Volume 656 Week 19 - Wednesday 29 July 2009 
Volume 656 Week 19 - Wednesday 29 July 2009 
[Volume:656;Page:5223] 
Wednesday 29 July 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Personal Explanations 
Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 in response to the allegations that have been made publicly that I was involved in the release of the details of the two people whose stories were published in the  
Herald 
on Sunday 
 and whose benefit information was released to the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was approached by a constituent whose name I wish to keep confidential. She asked what she would have to do to make the Government change its mind about the training incentive allowance cuts that have affected her quite badly. I said to her that stories like hers might make the Government change its mind. 
I said I would write to the Minister for Social Development and Employment on the constituent’s behalf and bring her details to the attention of the Minister in order to get some response as to why the decision about the training incentive allowance cuts had been made. But I said that at some stage it would be necessary for the stories to be told publicly in order that we could ensure that we would get the change. In fact I used an example of when I had talked to a Minister from a previous Government and because of personal cases got a change in policy after the policy had been announced. The constituent said she could not put her personal details out there because she was under a protection order. We discussed gathering other names other examples and other stories. 
I have never given any of the information she passed on to me to any member of the media and I did not know that the two individuals concerned about whom the reporter for the  
Herald on Sunday 
 independently of me obtained details were even being interviewed. 
I seek the leave of the House to table an email from Leah Haines which I have received today confirming that that is true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of Order 
Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to an issue that was raised with you yesterday. It is an unusual and rare occurrence for me to do so. I was not able to be in the House yesterday. I have had the opportunity to review your ruling and I rise to ask whether you would think again about the ruling that you made. My colleague David Cunliffe raised a point of order with you about the booking of rooms in the precincts of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid that is not a matter for a point of order. I made that very clear yesterday. Although I accepted some points of order on the matter yesterday I am making it very clear that I will not accept further points of order on it. It has nothing to do with order of this House and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This relates to your substantive ruling on the use of the parliamentary precincts for multiparty events. The reason I raise it here is that this is a matter for the privileges of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I have made it very clear that the bookings for the use of the buildings on the parliamentary precincts are nothing to do with the order of this House. In fact the matter that concerns members wishing to use facilities on this precinct is not parliamentary business. It has nothing to do with the business of this House and that is why the matter cannot be raised by way of a point of order. I will not allow this matter to take up further time in the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a different point of order Mr Anderton. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The issue then is whether the privileges of the House are matters for the House itself to consider. If they are then why can a matter like this not be raised here because it is a serious matter of privilege if members of Parliament cannot use the facilities of the House for— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Jim Anderton is flouting my ruling and the member will not continue to do that. What political parties wish to do in this place is nothing to do with the business of this House. I have made that very clear. I have received advice on the matter; it is not just a rush of blood to my head. I have received serious advice on the matter. My ruling has no implications for the privileges of this House whatsoever and I have made that very clear. I will not tolerate any further abuse of the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Indigenous Celebrations—Government Policy 
1.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: He kaupapa here ta te Kawanatanga ki te tautoko painga mo Aotearoa whanui kei roto i nga hui whakahirahira o te tangata whenua mena kei te whakaae he aha ai? 
[ 
Is it Government policy to support the recognition of indigenous celebrations as being of benefit for all New Zealanders; if so why? 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Yes it is. Maori culture and celebrations of that culture are part of New Zealand’s unique international brand. The strength and vitality of that culture and of celebrations of it help to set us apart on the international stage. It attracts significant tourism income for New Zealand; it sustains thousands of jobs throughout Aotearoa. All New Zealanders benefit from the richness of Maori culture and from celebrations of that culture. For instance the Government supports Te Matatini celebrations. The member may be interested to know that the winning group from that celebration Te Waka Huia was selected to represent New Zealand at the Venice Biennale and its stirring performances attracted international media recognition and acted as priceless marketing for New Zealand from London to New York. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree that supporting the Matariki bill would be an excellent way to make progress in achieving a distinctly New Zealand cultural identity; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The recent report on cultural indicators for New Zealand stated that New Zealanders identify with a distinct cultural identity and that expression of that identity includes Maori culture. There are a number of ways in which we can make progress and I believe we are making good progress already in achieving that distinctly New Zealand cultural identity. Indigenous events on New Zealand’s calendar that are attracting increased interest and participation include Matariki the Ratana celebrations the Tuhoe ahurei the Parihaka festival and the Kingitanga celebrations. 
Rahui Katene 
: What reports has the Minister received that show that non-Maori New Zealanders have engaged with the indigenous people of New Zealand; and does he agree that community support for the revival of Matariki celebrations would be a fair indication of such engagement? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I recently received the report from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage entitled  
Cultural Indicators for New Zealand 
. The report noted that cultural celebrations enhance social cohesion within New Zealand and I certainly agree that ongoing community support for Matariki is a fair indication of engagement between Maori and non-Maori. 
David Garrett 
: Is the Minister aware that Dr Paul Moon a professor of history at the Auckland University of Technology and a well-known expert in pre-European history is of the view that many of the claims about the festival of Matariki are tenuous at best and that with regard to it supposedly being linked to planting times Maori had much better natural science to rely on and “did not need a three-month advance warning of when to prepare for kumara sowing.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No I am not aware of that. The history book I am reading at the moment is Richard Boast’s  
Buying the Land Selling the Land 
 which I am pleased to say won the Montana award for history on Monday night. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: When will the Minister consider closing down his generally unnecessary department or at least reducing its size dramatically so that his skills and the skills of the people employed in his department can be usefully used elsewhere? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I was momentarily detained and I apologise to the member. I thought that ACT had had its quota of supplementary questions. Would he mind asking the question again? I promise I will concentrate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Sir Roger Douglas again I point out that the primary question concerns whether it is Government policy to support the recognition of indigenous celebrations as being of benefit for New Zealanders. The member is drawing a long bow to— 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Do you think I’m stretching it? I might ask a supplementary question on question No. 2 then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please make the question relevant to the primary question. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: No I am not sure I can. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. 
Productivity and Economic Performance—Government Initiatives 
2.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps is the Government taking to increase New Zealand’s productivity and economic performance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 New Zealand’s annual labour productivity growth averaged 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2008 the lowest level for several decades. During this period significant imbalances were allowed to build up in the economy and they simply cannot be allowed to continue. The Government has set out a medium-term plan to improve New Zealand’s economic performance including investment in productive infrastructure improving the business environment delivering better and smarter public services better education and skills training and investing in innovation and business assistance. 
Amy Adams 
: What feedback has he received on the Government’s economic plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a number of positive reports including one recent one from Business New Zealand which described the Government’s growth plan as outlined by the Prime Minister 2 weeks ago as relevant and timely. Businesses are consistently indicating that they look forward to engaging with the Government and they support quick implementation of a number of the practical decisions the Government has made to increase economic performance. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In view of the need for a clear plan to improve economic performance and protect jobs does he continue to stand by Treasury estimates presented to the Finance and Expenditure Committee earlier this year that state that the Government’s fiscal stimulus to the economy represents 5 percent of GDP and puts New Zealand in the top five countries of the OECD for the magnitude of its anti-recession measures? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That estimate of GDP is probably a bit high because since then the Government cancelled the last third of its tax cut package. Nevertheless the general point is correct in that the New Zealand Government has implemented a significant stimulus package as is illustrated by the fact that we have to borrow somewhere between $30 billion and $40 billion over the next 4 years to support public services and entitlements and keep the economy ticking along during the recession. 
Amy Adams 
: What alternative approaches to managing the economy has he seen? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have to say that not that many are credible. There is some legitimate debate about the size of the stimulus package and some debate about whether the Government should cut its spending more quickly than it is. The Opposition occasionally hints at the idea that it would spend a lot more money on the way through this recession or that it would invest a lot more in infrastructure. But it is not clear who is in charge of Opposition policy or what direction it is trying to follow. 
Amy Adams 
: What recent comments has the Minister seen summarising the serious economic imbalances now facing New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will quote from a speech I heard earlier this month that covered a few of the main problems: “I do not pretend that our record was perfect or deny that there were significant issues unresolved. Our current account deficit was stubbornly high and the savings deficit while responding well to KiwiSaver was unsustainable. Productivity growth was too low and that is an issue we must work together to resolve.” I must compliment David Cunliffe on identifying some of the major legacy issues his Government left behind. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: In what way will increasing Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP improve productivity and enable us to raise our living standards to Australian levels by 2025? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Some of that expenditure will do so directly for instance through investment in productive infrastructure and longer-term objectives like national standards for literacy and numeracy. But as in other developed countries Governments have spent considerable amounts of money on stimulus through a recession. As the economy comes out of recession Governments will have to pull back on their spending and that is why the 2009 Budget took the first steps towards constraining Government expenditure as we come out of the recession. 
Jobs—Jobs Lost Since Job Summit 
3.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his denial that 40000 jobs have been lost since the Job Summit; if so what advice has he received on the number of jobs lost during this period? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister stands by his statement; the advice he has received is that no agency routinely collects information on the number of jobs lost in the economy. The member misunderstands what happens with jobs in the economy. Even when employment is growing tens of thousands of jobs disappear each year and tens of thousands of new jobs are created. If the member wants to dream up numbers he would do well to listen to a former Minister of Employment who said: “I have steadfastly avoided the journalistic game of putting estimates on employment figures. I don’t think it is helpful and secondly I don’t think you can do so with accuracy.” That former Minister of Employment was Phil Goff. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table for the acting Prime Minister the household labour force survey for the March 2009 quarter which shows that 25000 jobs have been lost extrapolated over a deteriorating situation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What if any plans or policies does the Prime Minister have in order to stop the number of Kiwis who are losing their jobs from reaching Treasury’s projected figure of nearly 180000 by next year or does he simply and complacently accept that more than 2000 Kiwis each and every week will lose their jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is no complacency among the Government. In fact there has been a very focused programme over the whole 9 months that this Government has been in office on creating the conditions that will lead to new sustainable jobs. I point out that New Zealand enjoys one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the developed world. That is not a bad achievement. 
Chris Tremain 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of a recent Government initiative that has saved jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government cannot roll back the effects of the worst coordinated global recession in 60 years but it has initiated a rolling maul of initiatives to give people the opportunity to keep their jobs or to get new ones. For instance Fisher and Paykel Appliances’ refrigeration plant now has sufficient orders to enable it—[ 
Interruption 
] Members should listen to this; it is a good story. Fisher and Paykel Appliances’ refrigeration plant has sufficient orders to enable it to leave the Government’s Job Support Scheme and return to a normal 40-hour working week. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What advice did the Minister of Finance give to the Prime Minister on the accuracy of his claim that 3700 jobs could be created by building a cycleway and on the cost-benefit analysis of the cycleway in terms of the effectiveness of creating jobs—a question that this Minister should be very well capable of answering? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister regularly consults with the Minister of Finance on all aspects of Government policy—in particular on the Government’s programme to create a business environment in which new sustainable jobs will result from investment and in which the people who depended on the previous Labour Government’s borrowing-driven consumption-driven jobs will actually get an opportunity for a real stake in the economy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you will be aware the question was very specific as to what advice the Minister of Finance gave to the Prime Minister on the accuracy of a particular claim. The Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister did not even attempt to address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect I do not believe that that was the sum total of the member’s question; I believe that it went on beyond that. The Minister did answer that the Prime Minister consults with him on those matters. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker there were two specific things. If you examine  
Hansard 
 you will see that for neither specific question did the Minister even attempt to address the question asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will examine  
Hansard 
. My judgment was that the question had in fact been answered. I will examine  
Hansard  
for the benefit of the member but he has many more supplementary questions to pursue the issue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might have been a slip of the tongue but I think you meant to say “address”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You say that he answered— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat and will not trifle with the Chair. I chose my word intentionally. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh you’ve got to be joking! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I tell the Hon Trevor Mallard that I will choose to ignore his interjection but I warn the member that it was not very parliamentary. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of alternative ideas to save jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have heard reports that there will be a recession response package. I understand that the first element of the package was to extend the welfare State to higher-income earners rather than to save a single job. I think the package came from the same party that has found work for the pixies by sending them to the bottom of the garden to print money. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the Prime Minister doing to assist the 60 fellmongery workers who lost their jobs yesterday in Dunedin the 190 workers in Gisborne who lost their jobs through redundancy over the weekend and the 17 workers in Timaru who were made redundant at Duncan Ag and what is he saying to them about the effectiveness of this Government’s policies on reducing unemployment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is doing two things. First it is providing direct assistance through the Ministry of Social Development to workers who are made redundant. Often that assistance is provided on-site. In a number of places the assistance has been quite successful in giving workers choices about how they can adapt to their situation. Second and just as important the Government is in the process of borrowing $30 billion to $40 billion to pump into the economy to keep it ticking over. The obvious demonstrations of that investment are for instance the national insulation plan and the large-scale investment in infrastructure. Those are two Government initiatives that are employing a large number of people. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How will the Prime Minister’s commitment in the Budget to helping the most vulnerable translate into practical action to help those who have lost their job through redundancy through no fault of their own who are suffering personal hardship and the risk of losing their home and who cannot get any assistance if their spouses are still working albeit on a low income? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Before that member cries crocodile tears he should keep in mind— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was a very straight question. It did not need personal reflections or abuse as an introduction to answering it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point. The Hon Bill English should not commence an answer with such a comment. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Many of the people who are experiencing the hardship the member outlines are experiencing it because they relied on his Government. Those people did not realise that bad economic policy too much borrowing too much consumption and too much Government spending meant that their jobs were unsustainable. When the global recession hit they found that out. They are paying the price for the previous Labour Government’s economic mismanagement. 
Chris Tremain 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that in addressing unemployment the Government should learn some lessons from previous recessions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes and in particular we can learn from the period when there was last a very substantial rise in unemployment which was between 1987 and 1990 when Phil Goff was the fresh face of the Labour Party. He said then that the real solution to unemployment must lie first in creating an efficient low-inflation economy that allows New Zealand’s exports and industries such as tourism to be internationally competitive. It is a pity he cannot show the same clear thinking now 20 years later as he did then when he was the fresh face of the Labour Party. 
Biofuels—Bio-diesel Production Grants 
4.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many companies if any have signed up to receive grants under the Government’s bio-diesel grant scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the grant scheme to encourage bio-diesel production in this country has made a strong start: five companies have signed up or have been offered contracts for grants to start the production of domestic bio-diesel. The companies are BioDiesel Oils (NZ) in Tamaki; Ecodiesel in Onehunga; New Zealand Ester Fuels in Tuakau South Auckland; Environ Fuels in Te Kuiti; and Biodiesel New Zealand in Christchurch. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why did the Government introduce the bio-diesel grant scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government believes that biofuels and a domestic biofuel industry are an important aspect of our future fuel requirement so $36 million has been set aside over 3 years to be paid out monthly to New Zealand biofuel producers. Although the Government does not support a mandatory sales obligation unlike our opponents it has moved to encourage small production in this industry with the subsidy that applies at the present time. So it is encouraging to see five of those companies signing up to the programme in the last few days. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will the Minister now concede—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the honourable member to forgive me but members must show some courtesy. The noise in the House is simply becoming unacceptable. I do not like interrupting; the House should flow freely. I apologise and call Chris Hipkins. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will the Minister now concede that the Government made a mistake when it scrapped legislation that would have supported the biofuels industry to become established and sustainable without the need for taxpayer subsidies or does he believe that in these tough economic times providing $36 million worth of taxpayer subsidies to biofuels companies is more important than ensuring that the industry develops on a sustainable footing? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There we have the fallacy of the Labour Party policy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question time is not a time to launch into another political party. The Minister has been asked a question and the House deserves an answer to it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If question time is not a time to launch into some other political party why did you allow that question? That is exactly what it was. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be some order in the House because a point of order has been raised. I say to the Hon Gerry Brownlee that the member asked a perfectly fair question about whether the industry should be subsidised or whether it can be sustained on its own basis. That is a perfectly fair question because taxpayers’ money is used in paying subsidies. The Minister has a responsibility to this House and should answer the question rather than just launch into the questioner. That will not be tolerated under my Speakership. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be fine if the member’s question was simply about the $36 million subsidy. But the member’s question was loaded with imputations about the use of public money discrediting the Government. For you to say that a Minister must answer a question in an absolutely straight and non-political way the quid pro quo is that the question should be not loaded with imputations. In this case it was and that is why the Minister was perfectly proper to respond in the way he did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need more assistance on this matter. Members will resume their seats. The question obviously may well have had some political loading in it but it was not a purely political question and it does not justify the Minister launching into an attack on the questioner’s party. There is no problem in putting a jab in an answer but there is with launching one initially. We would like to hear some answer first. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The previous Government’s decision to require biofuels to be mixed into the New Zealand fuel mix by way of an obligation would have meant that some 60 million litres of bio-diesel was imported into this country to meet that obligation in the first period. No sustainable standard was in place for where that biofuel should come from and every indication was that it would have come from non-sustainable sources offshore. It seems an absolute fallacy of belief to suggest that the importation of unsustainably produced biofuels into New Zealand was somehow good for the global situation with regard to our carbon dioxide emissions. The Government’s programme of subsidising the industry to the same extent as the taxes that are applied to petrol and giving them the same deal as bio-ethanol effectively ensures the development of a sustainable industry here in New Zealand. That is far-sighted for the country not the short-sighted feel-good rubbish that typified the last Government’s policy in this area. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister seen any reports to suggest that the Government’s bio-diesel grants scheme will not work? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. Notwithstanding the inference in the last question when the Government removed the mandatory sales obligation on biofuels last December Labour members then claimed that this would cost jobs and kill a fledgling industry. Labour also claimed it would mean that workers and investors would be out of jobs and out of pocket. It further claimed—and it was strident in these claims—that a particular company BioDiesel Oils (NZ) would go out of business. I can report that BioDiesel Oils (NZ) has signed up to the Government’s programme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to members on the Labour front bench that the level of interjection is simply unacceptable. That supplementary question has been answered and I have called the next member who is a senior member of the House. She cannot possibly be heard above the rabble. I ask members to just reflect a little on the lack of decorum. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Are any of those companies concerned that their product could be undercut by biofuel made from unsustainable or even destructive sources such as imported soy beans that should be fuelling the stomachs of the hungry or palm oil grown by clearing tropical rainforests; if so will the Government this afternoon support my bill the Sustainable Biofuel Bill which will ensure that only sustainable biofuels can be sold in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I believe that is a concern of the local industry and so it should be. Most of the requirements to meet the previous obligation would most likely have come from unsustainably produced biofuels. The subsidy is not available for imported fuels. I think that is an important aspect of the programme. Further the member’s initiative in putting a bill into the ballot will be supported by the Government today. I can report that the Ministry of Economic Development has already begun work in developing standards. I am sure that as we go through the select committee process the result will be positive not only for the member’s own aspirations with regard to her bill but also for the industry as a whole. 
Beneficiaries—Criteria for Release of Personal Information 
5.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What criteria if any has she established for the release of personal information about beneficiaries? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have not established any new criteria. I have followed the practice established by previous Governments. The only difference is that I am upfront and honest about doing it unlike Ministers in the previous Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did the Minister or any member of her staff access the personal information about two solo mothers that was given to the media that came from the Ministry of Social Development’s computer system situated in her office complex? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am not sure exactly where the information came from. I myself asked my staff for the information they accessed it for me and as such it was put forward. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was the staff member who retrieved the personal information about those two solo mothers from the Ministry of Social Development’s computer system—presumably located in her office—a person properly authorised to have access to that information? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Let us be quite clear: I asked my Ministry of Social Development officials for the information. The information came to me. It must have come from the official Ministry of Social Development database because that is where the information is held and it was given to me. It is as clear and interesting as that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward: was the person authorised? He or she either was or was not. The Minister did not address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member should have listened to the answer. The Minister gave all the information she has. It would seem from her answer that she does not know who obtained the information. She was provided with the information. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How does the Speaker know she doesn’t know? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members must not get into a debate with the Speaker. I just listened to the Minister’s answer and I suggest the Hon David Cunliffe does the same thing. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Can the Minister please explain again the changes to the training incentive allowance that sparked this whole debate? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Currently 12700 people receive the training incentive allowance for all levels of study and they will continue to receive it. The changes will affect only new applications for tertiary level study. Of those people currently receiving the allowance 4500 are studying at the tertiary level and they will be able to continue their study. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware that her release of personal information appears to be in direct contravention of paragraphs 2.57 to 8.61 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
; if so will she undertake to never again disclose information in this manner about beneficiaries who dare to challenge Government policy and in the meanwhile apologise to the two women who have been affected this week? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I made a judgment call based on the ministerial guidelines from the Privacy Commissioner. I stand by it. I believe that a complaint has been taken to the Privacy Commissioner. I welcome the outcome of that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The questioner asked a two-part question about the Minister’s future actions and received an answer about her past actions. I believe that the question has not been addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The questioner cannot expect a yes or no answer to that kind of question. In my view the Minister adequately answered the question as it was asked. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Minister consider it appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to access confidential information about New Zealanders from within her own office with little or no scrutiny and how can every other New Zealander including pensioners who has private information held by the Ministry of Social Development be sure that when she next wants to intimidate an outspoken member of the public she will not go straight online and trawl through that person’s private details? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked a question. If members want to hear an answer they should give the Minister a chance to answer it. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am constantly asked by the Opposition as well as by various other people to look up individual cases to make sure that people are getting all that they are entitled to. My office often does it. I can tell members opposite that my office receives 70 percent more correspondence than the same Minister did this time last year. People are interested in what we are doing and how it affects them. I have an obligation to New Zealanders to make sure they are getting what they need. 
Sue Bradford 
: How can the Minister say that she was correct in the way she disclosed the information in terms of her meeting the  
Cabinet Manual 
 privacy guidelines when the manual states among other things: “Ministers should exercise great care in dealing with personal information” and when it goes on to say that such disclosure would be appropriate only for example “if the disclosure is directly related to the purposes for which the information was obtained; if disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned; or if disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious threat to public health or the life of another individual.”; and in what way does the information she released this week meet those guidelines? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: At the end of the day I made a judgment call based on the ministerial guidelines from the Privacy Commissioner. The member disagrees with that call and that is her right. I understand that a complaint has been taken. I look forward to that process going through and we shall see where it lies. 
Hon Annette King 
: When was Peter Hughes the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development made aware of her decision to release to the media the personal details of two solo mothers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: To the best of my recollection I had a conversation with Mr Hughes about it after it had been done. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that in her role as the Minister for Social Development and Employment— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but I cannot hear her question. I say to members that if question time is to be at all reasonable questions must be able to be heard. I appeal to members to keep the noise level down a little bit and not to continue interjections on previous questions. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that in her role as the Minister for Social Development and Employment she has a duty of care to the beneficiaries who depend on her for their daily means of survival; if so does that duty of care include breaking their privacy in the national media because they advocate against a particular Government policy? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Under no conditions was this about people speaking out against this Government’s policy. People have a right to do that and in fact I encourage them to do so. It is good to see a feisty debate going on. The issue is whether the Government provides appropriate support for people on the domestic purposes benefit to do tertiary study. That is what the debate is about. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did the Minister provide the media with the actual cost to the taxpayer of supporting those two mothers on the domestic purposes benefit including any contribution paid to the Government by the non-custodial parent; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I gave the media was simply the information that I had access to via my department. It may surprise the Opposition but there is no cloak-and-dagger no smoke and mirrors or anything else going on. I have been quite upfront about what I did and about what information I presented to the media. I am quite happy to stand by that judgment decision of mine. There were no vanilla envelopes slipped under doorways which is what those members are used to. This is quite upfront. There is nothing secret about it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister understand that child support payments paid by liable parents to the Crown offset the cost to the State of the domestic purposes benefit; if so does she also understand that if there are child support payments in this case she cannot have placed accurate information in the public domain about the actual State assistance received by these women? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is ironic that the Opposition would now like to rake through the personal details of those individuals. A complaint has been lodged by that member with the Privacy Commissioner according to media reports I have heard. Let us allow that complaint to go through its process. I do not think it is appropriate to speak more now about what is going on. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I have appealed to members to be reasonable about the level of interjection. I struggled to hear the Minister’s answer. If members appeal to me about the answer there is no way that I can assist them because I struggled to hear it. I think the House has become a bit unreasonable about the level of interjection. I do not mind interjection as long as it is reasonable. It gives the House a bit of life but it has become too unreasonable in recent days. Was the member raising a point of order? 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The supplementary question asked the Minister about her understanding of the effect of liable-parent contributions on the net burden to the State of people in receipt of benefits. The question simply was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member thinks a little about his question he will recollect that he asked the Minister for an opinion—whether she understood something—and she gave an opinion back; I did hear that much. But I warn the honourable member that if his colleagues interject so loudly that I cannot hear the detail of an answer I cannot assist members in getting answers. The member should reflect that his question sought an opinion. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister now confirming that when she decided to give the personal details of two solo parents to the media she failed to disclose all the details and gave only those details that made the women look like “ungrateful bludgers” as John Campbell said on  
Campbell Live  
last night; and will the Minister acknowledge that details not available publicly paint a different picture of the cost to the taxpayer? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would not repeat in this House that I thought they were ungrateful bludgers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the answer I say to Government members. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I actually do not think that is true. What I presented to the media was the information I had access to. 
Hon Annette King 
: What was the “lesson” that the Minister referred to on  
Close Up 
 on Television New Zealand last night that the two solo mothers were to have learnt from speaking out on the cuts to the training incentive allowance; was the lesson that the Minister will clobber any pensioner or beneficiary who crosses her or was the lesson that no private information is now private? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would say neither of those. They have just taken assumptions that are there. The media can be a pretty vicious thing when one gets into the middle of it and I suppose those women are seeing that now in quite how it has been. I suppose there is a lesson about what it might actually be like to allow the Labour Party to use a person as a political football. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understood that when a member had made a personal statement such as the one that I made and had tabled proof of the situation one could expect that explanation to be honoured in this House. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. I say to the honourable member that my dilemma is that I have no idea what she is objecting to. There was so much noise that I could not hear exactly what the Minister was saying so I am afraid I cannot assist the member unless she makes clear exactly what it was that the Minister said that caused offence. I did not hear anything that could possibly have caused offence. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: On I think it was Thursday last week Opposition members got up in this House and raised individual cases of a number of members of the public. It was the Opposition that brought those people into the political debate. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The two people whom the Minister is referring to or has referred to whose personal financial details are in the public arena are the two who were mentioned in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 article. I have now tabled a statement from the person who wrote the article that says she got none of that information from the Labour Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no more of these points of order. They are not points of order. They have nothing to do with the order of the House. It was my fault for allowing— [ 
Interruption 
] They are debating points; they have nothing to do with the order of the House. It was my fault for allowing them but we will now come back to the question that was being asked. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there has been a little bit of a misunderstanding here. It has certainly been the case in the past that when members give personal explanations their word must be accepted. The Minister for Social Development and Employment both in her response and in her point of order doubted the word of a Labour member. That is something we find unacceptable. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is stretching things far too far. Firstly the Minister was right in saying that last Thursday individual cases of members were recited in this House by the Labour Party. She was asked what she meant by “lessons learnt” and she simply said that quite clearly many people who provided those bits of information to the Labour Party would have learnt that it was not a good idea to get tangled up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is unacceptable to use a point of order to in any way criticise another party in this House. Debates are where the member is perfectly welcome to be critical of other parties’ views and actions but not points of order. I can only say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that I heard nothing that I could perceive where the member questioned the personal statement that the Hon Lianne Dalziel had made to the House. But he makes a perfectly correct point that where a member makes a personal explanation there must be no questioning of it. Forgive me but I did not perceive any contravention of that important practice in the House. If the member cannot make clear to me what has caused offence I am afraid there is nothing further I can do. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware of the process that the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development used in releasing the personal details of a convicted benefit fraudster which required legal advice careful consideration and detailed reasons why the information was released; and how does that careful process compare with the approach she took to two solo mothers who had the audacity to speak out on one policy change made by her? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I will just make it clear that what we were doing was having a debate about whether the Government provides appropriate support for people on the domestic purposes benefit to go into training and whether the training incentive allowance applies at levels 4 and 5. That is actually what the debate was about. To say it was about audacity or intimidation is simply not true. Look I followed the ministerial guidelines. That is why we have ministerial guidelines on privacy. I followed them. I think I followed due process. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether she was aware of the process followed by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and how that compared with the process she followed. Again I do not think the question was addressed. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: At the end of that question the member asked another one about audacity and other things and that is what I chose to answer. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance on this point of order. The member learnt yesterday that if he asks a very precise question I can assist him in getting an answer to it but where he seeks opinions or tries to make comparisons the Minister is entitled to respond to that kind of question in a much wider way. I am afraid I cannot assist the member further in that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister stand by the staff member who accessed the information if that staff member is disciplined for inappropriate access to the Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today system? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do not think I am here to talk about hypothetical situations that may or may not be made up by the Opposition. It is not what I am here to do as a Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question: “Will the Minister stand by”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must resume his seat. The member has been in this House long enough to know that hypothetical questions cannot get precise answers. The member has been around long enough and answered enough questions to know that it has never been possible to get precise answers to hypothetical questions. I think members do need to be reasonable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep litigating this but someone’s job is clearly on the line here. A Ministry of Social Development staff member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I now caution the member: he must not abuse the point of order system. 
Hon Member 
: Wanker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Fortunately I do not know who made that interjection but it was unacceptable and I warn Government members. The House should come to order. I realise that this issue is deeply felt but it still has to be dealt with within the Standing Orders. I have to protect the rights of the Opposition to question a Minister and hold a Minister to account but I must also make sure that the practice of how questions are to be answered is also upheld in the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement that “the women were misleading the public by releasing ‘selective information’ ”; if so what was misleading about the statement that “The DPB is a living for which my children and I have been very grateful. But it does not afford an ability to save for these sorts of extra expenses.” which was quoted in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 of 19 July 3 days before the questions in the House? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: At this point I would just say that there is a lot of information out there about these women. They have put out a lot of information via the website and via TradeMe. These women have put out personal information about money they are receiving what they are and everything like that so that is probably the statement that I would stand by. 
Sue Bradford 
: I seek leave to table pages 116 to 118 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 “Ministerial access to and use of personal information”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those pages of the  
Cabinet Manual 
. Is there any objection to that? [ 
Interruption 
] The member makes a fair point. Do I take it that there is no objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What assistance is available for a person who would have been eligible for the training incentive allowance before 28 May to assist him or her with course costs over $1000 transport costs and childcare costs over and above other entitlements in light of the Minister’s statement in the House that there are other ways for people to get the sort of assistance they need so that they can go on to tertiary study? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The question was what was available before 28 May? Well what was available was the training incentive allowance up to a maximum of about $91 or $92 per week. I believe that the average amount that people got while they were studying was anywhere between $28 and $42 per week. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister has misunderstood my question. I said: “What assistance is available for a person who would have been eligible for the training incentive allowance”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point. I think the Minister did mishear the question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer gave exactly that—what would have been available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is no longer available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member did not ask what would have been available; the member asked what would be available to assist with the costs she outlined. I think the Minister should answer that question. I am sure the Minister misheard the question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I did. Well I took a different interpretation. What will be available now is certainly access to childcare assistance. It is available at up to $181.50 a week for under-fives. Out-of-school care and recreation subsidies are available for children who are over 5 years old. That rate is up to $71.50 from memory for some of them. There is certainly access to interest-free student loans. There is certainly access to those other benefits and the main benefits around them. So they were available to them before 28 May and they are available to them now. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister is in grave danger here because she has misunderstood. The student loan scheme is not available for any of those costs— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat immediately. The member cannot—and I do not know how many times I have to repeat this—litigate a Minister’s answer because she does not think the answer was good enough or she thinks the Minister was wrong. That is not a matter that can be litigated by way of a point of order. The member can address that issue in other ways. She can ask further supplementary questions or whatever but she cannot by way of a point of order litigate the Minister’s answer. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the criteria for the student loan scheme which do not allow— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not tolerate any further abuse. The member sought to table the regulations for the student loan scheme. Before I could put that leave she went on to make a political point. That is not acceptable. When she seeks leave to table a document she is to do that not to try to score political points. I caution the member. The behaviour is getting absolutely unacceptable. Leave is sought to table a document— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am putting the request for leave for the honourable member. If the member— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It is part of it she is describing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give the member the chance to explain exactly what part but she will not make a political point out of it. She will not comment on anything the Minister has said. 
Hon David Parker 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the Hon David Parker please sit down. He will please resume his seat and show some courtesy to his colleague. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard will resume his seat immediately—immediately. And there will be silence. I have called the Hon Lianne Dalziel on a point of order. She is seeking leave to explain the document she wishes to table. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I will have to go and print the eligibility criteria off the computer which is why I wanted to narrow it down rather than providing the entire student allowance criteria. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is very clear. She has sought leave to table the eligibility criteria from the document. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes but I went on to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The eligibility criteria from the document—that is very simple and very clear. Leave has been sought to do that. [ 
Interruption 
] Does the member have the eligibility criteria? She has the rest of the day to table them. I believe that the eligibility criteria do exist; the member has sought leave to table them. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague Lianne Dalziel was not making a political point; she was making a descriptive point in respect of the document she wished to table. It was not a political point. You interpreted it as being political but it was merely descriptive as  
Hansard 
 will show. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member checks the  
Hansard  
how is it descriptive to refer to the Minister? I do not believe— 
Hon David Parker 
: She didn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that that Minister’s name will appear in any of the criteria yet I clearly heard the member start to refer to what the Minister had said and that is what is not acceptable. 
Hon David Parker 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member further. 
Hon David Parker 
: If your recollection is correct Mr Speaker you are correct but my recollection is different and I invite you to refer to the  
Hansard 
 to see whether that is the case. My recollection is that the Hon Lianne Dalziel said she wanted to table that part of the document that showed that one was not eligible to get a student loan on certain criteria. She did not mention the Minister or the National Government. She just described the document accurately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I am wrong I will apologise to the honourable member. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I just seek clarification. The first time the honourable member talked about tabling the student loan application eligibility and the last time she actually talked about the student allowance. They are very different things. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was no need for that point. The record will show exactly what the member described which she now has leave to table. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Primary Sector—Reports 
6.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What reports has he recently received on the state of New Zealand’s primary sector? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 This week the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry launched its annual publication  
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 
. The comprehensive report looks at issues facing the primary sector currently and forecasts performance over the coming 5 years. It reinforces the absolute economic importance of our farmers foresters and growers and the fact that our primary sector has ridden out the global recession remarkably well. I commend the report to the House. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What are the key findings of the 2009  
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 
 report and what outlook does it present for the primary sector? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The report essentially tells two stories. The first is that the global recession has had a challenging impact on the sector with profitability falling some 62 percent since last year. However the other and much more positive story is that the outlook for farming and forestry is bright with sectors forecasting steady increases in return over coming years. Thanks to the ever-growing demand for food our primary sector will play a key part in New Zealand’s export-led recovery. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister seen a report from Federated Farmers stating that the results of its inaugural farm confidence survey “make for ugly reading and illustrates that the recession’s full bite is yet to come” and that “farmers remain deeply pessimistic about the state of the general economy and their own prospects for the next 12 months.” and does the Minister believe that farmers know more or less about their own business than Treasury or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have seen that report and I make two points. First of all the survey was an email survey sent out to 2000 farmers of whom around 270 responded. I suspect that the fact that those people chose to respond may be a bit lopsided towards pessimism. The second point I make is that the situation facing many farmers particularly dairy farmers with the payout moving from $7.90 2 years ago to an indicative $4.55 will obviously bring some pessimism to the sector. However the  
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry  
report which I am talking about looks at the primary sector over the next 5 years. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What message does the report send to the primary sector on the importance of a strong focus on innovation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The  
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 
 report makes it clear that if our primary producers want to continue to improve profitability and to take advantage of new trends they need to concentrate on innovation and productivity gains. That is why this Government established the Primary Growth Partnership which will see $140 million a year being invested in primary sector innovation. We support the sector in making sure that it continues to be the economic engine room of New Zealand. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given the statement in the report that “Effective biosecurity is an important element in ensuring the sustainability of all of our forestry environments. The New Zealand forest estate faces a potential threat from invasive forest pests.” and a statement in the recent Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry meat industry report that identified that most survey respondents thought New Zealand would probably have a significant biosecurity incursion in the next 10 to 15 years why did the Minister allow the Minister of Finance to cut 60 front-line skilled jobs and $1.9 million from the biosecurity budget? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I explained patiently to the member last week we risk invasive pests at all times. That is why it is critical that we focus our biosecurity resources very very carefully. As the member knows or should know there has been a significant downturn in trade at the borders. Because it is cost recovered it would be irresponsible of us not to adjust accordingly and thereby save other importers that continue to face that concern. I point out to that member as he was told at the select committee that biosecurity baselines actually increased in the Budget and were not decreased as he attempts to mislead particularly rural media. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: If the outlook for the forestry sector is so positive over the next 5 years why has Winstone Pulp International Ltd just announced a closure of its Gisborne factory with the loss of 65 jobs saying that the international pricing position and the state of the New Zealand dollar make it impossible for its business to remain viable? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Three issues face the forestry sector in the short term: the current log price; the exchange rate; and to be fair to the sector the uncertainty around any emissions trading scheme. That is why I am determined to bring forward an emissions trading scheme in cooperation with my ministerial colleagues that will give some certainty to the sector. As the  
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 
 report points out over time there is good reason to be confident about the forestry sector. That member as a former Minister would do better than to bag the sector at every occasion. 
Polytechnics—Student Intake 
7.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Does she stand by her reported statement that the “Government would not step in to remove the barriers and allow the polytechnics to accept extra students”; if so why? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. No because I did not say that. In a new phase of Labour Party desperation the member is quoting her own press statement— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should know that if she makes that kind of comment in answering the question it will provoke disorder. I do not think it was necessary to make that kind of comment at this early stage of the answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I quote from her press statement of 25 June: “But Education Minister Anne Tolley confirmed today that the Government would not step in to remove the barriers and allow the polytechnics to accept extra students …”. I did not say that; the member did. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: If the predicted increase in enrolments materialises and a possible 6000 to 8000 students are turned away from the polytechs what plans does the Minister have to support and upskill those people so that they can contribute to New Zealand’s economic recovery? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I have said to that member in this House before those are projections. They are projections done by each institution and each institution does not necessarily use the same basis for those projections. History has shown that those projections are not particularly reliable. However this Government is watching the situation very closely. I am reporting constantly to my colleagues and we will deal with the situation that arises when it arises. 
Louise Upston 
: What are the Government’s priorities for the polytechnics? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government wants to improve the educational and financial viability of the polytechnic sector. We want to have polytechs that deliver high-quality education for their students that live within their means successfully and that are structured to meet the needs of New Zealand’s economy now and into the future. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister intend to cut polytechnic councils to eight members and appoint half of them including the chairperson; if she does what purpose does she have in doing so and will that level of control be used to increase or remove the barriers to student enrolments at polytechnics? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There are a number of questions there; I will answer the first one. No decisions have been made. Considerable discussion is happening with the sector. It is an issue that has been raised with me by the sector itself since I became the Minister. 
Aquaculture Reform—Progress 
8.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What progress has the Government made with regards to aquaculture reform? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that we have formed a technical advisory group of those with knowledge of the marine farming industry those who know at first hand about the industry and its challenges. This group will support the Government in its work towards vastly improving the current aquaculture regime. Solving the issues in aquaculture is an important priority for this Government and we expect this group to report back to us later this year with some very strict and smart recommendations. 
Colin King 
: Who is on the technical advisory group? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am delighted to announce that Doug Kidd a former Minister of Fisheries has agreed to chair the group. Other members of the group include Dennis Bush-King a Resource Management Act specialist Mike Burrell the chief executive of Aquaculture New Zealand Kirsty Woods from Te Ohu Kaimoana Nici Gibbs from the Seafood Industry Council Mark Farnsworth from Northland Regional Council and Keir Volkerling a Resource Management Act consultant. All members have unique technical expertise and are well versed in the operations of the industry on the ground. 
Colin King 
: What are the broad functions of the group? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Broadly speaking the group is to generate proposals for reform of the aquaculture legislation which desperately needs it. It will review any advice on proposals provided to it. It will report directly to me to the Hon Nick Smith and to the Hon Gerry Brownlee through written recommendations and meetings as required. 
Banking Sector—Minister’s Statement 
9.  
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement on 15 June that “taxpayers are supporting the banks and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support businesses and households through a tough time in the economy even if it affects their profits a bit”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Stuart Nash 
: What contact have the Minister his staff and his officials had directly or through intermediaries with the ANZ National Bank BNZ ASB Westpac Kiwibank or PSIS since the announcement last Tuesday of the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banks? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I the officials I am directly responsible for in Treasury and I suppose those I am indirectly in contact with through the Reserve Bank have regular discussions with the banks. Announcements made by the Opposition have no impact on that whatsoever. 
Stuart Nash 
: Does the Minister agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s comments that the pricing of floating rate mortgages appears unusually high in recent months; if so why has he not supported the governor’s recommendation around an inquiry into the relationship between the official cash rate and interest rates charged on floating mortgages? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I agree with the Reserve Bank’s analysis. Members are free to do whatever they like but I advise the member now if he is not aware of it that an inquiry by Opposition MPs probably will not make any difference. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Has the Minister seen any reports on interest rates and bank margins over the last decade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a couple of reports. The first which is on the Reserve Bank’s website shows that average interest rates on floating mortgages peaked at 10.9 percent in May 2008. I also point out the Reserve Bank’s  
Financial Stability Report 
 which shows that bank margins peaked in 2003 stayed at historic highs until quite recently and are now at historic lows. I am a bit surprised that those Opposition members who were in Government for all of that time are now saying that these margins are too high. My question to them asks what they did about it while they were in Government. 
Hospitals Public—Operating Theatre Capacity 2007-08 
10.  
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many operating theatres in publicly owned New Zealand hospitals worked at full capacity in the 2007-08 year? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: The definition of full capacity is a complex matter. However there has been significant modelling done to assess operating theatre utilisation rates. Although the work is ongoing it is fair to say it shows in general that city-based theatres are approaching optimal utilisation rates while many rural operating theatres are not. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Health has assessed operating theatre utilisation in New Zealand public hospitals and found that 10 out of 26 have been used at less than 60 percent capacity while just four have been used at full capacity? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well the member is right in that we need greater productivity from existing theatres and the new Government sought advice from the ministry regarding the need for new operating theatres. Even assuming we get greater productivity New Zealand would still need around 20 to 26 more theatres over the next 18 years to meet a huge rise in elective surgery need because of population growth population ageing and a large amount of unmet elective need. We need to raise productivity in existing theatres but we need to do more again on top of that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Government committed to building 20 additional elective operating theatres? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Over the last 8 years the average increase in the number of patients getting elective surgery each year was a slow average 1400. This was below the rate of increase in the population and took no account of extra operations needed to meet population ageing or unmet need. In short access to elective surgery was cut in real terms and that was why the then Government resorted to culling thousands of people from waiting lists. New Zealand needs to lift its elective surgery rate by around 50 percent by 2026 if we are to meet population growth and address unmet need. That is around 4000 more operations each year and that is why we have to build those extra theatres. 
Kevin Hague 
: Before deciding to encourage district health boards to contract out more surgery to the private sector what evidence did the Minister have about operating theatre use in New Zealand public hospitals given that he was unable to provide any when he appeared before the Health Committee just 1 month ago? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We had evidence from a number of district health boards most notably the West Coast District Health Board of which that member was the chief executive officer for a number of years. They must have been at full capacity down there because that member was responsible for culling 300 patients from the waiting list back in 2006. We looked at the evidence and as I outlined in my previous answers there is clear evidence that the new theatres need to be built. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a straight question about the evidence that the Minister had prior to making the decision given that there was no evidence provided at the Health Committee meeting. The Minister has not responded at all to that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect I think the Minister has cited evidence. It may not have been the evidence the member was seeking but I think the Minister cited evidence that guides his thinking on the matter. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does the Minister believe that more New Zealanders should take out private health insurance? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That is an interesting question. I believe that is a decision for the individual to make. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is it not absolutely clear given the Minister’s evidence-free headlong rush into greater private sector provision of surgery and his unwillingness to answer a straight question about his own attitude to health insurance that his Government is hell-bent on greater privatisation in the New Zealand health sector? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have raised concerns about Ministers in respect of the tone of their answers. There were three highly loaded statements in that question suggesting dishonesty of Ministers misrepresentation and hidden agendas. If members want to ask questions the Standing Orders clearly state they are not to include such statements. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: All my colleague said was “unwillingness”; he never made any allegations about dishonesty or any of the matters the member raised. He simply spoke of the Minister’s “unwillingness to answer”. That is not a pejorative statement and it is not an abusive statement; it is just a statement of fact that the Minister has an unwillingness to answer the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any further on this matter. In fairness I say that the question did not contain excessive inferences that could have caused offence. What is more one has to try to balance things in this House and the honourable member who raised the point of order may reflect that the Minister in answering an earlier question was not exactly without some criticism in his answer. Members cannot have it all one way. I think the Minister should answer the question from Kevin Hague. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What I will say is that if that member had managed to break out of his ideological shackles and had thought about the needs of the people of the West Coast at the time he might have been prepared to use capacity in the private sector to get operations for those 300 people he culled off the West Coast District Health Board waiting list. 
Rail Safety—Improvements 
11.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: What work is the Government undertaking to improve rail safety in New Zealand? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. This week the Government is supporting Australasian Rail Safety Awareness Week to raise the profile of rail safety and in particular to encourage motorists to take seriously the risks posed by level crossings. Over recent years education and the improvement of infrastructure have led to a steady reduction in the number of train collisions with vehicles pedestrians and cyclists but more work is needed. The Government contributes $1 million per year to upgrade level crossings with warning lights bells and half-arm barriers. This contribution is made up of $500000 from the Crown and $500000 from the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
David Bennett 
: What can the public do to make a difference to rail safety? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Although the Government is taking a leading role in improving rail safety with the Chris Cairns Foundation it is important for the public to use common sense to keep themselves safe. I urge all motorists to treat level crossings as stop signs. People need to realise that level crossings are as dangerous as intersections on the open road. Even if a crossing is equipped with barrier arms and lights drivers need to check for themselves that no train is approaching. Pedestrians also need to be aware that the tracks are for trains; there is no reason for people to put their lives at risk by walking along the tracks. 
Darien Fenton 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What will the Minister say to locomotive drivers traumatised by the doubling of level crossing accident rates this year given that his Government intends to remove accident compensation cover for the mental trauma drivers suffer in such accidents? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As I alluded to in the primary answer this Government is focused on trying to make level crossings safer. Indeed this week we have had a rail awareness focus with the Chris Cairns Foundation. The Government is working very closely with ONTRACK to ensure that we are upgrading the level crossings. At the moment about 10 level crossings are upgraded per annum and the focus this week on rail safety improvement and awareness will ensure that there are fewer accidents and collisions in the future resulting in less trauma for the drivers of the locomotives. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Minister’s Support 
12.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by his proposed reforms for Auckland governance? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Local Government 
: The answer is yes but of course the Government is listening to the people of Auckland by way of a series of public meetings and more recently by way of a select committee process that heard significant submissions and was ably chaired by the outstanding erudite popular fantastic long-serving highly regarded member John Carter. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear Phil Twyford. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree with the 55 percent of submitters heard by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee the 80 percent of North Shore residents and the 77 percent of Waitakere residents in two recent opinion polls all of whom rejected the Government’s proposal for councils elected at large and instead want to see all members of the new Auckland Council elected from local wards? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Of course those are matters that are currently before the select committee and the member like everyone else will have to be patient until the select committee has deliberated and reports back to the Parliament. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister believe there is a contradiction between his core services agenda and the Prime Minister asking local government to build parts of his bike trail; if so how does he interpret the fact that the Minister’s biggest applause at yesterday’s Local Government New Zealand conference came after he stated: “I have faced electoral oblivion many times in my career. And one day it will happen.”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Firstly I state that the Minister of Local Government and his party intend to be around for a very very long time yet; and secondly I can also say that there is no conflict. The fact is that the Government is working with local government across this country to deal with a whole number of these issues and the response that has been received to the Prime Minister’s address the Minister of Local Government’s address and the address of the Associate Minister of Local Government to the Local Government New Zealand conference held over the last 3 days has been very very positive indeed. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Annette King seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the adoption by the Minister for Social Development and Employment of a new policy on the release of private information relating to individual beneficiaries. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence and involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence the event upon which an urgent debate is sought must be an event that has occurred when the application is lodged. An event occurs at the point in time when a decision is publicly announced. The member has provided no authentication of an actual announcement of a new policy by the Minister. Every statement in a letter seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance must be authenticated. Therefore in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 170/5 the application is declined on that ground. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. What a very very difficult time this must be for the Labour Party members. Everything their leader touches turns to mush. Phil Goff is having one heck of a time out there trying to get traction on any issue at all that will get him into the news headlines. Last week’s gaffe on the Monday was trying to roll out the dole to the spouses of millionaires. He thought he had his facts right but by Tuesday it had all turned to dust. On Wednesday he brought a member of the public into the debate but once again without checking the facts. Of course we know how that went. But that lot over there are absolutely desperate to get in and score points on whatever they can. They have been reduced to rolling in the gutter and trying to launch personal attacks on Cabinet Ministers without having anything of substance to bring to the debate. They do not realise that the more they wallow in those beltway issues that are of no interest to the New Zealand general public the further and further away they get from being elected. 
It is really interesting to see the Labour members’ performance in the House today. It is noticeable that there is no senior whip present to keep that lot under control. Where is the whip? The whip is on TV in New York every morning; he has given up on them. I do not know what the junior whip was doing. But quite frankly the performance from the Labour Party in question time today was absolutely disgusting. When we think about the fact that we have an Opposition whose chief whip cannot even be bothered to be here during a sitting week we realise that shows that things are all going downhill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member quite inappropriately referred to the absence of a member. The whip is in the chair. Could the member please withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear the member. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I think it is pretty obvious that Darren Hughes is in New York. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member must not refer to the absence of any member from the Chamber. He will desist from doing that. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: When we look at what these—[ 
Interruption 
] I withdraw and apologise. 
When we look at what is happening with regard to the Labour lot though we see that no one is in charge over there. There is no strategy; there is no plan in the House. The plan in the House is that Trevor Mallard gets up and disrupts any answer from the Government and the Labour members try to turn the proceedings into an absolute brawl. There is no discussion of policy. There is no admission that the Labour members know anything about the issues that the New Zealand public are concerned about. 
But do members know what is really interesting? A lot of the people on the Opposition side of the House are very happy with how things are going. Maryan Street Ruth Dyson David Cunliffe and Chris Carter cannot wait to see the back of Phil Goff. The worse the situation gets the happier they are. It is getting worse and worse down in the Labour corridors but those members want it to get so bad that they can mount a coup. 
Meanwhile what is the Government doing? We are getting on with doing the business. This week the Prime Minister is announcing the first seven routes for the cycleway. This is a positive infrastructural move that will build something for the New Zealand economy. It will produce jobs it will leave a lasting piece of infrastructure and it will boost the tourism industry. That is what those guys need to be focusing on—something positive. 
What did Gerry Brownlee and I announce yesterday? The business migration policy. That policy was a complete failure under Labour. In the last 2 years Labour brought in three people in two categories. It was a complete disaster. Labour members are not interested in business. They are not interested in adding to the economy. They had no plan to improve the business migration policy; it was a complete disaster. What has National done? We have worked with ethnic communities with business and with community groups and we have looked at what needs to be done. We have lowered both the language requirements and capital requirements for business migration to ensure we can attract people here who have the capital that New Zealand business needs in order to grow the economy. We want to attract more people with entrepreneurial skills so we have introduced the new entrepreneur-plus category. If someone can come into New Zealand bring half a million dollars into his or her business and employ three New Zealanders full-time then we will fast track that person towards the granting of residence. Those guys in Labour had 9 years to get that going but they did not take any notice of the need for capital in the economy. 
The Labour members do not have an economic plan but they will say what they are against and not what they are for. The funny thing that we notice is that when they are asked some questions about local government Phil Twyford is in favour of the Auckland super-city. He started off by saying that he was not in favour of it but I read the letter he sent to constituents. He is denying it. Those guys are in favour of the super-city. But we need to know whether they are going to rescind the super-city. I say it is pretty unlikely that they would do so. 
But do members know what? When we look at health we see something quite amazing. Labour members talk about what they have been doing in health but I can tell members what they were going to do. They were going to cut $113 million in funding from health. In terms of new funding it is $100 million out and $50 million out. 
The Labour members are lost. This Government is doing the business and Phil Goff is a dead man walking. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Unfortunately the member who has just resumed his seat has no credibility at all. He is a former doctor who blew cigar smoke over a woman then threatened her and her boyfriend and the health community laughed at him having any role in health at all. “I’ve got my eye on you.”—remember that statement? Remember the politician who strutted the political stage for over a decade— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am a bit confused. “My eye on you” is— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The point of order is well made. I am warning the member to desist. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Do members remember the politician who used to strut the political stage over a decade ago in New Zealand intimidating bullying and badgering anyone who dared to confront to debate with to cross or to question him? It did not matter whether that person was the President of the United States of America a pensioner at a public meeting a journalist a cartoonist or a colleague. That person was Sir Robert Muldoon. He was the National Prime Minister from 1975 to 1984. He was a man who used the power of political office as a political— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether it is very parliamentary to speak about an honourable member who is now dead and to be casting aspersions over his grave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It is in order but it is not in order to keep raising points of order to break up a member’s speech. I ask the member to consider that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have made two attempts to start my speech and twice that member has broken it up. I seek your indulgence to start again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No the member will continue. The points of order have been quite brief. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Robert Muldoon was the original political clobbering machine. He was a man who had no hesitation in clobbering anybody who opposed him. In the beginning political commentators used to praise his gutsy style. They praised his unconventional National Party approach to politics. They praised his rough around the edges way of operating and his take no prisoners debate style. He even developed Rob’s mob who followed every insult that he uttered. He could charm he could joke and he could reduce grown men to tears. 
My colleague Shane Jones was right when he said that Muldoon’s mokopuna are alive and well in this House today and No. 1 of those mokopuna is Paula Bennett the Minister for Social Development and Employment. Commentators out there have been praising her gutsy style; they like her rough and tumble westie approach to politics. She can charm she can joke and she certainly can laugh as Grey Power found out when they had a very unsuccessful visit to her office. Now we know that she can insult attack and belittle the very people who look to her for protection. 
What we have now is no longer a nanny State as the National Party liked to say right up to the election but a Big Brother State. We learnt in this House today that Paula Bennett accessed information about sole parents from within the computer system that is situated in her office the Ministry of Social Development computer system. It was unauthorised by the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development. Peter Hughes had no knowledge that she had accessed that information. Paula Bennett owned up to it today. She got a staff member to take that information off the computer system with no knowledge by the chief executive and then she released it to the media. Peter Hughes found out about it after it had gone into the media and the Minister owned up to that today. That is the sort of Big Brother bullying behaviour we have going on. 
It was unheard of that a Minister would use a computer system in her office—the Ministry of Social Development’s Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today system—to go in and troll through the information on beneficiaries so she could start another round of beneficiary bashing. We have from that National Government a new round of benefit bashing that we have not seen in New Zealand for a long time. I say shame on National members. How could any woman on those benches support the bashing of those beneficiary women because they had the temerity and the audacity to put their hand up and say “We do not particularly like this policy.”? We now know what sort of Government we have—it is the Big Brother Government. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 In the face of the worst recession since the 1930s the National Government is not only managing the economy sensibly and intelligently it is actually tackling the hard issues that underpin our nation’s success in the future. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I just ask the House to calm down a little bit. We have members on both sides involved in interjections across the House. Members well know that interjections should be rare and reasonable. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: National is actually tackling the hard issues— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has now done it but during the entire time of your ruling when you were on your feet that member did not sit. You were lecturing the House about manners and members behaving themselves and she stood right through your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is a timely reminder. Members must sit. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you Mr Mallard. National is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This should not be primer 1 for a member who has been here for some time. It is inappropriate it is wrong and it has often been ruled out for members to comment on rulings and points of order that have been ruled on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did caution a member on the Government side for making points of order that break up a speech. Although the member may be correct and I am not disputing that he is correct I do not think there was any malice in what the member did. In essence that is why that ruling is there; it was just an acknowledgment. Let us all take a deep breath and continue. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: National is actually tackling the hard issues that will underpin the nation’s success in the future unlike Labour members and their flogging of petty issues bickering amongst themselves and making personal attacks against hard-working Government officials. Although we are in the sixth quarter of recession we are better off than many OECD countries. Our unemployment rate is lower and our business confidence is holding up. Much of that is to do with the fact that we have agriculture and tourism underpinning our economy rather than manufacturing. As we tighten our belts the world can wait for another year for us to upgrade our car or TV but we all have to eat and drink. It is reassuring to see our trade surplus inch up and our exports rise albeit slowly. 
As an MP in Christchurch my work is absolutely focused on improving the quality of life for the people in my home town and I see lots to be positive about. I believe that Christchurch people will have a better lifestyle better opportunities and a better future under National. The initiatives that we have introduced in the last 9 months say it all in stark contrast to the last 9 years where the safe Labour seats in Christchurch had been badly neglected. Christchurch Central people tell me that they want a safer healthier and more prosperous lifestyle. I support their aspirations and National is totally focused on delivering them. 
In terms of having a safer city the commissioning of more police and more probation officers is a great contribution from central government but equally important are the actions of our local police our council and our local businesses. By working together in the last few months we have been able to reduce violence in our central city area by 36 percent on the weekends. We are not satisfied with that; we have initiatives to do more. National’s Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home-insulation programme is just made for Christchurch. Low temperatures and a city built on a swamp mean many of our homes are too cold and too damp to be healthy. I am keenly encouraging my constituents to use the scheme to upgrade their homes to make them healthier and to keep our city working. I thank all those insulation and heating companies that are working flat out to meet the demand and creating new jobs in Christchurch every day. 
Another positive health initiative for our city is the voluntary bonding system for young doctors nurses and midwives. It will help ensure that there are enough health professionals working in our city and it will also help retain our young graduates to keep our city alive vital and growing. 
 This week the Prime Minister announced the seven projects for New Zealand’s great cycle rides. In my area we already have the Little River Rail Trail and several more rides will be added to the South Island cycle network. Christchurch will be the tourist gateway for these great rides. Of course Christchurch people will be able to enjoy the recreational and health benefits from these cycleways themselves but they will also bring great economic benefits to New Zealand firstly from the construction jobs then from attracting hundreds maybe even thousands of tourists—tourists who have to eat drink sleep and shop in our city every day along the way. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 We heard an excellent speech earlier from my friend and colleague Annette King about the bullying tactics of one of the Ministers in this Government. What a shame that after only 8 months of this administration being in office we are starting to see this sort of behaviour manifest itself! We also see it elsewhere and I refer to the justice sector. A report has come in today from the New Zealand Press Association about the behaviour of an MP who is a member of one of the Government’s confidence and supply parties—the ACT Party. When a select committee was hearing submissions in Auckland today Mr David Garrett told a number of prison officers who had the temerity to criticise the way in which the Auckland Central Remand Prison had been run under private contract by GEO Group Inc. between 2000 and 2005: “You say that you don’t want to go back to working in this environment—to the private [sector]. You’d be aware that given your submission here you wouldn’t get offered a job anyway would you?”. 
So here we go! More threatening behaviour to members of the public in the justice sector! No one on the Government side of the House worries about the rule of law. The members threaten people who exercise their democratic right to give evidence at a select committee. They say: “Let’s tell them they had better watch out for saying what they think and they believe because that will threaten their ability to get a job in the private sector if that is the way the contract goes at Auckland Prison.” That is shameful behaviour. But unfortunately as Annette King said it is consistent with what we have seen from Paula Bennett in the last couple of days. And the behaviour continues. Only a week or two ago we saw the Minister of Justice telling the Chief Justice the head of the judiciary that she had no right to speak out in a public debate on matters of penal policy. 
Hon Member 
: And to respect the constitution! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Somebody has just spoken about the constitution. I think he must have slept through constitutional law. That member was recently in England at the taxpayers’ expense and while he was in England he would have heard the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales making much more outspoken statements than those made by our Chief Justice. If he listened he would know that it is a convention and in fact a duty for members of the judiciary including the head of the judiciary to speak out on matters of important public policy in the justice sector. 
The reason it is shameful for the Minister of Justice to dress her down is this—[ 
Interruption 
] I will explain it to Mr Quinn because he does not understand the rule of law and one of the things he needs to do in this House is start to get a grip on it. The reason it is shameful is that the Minister has overall responsibility for the funding of the justice sector. The judiciary has no spending power. I tell Mr Quinn and other members opposite that it is a chilling thing indeed to see the Minister of Justice publicly criticise and bully the head of the judiciary. He implied that she has no right to speak out on penal policy. It is chilling because he holds the purse strings and in the end the judges know that if they offend the Minister of Justice then all sorts of things like court security like the facilities enjoyed by the judges like their research capability—everything funded by the executive at the moment—can be put at risk because the judges have the temerity to speak out and say they might not agree with the thrust of Government policy. 
Never mind that Government policy in the penal area is manifestly failing; never mind that the judges are the ones at the coalface sentencing people every day sentencing the same people all the time every day because of the failures in our penal system—oh no never mind the Minister of Justice says to the Chief Justice that judges should not dare to speak out! 
We saw this bullying with Judith Collins and Barry Matthews earlier in the Government’s term. Then we saw it with Nick Smith and the Accident Compensation Corporation and Tony Ryall and Richard Thomson. It is a sad sight. Now we are seeing it with Paula Bennett and the poor old beneficiaries who dared to speak out because they do not agree that the training incentive allowance should be curtailed. Their private details have been paraded in the public domain. It is Muldoonism. The ghost is walking and New Zealanders should be afraid—very very afraid—that this is the behaviour we face from this Government. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 When I listened to Annette King speak before and try to give the impression of righteous indignation I could not help but remember the occasion when she sold enrolled nurses down the drain. She effectively washed her hands of them and said that she could not change anything. However what is probably more to the point— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the comments made by the member. He has misrepresented the facts about me. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I believe that is a debating point. 
COLIN KING 
: I think it is probably more appropriate at this time to consider what has been going on in New Zealand. It is a very good opportunity to compare the performance of the National Government in the last 9 months with the performance of the Labour Government over the last 9 years. I think that on this side of the House members can be very very comfortable because a John Key - led Government has made the very best out of the worst situation in 70 years whereas that lot on the other side of the House made the very worst of the best situation in 30 years. We had economic waste and a total blowout of the budget. One would think that when Labour members were in Government they would have realised that a lot more ships were coming here with produce than were leaving. Therefore those members should have known about the balance of payments situation. 
However there is always a silver lining to every cloud. Do members know what that silver lining was? It was on 8 November when New Zealanders said that they had had enough of the Labour Government and that it was time to get rid of it and they instated a John Key - led Government. 
When we look at the other side the House we see Phil Goff. There is a whole range of problems there. He has been totally underwhelming. To draw an analogy when I look at Phil Goff these days he is a bit like a boxer who has got to the very end of the round but he has gone back to the neutral corner because he does not know what day of the week it is. 
In no way is that better illustrated than when one looks at the wonderful situation of the cycleways. We have this fantastic proposal for a cycleway that will go from Hanmer through to Lake Tennyson. The country is celebrating this. People are switched on and are listening to John Key. They have been inspired and they have aspirations. But what did Phil Goff do? He tried to knock the situation. It is interesting that when the nation was glued to Television One on Monday night Phil Goff tried to bag the cycleways. The only bump in the road was Phil Goff being run over in the process. 
What has been going on? We can make a comparison. What has been this Government’s solution to the problems that confront us? We have the Warm Up New Zealand package the maintaining of entitlements and the maintaining of youth training levels at remarkably high levels. Those are the solutions. In comparison Opposition members talk about handing out welfare to millionaires and raising superannuation entitlements to 67 years. Probably the lowest of Labour members’ activities with the intention of trying to further their political ends is to politicise honest New Zealanders then when the story makes it on to the front page to walk away and say: “Oh it wasn’t us.” Labour members show a very very limp expression of what an Opposition should be. 
This Government under John Key has been focusing on job creation and growth. It has been maintaining entitlements improving public services and controlling Government debt. It has provided the Warm Up New Zealand home insulation programme. That is a wonderful programme and this winter has been the coldest in 56 years. The Government is boosting infrastructure investment protecting bank deposits and lifting educational standards. The list goes on and on. 
It is an absolute pleasure to be the member for Kaikoura where we see the beginnings of a fantastic initiative within New Zealand—the cycleway. I encourage members opposite to get on their bikes and go cycling throughout the seven main options. It will be onwards and upwards. 
This is the time to celebrate the choice that New Zealanders made in the 2008 election. We must congratulate John Key on his wonderful performance which goes onwards and upwards. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The previous speech from Colin King was a big play for the role of Parliamentary Under-Secretary some time early in 2011. The member talked about enrolled nurses but I want to put one factual matter right. The previous National Government took away the role of enrolled nurses; Annette King restarted the training of enrolled nurses. The previous speaker had it wrong by 180 degrees but we will move on. 
I want to focus today on Paula Bennett because two things became absolutely apparent today. First Paula Bennett ordered a staff member either directly or through a political person—and we will get to that tomorrow—to access the Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today (SWIFTT) database by using the machine in her office. That is just wrong. I had the education database in my office when I was Minister of Education but I would not have dreamt of accessing the information for political purposes. It is wrong. What will happen to the staff member who was ordered by Paula Bennett to access that information? Despite the fact that the staff member was ordered by Paula Bennett that person has still breached the rules on accessing SWIFTT and will almost certainly lose his or her job. 
Peter Hughes is the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development. I have never seen a chief executive look so bad. He is stuck between a Minister who ordered a staff member to do something and a staff member who breached the regulations and therefore will face disciplinary action. It is unfair to put the staff member in that position and also unfair to put the chief executive in that position. 
We will progress that matter but let us look at some of the parallels. The Minister of Police has the police database sitting in a staff member’s office. What would people think if someone looked up Hone’s convictions my convictions or Sue Bradford’s convictions on the police database for political purposes? We all know— 
Simon Bridges 
: What else have you done? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh here we go! “Cougar Bait” is interjecting again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member knows we must refer to members by their correct title in this House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member for Tauranga who has the hots for Christine Rankin interjects. If the member wants to put it that way and that is the approach members want I am happy to put it that way; I was happy to call him “Cougar Bait”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member not long ago raised an issue about referring to a Speaker’s ruling. I do not think the tone the member is proceeding in will maintain order in this House and I may well have to impose some other regulations. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Let us get to the point: should the Minister of Police access the police database for political purposes? No. Should the Minister of Health access the health database? When Labour was in Government we knew that some people on the Opposition side had some pretty serious health problems. Should the then Minister of Health have accessed the health database for information about Opposition members? Of course not; that would have been absolutely wrong and unethical just as it was unethical for Paula Bennett to access information on two beneficiaries. 
Ministers are trusted. Ministers are trusted not to abuse the access they have to information. When I was Minister of Education I did not go looking up the examination results of the children of Opposition members. That would have been wrong. I did not look up the examination results of Opposition members when they were at school. That would also have been wrong. Why is it right for Paula Bennett to order her staff to breach the regulations access information inappropriately and not tell the chief executive until afterwards? It is unprecedented as far as I am aware. I ask Government members where it stops. What is the ethical basis for Government members going into official records of opponents? 
Paul Quinn 
: You are the last person who should be talking about ethics. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We hear Paul Quinn again. Who is the New Zealand Maori playing this year? Who did not go to the New Zealand Rugby Union meeting and lost the New Zealand Maori its game? It was Paul Quinn. He is useless there and here. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Actions speak louder than words and this Government led by our able Prime Minister John Key is getting things done. I want to touch on a couple of issues that the previous Government raised in terms of district health boards the Department of Corrections and the accident compensation scheme. This side of the House has able Ministers who have had to deal with poorly managed and badly performing departments. Those Ministers took decisive action to sort out the problems. They are more examples of a Government getting things done. 
Today I want to focus on one primary action one action that will have a significant impact on the Taupo electorate and that is the cycleway project. I want to talk about the Waikato River Trails. This was a project selected as one that had been earmarked as a quick start. Many members will not be aware of the Waikato River Trails project so I want to provide a bit of background on its success. The idea started back in 2002 with a job summit arranged by the South Waikato District Council. The council could see changes in its local economy. It was concerned about job losses and it decided to find an economic initiative that would create jobs and business opportunities and increase tourism to the district. The dream was to create walking and cycling tracks along the Waikato River. Once completed the trails would cover 100 kilometres winding along a path that encompasses the magic and beauty of our native bush exotic forest historic landmarks interesting rock formations geological delights open reserve and boardwalks through significant wetlands; not to mention of course our expansive lake and river views. 
The driving force behind this project is a keen group of volunteers—the Waikato River Trails Trust. Their passion and drive for the project have been inspiring. They have already completed 34 kilometres of the trails which are open to the public today. They are close to completing another 25 kilometres but the Government funding will make the critical difference to this project because it will mean that the project will be completed—the extra 41 kilometres—by the end of summer. The dream is becoming a reality. Public access to these natural assets has been made possible only by the construction of these trails. They are parts of New Zealand that people had not had access to before the river cycleway and walkway were constructed. Forty-five people have been employed in the project to date. 
I want to tell members about some of those people. I have met the group that has been constructing the walkway between Arapuni and Horahora. They were previously unemployed. They were a group of people on the unemployment benefit who got jobs constructing the trails. This has been a great success story because 80 percent of the people who have been working on the trails have gone on to further employment. That is the sort of success we want to see as part of the cycleway project. I repeat that 80 percent of the previously unemployed people who have been constructing the trail have gone on to further employment. When we look at the National Government’s funding of the next 41 kilometres of the cycleway we find that just in building the trail alone there are another 37 new jobs. That is before we talk about what businesses pop up in terms of bed and breakfasts transfer services shops that all of a sudden get business where they did not before and cafes that get business through hospitality coffee ice cream and all those sorts of things. 
In addition to the Waikato River Trails I am excited about the Hauraki Plains trail the central North Island rail trail and the Mount Ruapehu to Wanganui trail which have been identified as priority projects for a quick start. All three of these projects are within a few kilometres of the Waikato River Trails so very quickly we have a connected cycleway that goes for many kilometres stretching through this beautiful country. The tracks will provide a real boost for our local tourism industry stimulating the local economy and providing jobs and opportunities for communities that have experienced tough times. In addition in the north the plan is to construct the cycleway to Cambridge and on to Ngaruawahia. Going further south to Taupo is also on the table and another project is connecting the Maungatautari ecological reserve to the existing Waikato River Trails. This is an example of three councils working closely together in the Taupo electorate for economic good and for jobs. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is fantastic to take a call in this general debate. Members opposite have given up finding this to be just a bit too tough. I am proud to be part of a National Government with fantastic leadership under John Key but including many others. In this speech I will talk about the many positive initiatives that our Government is taking. 
But first I will mention a very positive thing that has occurred right in the electorate that I am privileged to represent the electorate of Tauranga: a Tauranga baker has scooped New Zealand’s best pie award for a record third time. Pat Lam of Goldstar Patrick’s Pies Bakery beat entries from 388 other bakeries to win the supreme award for best pie in New Zealand. The pie was members will be pleased to know a creamy bacon mushroom and cheese pie. As I say it was the third time that Mr Lam has won the award. How good is that? I congratulate Pat Lam and Goldstar Patrick’s Pies Bakery. In Tauranga we are truly proud to say we eat all the pies. 
I want to talk about the exciting initiatives that are coming out of this Government thick and fast. I say from the outset that really at a big picture level it is quite clear that despite a bad global recession and tough times—sobering times; perhaps the toughest times we have seen since the 1930s—we have not thrown our hands up in despair. At the big picture level we have done two significant things. First we have maintained benefits and entitlements. Representing a city like Tauranga where a significant proportion of the population is elderly I am quite proud to say we have worked hard to make sure that national superannuation will stay at 66 percent of the average wage after tax. That is something the people of Tauranga along with the local Grey Power and Age Concern organisations and many other groups in my electorate are very happy about especially in light of comments that David Cunliffe from the other side of the House has made about the need to tweak superannuation and perhaps see the age of entitlement go up to 67. In speaking with business groups he has made it quite clear that he does not necessarily think the door should be shut on that. We do and the people of Tauranga do. 
Simultaneously with maintaining the benefits we have also worked very hard to be disciplined prudent and careful with the books in order to ensure this country does not see a credit downgrade. Again that is markedly distinct from the kind of “Visa-nomics” that we have seen from members opposite the brigade from Labour who were prepared to “Put-it-on-the-bill-Phil” and to play fast and loose with money in the good times. In the bad times we have both maintained entitlements and ensured there has been no credit downgrade. We have done that really for the sake of future generations in this country so that they will continue to have options to live well in a first-class First World country. 
Many initiatives—and there are many—are keeping this House and the select committees busy. There has been the ReStart package to soften the blow for those who have been made redundant and also a comprehensive tax and simplification package for small and medium sized enterprises. Initiatives have come out of the Job Summit such as the 9-day working fortnight whereby unions businesses and the Government have got together in a good-faith dialogue starting a process that I am sure will continue into the future. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 That was a glaring example of the National Government’s heavy-handed tactics—it took the speaking slot of its coalition partner. I want to highlight some of the concerning actions of this Government because those actions are heavy-handed and bullying and they are not resonating at all well throughout the country on a number of fronts. 
Let us take as an example Rodney Hide’s position on Auckland. He has just whipped through with his own proposition about what he will do to fix Auckland. Who likes it? Nobody. There has been resounding unrest through every community in Auckland but no Rodney turns up and says “Have I got a deal for you! This is the way things are going to happen.” In fact that highlights the theme of this National-led Government. It takes a heavy-handed bullying approach to the way it tries to introduce measures that affect people’s lives. 
More important we have seen in the House today something quite incredible. We have seen a Minister present information in the public domain without taking any advice whatsoever from her chief executive. That is unbelievable. Privacy issues regarding the details of that information should have been considered prior to the releasing of that information. 
All that those women wanted to do was say that the training incentive allowance has helped them to pursue other career opportunities. So they put their hands up and said they did not agree with the cuts to the training incentive allowance. They said they did not agree with the Government about the impact the change would have on solo mums throughout the country. So what did the Minister do to silence those criticisms? She released a whole lot of personal details into the public domain without taking any advice. It is very concerning because it is heavy-handed. It is a bullying approach to stopping people from expressing an opinion on real fundamental aspects of policy that affect their lives. 
I remember campaigning in 1999 when National cut the training incentive allowance to 60 percent of what people were eligible for at the time. There was huge criticism. Did National learn anything? No it continued to repeat the same mistakes. I know a solo mum who has taken up the training incentive allowance and pursued a law degree. I know another solo mum who has taken up the training incentive allowance and become a social worker. I have visited a community and voluntary organisation where at least two people have taken up the training incentive allowance. 
So we are not talking about just two women. We are talking about a lot of women in a whole lot of communities mainly in the community and voluntary sector. Some people have taken up careers like nursing and have used the training incentive allowance to support their pursuit of a career and to give their whanau a hand up. And what does the Minister do? She turns round and she dumps on them. Unbelievable! 
What I really want to know is whether she ignored any advice that she may have received from her overpaid political adviser? Did she ignore it? Did she even seek it? Or was the Minister just selective in accepting the advice that came to her so that she could say she did not receive the information and therefore could not make a decision based on it? No what the Minister said in the House today was that she made a personal judgment to release that information in the House. That has to be questioned by members on the opposite side of the House because making that determination to release private details is something other beneficiaries may well be concerned about. 
When will it stop? Community health providers are concerned about the way that the National Government is embarking on independent practice association - led health services in the primary health care sector. If those providers put their hands up and say that they disagree with a decision because it may impact on their ability to provide services in the community will their funding be cut? There is no answer. When will it stop? What about those on low and modest incomes who are concerned about the Government’s tax cuts? They get nothing. If people are earning $40000 or less they get absolutely nothing. These people are asking where the fairness is in that. Will they be stung in the pocket and made to pay more in other ways? 
When will it stop? What about superannuitants who are concerned about the sustainability of their pensions in the future because of the deferral of payments to the Superannuation Fund? What if their details are released into the public domain? When will it stop? That is what is most concerning about the Minister for Social Development and Employment making a personal judgment informing her chief executive officer after the fact but none the less releasing private details into the public domain. It is something that primarily affects the lives of people who are vulnerable. It should stop. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. A hoi ano me tu au i tenei wa e te Whare kia korero i oku whakaaro mo te kara Maori mo te kahu Maori mo te tohu e whakakotahi ai tatou hei iwi Maori. No reira tena tatou katoa. Mai i nohinohi ana kua rongo tatou i nga korero mai i wa tatou matua tupuna matua tumuaki o nga hahi rangatira o nga iwi kia whai atu i te kotahitanga mo tatou katoa hei iwi kotahi. Runga i wena whakaaro kua puta mai te korero kia hanga i te kahu kia rere hei tohu whakakotahi i a tatou mai i Te Hiku o te Ika tae atu ki roto o Murihiku me nga iwi katoa kei waenganui. A mai i wena korero kua tu mai to matou rangatira a Pita kia panui atu ki te ao i tona hiahia kia rere ai to tatou kara Maori runga i te piriti o Tamaki-makau-rau i te ra o Waitangi. A me te mihi ano hoki ki te Pirimia e whakaae nei kia pera mena kua whakaae tatou ki tetahi kahu kotahi tetahi kara kotahi. Mai i taua wa kua tae noa tatou ki tenei haere mai i Te Hiku i tenei wa katahi ano ka mutu te korero i roto o Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa inapo ra tae atu ki tona mutunga ki roto i Te Wai Pounamu e rua tekau o nga hui. Kia rongohia matou i nga korero ta tera tangata ta tera ropu ta tera hapu ta tera iwi me pehea wa tatou whakaaro katoa mo tenei mea te kara te kara Maori. 
Taku haerenga ki tawahi kua kite au i te ataahuaranga o nga kara o nga iwi taketake. Kite au i te whakaaro kotahi roto i te ngakau o nga iwi taketake puta noa te ao. Tera te tino hiahia o matou o te Pati Maori kia rere tetahi kara kia pera ano hoki tatou. Kia tu kotahi kia hikoi tahi kia waiata tahi kia wawata tahi. A runga i tera whakaaro me mihi au ki te Pati Maori e whakaae nei kia w’akahaere i tenei kaupapa. Me te mea ano e tika ana kia mohio mai i te timatanga o tenei haerenga nui atu i te rua mano nga tangata i haere mai ki nga hui i tukuna mai nga reta i waea mai ki a matou i korerohia i nga hui wa ratou whakaaro. Horekau he Maori kotahi e mea mai me kaua tatou e hanga i te kara mo te ao Maori. Kao. Teka ana au. E rua nga Maori ko Parekura tetahi ko Shane tetahi. Engari ko te katoa atu i a Shane raua ko Parekura i whakaaetia kia rerea te kara Maori. No reira mihi atu ki a tatou katoa o te ao Maori. 
Tika ana te korero hara te kara i te mea hei whangai i te tinana hei whakapakari i te tinana hei whai mahi mo te tangata. Engari mohio ana a Mita i tenei korero hara i te whangai i te tinana te mea anake i tenei ao. Atu i tera ko te whangai i te wairua ko te whangai i te hinengaro. Ko tera te tino kaupapa o te kara Maori. Kia whaingai i to matou wairua i te wa o te kino kia taea e matou te kite i te ataahuaranga o tetahi tohu kei roto i a ia nga whakaaro o te ao kohatu nga korero mo tenei wa me nga wawata mo nga ra kei te haere mai. Roto ano hoki i te kara kia kite ai tatou i te ataahua rawa o nga whakaairo o nga mea o te ao Maori.Kia kite ai matou i nga tae o te ao te Maori. Tera te tino hiahia a ta matou rangatira a Pita i tona korero i te timatanga o tenei tau. No reira tena koutou tena koutou huri atu huri noa kia ora tatoa katoa. 
[ 
Greetings Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all of the House. So to you the House I rise at this time to express my views about the Maori flag the symbol that will make us the Maori people one. Greetings to you all. From the time we were little we heard the talk from our parents grandparents church leaders and tribal leaders about seeking solidarity for us all. It was from those thoughts that talk about creating a flag emerged to unite us from the “Tail of the Fish” to Invercargill and all the tribes in between. Based on that talk our leader Pita announced his desire to the world that a flag for Maoridom should fly on the Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day. I commend the Prime Minister as well who agreed to this if we were unanimous about a single flag. Since that announcement we have travelled the country beginning at the “Tail of the Fish” and just as recently as last night we held discussions in Gisborne. The journey will conclude in the South Island and that should cover 20 meetings. At these meetings we will hear the views of individuals groups subtribes and tribes as to how we would arrive at a flag for the Maori people.  
I saw the beauty of indigenous people having a flag when I went overseas. I witnessed the oneness of thought and heart amongst indigenous people throughout the world. That is the real desire of the Maori Party to see a flag flying so that we are like that as well: stand as one walk as one sing as one and yearn as one. Because of that I commend the Maori Party which agreed to facilitate this. Further to that I think it is timely that it should be made known that at the commencement of this journey more than 2000 people have come to the meetings to express their views. We have fielded letters and phone calls. Not one single Maori stated that we should not be creating a flag for Maori. Wrong! I am lying! Two Maori objected. One was Parekura the other one was Shane. But apart from these two everyone was in favour of a Maori flag being flown. So I acknowledge all of us for that.  
The statement that the flag will neither nourish nor strengthen the body nor will it provide employment is absolutely correct. But on the other hand and Mita is aware of this too feeding the body is not the only thing in this world. Beyond that there is the feeding of the spirit and mind as well. That is the very essence of the Maori flag—to nourish our spirits when times are bad to enable us to see the beauty of something symbolic of the past of the present and inspirations of the future. We should see the beautiful things of the Maori in the flag as well: the colours that are symbolic to us. Those are the things that our leader Pita really wanted when he spoke at the beginning of this year. So greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all throughout 
.] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Tena tatou. E mihi kau ana i a koe mo te rekareka hoki i te rongo atu i to tatou reo i roto i te Whare nei. Ko tenei te Wiki o te Reo Maori a tena tatou. Na te mea i rongo atu ki te koroke ra o te Nota e korero atu mo tana haki tona kara e ki atu mo te rere atu. Na te mea i roto i a koe mohio atu tera tangata toku whakaaro engari e mihi kau ana ki nga haki katoa o tatou mai i te Rua Te Kau Ma Waru mai ratou ma o nga Wahine Toko i te Ora i tae atu ratou ki te Nota e Hone e ngaro ana to ratou haki to ratou kara. Tangohia atu e koutou. Whakahokia atu koe ki a ratou. No reira tena tatou. 
Na te pai o tatou o te tangata whenua o konei e ora ai to tatou reo. Tera ano te pai o te wiki nei. Mai ano i te mahi o o tatou tupuna e tuku atu ki o tatou matua e tuku atu tatou ki nga mokopuna. Kei te whai kaha atu to ratou e rite atu ki ratou o Airangi o Wera pera tonu. He aha ai kare e whakaae atu te katoa mo tenei tino tuku na te pai hoki kei te ora hoki. E mohio atu tatou i roto i a tatou te kaha rawa o nga tupuna hei tuku atu ki a tatou. Tera ano te mahi i roto i te Whare Miere nei. Mai ra ano e tuku atu wetahi o nga kawenata e manaaki atu te puta ako a nga minita ra a tatou nga kaimahi o te Whare Miere mai ra ano e tuku atu ratou i tetahi kawenata e whakaae e kore whakaae. Na te mate hoki e kite atu tatou te wahine ra o te Hauauru e puta ana tona waha te riri hoki atu ki nga tangata e mau ana i te penihana. No reira e whakaaro atu. Kei te mahi wehewehe haere wetahi o ratou mo te tino take e manaaki atu tatou. 
Na te mamae e Hone e rongo atu i tae atu koutou ki Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa i reira ke mo nga ra e rua te nui o o tatou whanau e tae atu i runga i te penihana. Tera ano te manaaki e pirangi atu tatou mo i reira? Tera ano te kaha e whakawero atu tatou i te wahine nei o Te Ropu Nahinara? 
[ 
My acknowledgments to you and how wonderful it is to hear our language here in the House. This is Maori Language Week so greetings to us all. I note the comments by that person from the north in his address about his flag and how he would like to see it flown. He knows what my views are about it but at the same time I want to acknowledge all of our flags including the 28th Battalion one and the Maori Women’s Welfare League flag. That reminds me Hone they lost their flags when they came up north. You took it off them. Give it back to them! So greetings to us. 
I come back to the language. Our language has survived because we the people of the land have done a good job to ensure that. That is one of the good things about this week. It has been handed down through the generations through simple ethics. It continues and survives no different from the situation with the Welsh and the Irish. There have been strong things around that and there have been guidelines just like in this House here. The people who have come before us have provided legislative guidelines for Ministers and people who work in the House; some we agree with and some we do not. But the outburst we witnessed from the female westie member was uncalled for.  
But I digress. Hone you mentioned in your address that you were in Gisborne for 2 days. Most of our families who were there are on the pension and I find that most hurtful. Is that the sort of care we want there? Is that how strongly we want to provoke this lady from the National Party? 
] 
 Our language has certainly survived and it is wonderful to celebrate that this week during Maori Language Week. It has been handed down through the generations through a simple edict: that it continues and it survives no differently from the survival of Welsh and Irish languages. There has been a strengthening of that edict and there have been guidelines like those made in this House by the people who have come before us since the 1850s and 1860s. 
Generally the legislation is quite clear. One of the real issues is to ensure that people’s privacy is respected. There are legislative guidelines yet we have seen such an atrocious abuse committed recently by one of our Ministers in one of our principal ministries and it was done not just by her. She had been following along after listening to Simon Power versus Dame Sian Elias. What was that about? The Minister of Justice was putting himself above the law. That is what Simon did. He put himself above the law. 
What really made me wonder was when Paula Bennett the Minister for Social Development and Employment said: “I consulted the website.” Peter Hughes is one of the highest performing chief executives in the Public Service and I pay my respects to him. But the Minister went off and did that instead of consulting him. I can tell members that beneficiaries have a lot of fear as do a lot of Maori people over the activity that has happened recently. It is great fertile fuel for the rednecks to say: “Good on you Paula give it to them!”. 
People who are on benefits are not all lazy and they are not all bludgers. A middle-aged Maori woman had a second chance at education at the Gisborne polytechnic but that hope has been dashed. This is not just about the rangatahi. There are Maori women aged 35 45 and 55 years old who are good candidates to again educate themselves. What has happened? A welfare Minister and an education Minister have axed and destroyed the dreams of those people. 
One wonders whether this is a nanny State or whether it is just real blatant bullying. One would not blame beneficiaries for being afraid that their information is being tossed around freely and willingly and worse still that the chief executive hears about it only after it has happened. And instead of being humble about it and apologising for it the Minister got carried away with what the rednecks are saying: “Good on you girl you have done it. Hip hip hooray!”. What a lot of trash! Shame on the National Government for doing that! And shame on my friend and colleague Hone Harawira for not speaking up about it. 
Simon Bridges 
: Stop your scaremongering. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member should not sit there and pontificate on his high Tauranga horse because he has a lot to learn about this place. One thing he will learn from this gentleman walking past me Gerry Brownlee—take off your toupee Gerry—is that at the end of the day I say to the solo mums and the beneficiaries of this country that they should beware of Ministers who bully people and decide to take their information from the website and ring the chief executive afterwards. How can Minister Bennett live with herself now that she has handed that out? What are the repercussions for those women’s families? What are the repercussions for the people those women are affiliated to? All the information is not out. 
Where are we getting to when the Minister of Justice tells the Chief Justice: “You cannot say that.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Sorry; I did not mean you Mr Assistant Speaker. Where are we going when the Minister of Justice decides to be so disrespectful to one of this country’s greatest legal minds? It is outrageous. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Tihei mauri ora. Whakataka te hau ki te uru whakataka te hau ki te tonga kia makinakina ki uta kia mataratara ki tai e hi ake ana te atakura. He tio he huka he hauhunga. No reira tena koutou. Ki te Whare e tu nei tena koe. Ki a Papatuanuku kei waho tena koe. Ki te Kaikorero tena koe. Ki nga mema Paremata tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
I firstly acknowledge Maori Language Week and the way that we in this country have taken on a renaissance of the language and are encouraging its growth in our country which I think is excellent. I started with a whakatauki called “Whakataka te Hau”. I want to interpret it for members because it has a lot to do with the way this Government and its partners have taken this country into a new position. That whakatauki goes something like this: “Cease the winds from the west cease the winds from the south.’’—particularly cease the winds from the south—“Let the breezes blow over the land let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air and a promise of a glorious new day.” That is how the whakatauki is interpreted and that is what this Government is doing across this country. New Zealanders are taking gulps of that fresh new air. They are sucking it in and thanking God that a National Government is delivering change across this nation day after day week after week and month after month. There is positive change. 
Just in the last week we have seen excellent policies rolled out. Today transport policy on the Kopu Bridge has been announced—a bridge that has sat for years without being changed. Investment in that infrastructure will allow development much better transport and improved efficiency and productivity. It is a wonderful opportunity. There is also the case of the Kamo Bypass just recently and the Victoria Park tunnel project has been rolled out. In my own electorate just last Friday I drove up to Wairoa to spend some time in the Wairoa community. I drove past the Matahorua Gorge which for years has presented problems on the road from Napier to Wairoa. This Government—through the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce—stepped up and brought the project forward. The diggers are there now starting the approaches to the bridge that will span the Matahorua Gorge. That is absolutely fantastic and is taking this project forward. 
Today there was an announcement in the immigration area from Ministers Gerry Brownlee and Jonathan Coleman. There was a wonderful announcement about encouraging business migration into this country and encouraging entrepreneurs to come here. It is interesting to listen to members of the Opposition downing this particular policy. They do not understand that entrepreneurs create jobs. At the very time we are losing jobs we need entrepreneurs with the courage and the capital to get out there and invest in this nation. That is what Gerry Brownlee and Jonathan Coleman have delivered to this country. It is absolutely fantastic. 
As I come to the end of this speech I want to focus on the wonderful policy that has been announced at the start of this week and that is the cycleway. If any policy relates to the whakatauki I used at the start of this speech and will get New Zealanders gulping breaths of fresh new air into their lungs it is the cycleway. This week the Government announced seven new cycleways with $9 million of the $50 million stepping up. So there is still $41 million to be spent on the cycleway. That project is exciting New Zealanders. That is where those guys on the Opposition benches do not get it—they do not get it. New Zealanders up and down the country are excited by this wonderful policy. Whether people are in Colin King’s electorate in Bill English’s electorate in the south or in Sandra Goudie’s electorate in Coromandel throughout the motu the country is getting behind this policy and is very excited about it. 
I know that in my own rohe in Hawke’s Bay in Heretaunga people have got in behind us. They are wondering what they can do in terms of the cycleway. They are looking for an opportunity using the existing infrastructure down Marine Parade out to the Tukituki River and winding down that beautiful stretch of river all the way to Waipukurau. My goodness they can stop at Te Mata Estate Craggy Range Winery and the Matariki Wines vineyard along the way. What a wonderful opportunity that would be. There could be accommodation clusters along the way. Businesses will start where people can take bikes from one end to the other. It is absolutely fantastic. These are the opportunities that will come from the cycleway. These are the things this Government is doing as it goes along. 
I wanted to close with another whakatauki but I know I do not have time to finish it. Perhaps another time. 
Sustainable Biofuel Bill 
First Reading 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sustainable Biofuel Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Biofuel made from a range of plant and animal materials has been hailed as our solution to peak oil and climate change and condemned as the cause of mass starvation and the final destruction of natural ecosystems. Both are true and neither is true. Both arguments are extremist and ignore the huge differences between fuels made from specially grown crops and fuels made from wastes or grown on land unsuitable for food production. The idea that it is OK to feed good human food like grains into motorcars while people are starving shows what happens when someone pursues a single-minded goal excludes all other considerations and totally loses sight of the big picture. 
It also shows the abject failure of the market to allocate scarce goods when there are very big differences in ability to pay. There is only so much agricultural land available so there is an absolute limit on how much grain can be produced in the world. We can increase yields with clever management but we can never overcome the fact that there are limits. There will never be enough to feed all human mouths and all the world’s vehicles. When it comes to market competition between the fuel tanks of the wealthy nations and mouths of the hungry who cannot afford to pay much for food it is obvious who will win. In this context unrestricted biofuels can mean genocide. 
The competition between vehicles and living space for orang-utans and other endangered wildlife is even more unequal. If we try to expand the area of available land to provide both food and fuels what will give? It will be the few remaining wild areas the areas of biodiversity and naturalness with no votes and few to speak for them. Already we have lost so much old growth forest in South-east Asia and the Pacific because profits can be made from timber sales from using the land to grow palm oil trees for biofuels and from the palm kernel which is used in our dairy industry as a supplementary feed on high-intensity farms. My colleague Catherine Delahunty has a bill waiting for its first reading that deals with the timber issue by prohibiting unsustainably logged timber from entering New Zealand and undercutting New Zealand foresters who log sustainably. This bill ensures that biofuel made from palm oil will not qualify for subsidy in New Zealand. 
Yet we should not let those very serious risks blind us to the opportunities to make fuel from a range of agricultural and forestry wastes and low-value by-products. Sustainable options in New Zealand include tallow from meatworks and ethanol from a range of agricultural and processing wastes including whey from the dairy industry. As technology matures in the future fuels from our large quantity of wood waste would come from the forestry industry and from algae grown on sewage ponds with the double value of faster better sewage treatment and fuel production. 
The premier science journal  
Science 
 has just published a year-long study by 11 specialists in technology energy systems climate ecology and policy development who resolved their initially differing positions and all agreed that “Biofuels can be produced in large quantities [in the US] and have multiple benefits but only if they come from feedstocks produced with low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions as well as minimal competition with food production.” They list such feedstocks as including but not being limited to perennial plants grown on degraded land abandoned for agriculture crop residues sustainably harvested wood and forestry residues double crops and mixed cropping systems of energy and food together and municipal and industrial wastes. 
That is why I indicated to the Labour Government last year that the Greens would not support its biofuel obligation legislation unless it contained clauses setting out criteria for sustainability. We worked together on the wording of those clauses and refined the bill at the select committee and that wording was passed into law last year. The new Government does not support a mandatory obligation and it repealed the law substituting a subsidy for biofuels. For ethanol the subsidy is achieved by exempting those who produce ethanol from petrol excise tax and for bio-diesel which is most likely to be sold as a blend with petroleum fuels there is a subsidy for the production of the fuel. 
However in repealing last year’s legislation a new problem was created as sustainability criteria were repealed with it. Those involved in setting up a New Zealand industry are afraid that when they have committed the capital and have invested in doing the right thing someone will undercut them by using soy beans which could be feeding people or palm oil grown by clearing tropical forests. I received a message from Lindsay Fergusson of Ecodiesel a firm set up to make tallow and bio-diesel. He said “We feel there should be sustainability rules. It shouldn’t be left open to the industry how they feel about them. What is being proposed is perfectly reasonable and the industry should have some standards around it.” I welcome his support. New Zealand’s clean green reputation is too important to be besmirched by accusations that we are destroying forests and starving people when we do not need to. Our big advantage is we have so much primary production self-generating the residues that can be used sustainably for fuel although we must always remember that the quantity is not unlimited and we still need to take serious measures to use fuel more efficiently. 
This bill amends the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989 by adding the sustainability clauses with appropriate amendments that were law last year. Firstly it requires that biofuels must show a substantial—not less than 35 percent—reduction in greenhouse gases compared with petroleum fuels. There is no reason we would go to all this trouble and expense to subsidise a fuel that leaves us hardly better off in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions. Fonterra raised the point with me that the whey used to make ethanol and sold to Gull Petroleum as a petrol extender may struggle at some times of the year to achieve that 35 percent reduction depending on how much of the life cycle cost of milk production one attributes to the whey. I am very open to discussing at select committee whether fuels made from genuine waste products which would create a disposal problem if not used for fuel should have that condition relaxed. It was intended to stop scams like the US corn-to-ethanol industry some of which creates more greenhouse gas to produce the ethanol than it saves in avoided petroleum. 
The second requirement in the bill is that production of biofuel does not compete with food production. It specifies that by using a by-product from food production such as tallow or whey it does not contravene this provision and neither does oilseed grown in rotation with food crops. In this situation the seedcake is used for animal feed so the competition with human food is minimal. Thirdly the production of biofuel must not reduce biodiversity or adversely affect land of high conservation value. 
It is not possible to specify in legislation a bright line to separate sustainable and unsustainable biofuels. The detail must be left to regulations. The regulation-making provision is in clause 4 which inserts new section 34C. Regulations will specify how to assess life cycle carbon emissions how to determine whether land is suitable for food production and how to define land of high conservation value. We know that those regulations can be drafted quickly because they were well under way when the Government repealed the previous legislation. The previous Minister of Energy David Parker and I met with officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to discuss international precedents for such regulations and how quickly they could be achieved. Those regulations would probably be in place now if the legislation had not been repealed and work stopped but it was very good to hear from the Minister earlier today that it has started again in preparation for the passing of this bill. I commend this bill to the House and I thank the Government for its support. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Government will support the Sustainable Biofuel Bill today. Work is going on in Government departments at the moment on what might be a voluntary scheme to establish proof that biofuels have been sustainably produced in New Zealand. It would then be a short step to look at how that may be prescribed in a regulation. I accept the call from the industry itself to protect what is effectively a domestic industry—and I do not like using that word too freely—to ensure that its integrity as a producer of sustainable biofuel is upheld. 
 I think it is worth noting that New Zealand consumes about 183000 barrels of oil or fossil fuel every day. On a quick calculation that means we are using about 280 million - odd litres of fossil fuel every day. This Sustainable Biofuel Bill becomes important in a very very small sector of what might be fuel replacement for the future because the programme that the Government introduced last year will see a subsidy becoming available for up to 60000 litres a year by the time it reaches its final year of appropriation and then the Government will need to make a decision about what happens from there. 
My point is that 60000 litres over a year compared with 280 million - odd litres being used a day means that this is very much a fledgling industry. In many ways it also encapsulates some of the points made by Jeanette Fitzsimons—that is the amount of space that would be required to produce the sort of feedstock that we might get from vegetative material is to say the least enormous. 
Why then encourage the industry? Second-generation biofuels present quite a different picture and it will be a while before the world is at the point where those are easily produced. But I am very encouraged and impressed by what is happening with algae in the Nelson area of New Zealand and a lot of work is being done internationally to look at what might be done with wood waste from forestry activities around the world as well. 
The other point I would make is that the fuel we currently use was at one point considered to be a bit of a waste product. For hundreds and hundreds of years no one really knew what to do with oil. It was something that one might burn to get a bit of heat out of it but just 200 years ago the massive amount of use that we have for it at the moment was quite unheard of and perhaps even unthought of. So we think that encouraging a biofuels industry in New Zealand at this point as part of what will happen internationally is worthwhile. 
The standards that the bill puts up are pretty much the same requirements that were in the mandatory obligation bill that the Government repealed late last year. Our reason for repealing it at the time was that there were no sustainable standards in place. The idea was that they would be promulgated at around this time—in 2009 in the middle of the year—and at that point we could have consumed literally thousands of litres of biofuel that may well have come from unsustainable sources. Our other concern was that the cost of that to the economy would have been somewhere between 2c and 6c a litre and it was not a cost that we were prepared to put upon motorists when there could be no certainty that the cost would do anything at all to improve the greenhouse gas emission levels from this country let alone from any other country particularly the countries where the biofuel might have come from. The three points that this bill wishes to insert into the consideration of our standards for biofuels will see New Zealand producers able to put a stamp on their product that guarantees the product is sustainably produced. In the long run that will I think be very good for the industry. 
There are a few problems in the bill that I think I should give a bit of a heads-up on not the least of which are some of the time lines that are in place. We would expect the select committee process to go on for some months and the bill then needs to come back to the House. Even though I expect the passage of this bill when it does come back to the House to be fairly quick to have those sustainable standards effective from 1 January next year is a pretty big call. I hope that in conjunction with the consideration of this bill by the select committee there may be a work programme that can start with the officials in the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Economic Development and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to ensure that we are very very close to meeting those dates. I know from discussions with the Green Party with Jeanette Fitzsimons that a collaborative approach will be possible on this issue. 
I have one other question though that just struck me while I was listening to the member Jeanette Fitzsimons’ speech. It was to do with the comment that palm oil for example could be used for biofuel feedstock and that the kernel then could be used in New Zealand for food for dairy herds perhaps. I am a little bit struck by the fact that at the moment the emissions from our farming activities present a problem for New Zealand. Our farmers are very good and very efficient. Their husbandry and use of pasture means that emissions from our farm animals are far less intensive and damaging than emissions from many other types of farming operation. But I ask what happens if the cow consumes that palm kernel and then emits the gases that all animals emit. Are they still considered to be totally noxious totally negative and totally inappropriate or is the sustainable nature of the palm kernel industry such that it may get a different consideration? If that is the case then I ask why our grasslands in New Zealand would not be considered in the same way. I see that Ms Fitzsimons is smiling because she knows that I am trying not to say the words that might be more expressive. It is either that or I am so completely off-track here— 
Grant Robertson 
: That’s quite likely. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member says that is highly likely but it does raise a very interesting question. The idea is that palm oil effectively can be made into biofuel and is carbon neutral. I presume that is the position Jeanette Fitzsimons would take. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Destroys the orang-utans and the forests. That’s what we’ve got against it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Oh the member is not in favour of those things. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: That’s why we’re not in favour. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well OK I apologise. I misunderstood. It had me terribly worried that there was something new going on that I had missed. Palm oil as we all know is one of the great evils. It is a problem that a certain chocolate maker in New Zealand currently has because of the imported nature of its product these days. 
I do not want to take much more of the House’s time other than to say that if New Zealand is to have sustainable standards then I hope that those standards are easily achievable by the industry. I will give a commitment at this stage to ask those who are responsible for developing these standards to work with the biofuel industry in New Zealand to ensure that we get workable arrangements and do not end up with the sort of wild bureaucracy that causes people to cut corners and causes questions to be asked about the veracity of the scheme in the first place. This move will be positive for the industry here. The Government has supported the industry with funding of $36 million over the next 3 years. That means that bio-diesel effectively will be treated the same as bio-ethanol with the 42.5c subsidy on that production. As I said earlier in the House today I am delighted that five of the companies in New Zealand producing biofuels have signed up with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to receive some of that subsidy meaning that we can expect some 50000 to 60000 litres of biofuel to be produced in New Zealand this year. I think that is extremely encouraging. I look forward to the easy passage of this bill through the House today and then to a collaborative select committee process to ensure that as we are determined to have these regulations they are as workable as possible. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member the remaining speeches will be of 5-minutes duration. I will ring a bell when there is 1 minute to go. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I ask the Minister Gerry Brownlee who has just resumed his seat why if he loves these standards so much he voted to repeal them before Christmas. We had these standards in legislation we worked long and hard at the Local Government and Environment Committee to develop them we worked very hard to ensure that a process was set out whereby an Order in Council process would detail these standards and we passed them into law. If this Government had not repealed the previous Government’s biofuel obligation—there was a date in that legislation of 1 July 2009 and our officials had told us that they could make that date—we would already be there. 
 Our officials told us that they would have to work hard but they said they believed it could be done or if they needed more time it would be only a little bit more and it was entirely appropriate that the Minister should have to come to the House to explain why it was taking longer than expected and what the new time frame would be. So we would already be there. It is a bit rich for National members to stand up now and go on about what a great bill this is—and I think it is a good bill—when this is the legislation they repealed before Christmas saying it was the worst piece of law that they had ever seen. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: We are entitled to take stock and decide where we want to go. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Georgina te Heuheu says that they have now taken stock and realised they were wrong. I thank the honourable Minister for admitting that the National Government was wrong in repealing this legislation in the first place. That is the first honest admission we have seen. 
I want to thank the member Jeanette Fitzsimons for bringing this bill to the House. It is like seeing an old friend again because it was not that long ago that we were working at select committee to draw up these standards and I want to acknowledge the role that the Green member on the committee Metiria Turei played in that process. An awful lot of work not only at select committee but outside select committee hours went into getting this legislation to a point where everyone was comfortable and felt that we were allowing only the sustainable forms of biofuel that were already being produced in New Zealand to go ahead. But at the same time we were doing as much as possible to shut off the avenues to non-sustainable sources. 
The member Nick Smith who was on that committee criticised us. He said there were no sustainability standards in it because they had not come into force but the submitters who came to the select committee told us that as long as the committee gave them a clear steer so that they knew what they were going to be dealing with then that was fine—as long as they were given as much forewarning about what those standards were going to include. Let us be honest what is in the legislation is extremely detailed. In fact a group of parliamentarians from the European Parliament came to look at what we had done because they were so impressed and thought we had found a really good way through. We gave a clear steer to industry about what would be expected of it once the Order in Council and the regulations were drafted and that is what it asked for. 
I have to say that it is good if we can get biofuel producers on board and the companies that produce bio-diesel. But those companies also supported the biofuel obligation that the previous Government put in which did not cost taxpayers $36 million. That is what I find astounding because every day in the House we hear from National members that they have no money to fund things like helping mums on the domestic purposes benefit get off the benefit and into work. They say they have no money for adult and community courses and no money for new early childhood centres but somehow there was $36 million for subsidies for biofuels to produce an outcome that the biofuel obligation did for free. 
We had legislation in place and let me point out that one oil company in New Zealand was already providing biofuel and had been doing so for a long time. Another oil company when the legislation was introduced into the House started putting biofuel into its mixes because of the legislation. It saw the writing on the wall so it automatically did that voluntarily before the legislation came into place. So we had people moving down the path before the legislation was even passed. We looked at the target in the bill and we dropped it down to the level at which we knew it could be supplied by New Zealand providers from sustainable sources. We were very reasonable but it was about producing a market for those companies and they were very grateful for that—and it did not cost the taxpayers $36 million. 
I am astounded that National seems to think that subsidies for these companies when we are in a recession and we are fighting over every scrap of money is the most important way to go rather than keeping in place the biofuel obligation that was there that provided a market that the oil companies were already moving towards doing and most important that cost the taxpayers of New Zealand nothing—zero. I look forward to the next National speaker explaining how National can justify $36 million in subsidies for something that was already happening for free under the previous Government. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I think I said last time I was speaking in the Chamber what a pleasure it is to follow Moana Mackey. It gives the opportunity to respond to the requests she makes for explanations for better understanding and that sort of thing. But I will speak about the bill that is before the House the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. Moana Mackey spoke about a bill that was before the House when Labour was in Government and was then repealed. I did not hear her speak about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill which is such a good bill. 
I will speak about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill which was submitted in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimmons. It was most interesting to hear its introduction. 
Hon Member 
: Fitzsimons. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Fitzsimons—exactly. I beg the member’s pardon. I thought there was a double “m” in her name; my apologies to the member. It is without doubt that biofuels will play a big role in our energy mix in the future. The Government is supporting the bill going to the select committee. I believe that it is important that this issue gets debated robustly and calmly and that the select committee gets to hear expert opinions and can come up with some clear recommendations on that basis. 
I listened to Moana Mackey’s speech and—oh gosh—it was interesting but as I said it reflected backwards and not forwards. It is time to get over it I say to Moana. But I enjoyed hearing the introduction from Jeanette Fitzsimons and noted with interest— 
Moana Mackey 
: What a waste of Parliament’s time and money passing the same law we repealed last year. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I ask the member to just let me get to the point she asked about and all will be revealed—her answers will be given. There really is an important difference between the two bills. The member knows there is an important difference and will probably like it not to be voiced but I will voice it. 
First of all I will take up the point Jeanette made in relation to needing a balance between food production and fuel production because it really can create and already has created distortions in the world. I still have a point of concern when I hear people saying we have so much available tallow at cheap prices. We do not in my understanding of it—and I was involved in exporting for a long time—have a surplus of tallow anywhere. So if we start to use these products for different purposes from what they are currently being used for—it is a by-product a waste product and all the rest of it but it currently makes a hang of a lot of soap in Third World countries and throughout the Pacific—we will be pushing up the price of those products. We simply cannot think that we will not have an effect by making changes. 
I will outline a couple of points showing the good work this National-led Government has already done in the area of biofuels. Members of this House might remember—and certainly Moana Mackey remembers very clearly—that after the election this Government repealed the biofuel legislation that required fuel companies to progressively introduce biofuel blends into their fuel mix. We heard the warnings being given by Jeanette Fitzsimons on what happens when we introduce compulsion. One of the major reasons we repealed that legislation was that it mandated the introduction of biofuels. National believes that biofuels should be introduced through companies responding to commercial environmental and marketing considerations not because the Government compels it to. One of the lessons Labour surely must learn is that if one tries to compel things all the time one will lose the opportunity. Wow! And what is happening? People are taking up biofuels from a commercial point of view. 
We have some concerns about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. The bill requires an Order in Council to be made by 1 February 2010. That will be ahead of international consensus around biofuels sustainability so New Zealand will be moving ahead of international developments. One problem with that is that there is no internationally agreed standard for what constitutes sustainability. We do not want to get back into the position of aspirational targets such as the memorable target of the previous Government when it blithely said New Zealand would be carbon neutral without actually working out how it might happen. 
In essence I believe that the bill should be moved to the select committee. The bill deals with important issues which is why National supports it. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is clear that the world has to do something to end its doomed love affair with oil. It is a pervasive aspect of our society from our cars to even bottled-water bottles. Petroleum products in vehicle engines contribute massively to carbon emissions and environmental degradation at a time when we are all clear about the need to deal with that challenge through action both personally and as a country. We just do not know when oil is going to run out but we do know that as it becomes more scarce prices will rise and that will affect all of us everywhere. 
We need better alternatives to carbon-based energy and one fantastic alternative is the use of biofuels whereby energy is drawn from much more environmentally friendly sources than the petroleum we have allowed ourselves as a society to become hooked on. But we need to make sure that biofuels sources are environmentally sustainable. Biofuels are drawn from crops such as corn which is used to produce ethanol and there are problems with that in the US. We have seen massive price distortions as a result. But biofuels can also be drawn from other plant sources or animal sources to produce bio-diesel or biogas. They can even come from waste cooking oil from McDonald’s. But the crops and lands used for biofuels production are also used for food production and the Sustainable Biofuel Bill addresses that problem. 
Before the great global economic meltdown the world experienced what  
The Economist 
 magazine called a “silent tsunami” with rising food prices and shortages. The race to get on to the biofuels bandwagon was a contributor to the “silent tsunami” that  
The Economist 
 referred to. So we need biofuels that are sustainable and produced sustainably. 
The problem we have here however is one that Moana Mackey alluded to: all this could have been in place already. It is very annoying and very frustrating for members on this side of the House—and it must also be frustrating for the sponsor of this bill who negotiated hard to get the provisions in the repealed legislation—that this House is having to legislate twice once to repeal legislation under urgency before Christmas and now this bill for which we have had to wait months to replace it. 
And what are we dealing with in terms of replacement proposals? As Moana Mackey said it is a massive multimillion-dollar payment to industry which is a total waste of scarce taxpayers’ money in the current recessionary environment. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole talk about the market working. Well if this is an example of the market working—because it gets a $36 million taxpayer subsidy—I am sure a whole lot of other parts of New Zealand would like to have a bit more market. But I do not think we will be seeing that sort of approach extended to those who really are in need. 
In the meantime while we have been waiting this legislation could have been in place as Moana Mackey said on 1 July. Instead we will have to wait until 1 May 2010. In the meantime jobs have been lost—we have seen that as a matter of public record—in entities that were relying on the biofuels obligation to make producing biofuels onshore domestically sustainable. 
Nevertheless we are here and certainly Labour members welcome the bill. We are committed to seeing its passage through all stages in the House if the numbers required can be achieved. Although I heard Mr Brownlee say that the Government will support it being referred to a select committee and the ambition then as I understand it is to merge the work being done by officials with submissions on this legislation Labour is happy to commit to seeing this legislation pass through all its stages if the numbers can be achieved. This is effectively as Moana Mackey said a re-enactment of legislation agreed between Labour and the Greens prior to the last election. 
We need the bill as I have said. It will be an important complementary measure to the emissions trading scheme when that scheme finally is confirmed by this Parliament in terms of the tool box that we need to reduce emissions. The bill will be an important part of making sure that we have a balance between food production and fuel production and it will be a very important contributor to that vital principle in which we all believe: encouraging biodiversity. With those concluding comments I welcome this bill. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am really pleased to be able to stand in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Bill which amends the relevant legislation in order to ensure that biofuels supplied or sold in New Zealand from 1 May 2010 are sustainable. The Maori Party supported the Biofuel Bill that introduced the biofuel sales obligation and we subsequently opposed the bill introduced in the early days of this Government to repeal that bill. In light of the repeal bill we were really pleased when Minister Brownlee announced as part of Budget 2009 that $36 million was available for a new grants programme for bio-diesel production. We saw this programme as a great opportunity for rural marae communities to showcase their ability to use their traditional social and industry systems to be key players in the emerging biofuels industry. 
I take a particular interest in the development of biofuels. One of my iwi Ngati Koata is in the process of establishing a biofuels plant. Our original intention was that we would sell the biofuels to users of static machinery such as school boilers. We started off looking for tallow but we realised that there are uncertainties around its supply so we are now investigating other sources. Of course we are not the only iwi who have invested in biofuel manufacturing infrastructure. Taharoa C Block incorporation came to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee and shared their experience including the development of the  
miscanthus 
 species for biofuel production from marginal land which they considered to be a very promising biofuel project. This bill then has the potential to make an important contribution to climate change initiatives to help provide options for employment and to express energy rangatiratanga. 
We are very interested in being involved in the interpretation of what sustainable biofuel is which the bill recommends should be made by regulation by 1 February 2010. The definition of exactly what we mean by sustainability is the crux of the issue. We all know that importing biofuels is problematic given that fuel is required to transport the biofuel in addition to the fuel required to create the biofuel. As the price of oil rises so too does the relative price of energy alternatives. We are concerned that the word “sustainability” can be tossed around perhaps carelessly as though merely using the word is sufficient to create a sustainable society. 
We have been interested in the view of Dr Albert Bartlett head of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr Bartlett’s analysis leads us to look again at the concept of sustainable growth in the sense of endlessly increasing. Of course because the resources are not unlimited there is not an open-ended supply. The finite size of resources ecosystems the environment and the Earth leads to the most fundamental truth of sustainability: that in fact the term “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. So although we support this bill and the principles of sustainable biofuels we must do much more than adjusting a regulation on paper; we must look anew at the way we approach environmental management the efficient use of water and the conservation of energy. The Maori Party has constantly promoted the importance of reducing our dependence on oil by strategies to reuse recycle repair respect replace and trade locally. We must do all that we can to support the development of renewable and sustainable energy resources in order to protect and preserve limited resources such as oil gas and coal. 
This bill is an important step along the journey but we stress that it is only a small step. Biofuel energy production is not energy production. With or without biofuels the critical fact is that we need to radically change how we live. A safe environmentally sound and economically viable energy pathway that will sustain human progress into the distant future must be the horizon we all seek to achieve and we must start to do something about it now. In that spirit we give our support to this bill and thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for her proactive initiative in putting it forward. Kia ora. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I made my own biofuels sustainability decision in the last couple of weeks which was to cease my consumption of Cadbury’s chocolate. Those who know me will know that that was quite a major step to take. Gerry Brownlee referred to Cadbury’s use of palm oil in its chocolate and members on all sides in this debate have referred to the attendant risks around the displacement of forests around biodiversity and around food. 
In a sense this debate comes down to a core issue that is frequently the cause of disagreements in this House and that is the question of how best to achieve a change to the goods and services we all use. There are three basic approaches: one is regulation one is consumer choice and one is a weighted consumer choice where we stack the odds through subsidies or other means such as social marketing to make one choice more attractive than another. The Green Party makes its selection in terms of the most appropriate of those approaches on an issue-by-issue basis. 
Very frequently the criterion for deciding on that is the relative balance of the public good and the personal good in the outcome of the change. The issue of country-of-origin labelling on foods for example is one where we have campaigned for consumer choice. We have said that there needs to be mandatory labelling on foods so that consumers are able to make that choice and so that we can achieve the outcome we are all seeking. Of course there is a public interest aspect in that but overwhelmingly that is less important than the personal interests of the consumer. So consumer choice is an appropriate approach in that case. On the other hand an issue like the food that is for sale in schools is an issue where public interest clearly outweighs the personal interest and it is important to take a regulatory approach establishing rules and standards. 
On the issue that is before us we are facing a crisis in the world. The issue about the energy we use for transportation is but a small part of how we address that crisis. Members have already alluded to two aspects: climate change where it is imperative that we do all that is in our power to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; and the end of cheap oil where it is incumbent upon us to find ways to make the best possible use of a scarce resource. 
In this area of energy for transportation people have talked for years about hydrogen cars as being our salvation. That talk seems to have dissipated somewhat and now we are talking about electric cars. Certainly there is a lot of value in electric cars but they will take a long time to implement. 
I want to talk about the choices before us now and how we can encourage change in goods and services in this particular area. The public interest in sustainability in ensuring that we retain biodiversity and in reducing our greenhouse gases to the maximum extent demand a regulatory approach. I commend members from the Government side for their change of heart on this front. It is great to see that there seems to be consensus in this House that this bill is a timely one and I look forward to its passage. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. I acknowledge what Kevin Hague said about consensus on this issue. One thing I am proud of is that this Government has been able to build relationships across the political spectrum not only with the Greens but also with the Maori Party ACT and United Future. I want to take a moment to recognise the memorandum of understanding we have with the Green Party that covers home insulation energy efficiency and the regulation of natural health products. I also acknowledge the work Kevin Hague has done in terms of the cycleways to ensure that many New Zealanders will have the opportunity to ride them in the future. 
The important question in this bill is what is a sustainable biofuel? That is a debate I am glad we will be able to have in the select committee process and that is why I am supporting this bill. It is important to talk a bit about the history. In 2008 the previous Government passed the Biofuel Bill. The bill required fuel companies to progressively introduce biofuel blends into the fuel mix in increasing incremental amounts to 2.5 percent of total energy by 2012. Many people called it a biofuels sales obligation. An important point about this legislation is that decisions about which type of biofuel was to be supplied how much it was blended with fossil fuels and where it came from would have been up to the industry. 
Members opposite have asked for the reasons why we opposed that bill. We opposed it for three particular reasons. We opposed it firstly because we believed that it was mandating the introduction of biofuels and that was a philosophical point. We did not believe that biofuels should be introduced because the Government was forcing people to do it but because Governments were responding to commercial environmental and market considerations rather than that sense of compulsion. The other reason why we opposed it was we believed that the bill the previous Government put forward would have loaded uncertain costs on to consumers. The evidence from the oil companies that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee was that meeting the obligation when fully implemented would add anywhere from 2c to 8c a litre to the cost of fuel. That is why we opposed it. 
One thing we are very proud of and the Minister has talked a lot about it today is the bio-diesel grants scheme. The key point that we signalled was that we were concerned about the unequal tax treatment between bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. National promised this at the election and along with the many good policies this Government has implemented we have delivered on it. There is $36 million over 3 years to provide a 42.5c per litre grant to produce bio-diesel fuel. I am really pleased that five companies are set to take part. The companies are using a range of sustainable feedstocks to produce bio-diesel such as tallow used cooking oil and rapeseed grown as a break crop. The important thing to note is that the scheme will help to increase the fuel choices available for New Zealand consumers and businesses. 
The whole issue and I acknowledge what members on the other side are saying is that what we have in this legislation is a first start. I look forward to the select committee looking further at the principles that the Greens have put into this bill. I think it is a really important debate to have about what exactly is a sustainable biofuel and I acknowledge Rahui Katene’s comments in that regard. We have to do better as a country in terms of the environment. One good point that Kevin Hague made is that biofuels are part of the argument but we also have to think more about things like electric cars. Yes they will serve only a certain number of people but I think public transport is an important part of this debate about reducing car usage. Biofuels are part of this debate but so is our use of cars in New Zealand. We have to think more about that and I am very proud that at the election I supported integrated ticketing. The other day the Government announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency is moving forward. We have seen some significant progress in the area of integrated ticketing and I really hope that that can be delivered under this Government because we want to encourage more people to use public transport. 
This bill is another step the Government is taking that will in my view lead to a better and cleaner New Zealand. I am very pleased to be supporting the Green Party. This is another example of the Government working with parties across the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 This debate would be laughable were it not so serious. I cannot believe the contribution we heard from the previous speaker Nikki Kaye. She stood there and defended the fact—as if it was a good thing—that National is now voting for the same legislation it refused to support 8 months ago and then 6 months ago repealed. The Sustainable Biofuel Bill is the very same legislation. There is no difference. It is an illustration of how absolutely incompetent Gerry Brownlee is as the Minister of Energy and Resources. All of these issues were pointed out to him and his Government when they repealed these very same provisions 6 months ago. These provisions are not different in some sort of minor but principled way; they are the same provisions. 
During the last election Gerry Brownlee ran campaigns based on the nanny State. Somehow it was nanny State to tell oil companies that they had to incorporate sustainable biofuels in their fuel. Somehow it was better to subsidise it to the tune of $36 million and not necessarily get the same outcome! Today in the House we heard Gerry Brownlee say that BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd is one of the recipients of the new subsidy scheme. I tell members that I ran into Sue Wood on Monday of this very week as I flew into Wellington. Sue Wood who is a former president of the National Party was deeply ashamed that the National Party had ruined the business and effectively put at risk the life-savings of some very decent New Zealanders involved in these fledgling biofuels companies. One company was producing the world’s most sustainable biofuels as measured by the UN according to sustainability of fuel stock non-competition with food production and low greenhouse gas emissions on a life-cycle basis. That company was brought to its knees by the Government’s decision to remove the mandatory obligation on oil companies. 
I asked whether the subsidy fixed the problem and she said that they did not know. The reality is that it does not make the oil companies purchase biofuel. It is still a hassle for oil companies to blend biofuels in with their traditional fuel stocks and they do not want to do it. So even with a $36 million subsidy we may not be bringing forward the most sustainable biofuels that the world has and that New Zealand has in a higher proportion to population than any other country in the world. Gerry Brownlee comes to the House and says that this is good policy. He says that wasting $36 million of Government money on this programme is good spending. It is ludicrous. We heard the prior speaker say that it would have cost between 2c and 8c per litre under the mandatory obligation. National members know that that is wrong. The advice from the officials and from biofuels producers is that the cost would have been about 1c per litre. They are making an eightfold exaggeration as to cost. 
I return to the reasons that we need sustainability provisions. It is clear that not all biofuels are good and it is clear that not all biofuels are bad. It is clear that biofuels are part of the solution to greenhouse gas emissions from transport and that we should be bringing forward sustainable biofuels. Because the Government repealed the sustainability provisions in the law we can currently import unsustainable biofuels. This legislation fixes that and I thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for bringing it through. She has more patience with Gerry Brownlee than I have; they are the same arguments and it is the same legislation. I am somewhat surprised that we are seeing such a complete turn-round from Gerry Brownlee. It is a bit like saying we cannot have energy-efficient light bulbs because that is the nanny State. It is interesting that in the last month or so  
Consumer 
 magazine has come out and said that we were exactly right and National was wrong. 
New Zealand’s transport emissions are now on the way down. They went down 4 percent last year and they were static in the prior year partly because of public transport. We need biofuels to do even better. Electricity emissions are going down and deforestation emissions are down yet National is saying that it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to climate change policy. This is another example of National’s incompetence. I am pleased though that this legislation is about to pass its first reading today. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to thank all of the members of the House who have spoken in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. It is very satisfying that it appears that the bill may go through unanimously. The ACT Party has not spoken but every other party has spoken in support of the bill and I thank them for that. 
A couple of things came up in debate that I would like to set right. The claim was made by Chris Auchinvole as has been made many times before that the tallow in New Zealand is currently exported and made into soap in China and that if we do not do that then soap will be made from less sustainable things. Well I have good news for members: it is the glycerol in the tallow that is made into soap. The glycerol is a by-product from turning tallow into bio-diesel so we can turn the tallow into bio-diesel here be left with the glycerol and export that to China to be made into soap. So it is a win-win solution like most of the things that the Greens propose. 
It was a concern that when the previous legislation was repealed the officials adjusted New Zealand’s expected carbon emissions in 2020 upwards to adjust for the fact that there would not be biofuels being used in New Zealand to reduce those emissions. I hope that the combination of this bill and the Government’s policy means that those emissions can be adjusted again. 
We have heard tonight a debate mainly about the philosophical arguments between National and Labour about whether mandatory standards are better or worse than subsidies. That is a philosophical political debate and the parties have an absolute right to debate that. But what has happened as has happened so often before is that sustainability has once again slipped through the cracks of that argument between those on the right and on the left. I do not want members to get me wrong. I tell them the Greens do have a view on that issue and it includes a concern that as David Parker has said even with a subsidy local producers may still find they do not have a stable market because if oil prices continue to fluctuate wildly it will sometimes be economic to buy biofuel and sometimes not economic. That means that local producers may not be able to sell it stably and therefore they may not invest in the industry. So we do have the problem that the measure might not be effective. 
But that is not the issue here today. The issue is about how to make sure that any biofuels that we do use are sustainable and on that we seem to have agreement right across the House. It is another issue where the Greens sold a policy to the Labour members last year helped to develop it cooperatively with them saw the legislation be repealed then sold it to National after the election. I thank both parties for accepting the importance of the issue. We have actually brokered an agreement across the House without National or Labour ever having to talk to each other about it and we now have general agreement that biofuels should be sustainable in much the same way that we have brokered agreement between Labour and National that home insulation is worth investing in. We are pleased to play that role. 
I thank everybody for their comments on the bill tonight. I look forward to getting it back as quickly as possible. I do not think the Local Government and Environment Committee will need to take very long to consider the bill because it has already considered the exact wording that is in the bill has helped to develop it and is thoroughly familiar with it—or at least the members who are still on the committee are—and I am sure that it will not take the committee very long to decide it is a good thing to put the legislation back in force. I look forward to the bill coming back to the House and passing into law. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill 
First Reading 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Before I begin my talk on this bill let us have a look at what kinds of marine animals we are talking about. The photo I am holding up shows eight dead Hector’s dolphins. They are the second-most endangered species of dolphin in this country. The other side of the photo shows dead sea-mammals a fur seal and a sea lion. Other photos show dead albatross killed by the fishing industry and found by observers on fishing industry boats. 
These are the kinds of marine animals I refer to in my bill. They are absolutely protected species under the Wildlife Act but they fail to get any real protection because of the legislative mess of our Marine Mammals Protection Act. My bill is an attempt to resolve some of that mess so that those animals—albatross Hector’s dolphins Hooker’s sea lions fur seals and Maui’s dolphins—achieve some degree of protection by our community. All of those animals have died as a result of poor industry regulation and failed legislative protection. Those marine animals are not the only kinds at threat. New Zealand has half of the world’s whales and dolphins present in its waters including the rare southern right whale and the endemic dolphin species. New Zealand sea lions are found only in our southern waters as is the more wide-ranging kekeno or New Zealand fur seal. We are known as the seabird capital of the world. A third of the 84 seabird species that breed here are found only in Aotearoa and half of the world’s albatross species circle our waters. The critically endangered Maui’s dolphin numbers just 111. Only 36 fairy tern individuals hang on to survival in this country. Up to 10000 albatross and petrels drown on tuna longlines each year in New Zealand waters. In the last breeding season 600 New Zealand sea-lion females failed to return and a third fewer pups were born as a result. 
With many marine animal populations declining and the eyes of our export markets watching us this is a crucial time to boost biodiversity protection and ensure a sustainable future for our ocean. The international journal  
Conservation Biology 
 recently published a report entitled  
Major Conservation Policy Issues for Biodiversity in Oceania 
. The report was compiled by 14 scientists including two from New Zealand—one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and one from the Department of Conservation. In that report the lead author Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales described the Pacific region as having the notorious distinction of having possibly the worst extinction record on earth. Species are threatened by habitat loss and degradation invasive species climate change overexploitation pollution and wildlife disease. 
Today we will see the National Government allow those threats to continue unabated because National intends to vote against the protection of marine animals. This bill poses a very serious problem for the supposed Bluegreens group within the National Party. Before the 2008 election Dr Nick Smith a key leader of the Bluegreens group said: “Further deterioration in [Hector’s and Maui] populations must be halted … If it is a choice between fishers’ rights and dolphins’ survival the dolphins must come first.” But the Bluegreens whether or not they are led by Nick Smith clearly have no influence over their Government. As a group of environmentalists within National they are clearly impotent. I am truly sorry about that. I have met with Bluegreen members around the country and I know they are passionate and committed to achieving environmental and conservation gains. But they operate within a party that will simply use them for “greenwash” because that is what the Bluegreens have become through National’s failure to protect marine animals. 
There is no doubt that National members tonight will make the false argument of environment versus economy. That is their mantra. It demonstrates an extraordinary economic deficit in their thinking although it is a common one from Governments I must say. One comment from the lead author of the conservation report I referred to stated: “The biggest problem seems to be that the policy challenges are just not being taken up by governments. Conservation policies are just seen as a problem for the economy”. But that is clearly not the case especially in the context of the protection of marine animals. Marine tourism is estimated to generate more than $100 million a year to New Zealand. The fishing industry is under increasing pressure from our markets to reduce its environmental impact. The New Zealand brand itself is at risk. Just last week it was reported that “The upmarket grocery chain Waitrose has refused to stock hoki because the ‘destructive’ method of bottom trawling did not fit with its sustainable suppliers programme.” The hoki fishery is worth $151 million in exports to New Zealand. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Well that’s it isn’t it? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That is right. 
If we are to sustain our economy in difficult times we must invest now in measures to protect the natural resources on which our economy is based. The green new deal argument for greater conservation measures is clear and even the notably disengaged—I have to say—Minister of Conservation Tim Groser thinks so. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Who? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yes. He recently said: “Biodiversity has positive economic value and removing or degrading it threatens the ecosystem it supports … Tourism focused on marine mammal experiences for example must be monitored and controlled to ensure the animals are protected and the business opportunity endures.” Even the Prime Minister has waxed lyrical about this saying: “Our environment is a huge part of our brand … The Government will work to protect the resources that tourism providers rely on—clean air clean water and unique landscapes.” Well I say to the Prime Minister that that may be the case but clearly National believes its own effort will result in clean air without seabirds and albatross clean water without sea lions and Maui’s dolphins and landscapes without little blue penguins and fairy terns. In short it is a nice clean environment completely devoid of unique New Zealand marine species on which that brand is dependent. 
My bill provides just one option for how to reform our legislative tools to provide greater protection for marine animals such as those in the photos I have held up—Hector’s dolphins the albatross and the sea lions. My bill is quite technical in that it alters three different Acts—the Marine Mammals Protection Act the Fisheries Act and the Wildlife Act—in order to strengthen definitions to set clear objectives and principles for protection and to require proper monitoring. It alters the relative powers of the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Fisheries in developing population management plans. My bill is no threat nor is it perfect but it would have given Parliament the opportunity to tweak the laws that are meant to be protecting our marine mammals and sea birds. It is quite obvious from the photos I have shown that those laws are not working. 
The direct interactions of marine animals with human activities on the sea—like fishing mining and tourism—can be managed directly through legislation. The Marine Mammals Protection Act is designed to do that but unfortunately it has not—in part because it is subservient to the Fisheries Act. The powerful tool of population management plans in the Marine Mammals Protection Act has yet to be used in this country. Too much power lies with the Minister of Fisheries and a Fisheries Act that is biased towards utilisation. This is the position that National clearly favours to the detriment of our $100 million marine tourism industry to the detriment of access to the global markets from industries and to the detriment of vulnerable New Zealand marine species which are at real risk of extinction under a National Government. The Bluegreens should hang their heads in shame. In anticipation of the support of the Labour Party Progressive and the Maori Party I acknowledge that those parties have all agreed to provide their support for this bill and to the marine animals that are so clearly in desperate need of protection. I commend the bill to the House. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is respected as a genuine attempt to address some of the anomalies that continue to occur around especially our oceans. The Government certainly gives considerable respect to the intentions of the bill. However there are two reasons why we will not support it. The legislation can always be improved but the National Government prefers consultation with the industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements rather than regulating these pieces. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The member knows that doesn’t happen. 
COLIN KING 
: The previous Government—and we hear its members now on the other side of the House—took every opportunity to regulate. A phrase was coined that we ended up with the “nanny State”. On the other hand the National Government would prefer to work with industry to ensure the protection of marine life rather than to regulate it. 
I will come back a couple of steps. My parliamentary secretary gave me a wonderful book on albatrosses and I must admit that it is incredibly gut-wrenching and soul-destroying to see one of those magnificent creatures dragged aboard a boat dead. But I also balance the debate by talking about a Marlborough fisherman. I will not mention his name. After the best endeavours of officials and bureaucrats to regulate he was put into an exceptionally dangerous position where he was duly hooked by one of his lines and dragged under because he was applying rules and regulations that in actual fact did not give any consideration whatsoever to the risks that were involved. Basically our first reason for not supporting the bill is that the National Government prefers consultation with industry sectors to deliver improvements. 
The second reason for not supporting the bill is a bit more of a complex one. The National Government agrees that more needs to be done; however we believe that we will not achieve that solely through legislation. It would make more sense to look at the whole issue as opposed to just the pieces of it. I leave those comments for people to consider. There is no doubt about it. The Government is aware that we have to lift our game. As I mentioned it needs to be in a complete set of circumstances. The bill itself is highly technical. We have some concern that it will be hard to enforce given the massive geographical size of New Zealand’s responsibilities on the oceans. 
I will read one particular part of the bill that I think should focus our attention on how difficult it is to ensure there is that balance between risk and management the needs of the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries and so forth. The proposed new section 2A of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 talks about ensuring that “human-induced mortalities of marine mammals are reduced to insignificant levels approaching zero within 20 years of the coming into force of Part 1 …”. Nobody in this House would disagree with the sentiment of that new section in clause 5 of Part 1. Basically that is where we are all aiming to go. The concern the National Government raises respectfully to the member in charge of this bill—and we appreciate the bill’s intention—is about the effects it will have on the present day-to-day operations of things. I think that in this House we are long past doing things that basically pass the ball as it were to the Department of Conservation to do stuff in the oceans. We are not talking about just sea mammals. We are talking about marine animals and we have a huge inventory of those particular animals. There are issues. In New Zealand we could probably enforce it upon ourselves but then again it would be highly disruptive. 
When we look at the process going forward I do not disregard the photographs that the Green member Metiria Turei held up in the House earlier. I also introduce the fact that whenever a member is emailed and lobbied on whether he or she will support a bill it is not done flippantly; it is done in a considered way. There are some outstanding testimonies to our going forward in a significant way. I quote such things as the Kaikoura dusky dolphin tourism research project which has been going on for 2½ years. It has measured the impact of tourism on dolphins and it will be released at the Takahanga Marae next Monday. It is hugely significant to Kaikoura. It has a huge economic value. It has been entered into in a way that one could call collegial constructive and consultative. I believe that way forward which the Government has adopted is the best way. 
We also have in place—and it was put in place by the previous Government—the set-net ban. We also have the ban on fishing of blue cod in Marlborough. These are quite positive things. We have the Perano family and a collection of people doing whale counting out of Cook Strait. We have the re-seeding of paua the research and development that is going into replenishing crayfish and suchlike and the wonderful model of collaboration and discussion that has emanated out of the Marlborough Sounds where the group Guardians of the Sounds has put together a balanced and publicly agreed outcome around managing a resource in a sustainable way. 
Although we have the utmost respect for the intentions of the bill we see National’s preference as one for consultation with the industry sectors to bring them along together. I would really like to underscore that it is the easiest thing—and I have seen this House do it so many times—to put legislation in place and then wash one’s hands of it. I do not see that as being a permanent enduring solution and I do not see that that will have the best long-term effect on New Zealand’s economy in the future. I commend the intention of the member who is in charge of the bill Metiria Turei. I reiterate for the record the reason why we are not supporting this bill. It is because National prefers consultation with industry and sector groups to deliver those improvements. Finally we believe that significant progress is being made there is a long time to go in this term and the National Government is in a good position to do it. We are about building bridges relationships and trust. It would make far more sense if we were to consider this matter as a whole as opposed to looking at it piece by piece. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 As the previous Minister of Conservation I am very pleased to take a call on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill. It was interesting to hear the speaker just before dinner Colin King talking about the Bluegreens and their lauding of principles of sustainability and species protection yet saying that National will not vote for the bill. This bill is one of the most robust pieces of legislation on marine protection to come before the House. 
I will mention some of the achievements of the Labour Government. Species protection which this bill is all about is one plank of sustainability but the other was how we looked after the marine environment and created four new marine mammal sanctuaries for the protection of Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins. The National Opposition at the time we brought in that legislation told us that it was pathetic that it was not good enough and that we needed to do more. Yet here they are in the House tonight voting against very good legislation put forward by Metiria Turei.  
We also looked at marine protected areas and announced in 2008 a whole network around New Zealand of 14 coastal regions which created a whole network of marine protected areas. We started working on areas like the West Coast which is going really well. Then we went down to the bottom of the South Island which the member Eric Roy knows well about. There were great meetings talking about how we could get more protection for marine areas. Those forums have proven to be a new model of negotiating with communities and iwi to look at marine protection. We also doubled the number of marine reserves from 17 to 33. We certainly did not do nothing while we were in Government as has come across tonight from members on the other side of the House.  
The bill is also about looking after threatened species: not only Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins but also sea lions. Parties went out on to the forecourt of Parliament as we do when we are lobbied by pressure groups and advocacy groups. I received a petition from little children dressed as sea lions asking us for more protection for sea lions. The children were very worried about marine animal species. National members were out there saying they would do something when they were in Government. But the first decent legislation that really builds some robustness around marine animal protection comes along and National is voting it down from a purely blind ideological position. I heard Colin King say that National would rather consult the industry and let it bring about voluntary change. Well that does not work. That is exactly why the non-governmental organisations have said to us that these species are deteriorating now beyond sustainable replacement levels and that we have to do more. Talking to the fishing industry will never cut the mustard.  
When I was Minister of Conservation one of the greatest challenges was having to look at marine protection because I had to work with the Ministry of Fisheries. It was a difficult position. We were like the yin and yang of protection and pro-industry and it never worked. It never worked and it never will work. I think the Bluegreens in National should hang their heads in shame about voting against the bill tonight. It is a genuine attempt. Industry will not come to the party on the issue. As Colin King said the Government needs to lift its game. The member admitted that. How will voting down this marvellous legislation help the Government lift its game? We were worried about aspects of the bill but we were very happy that some of the thresholds for sustainable levels could be sorted out with a good robust process in the select committee.  
One of the issues was a new definition in the bill which is that of “best available information”. That definition is always contestable. Who puts forward the information: the fishing industry the scientific industry or the conservationists? 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is a rare opportunity for me to speak on legislation. I do so on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill for two reasons. One is that I am a conservationist and I think most people in the House know the position I take as a conservationist. The second is that having chaired for 20 months the total rewrite of the Fisheries Act 1996 I probably know as much or more about fisheries law and how it works as any other person in this House. I will desist from picking up on some of the politics and criticisms of various people or sections within parties that have been thrown out here tonight because I think this issue is too important. 
The bill has a laudable aim which is to protect marine animals creatures birds or whatever. All of us want that to happen. I have read the purpose of the bill; I have read the whole bill. My issue is to ask what is actually broken. What is now not working? Yes there is mortality but the Minister of Fisheries has at his disposal some significant steps he can take. Let us consider the issue of the Maui’s dolphin. Yes we are seriously concerned about a unique dolphin but the Minister put in place some measures that many sections of the community would say were Draconian or more than were actually necessary and applied them not only to the Maui’s dolphin but also to the Hector’s dolphin when the science around the endangerment of that species is far from proven. In fact according to all anecdotal evidence the Hector’s dolphin species is in pretty good shape.  
The impacts of the bill are quite far-reaching. There are rig fishers out of many of our coastal ports near where Hector’s dolphins and Maui’s dolphins are who have a quota they now cannot fish. It is as simple as that. The Minister has some very very strong options in terms of dealing with issues that need to be addressed. This bill shifts the approach from an effects-based approach to a prescriptive generic approach. The difficulties about that are that it will substantially increase the cost of compliance. When we look at this bill and ask why it would be a difficulty it is simply for this reason: when putting in place fisheries legislation there needs to be what I call equity of influence. The fishing industry is a very polarised industry; if one tips the scales any one way one increases the rate of litigation. There is no Minister in any Cabinet who faces more litigation legal challenges or development of jurisprudence around the area of his or her portfolio than the Minister of Fisheries. That is the nature of the industry. The bill shifts influence in such a way that we will simply end up with Ministers of Fisheries simply not able to make a decision.  
If members care to have a look at clause 20 they will see that it sets out quite clearly a change to the Fisheries Act that requires robust scientific information. How do we get robust scientific information? If we take the number of species of fish there are in New Zealand and divide it by the quota we get 712 different fishing licences or annual catch entitlements to fish. How do we actually work out the biomass of each one of those 712 licences in order to have a robust decision? The Minister when signing off what is the total allowable commercial catch has no robust science to be able to pursue that. It is just impossible to do. What is the corollary of that situation? The corollary is simply that at any stage in the future any individual any member of this House any member of any lobby group or any eco-group or any fisher can go to the Minister and say that because the Minister does not have robust scientific information as prescribed in clause 20 of the bill he or she has made rules that are ultra vires. So we end up with a hamstrung industry because the Minister cannot make the decisions. We need to have what I call equity of influence. Some people call it equal screaming when no one is happy but where there is a balance whereby things can be worked out. This bill just shifts the balance totally. I seek leave for a further 2 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to extend the speech by a further 2 minutes. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
ERIC ROY 
: I thank the House; I really believe in this stuff. We are all consumed by the desire to protect species but we have to do so within the realm of what is a workable solution. 
The next question that could be raised—and I look forward to some members further developing this issue—concerns what robust science is and how we actually get it. I have mentioned only one part of that. The next situation that comes forward would be the fact that the select committee can sort it out and with members’ bills that is a good approach but because this bill shifts the whole nature of the process of decision making so dramatically I believe this bill has to be rewritten. Yes there are some elements of the law that this bill modifies. We have the Wildlife Act of 1953 and the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978 and they may well be out of date but we should bear in mind that the 1996 Act picked up a number of those issues in its principles and purposes. So unfortunately I will have to vote against this bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge that Eric Roy’s concerns for conservation interests are sincerely held beliefs but I suggest for a number of reasons that his decision on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill is incorrect. 
I start by pointing out a few statistics. Do members know that 50 percent of the world’s marine mammal species are found in our oceans? Although we do not have 50 percent of the numbers of those in world population terms we have a very substantial proportion of the world’s sea mammals. Two-thirds of the world’s species of albatross and big petrels are found in our waters. Again we also have a high proportion of their total numbers. If there is any one country in the world that needs to be a responsible guardian of our seabirds and our sea mammals it is New Zealand. We have the greatest proportion. If we in New Zealand do not properly protect those species we have to acknowledge the reality that the world including New Zealand is willing to oversee the extinction of those species. As a member of Parliament I am not willing to abrogate my responsibilities and see that as an outcome. I am voting for this bill and the Labour Party is voting for this bill. 
The National Government says it does not want to be a world leader on these issues but really we already are. The shameful thing is that we are the world leaders in conservation destruction. Since 1998 there has been a 50 percent decline in the Auckland Island’s population of the Hooker’s sea lion. I got that statistic from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and I trust it to be correct. If we think the population of that sea lion is getting better I can tell members that in the last year that population declined by 30 percent as a consequence of by-catch—mainly through fishing for squid. So it is absolutely plain that the current law is not working. 
The example Eric Roy gave of the Hector’s dolphin and the Maui’s dolphin is illustrative because I see that example as arguing against the point Mr Roy was making. There needs to be a higher conservation baseline there and he is right; it is being litigated by the industry. Every time the Minister of Fisheries makes a decision in respect of trying to improve the results of the catching of seals sea lions or albatross it is very frequently litigated by the industry because the legal test in the legislation the Minister relies on is too lax. It is too difficult a hurdle for the Minister to meet without the risk of litigation and that is why members should support the referral of this bill in the name of Metiria Turei to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Like Steve Chadwick I think there are some problems with the definitions in new section 2A inserted by clause 5 relating to the protection of marine mammals and the effect of the definition of the “high probability that each population will be at or above the level at which it has its maximum net productivity”. That test is a wee bit high; actually I think it is impossible to meet but that can be sorted out at the select committee. The principle at stake here is we as guardians of a substantial proportion of the world’s sea mammals and big seabirds are currently failing in our duty to the world. We are failing not just our own populations and not just because of the intrinsic worth of those populations but we are failing the rest of the world. As I said those populations are already declining. In the case of the Hooker’s sea lion the Auckland Islands’ population has declined by 50 percent since 1998. I think that says it all; we do not need to go further than that. Our law is patently not working at the moment and we need to do better. 
It reflects poorly on the National Government that it will not allow this bill to be referred to the select committee. National pretended before the election to be blue-green. We now know that it will not lead on any of these things despite the fact that the rest of the world relies upon New Zealand because we have 50 percent of the species of marine mammals more than two-thirds of the species of albatross and big petrels in our economic zone a substantial proportion of their total populations and they are declining. One final point: Sir Peter Blake said this is happening so fast that he noticed the absences of birds on his around-the-world voyages. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Hoi noa i nga tau e rua ki muri i te wa i haere Tai Tokerau ki Orakei ki te korero mo te kaupapa o WAI 262 ara te kaupapa mo nga uri a Tane kei to matou taha a w’aea Saana Murray. Engari ehara ko ia anake. E tautau mai ana i tana kaki ko tona taonga tuturu te anga o te pupu harakeke. Mo nga tau tekau ma waru mai i te timatanga o tenei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te taraipiunara i mau mai ia i tona pupu harakeke. Ko tenei te taura e here ana i a ia ki tona tupuna.Tata ngaro ana te pupu harakeke i te mata o te whenua a he kaupapa tino pouri tenei mo Ngati Kuri i te mea mo te mano tau ki muri ko ratou te kaitiaki o te taonga nei. I raro i tenei kaupapa te kaitiakitanga ko te tikanga kia tiaki i nga uri o Tane engari kei te whakaporearea tenei tikanga i te mea kei te tukinohia te taiao. 
Na kona ka hari au ki te tu ki te tautoko i taku tuahine a Metiria me tana pire hei tiaki i nga kararehe o te moana; kia pai ai te noho o nga uri o Tane kia maha kia noho ora mai ratou.Kei te whakaae hoki matou kia tuku putea te Kawanatanga hei awhina i a ratou kei te tokoiti haere kia maranga mai ano.E tautoko ana te Pati Maori i tenei pire mo nga tutumairekurai papakanua tupoupou hopuhopu tukuperu me nga upokohue nga aihe a Maui.Ko enei nga aihe tino tokoiti o te ao he tino taonga ratou ki a matou. E ai ki nga korero kotahi rau tekau ma tahi noa iho ratou e toe ana. 
Ko te wahanga o te pire nei kei te tino tautoko e matou ko te tikanga kia rahui i nga mahi a te tangata i o ratou wahi noho. E whakaaro ana ahau ki nga paru ka tukuna ki te moana nga rapihi paratutae. He tino raruraru ano wetahi o nga momo hi ika me nga mahi kari i te moana. Mai rano matou i whakahe i nga tono raihana ki te kari i te moana ki te rapuhinu me wera atu mea i te mea ko ena mahi kei te tukituki i te wahi noho o nga uri a Tane. Ko te nako a tenei pire kia tohu ki te Papa Atawhai kia whakamatautauhia nga mahi a ngai taua ki te taiao te kainga noho o nga kararehe nei. 
He whakaaro ano taku mo te komiti whaiti hakoa e tohu ana te pire nei kia wanangahia tenei kaupapa e te Tumuaki o Te Papa Atawhai me te Maori kihai i tohia kia korero hangai ki nga iwi kei a ratou te mana whenua o enei rohe. Engari i raro i tenei pire ko te iwi Maori he ropu kotahi i roto i te maha noa atu o nga ropu katoa. Ko to matau wawata kia whakamanahia te tangata whenua hei kaitiaki ki te haere whakamua i tenei pire. Kei te tautoko matou i tenei te panui tuatahi o tenei pire i te mea ko to matau hiahia kia noho ora noho pai te taiao mo tatou katoa me nga uri whakaheke. Kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us the House. Indeed 2 years ago whenTai Tokerau turned up to Orakei Marae to speak to the hearings for the WAI 262 claim the indigenous flora and fauna claim we were flanked by our Auntie Saana Murray. She never travels alone; around her neck she carries the large coiled white shell of the pupu harakeke a flax snail. For the 18 years since the historic claim began Auntie Saana has worn her flax snail shell which links her directly to her ancestor. The flax snail is now a threatened native species—a fact of life that causes great sadness to Ngati Kuri who have been the guardians of this treasure for 1000 years. Our guardianship responsibilities the capacity to protect and care for our native plants and animals have been severely compromised by the destruction of ecosystems.  
From this context then I am pleased to come to support the sister Metiria in her bill the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill to ensure that marine animals are a functioning element of their ecosystem. We support the objectives to maintain populations at healthy levels. And we also believe that the Government should make the investment to enable depleted or threatened populations to recover. The Maori Party supports this bill in particular on behalf of the Hector’s dolphin species of tutumairekurai papakanua tupoupou hopuhopu tukuperu and upokohue Maui’s dolphins. These are the rarest marine dolphin in the world revered by the people of the land as treasures and it is estimated that there are only 111 of these creatures left.  
The part of the bill we are most keen to support is the introduction of objectives to manage the human impacts in the marine environment. I am thinking of things like pollutants rubbish and human waste discharges into the sea. Fishing and harvesting seafood particularly with methods such as bottom trawling and dredging are disturbing. We have always spoken out against the granting of mining and oil exploration licences and related activities that cause adverse effects to the ocean environment and therefore marine animals. So what this bill will do is to require the Department of Conservation to regularly monitor human impacts on marine mammals to ensure that the protection objectives are being met.  
I want to plant an idea for further debate that we hope will come up during the select committee process because while the bill creates an obligation on the Director-General of Conservation to consult with representatives of Maori it does not create an obligation to specifically consult with those who have authority over the land. Instead what we see in this bill is that Maori are being positioned as one interest group amongst many. We hope that the unique status of people of the land as a guardian will come forward in later renditions of the bill. We are happy to offer our support at this first reading in our commitment to keep our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for everyone and for 
the generations to come. Greetings to us 
.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker te Kaihautu o te Whare. I want to begin by talking about some of my experience as a yachtie. I do not have time to do it any more but in years gone by I used to do it a lot. There is nothing quite like sailing a boat out of sight of land. It is kind of an eerie feeling; it changes one’s perspective. I am minded to think of the fact that when we look at Earth from space most of its surface is taken up by ocean. When we look at this country of ours New Zealand Aotearoa most of its exclusive economic zone is also sea or ocean. The problem is that from land we cannot see it. The problem is that it is out of sight out of mind. As we have heard from various speakers tonight so much of the vital biodiversity of our nation and indeed so much of the biodiversity treasure trove of the world is in the ocean surrounding New Zealand. Most of us cannot see it and therefore we often do not think of it. 
In his address tonight Colin King spoke of a commercial fisherman’s story and I will give one of my own. It concerns one of the central figures in the commercial fishing industry in New Zealand today who told me about the nuisance presented by dolphins. They get caught up in fishing nets and then what can one do? It is a waste of a good net. So it is a bullet through the head for the dolphin. 
There is no question that the legal framework we have currently for protecting marine animals both mammals and other animals is not working. There is no question that we need to do something and we need to do something now if we want to change that picture. I have listened to all the speeches made on this legislation by members of the House and every one said they want to do something about this problem. Well the very best opportunity we have in this House to do something about this problem is the opportunity presented by this bill tonight. Certainly I have heard from various members of the House tonight that there are problems with this bill. Eric Roy spoke about some of those problems and I think all members have acknowledged some improvements that can be made to this bill. But the place to deal with those problems is at the select committee. If we choose to not allow this bill to proceed tonight and instead to wait on some never-never land of another bill that might come before the House at some future time then the cost of that decision will be in extinctions of New Zealand marine animals. 
We Greens see the protection of biodiversity as not being principally an economic issue but we are aware that some people do see it in those terms. I want to note that the clean green image on which we trade internationally in every respect—not only tourism but also all of those agricultural exports—actually relies on the protection of our biodiversity and the protection of the marine animals and other animals in New Zealand. So I appeal tonight to those on the Government benches. I realise that they came into the House tonight with a set of instructions to oppose this bill. I appeal to those members to reconsider. If this is truly a bad bill then they can vote it down at some future stage. What is the harm in allowing this bill to proceed to select committee? The reasons given for not doing so are pathetic. The Government talks of a nanny State; I say instead that they run the risk of promoting the “ninny State” which risks cutting off its nose to spite its face. They speak of the fishing industry and I say that craven capitulation to those interests does no one any good. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise tonight to take a call on the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill. I think it is no surprise that National will be voting against the bill but I want to give some context to that decision because if one looks at just the decision itself one does not get an explanation of the picture. 
I think after listening to the debate in the House it is evident that there is a strong level of support and agreement on the importance of our marine environment and the importance of marine mammals and seabirds. None of us is disputing that importance or disputing the need to deal with these issues. I am definitely a supporter of biodiversity and marine reserves in particular. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Hollow words. 
AMY ADAMS 
: I point out for members who dispute that that I have spent the entire time I have been a member of this House working incredibly hard with the local members of my communities to get a marine reserve in the Akaroa inner harbour where one is absolutely needed. That has been an ongoing piece of work for me which I continue to support. I support it because I recognise as do the other members on this side of the House that marine life marine mammals in particular has a very special place in our natural environment. The Hon David Parker talked about it before. 
We have 41 species of cetaceans in the New Zealand marine environment and nine species of seals. In addition to that we all acknowledge the important part that marine mammals play in our cultural identity. I take on board the words of the Maori Party members in that regard. If we look back there was Opo the dolphin in Opononi in the 1950s and just lately we have Harbour Hector the Hector’s dolphin in Wellington Harbour. We all have memories I would suggest of swimming with dolphins in the Bay of Islands off Kaikoura or in Akaroa or of watching them swim alongside the ferry. 
I freely acknowledge that marine mammals are significant players in our tourism sector. I take on board what Kevin Hague said in that regard. He is quite right. The marine environment is an important factor in our economy. Certainly in Akaroa which is part of my electorate it is a vital part of the tourism economy. 
Equally we have to be fair and acknowledge that New Zealand already sits at the forefront of marine mammal conservation. In saying that I do not resile from the fact that there is certainly more we can do and this Government supports doing more. But we do not want to fall into the trap of thinking that any additional regulation must be a good way to go. We have to look at whether it will be right for the purpose and whether it will achieve what we need to achieve. 
I mentioned that New Zealand is already at the forefront of marine mammal protection and it is. All cetaceans are already fully protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and anyone who chooses to breach that Act faces 6 months’ imprisonment and fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars including an extra $10000 fine per animal. We have the  
Department of Conservation Marine Mammal Action Plan for 2005-2010 
The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 
 which is the foundation document on these arguments and the set-net ban which came into force over the east coast of the South Island and in many other parts of the country in May of last year. The national plan of action on seabirds is now under review to ensure fishing does not have an unacceptable impact on any of those species. 
The point National is making is that the protection of iconic and threatened marine species is something that we take incredibly seriously but—and it is a but; it is the reason we are not supporting this legislation—the tools already exist to manage the situation and if the issue is that Ministers in previous Governments have not used them sufficiently or effectively then let us address that. If it has not been done to date then that does not necessarily mean that the tools are not there. I would suggest that the tools are there and that we have to ensure that they are used. 
The compliance burden imposed by this bill is unworkable. In this House Opposition parties badger the Government daily about jobs. Well this bill is a very real example of where the rubber hits the road because passing this bill would cost jobs and suddenly all those members’ strong talk on jobs goes out the window. It will cost jobs in the fishing industry but those members do not care about jobs any more. Now that they are wearing their environmental hats they say: “Stuff the job market.” All of that was just rhetoric. 
This issue is about the economy partly. It is about maintaining the fishing industry partly. But we believe that we can do this in a collaborative and community-based way. This is not about the Government imposing its will on a sector that will not accept it. More regulation is not the answer. The answer is working with stakeholders and that is what we will do. Thank you. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I rise to support this Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill which sets out to give greater protection to some of New Zealand’s unique species. I feel well qualified to speak on this bill. For 5 years from 2002 to 2007 I was privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Conservation. During that time I was a passionate and very public advocate of greater marine mammal protection. I frequently fought with the Ministry of Fisheries occasionally with my colleagues who held the portfolio of Minister of Fisheries—I see one here tonight—and also of course not least of all with the Seafood Industry Council. 
The previous speaker Amy Adams talked about the importance of marine protection. In fact she made reference to a proposal to have a marine reserve in Akaroa Harbour. Well how interesting that statement was in this House when Mr Groser one of our successors as Minister of Conservation has just instructed the Department of Conservation that there will be no more marine reserve applications. I am proud that in the 5 years I had the job I created 17 marine reserves. Mr Groser and his Government are creating none. How astonishing to have a National member say that she would like to see one in Akaroa Harbour! I guess that she had better speak to her Minister. 
She could also talk to him a little about the cut to funding to Enviroschools an incredibly positive learning programme that has been taking place in about 30 percent of New Zealand’s schools. It is a programme that has been copied in Chile and elsewhere in the world because it was so successful not only in raising knowledge about conservation and environmental issues but also in creating incredible learning experiences for young people. 
I attended five International Whaling Commission conferences as the Minister of Conservation. I was proud that I was able to be a strong advocate for the great whale species. A number of colleagues from the Green Party and Labour have mentioned how unique our marine environment is. New Zealand’s marine environment the area that we have legal jurisdiction over covers some 480 million hectares of ocean. That is the fourth-largest marine jurisdiction in the world. New Zealand is a great oceanic country. Its marine area covers 27 times its land area. The vast marine area that we are responsible for is home to many unique endemic species. Several colleagues have mentioned the 50 species of marine mammals that are found in that area. There are already 15000 identified marine species ranging from marine birds to unique fish species unique seaweeds unique corals and not least of all unique mammals. 
Our Government was a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We are therefore committed to maintaining New Zealand’s unique biodiversity. It is a taonga a treasure for the current generation and future generations. We have an incredible responsibility to future generations of New Zealanders to look after the species that we have in this vast marine realm. 
I mentioned that there are 50 species of marine mammal. Over half of the world’s species of whales swim through our seas. These whales are incredibly vulnerable. Only 5 percent of the number of humpbacks exist today compared with the number that existed before whaling began. We have two unique endemic species of dolphins. I thank our Maori Party colleague Hone Harawira for the support of the Maori Party for this legislation in Metiria Turei’s name because it is very important. Maori people especially appreciate the importance of future generations. With regard to our two unique dolphin species Hector’s dolphin and Maui’s dolphin Hone mentioned that there are 111 Maui’s dolphin left and perhaps 7500 Hector’s dolphins. All of these species are at risk through inappropriate fishing practices. For many years when I was the Minister of Conservation I debated with the fishing industry about safe methods of using nets particularly in the Southern Ocean in the hoki fishery during ling fishing and so on. 
I seek leave for a 2-minute extension for my speech. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Oh I see. So we let Eric Roy— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Maybe the member could seek leave again. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave for a 2-minute extension. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for a 2-minute extension. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I thank the House for this extension of time. 
Members in this House especially those who were MPs before the 2008 election will know that I am a very passionate conservationist. In fact the nicest thing that has ever been written about me in the media was in a Japanese daily which described me as an environmental extremist. I took that as the greatest compliment that had ever been paid to me as a politician because I am passionate about our unique biodiversity in New Zealand. 
I have mentioned already this vast oceanic realm that we are responsible for and the unique species that are found there. I have made reference to the two dolphin species which are particularly vulnerable. The New Zealand sea lion is unique to our waters and is now restricted just to the Auckland Islands and the Campbell Islands which is a place I had the privilege of visiting when I was the Minister of Conservation. That species has been enormously reduced through the sealing programme that took place over 100 years ago. The southern right whale swims through our waters. We think there may be as few as 30 left that traverse through New Zealand waters. All of these statistics are statistics but they are actually more than that. They are a message to us as decision makers as politicians and as people who shape this country to protect these species. If we do not protect them they will be lost. There are simple ways of protecting these species. 
My colleague David Parker who is now Labour’s conservation spokesperson talked about the unique species of petrel seabird and albatross that nest around many of the islands particularly in the southern part of our country. There are fishing techniques that have been developed here in New Zealand and elsewhere in the world that can enormously reduce the mortality of albatross species in particular. 
One of the Government members just talked about our strategy on seabirds which was developed I have to say proudly while I was conservation Minister. That strategy is about getting the fishing industry to adopt best practice. I have to tell members that it is enormously difficult to get cooperation from the fishing industry on even simple things such as how we put out longlines for fishing and how we bring in nets. The fishing industry had a totally extractive commercial view on this. It was not about jobs; it was about cutting costs as much as it could. If we have to spend a little bit more to save what is unique about New Zealand I am all for that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I thank members for their contributions this evening on my Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill particularly those who have spoken in support of the legislation. The kind words about the bill and the issue of marine animal protection and its importance are much appreciated. 
I will refer briefly to a few comments made by National members. I note a few things. The first is that no Minister with a relevant portfolio has bothered to speak on this legislation. No Minister of the Crown has spoken on the legislation. It is the first truly environmental conservation legislation to come before this Parliament since the last election and no Minister has bothered to speak on it. For all that the National members talk about their blue-green approach to issues and their new-found interest in environmental issues the lack of commitment from any Minister who holds an environmental portfolio to be present in the House and to speak on this bill is a disgrace. It clearly shows that this Government has a complete lack of commitment to true environmental protection and to the protection of our species and the economy the industries to which our environment contributes to such a significant extent. 
I say to Colin King that paua are not marine animals for the purposes of this legislation. He gave a generous speech but none the less it was inaccurate. I also just note that when I tried to find out from National members whether they would vote for this bill—and it took some time in fact some days to get a clear position—it was not the Minister of Conservation who rang me to talk about this bill but I found that the Minister of Fisheries was handling this issue. Listening to the speeches that have been given by members this evening it is clear where National puts issues like the protection of marine animal species such as the albatrosses in this photograph which as members can see were found dead due to activities in the fishing industry. National appears to give the fishing industry a much greater level of decision making or a greater role in this issue. 
I note that Amy Adams talked about the importance of jobs and I will get on to that in a moment. I also note that Amy Adams said that current legislation provides adequate protection which of course is rubbish. I feel very disappointed that Ms Adams was not able to give a rational or logical contribution to this debate because the whole point of this legislation is to give adequate protection to marine animals. Indeed the Bluegreens’ manifesto on its website clearly describes marine protection legislation as a “regulatory mess”. The Bluegreens say it is a regulatory mess but Ms Adams has obviously not bothered to read that Bluegreens’ National Party document. That is the position of the Bluegreens at least. However the Bluegreens obviously have no influence in the National Party because there is simply no adequate protection. 
This is a photograph of Hector’s dolphins. This image will be branded for New Zealand tourism and New Zealand conservation: dead dolphins. At some point quite possibly under the leadership of a National Government we may well see the extinction of our most vulnerable endangered marine dolphin species Maui’s dolphin. 
I note too that it is not just dolphins that have a good public image if you like. Other vulnerable and endangered species include the New Zealand sea lion. Despite the fact that they have absolute protection under the current legislation they are none the less able to be part of the by-catch under the fishing legislation for the squid fishery. I note that last year in the last fishing season 72 New Zealand sea lions were killed by the fishing industry. They were killed lawfully under the marine protection legislation that we have in place. Clearly the legislation is failing. Clearly these animals are dying as a result of the lack of protection. Clearly National does not care that we are losing these iconic species which are so key to our tourism industry. 
There are other broad issues. I would very much like both the industry and Maori in particular to be able to come to the select committee to give us their views about this issue. That is why we send bills to select committees—so that we get that consultation that discussion with our community which is affected by the decisions we make. I would welcome this bill’s referral to a select committee; that is why we would like to see it go before a select committee. However National is preventing that dialogue from occurring. 
This photograph of dead albatrosses will become the image of the special protection the special place that Amy Adams considers our marine animals to have in the New Zealand economy and in New Zealand conservation. This is the New Zealand brand under National. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
I am pleased to bring this bill the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill to the House this evening. Slavery was abolished in Britain in the nineteenth century and the ban on slavery is a foundation stone of modern international human rights law. It is unambiguously prohibited by international law and the few Governments that tolerate it can be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Despite this the evil of slavery continues with estimates ranging from 12 million to 29 million people enslaved. Despite bans in law I am advised that hereditary slavery continues in Mauritania and Niger while the use of child slaves is widespread in parts of West Africa. There are regular cases from Asia of parents selling their children into slavery and debt slavery continues to occur in parts of the Asian subcontinent and in South America. 
Banning the fruits of this vile traffic is a moral imperative and moral necessity. We live in the 21st century. Globalisation has brought trading partners closer together and opened up opportunities for the exchange of goods on a scale not known before. Just recently in this House we passed legislation enabling the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free-trade agreement to proceed thereby opening up huge markets to rapidly reducing tariffs for our exporters. But globalised trade does not happen in a moral vacuum and that is the starting point for my bill. Although I am a strong supporter of free trade for many reasons not the least of them being that I believe New Zealanders’ quality of life is dependent upon the wealth and the jobs created from tradable commodities and services I do not believe in trade at any price. Trade must occur at the right price a fair price and an ethical price. Fair trade and ethical trade are the starting points for this debate. 
This bill presents the New Zealand Parliament with an opportunity to explore in good faith how free trade and human rights might be accommodated in a principled and thoughtful way. Earlier this year the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee considered the petition of Geoff White on behalf of Trade Aid and 17000 others requesting just this: that the House legislate against the importation of products made by slave labour. The question was considered and reported back to the House with a Green Party view expressing a desire for legislation. The conversation around this issue has continued within the Labour Party since that time along the lines that notwithstanding any practical difficulties of attestation proof and enforcement it was still worthwhile to bring a bill to a select committee for consideration investigation and amendment where appropriate. 
There is no doubt that this bill represents an idealistic position but I do not make any apology for that. It is not the first idealistic position I have adopted and I hope it will not be the last one. The mechanism for achieving the ends sought in this bill is the addition of a definition of “slave labour” to the definition clause of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the insertion of another clause into schedule 1 of that Act. These are modest proposals. I have no interest in scoring points on this issue. I seek in good faith to present a bill before the House that we can debate in a select committee where improvement can be made in order that New Zealand can stand up and say that our law bans the importation of goods produced by slave labour. There would not be a member in this House who would for a moment support slave labour or the fruits of it; not one member in this House I am sure. [ 
Interruption 
]. Perhaps one has just walked in. This bill is being brought forward without any sense of positioning or point-scoring in mind. I have only the desire to bring to the fore a discussion about an ethical and a morally based position on trade in this Parliament. 
Although international trade rules for example GATT do not contain specific permission to ban goods produced by slavery they allow measures necessary to protect public morals human life and health or to ban goods produced by prison labour which is article 20 of GATT. Schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 which this bill seeks to amend accordingly states that “Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour” are prohibited goods. The same efforts and mechanisms that are used to enforce that statute might be used to enforce the provisions of this bill. In fact examination at the select committee might produce even better mechanisms than the ones we have. I do not have a monopoly on that wisdom. I was not a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee at the time it considered the original petition from Trade Aid. But as I say the conversation has continued within the Labour Party around this matter since that time. The United States has the Tariff Act of 1930 which unambiguously bars the entry of goods produced by any form of forced labour including slave and child labour. Belgium has a Government-endorsed voluntary social label which producers can sign up to that declares absolutely that their goods are not produced by slave labour. So there are two models already out there in the international arena that we could consider more closely in the application to New Zealand legislation. 
We should all aspire to a global economic system that trades sustainably and ethically. I do not believe this is pie-in-the-sky legislation. I believe that all of us should look beyond current structures current economic systems and current constraints to a world where we know that what we consume has not been produced by means of “labour by persons over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.” That is the definition I seek to include in the amendment to the Customs and Excise Act. That is a definition of slavery that echoes the wording of the 1926 Slavery Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. New Zealand is a party to both of those pieces of international law. Let us see whether we can find a way to make our universal undoubted commitment to the abolition of slavery in all its forms practical in our trading relationships. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member must indicate under Standing Order 279 which select committee the bill will be referred to should it be successful. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: As a sequel to my penultimate sentence as it were I seek that this bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for consideration. 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 National will not be supporting the referral of the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee from whence the issue it addresses basically came in February this year. But I want to share some sentiments with the member whose bill this is the Hon Maryan Street. I would argue that if anyone is honest about this issue they have to admit that the member is correct: the conversation continues. We all struggle with this issue. Not just decent people in this country but people around the world struggle with this issue. 
I will not make a speech about the abhorrence of slavery. I accept what the member has just said and no member in this House—one small joke aside which we will pass over quickly—would fail to share that view. The historical image is forever in our minds of the slave ships and those of us who saw President Obama inspect one of the awful sites from which they came in his historical homeland have had this image refreshed in our collective memories only in the last few days. The problems are many and varied. The traditions of servitude and forced labour in many societies prove to be extraordinarily hard to eradicate. 
 Extensive evidence was given to members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—I had the privilege of being on that committee—when we were considering this issue in the course of 2008. It may well have started in 2007; I do not recall when precisely we started to wrestle with this issue. Many fine minds particularly in the United States—where for reasons that are stunningly obvious more anti-slavery non-governmental organisations exist than in any other country—grapple with the issues that I know the member is trying to focus political attention on. 
I think we all understand that the long-term solution is sustainable economic development. The world has made extraordinary progress in the last 30 years not eradicating but reducing absolute poverty the breeding ground for appalling labour conditions of which slavery is the most abhorrent. We all understand that solution. There is a variety of different views on how to establish it but sustainable economic development plus the spread of human rights is the long-term solution. I am one of those who strongly believe there are linkages between those two big objectives those two fundamental solutions. But that solution is not fast enough for us; we all understand that. From time to time people take the initiative to see whether there is something more that we can do and this member’s bill is the latest example of that. 
As the select committee found when it went through the issues with a high level of consensus in the committee the problems start with the definition. This is not particular to us; even this century starting from the 1930 ILO definition around forced labour people have struggled with defining this problem. It is simple if we have a very narrow definition that would be associated with what I call the historical image of the slave ships. But the moment we widen that definition as the member’s bill does we have some real problems in trying to target what is legitimate and realisable from what is illegitimate. It is deeply in contention by many many developing countries and it would lead to massive disputation were we to proceed down that track. The member’s bill is a fair effort but the definition is broad: “labour by persons over whom any or all”—emphasising the word “any”—“of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.” I guarantee that any attempt to define this unilaterally and impose an import ban would cause real problems for any country moving in that direction. 
The second fundamental problem behind the definitional issues is that the very success of the spread of economic development and the growth of the global supply-chain associated with it compounds the difficulty. So many different products from so many different countries are incorporated in a final product. In the climate change discussions that I had the privilege of attending in Singapore last week under the Rt Hon Simon Upton the chairman of the OECD committee on sustainable development we grappled with an example that I think illustrates it well but with a different frame of mind. The issue was whether we could apply unilaterally border tax adjustments to countries not doing the right thing on climate change and people were using the example of the Apple iPod. As one of our ministerial colleagues pointed out when it arrives in the United States it has “Made in China” stamped on the box. Actually an analysis of an Apple iPod has been done. The recommended retail price in the United States is $299—round it up to $300. Only $4 of that stays in China; $130 of it stays in the United States because the real value in these products is the intellectual property in them; and 20 or so other countries are involved in manufacturing the components. How any New Zealand customs officer would try to disaggregate a problem like that when the reality of the global supply-chain massively compounds the problem defeated the select committee. I am sorry to say that were we to refer this bill back to the committee the problem would defeat the committee once again. 
Another example—and it is in the nasty sense of the word the poster child of this issue—is cocoa. The countries that most of the international attention is directed at are Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Of course there is grave concern about the labour conditions in those two desperately poor countries but all attempts to define this concern in a more operationally effective way by many non-governmental organisations many Governments and many international negotiations have failed to establish a consensus on this matter. The second most at-risk product sugar would emerge in numerous foodstuffs imported into New Zealand. How would we ever be able to differentiate between products made from this wide definition of “slavery” and products made simply by poor people? Most of the sugar in the world is produced by poor people and it is a very good thing that we import sugar. I remember being party as a very junior person in the New Zealand system many years ago to a decision in the 1970s that stopped the beet production of sugar in this country precisely to allow Pacific Island countries and Fiji in particular the opportunity to export to New Zealand. I thought it was a fantastic moral decision taken at the time. The importation of sugar from poor countries is part of the solution not part of the problem. 
The way forward will be murky as it always has been. It will rely on a multiplicity of efforts and on New Zealand’s and other countries’ participation in a variety of United Nations institutions. The UN itself is very active in this area as is the United Nations Human Rights Council and the ILO. New Zealand is a party to the 1926 Slavery Convention the ILO Convention 29 Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour and certain other conventions that I am not so familiar with but that are directed at the same general policy area. In addition to those conventions and I give credit to the previous Government for this we have promoted trade and labour side agreements in our free-trade agreements. That promotion obviously falls way short of driving the level of ambition that we all want but at least it moves the trade and labour debates in a mutually supportive way. 
We are continuing that tradition with this Government. We will also support the further development of guidelines of a voluntary nature. Often people are very reckless with the international trading system. They think trade bans trade embargoes and trade threats can solve each and every problem when there is abundant evidence that that is a gross simplification. Actually a lot of very useful progress can be made with voluntary codes. We will continue to support efforts in the OECD corporate social responsibility codes and others. 
To sum up I accept the underlying premise of the member’s bill that the conversation has not ended. It has not ended anywhere in this world. We will continue to work on it but yet another examination by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee would not lead us very far. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou katoa. I rise to support the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. While listening to the presentation from National MP Tim Groser the Minister of Trade I thought back to 202 years ago when in the imperial Parliament in London the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807. I thought about the speeches that were no doubt given in the British Parliament by ship owners from Liverpool Bristol and Southampton. I thought about the interests of the great sugar plantation owners in Jamaica and Trinidad. I thought about the American merchants who were involved in the slave trade as human beings were carted from the west coast of Africa to the slave plantations of America and the West Indies. I thought about the cotton and sugar that was returned to Britain to be processed in the mills that my ancestors and those of many others here probably worked in at that time. 
I also thought about the arguments that would have been marshalled against William Wilberforce as he proposed year after year in the British Parliament that slavery that pernicious system should be abolished. I thought that some of those speeches from some of the rich ship owners plantation slave owners cotton merchants and sugar merchants would have been just like Mr Groser’s speech. Those speeches would have been about how trade was the lifeblood of their empire. They would have been about why Britain had to be strong. They would have been about money. They would have been about why Britain could not take a lead on the issue of slavery. 
Mr Wilberforce persistent man that he was managed to convince enough British MPs to support his legislation. Then in 1833 the slaves themselves were freed in the year that Wilberforce died. Again that was an amazing action by the British Government. It was an action that almost bankrupted Britain. The Prime Minister at the time spent 25 percent of the Budget of the then richest country in the world in order to free the slaves because enough people in Britain felt that slavery was a wicked institution and should not exist. 
And yes Mr Groser acknowledged the image that we all have of the slave ships as they went from West Africa across the Atlantic to the Americas: the degradation the suffering the pain the death the indignity and the wickedness of it. But I say to Mr Groser that I have an image of children in West Africa today: one of children who are bonded slaves. I have an image of debt bonding in India in Paraguay in Peru and in other developing countries where people are sold into slavery much as they sold were into slavery on the plantations of Jamaica Trinidad and Cuba and of South Carolina Alabama and Georgia. These are modern-day slaves. Yes they exist today. 
All that my colleague is saying is that we should send this bill to a select committee so that we can look at it. We may be able to do what Belgium has done and get businesses to sign up to say they will not import goods made by slave labour. Of course at the moment we say there is a total ban on importing goods produced by prison labour. How can this be different from that? How could it be more difficult to identify goods made by slave labour and implement a ban on importing them especially if we follow the Belgian track of saying businesses can do this on their own initiative? I do not know which system we might approve or find the most acceptable. 
Like my colleague Maryan Street I am a proponent of free trade. Last year as the then Minister of Education I was with our then Prime Minister Helen Clark in Beijing when we signed the historic free-trade agreement with China. For 9 years the previous Labour Government was the most active Government New Zealand has ever had in terms of doing trade deals. We signed the four-way deal with Chile Brunei and Singapore. We signed a free-trade agreement with China and we were the first Western country to do so. We are engaged in free-trade negotiations with India and Korea. We have signed a free-trade agreement with ASEAN. Labour has a proud record on trade but we also have a very proud record on having a moral foreign policy. 
Last night in this House we debated and we all agreed that there should be a ban on cluster weapons. Why is there not a consensus here? Could it be because money is involved? Could it be that Mr Groser is very much the heir of the plantation owners and the great merchants who grew fat on the basis of the slave trade? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill in the name of Maryan Street. 
I think the last speaker Chris Carter was a little shrill particularly in saying that the Labour Government was responsible for opening up a lot of trade. That is absolutely true but when we point to China which is one of the countries that has been identified as being associated with enforced labour we see there is a problem with his argument. 
It is important to state right from the beginning that the altruism behind this bill is absolutely correct: slavery or coerced labour is totally repugnant. However the reasons that National is not supporting this bill relate to the fact that ministry advisers and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee report on a petition brought to it in February this year have suggested that a bill such as this is unworkable. 
I note that there are varying estimates of how many people around the world are subject to slavery or coerced labour. It is most likely to be in the millions. I was quite shocked to see a recent US State Department report suggesting just how close to home the problem is. The report of 2008 noted 14 countries where Governments do not fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so. Sadly two of those countries are Fiji and Papua New Guinea. I think that is of great concern to us here in the South Pacific. But as members will know New Zealand is one of the many countries that have a proud record of standing up for human rights. It is also a signatory to the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. 
However as I said earlier on one of the important issues behind this bill—and why National members are opposing it—is its unworkability. That was brought out very clearly in the report on the petition of Geoff White on behalf of Trade Aid and 17000 others. Firstly in relation to international trade rules the report states: “We were told by the ministry that in the context of international trade rules New Zealand would need to consider a number of technical issues if it were to impose a trade ban on goods proven to have been produced by slave labour.” My colleague Tim Groser certainly explained the complexities of the problems in relation to goods that have multiple derivations from different places and are made up from different parts. 
I understand that New Zealand would need to prove that any such trade ban was not a disguised restriction on trade and that in itself would be quite a difficult thing to do. The other important point is that enforcement of a ban technically would be difficult. There was a section in the report though on corporate social responsibility which suggested that corporate enterprises could voluntarily apply a label to their products stating that they were not produced using slave labour. This is a practical suggestion that I think could be applied on a voluntary basis to companies throughout New Zealand. 
The report’s conclusion noted: “We received a briefing from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that set out the difficulties in implementing legislation in New Zealand along the lines of the United States or the Belgian legislation.” I believe that the suggestion made in the introductory speech on this bill that we could do this was somewhat misleading. The report states: “The purpose of the US Alien Tort Claims Act is not primarily to combat the trade in slave labour products; rather it is a historical piece of legislation to enable tort claims to be filed in the US for breaches by US multinational corporations of international law … The Belgian legislation established a government-endorsed voluntary ‘social label’ …”. 
The altruism attached to this bill is absolutely correct but the applicability of it technically is difficult. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party strongly supports this bill. We are pleased with the response of both Labour and National on this issue. As Maryan Street said the Green Party presented a minority report when the petition by Geoff White and 17000 others came before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. As she said further discussions in the Labour Party have brought Labour and the Greens together in promoting such legislation. 
I was pleased with Tim Groser’s phrase “the conversation continues.” I hope the conversation continues within National and hopefully at some point we will have consensus in this House on proceeding with such legislation. The big objection of National is that it will be difficult there will be disputes and some countries might disagree. Surely that is the way progress happens. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We can provide leadership. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: We can provide leadership. In some ways there is a bit of a movement from National whereby it is starting to talk about guidelines of a voluntary nature. But why not go beyond that to the Belgian system which has a law that provides a social labelling system for companies that want to sell products that are not made by slave labour? National could at least move forward to that kind of system. 
The House has already shown the importance of community action in relation to legislation because today we referred a biofuels bill to the select committee. There will be disputes over what are sustainable biofuels and that question will carry over into community discussions. For example there has been a debate over Cadbury’s using palm oil in its chocolates. That whole discussion has forced companies to think more ethically and in the case of this bill remove slave labour products from their manufacturing distribution system. To address Tim Groser’s point when there are a whole lot of components in a product it will force the final producer and retailer of that product to take out the bits that are produced by slave labour if they want to sell the product. 
It is not just the implementation of a law; it is also the discussion in the community which as the House recognises is against slavery and is prepared to discriminate against any products that embody slave labour. That is exactly what has happened with the existing international legislation be it the Belgian legislation on social labelling or the US legislation where the two Acts—the US Alien Tort Claims Act and the US Tariff Act 1930—are taken together. Three non-governmental organisations including Global Exchange actually have taken a case against Nestlé under that US Alien Tort Claims Act. Trade Aid in its submission said that it wants to see the right to private prosecutions under this legislation. That should be included because it is the pressure of the non-governmental organisations under the laws—if we pass them—that will be effective. 
In terms of what Tim Groser said about the difficulty of tracing back to see whether products have been made by slave labour it is the assistance of non-governmental organisations through their links back to various countries—India China and African countries like the Ivory Coast—that will allow us to determine whether products have been made by slave labour. No doubt some Governments will say that is a restraint of trade. China will say it is a restraint of trade if we say slave labour and prison labour have been used to produce certain products. India might say it is a restraint of trade if we say bonded labour has been used to produce certain products. But as a country we have to fight those battles and in doing so we will have allies around the world. 
This House agrees that we do not want to be complicit in any way in products being produced by slave labour. The Green Party is very much in support of the bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I too rise with my colleagues to support my good colleague Maryan Street in bringing the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill forward to the House. Tonight we have heard a number of references to the disgusting historical practice of slavery that is such a blight on the history of a number of nations in this world. 
Slavery is still a reality in a number of parts of the world. It is quite easy to stand in the House speak about it and say it is a problem and we have to keep the conversation going; it is something we need to talk about. But here tonight is our opportunity to take one small step to do something about it and to say that New Zealand is prepared to discuss this issue in a serious way in order to work out how we can reflect in our law our abhorrence of slavery and our desire not to consume products that are produced as a result of those who are in slavery. 
Today in the world particularly as my colleague Chris Carter said in West Africa there are numerous examples of slavery that I hope every single person in this House would find abhorrent. It has been said in the past that a lot of it is in countries like Angola the Sudan Somalia or Chad where there has been conflict. Slavery is somehow or other a result of that conflict. People have found themselves kidnapped or captured and then forced into work as part of war. But the reality is it is much more than that in Africa. It is actually in more peaceful countries like Côte d’Ivoire as Mr Groser said earlier or Burkina Faso or Benin. Those are countries that otherwise stand on the world stage as people whom we work with and deal with at places like the United Nations but in those countries today millions of people are in slavery. It is quite difficult for people to think of a situation where there are brokers scouting for children in poor families in rural areas in places like Benin in order to take children into slavery. There are people who are there doing that. 
Then we look around other parts of the world in places like in Nigeria where there are children’s markets. They have been found within the last 10 years where a special child-slave stock market is in place in Côte d’Ivoire. Child slaves in Africa are a reality today and this bill although it is a long way from being able to change it to stop it to end it is a chance for us as New Zealanders to say in our law that we do not accept products that are produced as a result of slave labour. 
We have heard that this is a difficult issue but it is only a difficult issue because we are not prepared to take the steps to have the conversation and to make the law. Lots of things that we debate in this House are difficult. Lots of bills that we send to select committees are not perfect when we send them to a select committee but we send them there so we can have a conversation where we can come up with language and a law that reflects the values I am hearing about tonight from across the House. It is great to hear the Minister say that slave labour is an issue of concern and an issue that we need to work on but we could send this bill to a select committee and actually make a difference. 
There is precedent for this bill in the world and I want to correct Mr Hutchison’s statement earlier on when he said the Alien Tort Claims Act is the US legislation that governed this issue. It is not; it is the US Tariff Act 1930 and it unambiguously bans the entry of goods produced by any form of forced labour including slave and child labour. So there is international precedent; it is there for us and we can keep working on it. Mr Groser also mentioned some of the other issues including the fact that we have trade and labour agreements in our free-trade agreements. That is a good start and a good way to engage with countries on the important issues of labour conditions. But this legislation would set the principles by which we would do that. 
Let us look at the definition and how it can be put in place. If it is good enough in schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise Act to ban goods produced by prison labour surely it is good enough to ban goods produced by slave labour. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatau e te Whare tena koutou katoa e te whanau. Hoi ano i ahau e rangahau ana i te pire nei ka puta mai te pukuriri. Tata atu ki te kotahi rau rua tekau pauna te utu ki te hoko i nga hu omaoma wahine Adidas i te Kotahitanga o Ingarangi. Ko tera te putea e riro ai te kaimahi o Adidas mo nga marama e toru. Kia kaua hoki tatou e pohehe he wiki mahi wha tekau haora noa iho te roa. Whitu tekau haora te roa o te wiki mahi mo nga manomano kaimahi o nga whare hanga-hu o Adidas ki Haina. Kei te takahi a Adidas i nga ture mahi o Haina kei te whati ano hoki i o ratou ake aratohu. Hakoa tera kei te mahia tonutia. 
Kua whakaturia e Nike nga whare tota i Haina i Initonihia i Whitinamu hoki. E 20 heneti ia haora te putea ka riro ma te kaimahi ki Whitinamu. Hara i te mea ko te putea papaku me te roanga o te wiki mahi noa iho te raru. Te kino hoki nga tuahua mahi o nga whare tota nei. I roto i te wahanga waru haora ka taea te kaimahi ki te haere kotahi ki te wharepaku. Mo te inu wai e rua nga wa. Maiangi ai te tangata i te wheru i te hau kino i te wera rawa atu. Te morikarika hoki o nga kamupene kaita nei e taetae ana ki enei whenua ki te takahi i te wairua tangata. Na te ngoikore o nga ture whenua ki te tiaki i te kaimahi ka tukinotia te kaimahi. 
No reira e tautoko ana te Pati Maori i tenei pire kia aukatihia nga mea kua hangaia ki te whare tota me ki kua hangaia e te kaimahi taurekareka. Roa te wa e noho tarewa ana tenei take Wha tau ki muri i heria mai e Trade Aid tetahi petihana ki te Paremata i hainatia ai e te 17000 tangata kia aukati i te hoko i nga mea no tawahi kua hangaia e te ringa o te kaimahi taurekareka. Engari i a ratou e whakarite ana i te petihana nei ko ta te Kawanatanga ke he whakatutuki i nga kirimana hokohoko watea no rawahi hakoa horekau he ture tiaki i te kaimahi. Hakoa Reipa hakoa Nahinara he orite tonu kaore he paku aha ki a raua. Engari he kaupapa nui rawa tenei ki a matou o te Pati Maori. I nga tau e rua ki muri i puta mai te kupu awangawanga a te Kai Titiro o te UN mo te mahi taurekareka; nui atu i te tekau ma rua miriona te tokomaha kua horohia e tenei ngarara te mahi taurekareka. Na kua ara mai te patai nui: mena ka aukatihia te putea ka riro ki nga kaimahi nei ka pehea ratou e whai oranga ai? Kua toitu te Pati Maori hei kaitautoko i te whakakorenga o te rawa kore. Kei te tino whawhai hoki matou kia patua i te pohara e pa ana ki te hunga tamariki. Engari he pohehe noa iho no tatou kua kore tenei ahuatanga e kitea i Aotearoa. Hei ta te Roopu Tiaki i nga Tamariki Pohara i tera tau he hauono te tokomaha o nga tamariki e noho ana i roto i te whare tino pohara. No reira me kaha tatou ki te whawhai i nga kino maha o te ngarara nei. Kei te tautoko pumau matou i te pire nei. 
Ka huri nga whakaaro ki tenei mea te mahi taurekareka me ona whakapanga weriweri ki te hunga tamariki ka koropupu te riri i roto i a matou. Neke atu i te wha miriona nga tamariki ki Parihi tekau mano ki te Hauauru o Inia tekau ma rima mano ki Pakitana e mahi ana i nga whare morearea ki te tuitui i nga poro poiwhana mo nga kamupene pera i a Adidas. Na te kino o nga tuahua o nga whare tuitui nei ka pangia te tamariki ki te matakerepo ki te ringa haua ki te mamae o te tuara ki te mamae o te kaki. No reira e tautoko ana matou i te pire nei?Ae Marika! I a matou e tautoko ana i te pire nei ko te tumanako kia whai wa te Kawanatanga ki te aro atu ki nga ahuatanga o te rawa kore e pa atu ana ki te tamariki. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. Tena koutou e te whanau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us in the House and to all of us the family. In researching this bill I got very very angry indeed. One pair of Adidas trainers in the UK can cost anything up to £120 for the latest women’s sports shoes. That is three times as much as a month’s wages for an Adidas worker. And we are not talking a 40 hour week either. For the thousands of Chinese workers who fill the factories in China making Adidas trainers their average working week is 70 hours. That is not only a breach of Adidas’ own workplace standards but also a violation of China’s labour laws. But it still happens. 
Nike sweatshops can now be found in Indonesia China and Viet Nam. Nike workers in Viet Nam earn on average 20c per hour. It is not just the low pay and the long hours that are the problem but the conditions are appalling as well. Workers are allowed to go to the bathroom only once in an 8-hour shift. They cannot drink water more than twice a shift. Many of the workplaces have inhumane conditions causing workers to faint from exhaustion the fumes and the heat. It is outrageous that these top corporate giants are able to come into these countries and exploit the fact that they have no protective labour laws in place to look after their workers. 
So the Maori Party will certainly support this bill to ban the importation of goods made in whole or in part by slave labour. It has been a long time coming. Four years ago Trade Aid brought a petition to Parliament signed by some 17000 people requesting New Zealand to legislate to ban the importing of slave labour products. But of course while the petition was being prepared the Government of the day was busy passing free-trade agreements with little or no protection for workers. Labour or National it does not seem to matter to either of them. 
Well this is an important matter to us in the Maori Party. Two years ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery said that he was deeply concerned that the minimum estimate of the number of people in slavery is over 12 million and that the problem appears to be increasing. The one issue that has caused some concern for our caucus is that if the slave wages are taken away from these people what will they live on?  
The Maori Party has made a conscious commitment to respond to the global call for action against poverty with a particular focus on the eradication of child poverty. 
Of course it is not as if New Zealand has got its own backyard looking pristine and clean. The Child Poverty Action Group said that in 2008 one in six New Zealand children still lived in a household below the very lowest poverty lines. So we need to tackle the many evils of this monster on all fronts. There is no question that we would not support this bill. 
Our anger is particularly profound when we think of the ever-growing problem of child slave labour. Some 4 million children in Brazil some 10000 children in western India’s Punjab region and some 15000 children in Pakistan are to be found working in unsafe and unhealthy conditions sewing of all things soccer balls for companies like Adidas. The factory conditions are so harsh and dangerous that it is not uncommon for children to lose their eyesight deform their fingers suffer from chronic back and neck pain and more. So will be supporting this bill? Too right! And while we are supporting this bill maybe there will be some support for our Government taking some action to respond to the persistent poverty that continues to drag us down including of course our shameful record in addressing child poverty. Greetings to us all in the House and the family 
.] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. I start by commending the Hon Maryan Street for bringing the legislation to the House as a member’s bill. Of course previously the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee spent some time considering the issue. 
I start by addressing what others have said: there is a widely accepted feeling in the international community towards slavery; therefore it is not necessary to repeat it. I wish to state clearly that slavery is something that is absolutely not acceptable. Indeed under international law it is not possible. I believe that all members of this House have a strong view on this issue and in fact there will be few people in New Zealand who do not have a strong view on it. Having said that indications are that up to 12 million people in the world are involved in some form of slavery or slave labour and in many cases their human rights are abused or taken away from them. It is a sad reality of the world in which we live in 2009 that some countries still have not recognised that human rights are important. It is also important that as a House we look at effective means to stop this practice and to make people’s lives better. Sadly I am not sure that a unilateral bill will make the difference that we would all like to make. 
There are a number of reasons for this position. As I said slavery is absolutely prohibited in international law but we must look for more effective means. I am very happy to say that as a member of Parliament I will support any action that will have a meaningful effect upon slavery—to prohibit it stop it and drive it out of countries elsewhere—but sadly this bill will not do that. The reason it will not do it I believe is that manufacturing in the world today is much more complex than it was back in 1930 when the United States banned slavery. That legislation was passed in 1930. If we were in the climate of trade trade law and trade rules of the world that was in place in 1930 then the bill might have some effect. We must take our obligation seriously. I am not sure—in fact I doubt greatly—whether if we were to pass the bill into law in New Zealand we would be able to police it or to make it effective and whether it would have any effect at all. It is admirable that we pay attention and give voice to the issue but I think we need to look for real action that will have a real effect. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee debated this issue and reported back to the House in February this year. The committee recommended that the Government continue to pursue vigorously multichannel efforts to eliminate slavery not simply in law but also in practice. A number of international bodies are focused on the issue—for example the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Labour Organization—and a number of conventions that New Zealand is party to are to do with forced labour and the abolition of forced labour.  
The OECD has focused on the issue. There has been wide discussion and wide debate on it. The question is whether wide discussion and debate is enough. I believe that the answer to that question is no it is not enough. Merely discussing this issue in the House or elsewhere will not in itself have the desired effect that we all want. Therefore what can be done? 
I would like members to think back to some years ago. Internationally there was wide discussion around conflict diamonds primarily coming from West Africa a part of the world where there has been much fighting and war. Many of these diamonds—in fact all of them—were taken out of the ground because of slavery. Slaves were held and made to work at gunpoint. Different parts of the world and different countries have said they want to do something about this issue and to ban it. But it was only effectively banned when the world came together and focused on it. We decided that we would ban conflict diamonds and therefore diamonds being produced through slavery in this way effectively stopped. It is my understanding from reading the newspapers and contacting those involved with this campaign that very few conflict diamonds are sold in the world today—or at least in developed countries. It is important to recognise that. 
The reason it is important is that slavery in other parts of the world will finally be stopped. Not only will it be pushed out of sight but people will have rights and those rights will be enforced. When the world comes together we must do so at a multilateral level through the United Nations in cooperation with others. I commend the Hon Maryan Street but will not be able to support the bill. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Our world is becoming smaller and our lives more interdependent as the forces of globalisation draw us together. Through travel through modern communications and more than anything else through the power of global markets almost every one of us every day—when we put on our clothes in the morning drink a cup of coffee pull on our sunglasses or reach for the cellphone to make a call—is touched by the lives of workers who made the products. That is the case whether those workers are garment factory workers in southern China coffee farmers in Ethiopia or child miners in the Congo extracting the cadmium that goes into the batteries of our cellphones. Globalisation has unleashed huge economic potential but our humanity surely demands that we consider the ethical implications of that interdependence. 
The Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill brought to the House tonight by my colleague the Hon Maryan Street asks us to do just that: to consider that products from certain countries where modern slavery continues should be kept out of New Zealand as a protest against the persistence of this plague which most of us thought had finished in the 1800s. Cocoa from West Africa rubber from West Africa for car tyres underwear made in Burma and jewellery and handmade rugs from South Asia—all of those products come into New Zealand today and each of them carries the significant risk that it was made by slave labour. Surely in the 20th century we can take a strong unambiguous stand against slavery by banning the fruits of forced labour from our shores. 
It is extraordinary to say it or think it but according to Anti-Slavery International more than 12 million people in the world today are living in slavery whether they are workers on cocoa plantations in West Africa or child labourers working in the carpet industries of Nepal India and Pakistan. Slavery is unambiguously prohibited by international law and is considered to be a crime against humanity yet it continues. There is hereditary slavery in Mauretania and Niger and debt bondage in India Nepal Pakistan Bolivia Paraguay and Peru. In Haiti only last month the UN human rights rapporteur said that thousands of unpaid child labourers are trapped in a form of modern slavery. There are regular reports in the news media of parents in China selling their children into slavery. 
The bill amends the Customs and Excise Act to make goods produced in whole or in part by slave labour prohibited imports. It will require some research into which products are made by slave labour. Our foreign affairs officials told the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when it was considering Trade Aid’s petition that doing such research would be too difficult a hurdle to get over. It may not be easy but we currently have a ban as my colleagues have pointed out on goods made by prison labour which is allowed by international trade laws. Surely having that is sufficient precedent to convince the doubters and the nitpickers. 
I congratulate Trade Aid—New Zealand’s fair trade movement—on its campaign on this issue. I also congratulate my colleague the Hon Maryan Street on sponsoring the bill and Charles Chauvel on drafting it. I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to consider the magnitude of evil represented by modern slavery and then to consider what is being asked of this House here and now. Can we not do our bit as global citizens to marginalise and stigmatise those who would trade in the products of slave labour? Is it really so difficult to do what is right? 
I listened to the Hon Tim Groser tonight wax lyrical about the complexities of global supply chains and the fact that many products today comprise component parts from different sources. I listened to Todd McClay talk about “blood diamonds” and how it took the entire world coming together to find a solution. No one is saying tonight that trade bans can solve every problem. No one is saying it would be easy or simple to make a difference. But this measure would send a powerful message in that New Zealand would be joining the US and Belgium in taking a stand and putting this ban into legislation. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I first pay tribute to my gifted colleague Charles Chauvel for his assistance in drafting the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. I also pay tribute to members who have spoken with seriousness and some gravitas on the issue because it deserves nothing less. 
I will quote from schedule 1 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 which my bill seeks to amend. It states: “Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour or within or in connection with any prison jail or penitentiary excluding a bona fide gift made by a prisoner for the personal use of a private individual also goods similar in character to those manufactured or produced in such institutions when sold or offered for sale by any person firm or corporation having a contract for the manufacture or production of such articles in such institutions or by an agent of such person firm or corporation or when originally purchased from or transferred by any such contractor.” It is quite complicated but it has not been beyond the wit of somebody to come up with a clause to prohibit the importation of goods produced wholly or in part by prison labour. It has not been beyond the wit of somebody to come up with that clause. It is not beyond our wit collectively to come up with a solution to the difficulties of definition and enforcement. 
The world is changing. The old economic order is no more and advocates of it and of the old economic orthodoxy no longer have a leg to stand on. This is the moment to attempt to find new ways through. This is the moment to attempt to find new financial structures new economic agreements new transparency and accountability and a new social contract. This is the moment when we should be brave imaginative and creative and more than anything because we all agree with the purpose of this bill we should be able collectively to arrive at a workable solution. Just because something is hard that does not make it impossible and it certainly does not make it not worth trying. 
I appreciate the words of the Minister of Trade Tim Groser who said that the conversation will continue. I look forward to engaging further in the conversation about how we might achieve the ends of this bill. But I have to say that an effort of will is required for this to be done. It cannot be beyond the wit of this House and the officials who serve it to come up with a workable solution to a problem that we collectively identify. I appeal to the National Government to change its mind on this vote so that possibilities can be explored. Simply seeking to have this legislation referred to a select committee for consideration would be an act of empathy and act of principle that at least demonstrates that the conversation is open and is still happening. 
One thing we can be certain of is that if we do nothing nothing will happen. This is the moment when we need to think about new ways of transacting our relationships and of accounting not only to our own citizens but to citizens internationally for our actions and the choices we make. This is an ethical issue. Ethical trade will in the future be the only trade that is allowed and there is no reason why this House should not be preparing this country for that. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Goods Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill 
First Reading 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill be now read a first time. 
 E te Manu Korero rau rangatira ma tena koutou katoa. Tena hoki koutou nga kaitautoko koia nei taku pire tuatahi hei whakanui i a Matariki. No reira e nga mana e nga reo tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings 
to you Mr Assistant Speaker and the many chiefs greetings to you all. Greetings also to supporters. This is my first bill to celebrate Matariki. So to the powers and languages greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all 
.] 
The stars have certainly been in alignment for this important bill to be read today. At the midpoint of Maori Language Week we are proposing the introduction of a significant occurrence within the Maori calendar: the celebration of Matariki the Maori new year. The theme for Maori Language Week this week is Te Reo i te Hapori Maori Language in the Community. There is no better expression of community passion than in the Matariki festivals and celebrations held around the country. 
The first reading of the Matariki Day Bill comes hot on the heels of an important report from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage called  
Cultural Indicators for New Zealand 2009. 
 The report sets a very clear direction ahead for what the ministry describes as a “distinctly ‘New Zealand’ cultural identity”. Three key themes underlie the concept: first New Zealanders identify their common culture and heritage as being distinctive to this nation; second expressions of our culture are valued because they link past present and future generations of New Zealanders; and third Maori culture is valued for the contribution it makes to New Zealand’s identity. 
The Matariki Day Bill therefore is an opportunity to embrace and welcome the chance to stand proud of our distinctly New Zealand cultural identity. The bill is an idea that has been waiting to happen. Over 15 years ago artists Diane Prince Iwa Holmes and others formed a trust to reintroduce Matariki celebrations. Jim Rahi a member of the trust named it Te Whakanui i a Matariki and in 1995 Pipitea Marae celebrated it in style. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. 
Nowadays Matariki is an event that is almost universally celebrated around the motu. Matariki builds on a groundswell of support for a new indigenous event to celebrate the unique place in which we live and to pay our respects to the land the people and the history. Matariki is a positive occasion—literally the dawning of a new age. Matariki has traditionally been a time for planting and planning activities for the year ahead for valuing our past and for preparing for our future. All those activities are significant steps in nation-building. Matariki symbolises the optimum time for new harvests. In earlier times our people used to make offerings to the gods Rongo Uenuku and Whiro to protect our crops for the coming year. 
Matariki is a very special time of the year a time in which we pause and reflect on the year that was and the year that will be. On this unique indigenous occasion we seek to value our past and to preserve history knowledge culture and traditional practices while at the same time preparing for the future. I ask the House what other days in the year we are able to say we celebrate the indigenous peoples of the land. Some might say that Waitangi Day is such a day but Waitangi Day is about the birth of our nation the bringing together of two peoples and the signing of the sacred covenant Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Matariki is a festival in which we can truly commemorate the indigenous origins of Aotearoa by giving respect to the unique customs and culture of tangata whenua. 
What is exciting about the promotion of Matariki is that it also joins us in the special relationships we have with our brothers and sisters in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa the peoples of the Pacific. In Samoa they refer to the time of year as Matali’i in Tahiti it is known as Matari’i in Hawaii it is known as Makali’i and in Rarotonga and Aotearoa it is known as Matariki. 
The glittering star cluster that signals Matariki was celebrated by our ancestors mai ra ano. In fact Dr Rawiri Taonui from Canterbury University suggests that the celebrations continued until after 1900 with the last traditional festival known in 1940. 
 The inspiration to mark Matariki as a day of national importance has emerged from the people with the drive for the revitalisation of te reo and the renaissance of Maori. It is a breath of fresh air into the journey for nationhood. For those with green passions the moment of Matariki rising connects to an interest in astronomy and our natural world. For historians Matariki is a time to treasure our past. For all New Zealanders Matariki offers us a unique opportunity to connect in a positive celebration that takes its origins from this land. 
Just over a month ago the Mayor of Waitakere Bob Harvey called for a new public holiday to mark Matariki. It is a call that has come from all corners. The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand wrote to all of New Zealand’s mayors in May of this year and received responses from several who were already planning to host Matariki celebrations. At Christchurch’s Nga Hau e Wha national marae the Matariki event is for everyone as demonstrated by the range of multicultural communities taking part. In Te Arawa Anaru Rangiheuea supports the concept of Matariki as a national event as a way of what he suggests is “celebrating this special country we live in”. Over in Ngati Kahungunu territory Ngahiwi Tomoana called for making Matariki a public holiday concluding: “I believe that future generations of New Zealanders will embrace it with gusto.” Even in this House Green co-leader Metiria Turei has promoted the call of the people to make Matariki a public holiday. 
If we are ever going to move forward as a nation we need to find things that connect us. It was heartening to hear the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Hon Chris Finlayson stand in the Chamber today and proclaim that Maori culture and celebrations of that culture is part of New Zealand’s unique international brand. He went further recognising that the strength and vitality of Maori culture and celebrations of that culture help to set us apart on the international stage. That is all so true. We know that his voice is not a lone voice in the National caucus. Would it not be great to allow the public a voice to open the debate about whether New Zealanders would like an opportunity to celebrate our distinctive cultural identity by the introduction of a Matariki Day? 
What possible defence can there be for maintaining the “day after” holidays—the day after 1 January and the day after Christmas Day—or for maintaining events to commemorate a man who devised a gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament yet to flatly refuse— 
Hone Harawira 
: May I continue Mr Assistant Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: You certainly may. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 What possible defence can there be for maintaining the “day after” holidays—the day after 1 January and the day after Christmas Day—or for maintaining events that commemorate a man who devised a gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament yet to flatly refuse to engage in conversation about an indigenous-inspired event for Aotearoa? All we want is to let the people have a say. 
What does it tell us when the Prime Minister was asked in June 2009 about whether he would support Matariki Day and responded: “I can’t say I have given any great thought to the matter but it’s probably a no”? The Te Ra o Matariki Bill is the opportunity to give great thought to supporting an event that is celebrated by many nationalities throughout Aotearoa. It is an opportunity to embrace a celestial event a festival that is inclusive of this place and respectful of indigenous origins. It is an opportunity to listen to others to open the door and to have the conversation not to say no before the debate has even begun. 
Today Business New Zealand launched a set of proposals entitled  
Setting New Zealand Apart 
 which is a contribution to a national conversation about how we can perform better. We believe that the bill is the ideal means by which to improve New Zealand’s productivity while at the same time boosting cultural identity. A national celebration of our unique indigenous beginnings a day in the midst of winter when workers could be revitalised physically mentally and spiritually could well set Aotearoa apart as a nation that cares for its people workers families and communities. 
In closing I return to the wisdom of Dr Rawiri Taonui: “Some say that Matariki should become a public holiday. Good idea. The small constellation of glittering jewels reflects our journey as one nation two peoples and many cultures—a time for New Zealanders to shine as one.” Kia ora tatou. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member Rahui Katene is required by Standing Order 279(1) to indicate in her introductory speech the select committee to which the bill is intended to go. Could the member Hone Harawira indicate which committee the bill will go to if the House agrees to it. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: The Maori Affairs Committee. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I will start by acknowledging and congratulating Rahui Katene on what I am sure will always be a significant day if for no other reason than the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill is her first member’s bill which is no small feat. I acknowledge her extended whanau who are here today no doubt to support her on this occasion. No one who has heard the member speak can doubt her sincerity her conviction and her integrity of purpose in bringing this bill to the House. I pay tribute to her and to the Maori Party for fleshing out this debate and for the work they have done in bringing to the fore issues to do with and concerning Maori in this Parliament. 
I have a growing respect for the members of the Maori Party and I hope it is a mutual thing. I have got to know Hone Harawira a little on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and Te Ururoa Flavell as a member who shares with me Tauranga Moana. I have got to know other members of the Maori Party as well. I respect Rahui Katene and the Maori Party and I respect what they are trying to achieve at least as I understand it in bringing this bill forward. They come to this seeking not just to ask for a holiday on Matariki Day but also to raise issues of Maori culture and tradition and to bring them to the fore in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is as I think the member said quite apt that we have this bill before the House this week Maori Language Week. As the member said it must have been in the stars. 
But even though I support the purpose if you like and integrity behind this bill in bringing Maori issues traditions and custom to the fore I do not support nor believe that the mechanics of this bill are necessary or even right in terms of fulfilling the purposes albeit laudable that Rahui Katene and the Maori Party have. In short my view is quite clear. We do not require a public holiday to mark Matariki or more broadly to raise awareness of Maori custom and tradition issues in our nation. 
The reality as I perceive it in Tauranga Moana and in other parts of this nation is that there is a great movement towards events and traditions like Matariki. Last year I was at a Matariki ball in Tauranga although this year through parliamentary commitments I could not make it. I am also aware of a number of other functions in my own electorate to mark this time of the year. My point is that I do not believe it is necessary to have a public holiday to mark Matariki in order to have respect for it and an awareness of Maori traditions—our traditions. It is simply not correct to say in principle that in order to celebrate something and to believe in something even passionately a holiday is required. If that was the case we would have holidays on many other occasions as well. 
I will not be supporting this bill and National members will not be supporting this bill notwithstanding our respect for Rahui Katene the Maori Party and the integrity with which they bring this bill to the House. I say to Opposition members that this party does not come here with this bill to play petty politics and neither should they. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 A tena koe. Tenei e tu tautoko ana nga mihi ki a koe Rahui. Ko tenei to pire tuatahi e hari koa ana te ngakau kua whakaarohia e koe mo tenei kaupapa hei whakanui i a Matariki i roto i tenei Whare Paremata no reira tena koe tena koutou. E tu ana ki te whakamarama i nga whakaaro kei waenganui i a matou te Ropu Reipa me whakaaetia te haeretanga o tenei pire ki te komiti whakahaere kia ata whakaarohia kia ata wanangahia nga take katoa. 
Ana kua rongohia e tatou nga whakaaro o Nahinara e pa ana ki tenei. Ahua ohorere ahau ki ona whakaaro na te mea ko ona whanaunga kei waenganui i a Ngati Maniapoto e tino tautoko ana i tenei pire. Ahakoa te aha ko te mea nunui kua whakaaetia e matou kia haere tenei pire ki te komiti whakahaere ki te whakarongo ki nga korero katoa. Ka mutu tera ka whakatakoto kei waenganui i a matou me nga kaupapa e pa ana ki nga take o tenei pire tena koutou. Ahakoa kua tapa koe i tenei pire ko te pire o Matariki me kaua e warewaretia ko nga whetu katoa kei waenganui i raro i tera kaupapa a Waiiti Waita Ururangi Tupuanuku Tupuarangi Waipunarangi me te matamua a Matariki. No reira ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe. 
[ 
Greetings to you. I rise in support of the acknowledgments accorded you Rahui. This is your first bill and I am really pleased that you have thought to celebrate this with a bill on Matariki in this House of Parliament so greetings to you and your colleagues. I rise to explain that we in the Labour Party will support this bill going to a select committee so that all aspects of it are carefully considered and deliberated.  
Now we have heard the views from the National member. I am somewhat startled by his views because his relatives in Ngati Maniapoto really support this bill. Regardless of that the most important thing is that we have agreed that this bill should go to a select committee so that everything about it is heard. When that has been done then it will come back before us with all the relevant details. Congratulations. While you called this bill the Matariki bill we must never forget that it is not just about the elder sister Matariki but it is also about the younger sisters Waiti Waita Ururangi Tupuanuku Tupuarangi and Waipunarangi as well. But I commend you highly 
.] 
I certainly endorsed the comments directed towards Rahui Katene that commended her for putting forward this bill Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill for the House to consider. It is timely. It is just past the season of Matariki so it is timely that we consider this issue. 
The comments made by the previous speaker Simon Bridges were noted but it might be of some interest to him that many people in Ngati Maniapoto support this particular bill. It should get a fair and full hearing at a select committee. Labour will support this bill’s first reading and its going to a select committee which will hear all the debate on whether an extra holiday should be created and all the issues associated with it. 
I would suggest that celebrating Matariki is more relevant for many of today’s New Zealanders and future New Zealanders than perhaps celebrating Queen’s Birthday is but let us see. The debate should be had and in its full extent the bill should be reported back to the House for consideration. I know that members speaking after me will draw a comparison with and allude to other substantial issues such as the impact on the Holidays Act and working people and the idea of swapping Matariki as a public holiday for another public holiday. 
Perhaps of more interest to the Prime Minister is the extensive calendar of events that has been in operation for the last 5 years or so—and ramping up—amongst our communities to celebrate Matariki. Rahui alluded to some of those events in our rohe but I know that the New Zealand Maori Tourism Council will be absolutely thrilled at having the opportunity to give a focal point to a celebration that a number of other events in the Maori tourism calendar hinge on. I am sure that it will see fit also to offer some thoughts about how this event will bring a greater focus to the indigenous contribution to the tourism landscape and how it can add value to our profile in addition to our clean green image. So it is well done. 
Also finally Te Paki o Matariki is a cluster of stars that sit on a flag back in the Waikato-Tainui rohe—on the Kingitanga flag—for a deliberate purpose: Te Paki o Matariki in itself represents the ambition and aspiration of those who support the movement and the values of sustainability. 
It is timely also in a recession that we give mention to Matariki because it is about a sustainable way of being. That is the whole-world view that we bring in association with the values towards this particular star cluster. It is important because it recognises the heritage of our people as navigators as travellers as adventurers as people who looked beyond the horizon. But it is important also because we knew that we needed to be able to survive by our own efforts and our ability to look after ourselves. Just as much as we celebrate Matariki for the harvest yet to come and the harvest past it is an aspirational statement about our intention for this country that Matariki lead the way for a sustainable future for all New Zealanders so I certainly commend the member on that front as well. 
Finally can I mention that this bill is a great opportunity for the House to consider not just a national holiday but perhaps the framing of the future direction that our country may take. I hope the debate is not politicised to the extent that people diminish the argument by referring to Matariki as just another holiday because it is not just about another holiday; it is about framing the national identity of this country and firmly fixing our contribution as indigenous people to the framing of that debate. 
No reira ki a koe ano koutou i raro i te Pati Maori tino mihi rawa atu ki a koutou tatou katoa. 
[S 
o I really acknowledge you and those of the Maori Party once again and all of us as well 
.] 
Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
E te Mana Whakawa o te Whare me aku hoa mema Paremata aku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i roto i te Wiki o te Reo Maori tena koutou. Kia ora huihui tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you the Assistant Speaker of the House and all fellow parliamentarians during Maori Language Week. Greetings to us all assembled here 
.] 
Firstly at the start of this speech I join with other speakers before me in commending and acknowledging Rahui Katene for bringing forward the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill as her first member’s bill. I think the sincerity and deep-seated roots of her beliefs are shown in the fact that she has made this particular bill the one that she has brought before us. The reason I stand is really as a mark of respect and to share with members my views because I think it is important that we have the conversation on a kanohi ki te kanohi basis rather than not having it and letting members wonder where I sit on this bill. That is the reason that I stand in respect of this bill. 
I say at the outset that I fully support the concept of celebrating Matariki but unfortunately I do not support this bill and National does not support this bill for the reasons that I will explain shortly. I have three limbs to this conversation. The first is to ask why we have public holidays which is a fundamental question that we must ask ourselves. The term “public holidays” stems in fact from holy days. That is what public holidays were originally about—holy days. At the outset we had Christmas Day Good Friday and Easter Sunday. We have subsequently added other holidays. We have added Anzac Day which celebrates the fallen and the people who have defended this country—and they are recognised in the memorial plaques that surround this Chamber. We have also added Waitangi Day which is a day to celebrate our nationhood. 
Hone Harawira 
: The holiest of holies. 
PAUL QUINN 
: The holiest of holies. We have added New Year. I say to myself that OK there is not much of a holy day about that but I guess it is an Anglo-Saxonised version of celebrating the fact that it is 1 January. OK that might just scrape in. 
But then I ask why do we celebrate Boxing Day? Why do we celebrate the second day of January? Why do we celebrate Labour Day? The reason we celebrate Labour Day is that it represents the labour movement’s desire to have 8 hours’ work 8 hours’ rest and 8 hours’ recreation. On that basis why do we not have a business day or an entrepreneurial day? We could make the same argument for having such holidays. We celebrate the Queen’s birthday but the day on which we celebrate her birthday happens to be the birthday of her grandfather. Someone should tell me why we celebrate it on that day. We have provincial holidays. We have all those holidays. That tells us that the whole basis of public holidays has changed. That is the background as to why we have got into this situation. 
I now turn to the second limb of my argument. I think it is very important for a country to celebrate its culture and I am proud to stand here and say the greatest advance in this country in terms of celebrating our cultural heritage came under a National administration. I refer to the kohanga reo movement which was introduced and supported by a former National Government. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Tena koe Rahui and tena koe Nanaia who has just left the Chamber. I thank them for their contributions to this important discussion that we need to be having. 
Labour supports this bill Ta Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill going to a select committee because we think a conversation on whether there should be a uniquely indigenous holiday among New Zealand’s public holidays is one that we need to have. I congratulate Rahui Katene on having the bill drawn from the ballot and on bringing this matter to the attention of Parliament. 
However there are some other issues going on at the moment that I must bring to the attention of Parliament and the public. These are issues of workers’ rights for all New Zealanders—for workers for Maori workers for New Zealanders. While we consider this bill tonight the irony is that New Zealanders’ existing public holidays let alone new public holidays and their annual leave are under attack from this National Government. We have yet another so-called review of the Holidays Act going on as we speak. Although National has sought to offer soothing words about that review members will forgive me if I am somewhat cynical because we have been here before. There is no reason for cashing up the fourth week of leave other than to reduce the entitlement to leave. There is no other reason for poking around relevant daily pay which is in the review other than to reduce the pay that workers receive when they are sick. Although I support the conversation we are having I am concerned about what is happening in the background. 
To be fair National did signal those issues in its manifesto. But for good measure it has thrown in without warning another couple of things that were not in the manifesto. It seems to me that they are there only because some businesses have them on their black list; we hear that again and again. First there is the proposal to allow workers to transfer public holidays. I suppose they could transfer a Matariki public holiday. The example that is used is Ramadan. The idea came from the Employers and Manufacturers Association in submissions on a bill last year. I think my suspicions that this proposal is a National Government ploy to reduce entitlements to extra pay while working on a public holiday which Labour introduced are spot on. Interestingly enough this proposal has now become one of the 50 suggestions from Business New Zealand about how to improve New Zealand’s productivity—please for goodness’ sake—along with things like privatising accident compensation and scaling back workers’ rights. It really lacks imagination. 
Let us be clear about what National’s plan means. If workers agree to swap one of the existing public holidays such as Christmas Day for a day at the end of Ramadan or indeed Matariki and they work on Christmas Day which is the official public holiday they will get no extra pay for working on that day—no time and a half which Labour introduced in the last few years when it was in Government. The Government wants to dilute the right to public holidays across the board and it wants to force workers to work for no extra pay. That is what National wants to do and I think it is disgraceful. 
What has emerged out of the blue with no prior warning is the old Easter Sunday shop trading debate. We all have issues; we all have a different opinion about whether the shops should be open on Easter Sunday. This Parliament has tried over several years to find a measure whereby people can agree whether shops should be open on Easter Sunday. Each time it has been voted down in a conscience vote. I am one who has voted and will continue to vote against that sort of proposal because retail workers are adamantly opposed to it and why should they not be? After all we have only 3.5 days left in the whole calendar year when workers are not forced to work and when shops are not open. Why would this latest attempt to sort it out work when Parliament has failed to find a solution that we could all agree to? 
Although Labour supports this bill I think we should have the conversation and I welcome it I have to say the background stuff the noise that is going on with the Holidays Act— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to express the Green Party’s support for the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill; our nine votes will support its referral to a select committee. I also stand in support of my Maori Party colleagues who brought this bill to the House. As I well know members’ bills are hard fought for rare and deserve a great deal of consideration certainly more than what I think the National Party has given to bills this evening. 
Firstly I say the Green Party particularly supports the concept of a holiday in the period between Queen’s Birthday and Labour Day. One of the issues we have with this bill and we would be happy to explore it in the select committee is the time period for this holiday because in the bill it is quite early. None the less we fully support there being an additional holiday for workers and their families particularly at this time when families are under a great deal more pressure and stress than they were under. The opportunity to spend more time with each other on days that workers can have off is a very good thing and the Green Party fully supports that. 
One issue that has not been raised sufficiently in the debate is that this bill is a means to recognise tikanga Maori in a legislative form—and it is a fairly minor form. This would be the first time that this has happened in legislation in any real way outside the colonial framework. This bill is about recognising a Maori approach to or a Maori world view of the nature of the cosmos and time periods. It is about recognising pre-colonial Maori legitimacy and there is no debate in this House about that. National is all talk. It is concerned only about industry. Earlier today we heard about National’s support for the fishing industry and that it is only interested in supporting employers. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.