Volume 664 Week 45 - Thursday 17 June 2010 
Volume 664 Week 45 - Thursday 17 June 2010 
[Volume:664;Page:11813] 
Thursday 17 June 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: I can advise the House that when we resume on Tuesday 22 June the House will consider the Imprest Supply (First for 2009/10) Bill and the Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. The House will then take urgency for the rest of the week to consider a range of bills that have been circulated to all parties. It is the Government’s intention to take questions each day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Attorney-General for his very thorough report. I would ask him to confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to consider the Imprest Supply Bill under urgency but that we will move to urgency once that 3-hour debate has concluded. I also ask whether the Infrastructure Bill which is languishing down the Order Paper at No. 20 is likely to be considered under the urgency motion. Is that bill likely to be progressed through the urgency motion? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 First of all I congratulate the member on his new crimplene suit—the sort of suit that Social Credit MPs used to wear in the old days. My understanding is that the Imprest Supply Bill is not the subject of the urgency motion. My understanding also is that the honourable member has a list of the bills. I hear what he says about the Infrastructure Bill but this is a very busy and effective Government. He will know which bills are part of the urgency motion. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank the Attorney-General for that update. I further advise him that this suit is indeed a New Zealand - made suit from McAndrews Menswear in Otaki where we can get city fashions at country prices. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Like the soccer teams I guess that is one all. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Reports 
1. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Westpac: McDermott Miller Consumer Confidence Index released yesterday shows an improvement in consumer confidence. It shows that the Budget tax cuts have generally exceeded expectations and that a growing number of people believe they will be better off as a result of the changes. It is important though that despite growing consumer confidence New Zealanders are choosing to save and pay down debt rather than embark on another retail spending binge. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How does Budget 2010 make New Zealanders better off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The GST - income tax switch initially sees an average family with two children about $25 a week better off a typical average-wage worker about $15 a week better off and a superannuitant couple about $11 a week better off. Even when the emissions trading scheme a small rise in rents and other forecast general inflation are taken into account the benefits of the tax switch increase over time. That is because after-tax incomes are forecast to grow more quickly than price increases in the 4 years to 2014. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How do the benefits of Budget 2010 tax changes increase over time? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The benefits of the tax switch do increase over time. Taking into account all the forecast factors I have referred to the benefit for an average two-child family increases to about $28 a week by October 2011 and then rises to about $41 a week by 2014. A typical wage earner is still about $15 a week better off in October 2011 rising to about $23 a week by 1 October 2014. Once the 170000 new jobs forecast in the Budget are taken into account total household disposable income from all sources after tax will increase by over 25 percent by 2014. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why did he break his promise to New Zealanders by borrowing for tax cuts and was it to increase Government debt to justify his privatisation agenda? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. As the Government pointed out at the time of the Budget because we could not implement all the tax changes on 1 October 2010 there is about a $400 million cost that arises because of the timing difference with the remainder of the package implemented on 1 April 2011. Over 4 years though the package is broadly fiscally neutral and does not add to borrowing. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has he seen the repeated statements by many of the main participants in the electricity industry that the electricity industry bill will increase electricity prices in New Zealand rather than reduce them and is he willing to intervene? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has been through a pretty thorough process reviewing the operation of the electricity market. There is a range of views about what impact it is going to have. The Government believes that the changes in the bill will lead to greater competition. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Has he seen any reports that sum up the intended effects of Budget 2010 tax changes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have. In particular I have seen a report from one individual who when he was asked how he would use his tax cuts said: “Pay down my mortgage and help my kids out a bit.” I can confirm that that quote came from Labour leader Phil Goff a day after the Budget. I can confirm that that is probably a view that most New Zealanders are taking—that they will use their tax cut to reduce their debt and they will be pretty careful with their spending. 
Pacific Economic Development Agency—Minister of Finance’s Meetings with Representatives 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs correct when she said the Minister of Finance had met with the Pacific Economic Development Agency “on several occasions”; if so who did he meet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have a slightly longer answer. The answer is yes. I had a series of discussions with Pacific community groups that shared the Government’s deep concern about the effects of the recession on Pacific people including 14 percent general unemployment and probably higher among young people. Those meetings included ministers of churches local government people business owners and the Pacific Island Chamber of Commerce. Discussions focused on following up on the Auckland Pacific Economic and Social Transformation Agenda—APESTA—conference held in October 2008 under the previous Government which was sponsored by Government agencies and opened by the Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee. In December 2009 I addressed a public Pacific business forum in Mangere jointly hosted by the Pacific Economic Development Agency and the Pacific Island Chamber of Commerce. In February 2010 I attended a meeting hosted by the Pacific Economic Development Agency. I am advised the agency was represented by J R Pereira and Mose Saitala. People who are active in the Pacific community wear many hats and I may have met with members of the Pacific Economic Development Agency in other capacities at other meetings. We need to remember that this is all about providing job and training opportunities for Pacific communities which are facing 14 percent unemployment and probably higher for young people. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs correct when she stated on Radio New Zealand this morning that the Minister of Finance had been in discussions with Mr J R Pereira the contact person for the Pacific Economic Development Agency about the project over a “fairly extended period of time” and when did he first discuss this project with Mr Pereira? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There was no project until about February this year. Prior to that I had met with a range of people who were frustrated that there had been endless talk about economic development in the Pacific community but actually not much had occurred. Existing providers do their best but as that member will know the resources available in the Pacific community are not extensive. When someone is proactive and takes an initiative a Government should take that opportunity. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I quoted from the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs who said that the Minister of Finance had been in discussions with Mr J R Pereira for an “extended period of time” and I asked when he had first met with him. The Minister did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Bill English. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have pointed out people wear a lot of different hats in the Pacific community. I can go back and check when I first met with Mr J R Pereira. I expect that it was when I first met with the Pacific Island Chamber of Commerce. In my capacity as Minister of Finance I meet with chambers of commerce all over the country and I was requested to meet with that one. That may have been the first occasion and it would have been in early 2009 although I cannot be sure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This was a most unusual situation and I took that further answer from the Minister as being helpful. 
Chris Tremain 
: The Minister having attended a number of meetings with Pacific Island leaders what measures did Budget 2010 take to improve the prospects of Pacific people? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In a general sense the tax switch involved in Budget 2010 will promote investment and employment and the forecasts include 170000 new jobs. That will make a big difference to a community that has been the hardest hit by unemployment. 
Hon Annette King 
: When he said that it was critical that the Government continued to “responsibly manage public finances on behalf of taxpayers. We can’t take our eye off the ball.” did he apply that standard to the funding proposal he received from the Pacific Economic Development Agency—a proposal that is 6 pages long with two of the pages containing nothing more than statistics straight from Statistics New Zealand and that seeks close to $4 million of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure just which proposal the member has seen but that is—[ 
Interruption 
] No I am not actually. That is not a description of the proposal that I received. Like every other proposal that is put to the Government it will go through a thorough process of a purchase agreement accountabilities and good care of taxpayers’ money. I must say that is not unusual. The Budget includes tens of millions of dollars of contingency where the accountabilities and the contracts are going to be negotiated over the next few months. 
Hon Annette King 
: What other agency has had a project approved by him by simply writing a proposal that is 57 words long that has not been through any open and transparent process does not have one word of detail was emailed from Honiara and seeks $1 million a year as in the proposal to him for the Pacific Skilled Employment scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is simply wrong. I do not know what document she is referring to. It is certainly not the one that is being worked through now by Treasury and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs in order to come to a conclusion about appropriate contracts. We do not intend to let petty party politicking get in the way of making vital progress for a community whose young people are in desperate need of action after years of talk from the previous Labour Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Pretty words. Does he have any more written material from the Pacific Economic Development Agency other than the 6 pages provided that were addressed to him and that the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs talked about on the radio this morning to back up a proposal that he is prepared to hand out millions of dollars to; if he does have more material would he please give it to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs because she has made it clear that she seen only the particular proposal that I am holding? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course there is more written material than that member’s misrepresentation of it. As I said before that is what is being discussed. Not one dollar will be paid out unless all the accountability is met. This initiative has arisen because the Pacific Island community is tired of the endless talk and no action that they got from the previous Labour Government. It is time to do something for young Pacific Island people and not just sit around talking about them. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs correct when she affirmed on Radio New Zealand this morning that the Pereira family had been involved in brokering appearances or endorsements by members of the Pacific Island community during the election campaign; if so did he know that before agreeing to $4.8 million for Mr J R Pereira’s project? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I resent that implication. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member really wants to know the only Pereira I knew before was Tino Pereira whom I understand was very close to the previous Labour Government. That does not mean he did not have something to contribute to the welfare of Pacific Island people. That member will know that I have my own connections with that community by blood relationship. The motivation of the Government has been to deal with a problem that I know that party understands well which is young Pacific Islanders who have low skill levels and no attachment to the workface and who have been the group in New Zealand hardest hit by the recession. When that community produces a proactive initiative with sound business principles it is an opportunity to take not a problem to dismiss. 
Hon Annette King 
: As Minister of Finance why has he not insisted on an open transparent process that allows other Pacific Island providers to have a go at $4.8 million if he is serious about wanting to improve the lot of Pacific Islanders because they are outraged at the process that he has allowed to take place? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I actually do not think the Pacific Island community is outraged at a Government putting more money in a tight Budget into helping young Pacific Island people get jobs. If the member wants an explanation I am a bit familiar with the matter having been through these processes in Government before. There is not a depth of providers of business-related services in the Pacific Island community. There is one other one the Pacific Business Trust; it was mismanaged by the previous Labour Government for the last decade so it has had to be restructured several times. This proposition will enable more to be done by helping existing providers and no dollar will be paid out until or unless all the purchase agreements have tight accountabilities and have annual signposts along the way. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table the funding proposal to the Minister of Finance of the Government of New Zealand which is 6 pages long. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Waste Plastic—Farm Recycling Scheme 
3. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the amount of rural plastic waste being burnt buried or ending up as countryside litter? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government is working with farmers and their support industries to recycle and reuse the plastic waste generated from mainly silage wrap. The nationwide Plasback scheme was one of the first accredited product stewardship schemes and yesterday at the Agricultural Fieldays in Hamilton I announced the first grant from the Waste Minimisation Fund to support the programme. 
John Hayes 
: What advice does the Minister have on what is currently happening to this plastic waste and what will be achieved by the new scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have been advised that the bulk of the 7000 tonnes a year of plastic farm waste is currently burnt which results in the release of toxic chemicals into the air. A further portion is buried. The ambitious goal of this scheme is to establish a network of on-farm recycling facilities throughout New Zealand with the aim of recycling 2400 tonnes by July next year. The Government is working to lead the same sort of culture change that has occurred over the past decade or two with households which now extensively use kerbside recycling albeit the logistics of distance make the farm-based recycling of plastics more challenging. 
John Hayes 
: What provision has been made to ensure that there are economically viable uses for the collected rural plastic waste—because I am aware that some recycling schemes have got into difficulty because they have not been able to use the collected waste economically? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Of course it is important as the member says not just to collect the waste but also to have a practical use for it. The proposal that the Government is backing involves a recycling facility in Christchurch that is able to use the waste including the dirty silage waste and is able to remanufacture it into products that can be used such as piping and bins. The scheme also provides for the reuse of agricultural chemical containers which if left on farms can result in pollution. This scheme involves the containers being reused which I think is a good outcome. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister assure the House that none of the 966 tonnes of e-waste collected at last year’s eDay will end up in New Zealand landfills and when if ever will he approve a product stewardship scheme to allow computer buyers to recycle their old computers at the point of purchase so as to reduce the 80000 tonnes of e-waste that ends up in New Zealand landfills each year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am quite concerned about what has occurred with regard to e-waste. Currently a prosecution is before the court where a subcontractor to the 2020 trust was involved in the unlawful export of e-waste. I have asked my ministry to work with the 2020 trust to establish proper systems to ensure that e-waste is properly dealt with. A preferred option would be to have a recycling facility in New Zealand that is able to deal with the different waste streams and the ministry is exploring whether there are possibilities to use funds from the Waste Minimisation Fund to support that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister might address the question relating to the product stewardship scheme in this area— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the Minister gave a pretty reasonable answer to a question that actually did not have a lot to do with rural plastic waste. 
Pacific Economic Development Agency—Ministry Advice on Proposal 
4. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Did she receive advice from her ministry in relation to the Pacific Economic Development Agency proposal; if so when? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 Yes on 25 March 2010. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Was the description on  
Morning Report 
 wrong when it said the Pacific Economic Development Agency’s flimsy application had no budget no delivery mechanism no management structure and no outcomes; if so why? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to make sure that I heard the question correctly. The Minister has no responsibility for what a news agency might say. I may have misunderstood the question. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asked whether the description that was aired was correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes. I invite the member to therefore repeat his question. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Was the description on  
Morning Report 
 wrong when it said the Pacific Economic Development Agency’s flimsy application had no budget no delivery mechanism no management structure and no outcomes; if so why? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes. 
Su’a William Sio 
: When she stated on  
Morning Report 
 today that the Pacific Economic Development Agency appropriation is now multi-year and contestable will groups have to apply through the Pacific Economic Development Agency or can they apply directly to her ministry in future financial years? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you will not rule that we must have yes or no answers but when a Minister gets an either/or question he or she cannot just say “No.”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am always commending Ministers when they give brief concise answers. The Minister said “No.” and I presume she meant that no it was not contestable. If it was different the Minister had better correct that impression. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think she was directly quoted as saying that it was going to be contestable. The question was whether it was contestable through the Pacific Economic Development Agency or contestable through the ministry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To avoid confusion I ask Su’a William Sio to repeat his question and we will let the Minister hear it again to make sure she is satisfied she has given the House the answer she has intended. 
Su’a William Sio 
: When she stated on  
Morning Report 
 today that the Pacific Economic Development Agency appropriation is now multi-year and contestable will groups have to apply through the Pacific Economic Development Agency or can they apply directly to her ministry in future financial years? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No they do not have to apply through the Pacific Economic Development Agency. 
Su’a William Sio 
: When will she admit to the New Zealand public and the Pacific community that this deal was forged in October 2008 committed to in 2009 stitched up in March 2010 and announced in May this year? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I have no responsibility for anything that was forged at the time that he said. I was not even a Minister of Pacific Island Affairs at that time. 
Child Abuse—Victim Support Initiatives 
5. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Can she provide a report on any recent initiatives to improve the support provided to victims of child abuse? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Sadly for too many children in this country home is not a loving supportive or even safe place. I am very pleased to report on the opening of a new multi-agency centre in Counties-Manukau. The centre has been specifically designed to be victim-focused. It will enable police Child Youth and Family and health professionals to work together in one self-contained facility to provide a coordinated service to victims of abuse. An important feature of the centre is that no suspects or offenders will attend the facility. This will help provide a safe and supportive environment for victims. The centre will also investigate sexual assaults against adults and assess and coordinate the need for intervention with the families of these victims. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: Can she explain the background behind the development of this innovative centre? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. The centre is a joint initiative between Counties-Manukau police Child Youth and Family and the Counties Manukau District Health Board. Community groups and local agencies have been working towards the establishment of this centre since 1997 and I would like to commend them for their sustained efforts. More than 12000 family violence incidents were attended by Counties-Manukau police in the 2008-09 year. This accounts for nearly 40 percent of all calls for service in the district. This new centre represents the commitment of the local community and the Government to cut through the barriers and help repair the broken lives left behind by offenders. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister release reports or updated figures on victims of sexual abuse crimes who have been denied Accident Compensation Corporation counselling since November 2009 or ask the Minister for ACC as he seems unable to do this and I am hearing from hundreds of victims of crime who are asking whether reports like this are being suppressed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer in so far as she is responsible for those matters. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am not responsible for accident compensation. I am sure that if that member would like to address the question to the correct Minister who has responsibility he will be able to answer it. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has been asked by written question and he responded that he is unable— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not enter into that matter. The problem was that the member asked a question of the Minister of Police about matters relating to Accident Compensation Corporation claims and she has indicated that that is not her responsibility. I do not think it was and that is where the matter lies. If she indicates that it is not her responsibility then that is the end of the matter. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What other steps are being taken to provide better protection for victims of family violence? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am pleased to report that police safety orders will be coming into effect on 1 July. The police will be able to issue orders on the spot to ensure the immediate safety of the victim and any children by removing the alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to 5 days. These orders will be issued in situations where there is insufficient basis to arrest but where police believe there is a likelihood of family violence occurring. This will provide a period of safety in which victims can consider their future options including whether to seek a protection order from the courts. These orders will provide another important tool in helping to protect victims while sending a clear message that family violence will not be tolerated. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is she aware that it is not only the Wairarapa in which there were inaccurate files kept also; an audit of files in the Bay of Plenty revealed that there were an additional 111 child abuse files that had not been recorded in the police national intelligence application; and what steps is she taking to ensure the shortcomings in the way child abuse cases are being received prioritised and investigated is being managed properly across all districts? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes there was a very unfortunate situation between 1999 and 2006 when a range of child abuse cases were not properly investigated in the Wairarapa. Following that police have undertaken a review of all of their districts and there were some cases in the Bay of Plenty to which the member referred that also had not been properly dealt with. I am very pleased to say that I have recently visited a Child Youth and Family and police initiative which is very similar to what I have just talked about in Counties-Manukau. Child Youth and Family and police are now working very very well in the Bay of Plenty to deal with these issues so I am very pleased to say that. 
Accident Compensation—Consultation on Hearing Loss Regulations 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Is he satisfied with the 4-week hearing loss regulations consultation time frame? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There was a legal requirement for a 28-day consultation period in the accident compensation legislation but that was repealed by the previous Government of which the member was a Minister in 2008. The then Government argued that 28 days or 4 weeks was too long and that a lesser period should be allowed. The Government has chosen not to take advantage of this law change. The proposals on how to apportion industrial and age-related hearing loss claim costs were released on 24 May and given the quite narrow issues involved I am quite satisfied that 4 weeks is sufficient time for organisations and individuals to have a fair say on them. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister not see that his consultation period which the media is reporting as being inadequate could lead to the same sort of shambles and injustices that his changes to counselling for sexual abuse victims have caused? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I remind the member opposite that in 2008 his Government repealed the requirement for a 28-day period and argued in this very Parliament that 28 days was excessive. We do not take that view; we are providing for a period of 4 weeks in which people can give proper consideration to and submissions on these particular changes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister keep insisting that the current rules for workplace hearing loss cannot be afforded by employers when it is proven that accident compensation levies for New Zealand employers are already lower per $100 of earnings than similar levies in Australia so their levels should not be used to justify cuts to worker entitlements? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: During the time of the previous Government hearing loss claim costs grew hugely such that we have a projected liability around hearing loss claim costs of $1.3 billion. I think it is fair to say to employers that they must meet the full cost of hearing loss that is work induced but I do not think it is fair to say the costs for age-related hearing loss should fall on employers. I do not think that that is a fair approach; that is why the apportionment approach is recommended in these regulations. The only issue in the regulations is whether the apportionment should be an individual percentage or be in bands. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Given the cost pressures the Minister has described that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is under over hearing loss claims does he have any examples of wastage in this area? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The cost for hearing claims has increased from about $20 million per year to nearly $80 million per year. An example of the sort of practical waste in this area is over hearing aid batteries. Those used to be sent out automatically and their cost was simply billed by audiologists to ACC. I have dozens of examples of constituents who have built up batteries galore. This sensible Government has changed the system by providing batteries on request and that has reduced costs in that one area by more than 45 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister accept what health professionals are saying such as this statement from the New Zealand Audiological Society: “Those less able to afford these co-payments such as older people and those from lower socio-economic groups would simply not be able to get hearing aids and would simply go without.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not. In fact the bulk of people are receiving hearing aid support for non - work induced—age-related—hearing loss. They are able to receive support through Judith Collins and her ministry for veterans’ affairs which has grants available and from the Ministry of Health which provides support. The key issue here is the principle—and I am not surprised by Labour’s approach—that the cost of age-related hearing loss should somehow be dumped on to employers. I do not think that is fair and that is why we are making the change. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Has he sought advice from the Minister for Disability Issues as to whether his proposed changes breach New Zealand’s commitment under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to promote assistive technologies and make them available at an affordable cost? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The key word there is “affordable”. I do not think that an increase from about $20 million a year to $80 million a year is fair on those who pay the accident compensation levies. I note that members opposite have raised concern about the extent to which the accident compensation levies have increased. It is this Government’s view that ACC has a very important responsibility to meet the costs of those persons who have work-induced hearing loss. For those where it is age-related then that is properly dealt with by the other agencies such as the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Social Development and in the case of veterans Veterans Affairs. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether he had sought advice on this matter from the Minister for Disability Issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member’s question did not just ask that; it went on to other matters. I seem to remember it related to UN conventions etc. The Minister picked up on the latter part of the question and answered it I believe. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the letter from the Audiological Society to the Prime Minister which made the comments that I referred to earlier and called these cuts “unfair and unscientific”. 
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. 
Primary Sector— 
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 
7. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 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) 
: 
 On Monday the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry launched its annual flagship publication  
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 
 often known as SONZAF. This report looks at issues facing the primary sector and both current performance and forecast performance over the coming 5 years. The report shows that our primary producers are at the forefront of New Zealand’s export-led recovery and despite a number of challenges can look forward to a mainly positive outlook over the next 5 years. 
Colin King 
: What are the key findings of the report and what significant trends does it pick for the sector in coming years? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The report identifies a robust economic outlook for our primary sector on the back of an increasingly strong demand from developing economies most notably China. Higher prices are predicted across the sector from forestry to dairy with general conditions for our food exporters expected to be far less turbulent than what we have endured over the last 12 months. This is great news not only for our rural producers and our rural communities but in fact for all New Zealanders. 
David Shearer 
: Has he seen the report issued this week from Statistics New Zealand that shows that innovation in the agricultural sector dropped in 2009 and is now 15 percent below that of other business sectors; if so does he believe that this drop is a result of the long delays to Primary Growth Partnership funding? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have not seen that report but I was very pleased to see the member yesterday at the Mystery Creek Fieldays which is the premier agricultural event of our calendar. In fact innovation is the major theme of those Fieldays. It is a wonderful event. 
David Shearer 
: I seek leave to table the Statistics New Zealand business operations survey. 
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. 
Colin King 
: How is the Government moving to address the key challenges raised in the  
Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry 
 2010 report? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The two key issues raised in the report this year are environmental performance and water storage. Those are two major areas of focus for the Government and are certainly a priority of mine as Minister. That is why we have developed things like the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. We are funding a major carbon footprint programme and we are totally committed to removing the regulatory roadblocks to water storage and getting more reliable irrigation to rural New Zealand. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement made to primary producers at Fieldays yesterday when referring to the emissions trading scheme: “I don’t think that New Zealand should be doing more than the rest of the world.”; if so does that mean agriculture will not have to incur any costs of the emissions trading scheme including diesel until farmers in other parts of the world are also included in an emission trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I always agree with the Prime Minister. Yesterday I had the opportunity of spending at least 3 hours with him as he wandered around the Mystery Creek Fieldays. He had much opportunity to talk to the farmers of New Zealand. Not one farmer raised the issue of the emissions trading scheme with the Prime Minister during the time I spent with him. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister who told protesting farmers at Fieldays yesterday that the emissions trading scheme would cost them 3c per kilogram of milksolids; if so is that 3c cost from 1 July this year or from 1 January 2015? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I certainly agreed with the Prime Minister when he mentioned the 10 protesters that the ACT Party had assembled and when he pointed out to those 10 protesting ACT supporters that they had been fed a gross amount of misinformation by the ACT Party. 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Statements 
8. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by all her statements? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given her statement that “Community Max has been a great success” why has she not extended that programme instead of cutting it when by doing so she will leave people out of work and no better off because her Government has not created any jobs? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I certainly do stand by Community Max. It has been a fantastic programme. In fact—[ 
Interruption 
]—Sorry does the member Carmel Sepuloni not agree that it has been a fantastic programme? That is all right. So it is not a fantastic programme so Labour members do not like Community Max so Labour members do like Community Max—they cannot quite make up their minds on it. They want us to extend it but they think that it is not any good. It gets a bit— 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to ask the question again because she is clearly not answering it. 
Hon Member 
: Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need assistance on this matter. If the member had not added the last statement in her question it might have been treated a little differently. We have heard enough answer to that question. Does the member have a supplementary question? 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: What target has she set for reducing youth unemployment particularly for the 37 percent of 15 to 19-year-old Maori boys who are not currently in education or in employment; if no target has been set how can she possibly stand by her statement: “We want every single one of them to be engaged in education training or employment.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think the member just answered her own question: it is that we would like every single one of them to be engaged in education training or employment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before we go any further I ask the Minister to answer the question again. Because of the interjections going across in front of me I just could not hear that answer. I ask the Minister to start that answer again. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Certainly Mr Speaker. What I was saying was that I thought that the member answered the question herself when she said “I would like to see every one of them engaged in education employment or training.” 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether she had set a target with regard to reducing youth unemployment. She did not give me an answer with regard to that. I would like an answer please Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before we get into an exchange of points of order I say that if the member had asked just that question we would have got an answer to it. But there was a whole lot more stuff in the member’s question that the Minister picked up on. The remedy lies in the member’s hands. If she had asked just that question I would have done my best to help her get an answer to it. But I cannot insist on the Minister answering a particular part when there is a whole lot more in a question. 
Hekia Parata 
: Does she also stand by her statement to a select committee yesterday that “We have invested an extra $285 million in responding to the recession.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I do. A large proportion of that money went to young people. Of that $285 million $91 million was spent on young people. That delivered 1200 job opportunities more than 3000 Community Max places and 2500 places on the Limited Service Volunteer programme. A figure of $17.4 million went to the Job Support Scheme helping to save jobs. A figure of $17.5 million was given to ReStart. There was extra employment assistance of $12.6 million. There were summer jobs for students. Of course we set aside $104 million to help non-governmental organisations ride out the recession. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Will the Minister continue to go down the track— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I just ask Government backbenchers on this occasion to be reasonable with interjection levels; I cannot hear the question. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Will the Minister continue to go down the track of short-term training schemes like Job Ops when young people want to work but there are no jobs or is she developing these sound-good schemes to make her statistics look good? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: To give the House an update on where we are at with job opportunities I tell members that we have 5656 young people on Job Ops at the moment. Of the number who have completed their Job Ops at this time we have seen that 94 percent of them have not gone on a benefit—94 percent of those who finished Job Ops have not gone on a benefit. I think that is fantastic. Yes we will back it. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: If the Minister’s target is that 100 percent of young people are in training education or employment will she concede that she is failing on her own measure given that 60000 young people are not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Obviously I am not the Minister of Education. I am also not the Minister for Tertiary Education who actually plays a part in that. I am a Minister who is part of a team that is directly focused on our young people and that is making a real difference in their lives leading to real jobs and real opportunities. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table an article showing young people who were on Community Max but who are now out of work and not able to get a benefit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I inquire from the member the source of that document. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: The  
New Zealand Herald. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not be doing that. 
Work and Income Vouchers—Fraudulent Use by Traders 
9. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received about traders acting fraudulently when presented with Work and Income vouchers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 An undercover investigation has confirmed that some second-hand dealers are abusing Work and Income vouchers. Nine second-hand traders were visited in the May sting and five of those traders illegally offered cash or other goods in exchange for the vouchers. Those traders have received warnings and have been referred to the police. Following our investigations one trader has shut down his shop. This trader relied heavily on the profits from this unethical activity. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What is the Government doing to crack down on dodgy second-hand traders? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are sending all traders a strong message. We will continue to carry out undercover checks. We will take action against those operating unethically. We will blacklist them and we will inform the police. This unethical behaviour does not only rip off the taxpayer; it also leaves beneficiaries significantly disadvantaged. These vouchers are loans made as a benefit advance and at the end of the day they have to be paid back. When an unethical dealer sets an item at a higher price that cost is ultimately paid by the beneficiary. 
Labour Minister—Effect of Policies on New Zealand Workers 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Are her policies aspirational for New Zealand workers? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Absolutely. We are a Government that rewards hard work effort and success rather than the previous Government’s relentless focus on mediocrity. 
Darien Fenton 
: If the Minister is aspirational for New Zealand workers why did her Government not support the development of an International Labour Organization convention to protect the rights of domestic workers? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Opposition has been somewhat mischievous. The New Zealand Government supported a recommendation rather than a convention and that was the right procedural step to take. 
Darien Fenton 
: When the Minister said as her excuse for not supporting the convention “the question is whether there is any point in another convention that would only be ignored …” was she referring to that convention which countries that sign up to it must actually implement or to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which the Prime Minister has described as aspirational rather than binding? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In relation to the International Labour Organization convention for domestic workers I am advised that there are already conventions that cover domestic workers but they are ignored by the countries that exploit those workers’ labour. Developing another convention that would be ignored serves little purpose. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why did she draft legislation that would enable employers to require workers to work for nothing during their unpaid meal breaks and that would allow a muffin to replace a meal break or a rest break; is that one of her aspirational policies for New Zealand workers? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The meal breaks legislation as drafted by the previous Government had provision for unpaid meal breaks. We followed that. The bill that is currently before the select committee makes it less prescriptive and more flexible. But I would expect proper scrutiny of it by the select committee to ensure that workers are not exploited. 
Air Quality National Environmental Standard—Effect of Changes and Delays 
11. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How many additional people if any would die prematurely or be hospitalised if the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality is changed and delayed according to his preferred options? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There would be additional premature deaths or hospitalisations from the proposed changes only if it were the case that the standard could actually be met by 2013 but I am advised that it will not be met in 10 airsheds covering 1.6 million New Zealanders. Although the technical advisory group recommended a delay to 2020 my preferred option is 2018 so as to keep maximum pressure on councils to improve air quality at the fastest practical rate to minimise harm and to protect the public health. 
David Clendon 
: Can he confirm that if he enforced the standard in 2013 as planned he could save 482 lives as noted in the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report that he has previously cited? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. The member is incorrect for this reason: the only enforcement measure under the standard is to stop any industrial consents. Industrial consents make up only a very small portion of New Zealand’s air pollution problem. The bulk of New Zealand’s air pollution problem is caused by cars in Auckland. In the vast bulk of our centres where air quality is poor the problem is home fires. That is why this Government has substantially ramped up the amount that we are spending to help convert home fires to cleaner heat technologies and has made the decision to improve the standards for motor vehicles so that we can reduce pollution from those sources. 
David Clendon 
: Is he concerned that children under 5 years old living in areas with high particulate pollution are more than twice as likely to be hospitalised with a respiratory condition; how many children would need to be at risk for him to uphold the standards in 2013? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not a matter of upholding the standards; it is a matter of the advice that the standards are not going to be met. What we are— 
Keith Locke 
: You’re rewarding polluters. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member who interjects was in Government for 9 years during which time little progress was made in improving air quality. I am very proud of the fact that in last year’s Budget we committed tens of millions of dollars to help the practical impact of improving air quality by converting home heaters and by putting regulations in place to make our cars cleaner. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What perverse incentives are there under the existing air quality standards that make them unworkable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The key penalty in the existing standard is that no new industrial consent or renewal of an existing one can be issued if an area is non-complying by 2013. That penalty has very serious implications for 233 businesses that employ more than 17000 people because even if those enterprises radically reduced their emissions they simply would not be allowed to operate. The unfairness is that industry makes up less than 10 percent of New Zealand’s air pollution but is the only one to be punished if it does not meet the standard. It is like having a speed problem on a highway and banning the bicycles. That unfair regulation was symptomatic of the previous Government’s anti-business culture. 
David Clendon 
: What is the Minister’s response to economic analysis from Southern California that finds that even the strictest mandatory air quality regulations do not result in a loss of jobs but actually increase labour demand contrary to scaremongering industry claims in that place? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If we had some sensible regulations like they may have in California that would make sense. But the regulation we have at the moment puts a penalty only on industry when all the research shows that the primary cause of our air pollution problem particularly in the South Island is from home heating systems—open fires and old log fires. That is why this Government is putting some serious money into helping change those heaters so that the air will be clearer. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What practical steps has this Government taken that will improve air quality? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has spent more in 18 months on improving air quality than the previous Government spent in 9 years. The $340 million package that was announced in last year’s Budget provides practical grants so that people in those air catchments can convert their dirty heating systems—open fires and the like—to cleaner systems. That is exactly the sort of thing we need to do if we are to clean up New Zealand’s air and improve those standards. 
David Clendon 
: What evidence does the Minister have for analysis that supports the claim by self-interested industry players here that regulations would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I refer the member to the technical advisory group that prepared the report which includes both health specialists and air quality specialists and their recommendations of changes. They concluded that the current regulations are unfair and any person looking at them would say it is nonsense that the group that produces the least amount of pollution is the only one to be punished in the event that there is non-compliance. I also note that the Government has taken a firmer line in terms of meeting the standards than was recommended by the technical advisory group for the very reason that we want to make as rapid progress as possible on cleaning up New Zealand’s air. 
David Clendon 
: Does the Minister stand by his claim as reported in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 13 December 2009 that the Government intended to strengthen air quality standards and Solid Energy was mistaken if it believed the review would water down standards? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I stand by that claim. We are setting up some practical rules that will actually work. The Ministry for the Environment advised the previous Government against the particular standard that it adopted and I think history has proven that the ministry’s advice was robust: the standards that were adopted by the previous Government were not practical. That is why we are responding to the good advice from the technical advisory group. The member is welcome to make a public submission as are all New Zealanders to ensure that we get this important environment standard right. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from an occasion I referred to. It is the conference proceedings of the Auckland Pacific Economic and Social Transformation Agenda. 
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. 
Drinking-water Standards—Minister’s Responsibility 
12. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What responsibility if any does he accept for the continuing exposure of one in six New Zealanders to unsafe drinking-water? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Under the Health Act the Local Government Act and the Building Act the relevant territorial authority has overall responsibility to ensure that every dwelling house or building has a safe and adequate drinking-water supply. The Minister’s officials in the Ministry of Health administer the Health Act and the Minister makes sure they take their responsibilities seriously. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister confirm that more than 9 months ago he froze the $80 million balance of the $130 million Drinking-water Assistance Programme which was introduced by the previous Labour Government to assist small communities to make their drinking water safe and why is he in no hurry to help New Zealanders have safer drinking-water? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: In answer to the first part of the question that fund was frozen because some work needed to be done to make sure that the money went to the communities that needed it rather than it going to communities on a “first-in first-served” basis. We are determined that the money will go where it will have the greatest effect. That is why that happened. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister aware of public warnings in recent weeks from the medical officer of health in Canterbury that a South Island - wide system is needed to alert mothers to the risk of blue baby syndrome because of rising nitrate levels in groundwater and will this warning prompt him to change from his current Pontius Pilate approach to taking responsibility for safe drinking-water? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What I can tell that member is that a report recently released by the Office of the Auditor-General on the quality of drinking water across the country looked at eight territorial authorities. The report looked at Canterbury and it said that the water supply there was actually safe and that the people of Canterbury are well-served in terms of their drinking water. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister actually aware that the Auditor-General’s report in terms of Canterbury assessed Christchurch only and that it found that even in Christchurch some of the city’s drinking water is graded D which is not acceptable? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What I can tell that member is that the Canterbury water supply is actually safe. The report from the Office of the Auditor-General focused on forecasting ability to provide for the needs of communities into the future. I believe that Canterbury scored pretty well on all counts. 
Brendon Burns 
: If the Minister has confidence that all local authorities are meeting his ministry’s requirements to deliver safe drinking-water would he drink a glass of water from the bottle I have here which is from an unsafe supply in the Kaikoura electorate? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: If you would like to have a glass I would be quite happy to follow you. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe that the Minister did not actually answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness the only mistake the Minister made was to say that if the Speaker was prepared to have a drink of the water he would have one too. I hope he did not actually mean that! I think he meant that if the member was prepared to drink some of the water then he would too so he indicated that he would be prepared to drink the water. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What advice is provided to district health boards about the effects of fluoride in drinking water including the effects on the thyroid the brain the joints and fertility and how did this information influence the Northland District Health Board in considering fluoridation of the water supply in Kaikohe and Kaitaia? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Local authorities in New Zealand determine whether to have fluoride in their water so that is a decision for the local authority up there. 
Brendon Burns 
: Supplementary question to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
]—when I have his attention. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member for interrupting. I ask members at the front on both sides to show a little courtesy to the member asking a supplementary question. It is the last one of the day. 
Brendon Burns 
: How can—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Have some of those members down the back had a swig out of that bottle? I ask them to show a little courtesy please—I mean it. 
Brendon Burns 
: How can the Minister continue to assert that the safety of drinking water is the responsibility of local government when he has instigated a 3-year moratorium on meeting the World Health Organization’s minimum guidelines for drinking-water quality? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Because it is. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I again ask the Minister to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked how the Minister could assert something and the Minister answered by saying “Because it is safe.” The quality of the answer might not have been to the member’s satisfaction but it was an answer to that question and the public can judge the adequacy of it. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I take it from your comments that the Minister has said that drinking water is safe across New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am not here to interpret the Minister’s answers but I heard the Minister say “Because it is safe”. [ 
Interruption 
] Does the Minister want to correct his answer? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Yes. My actual answer was “Because it is.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Due to the confusion that has arisen I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Brendon Burns 
: How can the Minister continue to assert that drinking-water safety is the responsibility of local government when he has instigated a 3-year moratorium on meeting the World Health Organization’s minimum guidelines for drinking-water quality? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Because it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the answer and it was indeed a fair answer 
Offices Of Parliament 
Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 31A of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the House appoint the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor to audit the Ombudsmen with effect from the financial year commencing 1 July 2010. 
I also move  
That pursuant to section 26(1) of the Environment Act 1986 the House appoint the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor to audit the accounts of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment with effect from the financial year commencing 1 July 2010.  
The motion seeks to appoint the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor of the Ombudsmen and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. For the past 3 years the auditors of these two entities have been private sector firms. The Officers of Parliament Committee has recommended that the Auditor-General be again appointed as the auditor of each entity. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not want to interrupt the Minister speaking but we have a lot of noise in the Chamber and the gallery. I ask for a little more quiet please. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Section 14(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001 makes the Auditor-General the auditor of every public entity including the Officers of Parliament. However the House is able to appoint another auditor of the Officers of Parliament if it so wishes. It did so in 2007 on the recommendation of the Officers of Parliament Committee. This year the committee further considered the issue and decided that the Auditor-General should be the auditor of the Ombudsmen and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as she is for all other public entities. 
The recommendation is certainly not a reflection on the performance of the two firms that have carried out the role over the past 3 financial years. One of the roles of the Auditor-General is to provide independent assurance that public sector organisations are operating and accounting for their performance in accordance with Parliament’s wishes. The Auditor-General is answerable to Parliament for that function. In the committee’s view it is appropriate that the Auditor-General exercise that audit and assurance function in relation to the Officers of Parliament. I am pleased to support the committee’s recommendations. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition is in support of Government motions No. 4 and No. 5. The Attorney-General has recited to the House the process that has been followed in order for the motions in the name of the Leader of the House to be placed before us. They are mechanical measures that are required. Officers of Parliament serve and represent all of us as members of Parliament and it is important that they are audited in a correct way. There is a process for doing that. 
The Officers of Parliament Committee has recommended to us that the Controller and Auditor-General be the agency that audits these officers. I find myself on this particular occasion in agreement with the totality of the views expressed by the Hon Chris Finlayson. I think before I undermine that I should stop because it is such a wonderful moment. 
Motions agreed to. 
Appointments 
Deputy Controller and Auditor-General 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 11(2) of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General re-appoint Ms Phillippa Catherine Smith of Wellington as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a period of five years with effect from 8 August 2010. 
The House is being asked to recommend the reappointment of Phillippa Smith following a report from the Officers of Parliament Committee. Officers of Parliament are unusual in that they are appointed by the Governor-General on a recommendation of the House. The Deputy Controller and Auditor-General is appointed under the Public Audit Act 2001 in the same way that the Controller and Auditor-General is appointed and is also an Officer of Parliament. The deputy has the same responsibilities under the Act as the Auditor-General but they are carried out obviously subject to the Auditor-General’s control. 
The roles of the Auditor-General and Deputy Auditor-General are not easy ones. Parliament seeks independent assurance that public sector organisations are operating in accordance with Parliament’s intentions and are accounting properly for their performance. There is also a need for independent assurance of local government. As Officers of Parliament the Auditor-General and her deputy provide this independent assurance both to Parliament and to the public. The Deputy Controller and Auditor-General is responsible for the operational side of the office. She coordinates the work of parliamentary local government performance audit and research and development teams. She also acts for the Auditor-General in her absence. It is a demanding role and one that Ms Smith has performed very well. She was first appointed as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General in August 2005. Prior to that she had been the chief legal adviser at the State Services Commission. 
As is customary with appointments of Officers of Parliament all political parties in this House were consulted over the reappointment and they unanimously agreed to it. The appointment is for 5 years. Unlike the Auditor-General the Deputy Auditor-General may be reappointed for further terms of office. I am pleased to move Phillippa Smith’s reappointment as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General. I am sure that she will continue to play a key role in an office that is essential to the effective functioning of our system of government. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition wishes to associate itself with the remarks of the Acting Leader of the House in respect of the motion to reappoint Phillippa Smith of Wellington as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a further 5-year period starting later this year. This office is a particularly important one for the scrutiny of spending by Parliament through the Government and the office has an important relationship with the House of Representatives and with the Officers of Parliament Committee. 
That Phillippa Smith has worked diligently and with integrity is evident by the fact that she has been recommended for reappointment to this position by the Officers of Parliament Committee which operates on a basis of cooperation and consensus in order to ensure that all parties and therefore the public whom the parties represent can have confidence in the independence of the people who hold this office. 
As I have already said we associate ourselves with the remarks made by Mr Finlayson and we wish Phillippa Smith all the very best for the stewardship of her important office in the next 5 years. 
Motion agreed to. 
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Before you declare the House to be in Committee Mr Chairperson we have had a discussion about the ability for this bill which is a multi-clause bill to have all its clauses be taken as one question in its Committee stage with one vote to be put at the end of the debate rather than it being considered clause by clause so that members can rove over the entirety of the bill’s clauses. So I seek leave for the Committee stage on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to be taken as one question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. That will be the case. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 to 10 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill as we know was originally proposed by Simon Bridges as a member’s bill and I pay tribute to him. He started this but now it has become a Government bill and the Minister of Agriculture David Carter is now in charge of the bill. 
I was pleased today at the Primary Production Committee to hear the Minister talk about the way that he has taken initiatives to put some more money into animal welfare. I am delighted that he is taking a real interest particularly now that he has realised I believe that our overseas markets are becoming very conscious of environmental and animal welfare issues. I am glad that the Minister is taking a real interest in promoting animal welfare. Hopefully the Government will be putting some more money into animal welfare in the years to come. 
Clearly this bill arose from those horrible stories that we have seen on TV about footage of kittens being fed to pit bull terriers. A number of dogs have also been shot and killed. We all saw media coverage of those horror stories and this bill arose as a response to those sorts of incidents of animal cruelty. 
From the outset I say that animal cruelty is not acceptable at all to us on this side of the Chamber or clearly to New Zealanders. Animal cruelty is simply unacceptable anywhere. The issue of animal cruelty has been around for quite some time and we know that the police the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the SPCA have been involved in the past in trying to prevent animal cruelty cases but the resources issue has been there. Over time the SPCA has handled a large number of cases rather than the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry or the police. Clearly there has been a problem with the resourcing of the SCPA. For example we know that in 2008 there were 14000 complaints received by the SPCA and only 110 resulted in charges being laid. Of those 110 only 58 people were convicted. 
The issue has been bubbling up and we know that some cases never get reported. But I think the public perception within New Zealand and overseas is that animal abuse is now unacceptable. But at the same time prosecution is expensive. It can cost a lot of money. In some cases it has cost $10000. Anything we can do to help to promote animal welfare is better but we need to have resources. I am glad that the Minister has now allocated over $8 million in this Budget because a lot of those issues are increasing in the public’s perception. I am glad that extra money has been put out there to address those issues. As I said earlier I am very concerned about some issues on the farm particularly because we are an agricultural nation. We are dependent on exports particularly animal exports from dairy farms such as meat. People in our growing overseas markets particularly in Asia are becoming very concerned about some of the news that gets out there. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Firstly I acknowledge officials and fellow Primary Production Committee members who have helped get us to this stage. I also acknowledge Simon Bridges the MP for Tauranga who originated this bill with his original discussion of this matter as a member’s bill. I think we should celebrate the way that the legislation evolved from that idea to being picked up by the Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter. It became a Government bill and was sent to the select committee which brought another element and view to Mr Bridges’ original intentions making it fit New Zealand’s primary scene a little bit better with the help of many submitters who came to the committee. 
Members will note from the commentary that not much has changed from the bill that arrived at the committee. I will talk about submitters in a minute but on the whole most submitters were in favour of the bill and many submitters thought the bill should have gone even further than the bill before us. 
One of the major changes as we see in the commentary is that we clarified the notion of ownership. Under the circumstances we replaced “having custody of animals” with “owning or exercising authority in respect of animals”. Many examples were made such as when on the farm someone is looking after some animals or a sharemilker has legal ownership etc. All those issues were raised by submitters and considered by the committee and officials and we came to the recommendation of change that we have in the bill before us. 
Also we have increased penalties for contravention of a disqualification order. I will talk about the forfeiture of animals in particular. The bill had a lot of support from the legal fraternity and I acknowledge that many of them have offered their services pro bono to help set some of the precedents in cases that may come under this new bill. Forfeiture raised some interesting issues in that how and when something was forfeited brought about questions of charges of guilt being assumed instead of innocence or guilty before proven. If an animal was in danger it could be taken away from someone; from an animal cruelty point of view that is absolutely fine. Questions and discussions were had as to whether the animal should be taken away because it is in danger; perhaps other animals could be. In the time before that case comes before the courts we need to ask what is happening to that animal. But from a due process point of view does the animal’s being taken away imply some kind of guilt or otherwise? 
We had quite a few submitters and on the whole they were very supportive of the bill. Many of them wanted it to go a fair bit further. I acknowledge the Auckland SPCA; there was good strength in the message and suggestions it gave to the committee. Other SPCAs tended to have same message. They wanted a single ill-treatment offence and we agreed with that. They wanted an animal abuse registry to be set up. That is quite interesting and something for further consideration as this legislation plays out once it is enacted. We have all heard horror stories whereby those who have been convicted or suspected of animal cruelty have a whole lot more going on in their lives unfortunately potentially impacting on families children and their communities. Some of the examples showed that a key indicator of wider abuse was their cruelty to animals which was quite a revelation to many of the committee members. 
Dairy New Zealand and Federated Farmers also made submissions as we would expect and they brought in interesting and fair perspectives from the rural sector on-farm. Often animal welfare issues are seen from an urban environment meeting the reality of a rural environment. Sometimes issues happen out there on the farm—down the back in a drought situation—with the best of intent where no cruelty has been intended. But we need to make sure that every effort has been made to avoid cruelty to animals. Sometimes circumstances beyond the custodian person’s control or the owner’s control can result in some kind of cruelty. Exceptions were made there; Federated Farmers made those points particularly well. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First of all I want to say that I was delighted to hear the speaker for the Labour Party Mr Choudhary saying that Labour now opposes all forms of animal cruelty. So I am looking forward very greatly to hearing that the Labour Party opposes sow crates and battery hen cages. It will be a big step forward in our Parliament. Members of Parliament go on and on about animal cruelty but many turn a blind eye to the gravest most serious animal cruelty of all which of course is keeping sows and hens in cages for most of their lives. 
It is interesting that Mr Choudhary said that this bill originated from the public horror at some terrible cases involving pets that came to the public’s notice recently. It is true that there have been some terrible cases of cruelty to pets—horrific cases. However I would argue that there has been a far greater outpouring of public disquiet over the expose on  
Sunday 
 about the conditions that sows and pigs are forced to live in in New Zealand than there has been over those individual cases of cruelty to pets. Yet this bill exempts all forms of institutional cruelty to animals such as sow crates and battery hen cages. 
The 90 million-odd hens that live their lives in cages will not be touched by this bill. We will all go on about animal cruelty and fining people for it but we will do nothing about the people who keep sows in cages where they cannot turn round and in fact suffer far worse things that we saw in the  
Sunday 
 programme which exposed the atrocious inhumane conditions in which they live. All that will remain completely untouched by this wonderful new animal welfare legislation. 
I think it is extraordinary that some commentators have said that politicians hate only some forms of animal cruelty such as cruelty to pets—individual acts of cruelty—but are quite happy to accept institutional acts of cruelty to literally millions of animals in our midst. But it is great to hear that the Labour Party has changed its stance and will now be opposing sow crates and battery hen cages amongst other things. 
It was interesting that a submitter from the Pork Industry Board had the effrontery to turn up to the select committee. In its submission the board said it was shocked by the recent incidences of animal cruelty in New Zealand and that it abhors any incidence of cruelty towards animals. On and on went the submitter with a completely straight face talking about the board members’ horror at cruelty to animals. They were apparently oblivious to the fact that most New Zealanders are equally horrified by the cruelty of those pig farmers—and let us be sure that it is only 50 percent of pig farmers who keep sows in crates in cages all of their lives. 
Federated Farmers also turned up and pointed out with horror that under this bill it was possible that some farmers might be prosecuted for farming activities and it could potentially expose owners of production animals and farmers to prosecution under this bill. What an outrage! Imagine if this bill exposed farmers to prosecution! Federated Farmers said that the entire new clause about reckless ill-treatment should be thrown out because the worry was that a farmer could be prosecuted for it. That was quite extraordinary. 
Basically Federated Farmers were saying that we should have two laws—a double standard. We should have one law that applies to individual animals—that is to pets—and we should have another law that applies to farm animals or what Federated Farmers called production animals. We should they say allow any amount of cruelty to production animals if it makes them more efficient producers of meat but we should be abhorred and outraged if someone treats his or her pet cruelly. This is the double standard that was actively operating in the submission of Federated Farmers. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 We are in the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. It is a very appropriate bill to have before the Committee. What stands out quite clearly is that we had a Government for 9 years that did absolutely nothing so it is a bit rich to hear the oratory from the Opposition that we do not have anything in the way of substance around animal cruelty. 
It was appropriate too that we had the Minister of Agriculture and of Forestry in front of us at the Primary Production Committee this morning. He made the point very clearly that three pillars underpin the importance and value of the New Zealand farming industry. They are the quality of our food safety the way that we look after our environment and most important animal welfare. It is on that basis that we see that Budget 2010 has added another $8.2 million to ensure that New Zealand has robust animal welfare legislation and that we keep on looking to improve the situation where there are any gaps. 
It is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that this bill had its beginnings with the outstanding member for Tauranga Simon Bridges who brought the bill forward as a member’s bill. It was then taken over as a Government bill to ensure something was urgently done. We have had a whole decade of lip-service with no substance delivered from the very poorly informed and poorly connected previous Labour Government. When we look across to the benches on the other side of the Chamber we can understand why we had that because there was a total failure by Labour to have representation from the primary production sector. 
When we look at the bill we see that it handles matters in a very constructive way. When we took submissions and heard and questioned submitters we could see clear evidence that because of the way that the legislation is drawn up there is a big gap between what is achievable and what is desirable. First of all section 28 of the Act talks about the wilful ill-treatment of animals and that proved to be an incredibly high threshold to satisfy. More often than not the problem was that it was difficult to prove that there had been wilful intent. So the way that the law will be constructed in the future is that another category will be introduced in new section 28A “Reckless ill-treatment of animals”. That will be a lot easier to prove because if a person goes out and performs and behaves in a given way it will be possible far more often to prove that that person was behaving recklessly. Proving wilful intent is quite an abstract definition and it is one that can be argued against more often than not. 
Just to start and frame the value of this legislation I say it is very important to put that step in place because the very substance of this bill is intended to give the law some teeth and to make it enforceable. Very often we hear the judges being criticised in the public domain but more often than not the reason why they are being criticised is that lawyers look at how they might get the best outcome. Given that a conviction for the wilful ill-treatment of animals probably has a 10 percent chance of being achieved and a 90 percent chance of failure they then fall right back to the basic charge of ill-treatment of animals. This bill introduces the new category of reckless ill-treatment of animals which is measured by the very same criteria as for wilful ill-treatment. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 This is my first contribution to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and I know that is has been the subject of many passionate contributions from members who have animals that are important in their lives. I start by acknowledging Simon Bridges for bringing this bill to the House as a member’s bill and for once I congratulate the Government on picking it up. I am sorry that the previous speaker Mr King felt that he had to politicise this matter in his speech. It is a rare occasion when members are in agreement and we all think that something needs to be done and I was very sorry to hear that. [ 
Interruption 
] It was disappointing that is right. 
I also acknowledge the SPCA and the wonderful work that it does; what an amazing organisation it is. Labour supports this bill but we have some reservations about it. The main reservation is the issue of having harsher penalties but not having the resources to enforce them although I know there has been some increase in the Budget around animal welfare and we welcome that. I am really pleased that the SPCA has $8.2 million more from the Budget this year because as I said the organisation does wonderful work. But unfortunately we do not believe that that is enough to really enforce this legislation. 
It is very very difficult for animal cruelty prosecutions to be successful. I believe that about 10 successful prosecutions—[ 
Interruption 
] Only 0.4 percent of prosecutions result in a conviction. In 2008 14011 complaints of animal abuse were received by the SPCA. Only 110 of those resulted in charges being laid and just 58 resulted in convictions. The longest penalty we have ever seen for animal cruelty was 12 months’ imprisonment which was later reduced to 10 months. 
The other thing that concerns me about this legislation is the responsibility put on the SPCA. It is a wonderful organisation but every year it still has to rely on public appeals for cash in order to prosecute those who are clearly guilty of animal cruelty. I understand that in July last year the SPCA in Gisborne had to make a public appeal for cash in order to prosecute a case. Six dogs had been starved to the point where they had to eat their own faeces and sunlight could be seen through their hind legs. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Minister of Police that it is difficult to listen to this but there are some horrific examples. We are well aware of more recent cases that have been highlighted in the media and they brought the member Simon Bridges to the point of putting forward a member’s bill. [ 
Interruption 
] And it was stolen from him by his Government. There have been awful stories. 
If I may I also want to pay one other little tribute—to my cat. Everybody has talked about their pets so I thought I had better talk about my cat—[ 
Interruption 
] My hat? No my cat Plum. She is a genuine Service and Food Workers Union cat. She was found living under the floor of the Service and Food Workers Union building but she got the name Plum because she used to hang out in the plum tree that was nearby. She clearly had not been particularly well treated because she thought the plum tree was her place of safety. It took her some time to calm down when we decided to take her home. But the one thing I regret—and I love my cat; I do not think it can be classified as cruelty—is that we took her to the vet to have her spayed only to find that she had already been spayed. I have regretted that ever since and she pays us back. She makes us pay every day. 
I also acknowledge the member Sue Kedgley and her comments about farm animals. Those issues are difficult for us to deal with. In my former job as a union official I also looked after people who worked for Tegel Foods and one sees some pretty disgusting horrible and horrendous things in those factories. I do not think it is described as cruelty but we know that those chickens live in battery farms. I have been to those egg farms and they are pretty disgusting. I hope that we can have an ongoing dialogue about these things once this bill is passed. 
As I said it is good that we have some agreement on this bill. We note the statement in the report back from the select committee: “Some of us do not believe that increasing the length of sentences will by itself result in a decrease in cases of cruelty to animals”. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Firstly I acknowledge the member of Parliament for Tauranga Simon Bridges. He is to be commended for bringing this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to us all. It was then adopted by the excellent Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter. This bill has been applauded throughout New Zealand so we are delighted at the amount of response it has received. Do members recall that members opposite originally said there was no point in increasing the penalties for animal cruelty? We have to wonder at that especially when in the next breath the animal rights supporters applaud the Government’s move to increase punishment for animal cruelty. They say that stricter penalties should also be imposed on the owners of dogs that attack. The SPCA national chief executive Robyn Kippenberger said the move was long overdue. That has been said many times by members on this side of the Chamber. The person we have to thank for bringing the issue to the Government’s attention is Simon Bridges the wonderful member of Parliament for Tauranga who is doing such a sterling job. We are delighted that this bill has progressed so far in the House. 
I want to talk a little bit about the bill. We could all talk about our vet experiences with our pets—this is after all a wide-ranging debate—and many people in this Parliament would have had some sort of experience with their pet at the vet’s. I am sure it is a bone of contention as to whether taking a cat from its place of residence and forcing it into another home is an act of cruelty but let us not derogate from the serious intention of the bill which is to send a very clear message to those New Zealanders who treat animals wilfully and badly. It tells them that much more serious penalties will be imposed on them if they do so because New Zealanders do not condone such treatment of animals. The definition “wilful ill-treatment of animals” covers the most serious welfare offences. Under the Act as it stands it must be proved that a person intended to cause harm and the animal must be permanently disabled die or be destroyed to prevent further suffering. So those are serious offences. 
This bill expands the threshold for wilful ill-treatment of animals to include cases where an animal is seriously injured or seriously impaired. That will enable more cases of extreme cruelty to be prosecuted under that provision and penalties will be more serious in accordance with the seriousness of the crime. The SPCA is absolutely applauding this because some of the sentences in cases that have gone to court—for instance the prison sentence over the case of the kittens—have been declared by the SPCA to be too short. It said the sentence was far too short for the 30-year-old man who was heartless in respect of the serious injuries that led to the death of those kittens. This bill will deal to that and make sure that he is sentenced accordingly. 
I applaud the Minister for the $8.2 million over 4 years put aside in the Budget to boost animal welfare activities. That is a great move forward. I note that that fact was also recognised by Opposition members so I hope they continue to recognise its importance and the good work that this Government is doing to address many of the issues that are of concern to New Zealanders—not least animal welfare issues. We are making sure that these very serious offences against animals are dealt with in a much more appropriate way. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise in support of the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and to commend Simon Bridges the MP for Tauranga for having the initiative to bring this bill forward. I note that it emerged on New Year’s Day this year. It was very strategic timing of the MP to bring it forward at that point. I acknowledge that it has been a past deficiency of members right across the Chamber in that this issue has not come forward but I note that there have been members opposite critical of that fact who have been here in their second and third terms and who might themselves have picked up this issue as a member’s bill some considerable time earlier. Labour of course supports this bill. We want to see appropriate penalties for the repugnant practices that sometimes are perpetrated on both domestic and farm animals and this bill goes a long way towards that end. 
I acknowledge that in the Primary Production Committee today the Minister said that New Zealand’s clean green image was very important to New Zealand. It is really the base of our capacity to earn our living as an export nation and I want to remind him too that animal welfare issues are also one of the measures by which New Zealand will be judged in the international market place. The judgment will always be harsher for us than for other nations because we are a small nation that does not have some of the clout of bigger nations. The unfair nature of international trade is such that our record has to be better than most if not all in respect of things like our environment and in respect of things like the practices of animal welfare. 
I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon David Carter therefore to outline for us the increases in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in relation to the farm inspectorate. I think it is acknowledged that some of the issues in respect of animal welfare do indeed incur on farms. I think that a staff of five active inspectors from a total staff of about seven or eight in the special investigation unit in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is not sufficient when we are talking about protecting an export base that is reliant upon agriculture and worth many many billions of dollars. So I would like the Minister to take a call to indicate to us what exactly the increase is in that budget for the ministry. 
Although the focus of the bill will have been formulated in response to issues of domestic cruelty in fact underlying the legislation is the broader issue of animal welfare on farms. Most of our farmers are exemplary in the way that they treat their stock. They have every reason to be so apart from being genuinely humane New Zealanders because the better the welfare of the animal the better the return is for the farmer. It is one of those win-win outcomes. 
But we are all conscious I think of the situation that emerged on the Crafar farms through last year and into this year. There were definite issues of farm neglect that the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture identified. I note that as this bill was being adopted by the Minister as a Government bill there was also a dairy cattle code of welfare being announced and unveiled after concerns were expressed by quite an eminent agricultural scientist who took photographs of very skinny cows at a Morrinsville saleyards. That prompted two animal welfare investigations and it led to that code. It took 3 years for that code to come through—I think the Minister might confirm that. As industry leaders like John Luxton the chair of Dairy NZ have noted the new code will strengthen the industry’s international reputation. That is hugely important because as I said we will be judged by our animal welfare issues as much as we are by our environmental record. But that is beyond the scope of this bill today. Dr Dalton said in one of the stories reporting the Minister’s announcement of this new code that the new code for animal welfare and dairy cattle should be nailed to every farm gate and be on every milk tanker so that there could be no question to farmers that they have to take account of all the issues of stockmanship and husbandry of animals they are responsible for. 
I am very pleased to see that this bill is coming through. It will be a tool in the tool kit for the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture in terms of its capacity to deal with animal welfare issues on farms when they happen from time to time. Probably in most instances those are issues of recklessness which is a new measure in this bill. Probably very few farmers would ill-treat their animals with any kind of wanton regard but there are situations where farmers are stressed or unable to cope and stock are left in back paddocks; obviously they can suffer a great deal. So I am very keen to hear from the Minister. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The member Brendon Burns has asked a very genuine question on the resourcing that we now propose for the animal inspectorates so I will take the opportunity of answering that question. It is one that the Committee certainly needs to be informed of. 
I take this opportunity to thank Mr Burns for acknowledging the progress that the National Government has made on animal welfare over the last 18 months. I feel quite comfortable that we can claim that as a Government we have probably made more progress on this vital issue to New Zealand’s reputation than has been made for at least a decade. We have demonstrated that genuine commitment with the largest welfare expenditure increase we have seen in any Budget over the last 10 years—$8.2 million. It was difficult to find in a situation where the fiscal constraints on all Ministers as we bid in the Budget process were tight but we managed to do it. 
Mr Burns asked what this budget increase will mean with regard to the number of inspectors we have around the country handling all our production livestock. At this stage we have five and this increase will allow us to double that number to 10 in the next year. We are providing to then increase that number by a further two in the following year. 
I was lucky enough to spend some time at the Fieldays yesterday. I went on to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry stand at one stage and I was able to talk to one of the animal inspectors. The point he was excited about was that the substantial increase in resourcing to the inspectorate would give these guys the opportunity to be substantially more proactive within our rural communities and they will actually be able to go to farmers before they are in trouble to help them through perhaps an adverse weather event. I personally think that for too long the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has had to focus because of the constraint of resources imposed on it by the previous Labour Government on being effectively the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. 
I am pleased that the inspectorate sees the opportunity with this substantial increase in resources for the animal welfare inspectorate to actually get out there and be more proactive in our communities. It is fair to acknowledge that some of our farmers as they have struggled to improve their productivity and their profitability have taken some of the farming systems far closer to the limit. As we acknowledged at the Primary Production Committee this morning we are going to see more extreme weather events associated with climate change which means that farmers have to build into their farming systems a little more cushion for events like that. 
Those are the numbers for Mr Burns. The animal inspectorate will rise from five people currently to 10 for the first year. It is our intention to add a further two in the year after that. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I spoke in its first reading and acknowledged Simon Bridges’ work. I do so again and I also acknowledge the Government for picking up this bill. 
I genuinely recognise the fact that resources have been put into this area. Despite what the MP for Coromandel said earlier comments from this side of the Chamber were around the fact that although people were pleased to see the changes put forward they were worried that without additional resourcing this was going to be only window dressing. The Government has come to the party and put in some additional resourcing over the next 4 years for animal welfare and law enforcement so I acknowledge that and say that it is certainly an improvement. 
I acknowledge the people who submitted to the Primary Production Committee on this bill. There were quite a small number of submissions actually—17—but I assume and I think with some good grounds that that is because there was general support in the community for what is contained in the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I acknowledge those people who took the time to submit and I recognise as we do from time to time that our select committee process in New Zealand is a very good process. It is an opportunity to improve legislation. In fact the select committee made a number of recommendations on the bill that improve it further. Three main areas of improvement are disqualifying people from ownership as well as custody of animals increasing penalties for the contravention of the disqualification order and enforcing the forfeiture of animals. Those are some of the improvements. 
I think that when I spoke on the first reading I talked about the important role that animals play in our lives. People have categorised those roles as domestic animals or farm animals. I acknowledge the contribution of Sue Kedgley and her ongoing work in this area. I think it is critically important that as a country that makes so much of its foreign earnings from animals and primary production we are always vigilant and assess whether the farming techniques and other animal handling techniques in this country are satisfactory. We should as my colleague Damien O’Connor said in his contribution aim to be the best in the world. In fact that is expected from New Zealand. 
I was fortunate enough prior to coming to Parliament to be a member of the Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce the previous Government set up. We looked at the important role that food and beverages played for the New Zealand economy and at the requirements that customers globally were putting on countries like New Zealand. These customers were both supermarket chains—which are very very powerful corporate bodies indeed—and individual customers in the countries we exported to. We were given the example of the requirements of Japanese customers. They wanted to know that our lambs grew up happily in nice paddocks in New Zealand and that they could be traced from birth until they were served on plates in Japan and through everything that happened in between. That may sound a strange thing for them to want but that was the requirement they had. All along that chain people wanted to know that the animal welfare elements were treated properly. Indeed there were also other requirements on us as a country. So there are economic reasons as well as the fact that it is the right thing to do for us to be concerned about the treatment of our farm animals as well as our domestic animals. 
I gave many examples of the role that domestic animals play in our lives not just as pets but in fact in a whole range of circumstances—for example in health and in therapeutic situations. I heard recently that there are now programmes in prisons about prisoners dealing with animals. Many humans have a particularly strong emotional response to animals. Of course the people who abuse and mistreat animals are committing a crime of violence just like abusing and ill-treating another person. They are often parts of the same spectrum so children who abuse animals often go on to abuse other humans. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I will start because I omitted to do so the first time by congratulating Simon Bridges on originating the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. In particular I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture because not only did he pick up this bill but he has added in the single most important clause which is the new clause concerning the reckless ill-treatment of animals. Furthermore he has indeed increased the budget for the resourcing of inspectors. 
The bill began its life really just to extend sentences for animal cruelty but the reality is that that will not result in reduced numbers of prosecutions for breaches of animal welfare. The legislation already permits 3-year jail sentences yet we have rarely had anybody jailed. In fact I think that only 10 people have ever been jailed in New Zealand history for breaches of animal welfare and nobody has ever yet been jailed for a 3-year sentence. Most like the farmer Mark Spitz who slowly starved to death a number of his cattle received some hours of community service so let us not delude ourselves into thinking that by adding more years to sentences we will reduce the number of prosecutions. 
David Garrett 
: Why did you vote for it? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: We voted for it because there was a new clause a new category of reckless ill-treatment of animals. We hope that that new clause that new category will make it easier for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the SPCA to prosecute for animal cruelty. We hope it will give them more leverage because frankly until now it has been very very difficult to undertake prosecutions—because of the law and because there have been so few people around to take any prosecutions. 
Between the years of 2007 and 2009 the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry undertook only 44 successful prosecutions and as someone has mentioned there were only five inspectors. Yet we have a hundred million - odd animals here in New Zealand. Only 3 percent of the cases that the Ministry investigated resulted in a conviction and only 0.3 percent of the cases of the SPCA. Actually the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had effectively abdicated its responsibility to monitor animal cruelty to the SPCA. We know that 60 percent of the people who work for that society—the inspectors—are volunteers; many of them work on a part-time basis. It is the only enforcement agency in New Zealand that has to fundraise for itself and try to raise its own money. That was the reality. It was very difficult under the legislation to bring charges. It was incredibly difficult for the SPCA because it does not even have proper funding and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had only five inspectors. It is little wonder that we have had just a handful of cases of prosecution for animal cruelty coming through every year. 
We think it is great that we now have the new category which I think will make it easier to take those prosecutions and that we will have 10 inspectors instead of just five. I hope there will be more support for the SPCA too for the fantastic work that it does. It acknowledged in hearings that there were many prosecutions it was unable to take simply because it does not have the resources to enable it to take them. 
As I have said previously it is good to hear this Parliament actually debating the subject of animal cruelty. Let us hope that we will having improved the legislation for prosecution of individual acts of cruelty against pets turn our attention to institutional cruelty. Let us hope that the pig code—the revision of which it was promised would be completed last year—will be completed. It still has not been completed; we are still waiting for it. We are still waiting for the code for hens which was due also to be completed last year. Let us hope that when those finally surface we will as a Parliament have the courage to address institutional cruelty against animals. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I acknowledge some very thoughtful contributions to this debate in the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Carol Beaumont’s contribution I thought was very good. I acknowledge the point she made that there were only 17 submissions to the Primary Production Committee on the bill. Like her I think perhaps that does not signify a lack of interest in this bill but rightly shows a view out there in the community that we are doing something about animal welfare and doing something good. I also acknowledge Sue Kedgley’s contribution which again was a very thoughtful one. I acknowledge her advocacy for animals for some time now in this Parliament. 
I will not rehearse the arguments in favour of this bill. I did that in its first reading and I have also done so in other places but I just say that I think this bill shows Parliament at its best. It shows us uniting on an issue for the most part without trying to score political points and I think that is a wonderful thing indeed. 
I will also just address the concerns raised in the select committee’s report on the bill. It raised a couple of concerns one of which Sue Kedgley raised today in the Chamber. I will just go through them. Firstly there is the concern that there are only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors in New Zealand to undertake prosecutions for animal cruelty and there are insufficient resources the report says to pursue all cases of cruelty with 92 percent of complaints being made to the SPCA. That was the concern of some members on the committee. I think it is a valid concern. I have consistently said in relation to that that good work is being done by pro bono prosecution panels—or at least one panel established in Auckland with the very best lawyers on it. That goes at least some way towards addressing that concern because the real expense is in taking the court cases. So it is good that first-class lawyers are taking those cases on for free. 
I think the other thing that we can say of course is what the Minister has said—and he is to be heartily congratulated in tight times on finding an extra $8.2 million of funding over 4 years to boost animal welfare activities. Around $5 million of that is going into animal welfare enforcement and compliance; he has gone through the breakdown of some of that. Perhaps that is not the entire answer but I think it is nevertheless a robust answer to that concern. 
The other thing that concerned some members on the committee was a disbelief if you like that increasing the length of sentences would by itself result in a decrease in the number of cases of cruelty to animals especially since only 10 people have ever been jailed in New Zealand as a result of animal cruelty charges. Again that is a valid concern—only 10 people ever jailed. I say to the Committee that the fact that we have had only 10 people go to jail for that is all the more reason to pass this bill and to do something so that when those cases come to court they are treated with the appropriate severity and seriousness. I make the point that when this bill—and I accept Sue Kedgley’s point that it was a much more modest bill when it was my member’s bill—was drafted I was simply trying to send a message to the judiciary to toughen up its game and treat this issue more seriously. 
I actually think there are good strong signs that that is occurring. I know these are early days and the bill has not even been passed but my understanding is that since this bill’s introduction there have been a couple more cases of imprisonment for animal cruelty. Certainly I am aware of the one reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 26 May under the headline “Farmer jailed for cruelty to thousands of chickens”. It states: “An Auckland poultry farmer has been jailed for a year for causing suffering to thousands of animals kept in what were described as filthy and inhumane conditions.” My point to the House is that I think sending 10 people to jail in this country for animal cruelty is an indictment but my view is that we are seeing signs of that number going up. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It is good to be able to clarify a rumour that went around. I had heard that the Government took the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill off Mr Bridges who has just resumed his seat because it did not think he was quite ready to take this bill through its passage in the House so they gave it to Mr David Carter the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry. But if I am wrong and that is not the reason the Government took the bill off Mr Bridges then I apologise because I thought that was the reason. To anyone else who thought that was the reason I say that it is obviously not right at all. However I must admit I heard Mr Bridges speak on National Radio about this bill when it was introduced. I thought he spoke OK but not as well as he does on television. He was OK. But then again it is very difficult to sound bad when one is talking about a bill that addresses the serious issue of animal cruelty. Obviously we are all supporting this bill but there is one point on which I would disagree with Mr Bridges. He said that this bill represents Parliament at its best. We all agree on this issue but I think Parliament is at its best when it is dealing with the issues that affect New Zealanders—poor New Zealanders. There is $8 million provided against cruelty for animals and that is great but how about $13 million for Adult and Community Education courses? I think that would have gone a long way to alleviating some of the problems we have in society. 
One of the points I would like to bring up and it follows on from my colleague Carol Beaumont’s points is that there is often a very strong link between animal cruelty and other much more insidious types of cruelty. I would like to read something. As we all know tackling animal cruelty can have a beneficial impact upon society which is the reason why we are passing this bill. But there is a very strong link between the cruel treatment of animals and the abuse of humans. A 1997 survey by the Humane Society of the United States showed that 50 of the largest shelters for battered women in the United States found that 85 percent of women and 63 percent of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in the family. That is a pretty insidious statistic. We all hear of these statistics around Guy Fawkes Night for example when wayward children misinformed children or whoever have attached firecrackers to animals or have inflicted cruelty on animals and it is just dreadful. It is time to send a very very clear message to New Zealanders. This is one of the things that Parliament can do by passing this legislation. I am aware that only 10 people have gone to jail for offences of cruelty to animals and the incidence of successful prosecutions is quite low. But passing a bill like this sends a very clear message that society will just not tolerate this type of behaviour any longer. It is unacceptable. 
The main aim of this bill obviously is to amend the Animal Welfare Act 1999 but it introduces the new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals. What does reckless ill-treatment mean? Section 28A inserted by clause 5 provides that a person recklessly ill-treats an animal if that treatment results in “(a) the animal is permanently disabled; or (b) the animal dies; or (c) the pain or distress caused to the animal is so great that it is necessary to destroy the animal in order to end its suffering; or (d) the animal is seriously injured or impaired.” It is a sad indictment on society that we are passing a bill like this in the first place. Sue Kedgley talked about cruelty to farm animals as did Carol Beaumont. I think that people can differentiate between farm animals and family pets. However I also believe that pictures of cruelty to any types of animals that are flashed across our TV screens draw gasps of horror from ordinary New Zealanders whether they are pictures of an emaciated cow a horse that has come from a Crafar farm or a dog that has been fed a bunch of kittens. It is something that strikes a nerve with New Zealanders. This cruelty is just downright insidious. 
A pet is part of the family; let us be honest about this. Some members have stood up and talked about their pets. My partner Sarah’s cat Mozzarella gets treated better than I do at times. It eats steak; I get mince. There is no doubt who rules the couch if not the roost in our house. I know that on occasion these pictures of animal cruelty are flashed up on the TV screens— 
Hon Member 
: You’re jealous. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes I am jealous; occasionally. But when these pictures are flashed up on our TV screens Sarah just turns right off. My daughter who is 8 years old just looks at the pictures and says: “How can anyone do that daddy?”. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 We may have to add a late amendment to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to allow animal names such as Mozzarella to fall under the category of animal cruelty. I do not know how any self-respecting animal could walk around with that name. 
I am happy to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill. Like members who have spoken before me I congratulate Simon Bridges on bringing this legislation to the House. It is a little sad that like a third-former who has had his lunch money stolen the Hon David Carter came down to the Chamber took the bill off him and is now touting it as his own. But I am pleased to see Simon Bridges taking a call on this bill. My colleague Stuart Nash referred to the comment Mr Bridges made about this being Parliament at its best. I agree that it is always nice when we all agree on legislation. But maybe he was not here to hear the speeches made by Colin King and Sandra Goudie. They decided to use their time to attack the Opposition. It is nice to see Sandra Goudie onside; I believe that she agreed to support the bill once she was reassured that mangroves are not animals. Once that was explained to her she was fine. But it was disappointing because we all agree that this is good legislation and we are all pleased to see it before the Committee. 
We have all been frustrated by the fact that higher penalties are in the Act but they have not been used by the courts; the courts have gone with very low penalties. I agree with Mr Bridges. I hope the courts take notice that Parliament is speaking with one voice on this issue. We want to see tougher penalties for animal cruelty we acknowledge the link between animal cruelty and other forms of violence in our society and we want to see the penalties significantly increased for offences under the Animal Welfare Act. 
I notice that the “Minister for iPads” Maurice Williamson is in the chair and I hope he is prepared to take a call and answer some of the questions that have been raised around the resourcing of this Act. It does not matter how tough the penalties we put in place are if they are not adequately resourced. This has been a big issue in the past and it is good that there is another $8 million in the Budget for the policing of animal welfare legislation. But members on this side of the Chamber would quite like to see the $40 million that went to private schools also go towards other initiatives such as the policing of animal welfare. It is good that the Minister was able to find more money in a tight Budget but the Government made some choices in the Budget that would not have been Labour’s priority. More money could have come to this important area. 
When we look over history we see that 20 years ago one-third of animal abuse prosecutions were taken by the police—one-third. Today the SPCA has to take 90 percent of the prosecutions. As members have said they have to look for pro bono work. Often when the court awards them money to pay for costs it barely even begins to cover the costs of taking a prosecution. It is good that extra money has gone towards animal welfare but I hope that this area will be watched very carefully. We need to see the number of animal welfare complaints that go on to prosecutions increase dramatically from the 0.4 percent that they are at today. Only 0.4 percent of animal welfare complaints go on to prosecution. Governments of all stripes over the past 20 years have to take responsibility for that and that is why Labour is also supporting this legislation through the Committee of the whole House today. 
I have some questions for the Minister regarding in particular the distinction between wilful ill-treatment of animals and reckless ill-treatment of animals which are in new sections 28 and 28A in the bill. I acknowledge the comments that were made by Sue Kedgley that these sections will make it easier we hope to get the prosecutions because it no longer has to be proved that someone intended to do it. I sincerely hope that we do not see a huge differential between convictions that happen under those two separate categories. I hope we do not see that people who go in for wilful ill-treatment of animals get treated significantly worse and have significantly harsher penalties than those under reckless ill-treatment of animals. The prosecution may be taken under reckless ill-treatment only because one cannot prove that it was a wilful act; it may well have been a wilful act. If the SPCA the police or whoever is taking the case is not able to absolutely prove it was wilful then obviously the offender will go in for reckless ill-treatment but that does not mean that it was not significantly worse. It does not mean that the act was not wilful. 
Although there will always be that difference I hope we do not see a dramatic widening or a huge chasm between those two where people who get prosecuted under reckless ill-treatment of animals get off really lightly and people who end up getting charged under wilful ill-treatment are worse off. That is the situation we have now. It is very difficult to get any kind of prosecution for people when it cannot be proved that the act was wilful. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I am very pleased along with my colleagues to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I also acknowledge Simon Bridge’s creativity in bringing this bill to the House initially and in many ways the bill has increased its weight by having been converted to a Government bill. A number of very tragic high-profile cases have recently brought renewed attention to the whole issue of animal cruelty. There has been a case of kittens being fed to dogs and cases of dogs being dragged behind cars and there have been some issues on farms where cattle have been allowed more or less to starve. 
When this legislation was being discussed and thought through I was very surprised at the degree to which the SPCA has taken the lead in trying to bring to the courts offenders who have committed inhumane acts against animals. I acknowledge its contribution. It was a surprise to me that 90 percent of all animal welfare cases have been headed by the SPCA. Again I think that has heightened the attention being brought to bear on the difficulty of prosecuting these cases. The fact that only 10 people have ever been jailed for cruelty against animals is quite frankly extraordinary given that so many offenders have been brought to light even in the short space of time in which attention has been paid to this issue recently. I think it is high time that we both toughen up the penalties and make it much easier for prosecutions to be taken against those who are offending. 
It has been mentioned and I think that it is perhaps worth mentioning again that there is a link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans in that one can extend to the other. In the bill’s earlier readings one or two of my colleagues have mentioned the research from the Humane Society of the United States where in 50 of the largest shelters 85 percent of the women and 63 percent of the children reported animal abuse in their homes. There is no doubt that abuse flows in a sense from one to the other. 
I will also touch on the point my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned which is the economic case for this legislation. KPMG released a report about 6 weeks ago that looked at New Zealand’s agriculture and asked where it would be in 5 or 10 years’ time. There is no doubt that the demand for our agriculture which is certainly in our high-protein products will grow but so will the supply of those sorts of products from other countries. The report stated very categorically—and this is very important I think—that the point of difference New Zealand will have in competing against cheaper prices is the fact that not only are our animal products clean and green but also our animals have been treated ethically. They will have been able to wander around outside rather than being cooped up in a small stall inside a barn. That will give us the point of difference to set us apart and it will guarantee both that we have a market in Europe and the United States and that we will be able to sell our produce at higher prices. 
It is important therefore that we can stand up and say that the products that we produce for people to consume are from animals that have been ethically treated well treated and humanely treated. Our animals will not have been cooped up in small stalls as no doubt animals from many of the other countries will have been. For that reason I mention that although Federated Farmers spoke in favour of this bill they said in their submission that they wanted the part of the legislation making the reckless ill-treatment of animals an offence to be relaxed. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I am taking a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I did not intend to but I am afraid that I cannot sit here and not do so given the sanctimonious warbling from the other side and the familiar sound from the Greens. I refer to the references that Mr Nash made. Almost word for word he repeated my leader’s speech on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. He said that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill sends a message that this kind of conduct simply will not be tolerated and he is right; that is what it is for. That is why we are voting to increase penalties. 
But members on that side of the Chamber did not see fit to support having increased penalties for hurting humans. In my 18 months in the House this is the first time that the Greens have supported anything that increases sentencing. Ms Kedgley in response to an interjection has just said that they are doing that only because there is a new section inserted by new clause 5 introducing the charges of wilful ill-treatment and reckless ill-treatment of animals. If that is the case Ms Kedgley then you should be supporting that clause and voting against the clauses to increase sentencing because you have claimed in this Chamber time and time again that there is no connection— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member is getting so excited that he seems to be bringing you into the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. The member is correct. The member cannot refer to “you” as that is the Chair. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. The Green Party should be consistent and vote against the provisions to increase sentences because in their world view increasing sentences has absolutely no effect on human behaviour. 
I call upon those members to be the principled party that they claim to be. They should support the part of the bill that incorporates the new section on wilful and reckless ill-treatment but they should vote against the clauses increasing penalties because they are ineffective. But I do not think that that party will do it. The reason is that they do not dare to go against a motherhood-and-apple-pie measure like this that no one in this Chamber could possibly disagree with. Our party certainly does not disagree with it which is why we are very happy to support it. But in saying that I say that our concern is just as great for people. It would be great if members on the other side of the Chamber shared the concern for humans that is being expressed here for animals. It would also be great if they supported having increased penalties for violence against humans. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I will perhaps make one last intervention. I probably should not try to respond to the previous speaker David Garrett but I will make a number of comments. The point that I and others have tried to make is that if the member looks at the facts he would see that only 10 people in the history of New Zealand have ever been jailed for animal cruelty. Furthermore for the past 10 years we have had 3-year jail sentences to give to people who have been prosecuted for animal cruelty but barely anyone has gone to jail and certainly nobody has gone to jail for the full 3 years. If we look at the facts we see that simply adding yet more sentences will not result in greater prosecutions. 
I have already pointed out that the best thing that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill does and why we are very pleased to support it is that it makes it easier to prosecute. It introduces a new category that makes it easier to prosecute for which reason we are extremely pleased to support this bill. Furthermore we are pleased that the Government has seen fit to increase the number of inspectors. The simple fact is that it does not matter how many years we say we will put people into jail for if there are only five inspectors in New Zealand able to bring about prosecutions virtually nobody will ever be prosecuted. That has been the reality. 
It is good that at last we are addressing the issue seriously. We are doubling the number of inspectors who will be able to bring about prosecutions and we are giving some greater support to the SPCA which does valiant work. It takes 90 percent of the prosecutions even though 60 percent of its workers are volunteers and at least 50 percent of them work only part-time. Against all the odds the SPCA has to scratch around and have cake stalls to raise funds. It is the only enforcement agency in New Zealand that is a charitable organisation and has to run around baking cakes etc. to try to pay for itself. We hope that the SPCA will be better supported in its valiant work as a result of the new Budget initiative made by the Minister of Agriculture. 
The real issue we should be addressing and which I have talked about is the fact that there is a double standard in New Zealand. This bill reinforces that double standard. It addresses individual acts of cruelty and completely ignores and turns a blind eye to the serious animal cruelty that takes place through institutional cruelty to animals. 
I will mention one further matter in this debate. One submitter argued that veterinarians should be obliged to report suspected cases of animal abuse. He said that this would be an incredibly effective way of monitoring animal abuse and that it would make the legislation much more effective. I thought that it was a very interesting proposal. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rejected the submitter’s proposal. It said that under the code of conduct vets were already supposed to do this. But then it pointed out that the problem is that even though veterinarians are supposed to intervene when they become aware of animals suffering and are supposed to report the case to the ministry the fact is that they are not legally protected from the potential consequences of making an animal welfare complaint about a client. 
I think that we ought to look at that issue. The reality is that if veterinarians did what their code suggests which is to take action if they see animals suffering unreasonably then veterinarians would be leading the campaign to get rid of sow crates and battery hen cages in New Zealand. Instead of being completely silent and complicit in this issue veterinarians would be leading the charge. The problem is I guess that if a veterinarian pointed out some of the reality of what happens to sows locked up in cages he or she would have no legal protection as the ministry points out. I presume that client capture is the reason why so many veterinarians are silent about these practices. 
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. Last weekend over 200 descendants of Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa gathered at Whangaehu Marae to celebrate the special significance of Puanga at the start of the Maori New Year. In our tribal records Puanga was the time of wananga a time to feed the mind and spirit and to learn whakapapa and histories. It was a time to share hospitality to be entertained and to learn. And it was a time to reflect on our past acknowledging those who live on in our memories inspiring the promise of a stronger future. It is therefore an entirely appropriate time to be advancing the bill to settle all the historical claims against the Crown by Ngati Apa. 
I firstly acknowledge the work of the Maori Affairs Committee which considered this bill and reported back to Parliament within 3 months. The chairperson the Hon Tau Henare is to be commended for his leadership and for ensuring that progress was both comprehensive and expeditious. The committee considered 34 submissions on the bill. Submissions in support of the bill were received on behalf of each of the hapu collectives of Ngati Apa including Nga Ariki Nga Wairiki Ki Uta Ngati Tauira Ngati Kauae and Ngati Rangiwhakaturia me Nga Uri o Taitapu. 
The committee has now examined the bill and unanimously supports it. The committee has recommended that it be passed with a number of technical amendments. For Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa this settlement is life changing. It provides a springboard to the future that is forever associated with our foundations back to the whenua. 
Our research describes Ngati Apa as an alliance of Nga Wairiki and Rangitikei people which emerged from events in the 1820s 1830s and 1840s. From that period on we have been linked together by whakapapa our connections strengthened by relationships to the five rivers of Mangawhero Whangaehu Turakina Rangitikei and Oroua. As we move forward it will be because of the importance we are giving to unity between Nga Wairiki Rangitikei and Oroua the rivers along which our ancestors dwelt. 
In coming together we are joining together the autonomous hapu collectives that make up Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa because we are intrinsically connected. Our whakapapa is indivisible. It has also been important to work collaboratively with overlapping claimants. The need to sit down early on with Ngati Raukawa Whanganui iwi Rangitane o Manawatu Ngati Kauwhata and Ngati Haua and others has required a huge commitment from all parties. It was wonderful to read the submission of Te Runanga o Ngati Hauiti and their reference to the Pourewa Accord. The accord demonstrates the deep respect between Ngati Hauiti and Ngati Apa the mutual acknowledgment of the validity of each other’s overlapping interests and the agreement that identifies clear boundaries for future management and development. 
Although some submitters felt that Nga Wairiki should not be included in this settlement the committee’s view was that the vast majority of Nga Wairiki gave their mandate to Te Runanga o Ngati Apa. They were also satisfied that the mandating and ratification processes were robust. There has never been a separation of Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa certainly in my lifetime. Indeed it is impossible to remove strands of one’s whakapapa when our whakapapa sites of significance and rivers are intrinsically linked together. The committee was finally assured that te runanga has left the door open for members who were not supporting the settlement to still participate in the post-settlement affairs of the iwi including the right to participate in elections in respect of the governance entity. 
I firmly believe that out of the growth of kotahitanga Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa is now moving to a new phase; a time when Mt Curl will be known as Parae Karetu and when Round Bush Scenic Reserve will be called Omarupapakau. The settlement includes the gifting of five papakainga properties AgResearch lands Parewanui School part of Santoft Forest and Lismore Sands Forest and Kauangaroa School. 
The settlement allows for the implementation of the cultural redevelopment plan including marae development and investment in current programmes or initiatives that focus on areas such as te reo arts taonga and matauranga. This is a unique initiative to revive the life force of the people. The revitalisation focus has been recognised as a first in Treaty settlements and it is something to be immensely proud of given that many of the Ngati Apa hapu are probably lucky if they have one te reo speaker on each marae. 
The immediate history of this legislation started on 16 November 2004 when the Crown recognised Te Runanga o Ngati Apa’s deed of mandate. But of course the enduring story for Ngati Apa tracks back to 1849 when the Crown purchased the 260-arce Rangitikei-Turakina block. Our circumstances reflect that today. Ngati Apa own less than 1 percent of their traditional rohe the lands have been alienated and the people have been disenfranchised. This bill confronts the failure of the Crown to adequately protect 35000 acres of reserves set aside from the 1849 transaction. 
The bill also takes into account the impact of the native land laws. They contributed to the erosion of traditional tribal structures and resulted in the alienation of nearly all of Ngati Apa’s remaining land. It also brings to the fore the consistent perseverance of our tipuna in challenging the injustices meted out by the Crown. It reminds us of the petitioning of the Premier in 1899 seeking the establishment of the reserves for the Ngati Apa Act; a call on the Crown to pass an Act of Parliament to protect our lands. 
Through all of the land transactions Ngati Apa endeavoured to establish a relationship with the Crown. They sought to strengthen this relationship by going so far as to expressing loyalty to the Crown but it was to no avail. The Crown failed to ensure that the arrangements in 1849 were given effect. The Crown failed to take steps to adequately protect the tribal and hapu custodianship of their lands. 
The settlement enables us to gain a clear appreciation of the historical relationship between the Crown and Nga Wairiki / Ngati Apa. A history is documented; the disillusionment that grew out of the transactions resulted not in prosperity but in poverty. We know now that the Crown’s policy was to acquire land as cheaply as possible on the pretext that the growth of European settlement all around us would have ongoing benefits. The partnerships aspired towards in those times did not eventuate and the wealth of a secure living was rarely experienced except by those who settled the land. 
Now with the progress of this settlement we are poised to build a strong foundation to carry all our descendants of Ngati Apa / Nga Wairiki forward. The deed of settlement was signed by kuia and kaumatua appointed by their respective hapu. All the hapu provided the runanga with information to negotiate the statutory acknowledgments to write the statements of association and to negotiate the deeds of recognition. 
We are also indebted to the leadership and vision of a very young negotiating team Te Roopu Rangahau and the strength of their w’anau in supporting them through such a demanding process. Many complex negotiations have been required and our young people have made us proud through their skills and talents and most of all the great integrity they brought to the task. 
We mihi today to all those previous Labour Government Ministers who began the process of negotiation. Ki a koe e Mita he mihi noa tenei ki a koe.  
Finally I want to mihi to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson who has brought a fierce intellect an irrepressible enthusiasm a gracious dignity and a genuine sense of understanding to the settlement of Ngati Apa as indeed he does to every Treaty settlement. It has been a privilege to work alongside him and I thank him for the honour of being able to speak first in this debate for my own iwi. Na reira tena koutou tena koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. E te whaea te Minita tenei te mihi ki a koe. It is an extraordinary moment I think that a descendant of the tribe the hapu the iwi in question is the Minister of the Crown who moves the second reading of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. The Minister may have missed it but my halting Maori at the beginning of my speech greeted her. It was a short mihi of acknowledgment of her role and some acknowledgment from a Pakeha who tries to understand what this might mean. Suddenly we are coming to the end of 100 or more years of struggle and protest on behalf of the Ngati Apa people in order to reclaim some of the land that was theirs originally. 
I will talk about a couple of things that I think are particularly significant in this settlement bill. I recommend that anybody who wants to know why this Parliament does these things read the preamble to the bill. The history that is recounted in this bill in the preamble is worth more people knowing about than just this House and the immediately affected iwi. It is the story of an indigenous people who were trying to get on with those who arrived more recently. They were trying not only to get on with them but to benefit from living together in that part of the country which is largely around the Rangitikei area but includes part of the country that runs between—if I remember correctly—the Whanganui River and Whangaehu River. Being brought up in Taranaki I had to learn from the Hon Tariana Turia out of respect for where she comes from to pronounce the w-h as a “wh” and I acknowledge that. It is difficult to unlearn things but saying “Whangaehu” when I have always driven across it over it and around it and pronounced it “Fangaehu” is something that I will make an effort to do out of respect for those who come from there. 
One of the amendments I am pleased to see that the Maori Affairs Committee put in was one in which they insisted on putting the “h” into Whanganui. They insisted on that regardless of protests from outside that it should not be spelt that way. I acknowledge the work of the select committee not only in that respect but also for the fact that with the submissions that they heard and the protests that were registered with them they arrived at the conclusion that there was not much to amend in the bill as it was first put forward. 
In pledging Labour’s support for this bill which I hope has been obvious from my comments so far I recognise some of the history and the length of time it has taken for this bill to get where it is. In fact negotiations were led by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the deed of settlement was signed on behalf of the Crown by the Hon Parekura Horomia in October 2008. The bill’s introduction came in August 2009 and the first reading in November 2009. From there it was referred to the Maori Affairs Committee and finally has emerged today after report-back for its second reading. 
The area we are talking about in this bill is that part of the Rangitikei-Manawatu area that anybody who is familiar with that country knows is beautiful—beautiful pastoral land and a beautiful part of the North Island. I commend to people to read the story of purchase and quasi-agreement that started this process of alienation of land. Much of it as I said is recounted in the preamble. It is worth noting that Ngati Apa never felt that they were properly consulted when an agreement was being drafted and that they were never properly taken into account. Regardless of whether they received £1000 in exchange for 86200 acres of land and regardless of whether that was fair at the time it is true that the reserve lands that were set aside for Ngati Apa were also alienated later. 
It is hard to find a piece of Aotearoa New Zealand that has been subjected to more laws quite frankly. By the time one has gone through the events of the 1830s the 1840s and on into the 1850s and the application of a number of laws to the settlement of this piece of land it is a wonder that anybody can track exactly what went on particularly as we are told because in some instances the diary of the Pakeha negotiator was the only record available. 
I refer to some of the content of this bill. It provides a number of critical things that now people ought to be becoming familiar with as we move through Treaty settlements. One is an acknowledgment of the obligations of the Crown. Another is an apology because there are times when an apology is the only way that we can proceed as a nation to move forward. There has to be some recognition of wrongdoing and an apology even generations later. Beyond that the critical things that also are contained in the bill are to do with cultural redress and commercial redress. The settlement includes a historical account much of which I have alluded to in my speech; the Crown acknowledgment of historical breaches of the Treaty; a Crown apology; a cultural redress package featuring the transfer of a number of sites of cultural significance to Ngati Apa including two lake beds; and a quantum of money including the opportunity to purchase four Crown properties in the Rangitikei region. 
In winding up I acknowledge some words that my colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui said in his first speech on this bill’s first reading. They echo the statement of the Minister and recognise the young people who came forward to negotiate this settlement. I pay tribute to them. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Ngati Apa rohe Ngati Apa tangata te iwi o te maunga tupuna i a Parae Karetu tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
To the region and people of Nga Apa the people of the ancestral mountain Parae Karetu greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. 
]  
I acknowledge the contribution of both previous speakers. I consider I am one of the lucky ones in Parliament in that my opposite number Maryan Street is such a sensible person; it does not always apply when one is dealing with Opposition MPs. 
The Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill recognises and addresses the historical grievance of North Island Ngati Apa. Those grievances are longstanding. They relate primarily to the Crown’s purchase in 1849 of the Rangitikei-Turakina Block and the subsequent failure to protect reserves set aside from this transaction. As the other speakers have said from 1848 the Crown purchased many hundreds of thousands of hectares of land in which Ngati Apa held interests. Through these transactions Ngati Apa endeavoured to establish a relationship with the Crown and they sought to strengthen this relationship by expressing loyalty to the Crown. But the Crown failed to ensure that the arrangements in the 1849 deed were given effect and the Crown also failed to take steps to protect collective tribal and hapu custodianship of the land. 
North Island Ngati Apa have worked over many years to have their claims addressed by the Crown. The Crown recognised the mandate of Te Runanga o Ngati Apa in November 2004. The negotiation reached a significant milestone when an agreement in principle was signed on 12 July 2007 followed by an initialled deed of settlement in September 2008. The settlement is well supported by North Island Ngati Apa. In September last year 35 percent of the registered adult members of Ngati Apa voted on the deed of settlement and proposed governance arrangements. Of these 97 percent voted in favour of accepting both the deed of settlement and the proposed arrangements. The Crown and North Island Ngati Apa subsequently signed a deed of settlement on 8 October 2008. I acknowledge the work of my predecessor Dr Cullen. On 25 August 2009 the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill was introduced to Parliament. 
I agree with the other speakers when they say that settling this claim is an important further step in this country’s progress towards settling all historical Treaty grievances. The settlement redress provided by the bill recognises the history of North Island Ngati Apa’s interaction with the Crown. It includes Crown acknowledgments and an apology for historical breaches of the Treaty. Ngati Apa have significant aspirations for the development of their iwi. The redress included in this bill will help them make progress towards those aspirations in the future. The commercial and financial redress totals $16 million including a right to purchase approximately 6500 hectares of Crown forest licensed land and certain other Crown-owned properties. The redress includes innovative cultural revitalisation elements including the gifting of five papakainga properties provision of funding to develop and implement a strategy for revitalising North Island Ngati Apa customs and funding to assist in compiling a comprehensive historical record. Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Apa nor any claimant group for the loss their people have suffered the cultural redress in this bill seeks to recognise Ngati Apa’s longstanding cultural and spiritual association in the region. 
The bill was referred to the Maori Affairs Committee on 17 November last year. The committee reported back to the House on 17 March 2010 and I thank the committee for its excellent work on this bill and for considering it in such a timely manner. The committee received and considered 34 submissions on the bill. Submissions in support of the bill were received on behalf of each of the hapu collectives of Ngati Apa. The committee heard oral submissions on the bill in Marton on 17 February at the Turakina Maori Girls College. The committee has examined the bill it has proposed no major amendments and it unanimously supports it. The committee has recommended that it be passed with a number of technical amendments. Ten properties listed in schedule 2 have been surveyed since the bill’s introduction. The technical amendments recommended by the committee reflect the updated legal description of these properties. 
I acknowledge the North Island Ngati Apa people who suffered from the breaches of the Treaty and who carried the grievances. I particularly acknowledge those who are no longer with us. I also acknowledge Te Runanga o Ngati Apa including the members of the negotiating team; their dedication and determination have been vital in the path towards settlement. I thank other Ministers and departments involved in this process. A wide variety of people from across the political spectrum have made really important contributions to this settlement over the years. 
The second reading is part of the last stage of the settlement process that seeks to recognise what is important to the people of Ngati Apa and to provide redress for historical breaches of the Treaty. It is one of the many settlements that this Government is progressing toward a goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Otira kia ora tatou e te Whare. Kia ora tatou e te Minita ahakoa kua wehe atu nau tonu nei te pire i whakapanuihia ki te Whare otira ki te motu katoa. E tika ana ra te tikanga mau tonu ra te pire e panuihia i te mea ra ko koe ra te uri o ratou i arahi mai tenei kaupapa kia tae mai ki roto i te Whare nei. 
[ 
So greetings to us all the House. Greetings to us and the Minister; even though you are no longer present you personally presented the bill to the House and to the whole nation. That you should present the bill is appropriate because you are their relative and the one who guided this matter here into this House 
.]  
In the time I have been a member of this House I have had the good fortune to have been involved in many settlement bills. Some have been quite massive and I could run off a list just to highlight those particular settlements. But this one the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill is of particular significance to myself not so much for the way that the Ngati Apa people were treated during the 1800s and in the early 1900s but for the manner in which they conducted themselves throughout this whole process. 
The Minister the Hon Tariana Turia who is also the member for Te Tai Hauauru reminded us of the sad history of this claim particularly as it relates to her people of Ngati Apa. If one reads the history of this settlement the historical account one would understand why over the years many people carry grievance to the point where it dominates their lives. 
When we consider the commitment of the negotiating team young as they were and still are given that this settlement has progressed quite well—they did not start young and finish old; they started young and they are still young—and their attitude throughout the negotiations it is obvious that they were the right people to lead us. Those who stood behind the negotiations and supported them were the ones who felt the harshness of Government policy and its effects over a period of time. Those young people had a clear vision that in order to overcome the grievance they needed to show leadership lead the way finalise the settlement and provide for their people the opportunity to move forward. They have done an excellent job as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations reminded the House this evening. Apart from his unkind opening statements the rest of his speech was very positive. 
This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement in which the Crown and Ngati Apa agree to a final settlement of Ngati Apa’s historical claims. I am proud to say that Labour supports this bill and does so for obvious reasons. The negotiations on behalf of the previous Labour-led Government were led by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. The deed of settlement was signed on behalf of the Crown by the Hon Parekura Horomia Minister of Maori Affairs in October 2008. Soon after the deed was signed Dr Cullen reminded us that this settlement was a historic moment in the relationship between the Crown and Ngati Apa. It allows both parties the Crown and Ngati Apa to move forward into the future. I am very pleased that Minister Finlayson continues to support the positive initiatives initiated by the previous Government particularly when it comes to Treaty settlements. If the Minister is to meet his 2014 deadline he will need the cooperation of every party in this House. I thank the Minister for his positive moves in this portfolio. 
I will spend some time talking about the select committee process because that was very very interesting. As with most settlements issues developed along the way between competing interests competing tribal groups and also between competing tribal groups and their local mainstream communities. Ngati Apa had it all. So it was really a test for them to see how they managed those different dynamics those competing interests so that they would be able to finalise this settlement legislation. 
I am reminded of the differences in terms of status between Ngati Apa and iwi belonging to Nga Wairiki and the manner in which they resolved those issues. The select committee was reminded that many of those who belong to Nga Wairiki also claimed that they had whakapapa to Ngati Apa. In fact they overwhelmingly supported the mandate of Ngati Apa. To that point Ngati Apa was able to proceed even though some dissenters came to the select committee. Also those in support of the Ngati Apa mandate belonging to Nga Wairiki were happy with the way that the legislation was to be written and the way that the post-governance settlement arrangements were to be constructed. They will continue to enjoy by right the benefits from the settlement and the assets. The select committee recommended in its report back to the House that there be no changes in terms of the inclusion of Nga Wairiki groups in this settlement legislation. 
The area of cultural redress properties was interesting also. Many of the properties that are included in the cultural redress are situated in areas of tremendous significance to the Ngati Apa people. Although these properties may not have a significant commercial value—in fact many of them have none in so far as Ngati Apa is concerned—the areas of land on which these buildings are erected are of tremendous significance to Ngati Apa. For that reason and that reason alone it was important that these properties not be overlooked in the negotiations and that they be included in the settlement package as part of the cultural redress. I am glad that the staff of the Office of Treaty Settlements did not recommend to the Minister that these properties be classified as commercial redress because that would have been a grievance upon a grievance; that would have been wrong. 
I remind the Minister that his officials advised the select committee that in so far as schedule 2 the list of 17 cultural redress properties is concerned AgResearch lands are not yet included in the land bank properties. We were given the assurance that by the time this bill completes its passage through the House that land would be included in the land bank and form part of the redress. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to conclude this small technical matter by the time the Committee stage is finished. It is important that we all have a discussion on that. This is something new in Treaty settlements. We have included a parcel of land as part of the redress and it is important that it is in the right place—for want of words—and that is the land bank. That indeed is a minor challenge but nevertheless it is a challenge for the Minister. 
The fisheries protocol is very interesting. Anyone who knows the area of Whanganui or Ngati Apa’s rohe well knows that in the rivers and lakes—small as they are—there are massive populations of tuna of eels. One person who submitted on the bill—and I know that the committee members were surprised to hear it—referred to small eels. We said to ourselves that anyone who has been there—to Whangaehu and those particular areas—would never have seen a small eel. They are massive; we call them taniwha. But that was a good example of a competing interest. Somebody believed that their commercial interests would be severely compromised because Ngati Apa were going to catch small eels. Ngati Apa do not catch small eels and that is one thing we had to tell that person. But that is a good example of self-interest rather than of competing interests of having little consideration for the customary rights of others and of having consideration for doing the right thing which is what this bill is about. 
In the short time I have left I will take the time as everybody else before me has done to congratulate the select committee—and rightly so because the chairman conducted a very open and flexible process when we heard the submissions. He allowed members to be quite broad in their questioning of submitters and officials. As a result we have before us a well-considered bill. I hope that he keeps up those standards. Thank you. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. I will open by acknowledging the Hon Tariana Turia the Minister who opened this debate and by recognising the unique situation that she is shepherding through the House a bill that is of such significance and personal importance to her and her whanaunga. I will take only a short call on this Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill which we in the Greens have already undertaken to support through all of its readings. Although we have not participated directly in the select committee process it is clear that a great deal of very valuable and useful work has been done in the Maori Affairs Committee and that issues have been honestly and openly dealt with if not in every case resolved which is inevitable. Clearly there has been a great deal of goodwill in relation to that process and it shows in both the documents and the outcome. 
We acknowledge the work of the Minister and the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who have supported this process and most of all we take the opportunity to acknowledge Ngati Apa and wish them all the best for the progress of this bill to the extent that it will restore their tino rangatiratanga and their mana motuhake over their own lands. This bill reflects that Ngati Apa like so many other iwi and hapu have for over a century been engaged in a struggle a very real struggle to have resolution of wrongdoing and the receipt of justice and to see the honouring of solemn commitments that were made on both sides of the Treaty relationship in 1840. Again we acknowledge and offer our respects for that struggle and to those who have participated in it over many generations. 
It is clear that the progress of this bill and the negotiations that have underpinned it have followed a pattern whereby certain elements have emerged which are becoming commonplace or familiar at least within these Treaty settlements processes. It is clear within the report that some serious concerns have been expressed from particular hapu who have felt that their inclusion in this process against their wishes and preferences could to some extent compromise their own preferred outcomes in this process. But objections of that sort are common to just about every settlement process current or past. I think it is fair to say that the Crown’s policy of negotiating settlements with large natural groupings is one that must be constantly challenged and under constant review to ensure that we do not get outcomes that deny the settlement of legitimate concerns and the right of hapu to self-identity and the self-determination of their futures. We note that there have been claims that some of the lands that will be returned under settlement in this case are also claimed by other iwi. Again that is a typical effect of colonisation and the imposition of Western property law—rather than of tikanga over generations—which has confounded to some extent the appropriate resolution of inter-iwi disputes that otherwise could have been resolved. 
Again it is in common with other settlements—and it was referenced by the previous Speaker—that there are those within the wider community who seem to have a concern or even a degree of suspicion that the settlement and the return of assets and mana to the affected iwi and hapu are somehow too much—that somehow the proposed settlement might reduce or compromise the rights or expectations of those who have become accustomed to a particular situation or practice. The reality is of course that Ngati Apa as with so many other iwi and hapu have been extraordinarily patient and have been equally modest and realistic in their expectation of what can be done in the 21st century to put right the transgressions of the 19th and 20th centuries. The detail of the Crown purchases contained in the preamble to this bill tells a story that highlights very well the almost complete lack of generosity and lack of empathy—the almost complete selfishness—of those who embarked on purchasing land from Ngati Apa. I think we can consider ourselves very fortunate that in the 21st century Maori are much more generous of spirit in accepting only part of what was taken away as resolution and redress from the Crown. 
It is encouraging and very positive to see that significant material assets will be returned to Ngati Apa and that there will be some wealth that will enable them to build an economy and to utilise their resources in ways that are appropriate for them and to the exercise of their mana. Equally important to that tangible return and to those tangible assets is the sincere apology from the Crown which acknowledges the mana of these people and acknowledges that their objections and their claims—their grievances over a century—have been justified have been realised and in fact were legitimate. I cannot stress enough as others have the significance of the apology of the symbolic return as much as the tangible redress and return of assets. 
There is not much more I wish to say except to acknowledge again the good work of those in this House who have put through this bill and of those who are no longer here but who made significant contributions to it. This bill is clearly about settlement but it is also an opportunity for the truth of our shared history to be spoken and heard and we hope to be better understood. Knowing a little more of our own history of our shared history will perhaps progress us towards a speedy resolution of this settlement and of those that will follow it. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. Sitting on the Maori Affairs Committee to hear stories from whanau hapu and iwi is a real privilege as it was to hear the submissions of Ngati Apa on the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. It was an opportunity to hear them speak with pride of their whakapapa their descent from Apa-hapai-taketake another tupuna of Rangitikei and Nga Wairiki. 
Four months ago we travelled up to Marton to hear submissions at Turakina Maori Girls’ College and also of course to enjoy the sweet melodies of the beautiful young Maori women who attend that wonderful school. We heard submissions in support from various hapu of Ngati Apa including Nga Ariki Nga Wairiki Ki Uta Ngati Tauira Ngati Kauae Ngati Rangiwhakaturia and Nga Uri o Taitapu. 
We also heard submissions lodged by Wai 655 claimants and the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working party several of whom felt that Nga Wairiki should be left out of the Ngati Apa settlement and dealt with perhaps as a separate iwi or as a hapu of Whanganui. But we noted that three major Nga Wairiki hapu groups had already chosen to be included in the Ngati Apa settlement and that the runanga had left the door open for all of Nga Wairiki to participate in the post-settlement affairs of the iwi including elections to the new governance body. We recognised the differences but we also accepted the fact that those matters were best resolved in-house by Nga Wairiki themselves. 
The other contentious issue was that presented by members of the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working party who said that they wanted to take issue with the part of the settlement that involved the Lismore Hills Forest which both Ngati Apa and Whanganui have interests in. Some objected to the transfer of 65 percent of the forest to Ngati Apa because they felt that there was a stronger Whanganui claim to the part of the forest being offered to Ngati Apa. They felt that they were being shut out of gaining any interest or settlement from that area. That was one of the more complex issues that we had to consider but our research showed that a lot of time had already been given to enabling the various interest groups to resolve that issue including extensive litigation through the Waitangi Tribunal and the Court of Appeal which upheld the tribunal’s decision. Given the number of meetings the litigation and the outcome of the litigation and the very strongly held but differing view of the parties we simply did not believe that more time would necessarily lead to a positive agreement. We noted though that 35 percent of the Lismore Hills Forest had actually been set aside for use in any future settlement with Whanganui iwi. 
The Hon Tariana Turia herself of Ngati Apa and Nga Wairiki has already spoken of the Pourewa Accord between Ngati Apa and Ngati Hauiti. It was interesting to note that Ngati Hauiti felt that any concern they might have had regarding the settlement and other redress was covered in that accord and that they therefore had no major issues with the bill. That is a precedent that other iwi and hapu might do well to consider. It is unnecessary in the north of course but certainly worthy of consideration in some of the more rebellious areas south of the Tamaki River. 
Nga Wairiki ki Uta spoke of the ongoing support they have received from and given to Te Rununga o Ngati Apa over the years their continued representation at the runanga level how the runanga itself could help represent Nga Wairiki ki Uta. They spoke about a number of other important issues including fisheries resource management iwi representation and other dealings with the Crown and their gratitude to the runanga itself following the devastating floods of 2004 which had severely damaged their marae and a number of their homes. 
I come back to Ngati Apa. The various hapu collectives of Ngati Apa have come together to give their support to Te Runanga o Ngati Apa negotiating and settling their historical claims. They told us that their hapu had freely and willingly participated in every aspect of the negotiations and the settlement process including a number of information hui held throughout the rohe and that the deed of settlement had in fact been ratified by 97 percent of those who had voted. Ngati Apa clearly are people on the move rebuilding their culture and their identity from a time when they were almost landless. Their tikanga was under threat and their capacity to speak the reo was seriously endangered. The progress they have made is a credit to their commitment and their vision to rebuild and restore themselves as Nga Wairiki and Ngati Apa. The Maori Party is proud to acknowledge their efforts and to support this bill today. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi kei a koe e te Tumuaki o te Whare nei tena koe. Kei a koutou e aku rangatira nga mema o te Komiti Maori tena ano koutou katoa. 
[ 
The first thing Mr Assistant Speaker of this House is greetings to you. To you my illustrious colleagues members of the Maori Affairs Committee my acknowledgments once again to you all. 
] 
I will not take too long on the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to be able to play a part in the theatre of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. One of the reasons is that I get a sense of national pride a sense of nationalism and a sense of patriotism when the House enters this stage of a Treaty settlement. 
I take my hat off to my colleagues. Somebody on the other side is whispering and not listening to what I have to say but that is OK. I take my hat off to the members of the Maori Affairs Committee from both National and Labour and to the Greens who were sometimes there. I am not saying anything disparaging about them; it is just that they have a big workload. 
I will briefly mention something that is in every Treaty settlement bill that I think we do not pay enough attention to during the process. If members cast their eyes over the preamble to the bill they will find a précis of the history of the involvement of Ngati Apa. Although it is not a huge historical tome of where Ngati Apa has come from and where it may end up it is a small historical account of a people’s struggle. I am sure that one day we will be teaching this stuff in our schools and not for any other reason than to be patriotic and nationalistic about the history of our country. It will not be taught with any feeling of guilt or any thoughts other than this nation can through this process become closer as one nation. 
I will not ramble on too much more other than to say that our select committee meeting at Turakina Maori Girls College to hear submissions was one of the best of our session. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Did you pay the koha? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes we paid the koha. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Who sang the waiata? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Hone Harawira sang the waiata and our kaumatua Mita Ririnui did the korero. 
Our select committee is a good select committee. We may have our run-ins and we may have fun but we take our job very very seriously as do other select committees. Again if we only took the time to have a look at the bills that go through our House of Representatives this could be the beginning of something new in our education system. No reira kei a koutou ano aku rangatira tena koutou a tena koutou katoa. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Te mea tuatahi mihi kau atu ki tera te Minita a Tariana nona nei te iwi e korerotia nei e tatou i te wa nei. 
[ 
The first thing is to acknowledge Minister Tariana Turia whose people we are discussing at the moment 
.] 
I would like to start by touching on what the Hon Tau Henare has just mentioned about the wealth of history that is in these Treaty settlement bills. I agree totally with him and say I think it would be great if we could teach this history in our schools. I encourage Ngati Apa as part of its cultural redress to consider developing this history just a little further and taking it to schools so that schools and the local iwi can work in partnership and cooperation to make sure that local iwi history is not simply forgotten. I encourage that not just for Ngati Apa but for all schools in the areas covered by Treaty settlements using the information in these bills. 
It is important for us to consider that in 1840 Ngati Apa had considerable land interests in the Rangitikei and Manawatu areas. That is the first point. The second point is that it is also important for us to know that three members of Ngati Apa signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The way that the land was broken up which became a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi disenfranchised Ngati Apa from their land and from their culture and that is at the crux of this bill. It is important that the Crown has acknowledged that Ngati Apa have been raising grievances with the Crown for over 100 years and that the Crown failed to deal with the longstanding grievances of Ngati Apa in an appropriate way. The recognition of the grievances of Ngati Apa is long overdue. It is also important for us to realise that from 1848 over 400000 acres of the considerable land interests of Ngati Apa were purchased. It was through these land transactions that Ngati Apa endeavoured to establish a relationship with the Crown. 
The deed for the 1849 Rangitikei-Turakina purchase stated that approximately 35000 acres of that land would be reserved for all of Ngati Apa to collect and settle on. However later native land legislation enabled these reserve lands to pass through the Native Land Court which awarded land interest to individuals rather than to all the tribe and that excluded many Ngati Apa from ownership of the tribal reserve land. That failure of the Crown to ensure that the arrangements recorded in the 1849 deed were given effect to was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The native land laws in particular awarding the land to individual Ngati Apa rather than to iwi or hapu made the lands that Ngati Apa were able to retain more susceptible to partition fragmentation and alienation. It is a classic case of divide and conquer. This contributed to the erosion of the tribal structures of Ngati Apa which were based on collective tribal and hapu custodianship of the land. The Crown failed to take steps to adequately protect those tribal structures and that had a prejudicial effect on Ngati Apa. Again that was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Despite Ngati Apa’s contributing lands for settlement purposes the significant benefits that Ngati Apa expected to flow from its relationship with the Crown were not realised. The cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions and omissions left Ngati Apa virtually landless. The Crown failed to ensure that Ngati Apa retained sufficient lands for their present and future needs. Therefore today we have the situation where most of Ngati Apa live outside their tribal rohe and the loss of their traditional lands has impacted on the access of Ngati Apa to resources such as their rivers lakes forests wetlands and traditional walking paths. Ngati Apa have lost control over many of their significant sites including wahi tapu and this has had an ongoing impact on their physical and spiritual relationship with the land. 
So it is important that we acknowledge the apology that has been offered by the Crown. It is important that we acknowledge the work that was started by Dr Cullen the Hon Parekura Horomia and the Hon Mita Ririnui and that has been continued by the Hon Chris Finlayson. It is also important to note that four Ngati Apa people signed the original document. They were Lillian Te Aweawe Ropata Te Hina Arikihanara Mare Mare and Mariana Shenton all from Ngati Apa of course. 
The apology is really important. An apology does not bring back everything that was lost but it is important that the Crown has apologised and recognised the efforts and struggles of Ngati Apa in pursuit of their claims for justice and redress. It is also important in the apology that the Crown has said it profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Ngati Apa for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is also important to note that the Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions over the generations through to the present day. These matters have all had a detrimental impact on the traditional tribal structures of Ngati Apa. With this apology the Crown seeks to atone for the past wrongs to begin a process of healing and to make a significant step towards rebuilding a lasting relationship with Ngati Apa based on mutual trust and cooperation. 
The cultural redress is that there are protocols to be issued to the trustees by the Minister of Conservation the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. There is an acknowledgment by the Crown of the statements that were made by Ngati Apa of their cultural spiritual historical and traditional association with nine statutory areas and the effect of the acknowledgment deeds of recognition between the Crown and trustees and also the vesting in the trustees of the fee simple estate in 17 cultural redress properties. It is really important for everyone and for the House to understand that the 17 cultural redress properties represent but a fraction of the land that was denied or that was partitioned and removed from Ngati Apa. I can imagine all the rednecks out there saying the blimmin Maoris are getting more land handed back. But the rednecks have to realise that this is just a fraction of what Ngati Apa lost. 
Finally there is a part of the cultural redress that talks about the alteration of place names. We know about the most obvious example of altering place names from the debate over whether “Wanganui” or “Whanganui” is correct. I believe it is really important for us to recognise that to Maori it is important that our language our places and our place names are given the due respect that they deserve. It is not fair or right that a group of people can come and change names often not just by removing a letter from the name but actually by supplanting a name in another language and then to say that is the way it is and Maori just have to get over it. 
This settlement has been great. I endorse what the others have said about being part of the Maori Affairs Committee and the work that has gone on with regard to this legislation. It is well overdue. Ngati Apa have waited far too long for this settlement to occur and Labour of course supports this bill. Kia ora. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Tena koutou e te Whare; e te Tumuaki tena koe. I rise to support the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. It is great to see that this historic claim has finally been settled. It is particularly pleasing to see that the settlement package is a mixture of cultural redress and financial and commercial redress and also that there is an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgment that form the basis of a Crown apology to Ngati Apa. All members of Ngati Apa wherever they live will be pleased to see this final settlement. 
National is committed to our goal of reaching just and durable settlements from historic Treaty claims by 2014. We are putting our money where our mouth is. Budget 2010 provides an extra $6.5 million over the next 3 years to achieve the Government’s goal of settling all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014. This Ngati Apa settlement is part of a significant acceleration in Treaty settlements that we have seen over the past year. The Government has signed 11 agreements in principle and six deeds of settlement in the last 12 months. The extra funding that we have put in Budget 2010 will continue speeding up that process by providing resources for our successful team of Crown chief negotiators to employ extra staff to support negotiations and draft the deeds of settlement. 
More groups are also keen to ramp up the speed of negotiations since they have seen the benefits that settling claims in a timely fashion can bring for people by creating jobs and unlocking economic development opportunities. Coming from Otautahi or Christchurch in Te Wai Pounamu or the South Island I am particularly pleased to see more settlements taking place. Our local iwi Ngai Tahu led the settlement process and the whole South Island community has benefited form their proactive stance. Because they settled early they have the opportunity to grow their assets to grow their businesses and to strengthen their iwi. They are now dominant and highly respected players in the business community of the South Island. Ngai Tahu companies are involved in retail education agriculture fishing and forestry. But they are best known—and perhaps best loved—for their tourism ventures. The story of Whale Watch Kaikoura in particular illustrates powerfully everything that is good about economic independence for iwi. 
The Treaty settlement process is about acknowledging unfairness making amends for mistakes and accepting each other’s apologies. This Government is committed to its goal of reaching the just and durable settlement of historical Treaty claims by 2014 because we understand the importance of getting down to the business of settling the claims with as little delay as possible. We must settle those claims so that all New Zealanders can look to the future and move forward together. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. I am pleased to speak on this Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill but I will start by recognising the members across the House including former Labour Ministers who have contributed to this process. I also acknowledge the recognition by the previous speaker Nicky Wagner of the significance of this settlement to a member of this House. This settlement is for Minister Turia’s whanau her people. Occasionally in this House members are able to look back on the words they said as a newbie MP. In my maiden statement I said: “In supporting this National Government the Maori Party MPs have shown that they are not bound by rigid left or right-wing ideology in their pursuit of better lives for all Maori.” I acknowledge Minister Turia and the Maori Party for the purposeful and hard-working job they are doing in walking a line that is enabling them to keep their independence as a party while making extraordinary progress for Maori. This week’s announcement on the foreshore and seabed is a real achievement which guarantees access to our beaches while restoring the ability of Maori to have the fundamental right to test their rights within our court system. That is a fundamental right of all New Zealanders and I support that. 
I will touch on why we are here and on why we are doing these settlements for all New Zealanders. Firstly we believe that Maori are seeing the benefits that settling claims in a timely fashion can bring to their people and we know that by doing that in a timely fashion we can see that new jobs are created and economic development is unlocked. Secondly we are doing this because we fundamentally acknowledge that there is unfairness that we need to make amends for mistakes and that we need to accept each other’s apologies. Thirdly we are doing this because we want to live in a country that moves beyond grievance to the empowerment of people. 
I have just a few other comments to make. Obviously we acknowledge the pace our Government is working at and I acknowledge Mr Finlayson for the huge amount of work that he has done. I think that previous speakers have called him someone who has a huge intellect and graciousness and I support those comments. We have put a lot of money into speeding up the pace of these settlements and I think that people are acknowledging that. 
But this settlement is really about Ngati Apa and I acknowledge Minister Turia’s comments that this bill is life-changing for them. Ngati Apa has more than 3200 members. The historical grievances of the iwi relate primarily to the Crown’s purchase in 1849 of the 260000 acre Rangitikei-Turakina block including the Crown’s subsequent failure to adequately protect approximately 35000 acres of reserves set aside from that transaction. I acknowledge that this is the final settlement of all of Ngati Apa’s North Island historical claims. Nicky Wagner acknowledged the fact that the package includes cultural redress and financial and commercial redress. 
I acknowledge members of the Maori Affairs Committee and in particular Tau Henare for the way that he has led that committee. In closing I speak to the people of Ngati Apa when I say: Ngati Apa mauri ora ki a koutou katoa. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is a delight to take a brief call in support of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. It is pleasing that Ngati Apa has progressed this bill. A huge process has been entered into to get to this point. 
One of the wonderful things about what has happened in this Treaty settlement period of New Zealand history as Maori reach a post-renaissance period is the many examples where a particular iwi or tribe Ngati Apa in this case is mandated to develop a process to identify all of the issues that are before it and then to enter the process of negotiations with the Crown over a long period of time. It is something special about New Zealand society that this has happened many times now. It is now Ngati Apa’s day. We acknowledge the grievances that have been raised we acknowledge the hurts of the past and we find a way to the future. 
One of the defining aspects of contemporary New Zealand society is that we are able to do this. It sets us apart from many many other countries and it makes us unique. In many countries indigenous people and tribes have been colonised and have had their rights and their land taken away. Sometimes they never reach the point that Ngati Apa is reaching today. That is the special characteristic that I acknowledge and celebrate as a New Zealander and as a member of this House speaking at this stage of the bill. 
The bill is a credit to previous members of Parliament and previous Governments that have worked on this process. In this particular case we note that the part of Mr Cullen has been acknowledged and that of others. I also acknowledge the part of the Hon Christopher Finlayson in bringing it together. They all do this House and this country proud by engaging in the process and taking their own time to make it so special. It falls on the present Government to bring this legislation to a conclusion so I acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson the Maori Affairs Committee and others who have worked on this bill to bring it to this phase. 
This bill has all of those unique aspects that have become a hallmark of settlements in New Zealand. Firstly the main provisions acknowledge the harm that was done and offer an apology. That is quite special about New Zealand society. Some do not realise that. At times in many conversations outside the House there are those who say that they did not do anything wrong so why should they apologise. But indeed in a symbolic sense these apologies are unique to us as New Zealanders at this point in our history. So this bill also provides an apology and there are several aspects of it. The bill also includes cultural redress aspects as well as commercial redress. Together those aspects make the bill a cause for celebration. It provides a pathway forward and puts to rest certain matters of the past. It provides compensation to the extent possible which is never enough clearly. Most important it enables this particular tribe to move forward as equal partners in this society. 
My call is a brief one to acknowledge that particular work and to acknowledge unique aspects of our society at this time. I wonder what aspects people listening to this debate will focus on. Will they think that it is just another settlement and that Parliament is going through the motions again? Or is it more important than that? Clearly it is particularly significant for Ngati Apa. It is their time; it is their process. It is their time to be compensated to have resources and to move forward. But would it not be nice if others also moved forward with it? That is the symbolism of the apology which I mentioned earlier. It is us as a nation trying to put to rest some aspects of the past. As we do that it provides a way to move forward. I urge others who are listening others who might not be 100 percent behind what this bill is about to accept the symbolism of the apology and the importance of the settlement. It provides us as a society with an opportunity to move forward as well. 
I congratulate those who have taken part in bringing the bill to this stage. I acknowledge the work of this Government and of the previous Labour Government. I acknowledge Ngati Apa and Minister Turia in particular who introduced the bill. I stand proud to support this particular bill. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill be now read a second time 
. Perhaps because I am Acting Leader of the House I will resist all efforts by the chief Government whip for the House to lift before 6 o’clock; I think we should work to rule—work until 6 o’clock. 
The bill gives effect to aspects of the deed of on-account settlements signed by the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working party on behalf of Whanganui iwi and the Crown on 31 July 2009. It protects iwi interests in the northern part of the Wanganui Forest and the half share in the land under the prison. The agreement by the Crown to enter into an on-account settlement was a result of discussions between Ngati Apa North Island and the working party to address concerns Whanganui iwi had with aspects of the Ngati Apa settlement. Addressing overlapping interests is a difficult and complex aspect of the negotiations process and the on-account settlement is a creative solution to those issues. 
The deed of on-account settlement provides the working party with an opportunity to acquire a half share in the land under the Wanganui Prison and the half of the Wanganui Forest not offered to Ngati Apa North Island. The right of deferred selection offered to Whanganui iwi over these properties is subject to Ngati Apa North Island deciding whether they wish to purchase the half share of the land under the prison or the forest. The value of the assets transferred in this on-account settlement will be taken into account when the Crown makes an offer of redress for the final settlement of the iwi historical claims. The transfer of these properties is closely linked to provisions in the Ngati Apa bill to transfer the land under the prison and the southern part of the forest. 
I propose that this bill be progressed through its stages as a companion measure to the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill we have just dealt with in order for the bills to receive Royal assent on or close to the same date. I thank the members of the Maori Affairs Committee for their excellent work. The hearings were held in Marton on the same day as the Ngati Apa bill at Turakina Maori Girls College. The committee has examined the bill and there are a couple of minor technical changes reflecting the name. I want to thank Mr Henare and his team for the excellent work they did and I want to thank members of the working party for their work in reaching this on-account settlement in such short time frames. Once again I thank the committee for their work. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have made good progress today and I seek leave for the House to rise early. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise early. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I think members have saved 30 seconds. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.