Volume 612 Week 39 - Thursday 16 October 2003 
Volume 612 Week 39 - Thursday 16 October 2003 
[Volume:612;Page:9249] 
Thursday 16 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the second reading of the Land Transport Management Bill after which the Government will be moving an urgency motion. The following bills will be included in the urgency motion for their respective remaining stages: the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Film and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Counter-Terrorism Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) the Wine Bill the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that outline of next week’s programme. I note that the urgency motion appears to be quite light and there is little in it to suggest it needs to be done urgently. Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that question time will occur on Wednesday and Thursday of next week? I note that question time has been difficult for the Government of late; it is of course the Opposition’s chance to probe the Government on its programme. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thank the member for his comment that the programme looks quite light. I am sure in that respect there therefore should be no difficulty in arriving at an understanding about the completion of that business in return for having oral questions on Wednesday and Thursday. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the two old parties are going to have that conversation then let me make it clear to the Leader of the House that under previous Governments there has been an understanding that there would be question time. The ACT party will most certainly not agree to have our debates guillotined just for question time. A true Parliament supported by a decent Opposition would insist that in return for an urgency motion there would be question time; so it is really Mr Dunne is it not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. It is a statement made to the House. 
Points of Order 
Dominion Post 
 Article 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an issue with you under Standing Orders 22 33 and 397 that is of deep concern to the National Party and I am sure others in the House. That is the issue of a small article on the front page of this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 
in which you are effectively accused of taking a bottle of wine as some sort of assuaging of the stress or whatever caused to you by the hassle of three Labour Party researchers—Andrew Marshall Melanie Schurr and Donovan Ryan—undertaking a bit of guerrilla activity on the second floor by posting an offensive notice on the door of Shane Ardern’s office. The question we have before the matter can progress is a simple one and that is whether you received a bottle of wine from those people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the best of my knowledge no I certainly did not ask for it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for that assurance. Perhaps the Government whip could now assure the House that the Government researchers were not given the advice that what they should do is provide you with a bottle of wine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but if the senior Government whip wishes to make a comment he can. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I would be delighted to Mr Speaker. I have already communicated my concern about the inaccuracy of the story to its author. When I was approached about the issue I referred to the employment matters concerned. The issue of any gifts of any kind was not raised. None occurred and I have told her that is the fact. I can assure the House that is exactly the facts of this matter. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that Mr Brownlee put was did you receive a bottle of wine from the aforesaid parties—not whether you asked for one but whether you received one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I said “to the very best of my knowledge no”. Occasionally I have on my table a bottle of wine given to me by someone and of course I automatically put it down to be shared with my colleagues and friends including people in the Opposition and in the press gallery. Members will know that I am reasonably generous in this regard. But to the best of my knowledge no and I certainly did not ask for it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to get too pedantic. The question could well be: were you offered in the circumstances a bottle of wine? If your answers remain as they are would you entertain a letter from us citing a breach of privilege against Leah Haines for implicating the Chair—and it is not you personally; it is the office of the Chair which I think has taken quite a battering of late—being referred to the Privileges Committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that if the member wants to write a letter to me about that matter he is perfectly at liberty to do so and I would encourage him to do so if he wishes. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I too do not want to be pedantic. I accept absolutely the assurance given by the Government whip but that was not actually the assurance that I asked him for. The assurance that I asked him for was based on what is actually in the newspaper and it states: “The trio were advised to buy bottles of wine for Speaker of the House Jonathan Hunt”—I will not go into the next bit because it is abusive—“… and Mr Benson-Pope—to compensate them for the hassle the stunt caused them.” In fact Mr Benson-Pope did not answer that question and would he just give us an assurance that they were not given that advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can certainly give that assurance to the member. [ 
Interruption 
] No I did not; I am certain I did not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is to say the least reassuring that you had not given that advice. The question is whether we have got officers in this House—and a whip is an officer—advising people that the best way around a sticky situation is to give the Speaker a bottle of wine. It seems to me that that is most disrespectful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Let me just say that of course that is a silly thing—if anyone did think that was a way out. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s written in there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It might be written in the newspaper but that does not make it accurate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is all we are trying to get to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes well I think the report is an inaccurate report and I have made my position perfectly clear. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not even asking you for such an assurance. I think it is inconceivable that the Speaker would have been giving out advice like that. That is not what the newspaper said and I was actually asking for an assurance from the chief Government whip who at the moment has left me with the impression that the story is true. If it is not I think it would help the whole House if he were to say that no such advice was given. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I am not aware of any such advice being given by anyone to the research unit. I certainly did not give it. No wine changed hands. 
Questions to Ministers 
Roading—Review 
1. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Will the review of major roading projects currently under way by Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand be completed by December 2003 as stated and will the review process result in delays to the construction start dates for the North Shore busway or the Wellington inner-city bypass? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The review of major projects will be completed by 20 December this year as stated. The construction dates will depend on the outcome of the review. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the completion of the review process dependent upon the passage of the Land Transport Management Bill; if so by what date does the bill need to be passed in order to avoid any delays to these projects? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The passage of the bill is an integral part of the review process. The process is under way because it has also to do with the New Zealand Transport Strategy but the sooner the bill can be progressed the better and I am very heartened by the indication given by my colleague the Leader of the House that progress will be made next week. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Who is assisting Transit with the review? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Although Transit New Zealand is responsible for the review it has engaged Sir Brian Elwood to chair an independent advisory panel. 
John Key 
: Is the project likely to cost any more money as a result of the delays? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not sure what is meant by the “project” but— 
John Key 
: The North Shore busway. Is it likely to cost more? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do not have that information with me but my understanding is that once the review process is under way formally the expectation is to have it done by 20 December and that should resolve the problems raised by the member. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers and noting also the fact that the Minister agreed wholeheartedly with New Zealand First yesterday when we stated that the single most important issue facing land transport is funding when will he actually do something to address that problem rather than simply make patronising noises? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: With the passage of the bill. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that projects under review may be approved modified or withdrawn depending on whether they are the type of project that would be likely to emerge under the new framework? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I can confirm that. It was part of the conditions going way back now and there is an expectation that the conditions the member outlines will be applied to all those projects. 
Heather Roy 
: Why is Wellington missing out on all major roading projects including the Wellington City bypass languishing because of yet another appeal by Green Party activists when the Wellington region has six Labour electorate MPs and Government support from Peter Dunne and what does this say about the quality of their representation? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Clearly that member has not read Transit’s 10-year plan. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Oh yes she has. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well if she had read it she would know that the region is getting for example a big bridge crossover at McKay’s Crossing and a major upgrade of State Highway 2 into Hutt City which the member for Hutt South is particularly enthusiastic about. There is also a number of other projects that are almost completed or nearing completion—Kaitoke and Plimmerton. All I can say is there has been fabulous representation from the local members of Parliament in the Wellington region. 
John Key 
: Has all the land necessary for the North Shore busway been purchased; if not does the Minister envisage any further hold-ups if legislative processes have to be followed to acquire the necessary land? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I understand that all the processes are under way. I am advised that the land has been purchased. There is a review according to the provisions of the bill that is soon to become an Act and progress will be made on that before 20 December. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware in reference to the Greens’ requested review of the Wellington inner-city bypass that construction of the new $300 million Wellington Hospital is now under way and that the completion of the bypass was a key consideration in the decision to site the hospital in Newtown? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am aware that the hospital construction is well under way. The reality is though that the Wellington City bypass is part of the agreed review and I expect some decisions to be made before 20 December. 
Larry Baldock 
: Do any contractual obligations already entered into for projects like the North Shore busway stipulate that any delays will result in penalties or other additional costs that will have to be borne by Transit or other road-controlling authorities; if so what is the dollar amount of those potential penalties? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that there are no contractual obligations such as the member mentions but I am happy to check on his behalf and get back to him with the advice. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister believe that the public is sufficiently aware that the reason taxpayer funds are being used on this review process and potentially projects are being delayed is that the ridiculous review process is being insisted upon by the Green Party? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Actually it was part of an agreement that was reached way back last year. Part of that agreement involved support for a petrol tax increase which allowed more roading and which all Opposition parties in this Parliament voted against even though they want more roads in New Zealand. 
Te Puni Kokiri—State Services Commission Report 
2.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have full confidence in Te Puni Kokiri and its chief executive in light of the findings of the report to the State Services Commissioner which was released yesterday; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I am confident that given the support of the State Services Commission Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Te Puni Kokiri will develop a strategic plan that addresses the issues raised in the report. Matters relating to the chief executive are for the State Services Commissioner. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: In light of the report’s finding that Te Puni Kokiri lacked the capability to support the constitutional mechanisms by which Parliament holds Ministers and the Government to account and of his own statement yesterday that “Te Puni Kokiri has already taken action to address the concerns outlined” what are the specific steps that have been taken and can he assure the House that they will be adequate to ensure he does not give misleading and incorrect answers to Parliament in future? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The report showed clear inadequacies in the way Te Puni Kokiri operated and provided advice to me. Several issues are being confronted right now—too many to go into detail. The review stands in its own right and is explicit in its recommendations. I have accepted that as has the chief executive. We now need to move forward to make it all happen. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the State Services Commission review report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The review report provides a comprehensive analysis of events and actions that regrettably led to the provision of incorrect information by officials to me. I expect a high standard from public servants. This report identifies a number of issues in Te Puni Kokiri that led to a less than adequate level of support. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: Is the check that is supposedly held 6-monthly sufficient to ensure that Te Puni Kokiri staff are accountable and are performing to their full capacity? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That certainly will be one part of the developments as we progress with the analysis out of the report. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the Minister read the report in particular where it says: “Those circumstances are serious … a systemic impediment to the business of government through the deterioration of the relationship between a Minister and his chief executive and senior officials.”; if so given that he has just told the House that the report is accurate what part if any does he take for his role? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I own every part of the role and the responsibility that I have in this whole exercise. Along with the chief executive and the staff who work in Te Puni Kokiri we intend to do a lot better. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What was the total appropriation voted by Parliament to Te Puni Kokiri in the 2002-03 Budget and in light of the information contained in the report released yesterday can the Minister give an absolute assurance that he will be able to account to this House and its members for the expenditure of that appropriation? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question was whether the Minister had the details of the amount of the appropriation. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Could the member please repeat the question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I asked whether the Minister could tell the House the total appropriation voted by Parliament to Te Puni Kokiri in the 2002-03 Budget. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I do not have the exact amount but I am more than happy to provide that detail to the member following this session. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the recommendation in particular the extraordinary recommendation that the role of the State Services Commission “move from its review focus to a collaborative engagement with Te Puni Kokiri involving an overview function” actually mean that this Government department has actually been put into statutory management? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No most certainly not. It is part of the role of the State Services Commission to aid and abet any developments like this. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that the 2002-03 Budget voted $136 million to Te Puni Kokiri for it either to spend directly or to superintend through other agencies that it funds and can he assure the House in the light of the material contained in the report tabled yesterday and the actions taken by him that he will be able to account fully to this House and its members for the expenditure of that $136 million of public money? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That most certainly is an integral part of the pathway forward and I want to come back and say to the member “Of course.” 
Teachers—Loans 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to encourage new teachers with student loans to stay in the teaching profession? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today I announced an extra $4.7 million of student loan repayment assistance to help new teachers get rid of their loans more quickly and to encourage them to remain in teaching. All secondary teachers of maths te reo Maori and physics will be eligible for a payment towards their student loan of $2500 in their second third and fourth years of teaching. Teachers in hard-to-staff areas who teach English chemistry physical education computing and biology will also be eligible for the payments. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does this initiative fit within the wider Government strategy to recruit and retain more secondary teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government is investing $20 million in a comprehensive and coordinated response to meeting the anticipated increase in demand for secondary teachers. This includes funding for secondary teacher placements in isolated schools and schools in the Auckland region and for $10000 payments to encourage people with degrees in areas of maths te reo Maori physics biology chemistry English and computing to enter teacher training. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the huge difficulty that secondary schools are having in attracting technology teachers and the number of those who are so disillusioned with this Government that they are leaving the profession why has he excluded teachers of technology subjects from any support in this package? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because they are not identified as a shortage group. 
Jim Peters 
: How can the Minister conclude that helping trainee teachers to pay off a fraction of their loans will adequately address the known teacher shortage rather than his addressing the daily intense issue of workloads in a crowded curriculum largely because of ministry directives? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is a small part of a wonderful package coming from this Government that has already included 900 extra teachers going to secondary schools—something the former principal of Northland College thanked me for not very many years ago. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that despite the crucial role played by early-childhood teachers many of them may never pay off their student loans because of their very low rates of pay—much lower than those of primary teachers—and what steps is he taking to support early-childhood teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is nothing in this package for them but I think if the member was a bit more up with the facts as to pay-rate trends for early-childhood teachers he would not make statements like that. 
Immigration Service—Annual Report 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does she stand by the Department of Labour’s annual report for 2002-03 in relation to the New Zealand Immigration Service? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes in particular where I rated the policy advice given by the Immigration Service to be excellent in all areas and to outperform expectations. However the operational side of the Immigration Service which employs over 700 staff has more challenges because of the nature of the work which involved considering over 350000 temporary permits and over 45000 applications for residence that year. This was reflected in the global customer satisfaction survey that year which was down on that of the year before. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister think that here and elsewhere like on the  
Holmes  
show her going on like a parrot for hours somehow advances her cause rather than her answering the plain fact yes or no whether she is satisfied; if that is the case how come the report recites 48530 people being granted residence and Statistics New Zealand recites a figure of 72500 for the same period—how does she square that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I answered the question with the word “Yes” before I explained why my answer was “Yes”. Secondly in answer to the second question it is simply the fact that that member continues to misunderstand Statistics New Zealand’s method of collecting statistics. Its statistics are quite different from residence approvals. 
Dianne Yates 
: How does the 2002-03 report differ from those of previous years? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: This is the first year that the department’s report has focused on outcomes as opposed to being restricted to outputs. This will enable the Government to measure the results of immigration policy against the benefits for New Zealand and for migrants instead of simply counting the numbers of migrants entering the country which was the approach of the previous Government. 
Paul Adams 
: Does she agree with the sentiment of the Department of Labour’s annual report which states that the benefits of immigration can be realised only if the host community is welcoming and well informed; if so will she make people more aware that with a declining natural birth rate this country is absolutely dependent on immigration to provide enough workers to pay for superannuitants like those who vote for New Zealand First? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes and yes. I should also point out to the member that comments made about migrants to this country can be very damaging to New Zealand’s reputation and the way that those migrants are received here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of running a sound economy and paying for our long-term retirement perhaps the Minister could tell me this: if 18000 migrants entered with no skills and a further 8000 which makes 24000 who entered in the skilled category failed to gain appropriate employment—that is more than half the Minister’s number—how on earth is this helping the economy? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Again the member fails to acknowledge the fact that this Government changed the rules under the family-sponsored category. Under the family-sponsored category those who are not direct relatives—the parents and dependent children of principal applicants— have to have a job offer to come to New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is her report. There is the article in  
Dominion Post 
 today—and it is a very small one I might add. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is incorrect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Then where is the Minister’s disclaimer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are on a point of order. Please come to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is this. It is not whether she has changed the rules or changed her policy which she does every day but how do 24000 people—nowhere near the 74 percent her department recites—not in work and not in appropriate work 
matched to their skills help our economy? Could she tell us that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member talk about 18000 and 8000; that is actually 26000. But as far as I am concerned the Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Labour statistics show that more than half of those granted residence in 2002-03 were not offered jobs correlating to the occupation they held in their “home country” as recited there and is this not just another example of this Government’s bungling and doing little more than importing a majority of potential beneficiaries receiving free health-care housing and education services and bleeding the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member has misread the report of the Department of Labour as did the New Zealand Press Association journalist who supplied the information in the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning. I quote from the report: “Seventy-four percent of job offers for general skills applicants approved in the 2002-03 year match their home country occupation. Sixty percent of general skills applicants had job offers; 74 percent of them matched their home country occupation.” It is silent on the subject of all those siblings and adult children who now have to have job offers due to the change that our Government brought in in 2001. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thanking the Minister for finally telling us the truth about what they are silent on—[ 
Interruption 
] I know they find the truth a joke. We do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member now come to the question please. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You did say yesterday that questions were to be asked in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did and I agree with the member but the member very nearly left the Chamber. I usually give one final warning; that is it. Please ask the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In thanking the Minister for finally telling us the numbers of people she has left out can she tell us why the Department of Labour does not reconcile its figures with those of Statistics New Zealand and put in everybody aged from 1 to 91 if he or she happens to be in the category then give us the true figures for a change rather than disguising the beneficiary numbers? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was this Government that changed the rules so that there are fewer beneficiaries in the initial 2 years after people move to New Zealand. I have in my hand the 30 June 1998— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Minister now to address the particular question that was asked. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —which by way of comparison does not contain a single reference— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. Despite your getting to your feet and asking the Minister to address the question she went on to explain that her answer was by way of comparison which she is not required to do. I want to know why she has not given us the total set of figures and worked out the percentages on that. We do not know who is here for humanitarian reasons who has children or who has dependants. That is what I want her to tell us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might be prepared to come to the particular question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The 2002-03 Department of Labour annual report has a number of references to employment outcomes for migrants. For example it states on page 103 that migrants who have lived in New Zealand for more than 10 years have an employment rate of 72 percent compared with 73 percent for New Zealand - born individuals. The point is that over time the results do improve for migrants. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am trying to ask this Minister—in her fourth year as Minister—why she will not give this Parliament and me and the public the full set of figures on which percentages can be worked out such as those who are dependants and those who are not in work. She refuses because a denial of those facts is a key to her presentation. I want the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. The Minister addressed the question. Obviously the answer does not satisfy the member but that is not my place as Speaker. She did address the question. 
Supreme Court—Appointment of Judges 
5.  
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: In light of her statement yesterday regarding judicial appointments to the Supreme Court that she would not reject the advice of the independent panel if it differed from her own views does that mean that she will take no substantive part in the process of appointments other than passing the recommendations of the panel to the Governor- General; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: Yes the Minister will be passing on to the Governor-General the recommendations made by the panel. 
Richard Worth 
: What is her response to the letter in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning an open letter exchanged between herself and Gavin Ellis in which Gavin Ellis the Editor-in-Chief of the  
New Zealand Herald  
says in part under the heading “Judicial proposal falls down on selection process”: “No selection panel can be seen to be apolitical when it has been chosen by the party in power. No superior court will be free of criticism while its members owe their appointment to the Executive and not Parliament.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If that claim were true it would apply to every one of the present members of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the High Court the great majority of whom were appointed before this Government came into office. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can we have confidence in her assurances of non-interference in judicial appointments when I am advised that she has destroyed the institutional memory of the Environment Court by removing 100 percent of the environment commissioners over the last 2 years and replacing them with her acolytes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The last part of the question is utterly offensive in describing these people as acolytes. As I have pointed out to a number of colleagues on many occasions no Government actually welcomes the prospect of activist judges for very obvious reasons. 
Richard Worth 
: What instructions if any has she given to this advisory panel that when making judicial appointments a primary consideration should be a knowledge of cultural and gender issues and how is it planned to test that knowledge of cultural and gender issues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware that was an instruction from the Attorney-General. That was in the Solicitor-General’s advertisement as I understand it for people to make application. But I think it would be desirable in the modern world that these people have some understanding of these matters. That does not reflect the fact that I suspect most of them will still turn out to be middle-aged gentlemen. 
World Food Day—Schools 
6.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking this World Food Day to promote healthy eating in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Promoting healthy eating in schools is an ongoing issue not just on one day of the year. The health and physical education curriculum provides students with opportunities to learn about healthy eating safe food handling and the influences of culture society and technology on food choices. The curriculum is complemented by a series of other initiatives such as the interagency Healthy Eating—Healthy Action strategy the Healthy Heart awards and the Health Promoting Schools initiative. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that allowing food corporations to advertise high-fat low-nutrition foods in school diaries—such as the one I have—branding sports equipment running reading programmes that reward children with fast-food vouchers and so forth undermines the efforts he has just underlined to promote healthy eating in schools and sends a message to children that high-fat low-nutrition foods are normal healthy foods; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have made my views on these matters clear for schools. I believe that schools have an important role in promoting healthy food choices to their pupils and although such activity promoting high-fat high-sugar foods is in my view irresponsible in the end it is a matter for the boards of trustees. 
Dave Hereora 
: Why is promoting healthy food choices in schools important? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s a tough one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it is a tougher question than that member will ever— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Carry on please. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Nutrition plays a huge part in the health of all New Zealanders. We want our children to get off to the right start and developing a healthy diet when young is an important part of that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that schools should be advertising and marketing-free zones and what steps is he taking specifically other than making general statements of support to achieve that? 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear half of the question asked by my colleague because of the guffaws of members over here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point was well made by the member. Members are entitled to ask their questions in silence. That is a fundamental part of our democratic process and I ask Sue Kedgley to ask the question again. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that all schools should be marketing and advertising-free zones and what specific steps is he taking to achieve that other than offering general support for the principle? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No because I believe that there are benefits for schools in partnerships with commercial enterprises in some areas. But again I repeat my expectation that boards will behave responsibly and in the best interests of children’s welfare in determining those matters. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has he asked his colleague the Minister of Health to assess the impact on the health of young New Zealanders in the health budget generally of allowing the advertising of low-nutrition foods and fizzy drinks in schools; if he has not will he do so? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think that we need to do any major assessment in this area. We know that high-fat food is not good and that there are a lot of drinks in schools that are not good. The work I am doing with Sport and Recreation New Zealand and the Ministry of Education towards linking the work physical activity coordinators do with quality work in schools around nutrition is important. There is no point in a child playing sports after having eaten three pies and drunk a couple of bottles of coke. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table a school diary from a large school in Wellington which has a McDonald’s advertisement in the middle of it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Te Puni Kokiri—State Services Commission Report 
7.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the State Services Commission report of the review of Te Puni Kokiri indicating “a systemic impediment to the business of government through the deterioration of the relationship between a Minister and his chief executive and senior officials” and a “lack of capability in the Ministry to support the constitutional mechanisms by which Parliament holds Ministers and thereby Government to account”; if so does the Prime Minister have confidence that any parliamentary question put down to the Minister regarding Te Puni Kokiri will be answered honestly and accurately? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: I have not yet had time to read the full report but I am aware of the conclusion. Yes I am sure that like all Ministers the Minister will answer honestly and accurately any questions to him based on the information available at the time. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given that the report outlines that the Minister gave answers to the House to many of the questions put down by my colleague Rodney Hide that turned out to be wrong and that the report identifies that as being the result of not just management but honesty problems in the department why is the Prime Minister now so confident that everything has been fixed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From the brief glance I have had at the report the honesty issue raised was not relevant to situations within the department but related to Mr Te Rangi. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the correct interpretation of the recommendation that the State Services Commission role move from its review focus to a collaborative engagement with Te Puni Kokiri really mean that a Government department has in effect been put into statutory management; if so can she cite any case where a department has been put under the management of the State Services Commission? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The department has not been put under the management of the States Service Commission. The State Services Commission will be working alongside the department to improve its performance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Given that the report talks about “a systemic impediment to the business of Government through the deterioration of the relationship between a Minister and his chief executive and senior officials” why are the chief executive and the senior officials still in their jobs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Governments do not go around sacking the chief executives of Government departments in the way the member seems to imply. I am sure that if they did we would hear cries about the dismissal of Government chief executives and their replacement by the politically correct cronies of various Ministers. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the House take from the reply just given that the reason that the officials have not been sacked is that the Government does not have the power to do that? But the Prime Minister does have the power to sack the Minister—who was criticised indirectly over the deterioration of the relationship between him and his officials—so why is the Minister still in his job? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is clear that the Minister gave honest answers based on the information made available to him. Some of the information that caused difficulties came from a person who was clearly not honest. The Minister is not responsible for that. 
Road Safety—Policy 
8.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve road safety in New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This morning I announced an extra $47 million of new funding to be made available over the next 2 years to improve road safety through engineering measures. This will double the funding Transfund New Zealand had earmarked for minor safety works throughout New Zealand. This engineering announcement is the first step in the Government’s “three Es” road safety programme which aims to reduce the New Zealand road toll to 300 a year by 2010. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What sorts of projects will that money be spent on? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The news is good. The types of projects that may qualify for the new funding are improvement to accident black spots such as wire-rope barriers; lighting at rural intersections; and the removal or protection of roadside obstacles such as lamp posts trees and culverts. The extra money will help to improve road safety and save lives. 
John Key 
: What steps is the Government taking to introduce drug testing in order to improve road safety in New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The third “E” of the “three Es” campaign for road safety is enforcement. I will be taking some proposals to Cabinet in December and drug testing will be one of them. 
Ron Mark 
: Noting the Minister’s commitment to improving road safety and reducing accidents why when Mr Barry Smart of Christchurch asked the Minister of Police why a woman who had hit his car who had broken the law by driving on a restricted driver’s licence with three passengers and who admitted being in the wrong was not prosecuted by the police did the Minister say: “The priorities are focused on preventing crashes through proactive enforcement. Time spent investigating crashes is time spent away from their primary role of crash prevention.”; and how does that gobbledygook improve road safety or is it just an excuse for revenue-collecting? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may comment on two of them. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That has very little to do with the primary good-news announcement from the Government about spending more money to really do something about black spots around the country. My view is that his question would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Police. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table some documents. The first is a letter from Mr Smart to the Commissioner of Police expressing his frustration over getting the case prosecuted. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The second document is a letter to myself expressing frustration over getting police action on the issue. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The third document is a response from the Minister of Police dated 6 May where he states that investigating accidents is not what the police are there to do. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: The fourth letter is another from Mr Smart stating that he does not accept the Minister’s answers. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Meridian Energy Ltd—Project Aqua 
9.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is he satisfied that Meridian Energy Ltd has behaved within the spirit of the Resource Management Act throughout the resource consent process for Project Aqua; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes because I am advised that Meridian Energy has been acting within the provisions and principles of the Resource Management Act throughout the consent process for Project Aqua. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware that Meridian Energy is currently engaged in a process of “cash for consent” deals with affected parties on the Waitaki scheme; and does he approve of a State-owned enterprise using taxpayers’ money to bribe its way through the consent process of an Act that the Government consistently refuses to change? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I certainly am not aware of that. If the member has any actual evidence he should provide it and I assure him I will investigate it. I am aware that Meridian Energy is using a process prescribed by the Act to avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of its activity. It is legitimately engaged in that process. All the information I have received indicates that it is entirely appropriate but if as I say the member has any evidence of wrongdoing he should provide it immediately. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: How is the spirit and intention of the Resource Management Act—which is to mitigate against environmental effects—helped by chequebook environmentalism exampled by the payment by Contact Energy of $1.5 million to Ngai Tahu to withdraw objections to the issuing of water rights on the Clutha River; and can the Minister assure the House that such practices which border on extortion will not occur by any State-owned enterprise such as Meridian Energy especially in relation to Project Aqua? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly as Contact Energy is a private company I have absolutely no responsibility for it. I can assure the member that the expectation of the Government is that any State-owned enterprise including Meridian Energy will act in a totally lawful and appropriate manner. I have no evidence to suggest that it is doing anything but that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen reports that Meridian Energy is threatening to pull out of Project Aqua if it does not like the new processes for water allocation on the Waitaki or the new processes for approval of Government-supported major projects; and will he assure the House that special fast-tracking will not be given to Meridian Energy in response to this threat? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I have seen those reports and I am not a consenting authority. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: In light of the Minister’s previous answers would he consider it appropriate for Meridian Energy to be making payments to people that it deems affected on the basis that the receipt of those payments will mean those people no longer object to the project; is that appropriate and is it within the spirit of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is entirely within the spirit of the Resource Management Act for a party undertaking a major project to provide for mitigation. It is a requirement indeed and mitigation sometimes involves the putting right of an impact or an effect of the project. If that is what is engaged that is appropriate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister tell us whether he considers a solatium payment—if he knows the meaning of that term—[ 
Interruption 
] I am prepared to help him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did not need to put that comment in his question. He just asks the question without that sort of embellishment. Please ask the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not appreciate being flicked for making a comment back in a question when a Minister on the front bench of the Government feeling a certain amount of sensitivity decides to object in the face of a ruling you have made twice today. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: When a person asking a question chooses to make an unnecessary and offensive remark he is inviting an interjection at that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes he is inviting an interjection and members are not supposed to make the interjection but the member is not supposed to make the offensive comment. Will the member now ask the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Would the Minister consider the making of a solatium payment to those deemed to be affected with the further proviso that should they like to seek legal advice that will be paid for; then further advice that if they should decide to sign away their objection rights a further cash payment will be made to them; and how can it be said that Meridian Energy is working within the spirit of the Resource Management Act when it is simply engaging in an exercise of chequebook environmentalism—cash for consents? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Again the member makes an accusation that is not sustained by the facts. I will concede that the wording in this particular article is potentially misleading. As I am advised the solatium payments are made when and where there is a direct effect such as noise or dust or dirt and when it affects the property right of some individual. That is a resolution of that. In terms of the reimbursement of a legal fee that is an entirely reasonable proposition if it is for a cost incurred by parties looking at whether they do indeed have an impact. It is simply a reimbursement of a cost they would not otherwise receive. Thirdly the payment of the nominal fee is not “as well as” as it is listed in here and I agree that that is where the ambiguity rests in the newspaper. But the payment of a nominal fee is to those who perhaps consider the proposition and turn it down. That would be the only fee they receive. It is simply for the time they put into the consideration. That is all. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to notify the House that Meridian Energy has a budget of $50 million for this work. Further I seek leave to table the Meridian Energy document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave to table the document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can I not seek leave to advise the House about the $50 million slush fund? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That is not within the seeking of leave. But it was a good try and it is Thursday afternoon. 
Parks and Reserves—Visitors Facilities 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What opportunities does the public and the tourism industry have to influence the location and standard of visitor facilities in New Zealand’s parks and reserves? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Every opportunity. Comprehensive consultation is under way on how the Government’s major funding boost for outdoor recreational facilities on conservation land will be allocated. Enjoyment of the outdoors is an essential part of our New Zealand way of life and we intend to keep it that way. 
David Parker 
: Will any huts or tracks be closed? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes. Some huts and tracks that are little used or are poorly sited will be closed. However opportunities are given to community groups to help with their maintenance. There will also be many more new huts and about 250 kilometres of new track built. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In considering the need for facilities and impacts of visitor activity on the conservation estate what work is the Department of Conservation conducting to assess the visitor-carrying capacity of different areas so that we do not allow the destruction of New Zealand’s most popular places? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The department is undergoing a major review of visitor numbers in locations. It is doing that by consultation and monitoring. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Noting that under the recreation opportunities review a number of category 4 huts are to be closed—the ones for which no payment is required to use them—can the Minister assure the House that the decisions to close or downgrade these huts owe more to the state of repair and lack of use of the huts than to any consideration to maximise the earning capacity from overseas visitors or elsewhere from using some of the more popular huts and tracks? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Duplication in use will be our criterion in deciding whether a hut remains open. I repeat there are opportunities for recreational groups to work in partnership with the department to keep open particularly popular huts that may be used by just a small group of people. 
Tertiary Qualifications—Employment 
11.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Is his intention for tertiary education to ensure that New Zealanders who gain tertiary qualifications are able to gain employment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: I refer the member to strategy 4 of the tertiary education strategy and effectively it means “wherever appropriate”. 
Dail Jones 
: What is the Minister’s priority to ensure that New Zealand medical students who graduate from New Zealand medical schools are not prevented from obtaining jobs as first-year medical officers by foreign fee-paying medical students as is the case at present? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is an issue in some areas but it is my understanding that throughout the country there are plenty of jobs for people in that category. 
Jill Pettis 
: What advice has he received on the success of the tertiary education system in ensuring that New Zealanders who gain tertiary qualifications are able to gain employment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The answer to that question would be too long because there is so much involved. It is great news in the employment area under this Government. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister aware that his answer to the first supplementary question is inconsistent with the view expressed by the Resident Doctors Association general secretary Deborah Powell who said it was clear that foreign students graduating from New Zealand medical schools are now competing with New Zealanders and that at present 31.4 percent of all medical students in New Zealand schools are now from foreign areas and are getting priority over New Zealanders—in many cases at our medical institutions—requiring New Zealand medically trained people to go overseas? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Firstly I would never rely on Deborah Powell for accurate information and secondly there is not a policy for giving foreign students priority. 
Land Transport Management Bill—Auckland Transport Network 
12.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Will he change the Land Transport Management Bill to ensure that it will in the Mayor of Auckland’s words contain “enough tools to urgently fix Auckland’s incomplete transport network”; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Bill does contain a number of new tools that will go some way to addressing Auckland’s transport issues including tolling and public-private partnerships. The Government is working with Auckland to identify other funding mechanisms that could be used to meet the region’s transport needs. Mayor Banks has described this process as “upbeat and constructive” following a recent joint forum in Wellington. 
John Key 
: At what point in the drafting of the bill and in negotiations with the Greens did the Minister get so disillusioned that he lobbied hard for strong submissions against his own bill and then was forced to set up the joint officials group? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: At no point. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What further comment if any has he seen from Auckland mayors on work between them and the Government to address Auckland’s transport problems? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There has been a range of them. Mayor Banks said some very good progress is being made; Mayor George Wood said an important project was under way in the region looking at funding and planning for Auckland’s transport needs; Auckland regional councillor Catherine Harland said the bill was a step forward in improving transport in the region and takes on board some of the key points made in the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee’s submission earlier this year. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister confirm that as well as roads we need better public transport walking and cycling facilities and demand management systems to complete the Auckland transport network and can he explain how the Land Transport Management Bill will assist in this as he did when he and I addressed the national cycling conference in Auckland last Friday? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I can confirm all the points in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part we have to take a multimodal approach. Simply relying on motorways is not going to solve the problem. Passenger transport is really important as well as other things like cycling and walking. All those things will help to resolve New Zealand’s transport problems. It is about time the National Party woke up to that fact. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister look forward to working closely with United Future to ensure “enough tools to urgently fix Auckland’s transport network” are made available as soon as possible after the passage of the Land Transport Management Bill given that the passage of that bill will be the end of the Government’s transport-related obligations to the Greens? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I look forward to working constructively with United Future as we have worked constructively with the Greens. I look forward to working constructively with any parties looking to improve Auckland’s transport problems. But unfortunately that is never going to be with the National Party because it is totally destructive when it comes to these kinds of issues. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm why he supports economic efficiency being substituted for environmental sustainability in the purpose of the bill or was he just in a green haze when he signed off on it? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No there was no haze when it came to that. As that member rightly knows very good constructive discussions took place between a range of parties. We now have the word “efficiency” in the bill and I am sure the member will enthusiastically welcome such a measure. 
John Key 
: Why is Auckland having to wait for new legislation to fix its transport issues when the Minister has every opportunity to include them in the Land Transport Management Bill; and does that confirm that this Minister is prepared to put coalition negotiations ahead of fixing Aucklanders’ needs? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Absolutely not. The transport bill will address some of Auckland’s needs but it is not the only answer. As Mayor Banks says it is half the toolbox that is required and we are working on the other half. I note that the National Party in its 10 years in Government did not do one solitary thing about Auckland. It is a bit rich for members of that party after having done nothing for 10 years to come into this House vote against the petrol tax increase and now try to lecture us about transport. That is outrageous. 
Questions to Members 
Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill 
1.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith (Member in charge of Local Bill) 
: Has he relayed the recommendations of the report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill to the people of Rodney? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I have discussed the matter with the mayor and a limited number of Rodney people who are very angry that legislation introduced more than 2 years ago has been blocked by Labour Party and Green Party members. The Government’s Land Transport Management Bill is so bureaucratically prescriptive that Rodney people feel they are even further away from the Penlink toll road being built than they were 2 years ago. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Have the council and others in response to the information he has relayed to them indicated to him whether there are provisions in existing or proposed legislation that may meet their needs or whether further local legislation of the type he originally proposed will be required? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I think it would be fair to say to the member that the Rodney District Council is somewhat uncertain at the moment as to what the provisions in the Land Transport Management Bill will actually do in terms of trying to achieve the Penlink toll road because the prescriptive nature of some of the requirements leaves it very up in the air as to what time delays there will now be in progressing this project when all the land has been purchased for it all the consents are in place and it is all ready to proceed. The one thing that is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is probably about long enough for an ordinary answer. 
John Key 
: Who approached him to propose the Penlink bill? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Rodney District Council did after spending millions of dollars in preparation for that legislation—including something like $12 million in purchasing the land—to try to solve the traffic crisis in one of the fastest-growing parts of New Zealand the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. I might say that the people of Rodney are the very same people who are also very angry because there is no progress on ALPURT (Albany to Puhoi realignment) B2 the extension of the motorway beyond Orewa. It has been just a hopeless performance from this Labour Government. 
Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill be now read a first time. 
 The bill requires members of Parliament to disclose their pecuniary interests in order to highlight and avoid possible conflicts of interest between members’ public duties and their private interests. It is designed to strengthen public trust and confidence in the parliamentary process by promoting greater transparency openness and accountability. At the conclusion of the debate I shall propose that the bill be referred to the Standing Orders Committee on which all parties are represented. 
The register is not a register of wealth; only the nature of the interest will be registered and not the actual monetary value. Members will be required to disclose 12 types of interest including interests in companies trusts and property travel undertaken donations and gifts and debtors and creditors. In determining the various categories of interest to be disclosed a balance was struck between the need for some form of regulation on the one hand and the preference for a straightforward scheme on the other. For example the bill as drafted does not require the disclosure of family interests. While requiring the interests of close family members to be listed would provide some safeguard against members avoiding the disclosure requirements it would also be an intrusion on the privacy of the families of members of Parliament. The Standing Orders Committee may want to consider that issue and the appropriate balance to be struck between those matters. 
The register is to be collated annually and a summary of returns is to be presented to the House and published. Once the bill is enacted it is intended that the first disclosure of interests will be required as at 31 January 2005. Thereafter the disclosure of interests will be required following election and on an annual basis. The office of registrar will be held by the Clerk of the House of Representatives. He will administer the register and provide guidance to members of Parliament. 
It will be the responsibility of each member of Parliament to ensure that he or she complies with the registration requirements set out in the bill. Publicity and public expectations will supplement that voluntary compliance. The Controller and Auditor-General will also have a role in compliance by reviewing the returns and having the power to conduct an inquiry into individual returns on the Auditor-General’s own initiative or in response to a complaint. Sanctions for an actual conflict of interest will continue to be dealt with under the Standing Orders. 
The establishment of such a register in New Zealand will bring us into line with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland. The register will also complement our existing arrangements for the disclosure of interests. In accordance with the provisions of the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 Ministers have been required to declare their interests in an annual register of Ministers’ interests and assets since 1991. Once the register for members of Parliament is in place the register of Ministers’ interests and assets will be reviewed and amended if appropriate. The members’ register with its annual disclosure requirement also complements the existing requirement that ad hoc declarations of interest be made by members of Parliament before they participate in House business if they have an interest. The failure to disclose such an interest is a contempt of the House. 
Consideration of course was given to providing for the scheme through the Standing Orders but this proposal was not supported by all parties. Given that the scheme which is inherently parliamentary in nature is to be set up through legislation concerns have been raised about the risk of judicial intervention. In order to reduce the risk of judicial intervention a provision could be added to the bill to state expressly that the register and the administration of it is a proceeding in Parliament. The Standing Orders Committee is clearly the most appropriate body to consider and make recommendations on whether to amend the bill as introduced to include a proceeding-in-Parliament clause. I expect the committee will focus on that matter. 
The bill establishes a rule-making power for the House of Representatives in order for it to make rules about fees forms of returns and any other matters contemplated by the legislation that will be necessary for its administration or necessary to give it full effect. It is intended that the House of Representatives will make such rules by consensus. The publication of the summary of members’ interests will be a public register under the second schedule of the Privacy Act. That means that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to investigate to ensure the administration of the register complies with the information privacy and public register principles. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports this bill and its reference to a committee for further consideration. We believe that transparency and accountability in all processes of the Government including the parliamentary process are critical. I am bound to say that I was somewhat unimpressed by the cat-like smile that spread across the face of the Deputy Prime Minister the other day when he announced the introduction of this bill as if somehow the National Party would oppose those concepts of transparency and accountability. Why should we not support the bill? We fully accept the proposition that is advanced in the explanatory note that comparable regimes already in place in the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland should be followed. 
The  
Cabinet Office Manual  
as the previous speaker has already said contains some provisions for the disclosure of Ministers’ interests. I would like to start by briefly looking at that issue because there are significant differences between the disclosure obligations in the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 and what is now proposed to be required. In general terms the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 hits five particular classes. They include remunerated directorships or employment substantial minority or controlling interests in business enterprises or professional practice minority ownership of company shares or beneficial interests in trusts ownership of all real property and holdings of mortgage or debt instruments. 
Presumably if this legislation is passed it will be planned to amend the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 requirements in line with it. For why should there be one law for Cabinet Ministers and another law for other members of Parliament? There are significant differences between the scheme of the bill and the provisions of the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
. For example members are required to disclose the name of each company in which the member holds or controls more than 5 percent of the voting rights whereas Ministers are required to disclose only substantial minority or controlling interests. 
Another change is that members are required to declare debts over $500 discharged by a third party and Ministers are not. Members but not Ministers are required to declare interests in trusts or other organisations that receive Government funding. Under the bill members are required to declare creditors to whom a member owes more than $5000. No similar requirement is imposed on Ministers. A member is required to declare debtors who owe the member more than $5000 and Ministers must declare without limit on amounts mortgage or debt instruments. Finally members are required to declare the interest rate for creditors and debtors if that credit rate is below the rate for fringe benefit tax. Ministers are not required to do so. 
The flip side of course of regimes requiring disclosure is the possibility of unchecked corruption and bribery. When we look at the reality of corrupting members of Parliament we need to bear in mind that that is an event that can occur only in the rarest of circumstances. In fact if one were to look at the possibilities they probably would be in only three areas of Government activity. First is this whole area of capital procurement—perhaps defence procurement might be an area that would lend itself to that possibility. The second area is bribery in immigration services. There is always anecdotal comment that that occurs albeit to a limited extent. Finally there is perhaps the reference of work to associates. 
I would just ask members to reflect on the fact that the reality is that if such bribery and corrupt practice occurred it would likely occur within the domain of decision-making Ministers or officials. That is why I hope that if this regime is to be applied to members of Parliament then it should appropriately be applied to judicial officers chief executives and all those in the civil service holding middle-management positions but exercising significant powers conferring benefits on third parties. There is some basis for the proposition that behind this legislation is a “politics of envy” argument. I hope that if this legislation is to be applied to members of Parliament it will in a matter of a short time only be applied to a broad range of individuals in the Government’s service. 
There are perhaps deficiencies in the bill. Quite clearly the current provisions relating to trusts in the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 can be subverted without any difficulty at all. I know and we all know that a number of Ministers of this particular Government have interests in trusts that are cloaked by anonymity. 
The last issue I would like to briefly refer to is that Standing Orders 165 to 167 already deal in a comprehensive way with the disclosure of pecuniary interests and require in respect of any particular piece of Government business that disclosure of relevant pecuniary interests be made. In fact the provisions in the Standing Orders are widely worded in a way that would catch not only the pecuniary interests of the member but the pecuniary interests of those related and linked to that member. I am referring in particular to Standing Order 165(2) which states: “A pecuniary interest—(a)includes a pecuniary interest held by a member’s spouse or domestic partner or by any child of the member who is wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support”. 
So in summary where does National stand? We support the bill although we consider that the pecuniary provisions in the Standing Orders are well worded and adequately serve an appropriate purpose. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and I would like to congratulate the previous speaker on the reasoned and sensible approach his party is taking towards this matter. I would also like to congratulate Dr Cullen on presenting this measure to the House. I am sure it will be widely welcomed by the New Zealand community which expects the degree of transparency and disclosure of the whole of the Parliament that is currently at a reduced level made by the executive. I look forward as the community does to the unanimous support by members of this House for this measure. I cannot imagine any reason why any member of this New Zealand Parliament would not whole-heartedly support a measure of this kind. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me make the case clear for New Zealand First right from the onset. We do not support this. This is absolutely— 
David Benson-Pope 
: What are you going to hide? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have absolutely nothing to hide at all. I resent Richard Worth standing up here and saying that we need this bill because we are possibly corrupt. One thing I will say about the politicians of this country is that basically they are corruption-free and we do not need this to— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My speech has been misrepresented. I can take exception to that within the Standing Order. I was talking about the need for regimes of accountability and disclosure not saying that there are corruptions in Parliament. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I wish to rule on that point of order and tell the member that he will raise that at the end of the speech. He should not interrupt a member’s speech. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a typical comment from someone who does not know what he is talking about. 
Rod Donald 
: Your coalition partner! 
PETER BROWN 
: My coalition partner? The purpose of this bill is outlined in the explanatory note:“The Bill will strengthen public trust and confidence in the parliamentary process by promoting greater transparency openness and accountability.” Whoever wrote that or anybody who believes that is living in cloud cuckoo land. The explanatory note goes on to state towards the end: “The Bill provides for a summary of members’ interests to be published and available for public inspection.” I would suggest to members that there would be no purpose for that. There will be people nosing into what others own what they do and what their assets are for nosy-parker reasons in total. 
The main area of concern as regards MPs is conflict of interest and I believe the Standing Orders deal with that quite adequately now. Standing Orders 165 to 167 are adequate to deal with conflict of interest by MPs. I have no problem with that. Equally New Zealand First has no problem in divulging if we are employed in some other venture. Any employer would like to know if an individual is employed anywhere else. But what I own has nothing to do with Mr Benson-Pope or indeed anybody else in this House. It is to do with myself and my family. What I owe has nothing to do with anybody else whatsoever. What somebody owes me has nothing to do with anybody else but myself and my family. Indeed how much I have in the bank or anything else has nothing to do with those folk over there. They should stick their noses in their own business and leave me and my colleagues to run our own affairs. 
It is ironical that this Government that wants every MP to be transparent is producing a bill—the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill—that allows criminal records to be concealed. Where the dickens is this Government taking this country? The word “conceal” in that bill is stated as meaning: “to protect the criminal record or information about the criminal record of an eligible individual from disclosure to a person body or agency (including without limitation a government department or law enforcement agency) for which there is no lawful authority under this Act to disclose the criminal record or any information about the criminal record”. Protect the criminal and open the doors to the law-abiding person who wants to become an MP! This is absolute rubbish. We will be opposing this bill all the way. 
I notice in this bill that from time to time as he sees fit the Auditor-General may investigate. I have to say that the way I feel now if this bill should pass I will not be disclosing a damn thing. That is the way I feel right now. If Labour members want to tie up the Auditor-General checking into me and probably my colleagues and one or two others then so be it. If they want to waste taxpayers’ money checking into my personal affairs then so be it. I am of the mind now not to cooperate at all should this bill pass. 
This Government would be well advised to look into its own areas of activity such as paying lobby groups to lobby MPs. 
 That is where its priorities should be. That is where the possible corruption lies—paying lobbyists to lobby MPs for a smoke-free bill and the prostitution bill and paying the Prostitutes Collective $50000 to $60000 a month for goodness knows what. That is where the corruption could be. 
We are not impressed by this bill. It is absolutely ridiculous totally worthless and it will create more problems than it will solve. Every nosey parker under the sun who wants to get stuck into an MP will be investigating his or her background assets and what have you and generally making life difficult. Frankly I have nothing to hide my colleagues have nothing to hide but we do not have to disclose the detail to Mr Hawkins or indeed anyone else. [ 
Interruption 
] That member thinks we should. What purpose would it achieve for me to tell that member what I own? What would he do with that information? It would just make it damn awkward to go about our— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Throw it around. 
PETER BROWN 
: They would throw it around. They could say that that guy has this and that guy has that. This House is meant to be filled with honourable people. If we say something a little bit titzy-witzy or what have you we have to stand and apologise because we are all people of honour. Let us start from that premise. We do not have to disclose what we own our assets how much we owe what is on our credit card or goodness know what. That is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill all the way. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the House could have some guidance from you about this bill and Standing Order 166 whereby a member must before participating in the consideration of any item of business declare any pecuniary interest thatthe member has in that business. As I do have interests in most of the categories mentioned in this bill I would like a ruling from you as to whether members who have already participated under this bill should have declared those interests. I am quite willing to do so if that is what the Standing Order requires. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that no member stands to gain any pecuniary interest by the passing of this bill. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I believe that the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill is misconceived constitutionally wrong and we should reject it. Why is that? Because we are not part of the Government. Yes it is right and proper that Cabinet Ministers who are part of the Government should declare their interests. But we are here as legislators and here to help make part of the House of Representatives. If members believe as I do that we should see ourselves as citizen politicians the fact that we have private interests is of no concern of the House unless those interests are in conflict. How do we rely on that? We rely on people to declare and the declaration has to be made. As I have just said I am willing to do that if I have to under Standing Order 166. 
It is over to those who are promoting this bill to show why members of Parliament should make those declarations. There are some good reasons why they should not. Just because it is interesting to the public to know what members of Parliament may or may not own that does not mean to say that it is in the public interest. A second reason is that this House is finding it harder and harder to attract people to become members of Parliament who have themselves been—how would I put it—reasonably successful in commerce. 
It may be and maybe this is the point of the bill that members think that such people—captains of industry—should not be members of Parliament. I beg to differ. I would not want to see a Parliament that was made up all of Philip Burdons John Bankses and John Luxtons. I have cited three people who are by New Zealand counts very wealthy. Did having such MPs add to our House? It most certainly did. No doubt it would be interesting that it might take them a few pages to register all of their interests. Is that of any value? No it is not. However I make this other point about the bill and I say this as a lawyer. Without any difficulty—it would cost me some money but I could do it—I could rearrange all of my affairs between now and 4 October so that I could stand in this House and say that I have nothing. What would be the point of that? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That could take a while. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It would. And for some of the things I would have to do I ask the member why should I? For example—[ 
Interruption 
] The member may never have done this—and I would like him to listen. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You could just declare it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Why does Mr Cunliffe not just listen and I will tell him something? I have lent people more than $5000. They were friends of mine who had been in trouble needed some help and I have given them the money. Under this bill I have to declare their names. Mr Cunliffe will come and ask why Richard Prebble lent Joe Brown $7000 6 years ago. That would be none of his business. I shall tell that member something. There is no way in the world that I would ever put those people through that embarrassment. So if this bill goes through I will wipe all those debts. 
But why should I have to do that just because Mr Cunliffe thinks that the public ought to know about loans that I have made in a private capacity and that they should be declared to the House because somehow that could possibly be bribery or corruption? What a load of rubbish! What a load of nonsense! He may never have thought of lending money to anyone in his life. I assure members that other people have done so and I ask why a member of Parliament should have to declare that. That is one example. 
But I then look at another interesting aspect of this bill:it states that one has to declare overseas travel. That is pretty shocking. I wonder why people would want to know to where I might have travelled. Then I see that there is an exemption. If the travel is paid for in full by for example the Crown or any combination of the categories listed in the bill we do not have to declare it. So if I go overseas as a senior MP which I am and use my overseas travel concession I do not have to declare it. I can go anywhere I like. I can go to Bali or Cuba and I do not have to declare it. However if I decide to pay for it myself—shock horror probe—I would have to declare it. What is the point of that? 
Let me tell the House that I do travel overseas but I would never think of charging the Crown. I do it in my own capacity. But why do I have to declare it so that Mr Cunliffe can read about it? It has nothing to do with him nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with any bill that appears in this House. This is just nosy parker legislation. 
I suspect that the real purpose behind this bill is the ugly side of New Zealand politics and sometimes the ugly side of this country—the politics of envy. There are people who have it in their mind that somehow or other there are some wealthy people who are having an undue influence on this House. That is a load of rubbish. I will tell the House what will happen when this bill is passed if it is. It will expose that New Zealand MPs are impoverished. The vast majority of New Zealand members of Parliament could not balance their chequebook. They own no assets. When we look through the Cabinet register for this Government we see that over 80 percent of MPs own nothing apart from their house which they owe to the bank. Maybe they want us to declare that for everybody else. Well so what! 
I think this is the politics of envy but I also point out unless I have misread it that as far as I can work out MPs do not have to declare what their spouse has. Let me tell members that a very quick way of getting around this bill and keeping their money is just to transfer it to their wife. Under the Family Proceedings Act they still keep half. They may think it is their money but it is not—half of it is their wife’s. MPs can transfer it to their wife their partner or their husband and under this bill they would not have to declare a dollar. They have not lost a thing and they do not have to declare anything. 
What is the point at that point? I guess it is so that people like Mr Rod Donald can get up and say that somehow or other we are introducing transparency into the New Zealand Parliament. No we are not. I say that we are introducing hypocrisy into the New Zealand Parliament but we are also telling the public that we are just a House of professional politicians. Unfortunately I guess that is the way we are going. I would prefer to think that we are a Parliament of citizen politicians. I would like to think that New Zealand MPs are not completely out of touch that they are still involved in the community and that they are still doing activities within it so that when they come here they can speak with some authority rather than from ideology and ignorance. 
Let me make this point though to poor Mr Brown. If we read about the Auditor-General’s powers we will find that under this bill the Auditor-General has the power now to go to any MP’s bank accounts come and search his or her house put the member under oath and if the member does not answer the questions he or she will be committing a criminal offence. The Auditor-General is being turned from being an officer of Parliament to being part of our Gestapo. 
I make this prediction. The people who will fall foul of this bill will be some Labour MPs; not because they intend to but because just as happened in Britain and all the other countries cited they make a mistake. They forget to put something down and then they are pilloried by the media. They are put through the gauntlet by the Auditor-General and their political careers are destroyed not because they were corrupt but because as we all know half of them—perhaps I should not say half but a substantial number—could not fill out a form of this sort. This is the one place where we do not have to have any qualificaations except to be over the age of 18. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Mr Prebble is right. We can come here without having any formal qualifications and I certainly declare that I do not have any tertiary qualifications. But he is entirely wrong when he claims that this is the politics of envy. This legislation is the politics of transparency—as he predicted I was going to say—and also the politics of accountability and it is long overdue. The Green Party will be supporting this bill to the Standing Orders Committee and we look forward to making a constructive contribution to the consideration of the bill in the same way that we have appreciated the opportunity to make a constructive contribution to its drafting. 
New Zealand has been left behind because it has not had legislation like this. Certainly our Ministers have been subject to declaring their interests since 1991. I guess Mr Prebble missed out on that opportunity because he left Cabinet before then. But since then all Ministers have had to make an annual declaration and I do not think they have found that too arduous. Obviously the Government at the time—and I guess it must have been a National Government that brought in the requirement for Ministers to make a declaration—recognised the value of moving from an ad hoc disclosure regime to a deliberate disclosure regime. That was an important step forward for our Parliament and one of the reasons why I believe that in the Transparency International schedule of countries New Zealand is rated the third-least corrupt in the world. I believe that by passing this legislation we will continue to maintain that position. Indeed I hope it will give some real substance to our reputation. 
I return to the issue of us coming rather late to a proper pecuniary-interests disclosure regime for members of Parliament. We are well behind our colleagues in Australia. The state of Victoria has had such legislation since 1978 South Australia since 1983 and their Senate since 1984. The mother of all Westminster Parliaments the British House of Commons has had this type of legislation since 1974 so it really has taken rather a long time for New Zealand to get to the point where we should be—which is as the bill says finding the right balance between greater transparency and avoiding undue intrusion into MPs’ privacy. 
That is where the Green Party hopes to promote a couple of changes at the select committee stage. We think it is unnecessary for members to have to declare very small shareholdings. We will be seeking a consistent threshold for shareholding so that it lines up with gifts and debts. At the moment absolutely every share owned has to be declared whereas gifts and debts have a threshold of $500. It makes sense to us that the three are lined up—otherwise as Mr Prebble said the schedule will run to some pages when some members of Parliament have to declare all of their small shareholdings. The other clause I have picked up on that might warrant amending is clause 10 “Debts owed by family members do not have to be disclosed”. I think there is an equal argument that debts owed to family members or loans from family members could be excluded from the bill in the context of ensuring that we do have that balance between transparency and avoiding undue intrusion. 
But I have to say to Mr Prebble that this bill does not require him as he implied to have to declare any overseas trips he takes at his own personal expense. That is not what this bill is seeking to achieve. What this legislation is looking for is members having to declare any overseas travel they have made at someone else’s expense. I would certainly declare that that has been the case for me. The American Government invited me to go to Indonesia a couple of years ago to advise on the electoral system the Electoral Reform Society has invited me to go to England to assist it in its campaign for proportional representation and the Green Party of British Columbia has invited me to go there to do exactly the same thing in that territory. 
I have no problems in making those sorts of declarations and I do not think any members in this House should—in the same way that I hope that no members would have any problems making declarations for example under clause 8(1)(e) where a member would have to declare an interest in an organisation or trust that receives Government funding. I like to call that the “ACT clause” because we were keen to put that in because of Donna Awatere Huata. I think is absolutely important that people have to make that declaration upfront because if nothing else it might help parties like ACT when they go about the selection process to know who not to put high on their party list. 
I particularly look forward to Rodney Hide voting for this bill. As Parliament’s self-appointed perk-buster he should support any move towards greater transparency and accountability. I look forward to finding out who pays for his overseas trips and for those of his colleagues in the same way— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings say that members may not make the sorts of disparaging remarks that the member— 
Rod Donald 
: It wasn’t disparaging. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No the member has picked out another MP and is making statements that imply there is something peculiarly interesting about that member while he illustrates what is wrong with this bill. That is out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under Speaker’s ruling 35/5 a statement can be ruled out only if it is objectionable on the face of it and it is actually up to the member against whom any allegations are being made to ask for a retraction or apology under Standing Order 117. The honourable member Rodney Hide is not here and I can rule only if a statement is objectionable on the face of it but I have not heard it to that extent at this stage. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention that as recently as last week we had a discussion around these sorts of issues in the Committee of the whole House. Indeed the Speaker was brought back and he made a very clear ruling. It was a general ruling that no member of Parliament was entitled to make disparaging remarks about any other member. It is a recent ruling but we had a debate about it because we were worried that it would take some of the humour and other matters out of debating. But the Speaker was very clear and decisive in his ruling. I think you might find that the comment that has been made would fit well within that ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Debate in the Chamber is always robust and always has been. In the immortal words ofTana Umaga: “This isn’t tiddlywinks ref.” However members should be careful to be temperate in their language and not bring the House into disrepute impugn members or behave in a way that will incite disorder. 
ROD DONALD 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker but I am also prepared to withdraw and apologise because no offence was intended. 
I do not agree with Mr Brown’s comment that this is the politics of envy. I think it is just important that members know as the public should know who pays for any member’s overseas travel or any other gift of a substantial value that a member receives. When this House is debating issues like the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill gambling legislation or the drinking age and where alcohol should be sold it is absolutely vitally important that members are clean and not in receipt of any money from tobacco companies casinos or booze barons. I think the public have a right to know that and we have an obligation to tell the public that sort of information. I am looking forward to the passage of this bill and I will be looking forward to declaring any gifts I get that will come under the ambit of the bill. 
I did forget one other trip before: the French Government paid for me to go on a trip to France as well. It said it gave one to Rodney Hide 3 years before so it thought it should give a trip to another Rodney in the last term of Parliament. I think that is just about my list for the moment except for my shareholdings and other assets which Mr Prebble will have to wait for. It is vital for the credibility of Parliament and the integrity of members that we all disclose any interest that could possibly influence our work as members of Parliament. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be voting in support of the first reading of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill in order that it can be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for much more detailed consideration. I say at the beginning that I am very glad it is going to that committee and I will be trying to ensure at that committee that the terms of the bill are looked at very very rigorously indeed. 
The knowledge that I had of the bill prior to it being introduced to the House was simply that it was going to happen. We had a very broad outline and we were asked as a caucus whether we had any initial comment. I immediately commented that in my view it would be completely wrong for a member of Parliament to have to disclose publicly that he or she had loaned money to family members which was originally a provision. I am delighted to see that it has been dropped because it would be quite ridiculous and it would also lead to a great deal of disharmony within families. There are many many parents who may choose for example—and this would include some MPs—to lend some money to one of their kids and may not want the other kids to know about it. There are all sorts of confidentiality— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Ha ha! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: When one has five children as I do I say to Mark Gosche if they find out I have lent some money to one child the other children will all be in with their hands out too. Quite obviously it is ridiculous to involve those kinds of family relationships. 
The Hon Richard Prebble also made a very valid point in his speech. How can a decision by myself Gordon Copeland—for example to lend some money to a missionary colleague at St Gerard’s Monastery—have anything to do with the possibility of corruption? That is ridiculous. I can understand that if I have borrowed money from the chief executive officer of the Prostitutes Collective and I vote in favour of the Prostitution Reform Bill the public have a right to know about that. But when I am the one lending the money how on earth can it be construed that I am in some way compromising my position with regard to legislation coming before the House? 
I want to make this broad comment too. We talk about our great standing in the world in terms of being honest and relatively free of corruption—our country is No. 3 in the entire globe which we can all be very proud of. If that is the goal we are trying to achieve I think there are some other things we need to look at. For example what about the pecuniary interests of the chief executive officers of State-owned enterprises and Crown departments—organs of State—and of other officials such as the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand? Is it not possible that they being mere mortals as we are could also be open to corruption in some circumstances? Should we not therefore be looking more widely and saying that maybe they should be declaring their interests? 
I go one step further than that. If we really want to get rid of corruption in this country how can we stand by and watch 800 teenagers falsely apply for drivers’ licences—making the claim that they have lost their licences? Members of the Government say that those people cannot be prosecuted because of the stupid law we have about young people and criminal proceedings. Those young people have deliberately lied and falsified documents which is fraud misuse of a document and so on. There are some far bigger issues in terms of corruption that we as a nation should be focusing on. I agree with Trevor Mallard who at a conference in Wellington last year in his capacity as Minister of Education asked when we New Zealanders were going to start to say “No” to some of our young people and when we were going to insist on applying the rule of law to everybody. That is the way to stop creeping corruption in this country. 
I need not labour the point in this House that surely the Prime Minister of this country should come out immediately with a clear statement that from now on no taxpayers’ funding will be spent in any shape or form that allows civil servants and others to lobby members of Parliament on specific legislation. That would be much much more important in terms of our overall reputation. In the 1990s I spent 3 weeks in the Philippines which is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. When corruption gets a hold on a nation I do not know how it ever gets back out of it. So it is tremendously important that we maintain high standards in every aspect of our national life. We should not single out MPs. 
The other point I would like to make is that I read the Bills Digest on this bill and found there is a section called “Differences between the Bill’s scheme and the Ministers’ scheme”. It states that the proposals in respect of members of Parliament are far more onerous than those that apply currently to Ministers of the Crown. Can anybody explain to me how that can possibly make any sense? Ministers of the Crown obviously are in a unique position in determining legislation and other matters in this country. Many MPs particularly those in parties that are not in Government at the time basically have no influence when it comes to major pieces of legislation. They certainly do not have enough influence to get the Government to change its mind. Why on earth should they be held to a higher standard of accountability and public disclosure than Ministers of the Crown? 
Peter Brown 
: So why are you voting for it then? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: We are voting for it so that it can go to the Standing Orders Committee I say to Peter Brown in order that we can look at some of the anomalies. I hope we will be able to take the knife to some of the provisions of this bill and come up with something that is far less draconian more sensible and more tightly focused on what we are trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve it seems to me is transparency in terms of whether we may or may not be seen to have a conflict of interest in relation to matters coming before the House. That is the goal. United Future agrees with that goal but we have to come up with a good common-sense balanced bill that while addressing that goal goes no further than is necessary and certainly does not go as far as some parts of this bill go. 
 Finally I would like to make the point that the bill makes some very curious statements about all MPs filling out these forms. Every single year we will have to do it again and I can understand that. 
Peter Brown 
: What happens if they don’t? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I say to Peter Brown that the bill then states that a summary of this information is to be published. I have no idea what a “summary” of this information actually means. Will it identify individual MPs and what they declared? In which case it does not seem to fit the definition of a summary. On the other hand if it is a summary that just states for example that 40 MPs have mortgages from the Bank of New Zealand maybe I could live with that. I think that what we really mean by these so-called summaries is a very important issue. I do not think we should leave it in the hands of an unelected civil servant to determine what goes in the summary. I think the Standing Orders Committee needs to decide very clearly what does and does not go in the summary and how the information is to be summarised and to keep in mind all the way through the goal that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. 
With those remarks as I say United Future will support the first reading. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. As has been highlighted by Dr Cullen the bill’s objectives are to highlight and avoid possible conflicts of interest in terms of the public duties and private affairs of members of Parliament. Having been in the House for 4 years and seen it operate I think it is evident to all members of Parliament that we as legislators are privy to all sorts of information. Even those of us who are back-benchers attend select committees see departmental reports see draft legislation—which can be of exceptional commercial value—engage in inquiries and receive a whole raft of information that to certain parties outside this place could be of extreme value. Therefore I think this bill sets out not only to avoid possible conflicts of interest but also to protect us as members of Parliament from the perception that—as some from outside may say—we are on the take. I am not saying that anybody is on the take in this place but those sorts of accusations are levelled by people outside. The bill provides protection and I think it will provide a boost to the openness confidence and trust that the constituency has in us as members of Parliament. 
I say to those members who oppose the bill that if they do not like it they should get out. If they do not want to be open if they have something to hide if they do not want to be transparent—but they want to preach transparency to every other member in the House—if they want on the one hand as some do to muckrake and dredge up scandals in an attempt so they say to get accountability out of Government departments members and Ministers yet on the other hand are not prepared to front then I say there is an inconsistency. 
It is very interesting that Mr Prebble from the ACT party was I think the first cab off the rank to say “No way!”. 
He said in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “It is a nosy parker’s bill it’s the politics of envy”. He is quoted in the  
Dominion Post 
 as saying it is “constitutionally unsound. I think the bill is motivated by the politics of envy.” Well I say this bill is motivated by the politics of good sense for we know that we are well behind the eight ball in terms of embarking on legislation with protective mechanisms like this. For instance the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland have had this type of legislation for some time. I found it most interesting that Mr Prebble was the first cab off the rank to bag this bill to bag transparency and to bag accountability. 
When we look at the constitution and rules of the ACT party the objectives and the powers we see that the principal objective of the party is to promote an open progressive and benevolent society. If those are the principles Mr Prebble believes in where is the consistency in his opposing this bill? Where is the consistency in his opposing openness? Mr Prebble says this bill is about the politics of envy and that people want to know how much he is worth. Well this bill is not about knowing how much an MP’s assets are worth the value of the assets; it is about knowing that an MP has them. It is also about—and I think this is more important than knowing what an MP has—knowing what an MP owes. Perception is the truth around this place. It could be levelled at members at any time quite falsely that because they owe money to third parties outside this Parliament and because they say sit on select committees considering issues in which those third parties have a loose interest somehow those third parties have leverage over those members. 
I believe that members in this Parliament are honourable members. I think one of the flipsides of the bill is that it provides us with a bit of protection because we are exposed warts and all and it provides no protection to any third party to anyone in the media or to anyone who wants to get at members of Parliament by accusing them of being stood over because they owe money to a third party. I think that is something that should be focused on. 
I find it ironic that Mr Prebble from the ACT party talked about why there would be a need to identify MPs’ overseas travel. Let us look at the history. Why would there be a need? If we had had this bill over a year ago I would have received answers to the questions I put to Mr Prebble’s colleague Mr Hide who admitted—and this is not an aspersion on Mr Hide because he admitted it; and it was not covered in a personal explanation [ 
Interruption 
] and I am not questioning his word—that he had gone to Fiji and had participated in and spoken at an Investors International shonky investment conference which was run and owned by a convicted US felon Rudolph Van Lin. Mr Hide admitted that he went and spoke there. He also admitted that his accommodation his massive food bill his massive grog bill and his first-class airfare were all paid for him. As a result of that conference—and I choose my words carefully— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Hide is not here so he cannot raise an objection. The member speaking claimed that another MP had admitted to having a massive grog bill but that statement is a lie. He knows that it is untrue and it is bringing the House into disrepute. What he is really doing is showing that the real purpose of the bill is about the politics of envy. He wants to use it to denigrate other MPs who he knows are not here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his advice and I ask the member on his feet to be temperate in his language. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I think you chose your words very well if I may say. I go back to my point about what would have happened if we had had this legislation a year ago. Mr Hide has been repeatedly asked in this House who paid his expenses—first-class accommodation food and beverage of whatever kind and first-class airfares—to attend a conference that resulted in hundreds of New Zealanders losing millions of dollars. I have asked him in this House repeatedly. There is currently an inquiry before my committee the Finance and Expenditure Committee into shonky investment schemes and I have received repeated inquiries from constituents and others right around the country who have lost money. It is a huge and serious issue to hunt down those people and nail them. I have asked Mr Hide repeatedly in this House who paid who paid the conference fee and on no occasion has Mr Hide fronted. On no occasion has he answered that accusation. An answer might have gone some way to assisting those hundreds of Kiwis who were done over. Millions of dollars were fraudulently taken from them. An answer might have assisted. And all of this has been from the great scam-buster! 
That is an example I say through you Mr Assistant Speaker to Mr Prebble of why we should disclose who pays for those overseas trips. That is why. Even if there is nothing floating in the ether no accusations no smoke no fire for members of Parliament who choose legitimately sometimes naively to go to places who have their trips paid for by third parties and who have accusations put to them I think this bill is a protection. I also refer to a case where a member of Parliament’s salary was topped up by a third party or subsidised—not for a corrupt purpose because that would be outside the Standing Orders. For instance Mr Hide has been asked whether he has received any pecuniary gain—sorry whether he is here also because his salary is being topped up—and he has never answered that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is innuendo. I could be asking this member whether he is paid by the trade union movement to throw mud at Rodney Hide. I could ask him whether it is correct that he is getting bribes. Now he is making accusations and saying that of course he is doing it because it is a question. He should be brought back to the bill rather than making a personal attack on someone who he knows is ill and is not in the House to protect himself. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that I specifically said that I was not accusing anyone in referring to a member’s salary being topped up or subsidised. I specifically said in my speech that I was not saying that the top-up was for corrupt practice. There is nothing in the Standing Orders—or legally as I understand it—that prevents a member from coming in here taking the salary and having a third party add $10000 or $20000 a year to it because some people consider the salary is too low. That is not corruption. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I will just say that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality. That would be a personal reflection and out of order under Standing Order 117. It would also be in conflict with a personal statement that the member concerned made in 2000. It is in order for members to speculate on what interests members may have to disclose under the bill as long as they do not do so in a way that is a personal reflection on any particular member. It would be out of order to suggest that a member takes payment to act in a certain way in the House. Members must be careful not to do so and be temperate in their language. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a point of clarification. I thank you for that ruling but would it be in order for the good member speaking to tell us for example whether the Labour Party got a million dollars from Fay Richwhite in 1987 and whether it was spent on its candidates as David Lange suggested? Is that the sort of thing that can be said? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is hypothetical and is not in order. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I endorse your ruling. Let us look at an example. We know that Mr Hide worked for an outside organisation Gilt-Edged Securities which was set up to establish the ACT party. He got paid for 3 years—we know that from Mr Gibbs and Mr Farmer. Then he came into Parliament. The question might be whether—not for corrupt purposes not to do anything like that—Mr Hide considered a salary of about $100000 a year too light for him and whether Gilt-Edged Securities said it would top it up by 50 or 60 grand. When did he stop being paid by Gilt-Edged Securities and Mr Gibbs and Mr Farmer—not for any corrupt purpose of course; I would never accuse Mr Hide of that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to a string of Speakers’ rulings—for example page 31 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. This type of personal reflection and sleazy statement is what brings Parliament into disrepute and for the member to do so when he knows that the MP concerned is ill and is not here does not reflect well on that member at all. He should be asked to desist. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member and I ask the member on his feet to desist. This debate is not a debate on Rodney Hide. The member will come back to the bill. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say this to finish. A certain party that opposes this bill—Mr Prebble’s party being the one—preaches openness transparency and public accountability with money. It is the first cab off the rank in opposing this bill. One has to ask as we go through this debate what indeed those members have to hide. If they are so straight why on earth would they oppose a bill like this? Maybe it is because of the litany of incidents that have occurred—Fiji Pipitea Street Albania and a few others. That provides the evidence for people in this House and those around the country. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 National will be supporting the referral of the pecuniary interests bill to the select committee. May I say that prior to my coming into Parliament I was on the record publicly as supporting this legislation. But I think Richard Prebble has made some very good points. He said that if this bill ends up frightening good people off from entering Parliament it will do a disservice to this House and to the people of New Zealand. I can say from bitter personal experience that when I ran for Parliament Television One showed my house on the evening news at 6.30 and the  
New Zealand Herald  
ran an article on my personal family trust listing every asset I had in it on the front page of the paper. So anyone who does not think this is going to turn into a media circus is in la-la land quite frankly. 
Peter Brown 
: So why is the member supporting the bill? 
JOHN KEY 
: I am supporting it for the following reasons. I think it is a balancing act in terms of what happens in the commercial sector. I understand the issue that those in the commercial sector may make their declarations internally—with the exception of ownership of stocks in the company they are involved in or are a director of and of loans they may have to or from the company. Nevertheless from the commercial point of view it is now required that any office holder of a good company make a personal declaration. People are aware of it and I will touch on the reasons in a few moments. Secondly it is a balancing act between the reputation and the image of this Parliament and some uncomfortable situations that individuals may find themselves in. New Zealanders by and large have a great reputation and are ranked highly by international agencies for transparency and disclosure and I think this measure can add to that. Finally the bill is totally consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions and there is no debate about that. 
But let me say that when this document is declared and when the media no doubt do what we assume they will do—parade the thing up and down and turn it into a wealth test—they themselves will have to take responsibility for doing a disservice to this House and to the people of New Zealand. But I for one will not be hiding my assets. If I were to hide my personal assets and if any other member of this House were to hide his or her personal assets then all that we would be doing is buying into the culture of envy. It is about time a few people stood up and said: “Do you know what? This country does not have too many rich people; it has too many poor people.” If a few people with a decent brain some commercial experience and a bit of nous are prepared to come into this House and earn a hang of a lot less than they can earn in the commercial sector then that is a good thing. If a few people run through my balance sheet and take delight in it I say “Good on them!”. I am not going to back away from it. I am proud of it and I am going to stand up and defend it. 
But there are some tremendous risks arising from this. I want to make a couple of comments. Mr Brown in his speech asked why it was of any interest what he is owed or what he owes or what he owns. Mr Brown may not be aware of a man called Allan Hawkins and he may not know the facts of that case but Allan Hawkins set up a loan—a loan of sorts—between himself and Elders IXL then undertook a whole series of international foreign exchange transactions to divert that money to himself. I say it is relevant who owes me money and whom I owe money. 
Peter Brown 
: Why is it relevant? Why do I need to know whom you owe money to? 
JOHN KEY 
: It is completely relevant because whether or not parliamentarians want to accept it in taking on this position we have a huge amount of influence in the change of public policy in this country. It might be a bit uncomfortable but if I am a shareholder of Tranz Rail and I want to get up in this House and start talking about that company then my shareholding is relevant. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You have to declare that anyway. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes under Standing Order 165 I have to declare it; I accept that but within that Standing Order is a whole lot of things for which that would not be the case. I simply say there are risks and they are genuine risks. For example if I lend $7000 to Mary Lou Smith who does not have a public profile and if there is no reason for it to be anything other than a generous gesture on my part to help out a person who needs money for a particular reason then why would it be dragged through the press ultimately? Why would it be brought up? 
Peter Brown 
: Because you are going to vote for the bill. 
JOHN KEY 
: Why would it be brought up though? The sheer fact that the name is declared is nothing new. What is interesting is if I owe money to someone or I am owed money by someone and I then go on a public crusade to try either to help or hinder that person. There are reasons why that is of genuine interest. 
I think there are matters that the select committee needs to take a serious look at. What is terribly relevant about the fact that I own a house somewhere? What is the point in listing the fact that I own a property in a particular location? I think there are certain things that are relevant—for example whether I have a mortgage with a financial institution or whether I do not—but why is that terribly relevant? So I think there are things that need to be looked at. 
The second point we should note is that there are risks for members of Parliament. Someone in this House will make a technical breach. We had an incident a few months ago when a member made a technical breach—Harry Duynhoven. This House went into urgency and we had to pass some retrospective legislation to bail him out. As sure as God made little green apples someone in this House will make a technically incorrect filing and will put his or her job constituency and beliefs on the line. So there are a lot of risks I think. There are risks for individuals and we as members of Parliament run the risk that some very good people will see this as just another reason not to make a contribution to their country. If that is a result of this bill then it will be a pretty sad day. 
But on balance transparency is an important part of the society we live in. We as members of Parliament have a great deal of responsibility and even if it is uncomfortable to do some things we nevertheless sometimes have to do them. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I would like to record my support for this bill. I think transparency is important. I think the bill will build the trust of the public in this institution and in the members of this Parliament. I urge the House to pass it without delay. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 87 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 18; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Standing Orders Committee. 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced into the House on 10 December 2002 and provided for unrelated minor amendments to a number of different Acts that are currently in force. As reported back from the Government Administration Committee the bill proposes amendments to 41 different Acts and includes two new parts for which the committee gave leave to be introduced into the bill. The first of those new parts is Part 20A which includes proposed amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act.The objective is to advance the day after which regulations may be made to prescribe how local authorities may assess rates for sewage disposal in relation to land for educational establishments. The Minister of Education sought to advance the date after which such regulations can be put into force from 1 July 2007 to 1 July 2003. The committee agreed to amend the date although it recommended that the date be set at 1 July 2004. 
A second new part in the bill is Part 36A which proposes amendments to the Trade Marks Act. The committee supported the inclusion of this amendment which corrects a cross-reference on the basis that it was of a minor and technical nature. The committee has also approved the inclusion of a new proposed amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act in Part 23. This proposed amendment would update the definition of a member of the police to take into account an international reorganisation of branches of the military police. 
The committee has reported the bill back with minor amendments to Parts 1 and 17 which deal with the Administration Act and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. It also recommended that the amendment to Part 19 be introduced. This part would amend the Legal Services Act and enable the convenor of the legal services aid review panel to delegate his or her functions to any member of the panel. The committee has recommended a change to the proposed amendment so that the convenor must be satisfied that the member to whom the functions are to be delegated has the capability skills and experience to perform or exercise them. 
Finally the committee has also recommended amendments to parts Parts 27 and 31 which respectively amend the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act. The committee’s recommendations in relation to these two parts ensure that the proposed amendments use terminology that is consistent with recent related enactments. I am proposing to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill to include a further seven amendments all of which have received cross-party support. I am grateful to party leaders for their support which will enable these matters to be dealt with—matters that came to light only after the committee had completed its deliberations. 
Paradoxically I am also proposing to object to one amendment—namely that contained in clause 73 which relates to the Medicines Act. The need for this amendment has been superseded by the passage of the Medicines Amendment Act 2003. The effect of my objection will be to remove clause 73 from the bill. 
I would like to thank the chairperson and members of the Government Administration Committee for their efforts in relation to the Statutes Amendment Bill and the timely manner in which it has been reported back. While Statute Amendment bills may not be the most exciting of bills nevertheless they are important and necessary tools in the law reform process. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Procedure 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave that when the House goes into Committee of the whole House on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) it takes the bill as a single question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 to 39 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I would like to raise at this point my objection to clause 73 as I indicated in my second reading speech and my Supplementary Order Paper omits it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in his name? There is none. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 to 39 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Administration Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) the Burial and Cremation Amendment Bill the Business Development Boards Act Repeal Bill the Conservation Amendment Bill the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill the Coroners Amendment Bill the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Electricity Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 3) the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Amendment Bill the Health Research Council Amendment Bill the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill the Industry Training Amendment Bill (No 2) the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Legal Services Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 3) the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill the New Zealand Railways Corporation Amendment Bill the Ngati Turangitukua Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Official Information Amendment Bill the Ombudsmen Amendment Bill the Passports Amendment Bill the Police Amendment Bill (No 3) the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) the Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Bill the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Amendment Bill the Standards Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 2) the Tokelau Amendment Bill the Trade Marks Amendment Bill the Unit Titles Amendment Bill the War Funds Act Repeal Bill and the Wildlife Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 155. divided into Administration Amendment Bill Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill (No 2) Building Amendment Bill (No 2) Burial and Cremation Amendment Bill Business Development Boards Act Repeal Bill Conservation Amendment Bill Construction Contracts Amendment Bill Coroners Amendment Bill Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill Defence Amendment Bill District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) Domestic Violence Amendment Bill Electricity Amendment Bill Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill Gas Amendment Bill Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 3) Health and Disability Services (Safety) Amendment Bill Health Research Council Amendment Bill Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill Industry Training Amendment Bill (No 2) Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) Legal Services Amendment Bill Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill (No 3) Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill New Zealand Railways Corporation Amendment Bill Ngati Turangitukua Claims Settlement Amendment Bill Official Information Amendment Bill Ombudsmen Amendment Bill Passports Amendment Bill Police Amendment Bill (No 3) Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Bill Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Amendment Bill Standards Amendment Bill State Sector Amendment Bill (No 2) Tokelau Amendment Bill Trade Marks Amendment Bill Unit Titles Amendment Bill War Funds Act Repeal Bill Wildlife Amendment Bill  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Administration Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) the Burial and Cremation Amendment Bill the Business Development Boards Act Repeal Bill the Conservation Amendment Bill the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill the Coroners Amendment Bill the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Electricity Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 3) the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Amendment Bill the Health Research Council Amendment Bill the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill the Industry Training Amendment Bill (No 2) the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Legal Services Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 3) the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill the New Zealand Railways Corporation Amendment Bill the Ngati Turangitukua Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Official Information Amendment Bill the Ombudsmen Amendment Bill the Passports Amendment Bill the Police Amendment Bill (No 3) the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) the Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Bill the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Amendment Bill the Standards Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 2) the Tokelau Amendment Bill the Trade Marks Amendment Bill the Unit Titles Amendment Bill the War Funds Act Repeal Bill and the Wildlife Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Bills read a third time. 
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Land Information 
: I move  
That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a second time 
. I wish to report to the House that this bill has had its first reading and that it is just an omnibus bill according to Standing Order 258(1)(d). Usually such a bill is regarded as a wash-up bill for non-controversial land-related matters that cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. Those bills are enacted from time to time as sufficient matters arise. The last one was enacted in 1998. 
This bill deals with four pieces of land located at Paparoa National Park Gore Port Chalmers and Picton. Specifically it provides firstly for the exclusion of a small section of land from the Paparoa National Park and declares it to be a road. The land has been part of the Paparoa National Park since 1987 but has been part of State Highway 6 since 1985. The second part of the bill is the removal of the status of “trust without power of sale” from certain land owned by the Gore District Council. That will allow the council to sell the land if it wishes to do so. Thirdly the revocation of the reserve status of certain land at Port Chalmers should have been done before the land was sold into private ownership. Approval was given to revoke that reserve status in 1983 but it did not occur. Although the transfer of the land was legitimate it was contrary to section 112 of the Reserves Act. Fourthly the bill provides for the discharging of all trusts and endowments over three areas of land vested in the Marlborough District Council. That will allow for more efficient commercial use of the site. 
I note that the Primary Production Committee has recommended no changes be made to the bill. I thank the committee and the officials for their efforts and their careful consideration of the bill and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Minister when reporting on the Primary Production Committee declined to mention the very important submissions that were heard by the committee because that would have exposed the quite distinct double standards of this Government around reserve lands. This bill is about reserves and other lands and the changing of their status. Every member of this House will be aware that over this past winter there has been a power crisis—the second one during the term of this Government—yet the Government has refused point-blank to consider the very sensible hydro development project on the Arnold River in the community of Dobson on the West Coast. 
The Minister of Conservation has said in this House that it is impossible to change the status of reserve lands. Well hello hello here we have a bill that does just that. With this bill we are to change the status of certain areas of reserve land so they can become road can be sold or can be used for commercial purposes. Members on the Opposition side of the House say that if it is possible to do that for roads for commercial uses and for the purposes of land being sold then we should in fact allow the land in the ecological reserve at Card Creek to be considered for that hydro project. 
I want to put into context just how important that particular project is. The communities of the West Coast Marlborough and Nelson are at the end of the wire in terms of power supply in the South Island and have been particularly at risk. I have been advised by my own power company that we have had voltage outages that resulted in the failure of industrial equipment for the first time in 30 years in my home region. This project would enable the generation of 60 megawatts of electricity thus making the West Coast of New Zealand self-sufficient in power. Not only would it be self-sufficient but it would be able to produce power that could be exported into the regions of Tasman Nelson and Marlborough. We have heard from the mayors of all those districts. They have pleaded with this Government to please allow this sensible project to be considered. We have had from the Minister of Conservation Chris Carter nothing less than absolute rejection. There was not even the option of considering the use of the Card Creek ecological area—there was no consideration at all of that particular project. The select committee heard submissions from the Greymouth District Council. It asked the Government to please consider allowing that reserve land to be used for the hydro scheme. I want to give notice today that the National Opposition will move amendments during the Committee stage of this bill to make provision for that project. 
I want to bring to the attention of the House just how small an area will enable the West Coast to be self-sufficient in sustainable electricity. The Card Creek ecological area is one of hundreds of reserves on the West Coast. The area we are talking about is 5 percent of one of those reserves. The question this House has to ask itself is whether we so selfish that we will decline the people of the West Coast the use of 5 percent of one of hundreds of reserves. That land totals 0.02 percent of the conservation land on the West Coast. The Government is saying that it will not even let the people of the West Coast use 0.02 percent of that land in order to be self-sufficient in electricity. 
This issue will be a real test of the member for West Coast – Tasman as to where his loyalties lie. Is he one of those members who will simply sell out on his West Coast – Tasman electorate and vote down the provisions that are proposed? It is also very interesting that Jim Anderton the Minister for Economic Development told the people of the West Coast that he thought this was a good and successful project. Well I have to say that the issue will get very interesting because Gordon Copeland of the United Future party has said that he thinks the Dobson hydro project is a good sensible proposition and that he will be supporting our amendments. I understand also that the New Zealand First Party has said it will be supporting our amendments in that regard. If Damien O’Connor and Jim Anderton do what they say they will then we will see those amendments passed and we will see common sense prevail. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And ACT! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The ACT party of course has also indicated that it is in favour of the common-sense position. If the West Coast – Tasman MP and Jim Anderton stand by their word then we will see some changes to the bill. I have to emphasise right now that those changes will not override the Resource Management Act. Of course this project will have to go through that proper process where the range of issues will be dealt with. But those changes open the door and allow that project to be considered. 
I challenge members of the Government as to why they want to stop the West Coast being self-sufficient in electricity. I have been to the Card Creek area with my colleagues Bill English Gerry Brownlee and also bless his soul Shane Ardern—without his tractor. When we went and looked at that area we saw that the bulk of it is over 6 feet high in gorse. I want to challenge Government members by asking why we should want to protect a block of gorse when the lights may be going out. That does not seem to make much sense to me. So I challenge members opposite about the report on that project. 
It is interesting to note that the Department of Conservation in its report to the select committee said that it did not think the Government should change the status of that land. Well I bet it did. But that is not what the Standing Order states. If any member wants to refer to Standing Order 258(1)(d) he or she will see it makes the claim that reserves and other lands disposal legislation allows this Parliament to make a determination to change the status of any reserve. I have looked over the history of that legislation and have seen that over 260 different blocks of reserves in national parks had their status changed by such reserves and other lands disposal legislation. 
I tell this House that we should apply common sense and allow that small area to be used for the hydro scheme. I would emphasise that the Greymouth District Council proposes to do a land swap that if the hydro site is made available by this legislation will see 700 hectares of Mount Buckley added in to the Card Creek ecological area. A consequence of this bill and the deal that would flow from it would see the Card Creek ecological area become larger and there would be a net conservation benefit from that. So the provisions I am proposing make good conservation sense good energy sense and any kind of economic sense and most of all they make for common sense. 
I look forward to contributions from the politically correct Labour Government as to what it has against the people of the West Coast that it will not allow them to use 0.02 percent of West Coast conservation land for the purpose of being self-sufficient in electricity. I particularly wish to challenge the member for West Coast - Tasman to stand firm for his people and not to sell out again to the political correctness that this Labour Government so often opts for. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I commend the Hon Nick Smith for the speech he has just delivered to this House. He is a former Minister of Conservation and one who I know has made a great contribution to conservation in this country. The issue is that this bill exposes this Government. This bill has found it out. Members will recall that the Minister of Conservation Chris Carter said in this House that there was no way he could uplift the reserve status of Card Creek to allow the power scheme on the West Coast that it so desperately needs to be proceeded with and said that that would be a breach of the Conservation Act. He even misled the House and had to apologise as members may recall when he gave quotations that referred to Ngakawau many many miles away. He tried to deceive the House was found out and had to apologise to the House. The Labour Government has been caught out here. This bill is the mechanism whereby the reserve status of the land at Card Creek on the West Coast could be amended to let a very sensible scheme proceed. 
The facts are that there is an existing power scheme on Arnold River the adjacent catchment which generates some 5 megawatts of electricity. It has been there for many decades and the proposal of TrustPower fully supported by West Coast local bodies and the community was to create another dam on Card Creek create a relatively small lake and increase the power generation from 5 megawatts to 65 megawatts of much-needed electricity. The point is that the West Coast of the South Island has a prevailing wind and a very heavy consistent rainfall. It is not like the dry eastern catchments of Lake Tekapo Lake Pukaki and the other catchments that feed our hydro schemes because it is not subject to the risk of dry-flow years. So the Card Creek hydro scheme was very sensible. It would have made the West Coast—and I hope one day with a change of Government it still will make it—self-sufficient in power. Not only would the West Coast be self-sufficient but it would export electricity to other areas through the national grid. Moreover there are two very tenuous transmission lines into the West Coast that need substantial investment in upgrading. That power scheme would have overcome the need to make that investment. In other words that investment could have been made elsewhere in our electricity security. But this Government through some form of crazy ideology refused to let that scheme proceed. 
We now have the mechanism in this bill that proves the falsehood of what the Minister of Conservation Chris Carter told this House whereby the status of reserve land can be changed. There are 260 examples of situations where the status of reserves has been changed for exactly such a purpose. As we know the conservation lands on the West Coast take up 80 percent of the West Coast’s area. We are talking about 0.02 percent of that area and will it be ruined for conservation purposes? No. There will be a nice mountain lake surrounded by bush and for many people and even in an ecological sense that area will end up with a mountain lake that adds to its conservation values. Over and above that of course the TrustPower project proposed an additional 200 hectares of Mount Buckley would go into reserve. The point has been made and I repeat it that there would have been a net conservation benefit. It would have been win-win. The country would have got the power and the West Coast would have got its self-sufficiency in power. But no that will not happen because of this Government’s rhetoric and the refusal of the Minister of Conservation to make that amendment to the status of the land. This bill was the mechanism whereby that scheme could have been made possible. That it will not proceed is deeply regrettable indeed. 
Again I repeat the politics of it. It is not too late. If Damien O’Connor who tries to sit on the fence and say that he represents the West Coast is true to his word—because he said he supported that hydro scheme—then he could vote for the amendments to the bill. I have a letter from Jim Anderton to the local people stating that he supports the scheme and is working on his ministerial colleagues to try to get them to change their minds. If he is true to his word he will vote for the amendments. That makes two members from the Government who will do so. I hope that United Future’s position is still the same as it was. Mr Copeland has been an absolute champion of this issue. He has asked parliamentary questions week after week. He sees the logic of the Dobson scheme so I know that United Future supports it. National has indicated its support for the scheme and ACT and New Zealand First champion it. The numbers are there as long as Damien O’Connor and Jim Anderton are true to their word. And why would we expect otherwise? I believe them to be honourable members. They have said they support that scheme; here is their chance to support it. 
That would be democracy in action. It would mean that the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill would be used appropriately as a tool to amend the reserve status of that land at Card Creek. That is what the bill is for. A Supplementary Order Paper is before the House that I certainly support. I think the question is where Mr Anderton and Damien O’Connor are in our hour of need. Will they come to the House to support this bill which will then have a majority in Parliament? A sensible solution with regard to this bill would then be found and TrustPower’s very important power scheme on the West Coast could proceed. 
 We know this country faced an electricity crisis earlier this year. We were lucky: the rains came and the lakes filled. Yet I am advised that our hydro lakes are at half the capacity they should be at this time of the year going into spring. The hydro lakes have not had the benefit of the rainfalls. I believe that this Government could well be facing another power crisis at the end of next summer as we move into the uncertain autumn period. 
The Government says it is against using our coal to generate electricity because that breaches the Kyoto Protocol. But the Department of Conservation largely stops us from using our coal reserves—another problem on the West Coast with regard to Pike River. The department has delayed that scheme for about 5 years thus putting the Pike River coalfield development through incredible hurdles. I understand the department is now considering whether it will appeal the resource consents. The Environment Court studied that development and said that yes it should go ahead. But the Department of Conservation is still holding it up. This Minister of Conservation will not do anything to facilitate that development either. So the Government says that we cannot use our coal because of the Kyoto Protocol but it is actually importing 600000 tonnes of Indonesian coal through the Port of Tauranga to feed the Huntly power station. We have no other option. With the Maui gasfield expiring in the next 2 years and actually having smaller reserves than we anticipated a year ago the only option for this country is to use coal. 
Shane Ardern 
: Or nuclear. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Or nuclear power indeed and that should be considered as an option. There are problems with that I acknowledge but it should not be dismissed out of hand. Indeed we may chuckle but we are the only country in the world that through some form of crazy rhetoric will not even consider the option of nuclear power. 
So we are not going to use coal to generate electricity and this Government is stopping us from using a prime catchment in a very reliable rainfall area like the West Coast where an existing hydro scheme can be expanded from 6 megawatts to 65 megawatts with minimal disruption to the environment and some would say actual net conservation benefit. This Government because of its rhetoric refuses to allow that scheme to go ahead. 
This bill is the perfect vehicle under which that hydro scheme could have been implemented. The Minister tried to tell us that it was impossible to change the status of reserve land. This bill and the 260 amendments that have been made elsewhere prove that it is possible to do so. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 My colleague Mr Shirley will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with his stand and that of my colleague Dr Nick Smith. Section 21 of the Conservation Act describes an ecological area which the Card Creek area is as having additional protection requirements to general conservation land and that land must be managed in such a way as to protect the values for which it is held. The Card Creek ecological area was specifically described in a Forest Service report in 1983 as having a number of key natural features. 
These were that it was a sizable pristine area of dense valley-floor podocarp forest not found elsewhere in the ecological district. The second point is that it has an unusually high proportion of matai and kahikatea on the western slopes of the ridge. The third point is that it has a range of forest types from hardwood-dominated to podocarp-dominated forest. The fourth point is that it has a very high diversity and good numbers of native birds including tui bellbird weka yellow-breasted tit robin rifleman brown creeper fantail kereru grey warbler and silvereye. Kaka and parakeet are also recorded as being present. I know that my colleagues referred to large areas of gorse. In reality the gorse represents less than 10 percent of the total area. 
It is also pertinent to note that section 16A of the Conservation Act provides that the Minister may exchange any part of a stewardship area for other land where the exchange enhances conservation values and promotes the purpose of the Act. That is fair enough so far. But section 26 provides for the alienation of stewardship land. The problem is that ecological areas and that includes Card Creek are expressly excluded from stewardship areas and as such cannot be alienated or exchanged unless the Minister first revokes their special status under section 18(7). My understanding is that the Minister has not done that; therefore this bill is not the vehicle by which to change the status. [ 
Interruption 
] This is not the vehicle to do it. The Minister has to revoke it first. 
If the Dobson Valley dam scheme were to go ahead it would flood 394 hectares of public conservation land that lies under the Card Creek conservation area. [ 
Interruption 
] The history of this area is that it was first described in 1949 as having high ecological values. It was gazetted in 1983 by forestry Minister the Hon Jonathan Elworthy for—members have guessed it—National. Then it was extended in 1997 by the National Government by 64 percent. It was specifically extended because it was to add to the long-term viability of the principal reserve as a significant wildlife habitat. Guess who was the Minister of Conservation in 1997? It was the Hon Nick Smith. Dr Smith in 1997 decided to increase the Card Creek ecological area by 64 percent because it had highly significant ecological values. In 2003 it is a gorse-covered valley! I ask Dr Smith what has changed. It is just politics. He does not have a leg to stand on. 
It is interesting that Dr Smith and Mr Shirley referred to areas of gorse. As I said less than 10 percent of the area is covered by gorse. The remainder comprises “native forests and forest shrublands which contain mature and regenerating kahikatea matai rimu kamahi kawakawa pockets of red and hard beech and a number of other native species.” The gorse areas are found mostly on the former Timberlands area and will regenerate to native forests. It is likely that people flying over the recent addition from the Timberlands West Coast would see large patches of gorse and it is not possible to flood only the gorse area. 
It is also interesting to note that in 1983 when it was originally gazetted as an ecological area it was noted as one of the best examples in the Greymouth ecological district of forest on a wide valley floor. Of course since 1983 we have had 20 years of forest regeneration. 
This is a highly significant area and for Dr Smith to dismiss it now and say: “We need this for power generation.” is simply politics. In terms of the power generation both Dr Smith and Mr Shirley have said that we need more power. That is one way to look at it; it is the old “Is the glass half empty or half full?” question. Do we need to have more power because there is more demand or do we need to say: “Look the demand is getting ridiculous and we simply can’t continue to build more and more dams to supply more and more power because of people wanting to turn on their dishwashers or their heated towel rails in Auckland.”? Clearly the answer is no. If we look at power demand and say that it is increasing by say 5 percent a year— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please come to the bill itself? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: In terms of the bill itself I have no problem at all with it. It is a considerable step forward. It is a rationalisation of pieces of land from Gore from Picton and from Invercargill that have gone on to be used for other things. It is sensible legislation. It was discussed briefly in the select committee. I support its passage. What I will not support is Dr Smith’s proposed amendment to include the Dobson hydro scheme. The Greens will support the passage of this bill without amendment. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future lent its support to the first reading of this bill and we will vote in favour of its second reading. We will also vote in the Committee stage in favour of the amendment suggested by Dr Nick Smith in terms of the Card Creek ecological area. I have visited the Card Creek ecological area. I have been there I have studied it I have looked at the options and I have worked for months now with the Minister of Conservation to try to bring some common sense and some logic into the situation that exists there. I must say I am extremely disappointed at the conduct of the Department of Conservation and its Minister in this matter which I can only describe as bordering on fanaticism because of the completely unbending and in my view unbalanced and irrational manner in which the matter is being approached. 
I want to put some facts on the table. First of all Ian Ewen-Street correctly said that Card Creek is an ecological area—that is right; it is. We are looking to use only 9.6 percent of that area for the Dobson dam. Mr Ewen-Street mentioned the birds that live there. Well they all have wings and they can all fly. That is not a logical thing to say. In addition to the birds there are numerous stoats weasels possums and other things there. If logic and common sense were able to prevail it is quite possible that TrustPower Ltd which wants to build this dam would be quite happy to put a considerable amount of money into reducing the number of possums stoats and weasels in that area so that the birdlife there could flourish. We can have a classical win-win situation. 
However it goes further. At the moment through the West Coast District Council the good people of the West Coast own 720 hectares of land in the Mount Buckley block. They are prepared to gift that land to the Crown in exchange for 500 hectares because they want this scheme to go ahead and they want the electricity. That is a gain of 220 hectares to the conservation estate that could immediately be redesignated as an area of ecological significance and we could all gain again. 
This process lacks any kind of integrity because the reason the Minister and the Department of Conservation give for not wanting to do that is that the 720 hectares owned by the West Coast District Council is already in the conservation estate and it does not add to it. I find that completely dishonourable and lacking in integrity. But it goes further. Mr Ewen-Street mentioned that there are some regenerating kahikatea there—and there are; I have seen them and they are pretty average trees in my opinion. Just up the road on privately owned land and accessible to far more people there is a stand of similar kahikatea. The only difference is that it does not have wet feet and it is in better nick. Again I would say that the proponents of the scheme would be quite happy to buy that private land and gift that kahikatea to the nation in exchange for the inferior trees in the Card Creek area. Again it cannot be done because it is already a place of national significance apparently. 
The owners’ property rights mean nothing. In other words the Department of Conservation says: “We already have that little bit of land under our control. We know that it is privately owned but effectively it is ours. We will not compensate the owner for it but effectively it is ours anyway.” To me it completely lacks any kind of integrity to have those kinds of dealings. 
The bottom line is this: the people of the West Coast want this project to go ahead. It can be done in such a way if common sense prevails that it is a win for everybody. It is a win for the birds for the kahikatea trees for electricity for the people of the West Coast and for the people of this nation. Why on earth do we not do it? No one in all of these discussions has been able to come up with an answer except to say that it is illegal under the present Act. 
 But is Parliament not here to remove legal obstacles that restrain the economic development of this nation and that act as a constraint on its conservation plan? Why on earth should we hide behind a law when we can change it in the House? I congratulate Dr Nick Smith on coming along and proposing that we jolly well change it. 
There is another aspect to the whole thing that is most unsatisfactory. Nick Smith’s amendment allows the bill to have a resource management hearing. What could be fairer than that? It should go to a hearing at which everybody can have their say including the Department of Conservation—but no we are not prepared to let it go to a hearing. Why? Because in this case the Minister says he is not only the judge but also the jury. He wears two hats. The case has been to him and he as the jury has decided that it will not go ahead. 
I ask him where people go and on what criteria the decision has been made. Where is the transparency the openness and the due process of the law? Where is natural justice in all this? I am told that it is “whole of Government”. In other words the only way we can get this changed is to convince the Prime Minister to change it. Again where is the transparency and openness? From the point of view of a company that wants to develop the power station it is completely unsatisfactory to be told that the only way it can be done is go ahead and convince the Prime Minister to do it. We in this House should be encouraging open and fair processes and arbitration of these questions. None of that will occur in this situation and I for one have found trying to argue something on the basis of a win-win a gain for everybody—particularly for people on the West Coast in this case—to be a most unsatisfactory experience. 
One person said to me that it is to do with tourism. I said to him that there are about four people a year who get there. Let me be generous—perhaps 100 people ayear might hike the day’s journey in to see those trees—but the fact of the matter is that if we are not careful the tourists who come to this nation to see the beauty of the West Coast will be going past houses that are not painted and have rusty roofs because the people on the West Coast are being denied economic self-sufficiency. That is ridiculous. It put snails and birds ahead of people and that is wrong. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill for the reason that we have here—and we have just seen a demonstration of it by the previous speaker—yet another double standard. We have often heard the Prime Minister speak in the third person and we have recently heard the Attorney-General when talking about the Privy Council speak in the third person. One wonders why we are here today talking about the Dobson dam in relation to this bill. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Minister of Conservation Mr Carter is having an out-of-body experience or a third-person experience as well. 
Despite the logic; despite the fact that earlier this year we had a power crisis in this country; despite the fact that the energy company that wants to develop the Dobson dam in the South Island is prepared to fund it; despite the Minister for Industry and Regional Development Jim Anderton and the local MP Damien O’Connor saying it is a good idea here we are debating this bill today and the Minister will not budge. What do members make of that? What reason could the Minister Mr Carter have for that? The only conclusion I can come to is that once again there is one standard for one group of people and another standard for another group. 
I use the example of Project Aqua where the Minister for Industry and Regional Development and the team involved in that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must come to the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: They have found a way to get around— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must come to the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am talking about the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill with regard— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Which clause? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —with regard to the issue of what land can be sold what legislation can be changed what bits of land are able to be disposed of and what bits of land are not. 
Clearly we have a double standard there. Project Aqua which I use as an example of what is going on here is able to go ahead by amending the Resource Management Act. We have got around the conservation issues there and found a way forward but in the case of the Card Creek and Dobson dam development we are unable to proceed. The Mount Buckley land that was to be swapped for the land in Card Creek is in pristine condition—I have been there. Ian Ewen-Street suggests that the land in question is a prime piece of conservation land—I have also been there. When I tramped through it I saw nothing but standing gorse with some trees around the edge. We are talking about 0.2 percent of the total area in conservation on the West Coast. Currently 80 percent of the West Coast is in a reserve and the only conclusion one can come to is that there is a different set of criteria for this legislation and this proposal than for other proposals. 
I want to look at some of the other things that are in this legislation. I think it is a good idea to dispose of the Gore land. It is an endowment piece of land that has outlived its useful purpose. There is a proposal for that to be disposed of and it is a sensible suggestion. Why not do the same on the West Coast? Why is there a difference? Why do we have a situation where despite the fact that the Prime Minister is saying that we must do more with regard to our environment we are now going to generate our emergency electricity from coal? Why is that so? Perhaps the Minister on the other side of the House will take a call. Why has the Minister of Conservation acknowledged that we need to do more in terms of sustainable energy in this country? He said that. Why will he not let this development proceed? I do not know the answer to that. 
I know that you Mr Speaker have been challenged once or twice recently over double standards and the only thing I can suggest to you is that this is another example of that. I also know that the issue of the prayer at the beginning of Parliament has been a topic of discussion in recent times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stop his speech. The subject of the prayer in Parliament has nothing to do with this bill. Please come to the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am speaking about the bill. I am talking about the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I am just pointing out that we have different standards whereby one Minister says that an area is a conservation area and a different Minister says that in another area it is fine for development to proceed. If that is not in some way linked to this bill Mr Speaker then perhaps I will talk to you after the debate and you can explain to me why that is so. 
There are several bits of land in this bill that will be disposed of that will have their legal title changed and that will have different outcomes for whatever it is they are required to have. Those lands are in no way different from the piece of land in Card Creek we are discussing now. Unless someone can explain to me why that is not so then I hold fast to the view that what we have here is no different in that regard. Five percent of one reserve on the West Coast is what we are talking about here. The West Coast is crying out for electricity and has to bring it in from right across the other side of the country. There are issues with transmission with efficiency and development on the West Coast. There is total inconsistency between what we are proposing in this bill and what the Minister of Conservation has denied the people of the West Coast with regard to the development of the Card Creek or Dobson dam development. 
We have an opportunity to generate 62 megawatts of electricity which is something the nation desperately needs. It is a totally renewable generation system—unlike coal gas or others being proposed by the Government. At this point in time the project is being denied the opportunity to go ahead because the Minister of Conservation says the land has a special designation yet there is no evidence that it is any different from the bits of land that are in this legislation. Therefore as far as he is concerned it will be treated differently. 
That is unacceptable. The Minister’s explanation needs to be better. The Minister—along with the member for the West Coast Damien O’Connor and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development Jim Anderton—needs to tell people on the West Coast why their development is being denied yet other developments are not. This bill would have been an opportunity for them to do. Why are they not allowing that development to proceed? I hear a deafening silence from the other side of the House. I am ever hopeful that there will be a speech from the other side of the House to explain it to us. 
Sixty megawatts at $150 million would be a major development for the West Coast. It would be very beneficial for the West Coast’s economic development and for New Zealand. As Mr Copeland said there is no logical reason why it should not go ahead. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Conservation 
: I seek the leave of the House that when we go into Committee on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill we take the Committee stage as a single question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 and Parts 1 and 2 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 As I was saying earlier on there is no reason why the Card Creek development could not go ahead. When we look at Part 1 “Commencement and interpretation” we see that there are plenty of reasons that the Minister should take a call and explain why the development should not proceed. TrustPower has proposed building a 60-megawatt $150 million hydro scheme at Card Creek and it is being denied that opportunity on the basis that Card Creek is a high-value ecological area. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What’s this got to do with the commencement date? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I say to Mr Ian Ewen-Street that this omnibus Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill could have included the opportunity for that to happen. The Minister had the opportunity—because we have proposed it on numerous occasions—to include the transfer of that land from its current status to a status that would allow the development to proceed. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What’s the commencement date? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I need Mr Ian Ewen-Street to take a call and tell us why he thinks that it is not so. I am talking about why he thinks this bill and in particular this part could not be used for that purpose. I am sure that neither the member nor the Minister in the chair Rick Barker will be able to do that but I look forward with great anticipation to either of them being able to enlighten me. The only explanation I can give is that the Minister has been heavied by the Forest and Bird Protection Society by the Greens and by “Minister Smith”—not the Hon Nick Smith—the former Forest and Bird Protection Society official who works in the Minister of Conservation’s office. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The real Minister. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes we could say Mr Smith is the real Minister especially when it comes to this decision. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Chris Carter says: “How high?”. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I could not possibly say that. But the reality is that certainly a lot of decisions are taken in that office that one has to question particularly around sustainable development and business that is successful and— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s run by a madman. 
SHANE ARDERN 
:I will let the member say that in his speech but it is being run by people who have a dubious understanding of what development is and what conservation is. It is run by people I guess who have double standards. Clearly there is a double standard when other conservation land is being used for development as in the case of Project Aqua but in this case the Minister says it cannot be done. I would like somebody—the Minister in the chair Rick Barker any other Minister or even the member for the Green Party—to tell us why that is so. 
When he is doing that can he also tell us how using coal in emergency generation—which is the proposal at the moment—actually mitigates against a proposed hydro development in relation to the Kyoto Protocol? It just makes no sense to me that we would burn coal or gas or any other fossil fuel or energy that is not renewable to generate electricity yet turn down something like this which has reliability development value on the West Coast and a huge potential to make New Zealand and the West Coast a much more viable reliable and safer place to live. I just do not understand why that is so. I look forward to the Minister taking a call to explain to us why that could not be done. 
Certainly I know that the West Coast which is the birthplace of the Labour Party really wants to know why this Labour Government—Auckland-based academics that they are—is turning down its opportunity for development. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not talking about the rats and mice that make a noise up the back. I am talking about the front bench—the Auckland-based academics who are turning down the Coasters’ opportunity for a huge development project that clearly would be benefit Auckland and the rest of New Zealand as well for no good reason—particularly given the work done by the local authorities down there the Department of Conservation itself the energy industry people involved and the regional development Minister himself and his office. 
It all points in one direction and it is that this a good idea that should proceed and all but “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office agree. United Future agrees the ACT party agrees New Zealand First agrees but “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office— 
Government Member 
: “Minister Smith”? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office—the real Minister! The member at the back who does not understand who I am talking about should go and talk to the Minister up there and find out who “Minister Smith” is. He is a former member of the Forest and Bird Protection Society and he is totally adamant that the only way forward for the West Coast is to get all the people out. At that point in time of course the coast would have no regional development and there will be no purpose in going there. So I am suggesting to the Minister in the chair that he take a call—I am sure he is going to; he is looking a little anxious—and tell us why that will not happen. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill or “ROLD” bill is a non-controversial bill. I would suspect that the Leader of the Opposition sometimes wished that he was a non-controversial Bill but I guess he will just settle for not being rolled! 
The point of this bill is that it is non-controversial and by agreement. The amendment moved in the name of Nick Smith does not meet in my view four of the points that are important about a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Firstly to be in such a bill an amendment must be of a technical or administrative nature correcting oversights errors or omissions—this amendment does not—or it must be to remove from land restrictions that are no longer relevant. This amendment does not do that. It must be non-controversial and have the consent of all the parties. It does not meet those criteria. In relationship the land must be owned or administered by the applicant and on this occasion it is not. So I think that the amendment is in fact out of order and should be struck down but if it is not then we will be voting against it. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports in principle the establishment of the Dobson dam and its development and many of the things that are said about it in the House today.However however this bill is the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is not the vehicle for an amendment to establish the Dobson dam process. It is well established as anyone with any knowledge of parliamentary procedure would know that this legislation is totally the wrong approach and New Zealand First will oppose any amendment although I must say I look forward to seeing it yet. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I put it to MrJones who just resumed his seat that he is quite confused on this issue. This bill of itself is an important bill. We regularly see other Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bills before this Parliament. With the extensive public reserves it is important that there is fine-tuning from time to time. Bits are added bits are sold and status and designation change. What the Opposition members are really saying—and it is actually in the select committee report—is that here was an opportunity for the Minister of Conservation to have actually had some foresight and to have changed the ecological reserve status on the Card Creek catchment which was the only obstacle to the Card Creek or the Arnold River power scheme of TrustPower proceeding. 
The Minister of Conservation Chris Carter misled this Parliament. He said there was no way that it was impossible for that designation to be changed. Well the point is that it was not impossible. This is the bill the vehicle that does make it possible—if he had had the foresight to change the designation and include it in this bill. He failed to do so and that is indeed very regrettable. 
 The Minister Damien O’Connor is in a rather perilous position because he has been a lion in the electorate on this issue. He tells them he will go to Wellington and will fight for the West Coasters because he is one of them. He goes into the pub from time to time and tells them he is fighting for them on this issue. What is his position today? He is a lamb in Parliament. Jim Anderton has also written letters saying that he supports that power scheme proceeding and he is negotiating and working with his parliamentary colleagues to change their minds. If he were true to his word he would be here today with Damien O’Connor standing shoulder to shoulder—and with the ACT party United Future New Zealand First and National that could happen. The only thing standing in front of the Card Creek TrustPower power scheme proceeding is Jim Anderton and Damien O’Connor who claimed to champion it when they were in the electorate but in Parliament they go belly up. 
Let us turn to the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker. Members may not realise he is a Greymouth boy; the son of a coal miner born and raised on the West Coast. He does not say that around Hastings and in the Hawke’s Bay but he is a Coaster. With his avuncular style it reeks of his being a Coaster at heart. We can all tell that. He knows the feeling on the West Coast for this scheme but what is he doing? He is sitting there like a maturing cheese. He is not prepared to stand on principle for those hard-working Coasters who for generations have recognised that this scheme would be ideal. 
Let us look at the blows that this Government has dealt to the West Coast. Soon after becoming the Government in 1999 it reneged on the West Coast Accord. I put a lot of work along with others into the accord back in 1987. Who signed the West Coast Accord on behalf of the Crown? It was the then Minister for the Environment—actually the first Minister for the Environment for this country—the Hon Phil Goff.He signed the West Coast Accord which stated that in perpetuity lands would be set aside for the sustainable management of the West Coast’s forests—not all of them; just a few. A whole lot went into the conservation estate—about 80 percent—but a small area which was production forestry was set aside for jobs investment and products of high-quality indigenous wood products. That was a deal in perpetuity signed by the unions the Labour Government of the day by Phil Goff on behalf of the Crown and everyone else—all the local bodies of the West Coast. 
What did this Labour Government do on coming to power? It screwed it up. It reneged on a deal that a former Labour Government had signed in perpetuity. That will never be forgotten on the West Coast. The Government tried to bribe the West Coast with $120 million but we are saying that the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—[ 
Interruption 
] Tariana Turia made the observation they took the money. I could think of a few analogies with the treaty grievance industry. They will always take the money. I tell the member not be surprised when the Government throws out taxpayer money that people put their hands out and grab it quickly. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I was delighted to hear that the Minister in the chair was born on the West Coast because West Coasters are generally speaking a good lot and I am pretty fond of them. I even have a son who has chosen to live down there in Charleston and it is a great place. If the West Coasters have one fault it is that they tend to be more loyal to Michael Joseph Savage than they are sometimes to themselves. In other words they are in some ways a bit too Labour for their own good. Because in spite of the fact that the West Coast Accord as the Hon Ken Shirley has just told us was broken—and that was a broken promise—they still vote back into this House a Labour member of Parliament. I just want to tell the Government and the Minister in the chair as a West Coaster because he will know this very well that even the West Coasters do have their limits. I want the Minister in the chair to tell the West Coasters why the Labour Government is now blackballing the Dobson dam project. Why is it blackballing it? 
If Michael Joseph Savage knew the facts he would turn over in his grave. The West Coasters have their limits and the Government should not push those limits too far. I think the Government will find shortly that the West Coasters will decide that for once they will put their own interests ahead of their traditional allegiance to the Labour Party. 
I want to deal also with a couple of points raised by Ian Ewen-Street. He said that this Dobson dam did not matter because it was going to produce electricity only for Auckland. Well I want to tell members that some time ago—and Ian Ewen-Street was not there—Carter Holt Harvey came to this Parliament and gave a briefing to the Labour and United Future caucuses. That company is on a knife-edge right now about whether it even stays in this nation. One of its problems is the price of electricity. Any way this country can generate electricity to industries like Carter Holt Harvey means jobs. We are risking losing thousands of jobs because we are stupidly locking up renewable resources that can generate electricity in favour—and this is the thing that I cannot understand—of using fossil fuels to generate electricity. How the heck that can be consistent with a conservation ethic I am blowed if I know. It is exactly the opposite. It really does lack common sense. 
The West Coast has some things going for it at the moment. It has dairying growing very quickly. The Minister was just telling me that the unemployment rate down there is very low. The West Coast is booming. But what will bring it to a halt pretty quickly is that it has to import electricity. The dairying industry alone has a great growth in electricity. The the Pike River coal mine which I hope goes ahead needs electricity. There is Macrae’s gold mine which after years and millions of dollars actually got consent to go ahead; that needs electricity. It has to import the blinking stuff across the main divide even though it is in the highest-rainfall area in the country. That gold mine has a perfectly ecologically sound project ready to go ahead which it wants and we are busy denying it electricity. 
I want to make one other point and that is that the Minister said when he took the call that one can only use amendments to correct oversights. Well I tell the Minister that this matter was not overlooked. The very fact that there is an amendment before this Committee indicates that this matter was not overlooked—it is in the report. I was not aware of that until Ken Shirley mentioned it. The issue is that they were out-voted on the select committee in relation to this matter. So therefore it is perfectly appropriate in my view and I hope this amendment will be ruled in because it does relate to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is a perfectly legitimate place to try to address an issue of national importance and therefore I hope that the amendment will be put. If it is United Future will certainly be supporting it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have an amendment. The amendment is in order. While technically it may be desirable for an amendment to be non-controversial and have the support of all parties there is no requirement that it be so—and this is not the Statutes Amendment Bill. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 and to insert new clauses 12A and 12B be agreed to: 
to insert in clause 3 the following definition: 
Card Creek land 
 means the 500 hectares of land required for the Dobson Hydro Development in the Card Creek Ecological Area as specified in Schedule 1 of this Act and amounts to 9.6% of the area of the Card Creek Ecological Area; and 
to insert the following new clauses: 
12ABackground to Card Creek land 
(1)A hydro development has been proposed for the Arnold River to expand the existing small 12 MW scheme to 62 MW to alleviate the nationwide and more particularly the Top of the South shortfall in electricity supply. 
(2)The Grey District Council proposed a land swap whereby 720 hectares of Council land known as the Mt Buckley Block will be added to the Card Creek Ecological Reserve in exchange for 500 hectares being taken out of reserve status for the purposes of the scheme. 
(3)The uplifting of the reserve status over 500 hectares of the Card Creek Ecological Area will allow the Dobson Hydro Proposal to be considered under the Resource Management Act. 
12BReserve status of Card Creek land revoked 
The reservation of the Card Creek land as a reserve under the Reserves Act is revoked. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 18; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 74 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not hear the call for the Progressive Party. Jim Anderton has spoken emphatically in support of this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I did not hear the vote. Was it cast? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order. The Clerk called the votes correctly. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is a point of order. I am seeking clarification of whether a particular vote was called and given. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was called and no vote was given. It was correctly called. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 5.41 p.m.