity and how different countries actually have different—Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Voltage.MELISSA LEE: —voltage the kinds of sockets that they have. Thank you very much Mr Kanwal Bakshi. Thank you for giving me that word. Having standards actually means that we can go right across the—would it not be fabulous if we had the same socket for the rest of the world so we did not have to take away different jacks whenever we travel overseas?Kris Faafoi: Imagine.MELISSA LEE: Imagine that—imagine that. And you are opposed to having standards.At present New Zealand has measures in place to ensure that standards are met and satisfied but improvements could be made to our existing standards arrangements. For example in 2012 the standards and conformance infrastructure review happened triggered by concerns held by the Standards Council about the financial stability of New Zealand’s standards arrangements following several years of deficits and the variable demands for standards. The Standards and Accreditation Bill responds to the finding of the review. During the select committee process we also heard that at different times different industries are satisfied about some portions of the standards we actually have and other industries are not very happy. And when membership of the council changes then the other industries are quite happy while the new group is not necessarily happy. I think that was when the select committee talked about the perceived conflicts of interest that might actually appear in the council and how this proposed change may fix some of the issues.Our National-led Government is focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. Through the Standards and Accreditation Bill we can contribute towards a more productive and competitive economy. Standards can be improved in a variety of ways and also for a variety of sectors ranging from as I said the energy sector to the health sector the disabilities sector environmental management information technology—to name just a few—and many sectors where standards could be improved. We sought stakeholder views on the effectiveness of current arrangements for standards and on options for changes to organisational arrangements for how standards could be developed and improved.The Standards and Accreditation Bill aims to improve the current way things are done. What we do now and how we actually improve things is by establishing a new independent statutory board to improve New Zealand standards to ensure that independent standards development committees will continue to comprise industry and technical experts. There were some concerns that that might not actually happen but we are saying that it will happen. Consumer representatives and regulators will be involved. Establishing a new independent statutory officer within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to oversee the development of standards I think is very important.I have mentioned this in different conversations that I have had about this. In some countries having an officer within an organisation a ministerial organisation like the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is seen as giving credence to something that the Standards Council could possibly never give the credibility for. And having an officer based out of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is actually so much more important when we are doing trade with overseas countries—for example with Asian countries. I think it is very important that we have this establishment of a statutory officer within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.We are amending the Copyright Act to preserve existing intellectual property standards. I think it is very important that to protect our standards we are protecting the copyright that already exists. In short the new bill will better align standards development with important Government priorities that are vital for our economy such as innovation and trade facilitation as I have said earlier. When we are dealing with other countries it is actually very important to see that officers are based within a Government department rather than in an organisation that is not part of the Government.The Commerce Committee received 21 submissions. I know that Mr Faafoi talked about some of those. In fact we heard 13 submissions. I believe that the committee had a very robust discussion and we came to a good conclusion. I think this is a fantastic bill. I commend it to the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): The Commerce Committee did have robust discussions and it is a hard-working select committee which I think is developing its own standard for the quality of baking which may at some point become a publishable standard. But I would point out—and I am sure the members on the other side of the House know quite clearly—that the Labour Party got to the end of this process and could not support the Standards and Accreditation Bill.This is one of those unusual situations in a select committee where you go into a sitting and hear the submissions you do not feel that it is a particularly controversial bill and your ears are open to everything that is being said but the more you hear from the submitters the more concerned you become. You get to the point which is what the Labour members did where you just cannot support the bill as it stands even with the amendments. I would describe those amendments as being very once-over-lightly amendments. I would have liked to have heard from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in his opening remarks today about what further amendments he thinks would be appropriate given his review of the progress of this bill before the House and the fact that he now has had the chance to have a think about it.I would make the point that it is a clear sign of an out-of-touch Government and of arrogance when you have submitter after submitter after submitter coming before a select committee and saying: “There is something fundamentally wrong with this bill. Please listen.” And these are organisations that represent thousands of members working in professions such as the Institution of Professional Engineers consulting engineers incorporated architects public works engineers and the New Zealand Building Industry Federation which said: “Standard-setting should not be subject to direct political influence by the government of the day.” That is the crux of the problem in this bill. It is the lack of independence perceived or otherwise by putting such an important function of democracy—standards setting—inside a massive Government department while appearing to give it independence. I am not saying that there was not an attempt to try and provide independent governance but the mere fact that the standards-setting body has been absorbed into a Government department is the fundamental issue in this bill.I think that is really what we are talking about today. It is that the submitters and the Labour Party and I hope other parties in this House realised that this was actually a backwards step and that you have got to ask yourself what lies behind it and what is the reasoning. Well fundamentally the reasoning is cost cutting.Chris Bishop: Oh!CLARE CURRAN: Well there is no other demonstrable—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CLARE CURRAN: When I was cut off in mid-flight I think my last word was “demonstrable”. So I will start again with that which is to say that it is demonstrably arrogant and out of touch for this legislation to pass through the House without more amendment. This party on this side of the House is the party that listened to the submitters. That is the party over there National which has just railroaded through this legislation which should not be controversial. It had its gestation back in the previous Labour Government around a review that was undertaken and there was a piece of legislation that came forward but this Government threw that out and then came back with this piece of legislation which brings the important independent function of making standards inside a massive Government agency.I want to refer to the regulatory impact statement on this. When we had the first reading of this bill we took heed of the advice that was given around this the concerns that were being expressed and we said that we would vote for this piece of legislation to go to the select committee but that we would be listening very carefully to submitters because of what was raised in the regulatory impact statement. This advice said: “The advice we have received suggested that overall costs of Standards development can be reduced by moving the function into a larger organisation.” That was also my point earlier on which was that what really lies behind this bill is cost cutting and cost saving. It said: “However other changes to the environment we are anticipating such as a desire by regulators to make their documents available to key users at no or low cost may change the costs that specific commissioners of Standards pay over time.” Therefore that could not be predicted and there may not be cost savings. It went on to say: “Some stakeholders have indicated the risk that experts may no longer be willing to participate on Standards development committees given their perception that the independence of Standards will be eroded under the proposed changes. We consider experts will continue to have incentives to participate however the actual impact is uncertain.”This has all been borne out in the select committee in the submissions that came before us. This was a very highly respectable very diverse group of submitters including from Water Safety New Zealand which said that industry consultation should be required in the preparation of the work programme. Well that has not been properly addressed. The Centre for Advanced Engineering—so we have gone from water to engineering—said that “MBIE as the building regulator should not be in the business of drafting standards many of which are building sector related. The relationships as set out in the Bill between the Minister the Standards Approval Board the Standards Executive are awkward and unnatural and could easily lead to significant difficulties.” I grant that there were some amendments around this in the select committee but they did not go far enough. The Centre for Advanced Engineering also said: “The [removal] of ‘personally interested’ people and parties from the standards setting process … is impracticable”.Also the Electricity Engineers’ Association expressed similar concerns. It said “… the apparent unlimited powers of the independent statutory officer (SO) the NZ Standards Executive to among other important functions decide the membership of standards committees … decide or influence the information placed before the Board …”. It was expressing concern about independence about bringing this important function inside. Let us just remember what some of those standards actually achieve. They set the standards for buildings such as buildings in Christchurch that were affected by earthquakes such as standards at Pike River in the mining industry—standards that have real health and safety implications for workers in their workplaces for New Zealanders who are going about their general business and expect that industries and services that are provided for them have safe standards attached to them.There are too many questions about this bill. There are questions around the independence the conflicts of interest and the international reputation of New Zealand standards as was raised by Standards Australia. If the reason for this bill was to save money and it is questionable about whether it will actually save money then this is actually a bill that needs further review and needs further amendment and the Labour Party cannot support it.BRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute joy to rise in support of the Standards and Accreditation Bill in its second reading particularly so because we have heard some very divergent views tonight. There has been a lot of sound rational argument from this side of the House from people whom I was fortunate enough to sit on the Commerce Committee with but I have to say that I am not completely certain that members on the other side were actually at the same hearings that I was at. Along with the submissions we heard we also got a very extensive set of reports from the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment and it really strikes me that the two members opposite who have spoken to date just really either did not read or did not grasp those reports.I will get to that but before we get there I think it is important to remind ourselves of why we are even looking at this bill because we are not creating legislation for the sake of it. This forms part of this Government’s plan to grow the New Zealand economy through our Business Growth Agenda particularly the parts that are about structures processes and supports to help businesses grow and to compete both at home and indeed abroad. Standards improve the effectiveness safety and reliability of many goods and services that are used by consumers and businesses every day throughout our economy. The proposed changes are aimed at ensuring that our standards system is well functioning and is meeting the needs of today and into the future.In particular in supporting our Business Growth Agenda there are two key points. Firstly a well-managed standards system builds innovation by facilitating the creation and diffusion of technology by codifying technical excellence. Secondly the changes that we are proposing support exports by preserving New Zealand’s connections to international standards organisations and ensuring that international expectations are met.Let us for a moment just turn to what the key changes of this bill are. Firstly we are proposing a new standards board with statutory independence that will be responsible for reviewing and approving standards. Likewise we are proposing a Standards Executive again who is statutorily independent who will be independent of the organisation that he or she resides in but will be based—to help foster collaboration in alignment with the growth plans across our economy and particularly with the building and construction sector—within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. But they will like the board have statutory independence. In addition we will have independent standards development committees. Those committees will include industry and technical experts consumer representatives and regulators. We will also amend the Copyright Act to ensure that we both protect intellectual property within New Zealand and particularly as one speaker noted we will continue to work with Standards Australia which raised a very very important point with us during the select committee hearing.In the select committee hearings we received 21 submissions 13 of which we heard in person or by teleconference and a number of issues were raised. I would like to cover some of those. The issue of independence—raised by many—was that by having these functions particularly the Standards Executive residing within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment somehow that might lead to undue influence from the ministry on them and erode their true independent nature. Well quite frankly there is nothing more powerful in terms of independence that this Parliament can confer on any individual or anybody than statutory independence which is precisely what both the standards board and the Standards Executive will have under the proposed legislation.Even more important than that simple piece of legislative fact is evidence. I have spent over 20 years prior to entering Parliament in corporate company environments the commercial world and the information and communications technology business and most of those years were with fairly large companies or multinationals. I can tell you that if you want to do your level best to make true collaboration or influence tougher then put someone in the same large company with a separate reporting line. It is as tough as you can imagine to get quite the level of cooperation and collaboration that that company and its shareholders would like. That is a bit flippant but if you were to ask these businesses out there in the commercial world they would agree. They are of such a size and a complexity that they need to have the structures they have but they would be the first to admit that those structures cause challenges when it comes to working together effectively for the one objective that that company might have. So that experience for one would say that actually putting the Standards Executive in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment does not actually immediately mean that there is any erosion of their independence at all.But even more important than the anecdotal experience of one member of this House how about the real-world example of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment itself? Within the ministry we have three other individuals or groups in the same situation. We have the Registrar of Companies we have the Commissioner of Patents and we have the Official Assignee—each of them with their independence each of them resident within the ministry and not a single suggestion has come from a member of this House or anyone submitting that their residence within the ministry has in any way compromised their independence. The facts of the real-world situation show us with absolute clarity that the mere fact they are resident within the ministry does not automatically mean that there is any erosion of independence. When I have been hearing the members opposite speak and thinking of the examples I just cited—to paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan they are entitled to their opinion but not their own facts.Another problematic area that was raised from the submitters was stakeholder representation. This is being met through the appointment of relevant individuals to standards development committees. Within that there was a question of conflicts of interest particularly if you have people from the industry serving on these committees. The argument and the way the bill is currently structured is that if you wish to have the best possible standards development committee for the standard that is being developed or reviewed then you need the flexibility to appoint the very best and most experienced of people from a range of areas. It could be academic. It could be industry. It could be consumer. There is any number of groups and individuals that might be relevant for a particular standard. So in actual fact by incorporating the flexibility we have we actually allow for the committee to comprise the best possible members while giving the Standards Executive in particular in proposing those people the ability to manage conflicts of interest.We need industry experts on board—people with real-world working knowledge around the standards that they are creating or that they may be reviewing. If you have a blanket restriction simply for instance if they happen to be an owner of a company that might be seen to benefit in some way from a standard because it is in that industry or in the case of the masters of the people opposite—the Council of Trade Unions—who said that even if you were an employee of a company in the industry you should be excluded then all you are really doing is constraining the quality of experience that you can actually have on the committee. You are basically setting yourself up for suboptimal standards to be created. It is quite stunning that it was even mooted in the first place.The other one that those members raised was that stakeholders should nominate members of the standards development committee. Well again a flexible and better way of addressing that is that by making the Standards Executive have to engage with industry and stakeholder groups to identify suitable experts it allows for the most relevant the most appropriate people to be on board. We can ensure that they will engage with those groups because in order for a standard to be approved or amended the standards board must approve it. The standards board is required—this is from the departmental report—“to have regard to the importance of ensuring that … membership constitutes a balanced representation of … interests relevant to the proposed draft standard.” So just because the Standards Executive can propose the members of the committee the governance role of the board ensures that if the standard is to be approved the executive will have to engage with the right groups whether they are industry whether they are consumer representatives—no matter who they might be.I will finish up with the objections raised by Standards Australia. It raised an issue: 82 percent of current New Zealand standards are jointly developed with Australia and New Zealand and the rules as they were drafted would harm their intellectual property. So what we have done is made sure that that intellectual property will be preserved and our links with Standards Australia will continue. I commend this bill to the House.JAMES SHAW (Green): I rise to speak on the Standards and Accreditation Bill. I would like to start by commending the previous speaker Brett Hudson for the passion with which he spoke to this topic. Some of the previous speakers have mentioned the spirit of cooperation with which Commerce Committee undertook its work on the Standards and Accreditation Bill. I found that the process has been collaborative and thoughtful and I particularly want to commend the people who made submissions for the quality of their submissions because they were intelligent well-thought-out and very well-informed. They were very very useful to the work that we were doing as we were considering the bill.The Green Party supported the bill through the first stage to the select committee. We are broadly supportive of the intention of the bill. However we do have some concerns about it which at this point have not been addressed sufficiently so we will not be supporting the bill through the next stage unless those concerns can be addressed. There are three concerns. First of all does it solve the financial sustainability problem? Does it actually do the job that it was designed to do? The second concern is about the perception of independence. The third concern is about the trend of scooping up statutory bodies into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which the previous speaker just referred to.In relation to the first one does it do the job that it was designed to do? We know that the current system of standards design and processing actually is not financially sustainable over the long term and there are significant bottlenecks in getting through the work programme that needs to be undertaken to get New Zealand’s standards completed. However we are unconvinced that the bill as it is currently designed actually enables that process to be any more or significantly more financially sustainable over the long term or to be able to expand the programme of work significantly.When I was in the United Kingdom I was involved in a couple of standards processes with the British Standards Institute one of which was around ethical fashion—fair trade fashion—and the second of which was around smart-metering. As some of the submitters said it kind of takes the amount of time to make a standard that it takes. You know it is a process that has a beginning a middle and an end and you cannot really compress that a great deal. So the only way that you can get through many standards at once is by having parallel processing—to actually be handling a number of different standards and having a lot of different processes at the same time. A number of different submitters actually pointed to this and said that they could not see how this new system that was being designed was going to enable a great deal more work to get done in terms of the parallel processing of different standards.The second concern that we have is about the perception of independence. I accept the points that the Government has been making about the independent board and the number of checks and balances that have been built into the system as it is designed so that it does have that independence from the ministry and Ministers. The problem here is actually one of perception. A number of people have referred tonight to the submission from Standards Australia which actually said in its submission over the phone to us that if we put this system in place it could not see how it would be able to continue to cooperate with us on future standards. Given that we have such a huge level of integration with Australia and with other bodies around the world particularly the UK and European jurisdictions it is really concerning that if they perceive that our standards body is not independent they will actually withdraw cooperation from us. One of the earlier speakers tonight talked about the extent to which standards underpin our trade our consumer guarantees and so on. It is sort of part of the system of global trade that we are obviously so heavily integrated into. That is a concern that also has not yet been met.The third one which is sort of a more general concern is that this Government does have a kind of habit of scooping up independent bodies and putting them into the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in particular. That is a sort of a trend that has concerned us. Over the last several years there have been a number of bills that we have spoken on about that and this bill kind of continues that trend as well. That is more of a general concern.We are actually open to supporting the bill but we do want really those first two sets of concerns addressed. The first is whether we can see how this actually enables a great deal more financial sustainability and whether we can we see how it really enables a significant increase in parallel processing of different standards at the same time. Does the bill actually do the job that it is designed to do? Does it fix that problem? And the second is the perception of independence. We did raise that in the select committee. My own concern with that is that essentially we were kind of told: “Well don’t worry about it. It is an independent body; it is not really a valid concern.” But I think that if it is a concern of some really significant stakeholders both inside the country and in terms of our trading partner countries then it kind of does not matter what our opinion is about it; it matters what their opinions and perceptions are. That to me has not yet been resolved. I felt that the response that we got was too sort of blasé about that.But if the Government can help us to overcome really those two primary concerns—firstly about the financial sustainability and whether it achieves the purpose and secondly this one about the perception of independence—then we would be open to changing our vote and voting for the bill in its final stages. So we will be looking for some Supplementary Order Papers from the Government in the Committee stage of the bill. Thank you.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I stated in the first reading of this bill and I will say it again that this bill arose from a review undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Development at the time some 8 years ago. It is highly important to note today that at the time the ministry actually stated categorically that its findings showed that the infrastructure relating to standards and accreditations was basically sound. Further the discussion document released by the ministry had no actual submissions regarding the governance arrangements of the current two Crown entities. I question therefore the need for this debate and the use of this House’s time for this matter at this present time. There are some issues and we have talked about some of those but they could have been dealt with within the existing legislation.New Zealand First like many of the other parties in this House supported this bill through to its first reading so that individual New Zealanders in the form of consumers the industry itself workers and experts within the standards and accreditation sector could have their say. It is becoming harder and harder I note for the public to have their say with this Government so when the opportunity arises we would support it.Many submitters spoke about the lack of sufficient detail provided in order to make truly informed submissions in the latest round of discussions. They suggested that this lack of detail will undermine the confidence that they and our trading partners need in order to maintain the current high standing of our standards and accreditation system. The concerns that the select committee heard from the public and industry have not been addressed in this bill. Some minor alterations were made by this Government in response to these concerns and New Zealand First does acknowledge the concerns around transparency in particular. The possible arising of conflicts of interest would actually we concede have been dealt with in quite a great level of detail and we believe would have answered those concerns.Tonight the members of the National Government have spoken about the need for the accreditation and standards system to move forward and do what it is that we need to do so that we can be a viable international trading partner. They seem to ignore the fact that we can do that currently under existing legislation. We do not need this bill and I will go into detail on the feedback from submitters as to why most of those who submitted also do not think we need this bill.We are not convinced firstly that these changes are actually needed as I have pointed out. Secondly having put this bill in front of this House and the public this Government seems to be undermining and compromising what to date has been an internationally recognised standards and accreditation process. I would submit that this Government is actually taking us backwards with this legislation.This bill’s intent is to ensure that the New Zealand standards and accreditation system functions well and meets the needs of businesses regulators and consumers. And actually these are admirable goals and New Zealand First would support this bill if we believed that these goals had been achieved in the rewrite. As has been raised repeatedly by others tonight New Zealand First shares the following concerns. In my address on the first reading of the bill I stated that we are yet to see evidence that proposed changes will ensure the financial viability of the standards and accreditation process. Unfortunately we continue to be concerned with statements made by the regulatory impact statement that if these new bodies sat within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment then there would be cost savings. No evidence has been submitted to be presented publicly justifying this stance.New Zealand First has yet to see evidence that the proposed changes will ensure the financial viability of the standards process. Although it could be argued that the system will be viable perhaps my interpretation of “viable” is that it will continue to function at a bare minimum which does not actually ensure safety or integrity for the New Zealand public or New Zealand businesses in an international context. This viability has still not been addressed. There has been no evidence or insufficient evidence to suggest that this bill will be any better than what we currently have with regard to efficiencies particularly around operational costs.We keep seeing a particular clause time and time again with this National Government. I refer to National’s numerous pieces of legislation where the Minister empowers himself or herself to pick the members of boards or committees. New Zealand First does not believe this is good enough. One of our key concerns is centred on the lack of independence that both the New Zealand Standards Approval Board and the renamed Accreditation Council would have. This concern was spoken to tonight but we do not think it has been addressed adequately.These two entities cannot and will not be independent if they are working within the governance structure of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. The governance structure within the ministry means a lack of independence for the standards and the setting body. There have been no substantial changes to the appointment process. The Minister and the Minister alone will have the responsibility to appoint all members.Ministerial appointments and orders of council bypass the democratic process whereby each and every New Zealander can take the opportunity to have their say. The very possible and highly probable lack of representation of consumers and workers on the new board and council is of real concern to New Zealand First. There is a reference in schedule 1 of the newly worded legislation that states that when making his appointments the Minister must consider skills and experience including knowledge of the sectors that use standards but actually it is not sufficient. It is insufficient it is too broad and it does not ensure a real and meaningful representation of those directly affected by the matters relating to goods services processes and the practices of them.There is a significant lack of representation of consumers and workers under this new structure. There is nothing in the reworked bill that is specific enough to allay the fears that dispute this bill. This system and framework is supposedly seeking to represent consumers. Will consumers be able to contribute in a productive legal fashion? No they will not. All that consumers will be able to do is protest and complain from outside Parliament if the Government passes this bill. New Zealand First says that this is not good enough.To repeat we lack confidence that this bill will provide a voice for our consumers and the industries that are affected. This reworked piece of legislation still talks about a preference being given to the facilitation of trade within the criteria for accreditation schemes. We have a concern that there is no balance to this and that preference may be given to practices or players in order to facilitate trade whilst compromising standards. Is that a likely and reasonable assertion to this House? Under this Government without the independence we would seek from this bill yes it is more than likely.Hon Judith Collins: He’s reading his speech.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I am. Given many of these issues that will undermine the whole framework around standards and accreditation I do not think that New Zealand’s reputation in this space will be upheld under the proposed changes in the bill. Submitters spoke to the Commerce Committee about this very issue.Standards need to be accepted internationally. Our trading partners need to have faith in the New Zealand system. If they cannot find that confidence and if they cannot be assured that New Zealand’s standards and accreditation process has not been compromised by a lack of impartiality and a question mark around its operational capabilities then we do New Zealand business a disservice.In closing I address the National caucus in particular specifically given the changes here to legislation. Other than the removal of the repeal of the two main pieces of legislation affected there are 40 other pieces of legislation that will need to be altered in order to ensure that this bill has its proper impact on the New Zealand economy. But given the recent history in this term alone with the number of amendments to legislation that this House has had to consider and work on I would caution this Government that it is putting too much of a burden on an under-resourced unit within this Government and it could create—and I suggest will create—problems. We need to look after our New Zealand businesses regulators and consumers. This bill does not do that. Thank you.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): What a privilege it is to be able to speak to this most important bill the Standards and Accreditation Bill. I know it is important because of the quality and the length of the speeches that have preceded mine which of course will not be a read-out speech prepared for me by Winston Peters but in fact will be my own. Having said that if there were any doubt in the minds of the public as to the need for this bill all I would say to you is this: Labour the Greens and New Zealand First are against it; it has got to be good. If in doubt if they are for it be wary. They are against it. They started off being for it—I was a bit worried then—but now I know that we are on safe ground. Even though we have so much fun in the Commerce Committee with the really good-natured chair Melissa Lee the deputy chair Mr Brett Hudson and also my dear colleague across the tablefrom me Clare Curran—we have so much fun—I have to say that we do occasionally disagree. And that gives me hope because with total agreement in Parliament well that is not really democracy is it? It is the Opposition’s job to hold the Government to account and occasionally to let us know why we are here.I think it is just fantastic that the member who has resumed his seat is so concerned about this bill stopping trade. Well actually it is the other way round really. What this is about is actually saying: “Do you know? The standards people have been working really hard for a long long time.” That is the problem. It is taking too long for standards to come through—standards that are around trade and business—and this is a country of trade. So yes the legislation that this is going to replace has been around for a long time too—so long that even the previous Labour Government decided that it needed a review. What has happened between the previous Labour Government’s deciding that standards and accreditation legislation needed to be reviewed and changed and now? Well what has happened is actually about 7 years of Opposition for Labour—and that is about it really. It cannot find anything good to say so it is just not bothering to say it; unlike me of course who is always looking at the positives along with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee. I must say it is so good being the MP for Papakura—everything is positive apart from that terrible thing that we had the other day.Having said that seriously standards and accreditation are important. They are important for business. They are actually very important for our consumers. We are all consumers are we not? We all expect certain standards but actually in most cases standards are not compulsory unless they are legislated for or regulated for. The previous speaker—and I am not going to try to remember who he is—said something about how so much of the working parts of the bill will be taken care of by regulations Order in Council and therefore will not be subject to the democratic process. He has not been in Parliament for very long so I am going to tell him this. We have the Regulations Review Committee actually and regulations can be reviewed by that committee. That is a very powerful committee of Parliament. It is so powerful that I have never been appointed to it. I am sure the Deputy Speaker has been though. [Interruption] Yes you are on the right side there. I never have been. It is just too powerful for someone like me. What that committee does is actually look at those regulations. It takes complaints from members of the public. It takes complaints from MPs. And it can actually bring about changes. I would say that it is a significant check on the executive and the power of regulation making so members should be aware of that and take that into account.One of the reasons why you would not want to have a bill like this with all of the detail about regulations and everything that we would have in regulations in it is because of the fact that it takes a long time for legislation to come through the House. The fact that this piece of legislation has been incubating since 2007 tells us that it takes an awfully long time for such contentious legislation to come through the House. What that says to us is that if you want anything changed you need to have the power to have it changed quickly—particularly when you are dealing with trade. If everything was fabulous in the whole standards sphere we would not be bothering with this would we? Really would we? The fact is no we would not. It is not fabulous because the legislation that is being repealed has been around since 1988. I do not think DNA was even being used in 1988. Everything has changed since then. The Testing Laboratory Registration Act is also being repealed and that is from 1972. People on the opposite side of the House will remember that year; that is the year Labour won. It was a big year. It was the year my family voted for Labour—about the last time but there you go.Having said that I think it is really important that we try to keep up to date with things. So I see no problem with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment having some responsibility. It does not mean that it is in charge of how the standards are made or of what standards are made but actually it means that you have a Minister who is responsible if there is not enough funding and if there are not enough standards coming through. I would say this to the Opposition: you will be able to really hold the Minister and the ministryto account.So I think that is a really good thing—Stuart Nash: Imagine holding a Minister to account.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Stuart Nash MP for Napier says that is an excellent thing.Stuart Nash: Imagine holding a Minister to account.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well would that not be wonderful Mr Nash and while I think of it is it not great news standards-wise and accreditation-wise that the Hon John Banks has been exonerated today. Well what good news for justice coming through—fantastic. And I think all those people who thought such bad things about the Hon John Banks—my good friend—might now like to apologise. But there you go; that would require standards from the Opposition.Sue Moroney: A technicality—come on.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes and Miss Moroney says: “Come on.” Well I know Miss Moroney that you would not be up to it. But anyway I am sure Mr Nash would because he is the next leader of the Labour Party and I think it will be an interesting day when that happens.Quite seriously standards are really important for our trade. We are a little country. We are a trading nation. This is how we make the money that pays the taxes that by the way pay our salaries that pay for Working for Families and that pay those who are having to be dependent on the State. How we pay for things is actually by trade. We are never going to survive by trading with ourselves: 4.5 million people—fewer people than there are in Melbourne—are not enough for us to be able to survive on. We cannot all knit things that we want to buy from each other. It is not going to work like that. What we need to do is trade and we are competing against some massive markets and some really big players. If we look at some of the huge players that our exporters have to deal with and actually have to compete with we need standards about which they can in fact say: “These are New Zealand standards and these standards mean something.” It is all very well to say it has all been fine in the past but actually do you think the leaky home issue came about because of excellent standards? Really? [Interruption] Do you really think it did? Do you really think that that helped? I do not think it did at all.I think it is time for a Government to take responsibility for standards and this Government is putting its hand up and saying: “We will take responsibility.” That is a really good thing. We are not saying which standards should be approved. We are not saying how to do it. But we are saying that this is important and we are going to take responsibility.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call and I call Julie Anne Genter.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party supported the Standards and Accreditation Bill initially at first reading to select committee and we certainly support the direction or intent that it is meant to implement. But unfortunately during the select committee process which my colleague James Shaw was involved in there were a number of concerns raised by submitters and we do not believe that the legislation addresses those concerns to such an extent that we can support it at this stage. I have to start probably by saying just how fundamentally important standards are. It is incredibly important that we have a process for setting them that is robust informed and absolutely independent. The previous speaker the Hon Judith Collins mentioned the leaky buildings fiasco and of course the leaky buildings fiasco came about because of changes to the standards that were made by a National Government which—Melissa Lee: Actually it was Labour.JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well there were changes made by Labour and by National and it was indeed Treasury that did not take the advice of the experts who were sitting in on the meetings and who said that it was not the Government’s role to regulate this sort of thing and that the standards of buildings would be sorted out in case law. I think the reason why we are quite concerned about this National Government introducing such a fundamental change to the process for setting standards is because there has been a pattern with this National Government of influence by businesses and industry and making decisions that make their lives easier in the short term but ultimately that can end up costing us all in the long term because what is cheaper and better for some players in the short term is not necessarily what is best for everyone—for consumers and for residents here in New Zealand. So it is incredibly important that we have a robust independent informed process for setting the standards.This bill is proposing quite a shake-up to the current system. I am not arguing that it does not need a shake-up but the main reason for the changes that was listed is that it is not financially sustainable within its current business model and its operating environment. What has not come through in the select committee process at all is how this changed process is going to solve that problem of financial sustainability so it is unclear that there are going to be any cost savings. It is possible that they will be recovering the cost through user chargers so that is just shifting the cost elsewhere and it is certainly has not been demonstrated that that is going to have a better result for the standard-setting process.The other two issues that my colleague James Shaw raised which we are still concerned about are first the fact that the legislation is not going to deal with the issue of parallel processing which is the ability for the multiple standards to be progressed at the same time. So there is a capacity issue which is not likely to be solved by the new model. And finally there is the perception of independence which was raised by a number of submitters. It is clearly very important to us as a trading nation that we are perceived to have a robust independent system for setting standards that can give consumers and other countries confidence in our standard-setting process.I would just like to raise the issue—because obviously we hear a lot from this National Government that because we are a trading nation we have to make it easier to trade and make it easier for businesses to do business—and point out that some of the most successful trading nations on the planet at the moment have very very high standards. They have robust processes and they are quite strict and yet they manage to be successful manufacturing economies that make their way on exports. Examples I am thinking of are like Germany which has a much different approach to its building standards and as a result it has healthier buildings longer-lasting buildings and more energy-efficient buildings. If we are going to tackle the crises of climate change and of inequality then standards are going to be essential to that. Some of the standards that have been set in the past have actually led us to an outcome where we have less-healthy buildings more energy-intensive buildings and it is through this process of standards that we can start to actually reduce the energy consumption of the economy to have healthier homes and longer-lasting homes. We need to ensure that we have a good process for setting those standards and we are not convinced that this bill is making the right changes.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Stuart Nash—a 5-minute call.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): If there is any doubt that there is a little bit of dissension in the National caucus we just have to listen to Judith Collins. I mean I do not know who sets the National speaking list—I suspect it might have been Jami-Lee Ross—but whoever put Judith Collins up to speak about trade obviously was out to set her up. When the Hon Judith Collins stands up and says: “Don’t trust anything that Labour and the Greens do.” I would say to the people of New Zealand that when that member starts speaking about trade and free and fair trade and good standards we have got to be worried because the one thing we know is that when Judith Collins speaks about trade it possibly means that any piece of legislation may lack transparency accountability and very definitely responsibility.Dr David Clark: What about Oravida?STUART NASH: That is true. What about Oravida? We are still murky about that. What the hell happened there? I do not know. No one knows. Mr Key does not know. Only Judith Collins and the Chinese officials know.But the former Minister was right in one respect—when she said that we need excellent robust standards that have international recognition. She is dead right. In fact in the regulatory impact statement the role of the standards is this: “Standards make an important contribution to the economic growth and health and safety. Standards promote innovation facilitate international trade and enable firms to leverage their competitive advantage. Many standards are also designed to increase safety and manage risk.” That is why we have on this side of the House a real problem with the bill as it stands because we do not think that this piece of legislation mirrors that in any way shape or form.Todd Muller must understand this. Todd Muller must have a huge problem with this and I will tell you why. Todd was at a senior level in a large organisation and Todd Muller understands Governments. He understands that governance is about managing risk and mitigating risk. That is what governance is about. But it is not just the reality; it is also the perception of risk and the fact that a large number of submitters highlighted the perceived conflicts of interest here is really telling.In fact let me read out what one submitter said and this is the Centre for Advanced Engineering and you could hardly say that this is a Labour Party organisation or anything at all like that. What it said was: “MBIE as the building regulator should not be in the business of drafting standards many of which are building sector related. The relationships as set out in the Bill between the Minister the Standards Approval Board the Standards Executive are awkward and unnatural and could easily lead to significant difficulties. The removal of ‘personally interested’ people and parties from the standards setting process is impracticable.”The real concern that I have about this—and I worked in international trade; I know how these things work—and the real issue I have with this piece of legislation and the framework it is setting up is that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will simply not get the buy-in necessary to give this new body credibility. That is a real problem. James Shaw of the Green Party highlighted the fact that the Australian standards authority has massive problems with this legislation and if we cannot get on with our Australian brothers and sisters let alone everyone else—if they are voicing such major discontentment with this piece of legislation then it says that something is wrong. It might not be that there is—maybe it is only their perception and that is not the reality.Whatever the issue this legislation needs to change. It needs to go back to the select committee and it needs to be changed because the perception is that this piece of legislation will not do the job that is required by New Zealand by New Zealanders and by our international trading partners. That is why the Labour Party simply cannot support this bill. Thank you very much.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I feel privileged to be given this opportunity to speak during the second reading of the Standards and Accreditation Bill. I would like to start by commending the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the Hon Paul Goldsmith for sponsoring this bill and Melissa Lee the chair of the Commerce Committee as well as the other members of the committee for their contribution in this process.Time and again National has laid stress on creating safer communities for New Zealanders and on making sure that the families feel financially secure and the economy is more competitive. One of the biggest signs of a healthy and productive economy is when the standards and the conformance system functions well and is able to meet the needs of consumers businesses and regulators. The bill we are debating replaces the Standards Act 1988 to ensure New Zealand’s new standards are modern sustainable and will fulfil the demands of consumers and businesses.The standards and the standardisation can make a real difference in the lives of everyone. It improves the effectiveness and the reliability of the goods that we use in our everyday life. In other words standards are agreed specifications for products services processes and performances that protect the health safety and the well-being of the public.If a product is marked as a standard it means that it meets the minimum safety requirements which is helpful for the safeguarding of our children and families. Standard solutions help in keeping our environment safe whilst at the same time it allows productivity to be increased whether we are at home or at work whether our kids are at the playground or whether our family members are using various health services.The Standards and Accreditation Bill was referred to the Commerce Committee. We received and considered 21 submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard 13 submissions in person. The Commerce Committee indeed recommended changes that provide a flexible approach to managing actual and perceived conflicts of interest for members of the standards development committees.The Standards and Accreditation Bill would firstly replace the Standards Council with the New Zealand Standards Approval Board rename the Testing Laboratory Registration Council as the Accreditation Council and make minor amendments to its institutional arrangements to reflect its functions more accurately. It will strengthen the current cost recovery model for standards. This will provide the NZ Standards Executive to set a fee for access to the standards and will allow it to recover the cost associated with developing approving maintaining and providing access to New Zealand Standards. Last but not least the bill allows the formation of standards development committees.Today’s newspaper highlighted the potential risk of an earthquake—a mega-quake—that would prove to be highly damaging to central New Zealand. We cannot fully predict what is going to happen next but we can certainly protect the country to some extent by minimising the impact of such a deadly disaster through the use of good standards.One of the key aspects of the bill is to establish a new independent statutory body to approve New Zealand standards which will comprise industry technical experts consumers’ representatives and regulators. Although it is a priority for this Government to build an economy based on investment and to be export-driven through our Business Growth Agenda the new model will ensure that the standards development is in sync with the Government’s priorities.Standardisation indeed plays a huge role in contributing to a more competitive productive economy. To promote the role of standardisation the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is taking several initiatives to contribute to economic growth and innovation. The ministry will be doing more on the trade facilitation front including making strategic choices about the International Organisation for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission and about which New Zealand experts will participate in other standards-related activities—for example progressing the implementation of the Electrical and Electronic Equipment Mutual Recognition Arrangement with China.National is constantly working towards protecting the strong reputation of New Zealand standards by ensuring that it maintains its linkages with the international standards community including the international organisations for standardisation. By participating in international standards preparation New Zealand is able to ensure that New Zealand’s voice is heard.Standards New Zealand can identify areas where it should be active in ensuring that New Zealand industry the Government and consumers can provide input into standards being processed internationally. National has been keeping spending under control and is working hard to achieve a surplus and to reduce debt. We have been able to strengthen capital markets and progress our commitment towards a single economic market with Australia and we are on track to reduce our Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. New Zealand—Dr David Clark: Capital debt is one of our biggest issues. Come on! How can the member say that with a straight face?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: If you want to see me come over here—I can see you.New Zealand is in good shape and we can continue to maintain New Zealand’s good reputation by improving the transparency of New Zealand’s company registration system lifting confidence in New Zealand’s financial market and progressing with changes to strengthen the development of New Zealand’s standards by passing this bill. The National Government is striving to make New Zealand a safer and more prosperous country and New Zealand is rated first equal in global anti-corruption by Transparency International and rated third by the World Bank for ease of doing business. We will continue to achieve more and endeavour to make all New Zealanders feel proud of this National-led Government. I commend this bill to the House.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a pleasure to get up to speak on this bill and to follow that member Kanwaljit Bakshi whose wide-ranging speech I must take issue with at several points. I think some of the claims made in that speech about capital debt and the Business Growth Agenda must be challenged. They cannot be left to lie on the floor of this House without being addressed.Similarly some of them were raised by the Hon Judith Collins who made—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do they relate to the bill?Dr DAVID CLARK: I assume they relate to the bill otherwise you would have stopped them in their tracks. The Hon Judith Collins raised the issue of taking responsibility on standards. The implementation of this bill hangs on the ability of the Government to implement it. I think we could reasonably doubt that this Government has the ability to implement this bill effectively based on its own track record in dealing with standards. That is the simple point I would like to make. The fact that standards are important was raised by the previous speaker the fact that they are important to our international trade was raised by several members opposite and I think it is important to recognise that this is a Government that has failed to diversify the economy. If those members say that setting these standards is a part of its growth strategy and I do believe that is part of what they were saying I think they are mistaken.I also think that a lot of the puffery we have seen in the House this evening does not reflect the very genuine concerns that were raised in the select committee as we debated the issues through. The issues do hang around what kinds of standards are set by whom and in whose interests and those are the matters that we should be debating in this debate this evening I believe.We are having an argument about whether and how we adopt the correct standards that are in New Zealand’s long-term interests. There was a certain irony I have to say in having Judith Collins raise the issue of the Government taking responsibility on standards. There was a certain undertone I think in her presentation. Whether she was challenging the Government over the matters of the Cabinet club or the Skycity deal and its lack of transparent standards and lack of accountability around that or the setting of the way in which the decisions around sending our young people overseas to Iraq was dealt with; whether it was how the Government Communications Security Bureau set-up was done—again in a non-transparent and unaccountable fashion as has been borne out over time—whether it was about corporate welfare and about how the deals were done with Rio Tinto or Chorus; or whether it was about how the Novopay standards were set and how the accountability around that was run I understand she will have some concerns. I have no doubt she has got some concerns.As my colleague behind me Clare Curran was saying there is always a subtext with that member opposite and I take her point there. So we do struggle on this side of the House to understand the talk of standards from that side—the way that those members say it is about the Government taking responsibility from some standards. In Judith Collins’ own words: “I don’t care what standards. They could be any standards.” Well it might be a start but there is certainly some irony in those comments that has to be noted right from the outset in my contribution.I want to also address a point raised by Melissa Lee the chair of the Commerce Committee who raised some critical comments about home baking and the level of performance in that respect. We will not go into the possible impugning of my reputation around baking that might be implied there but I do want to say that the issue she raised about having an electricity jack around the world which formed an important part of her speech has to be challenged. She said: “Wouldn’t it be good if we all had the same electricity jack around the world?” and she is right in one sense but she could be absolutely wrong in another and I think this is what the whole debate hinges on. The answer is yes and no. Yes if it is a safe phone jack that reaches a suitable standard and ideally one that is manufactured in New Zealand using New Zealand intellectual property. If that is what the world standard is and New Zealand is there at the standard-setting and sets it up in our own economic interests then yes we do want the whole world to be using the same jack to charge our phones or any other household items. But if the jack that the world is adopting is set to a Third World standard is made cheaply and is unsafe then no we do not want the whole world to have the same electricity jack. There is the nub of the issue. Actually without knowing it I suspect Melissa Lee has cut to the absolute core of what this debate is about.One of the issues that was brought up by many submitters as we discussed it in the select committee was how the setting of standards will be funded. We have already acknowledged that it is a cost-cutting measure. This is a way that the Government has seen to short-circuit processes and cut costs. That is not in itself a bad idea. If there are good costs that can be cut and we all benefit from them well no one would argue against that. But submitters raised concerns about our reputation in international fora and how they will be funded as budgets are squeezed in the area of standards setting and accreditation and about whether New Zealand will be at the table when decisions about the future of shall we say electricity jacks are made. Will there be New Zealand representation at the table saying: “We should have a world-class standard. And by the way in New Zealand we actually have one of the best manufacturers”—for argument’s sake—“of this particular product.”? Let us have a look at whether that should be the basis for setting the standards that the world adopts.We heard from several submitters their concern that this particular representation would wither away and New Zealand’s economic interests would not be protected. That leads as we know down the track we are already on which is towards an economy more and more and more focused on one or two commodities—on trading houses in Auckland currently on the dairy sector and on our overexposure to China in the primary trade area. These are concerns that the Reserve Bank holds. They are not concerns held just on this side of the House by the Labour Party; these are concerns that the Reserve Bank has been iterating over and over and over again. They affect every New Zealander.The prosperity we enjoy is based upon having a sound economy—an economy that in our past has been sound but is looking more dangerous in our future as we focus more and more on fewer and fewer commodities. We have seen our credit rating slip under this Government. That means it costs more to borrow money from overseas. It is harder for New Zealand businesses to get ahead. This is a Government that seems to be out of ideas and it is making cuts where they may actually harm New Zealand’s long-term interests and our ability to diversify.The previous speaker Mr Bakshi raised the issue of the Business Growth Agenda. The Business Growth Agenda which he spoke to has a goal at its heart of raising exports from 30 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy and that is a good thing. Judith Collins if I can quote her said: “You know trade is what we survive on. It is all important.” and yet this Government opposite has overseen drops in those international trade percentages. They are dropping under this Government’s oversight and it is through policies such as this one which we are putting through the House that these things are being put at risk. Our future prosperity our future security as a nation is being put at risk when those members opposite make cuts without thinking through the consequences when they do not listen to the submitters to the select committee and when they adopt an arrogant out-of-touch attitude that says: “New Zealanders we don’t care what you say. We in National have the answer and it is more of the same. Keep going down the same track. We’ll survive. Hang on. Shut your eyes. Trust us.” Well Mr Key New Zealanders are falling out of love with National and with the track that sees us dependent on fewer and fewer and fewer commodities and sees us focused on trading housing and on speculation in the economy.The economy becoming vulnerable and the economic credibility that is eroding away will cost this Government at the next election. Those members on the other side of the House know that. I can see that their heads have dropped again. They know that this week as the Government comes to announce its Budget it will not have anything in it that ordinary New Zealanders are after. Ordinary New Zealanders are already anticipating that they will not get the wage rises that were promised. They have already been told they will not get the surplus that they were promised. We know that the export numbers are dropping and the economy is becoming more vulnerable. This is a Government that is out of ideas and out of touch. We will not be supporting this bill.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am exhausted after listening to that. It was the old stump speech from Labour.Dr David Clark: The arrogance.SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes there is the word—arrogance. That is the word those members keep using—that vainglorious hope that if they use the words “arrogance” and “tired” they will fall on to the National Government. But the strange thing is as I go through my electorate the wonderful place of Tāmaki my constituents actually do not worry about the arrogance or the tiredness of the National Party because they see us progressing positively. What I find most striking though is they do not even talk about the Labour Party. The Labour Party is completely totally irrelevant—not up to scratch not up to standard would not be accredited has not been accredited since 2008 and God help us if it is accredited in 2017.On the Standards and Accreditation Bill I was going to say early on that I actually thought the speeches were up to a relatively good standard; it has been falling away a little bit there. There has been a lot of talk around trade. We have fallen back—and I think Andrew Little was talking about it last week—to the importance of trade and how New Zealand must diversify and reach out into the markets and how we are not doing enough there is a crisis and the sky is falling in. It is interesting that the Labour Party has gone back to logs. I see that the Labour Party has gone back to logs as a great way to save this economy—that somehow we are just going to add value to logs and build all sorts of bits and bobs which the world strangely enough does not seem to want to buy off us at the moment. But that is completely irrelevant. We will just continue on with theories.We have heard theories too tonight around standards and accreditations. The last speaker David Clark was really really keen on talking about electrical jacks and then for some reason switched to phone jacks and then switched back to electrical jacks. So when it comes to standards the Labour Party seems to be really concerned about jacks. And then I thought that maybe that just fits in with its previous policies where it was concerned about the standards of light bulbs the standards of shower heads—and you go: “Are these really the things that matter?”. They are not. What matters is that this Government is progressing legislation through the Commerce Committee that is going to help strengthen the way that we engage.What we can see is actually a Commerce Committee I believe that has worked jolly hard on this. I know other speakers have acknowledged the chair Melissa Lee and the general consensus that has occurred in the committee. That is often being displayed these days on Twitter on a Thursday morning with a whole lot of epicurean delights. I am not sure who is on this week but it is actually a very cooperative working committee. But one of the elements that has come up tonight is this question of perception particularly the perception that the committee and this side of the House has not listened to petitioners. I just want to put paid to that. Twenty-one people came before our committee and submitted. I think all people in the House—even the other side—have acknowledged that they generally were experts in their field.Clare Curran: Not listening.SIMON O’CONNOR: All of us listened actually which is quite an important distinction. We listened and then what we did is what most human beings do: we engaged our minds we discussed between ourselves we read the departmental reports we went away and engaged with people in our communities and in our electorates and we had those conversations. A strange thing about democracy is that people are allowed to have different opinions. In fact the Hon Judith Collins touched on it very briefly when she said that actually the whole point of democracy at times is to have a difference of opinion. We do not come into this House for the sake of just agreeing with each other. That in itself is anti-democratic. What we found in this process is that we did not fully agree but the fundamental points where the disagreements are happening from the Opposition’s side I do not believe are actually real.The first is around conflicts of interest. This was discussed quite a bit—that all of a sudden the people on these panels these working groups somehow are going to be conflicted. The strange thing is that if you wish to have people setting standards working to accreditations you want them to have a certain degree of knowledge and understanding. The committee worked I think jolly hard on this to say—[Interruption] Yes that is right unless you are from the union; that raises a whole lot of other questions. But what we want is people with experience. We want them to declare that. I do not have the exact wording in front of me but we have actually made changes in the select committee to make sure that that bar is not set too high or too low. You cannot have someone on a standards working panel who does not know about the subject so instantly you are going to have a builder an electrician a radiographer—whatever—sitting on one of these working groups and of course they are going to have a conflict of interest; it is their area of expertise. So we have tried to put a measurement if you will in there that allows some conflicts obviously to be acknowledged as we would expect but not too large conflicts.The other disagreement has been the whole question that we would dare to put this organisation under the auspices of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. A great scandal—a great scandal we are hearing from the other side. I think the first point for the House and obviously anyone listening at home and those in the industry is that this is an independent statutory body. What we are developing here through legislation is an independent statutory body. For the edification of the other side—Clare Curran: Edification!SIMON O’CONNOR: The edification of the other side. I am all for sesquipedalianism—increasing the standards of language. We have a number of independent statutory bodies and it is strange to note that we have not heard the Opposition demanding that these be closed down. In fact if you look at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment there are 35 statutory bodies under its auspices. Not all I would note are independent but those that are include the likes of the Remu-ra—rather the Remuneration Authority; yes I am getting tongue-tied here. They are the likes of the Banking Ombudsman scheme the Copyright Tribunal and of course the Employment Relations Authority. These are—Brett Hudson: Clearly they’re influenced by MBIE.SIMON O’CONNOR: Exactly—if you are following the logic or lack of of the other side these are no longer independent because they are under the auspices of a particular ministry. That does not make any sense if you are going to be consistent. The second side and this is what Judith Collins was noting is that in this structure a Minister is held accountable—a very particular person. It could be an encouragement to the Opposition after all these years to actually ask some questions that really matter to a Minister and that matter to the people.The last point I would make around that is around the word “synergies”. Ultimately working within a ministry such as the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment allows for synergies—that actually ideas are being shared. You can be independent; you can act in that space—Brett Hudson: Do you mean collaboration?SIMON O’CONNOR: Collaboration.Brett Hudson: Working together positively?SIMON O’CONNOR: Exactly. Absolutely. Can you believe it? Positive collaboration—something that actually this Government remains very very keen on.Another element I want to touch on is around copyright. A number of submitters raised this in different ways and a couple of constituents did with me as well. It is in clause 42 of the bill. One particular submitter during the select committee was basically concerned about their copyright if it was put into legislation the idea being that if they have an idea that is then articulated in legislation they would lose their copyright. It is very important in the notion of New Zealand’s laws that if something is formally put into legislation it comes under the Crown’s copyright. And if something is under the Crown’s copyright then it must be available to all for free and to be used. There is no point in having laws if they are not transparent and accessible. So within clause 42 and we took a bit of time discussing this as a committee we have made the distinction between those items that are referenced in the law—those will maintain a third-party copyright so if you are the person who has articulated the standard and ideas you have a copyright to that. If it is only referenced in the legislation you maintain the copyright. If however the standard is fully incorporated into the body of the legislation—and I can see my colleague here Todd Barclay from Clutha-Southland is absolutely hanging on every word about this distinction—Hon Amy Adams: Why wouldn’t he?SIMON O’CONNOR: Absolutely—you know this is what the House is about. But again if it is fully engaged in the legislation the Crown copyright holds again so it is accessible. So I think we have come to a worthwhile balance there.Ultimately this is just one bill in a whole suite of bills that this Government is progressing. We heard a lot from the previous speaker around the whole Business Growth Agenda. It is a fantastic agenda it is working and it is bringing about results. This bill in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is just one part of that. I commend it to the House.A party vote was called for on the question That the Standards and Accreditation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a second time.Radio New Zealand Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Broadcasting): I move That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Most members of this House would agree that Radio New Zealand is an iconic institution in this country. Since it first broadcast on our airwaves in 1925 our public radio broadcaster has delighted and informed audiences of all generations. But even iconic institutions must adapt to the modern age or else they will grow irrelevant and eventually fade. That is why this Government is progressing this bill to futureproof our public broadcaster for years to come.The bill proposes two key changes. The first puts in place a new charter that reflects Radio New Zealand’s role as a modern public broadcaster and the second makes Radio New Zealand technology-neutral so that it can reach audiences beyond its traditional base. Radio New Zealand receives Crown funding of more than $35 million a year and in order to thrive and get best value for money in the decades to come it must undergo a transformation from a traditional broadcaster to a multimedia organisation that connects with diverse audiences in a range of ways. The pressures of innovative technology and changing consumer demands are not new nor are they unique to Radio New Zealand but these are the forces that are driving real and transformative change for our national radio service.Recent research by New Zealand On Air revealed some interesting findings about the way in which New Zealanders are using and accessing content. It confirmed that the traditional media forms of linear and live radio still attract the largest audiences in New Zealand but online audiences are growing fast especially amongst the younger demographics. The research found that although New Zealanders are not necessarily abandoning one platform for another we are consuming more content overall from a variety of sources. Digital platforms are playing a bigger part in our lives. Radio New Zealand has already been responsive to these changes and although there has been a decline in listenership across traditional platforms over the last 12 months its online audience has grown significantly as its multimedia strategy is implemented.The number of unique visitors to the Radio New Zealand website is up 64 percent to 600000 a month. The youth-focused website The Wireless is using the internet and digital media to reach different audiences. Around 30000 unique users access this site a month—year-on-year growth of 71 percent. Requests for audio via platforms such as iTunes and apps have grown 90 percent in the last year. What this demonstrates is a strong demand for content online as well as the more traditional on air content. Although this shift to multiple platforms is encouraging there is more work to be done which is why this bill introduces a new and updated charter for Radio New Zealand.As outlined earlier the bill incorporates a revision of the charter to better reflect Radio New Zealand’s role as a modern multimedia organisation. Under section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act Radio New Zealand’s charter must be reviewed by the House of Representatives at 5-yearly intervals. The new charter is incorporated in what will be a new section 8 of the Act as substituted by clause 5 of the bill. Under the revised charter Radio New Zealand is expected to foster a sense of national identity by contributing to tolerance and understanding and by reflecting and promoting ethnic cultural and artistic diversity and expression. It is to provide reliable independent and freely accessible news and information a particularly important role in times of crises.The charter lays out expectations around programming. Radio New Zealand content is to inform and entertain the people of New Zealand is to be challenging innovative and engaging and is to foster critical thought and inform wide-ranging debate. The content is to be predominantly and distinctively of New Zealand and to reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity including Māori language and culture. At the same time Radio New Zealand’s programming is expected to provide an awareness of the world and New Zealand’s place in it.The new charter also affirms Radio New Zealand’s international statutory obligation to provide an international service in both English and Pacific languages to radio stations in the South Pacific. The charter identifies the diverse forms of cultural expression Radio New Zealand should support including drama comedy literature and the performing arts. Its support of New Zealand music both in composition and performance will continue. Radio New Zealand is expected to provide programmes that balance special interest with those of wide appeal recognising the interests of all age groups.Finally having created this tremendously broad range of radio material Radio New Zealand is charged under the charter with preserving and archiving broadcasting material of historical interest. In 2012 its holdings were transferred to the care of the New Zealand Film Archive now known as Ngā Taonga Sound & Vision as part of the Government’s objective of rationalising the care of and access to New Zealand’s audiovisual heritage.The new charter contains a new obligation to take advantage of the most effective means of delivery including its website. The provision will help make Radio New Zealand technology-neutral so that it can reach audiences beyond the traditional listener at home to those using smartphones and other devices anywhere and anytime.As an early adopter of new media Radio New Zealand is now well established as a multi-platform broadcaster providing flexible listening options for its audiences. For example in the financial year 2013-14 3.5 million podcasts were downloaded. Regular users of the Radio New Zealand mobile app grew by almost 62 percent during this time. Radio New Zealand’s website also offers live streaming a text-based news service and audio on demand. So although Radio New Zealand has made good progress updating this legislation is important to enable Radio New Zealand to maximise the public value of content and help it to grow as a multi-platform broadcaster.I do want to signal that I have been asked by Radio New Zealand to undertake clarification at the Committee of the whole House stage to make clear that although Radio New Zealand services must remain commercial-free this does not prevent it from taking advantage of opportunities such as for example its recent presence on iHeartRadio which is of course in itself a commercial app that includes advertising or licensing its content for re-use by commercial providers. At the same time changes will also need to be made to the commencement date of the legislation. We will also look to make the research obligations on Radio New Zealand more flexible without reducing its accountability.In concluding the new charter affirms the breadth of programmes and services New Zealanders expect from their public radio—services that could not be delivered by a broadcasting business that is wholly reliant on commercial revenue. New Zealanders greatly value Radio New Zealand as one of our most respected and indispensable cultural institutions and this bill will futureproof it for generations to come. I look forward to further progressing it through the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I listened very very hard to that speech and I am not sure that we were talking about the same bill. I listened very hard for the words “sorry” and “embarrassed” but I did not hear them. Did you hear them? I did not hear them. I listened very hard for those words because this could be the bill that has been sitting for the longest time on the Order Paper in the term of this Government while it has been in power.The bill was introduced in June 2009—so nearly 6 years ago—and here we have the Minister talking about it as futureproofing and modernising Radio New Zealand. Well I am not sure how this bill is actually modernising Radio New Zealand when it is based on a review of the Radio New Zealand charter that was finished in 2006 which is nearly 10 years ago. So if that is the Minister’s idea of modernising well I think that tells us all something tonight.Just a little history lesson for the Minister in case she is not aware of the history of this bill. There was a statutory requirement under section 7(4) of the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to incorporate a review of the Radio New Zealand charter every 5 years. As I said the review was completed in 2006. The legislation appeared in the House in 2009 under this Government but it sat—it sat—and it has not come back. Tonight is a historic occasion because this bill is finally back before the House.Of course Labour supports this bill because it undertakes to fix something that should have been done 6 years ago. The problem we have is that this is not modernising. This bill has actually skipped a review. Actually there is a legislative requirement for there to be a review every 5 years. Well there has not been a review for nearly 10 years. It would be interesting in the Committee stage for the Minister to clarify just exactly what that means.It is now incorporating a review that was done before this Government took office. If that is not incompetence I do not know what is. If it is not blatant disregard for the importance of Radio New Zealand then I do not know what is. The Minister says that it is an iconic institution. Well that Government could have treated it with more respect by passing this legislation 6 years ago instead of leaving it languishing on the Order Paper.Labour believes in public broadcasting. We have invested in it over a long period of time and we will do so again. New Zealanders need to hear their own voices and their own stories and we need media that is independent and free of commercial influence. This is not a big ask. Every OECD country has an independent commercial-free public television broadcaster except New Zealand. We have only Radio New Zealand. Yes it is iconic. Yes it is a public treasure. But this Government does not respect it. This Government treats it with blatant disregard.I want to just refer back to what a former Minister Tony Ryall had to say about Radio New Zealand in 1993. He said: “I believe that we should be putting up for tender the provision of a concert programme network and the provision of a national radio network. At present it costs taxpayers some $20 million to provide those networks but those services could be provided to an equivalent if not better standard by an alternative provider.” His Government still believes this and the extraordinary amount of time that it has taken to get this legislation back before the House is testament to that.This Government tolerates Radio New Zealand because it knows that to get rid of it or to make it commercial as it did with Television New Zealand (TVNZ) would be a step too far. New Zealanders would not stand for it. So this Government tolerates it. It freezes it. It refuses to be interviewed by it. It treats it with disdain. It is shabby treatment of a national treasure.The Government has to pass this bill. This is embarrassing for it and it was embarrassing to hear the Minister get up tonight and talk about modernising Radio New Zealand when there has been a piece of legislation to update the charter sitting on the Order Paper for 6 years. It has to pass this bill but the real agenda of this Government is to erode public media. That is what it has been steadily doing for the last 6 years.The legacy of this Government of the National Government is frozen Radio New Zealand funding frozen for 6 years. This is the seventh year that Radio New Zealand has existed under the same funding regime. And the Minister has the gall to say how fabulous she thinks Radio New Zealand is. Well it needs investment and it needs to be treated with more respect because it is the only public broadcaster that New Zealand has.New Zealand On Air has had its funding frozen for that same 6 years. This Government abolished the TVNZ charter. It commercialised TVNZ and that was just confirmed to my colleague Kris Faafoi in a select committee recently where it acknowledged that TVNZ is now a fully commercial operation. It just happens to be owned by the Government. There is no TVNZ public television charter. It is a fully commercial entity.This Government appointed the Prime Minister’s electorate chair to the board of New Zealand On Air and tried to influence the screening of a documentary on child poverty before the 2011 election. Stephen McElrea—does everybody remember that story? Well he is still on the board of New Zealand On Air and he is still exerting influence.The Government gave a loan of $43 million to MediaWorks to bail it out. It sold TVNZ land to Skycity. There has been the debacle around the appointment of the Māori Television chief executive Paora Maxwell with links to the Māori Party and to the National Government. There has been the frightening purge of journalists quality journalists from Māori Television. There has been an inquiry into Shane Taurima but a refusal to countenance an inquiry into political interference in Māori Television or New Zealand On Air.And now when a show like Campbell Live looks like being axed all the Prime Minister has to say is that its primary role was entertainment and not to hold the Government to account. Well that statement tells us a lot does it not? When the Prime Minister believes that the primary role of New Zealand’s last daily current affairs show is not to hold the Government to account then we have crossed a line and that line is democracy.The bill may pass its second reading tonight and we may pass this bill. Hopefully it will not sit on the Order Paper for long until it comes back to the House. We may pass this bill but under this Government there is no doubt that there is a clear agenda to repress an independent questioning media and Radio New Zealand represents that. It is the last bastion of public media in this country. The passage of time in passing this bill is negligent it is incompetent and the attitude of this Government to accountability in general through independent questioning media is an absolute disgrace.MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this second reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I must begin my contribution by acknowledging that member who just sat down Clare Curran. I can understand that she is passionate and occasionally I think she is actually very passionate about public broadcasting. I actually commend her for that but for her to mention Shane Taurima when she talks about an apparent conflict of interest—for her to bring Shane Taurima’s name into the debate is probably a big mistake. To think that a Labour Party candidate could run political meetings in Television New Zealand’s public-funded—I am thinking that I will not go there. That member actually brought that up but I will just leave it at that. If the Labour Party does it then it is OK. I mean jeez! That is just such a wrong thing to say. But as I began I have to commend Clare. She is very passionate about public broadcasting and I do agree with her: public broadcasting is a necessary thing in New Zealand.There are programmes in this country—whether it is radio or television or on other platforms—that actually need the support of the public and need the funding that is necessary because often they are not able to be done by commercial means. I am very grateful to Radio New Zealand for continuing to broadcast some of the programmes that are on its platform. As the Minister of Broadcasting has said this institution has been going since 1925 and what this bill actually does is amend the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to bring this old institution from 1925 into the modern age so we can actually futureproof it. As everyone knows our children do not necessarily watch television. My 16-year-old child does not watch television in real time. He time-shifts. He records on his—Hon Member: iPad.MELISSA LEE: No no no. It is a Sky remote thingumajig. Sorry I am sounding so old.Hon Amy Adams: MY SKY.MELISSA LEE: MY SKY. That is right. He actually watches it online. I do not think children teenage children listen to radio. I listen to radio when I am driving. I do not necessarily listen to a radio at work—Simon O’Connor: The Edge.MELISSA LEE: I do not listen to The Edge. I listen to the radio only when I am driving. I do listen to music when I am driving and I do turn on Radio New Zealand when I am driving as well. You know the time that you can actually spend driving listening to the radio is not very long so I tend to go to the iHeartRadio Radio New Zealand app that I have actually downloaded. As the Minister has said the technology is actually improving so fast that we want Radio New Zealand to be technology-neutral so that it is not limited to the wireless radio of the past but something that is akin to the modern-day technology whether it is actually listening on our phones as we are walking to work with our headphones on or whether we actually do it from our computer or whether we actually listen to it on radio.National is committed to delivering Better Public Services. I just want to sort of talk about what Clare said. This has actually “languished” she said—I quote her—on the Order Paper since 2006. We are a very very busy Government but if we go back to 2006 it was the Labour Government. We actually took over at the end of 2008 and actually Labour was in Government for 9 years—9 years. Labour members feel so passionately about public broadcasting that they did nothing about it until 2006 when it was reviewed. It actually languished there and when Labour actually got voted off in 2008—2006 to 2008 is a 2-year gap and nobody did anything about it. If Clare Curran had been a member of the Labour caucus back then maybe she could have been so passionate within her caucus as to convince the caucus to actually do something about it but they did nothing. They did not do anything.But this Government has been busy. We have had the global financial crisis. We have had the Christchurch earthquake. We have actually been a very busy Government but we are acting. We are coming back to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill.Brett Hudson: Creating jobs.MELISSA LEE: We are creating jobs—74000 jobs a year to be exact.I just want to sort of go back to what the Minister actually said about the sense of national identity when it comes to Radio New Zealand. It is very important because you know I was not here in New Zealand back in 1925 when Radio New Zealand began. I was not even here back in 1970-something. I was not even here in the 1980s. I moved to New Zealand and became a New Zealander back in the late 1980s. I have been in New Zealand for nearly 30 years. In that time the New Zealand population has changed drastically. New Zealand is no longer looking to England thinking: “mother England”. We are actually global citizens New Zealanders are. You know what? The population composition has changed and I am very grateful to Radio New Zealand for its Asian Report—I think now it is called Voices. One of my old reporters who used to work on our television programmes on Television One Asia Dynamic and Asia Downunder Lynda Chanwai-Earle does it on Radio New Zealand—Hon Amy Adams: See that’s the difference. We’ve got members who’ve done this stuff.MELISSA LEE: Yes she has actually done it. Lynda’s actually a very good reporter and she is actually a very good producer as well.The kinds of stories that come out on these programmes are—I think there was one programme she actually did about one of only two commissioned officers of the Royal New Zealand Air Force during the Second World War who was known as “Willie McWong”; actually he was William Wong of Dunedin. Those kinds of stories actually resonate with me because they tell the stories of the past. I think these stories must be told. When I was doing television I was very proud to tell the stories of people like Chew Chong from Taranaki who was instrumental in the butter export of New Zealand. He was the first man to block butter and think of exporting it to England—mother England. That was the beginning of the dairy industry and it came from Taranaki and a Chinese man by the name of Chew Chong. There is even a museum about it in Taranaki. What I am actually getting at is the sense of national identity of New Zealand now. As a nation we are a mix of many ethnicities. I am very proud of the work that Radio New Zealand does and I hope it will continue to do so in the multi-platform way that it is able to do.You know what? As a listener I do not like radio ads. I do not even like television ads. I tend to skip them if I can. Often we actually want as viewers and as listeners for Radio New Zealand to produce programmes without commercials. But it does not actually mean that Radio New Zealand should not be thinking in a business sense. It needs to draw more audiences. It needs to be more active in the way that it can actually draw businesses to support its programmes not just rely on funding. Do you know when I was producing television television was very expensive to produce. Radio is too but I recently went and did an interview with a young man who does podcasting. When podcasting first started I did not even know what it was but to think that a podcast that is generated from Christchurch has listeners from around the world—that is the modern age of technology and Radio New Zealand as an early adopter of technology has great advances that it can actually make. I actually commend the work that the Minister has done. I commend the work that Radio New Zealand does and we actually support it. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I just point to some of the opening remarks that the Minister Amy Adams made in her speech saying that the intent of this bill from the Government the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill is to make sure that Radio New Zealand is relevant and futureproofing Radio New Zealand. Futureproofing and keeping Radio New Zealand relevant has been such a priority for this Government that this piece of legislation was referred to the select committee in June 2009 and it has languished on the Order Paper through the 49th Parliament through the 50th Parliament and it has got to the stage now where the Government has got hardly anything on the Order Paper so this massive priority in public broadcasting has all of a sudden found its way back on to the Order Paper and it is getting its second reading. Some of the names on the select committee—some of the members in this House would not even know who they are. It is two Parliaments ago. This is how much of a priority this Government is making over public broadcasting.Such a priority this Government has made over the last 6 years that it has frozen the budget of Radio New Zealand. Can I just at this point make a disclaimer and actually thank Radio New Zealand and the staff of Radio New Zealand for the work that they have done under increasingly tight financial conditions. They as the Minister has said are having to tread new waters. The technology is changing and I will talk about that later but Radio New Zealand has got to the stage where it has at a select committee said it has got to the bone and it cannot make any more cuts. So that is the reality of the priority that this Government has given public broadcasting.Let me say as someone who has actually worked in public broadcasting here and overseas—I have not had the pleasure of working for Radio New Zealand—that I do not want Radio New Zealand to be strong purely for political purposes for the Labour Party. I think Radio New Zealand should be strong because there needs to be an independent journalistic outlet that questions people from all around this House. It should be coming after all of us regardless of which side of the House we are on. If we have done something wrong or done something unpopular then we need independent journalism that will take people like us to task. It is absolutely—Hon Judith Collins: Absolutely.KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you very much. Thank you Judith. She is going to switch her vote and come over with us. This is a done deal.Having independent media is very important and we support this bill because it sets out a charter that began its life under a Labour Government. But what has happened over the last 6 years is that although it is nice to have a charter the cold hard reality is that this current Government has starved Radio New Zealand of the funding to be able to do some of the things that are in this piece of legislation. That is one fact. My former employer Television New Zealand (TVNZ) which probably is not happy with me since I have become a member of Parliament because of the criticism that I have poured on it has moved from an institution that used to have a charter and a dual remit of being a public broadcaster and a commercial entity to basically becomingpurely a commercial entity. I say on the record now that at a select committee hearing not so long ago I asked the chief executive of TVNZ whether it saw itself as a public broadcaster any more. He basically said: “No we’ve got a mandate to make money. That’s all we care about. That’s what we’re going to do.” On that side of the House that might be OK but on this side of the House we do care about some of the tenets of public broadcasting and one of those is making sure that you are a participant and making sure that constituents or Kiwis can participate in the democratic process.I was shocked last week to see a headline in the New Zealand Herald where basically TVNZ said it did not want any part to play in party political broadcasts any more. The New Zealand Herald ran that story and then on the Friday it ran an editorial saying that it agreed with TVNZ. But the devil was in the detail there because basically it wanted the money that is spent for those party political broadcasts to be spread far and wide like to its own newspaper and its own websites. So there is a bit of behind-the-scenes stuff going on there.But I actually think that TVNZ as a State broadcaster and the likes of Radio New Zealand do have an important part to play in a democratic process whether that is making sure that constituents voters can get the information that they might want in order to make up their minds on who to vote for or making sure that there is strong journalism in New Zealand. I think that what we are seeing at the moment is that it is a very interesting time in journalism. With the possible cancellation of Campbell Live and with other changes in journalism things seem to be getting dumbed down. I am a realist as well. MediaWorks is a commercial entity; Radio New Zealand is not and also TVNZ is not. So I think there is an onus on State-owned or public broadcasters to make sure that they are delivering a decent standard of journalism in New Zealand. And because of the way that technology is changing and we are seeing a lot of merging of media companies at the moment—you will see the New Zealand Herald and RadioWorks come together to make New Zealand Media and Entertainment—the standard of journalism is changing. I think that that is a real threat to democracy in New Zealand and to accuracy preciseness in journalism.So we need to have a standard bearer and I think that Radio New Zealand and I hope one day TVNZ in some form of public broadcasting guise might be able to play this role. But that is not going to be a reality under the current Government because public broadcasting just simply does not seem to be a priority for it. Let us look at its track record in other areas. TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 which were set up by the previous Labour Government to make sure that State broadcasting had a space in the digital media were cut off by Jonathan Coleman a previous National broadcasting Minister.I do not hesitate to agree with the Minister that public broadcasters have to change their game. I do not watch much TV either these days. I have got an internet connection; I watch Netflix. I watch what I want to watch and when I want to watch it. But we need to make sure that New Zealand stories are told and are in that sphere and if we do not have a Government that supports the likes of NZ On Air supports the likes of TVNZ and local broadcasters and local content producers and supports Radio New Zealand then we are going to be in serious danger of having all this content from around the world coming into New Zealand and not having any of our own stories to tell. When I grew up back in the day there were lots of New Zealand faces and lots of stories—Hon Member: Like what?KRIS FAAFOI: —it was so long ago—out there whether it be children’s TV or whether it be documentaries or whether it be factual programmes as well.Hon Member: Under the Mountain.KRIS FAAFOI: Under the Mountain—no Terry Teo and things like that and Video Dispatch were very important when I was growing up.But I think that if we are going into this digital age and we do not have a prioritising of New Zealand content then I think future generations of New Zealanders will miss out. We will not have New Zealand stories on air. We will not hear our voices on the radio. We will get stuff piped in from overseas. Essentially changes in technology mean bigger pipes and you can get things faster. One of the first things I said last year around the changing technologies around broadcasting was that you can have a bigger pipe but if you are still sending sewage down it it is still sewage. Our viewers and our listeners do not want sewage coming in from overseas. We want good stuff—good stuff—that is New Zealand made is our stories our own voices and our own people and our diverse communities in New Zealand to make sure those stories are being told.This piece of legislation in a way is good because it started under a Labour Government that said there needed to be a review and a charter for Radio New Zealand. There needs to be a review every 5 years. We have already missed one and we are likely to have the second miss because of the lateness of this piece of legislation coming through the House.So it kind of irks me a little bit to hear the Minister over there saying that they want to futureproof Radio New Zealand and make sure it is relevant. If they really cared about it—and let us be honest and let us cut to the chase they do not—they would have done this a long time ago and they would not have cut the budget of Radio New Zealand. They would not have sold off TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7. They would not have made TVNZ purely commercial. But it is quite clear that this Government does not care about public broadcasting.BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. I would like to commend the previous National speaker Melissa Lee and Ms Curran for the very clear passion that they both share. They do not share the same views but they clearly both share the same sort of passion for this topic. Like Mr Faafoi who has just resumed his seat I am going to perhaps be a little calmer and more measured in my views on this lest people observing this wonder whether there is some artificial stimulant in the water. I would just like to reassure them that there is not. This water is homeopathic water. It is merely water diluted by lots of water. It is very powerful stuff.Minister Adams when she introduced the bill in this reading gave some context as to where we have come from to get to what we are preparing for today. This bill is about helping Radio New Zealand adapt to technological possibilities and channels and the opportunities that that creates for today. But looking back gives us some context of where we have come from and come so quickly. It was in 1925 that we first had a public radio broadcaster. That is 91 years that we have had a public radio broadcaster in New Zealand. That is a phenomenal achievement when you think of it. Of course none of us were there to witness that first day or those early days but we can imagine perhaps from stories in our own families over the generations what it might have been like—the old wireless technology valve technology which had to warm up before it would work antenna technology and reception that was not so great so the signal would be difficult to hear. It would cut in and out but people would cluster families would cluster around to hear the news to be entertained to learn more about New Zealand to learn more about the world. They would get up in the middle of the night as the stories are told to hear about the All Blacks’ exploits in countries far away and to hear the passion of commentators as they described the games described the points described the tries.And today we have high-definition video. We have very high-quality audio. We have digital technology for our radio broadcasts as well. We have not only our traditional airwaves but the internet as a medium for broadcasting audio video and in fact written content. We have so many other forms of technologies but at the heart of it when we are consuming this—and I will refer specifically to Radio New Zealand content whether it is over the airwaves or over the internet—it is still delivering a broadcast of content that is informing New Zealanders about their communities their country the world and our place in it and the exploits of New Zealanders in cultural events in sports in business and in achievements around the globe. It remains as much of a valuable tool in informing and entertaining Kiwis and their families as it was 91 years ago but it is if we give it the support able to do so by leveraging and harnessing the technological capabilities that are available today. When we look at why this bill is coming to the House it is around this Government’s commitment to delivering Better Public Services. That includes the continuation of a reliable independent public radio capability. In fact we do not want just to continue that capability; we want to expand and protect it for the future which is why this bill supports Radio New Zealand expanding into new media platforms and adjusting to changing technological environments.As Minister Adams pointed out there are two core sets of changes in this amendment. One is a revised charter and the second is to make Radio New Zealand technology-neutral although I would use slightly different language there because I would not like to give people the impression that “neutral” in this context is uninteresting or bland. It is quite the opposite. In this case the technology is about exploiting all of the technological capabilities of the 21st century—so one that will exploit web technology and mobile applications will stream audio will stream other content and will give far more opportunities for Kiwis to be informed.But let us look first at the Radio New Zealand charter. The charter is a very practical and pragmatic shift or reinforcement. It makes a stronger statement about Radio New Zealand’s role as a public broadcaster. In fact in the recent annual review in the Commerce Committee—in that public hearing Radio New Zealand reaffirmed its commitment to a core free-to-air service and no advertising. It also said—and I take a note because the members opposite particularly the previous Labour speaker Kris Faafoi talked about how dire the circumstances for Radio New Zealand are. The comment from its chair was that despite difficult circumstances they the board were confident that they would meet their anticipated budget for the next year. This is a business that also has to operate in an environment that is close to global financial crisis. In trying financial circumstances it is delivering more content on more channels to more people and its people are saying that they can do it and they will do it again next year. The board the chief executive officer and in fact the entire team of Radio New Zealand deserve our congratulations.Importantly if the charter is reaffirming Radio New Zealand’s role as a public broadcaster and a commercial-free service the text has been drafted and organised so that it is more accessible to the public. After all if this is a public broadcast service it does make very good sense that the public should be able to understand the charter what its intentions are and how Radio New Zealand will go about delivering that.I would just like to make a note or two about the select committee process in 2009 when this bill was referred to the Commerce Committee. Unlike 2005 when about 163-odd submissions were heard and despite all of that public interest despite the clear interest in the charter revision and the amendment Labour sat on the bill and did not bother passing it—despite that public interest no it clearly felt that light bulbs and low-flow shower heads were far more important to New Zealanders than actually their public broadcasting radio service. Well in 2009 when the bill went before the select committee for a second time there was a single submission that was made and that submission supported the amendments to the charter. But the select committee did not sit on its hands. It also sought advice from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and from the Clerk of the House of Representatives on whether to propose an amendment that would require Radio New Zealand to broadcast summaries of Parliamentary proceedings.I can say that that amendment was made in relation to the fact that Radio New Zealand was no longer making those sorts of broadcasts. The Commerce Committee was advised that that was contractually controlled by the Office of the Clerk and technically out of the remit of that particular select committee but that the broadcaster may have no editorial input and that would preclude a contract with Radio New Zealand. Although that is unfortunate for New Zealanders in that it was determined that they probably would not be able to broadcast these proceedings we can at least celebrate that it was reaffirming Radio New Zealand’s right to exercise editorial control over whatever it is that it is broadcasting. So the bill was recommended back to the House by that select committee without amendment.Dr Megan Woods: When was that?BRETT HUDSON: That was in two thousand and—yeah a few years ago.What I would like to talk about now is the futureproofing part of this bill. What we see here is a change and amendment that will support far more web content: webcasting audio video content. But what is really exciting is the launch Radio New Zealand has had of The Wireless something that is growing at a phenomenal rate and is really connecting with other demographics.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party supports this bill and we absolutely support Radio New Zealand and public broadcasting more generally. There is nothing really controversial about the bill itself. I suppose the only comment that we can make is that the Government certainly took a very very long time to get this bill before the House. It is not a very complex one. I am not sure why it has taken the Government so long but it was required by statute to have a review of Radio New Zealand’s charter and that review was undertaken in 2006. It has taken a very very long time for this bill to come back to its second reading.The real problem for Radio New Zealand and for public broadcasting in New Zealand generally is the fact that it is incredibly underfunded. I think the comments made by Government MPs really gloss over the fact that we have underfunded public broadcasting. There has been a funding freeze since 2008. That effectively means there has been a 10 percent cut to Radio New Zealand since the National Party came into Government. Of course it would like to say: “Well that’s great. We’re providing the same great service but we’re spending less money on it.” But it is clear that this is having an impact on the ability of Radio New Zealand to deliver that important service to New Zealanders.In 2007 there was an independent audit by KPMG that concluded the organisation was already at that time seriously underfunded understaffed and under-resourced. It recommended an immediate funding increase of $6.7 million. Instead of that this National Government has frozen the funding for the 7 years that it is has been in power. That has clearly had an impact. There have been very high-quality journalists who have not been able to be retained because they are not able to receive any sort of increase in salary despite the fact that costs of living are going up.We have a bit of a crisis in public broadcasting because I believe the National Party members do not really believe in public broadcasting despite what they say. They do not believe in public broadcasting they do not really believe in democracy and you can hear that in their talking points on this bill when they talk about how Radio New Zealand needs to be more like a business. Well the purpose of public broadcasting is not to be commercially viable. The whole purpose of public broadcasting is to provide what the market is not going to provide and that is independent journalism which is essential for citizens in order to have a functioning democracy.If we look at New Zealand compared with other OECD countries our level of funding for public broadcasting per capita is abysmally low. It is almost as low as the United States which is in fact the only country in this study that spends less on public broadcasting per capita than New Zealand. I can tell members of this House and those watching on Parliament TV tonight that public broadcasting is virtually non-existent in the United States. It is part of the reason we have such a toxic media environment and such a broken democratic situation in the United States the country that I come from.So if we look at other OECD countries and the amount of money that they invest in public broadcasting because it is so important and critical to democracy we can see that Australia spends three times as much as New Zealand per capita. The UK spends nearly five times as much per capita. Of course small countries that are similar in size to New Zealand—for example Denmark spends significantly more per capita about 6 times as much as New Zealand. So New Zealand is falling behind and of course it is in the interest of this National Government to ensure that there is not an independent well-funded public broadcaster because then there will not be anyone there to ensure that the electorate is hearing in-depth analysis and policy debates. That makes it easier for this National Party to get elected when it can rely on superficial branding to get elected and there is no scrutiny of the actual policy that it is implementing.The Green Party believes in democracy. We believe in properly funded independent public broadcasting not only on radio. We would immediately increase funding to Radio New Zealand so that it has a proper budget and we would also ensure that there is proper public broadcasting available on television. We need a non-commercial television station which has not occurred since we lost TVNZ 6 and 7. Of course I think we need to go a lot further than that if we want to provide quality content and information. It is not just about news and current affairs although that is incredibly important and essential to democracy. It is also about entertainment and culture. After all we do not want our children in New Zealand growing up with accents like mine. It is important for New Zealand to preserve its independent identity and it is valuable I think to New Zealanders. I think the National Party is very defensive on this because it knows that its own voters believe in Radio New Zealand and believe in public broadcasting. What it would like to get away with is saying it supports these things but not actually funding them.The truth is we cannot afford not to have public broadcasting. National would have you believe we do not have enough money for this; that is like saying we do not have enough money for elections. If we want a properly functioning democracy we need a properly funded public broadcaster both on television and on radio and if the National Party—Hon Amy Adams: How much would you give them? How much?JULIE ANNE GENTER: —actually supported Radio New Zealand then the Government would increase the funding by at least the $6.7 million that KPMG recommended and probably at least indexed to the rate of wage inflation.I will just conclude by saying that the Green Party wants to see a diverse quality strong and independent media that contributes to the maintenance of effective democracy and Aotearoa New Zealand’s social cultural economic and environmental well-being. This National Party understands the cost of many things but the value of very few. Thank you.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It has been an interesting debate while I have been sitting in the House particularly the interaction between the Government members and the Labour Party members trying to figure out who took the longest to get nowhere.I just want to quote a few statements with regard to this particular bill. This is what has been said previously about this bill: “This bill languished under the last administration whereas this Government is committed to fulfilling its legislative responsibilities.” It just never got around to doing it. “This is an unfair situation for Radio New Zealand and it shows that the previous Minister [of Broadcasting] had other priorities. It is highly desirable that the related legislative process be concluded as soon as possible to ensure that Radio New Zealand can operate to an up-to-date and clear public service mandate. The adoption into legislation of the revised charter supports this Government’s manifesto commitment to provide certainty in relation to the operations of public service broadcasters.” Those quotes were from the Minister of Broadcasting at the time the Hon Dr Coleman of the National Government back in 2009.Members on the Government benches have made much of the fact that the original review around the content of the charter was made in 2005 with 135 submissions at the time and that the Commerce Committee at that time considered those submissions and then came up with a few tweaks and so on for the charter. It then came back to this House which then needed to be turned into legislation which then went back to the Commerce Committee.So there has been much made by the National Government members in an attempt to override what they knew was going to be a drumming when they came into this House with this bill. The reason why they were going to get a drumming—and they knew it—was that those statements were made in 2009 about how important this piece of legislation was and they were made by the Minister about how terrible it was that it had been left for 3 years and nothing had happened. And now here we are 6 years later under a National Government looking at the same piece of legislation which fascinatingly even though it has changed almost not a jot since 2009 is now apparently—according to the speakers from the Government benches—going to completely update and modernise Radio New Zealand for the new digital age and for the many media platforms that are available now.That is a miracle. It is a miracle that when something just sits on the Order Paper for 6 years it suddenly becomes the answer for the future. Maybe we should just leave everything on the Order Paper and then eventually it will morph itself into the future. Well that would be lovely but you know like I know Mr O’Connor that that is not going to happen.But let us just take some other quotes. This speaker on this bill said the following: “I commend Dr Coleman for his courage to take action over this bill a bill that was an example of the Labour Party resting on its laurels and not getting legislation through this House. It is a brave move by Dr Coleman to take this legislation on and move it quickly through the House.” So what happened to that courage which started in 2009 and now we are here in 2015? What happened—Chris Bishop: We got busy.TRACEY MARTIN: What happened Mr Bishop? What happened to the courage? Did all the courage leave the House when the members of the original Commerce Committee that looked at this bill left? Is that what happened Mr Bishop? There is no more courage left to drive such important legislation through this House and that is why it has spent 6 years sitting on this Order Paper?It fascinates me that we have had National Party members stand and passionately argue how important—how important—public broadcasting service is for New Zealand. And it absolutely is. New Zealand First absolutely agrees that there must be an independent non-commercial public broadcaster for New Zealand. We agree and we believe as the Green Party spokesperson said that there should be a public broadcasting non-commercial television station. Ms Collins holds her head in her hands—now she sits on the Education and Science Committee. What a shame she was not on the committee when she was a Minister because she would have heard her Government members on that select committee at the time also raving and being very passionate about Learning Media and its opportunity to create digital content in visual and in radio form that would retain the voice of New Zealand across our public service radio. But Miss Collins was not there and now holds her head in her hands in a back seat backbench position.Of course what happened was that this Government on the one hand said that this was a wonderful thing and Learning Media had this opportunity and could keep the New Zealand voice there for New Zealanders. Then the Government drove it out of business by opening Learning Media up to 100 percent competition while at the same time it had its hands tied behind its back with regard to what it had to provide for the Government for free.So it is fascinating to listen to the Government members stand and argue how much they believe in public broadcasting and how much they believe that this institution should remain and should be well funded. They have not funded it properly for the last 7 years but today after 6 years of this being on the Order Paper—so Radio New Zealand not technically having a legal charter or at least not a charter that has been reviewed in the modern age and not increasing its funding in any other way—they have decided that it is incredibly important and that they must push it through.It will be interesting to see what is in the Budget. Is there any money Mr Bishop in the Budget for Radio New Zealand? Is there any money Mr Bishop? Will you finally give public broadcasting money? After all the statements made will that Government finally give public broadcasting any more money?Chris Bishop: Wait and see. It’s a good Budget.TRACEY MARTIN: Is that a no Mr Bishop? Is that a no? Is that a no Mr Bishop?Chris Bishop: It’s a good Budget. It’s a good Budget Tracey.TRACEY MARTIN: That is a no. There you go. So unfortunately for Radio New Zealand and those people in New Zealand who believe in public broadcasting do not look to this Government to try to fund it appropriately. They will talk the talk in the middle of night. They will talk the talk but they will not walk the walk. So do not expect anything inside this Budget.The only other thing that New Zealand First would say is that it is incredibly important that we keep an independent voice but is Radio New Zealand currently as independent and informative as it should be for the New Zealand public? I think one needs to go and have a look and we challenge the broadcaster itself to go and have a look. Is it unbiased in its political reporting for example? Does it gain comment from across the whole of the political spectrum on issues that are of importance?We would challenge it to go and have a look at the percentages of its reporting and the percentage of comment that it seeks from political party spokespersons on issues that are of importance—important enough for it to put on the radio station and make programmes about such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It appears to be picking and choosing political parties in order to gain a bias. New Zealand First would argue that there are voices in the political arena that New Zealanders need to hear on issues like the Trans-Pacific Partnership on issues like foreign investment and on issues that this Government has been trying to push through again and again through a misrepresentation to the New Zealand people.We would suggest that it is not only timely for this organisation to have its charter passed through here so that it can actually provide comprehensive independent accurate impartial and balanced regional national and international news and current affairs. We would encourage it to seek comment from every political party inside this House on a regular basis and in an apolitical manner.Do not be frightened of the National Government. Make sure that you keep in the charter comments that are here in the charter. We would absolutely support that this bill needs to be passed now so that Radio New Zealand can actually get on with its business. We also would support that if there are any crumbs left in the Budget Mr Bishop perhaps we could throw a few to Radio New Zealand. Otherwise New Zealand First joins with the other Opposition parties in saying that we actually believe in public broadcasting and we would fund it to the level it should be appropriately funded at.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): What a joy to follow that member Tracey Martin who has just resumed her seat. Everything from now on has to be better does it not really? I mean for goodness’ sake! Let me take up the cudgels on behalf of Radio New Zealand after that horrible attack from New Zealand First. Radio New Zealand should be able to put on commentary from the politicians whom it wants to hear from not the ones it is made to hear from—good on Radio New Zealand.I would like to take up a point that Kris Faafoi made. He said that we had no commitment to Radio New Zealand. Well actually I remember 1YA—of course I was a child at the time—and we had this fabulous programme on Sunday mornings called Flick the Little Fire Engine. That was Radio New Zealand when I was growing up and I think it is still on actually in some parts. It is the same programme over and over again which is pretty fantastic—it is called recycling. But really we have $35 million worth of taxpayer money of commitment—Simon O’Connor: How much?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: $35 million every year going to Radio New Zealand. If I tell you how much taxpayer money goes to Newstalk ZB—Hon Amy Adams: Zero.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Zero. How much goes to Radio Live? Hmm—zero. How much goes to Radio Hauraki? Zero. How much goes to Classic Hits? Zero. How much goes to the Breeze—my favourite station personally because it plays good music when I am driving? Zero. That is it—zero—and yet we have $35 million a year of taxpayer money going to Radio New Zealand. I think that is money well spent myself. I just love being interviewed by Mary Wilson on Checkpoint. Nothing gets better than that. There is nothing like that with the sort of rabid interviewer coming down through the line ripping your heart out—fantastic stuff. Then there is Morning Report—unfairly I think referred to occasionally as “Moaning Report”. That is very unfair because I actually really enjoy listening to Susie Ferguson and Guyon Espiner. I challenge New Zealand First—and Tracey Martin the deputy leader—to come up with one reason why they would want to interview New Zealand First.Radio New Zealand has a very balanced view. It is not always fond of the Government especially when it is us. But having said that I still think Radio New Zealand is in a really good place to be. They are in fact the people who do not have to get advertising to pay their wages unlike every other radio station with whom they compete. They have an obligation to produce something that we expect which is sound balanced radio. Occasionally they get it wrong. I was listening to The Panel one day just last week when that lovely Jim Mora whom I am very fond of had on that lady—you know she is the one who does those baking soda cleansers. She was commenting—I have no idea why—along with somebody else similarly left wing. They were commenting in a really balanced way: all left. I thought: “Well isn’t that great?”. I thought that actually the public can listen to this and they will make up their own minds. But do you know what? Radio New Zealand apart from all that—and we all have our little sorts of things about it—I actually think generally does a really good job.Kris Faafoi said we are not interested in public broadcasting. Well yes we are. He also wondered why Television New Zealand does not want to run all these TV political ads at election time. I will tell you why. Mostly they are really boring; mostly they really are. When Mr Assistant Speaker and I were growing up—well he was growing up a lot earlier than me I have to say—there was not any choice. People basically were chained to the TV—the one station and at one stage the two stations—waiting for the little kiwi to come out at about 9.30 p.m. to tell us to go to bed. That is what it was like. I know Dr Megan Woods is looking at this and saying: “Is this true?”. It was. Worse than that it was in black and white. That is actually what we used to have with our public broadcasting dollar.But let us just wonder this: why do we have public broadcasting? Actually we had it to start with because there was no commercial interest or ability to bring it about. But I think it has actually won a place in people’s hearts. Where else is one going to learn about bird calls other than Radio New Zealand? That is a good thing. Should you wake up at 5 o’clock in the morning for some strange reason and need to go back to sleep what else are you going to do? Turn on Radio New Zealand at 5 o’clock in the morning and you will go back to sleep. It is fantastic. But I am digressing. The fact is that Radio New Zealand has $35 million of taxpayer money every single year. That is $35 million more than every other radio station that it competes with. I actually think that is quite a good deal frankly. If I were Radio New Zealand I would be pretty pleased with that.I would also like to say that I actually think Radio New Zealand has really improved its performance around communicating with and making itself accessible to the public. As we have heard from all the speakers tonight everyone is saying they have things like Netflix and stuff like that. Well actually I do not. I generally try to watch some television—normally not the news because it is always a bit dull and depressing; I actually like seeing ordinary TV occasionally. But do you know what? We have so much more choice nowadays. So many of the Radio New Zealand programmes are really good. If you cannot listen to them at the time then you can listen to them on the internet later on. It has a very good service on the internet so that it is very quickly available. If you want to go and check your interview what has happened what is going on with something or what the bird call was for today it is actually available and I think that is important. That is no different by the way from the commercial stations with which they compete.But I will say Radio New Zealand has certain obligations. For instance its leaders come to our Commerce Committee and report to us every year on their annual review. They come to us to talk about what they have done with the $35 million that they get every year—more than every other radio station and broadcaster. They tell us what they are doing. I was really pleased this year to be able to say to the Radio New Zealand board when they turned up with the chief executive that I think they are doing a great job. I know it is a lot of money. It is actually a huge amount of money. But having said that Radio New Zealand is something that a lot of people listen to. I am one of those people who listen to it during the day if I have a chance to. But then again I also listen to Newstalk ZB.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.