Volume 708 Week 28 - Wednesday 16 September 2015(continued on Thursday 17 September 2015)Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 708 Week 28 - Wednesday 16 September 2015(continued on Thursday 17 September 2015)[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6753. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 16 September 2015(continued on Thursday 17 September 2015)AppointmentsOmbudsman and Chief OmbudsmanHon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of theLeader of the House: I move That pursuant to sections 3(1) 3(4) and 5(1) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 Peter Francis Boshier be appointed as an Ombudsman for a term of 5 years with effect from 10 December 2015 and upon taking up the office of Ombudsman he be appointed as Chief Ombudsman with effect from the date that the incumbent Chief Ombudsman vacates the position. Today I rise to move a motion that recommends the appointment of Judge Peter Boshier to replace Dame Beverley Wakem as an Ombudsman. Dame Beverley has served this country as Ombudsman since 23 November 2007. I would like to place on record our thanks for her many years of service in this important role.The Office of the Ombudsmen is not only an important organ of State; it is also an advocate for the protections that New Zealanders expect inside our democracy. It is an organisation that is able to conduct free of charge examinations into all manner of requests from the public that relate to the activities of governance in this country. It is also the organisation that has the greatest influence on the application of the Official Information Act. The organisation therefore has to have people of the highest calibre and highest integrity working within its office. Judge Boshier is well-qualified to become an Ombudsman. He holds an LLB (Hons) from Victoria University of Wellington and has practised in Wellington since 1975. In 1988 he was appointed a District Court judge. In 2004 Judge Boshier was appointed Principal Family Court Judge and he was in that role until December 2012. He is currently a law commissioner.The position of Ombudsman was widely advertised throughout New Zealand and the Officers of Parliament Committee has acknowledged the high calibre of applicants for the position. Judge Boshier was unanimously supported by the committee members. I want to thank them for their work and wish Judge Boshier all the best for his term as Ombudsman.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I rise to place on record Labour’s support for this appointment. I do want to very briefly pay tribute to Dame Beverley Wakem not only for the time she spent as Chief Ombudsman but also for a career of many many years in the broader State sector. She has made an enormous contribution.I have known Judge Boshier since he was a law student. Our paths have crossed on a number of occasions—but not to the extent of my having appeared. Peter Boshier is a man of quiet integrity. He is someone who has shown an ability to lead a team. I think it is fair to say that herding Family Court judges is something that is not particularly easy and he managed to work some reforms and do some improvements over a period of years which showed tact and discretion but also a bit of steady leadership when that was necessary. He is currently a law commissioner. He is widely respected in the Pacific and has done work there. I am sure that he is very very suitable to do this job. As the Minister moving the motion for Mr Brownlee the Hon Jo Goodhew indicated it was a decision that in the end the Officers of Parliament Committee came to relatively easily.But I think it is also fair to say and to place on record that any of the applicants who were shortlisted and interviewed could have been appointed and in a different field they may well have been appointed. This was a position that was sought by people with a range of experience and people of very good standing in our community. I am pleased that the Office of the Ombudsmen still holds an attraction for people of that sort of integrity. I think it bodes well for the future.There is one point I will disagree with the Government on and that is whether it is the Office of the Ombudsmen that has the most influence over the workings of the Official Information Act. That is just not correct. It is the leadership of the Government that is most important in that and I think that that is something that would be good for the new Chief Ombudsman and both this Government and the next Government to reflect on. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to give our support for this Government motion appointing Peter Boshier to the position of Chief Ombudsman. Like Trevor Mallard said before me I have had some dealings with him and have found him to be excellent. I believe he will be a superb appointment to this role. I also want to place on record our party’s thanks for the work that Dame Beverley Wakem has carried out in this role until now. The role of ombudsmen is a crucial one in democracies such as ours. It is a Swedish idea. It comes from the sense that citizens need some kind of backstop protection against potential excesses of the executive arm of Government.In her contribution Jo Goodhew mentioned the role of the ombudsmen in relation to the Official Information Act. It is no secret that the Green Party has been concerned that the use of that Act has become more problematic as to our mind Government departments and arms of the executive part of Government have frustrated the use of that Act by declining Official Information Act requests. There has been a suspicion that that underperformance in relation to the responsibilities of the Official Information Act has been assisted by an underfunding of the Office of the Ombudsmen leaving the ombudsmen with less capacity to respond to those problems.Like Trevor Mallard said before me I think that when Peter Boshier assumes his new role as the Chief Ombudsman his scrutiny on that matter may be useful but equally it may be that that is not the only reason for delays in responding to complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen. The Green Party certainly would appreciate the opportunity for some kind of independent review of not only those funding matters but also the operation of the Office of the Ombudsmen. Is everything being done that should be done to ensure that the ombudsmen’s functions are able to be carried out with the least impediment possible? We would advocate that cause to the incoming Chief Ombudsman.So with those remarks I echo my earlier expression of support for the Government’s motion and congratulate Peter Boshier on his appointment.Motion agreed to.Deputy Controller and Auditor-GeneralHon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of theLeader of the House: I move That pursuant to section 11(2) and clause 2 of Schedule 3 of the Public Audit Act 2001 the House recommend to the Governor-General that Greg Mark Schollum of Wellington be appointed as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a term not exceeding 5 years with effect from 28 September 2015. This motion recommends Mr Greg Schollum replace Phillippa Smith as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General a role she has held since 2005. After 10 years she has decided not to seek reappointment. I would like to place on record our thanks for her service in this role.The work of the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General cannot be understated in its importance. Indeed work undertaken by the office must give Parliament public entities and the public independent assurance that some 4000 public entities are operating and accounting for their performance in keeping with Parliament’s intentions. Mr Schollum is well-qualified for this appointment having joined the Office of the Auditor-General in September 2004.He has held responsibility for the accounting and auditing policy group which encompasses auditor appointments quality assurance auditing policy and accounting policy across all sectors within the Auditor-General’s audit mandate. Mr Schollum was a member of the Financial Reporting Standards Board of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants for 8 years and has served on numerous working groups and committees of the institute. Since 1 July 2011 he has served on the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board.He is a fellow of the institute and gained his business management studies qualification from the University of Waikato. Before being in the Office of the Auditor-General Mr Schollum was the chief financial officer for the Greater Wellington Regional Council and prior to that an audit director with Audit New Zealand. I want to thank the Officers of Parliament Committee for its work and I wish Mr Schollum all the best for his term as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Again I would like to place on record the support of the Labour Party for this appointment and also I want to make a few brief comments about Phillippa Smith before I sit down. Unlike the appointment we debated previously there was not quite the even balance and strength other than Mr Schollum in the applicants for this appointment. It is a little bit hard to tell why—whether the position is not that attractive or as may be the case people saw that Mr Schollum was an applicant and thought as a result of that because he had the history and the background he was almost certain to be appointed. If that is the case that is fine.What became clear to the committee was that the new Deputy Auditor-General will not be a pushover for anyone. He is someone who stands up for what he believes in—something that on occasions has not always made him popular inside and outside the office. He has the ability which I think is necessary for someone in this sort of position to put on the black hat to take a contrary point of view and to debate issues. I think that is valuable because in an office like that of the Auditor-General having groupthink is something that is not useful. It is better to have views tested. I am sure Mr Schollum will be able to do that.I do want to acknowledge the role that Phillippa Smith has played in the Public Service. I think I first came across her when she worked in the Audit Office previously before she went to the State Services Commission. She is a public servant of incredible integrity and intelligence. I was Minister of State Services during the majority of the time she was at the State Services Commission. She was fearless in her legal advice and warnings both verbally and occasionally in writing to Ministers of the day. I think that was something that I found particularly valuable and on occasions chilling. That again was something important.I am not sure if we are meant to say this but I would have thought that Phillippa Smith is not yet at the point where it is appropriate for her skills to be lost to the State sector generally. She is I think someone whom Governments should look to in the future for roles that are temporary or part-time because her abilities are something that is so valuable that it is vital that they are retained and used in order to keep working on the integrity of the Public Service and the State sector generally. If she is going into part-time retirement I wish her well. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): On behalf of the Green Party I rise to support the Government motion to congratulate Mr Schollum on his appointment and also to thank Phillippa Smith for her contribution. I echo the remarks that Trevor Mallard has just made. The Office of the Auditor-General is an incredibly important one for our democracy and for our work in this Parliament. When I consider the work for example that we all undertake on select committees the advice that we have from the Office of the Auditor-General is extraordinarily important and valuable in forming the scrutiny that we are able to place the institutions of Government under. So we could not perform our role on select committees if we did not have that support from the Office of the Auditor-General.That means of course that the office has a very heavy workload indeed and that I think has made it from time to time difficult for it to strike the best balance between that programme of regular work and the functions that it also has to conduct investigations from time to time into for example probity in Government departments. Certainly our party has often called on the Auditor-General to conduct such investigations when we have encountered conflicts of interest for example or other situations where the rules do not appear to have been followed. Sometimes the Office of the Auditor-General has been in a position to respond to those requests; sometimes it has not. But our point I think would be that it ought not require complaints from members of Parliament to trigger such investigations. One of the developments that certainly our party would like to see in the future is a more proactive stance from the Office of the Auditor-General and maybe this appointment will create the catalyst for that to occur so that there is greater horizon-scanning for the issues that arise from time to time that could require the skills and expertise of the Auditor-General’s office to investigate.So a more proactive stance towards investigation without needing complaints from members of Parliament or members of the public is what we would like to see. In conclusion congratulations again to Mr Schollum and we hope that his appointment and his tenure in the office will be very successful.Motion agreed to.Independent Police Conduct AuthorityHon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General reappoints Dianne Mary Macaskill and appoints Simon Murdoch CNZM each as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority for terms of 3 years. I moved that pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommends to His Excellency the Governor-General the reappointment of Ms Dianne Macaskill and appoints Simon Murdoch CNZM as part-time members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority each for a term of 3 years. The authority is chaired by Judge Sir David Carruthers. The other two current members Ms Angela Hauk-Willis and Ms Macaskill both completed their first term with the authority in August 2013 and remain in office under carry-over provisions. There is also an unfilled vacancy on the authority following the departure of Mr Richard Woods in early 2013. Given that Ms Hauk-Willis and Ms Macaskill have now each served on the authority for 5 years the Government favours making one reappointment to retain experience and maintain continuity and appointing a new part-time member. This provides an opportunity to enhance the authority’s strategic planning capabilities. I would at this point like to acknowledge the contribution that Ms Hauk-Willis has made throughout her time with the authority.Ms Macaskill is an independent contractor at D.M. Macaskill. She is the vice-president of the Pacific regional branch of the International Council on Archives an audit committee member at the International Council on Archives and a member of the internal audit committee at the Ministry of Education. Ms Macaskill is the former chief executive and chief archivist at Archives New Zealand from 2001-08 and a former Deputy Government Statistician at Statistics New Zealand from 1996-2001.Mr Murdoch joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1972 and served in postings to Canberra and Washington. He became Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 1991 and was appointed as Chief Executive and Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2002. Since retirement in 2009 he has undertaken a range of public sector reviews and consulting roles. With these appointments the authority will have the range of management and governance experience required by a Crown entity board.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour supports the reappointment of Dianne Macaskill and the appointment of Simon Murdoch as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The Independent Police Conduct Authority is an important body. It is Parliament’s and the public’s watchdog over the police to ensure that the police always meet the standards that we properly expect of them. The role of the body is to receive complaints against the police. It investigates incidents involving death and serious bodily harm as a result of police actions and it monitors the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees in police custody.The word “independent” has been deliberately written into the title of the authority. In fact that was happening at the point that I was Minister of Justice between 1999 and 2005. It is important to emphasise the independence of this authority both from the Government and from the New Zealand Police. It provides assurance both to the police and to the general public. Its members therefore are accountable to this Parliament for the use of taxpayer funding and the appointments to this body are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of Parliament rather than the executive wing of Government.The conditions governing the operation of the authority and the quality of the membership of the authority are really important to ensure that public trust and confidence in the police is ongoing. I need to say that I think that we are very fortunate in New Zealand to have a police force that by and large maintains the qualities of integrity and professionalism that we expect of the police in this country. This is a country that respects the rule of law and the upholding of individual rights.The chair of the authority is always a judicial figure and the chair since I think about 2012 has been Sir David Carruthers as a judge of the District Court. He is a man whom I have worked with for many years and a person whom I have total confidence in a person who is widely respected.Equally the two members whose appointments we are now considering before the House are high-quality nominees. Dianne Macaskill was the Deputy Government Statistician from 1996 to 2001. She then went on to be chief executive of Archives New Zealand from 2001 to 2009. She is a specialist in strategic leadership and in general and information management. She has also been a member of the audit and assurance committee for the Ministry of Education. She is recommended for reappointment for a further 3 years and Labour supports that appointment.The new member recommended for appointment is Simon Murdoch. Both as an MP and as a Minister I have worked with Simon Murdoch for many years in a range of capacities in which he has acted. I first knew him as the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under a National Government and that was a role that I think he carried out with extraordinary competence. He then went on to be New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Australia—again a role that he performed with distinction—and for much of the time that I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade he was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs through from I think about 2002 to 2009. Working with him I found him to be highly professional and a dedicated civil servant who performed competently and with integrity. He was respected by both those who worked for him and those whom he worked for. On behalf of the Labour Party I have no hesitation in supporting the recommendation that he should be appointed as an Independent Police Conduct Authority member.In conclusion these nominees are people whom I believe can be relied upon to provide the independent oversight to ensure we have a disciplined accountable non-corrupt and non-politicised police force that maintains public trust and confidence. I support the recommendations.DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Greens in support of this motion to reappoint one person and appoint a new person to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The question of who will guard the guards themselves—who watches the watchmen—is one that has echoed down through many centuries and it is a serious and important question to ask.The police force does have extraordinary powers. It has coercive powers. We entrust it with authority far beyond that which the normal citizen—I was going to say “enjoys” but “possesses” is perhaps a better word.It is important for that reason that we do have an oversight body and critically an oversight body that is independent that reports directly to Parliament and that is not in any way compromised in the way that some other oversight organisations may be.The Independent Police Conduct Authority I think has a good history. It has done a good job for the most part. I think we take for granted in New Zealand that we are largely free of corruption in the Public Service in this country and I think in the police force of all entities and State agencies keeping corruption out of that arena is absolutely critical. Clearly the Independent Police Conduct Authority does have a role in that as well as the functions described by Mr Goff.In cases where there have been shootings or deaths involving police action or intervention it is critical we have that independent oversight to ensure that the right thing has been done and to ensure that where things have gone wrong we take lessons from that and ensure that there is no repeat of those things.The Independent Police Conduct Authority also has an important role as part of the national preventative mechanism—that is to say involved in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. It has a very important role there in ensuring that our places of detention are managed in a humane and proper fashion and that people’s rights are respected while they are in detention and I know that the Independent Police Conduct Authority takes that part of its brief very seriously and actively engages in that.I think we are very fortunate in the leadership of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. Judge Sir David Carruthers—I think I have got the honorifics in the right order—is not only a highly skilled and effective judicial officer but he also brings some personal quality to the role. He is an extremely engaging person. He is genuinely a leader and I think we are fortunate to have him in that role.I am pleased to see the reappointment of Dianne Macaskill. She has again a varied and impressive CV as an archivist a statistician and an expert in strategic management. She has that role on the basis of her quality of her experience and of her capacity.I also point to the fact that I think it is important we also have at least one woman—that we have gender balance to the extent we can on that body. The Greens exercise that in our leadership roles and I think it is important that we have that representation at the senior levels of all of these public agencies that have roles as guardians and as oversight bodies for the various functions of Government.The new appointment Simon Murdoch again has a very impressive CV as a diplomat and as a public servant in many roles. We do wish him well in this new appointment and as I said we are pleased to support the nomination.Motion agreed to.Abortion Supervisory CommitteeHon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That pursuant to section 10 of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General reappoints Dame Linda Holloway as Chair reappoints Dr Tangimoana Habib as a member and appoints Ms Carolyn McIlraith as a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee each for terms of 3 years.The terms of appointment of all three members expired in April 2014 and they have continued in office under the rollover provisions of the Act. Dame Linda and Dr Habib both indicated their availability for reappointment. The third current member Rev. Patricia Allan indicated her wish to stand down once a replacement could be appointed.Dame Linda has served as the chairperson of the supervisory committee since June 2007 after retiring from a distinguished career in medicine. She was dean of the Wellington school of medicine and health sciences then became pro-vice-chancellor of the division of health sciences at Otago University. She is a highly respected anatomical pathologist who served on the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee and was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment for cervical cancer at the National Women’s Hospital.Dr Habib is a Hamilton-based doctor and has been a member of the supervisory committee since April 2011. She was awarded fellowship of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners—the royal college—in 2003 and currently works as a general practitioner for Te Kohao Health in Hamilton. Dr Habib has been involved in Te Ohu Rata o Aotearoa (Te ORA) Māori doctorsassociation since 2000 and has been a member of Te Akoranga a Māui the Māori general practitioner faculty since its inception in 2002. She served on the council of the royal college in 2005 and 2006 and is the continuing medical education provider for Te ORA. She is of Ngāti Tūwharetoa descent.The proposed new member is Ms Carolyn McIlraith. She is currently employed with Capital and Coast District Health Board and has been counselling for 10 years specialising in the areas of youth post-natal depression grief and loss sex psychological first aid and pregnancy counselling. Prior to retraining as a counsellor she worked in a variety of positions including customer services fixed assets and human resources.Retaining the experience of Dame Linda and Dr Habib should ensure the stability of the supervisory committee. Ms McIlraith has worked extensively with women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. She will bring a perspective from her social work and counselling background that will meet what the supervisory committee itself has advised is a key input it seeks.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I stand for the Labour Opposition to support the appointment of Dame Linda Holloway and Dr Habib and the new appointment of Carolyn McIlraith—three very good appointments. The two reappointments and Carolyn McIlraith who works here at Capital and Coast District Health Board as a very very experienced counsellor make up I think a very strong group of three for what is a pretty difficult job to undertake.The Abortion Supervisory Committee is one that operates under the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act and its function is to keep under review all the provision of New Zealand’s abortion laws and operations and the effect of those provisions. That also includes the licensing of institutions to perform abortions. So it is an area where there are often very strong views and they are often very strongly presented and so those who take on this job are people—and have been women—over the years who have been able to bridge the gap between those views to a great extent.Dame Linda Holloway is very well-known to me from the time before I was a Minister of Health but particularly during my time as Minister of Health. She has been a long-time advocate for women. She has been a long-time advocate for contraception for women access to contraception and access to legal abortion in New Zealand. In fact she was the person who introduced RU486 to New Zealand—a medical abortion as opposed to a surgical abortion—and she advocated for many years for another safe way for legal abortion.Dr Habib is a GP as you have heard from the Minister. The Act does require that there be two medical practitioners and so that requirement has been fulfilled and as I said Miss Carolyn McIlraith is a counsellor so I think they are three good very appointments. I think they can take some credit and strength from the latest statistics where you look and see that in December 2014 New Zealand had the lowest number of abortions since 1994. In fact in its report—the latest report to this House—the committee said that it believes that one of the reasons for that is because of the funding of long-acting subcutaneous implant contraception from August 2010. It has seen an overall decline in abortion rates and notes a dramatic drop in abortion rates for 15 to 19-year-olds and believes that this could be partially attributed to the introduction of this form of long-term contraception. The committee believes that this downward trend for this age cohort will continue. I think it is that sort of data and information provided by this committee that is really important in order to be able to see what is happening in the area of abortion.The committee does however say in its recent report that it continues to be very worried about harassment—harassment of women—where you must recognise the right to freedom of expression for people who have strong views on abortion and also the right of women to choose. It is concerned about verbal abuse distribution of offensive material to people entering hospital—and people go into hospital for many reasons. Women could be there for dozens of reasons. They ought not to be subjected to coercion or humiliation and I absolutely support the committee on that.The committee also points out that we now have better access to services in the provincial areas of New Zealand and that has been an issue in some parts of New Zealand in the past where there was not local access. This meant that women were required to travel long distances to obtain a legal abortion.So we do support the appointment of these three women to the committee and wish them well in their work continuing their strong advocacy on behalf of those who seek counselling advice and legal abortion in New Zealand.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to add the Green Party’s support to the nomination of Dame Linda Holloway as chair the reappointment of Dr Tangimoana Habib and the new appointment of Ms Carolyn McIlraith to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. These are women particularly Dame Linda Holloway and Dr Tangimoana Habib with a proven track record of strong oversight and advocacy in care for the well-being of women in this country. We certainly welcome the experience of Ms Carolyn McIlraith as a counsellor and as somebody who is currently working at the Capital Coast District Health Board in this area. That expertise I think will add a lot to the committee and we welcome that.Of course I am not going to stand in this House and talk about the Abortion Supervisory Committee without mentioning the fact that we believe the law that it is constituted under is well outdated. It is a 1977 law that is built on a fundamental mistrust of women and a belief that we cannot trust women to make decisions about their own bodies and their own health and that needs changing. The fact that this committee is set up to give operation to a law that criminalises women’s basic fundamental human right is unjust and needs changing and although we can trust these women to operate within the constraints that this House has put them under those constraints are fundamentally wrong and need changing.The fact that so much of the committee’s work is done in certifying the appointment of certifying consultants—any woman in this country who is seeking a termination has to see two certifying consultants which may mean that she ends up seeing up to five doctors and potentially five different appointments in five different places to be able to access health care. The cost that goes into that for her personally let alone the cost to our health budget of certifying these consultants—who are paid to basically tick off a system of saying “Yes this will be mentally injurious to you to have this pregnancy.” which is a demonstration again of that mistrust—is ridiculous.It is 2015. Most people in this country actually believe that abortion is decriminalised already. The fact that we are all unwilling to address that or even properly have that conversation to me is a sign of our fundamental failing and we hope that that will change in the future. However that is the place we are at and these women will do the job well so we support them.Motion agreed to.Reserves and Other Lands Disposal BillThird ReadingHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections) on behalf of theMinister for Land Information: I move That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to see this bill pass through its final stage in the House after thorough consultation and debate in the Primary Production Committee and a successful second reading that tidied up a number of issues raised after the bill was reported back to the House. In particular I thank the House for agreeing that clauses 34A to 34C of the bill as inserted by the select committee should be omitted from the bill. Although I believe the select committee acted with good intentions the clauses challenge the integrity of parliamentary processes and I am pleased that the House has agreed to their removal.The bill is consistent with the intent of Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills as set out in Standing Order 262(1)(e) in that it addresses land status issues that cannot be easily dealt with under other legislation. The benefits of this legislation will be evident to many New Zealanders as the clauses in the bill change the status of iconic and important land across the country ranging from Kahurangi National Park Paparoa National Park and Westland National Park through to a much loved bowling club in Port Chalmers.The Government is committed to clarifying and simplifying issues regarding land status. This bill removes unnecessary costly and time-consuming administrative and technical difficulties associated with land use on both public and private property. The changes effected by the bill will help to ensure that public and private land is managed responsibly and effectively. Obstacles to the effective use and management of land in the future are being removed and past mistakes are being put right. The bill also enables the resolution of conflict over the status of parcels of land so that all parties with an interest in the land understand what forms of use are permissible. Community interest is at the heart of the entire process.I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Primary Production Committee. Select committees play an integral role in the parliamentary process and contribute to the development of quality legislation so I want to thank the committee and the officials from the Office of the Clerk for supporting this bill.The committee felt that this particular bill challenged its understanding of the purpose of “ROLD” bills. There is a convention that “ROLD” bills deal with non-controversial land matters and this convention was intended to ensure that changes effected by the bill remained technical. However the complicating factor for the committee when considering this bill was that although many of the changes effected by the bill are not controversial in and of themselves they may well be associated with issues or processes that are controversial.The clauses relating to the Auckland Art Gallery development in Albert Park are a good example of this issue. Most of the concerns raised by submitters are more relevant to the change in reserve classification for part of Albert Park and the resource consent process than they are to the “ROLD” bill. The change in reserve classification was undertaken by the Auckland City Council in 2006 in accordance with all the relevant requirements of the Reserves Act. The resource consent process governing the design and construction of the new art gallery ended up being approved by the Environment Court in 2008. The clauses in the “ROLD” bill have not enabled the gallery extension. Rather they will simplify the future administration of the land by ensuring the gallery is contained on one piece of land held under one legislative framework rather than on two pieces of land and under two legislative frameworks.The key issue therefore is not whether the applications included in the “ROLD” bill deal with controversial matters. It is likely that future “ROLD” bills will. The important thing is that the changes themselves remain technical. The questions asked by the Primary Production Committee were important questions to ask as it is important that the integrity of the legislative process is maintained. I am satisfied that all of the changes in the bill are necessary technical changes to the status of the land and will be beneficial not just for the applicants but for the wider communities that are affected by the changes in this bill. I would like to thank the officials from Land Information New Zealand the Department of Conservation and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who have all worked hard on this bill before during and after the consideration of the bill by the Primary Production Committee. I commend this bill to the House.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): There are children at school who were not born when this bill was first introduced into the House. I know that because I was Minister for Land Information at the time in 2008 when the bill was introduced. It is now 7 years ago—7 or 8 years ago—since this bill was introduced. I feel a bit older myself actually. I have had to go back through the records to remember some of the detail of it. Some of the details I do remember and the reasons why the Labour Party is supporting this bill but it does have to be pointed out that delays over this number of years serve no one’s interests. They increase the costs of these processes because everyone looks at it and looks at it again and again. Parliament ends up having a number of goes at it. People who are interested in the issues that are at large underneath the bill are dragged back into their archives year after year thinking: “Where’s that happening?”. I know in respect of one of the matters affected by this bill which relates to Taieri Airport that every time I run into Julian Smith who is one of the owners of the Otago Daily Times he asks me: “Where’s that provision in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill that’s meant to be clarifying the status of Taieri Airport?”. That is important to them because they are worried that their status is uncertain and that they could actually lose their rights to run the airport. That is one example that has caused inconvenience to people.Another one that is more serious is down my way where the losses which amount to millions of dollars have actually been caused to one of the district councils and actually relate to an issue in Jacqui Dean’s electorate in Ōāmaru. In the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill it was clarified that the land that overlooks the town which is called Lookout Point in the original version of this legislation and was perhaps a misnaming was originally given to the predecessor of the Waitaki District Council as endowment land but at some point in the process way back when it was described as reserve land. Therefore there was controversy as to whether the council could sell that land and realise its worth. The council wanted—and indeed needed—to sell that land because it wanted to realise the money from that land to pay for other important works by the district council including the building or the rebuilding of the opera house in Ōāmaru which cost some millions of dollars. It entered into contracts for the sale of sections on this piece of land—Forrester Heights I think is the proper name—and those contracts were all subject to the legal clarification of this point which was necessary in order for them to complete the subdivision. Because Parliament has delayed so long in this all of those contracts reached the expiration date by which time property prices in Ōāmaru had dropped and none of those contracts were confirmed—they all fell over—and the Waitaki District Council as a consequence lost millions of dollars.That is the consequence of this sort of delay in what seems somewhat mundane legislation. I think that is probably the worst instance here. In fact it was so bad that Jacqui Dean at the request of her council sponsored a local bill to give effect to this provision that was in the original Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and this Parliament passed the separate bill—the local bill. That again caused waste. It cost money because a local bill costs a council money to promote not just its own legal fees but it has actually got to pay a fee to Parliament to introduce a local bill. Then the time of this House was set aside for considering that local bill instead of other matters. None of that would have been necessary if this bill had just been advanced perhaps half a decade earlier. It might seem unreasonable that this bill could—sorry I should not say that. It was an entirely reasonable expectation on the part of the people around New Zealand whose interests were affected by this bill that it was dealt with promptly but unfortunately it has not been. The matter relating to the Auckland Art Gallery—I thank Minister Lotu-Iiga for that description—was a little bit controversial for some who saw the expansion of the art gallery as some improper extension into the adjacent Albert Park in Auckland. Again as the Minister has clarified the contention around this bill was misplaced as evidenced by the fact that it could be done even without this bill being passed—so sometimes people claim controversy when they disagree with something even when legally it is not controversial.The matters in this bill that are being addressed are not legally controversial. They often fix mis-descriptions of property that have occurred in parts of New Zealand over a period of time and as a consequence it is common every 5 years or so for a reserves and other lands disposal bill to be introduced into this House. The Primary Production Committee did remove provisions that it did not think were appropriately timed in respect of Auckland volcanic cones. I am sure my colleague Phil Goff will mention that in his contribution. Otherwise this bill is relatively non-controversial.I have one final thing to say in respect of Taieri Airport. I recently raised with the then Minister of Land Information why it was that in order to get this clarification as to the status of the Taieri Airport land it was necessary for the Crown to say that in the event that that land is ever sold they get half of the proceeds of sale. I have never understood the theory for that. The Minister was going to look into it. I have not heard where that has ended and I am afraid therefore that the provisions as they stand in the bill will not fix that defect. Having said that those at Taieri Airport although they would have preferred otherwise more important want the legislation to go through even if it has that provision which is not to their ideal liking. I recommend this bill to be passed by the House.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): This “ROLD” bill as it has been pointed out has been waiting some time to come through but actually some of the issues it fixes go back a long long way. In particular one I would like to talk about is in the Picton area which is within my electorate. It dates back to 1903 when the land was illegally transferred to the Picton Borough Council as it turns out. This bill actually deals with that under clauses 24 to 27. The reason it was done illegally is because the last trustee had died and so it was transferred in haste unfortunately. So although this is a busy Government we cannot be blamed for going back to that length of time unfortunately.The other issue in my electorate that I would like to talk about is the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. There is land set aside in the French Pass area for a district nurses’ facility and unfortunately it has just been sitting there and is not on the books of the district health board. It needs to be sorted out. That area of course was quite remote. It is still a 2½ hour drive from Blenheim and Wairau Hospital out to French Pass but nowadays of course we do not need district nurses’ facilities in those areas so that has been tidied up.Also there is the Braemar Campus at Wairau Hospital. Wairau Hospital has undergone a reconfiguration on the site and that needs to be tidied up and it is being tidied up under this bill. So this is a bill that fixes a lot of previous anomalies in the legislation that need to be tidied up and it is great to have those things set aside for those owners of the land to go forward in a proper manner. Although it has taken some time to get here it is here and you know hang on—help is on its way. This is a good Government but it takes a long time sometimes to get these things worked through.I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): May I begin with an apology to the generation of children born since this bill was first introduced—Richard Prosser: Stop apologising David. Stop apologising.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and by acknowledging the work of the—I did not apologise for “Wogistan”. I would like to acknowledge the work of the former Minister for Land Information David Parker in bringing this essentially tidy-up set of remedial changes to reserves and other lands.It is I think instructive to reflect on the old saying about army life which is the ethos of “hurry up and wait”. Members of the public will wonder why Parliament is in an extended sitting this morning to debate a bill that has been waiting since hundreds of thousands of children were born—or 2008. I think it is indicative of the management of the House by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that when we were sitting in our procedures meeting this morning we got handed essentially an email from the Leader of the House with what he thought the business of the House would be today. It is about as shambolic as it gets and unfortunately it is indicative of the state of the Government that we are in extra time hearing a bill that is 8 years old and with late notice at that.Let me now turn to the substance of the bill. This bill is designed to clarify and to codify a number of issues with reserve lands throughout the country—about a dozen of them. The bill was handled by Richard Worth in the good old days when he was a Minister before he visited the pyramids and it lapsed after he left Parliament probably it could be said under something of a cloud. It has languished on the Government’s Order Paper for those 7 long years or 6½ long years since 2009.It was open for public submissions. It has a number of issues that did excite believe it or not quite a bit of public attention. One of them was to change the boundaries of Albert Park in Auckland and to include the Auckland Art Gallery within its confines. It is a marvellous facility the Auckland Art Gallery but it was controversial with a majority of submissions opposing that inclusion on the grounds that the park itself is a public space and a green space and it was cleaner to have a consistent definition. However despite a wave of opinion and the difficult and perhaps less than democratic process that the then mayor John Banks followed to get it to that point we do not believe that it is sufficiently concerning to pick and choose from the various proposals contained in the bill and we are therefore going to support the change.Another issue that is addressed in the bill is the treatment of Auckland’s volcanic cones. There were a number of submitters who were opposed to the change contained here in that instead of the Governor-General’s signature being required to excavate on a volcanic cone now it is the Minister for the Environment’s signature that is required. We are relaxed about that because in effect it was the Minister for the Environment who made the recommendation to the Governor-General so we do not believe that there is a substantive weakening of protections here.May I turn to one issue that affects my local area of west Auckland in regard to Waikumete Cemetery and I turn the attention of colleagues to clauses 47 48 and 49 in Part 2 of the bill. Clause 48 states: “Waikumete cemetery land is a part of Waikumete Cemetery.” It is Crown land classified as a local purpose reserve a site for a cemetery. It is one of the largest—I think it is perhaps the largest—cemetery sites in the Southern Hemisphere certainly in New Zealand. It is a massive and very poignant place and it hosts every year some now 20000 to 30000 people who come on Anzac Day to remember our dead. It has a very large Auckland RSA presence and it is a very important place for west Auckland.However in 1995 the then Waitakere City Council without clear lawful authority disposed of the Waikumete cemetery land to a local authority trading enterprise. The local authority trading enterprise in turn subdivided the cemetery land and sold it to private owners—some of it—as fee simple titles. Most of that land around the edges is now developed with residential buildings upon it. The clause states: “because the titles to the Waikumete cemetery land were created by an invalid process and contrary to section 112 of the Reserves Act 1977 the land retains its reserve status and remains subject to that Act.” Therefore this bill revokes the reserve status on the Waikumete cemetery land. Can I say that it is with some sadness that we support that change—not because it is unnecessary as it is clearly necessary now but because we certainly would regret any further diminution of the reserve space at Waikumete Cemetery.The Primary Production Committee made a number of recommendations when it worked on this bill. There were several Supplementary Order Papers that included new items in it. Supplementary Order Paper 206 provisions relate to Lookout Point in the Waitaki district and also Māhinepua Bay as a Māori reservation. There was comment by the select committee as I alluded to earlier about the Auckland volcanic cones issues and there was amendment in respect of the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area where the committee recommended deletion of clauses 42 43 and 44 from the bill to allow further consultation with affected parties.The list of reserves that are affected beyond the Auckland Art Gallery and volcanic cones include the good old Dunedin Octagon Kahurangi National Park land Lookout Point Māhinepua Bay certain areas within Marlborough District Council’s Picton office area Nelson Marlborough District Health Board land Paparoa National Park Port Chalmers Recreation Reserve Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area good old Taieri Airport Waikumete Cemetery as I mentioned Waipā District Council land some areas of Westland National Park and of all things Winton Racecourse—Todd Barclay: Yes.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —a matter dear to the heart of the member for Clutha-Southland who may still have been at school I venture when this bill was first brought to the House. However it is good to see that the Government has moved with such alacrity that he is now of age and able to participate in its passage.It is with those few comments that I record that Labour does support the bill. It has been a long time coming. The fact that we are here in extra time to pass a bill that has languished on the Order Paper for some 7 years I think tells us something about the state of organisation of the Government. But we will not let that get in the way of a bill that is essentially a worthy tidy-up exercise. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Todd Barclay I will ask members to refer to the bar 3 version of the bill which is the one that is currently before the House.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. To touch on Mr Cunliffe’s last point I think given the importance of the Winton aspect of this bill that it was a deliberate strategy of the Government to await my arrival into the House. It has taken a long time to report the bill back to this House—that is true—but we are a busy Government with a large legislative agenda and we wanted to take time on this particular piece of legislation to ensure that the consultation was robust and sufficient. Although these changes are non-controversial and are supported by most communities we cannot take the risk of making changes that may have an adverse impact on people.I just want to touch on the Winton Racecourse and to draw the attention of members to clauses 56 to 58 which will provide community and independent input into the management of Winton Racecourse in Southland. Under this change the Minister of Conservation will be able to appoint up to five trustees for the racecourseat any one time and to limit each appointment to a 3-year period. Currently three trustees are appointed for life by the Minister of Conservation and the responsibility for their replacement still lies with the Minister of Conservation. The Winton Racecourse for those who are not aware is a 1600 metre course and it tends to favour horses that can race up to the pace. It is a very important aspect of the Southland community and the fastest horse always wins on that course.So just on behalf of my constituents I would like to thank the House for considering this piece of legislation. I hope that all other members will support its passage through as well. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the name of our country New Zealand and Aotearoa—the land of the long white cloud—reflects the sense of place that New Zealanders have and their connection with our land.I think we have heard that today in the House with the special connection that members individually have referred to—areas of land that the bill deals with that are in their constituencies that they have dealt with or that they have a particular affinity with.Although it is a bill that tidies up the law—it deals with land that does not justify a particular bill in its own right but tidies up the status of reserves where there have been roads widened through Westland National Park Westland Tai Poutini National Park Paparoa National Park Kahurangi National Park and the land that was part of the national park but now becomes part of the road reserve. So they are small changes like that. But the bill is also significant for the way that it has been changed in its progress through this House.The Green Party has been particularly interested in the Walls Bay Esplanade Reserve in Northland.We congratulate the former Minister for Land Information Maurice Williamson and the current Minister for the Supplementary Order Paper that removed clauses 34A 34B and 34C from the bill because those clauses were inserted by the Primary Production Committee in response to submissions.Effectively they overrode the provisions of the Reserves Act and sought to grant a particular benefit to an individual in contravention with normal practice.There has been quite a lot of concern in Northland because this Walls Bay Esplanade Reserve is as I understand it the only esplanade reserve in the Ōpua area. It is part of the Bay of Islands walkway. It is an important area for mana whenua. It is the subject of a Treaty claim and it is very close to the pouwhenua that were planted at Ōpua by the Ngāpuhi leader Sir James Hēnare.On this particular bit of esplanade reserve Doug Schmuck has a boat yard and although the Department of Conservation has been prepared to grant him the right to take boats out of the sea and take them to his boat yard he was also seeking the right to use the reserve for cleaning boats for scraping them down and that compromised the use of the reserve by the public for picnicking and other uses and just completely changed the amenity value.The changes that the Primary Production Committee made to effectively privatise the reserve and which the Supplementary Order Paper that we dealt with in the Committee stages has now taken out—those amendments—preserves the integrity of the Walls Bay Esplanade Reserve. So we congratulate the Minister for doing that because otherwise we would have a situation where bills are going out for comment some members of the public make submissions others are not aware of the issue and Parliament could potentially have changed the law without affected parties being able to comment.The changes were controversial too because it was the Northland MP at the time John Carter who had assisted in the advocacy around them. I guess the concern now when Parliament was dealing with this through a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage—I now understand that locals are concerned by the Far North District Council’s attempts to do the same thing through changes to the Walls Bay management plan. But because those provisions around Ōpua and the esplanade reserve were removed the Green Party is supporting this bill because all of the other changes are uncontroversial.I endorse the comments made by the Hon David Parker having been on the Local Government and Environment Committee when we dealt with Jacqui Deans’ Act in terms of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Act because that was seeking to catch up and overtake this bill which it duly did in resolving the status of Lookout Point Reserve and Cape Wanbrow. So I commend the bill and thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased—actually relieved—to be standing to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First my final call in the debate on this bill. I am relieved because at the end of this process a bit like the pulling of a tooth it will at long last be over—sort of. In fact it will not really be over at all because as I have said throughout the various stages of this bill we are destined to revisit it again almost immediately. We are destined or doomed if you prefer to do that because as others have said this is a bill of a type that does come before this House with rather regular monotony.This House has passed in fact no fewer than 66 bills bearing the name “Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill”—that is 66 based on my count from the listings available on the New Zealand Legislation website. They date back to 1926 and the latest one to go through that I have been able to find was the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 2003. And if we add to those Acts the Acts from this House bearing the title “Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act” then there are another 19 pieces of legislation of the very same type in the statutes of this country and they date back to 1901. That was 6 years before New Zealand even became a country before we gained self-government—6 years prior to becoming a country we were already disposing of reserves. So we have had a total of 85 bills of this type in the annals of this Parliament going back 114 years at an average of roughly one every year and 4 months.So we are in fact overdue for another one. In fact if it were not for the fact that this particular bill has languished on the back-burner of the Government’s priority stove for 6 years—two entire terms of Parliament—we might in fact be due for another two. That was my point in the second reading and again during the Committee of the whole House: this bill is now so outdated and so much of what it started out with is now so superseded and irrelevant that I genuinely believe that it should be scrapped in its entirety or sent back to select committee where a fresh set of eyes can go over it. Then it can be brought back to the House in a form that can include all the new cases that will inevitably have popped to the surface since the initiation of this bill 6 years ago.During the Committee of the whole House I did note that of this bill’s original 17 items and 58 original clauses something like 11 of those items and 21 of the clauses have now been dealt with or superseded or amended or done away with altogether by other legislation in the 7 years since this bill was drafted. There will be more. There will be more that have not been noted there will be more that come to the surface and there will be others that will need to be included in the next bill which as I say will have to immediately follow this one through the House.We will pass this bill obviously. The House has indicated that and the Government obviously has the numbers so we are going to pass this bill—it is going to happen. I have registered my disappointment and my party’s disappointment about that in the sense that Government members themselves have admitted that there are people out there whose lives have been affected and continue to be affected by the matters that this bill seeks to address and the fact that they have had to wait so long for some sort of redress is frankly unacceptable.I do not intend to take up any more than is absolutely necessary of the valuable time of the House in revisiting yet again everything that is wrong with that part of the process. I have said time and again that Government members do have the option of either scrapping this bill or sending it back to the select committee for a complete overhaul. We know that they will do neither. We also know that we will be back here debating yet another one of these in some ways banal pieces of legislation which will be the 87th after this one since 1901 possibly before the year is out but certainly before the term of this Parliament is out. For that reason New Zealand First does not support this bill. We believe that is the only sane position that any party can take on it. Thank you.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to take a short call on the third reading of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. The bill was sponsored by Minister Louise Upston. As part of the parliamentary process and also the work that central government does with local government and communities there comes a time when there needs to be some legislation of this kind of nature that really just enables the local communities to use properties especially reserves and other lands in the manner in which they need to and to address any anomalies that there may be in the system. Bills like this do come along. I know that in Hamilton we had the Parana Park bill many years ago which dealt with a very similar situation. My good colleague from Hamilton West Tim Macindoe will remember that as well. So these things do happen and this is one of the cases where the Government just needs to assist local communities and we are doing that through this bill. There are a number of different projects that will be assisted through this bill and so we commend it to the House and thank you for the support of this bill.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this particular bill. It is a bill that Labour supports. It is an omnibus bill; it deals with authorisations transfers and the validation of matters relating to reserve lands Crown land and other lands that are being held for public or private purposes.The critical question that has to be asked even at this late stage of the debate is why this bill has taken 7 years—the entire length of this Government’s tenure in office—to pass through the House. The Minister who introduced this bill is the gentleman sitting to my right the Hon David Parker. He was 7 years younger—although he has aged particularly well—and he pointed out that there are children in my electorate who have been at school for several years who were not born at the time that this bill was introduced. So at the very least the next National speaker instead of mumbling some inanities like David Bennett did should at least explain to the House—or the Minister should have explained to the House—why there has been the delay in this bill.This bill is for the most part non-controversial. There were two clauses in relation to volcanic cones that have been dropped which I applaud. Largely the bill was non-controversial but it was important to certain communities. David Parker talks about the area known as Forrester Heights in the Ōāmaru region. This bill was necessary so that the Waitaki District Council could go ahead with the sale of land that it had entered into contracts with buyers for not knowing that an incompetent Government would take 7 years to pass this legislation. The result of that was twofold. Firstly the contracts were voided and I understand from my colleague that that cost to the Waitaki District Council was some millions of dollars. So this Government is responsible for loading the cost of its incompetence on to a small local authority. Then the measures were finally passed by the local member bringing in a local bill. The time and the money that it cost to pass that local bill could have been invested in getting this bill through but this Government which has no money to meet some of the pressing social needs of this country was prepared to squander it on its own incompetence in failing to get legislation through in a timely manner.There are a number of things here where the bill passes legislative changes that are of benefit to local communities. Given that is the case again you have to ask why the Government did not organise its legislative programme so that these non-controversial measures could have been passed through into law. Why for example has the Government made the Dunedin City Council wait 7 years to regularise a long-term lease for the use of reserve land by the Port Chalmers Bowling Club? It has prolonged by that period of time the uncertainty that that club faces by not having the ability to have that land passed to it. Why has it delayed allowing the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board to make more effective use of five blocks of land for which it held the title at the expense of being able to provide health and disability services utilising that land? It is another cost to another small community caused by one thing: the incompetence of successive Ministers and this National Government in getting the legislation through in a timely way.Why did it delay passing to the trustees of a Māori reservation adjoining reserve land in the Māhinepua Bay in Northland—why was that Māori trust forced to wait for 7 years to have the land passed to it when everybody in the community supported that land being passed to it? Generally Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills deal with only non-controversial matters but there were some issues that excited a degree of controversy. One of them was in relation to land in Albert Park. As a former student at Auckland University I have a particular affection for Albert Park.Hon David Parker: Oh too much information.Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes—I am not going to go into details of that. It is a beautiful—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: Ha ha! The member in the Chair knows well from his own experience. But I have got to say it is a truly beautiful piece of land. It is in the heart of Auckland City. It is extensively utilised by Auckland University and also now by the Auckland University of Technology and generally I would be absolutely opposed to passing across the title of part of such an important park for another purpose. Most of the submissions to the Primary Production Committee—and we are now talking about I think July 2009 when the committee heard these submissions; some of the submitters will no longer be on this earth—were against that but I have got to say that there are exceptional circumstances here.I do not think that the process followed by the then council was as good as it needed to be but the fact is that the land that was passed across was a very small piece of land on the fringe of the reserve and it was passed across to the Auckland Art Gallery. One of the most beautiful buildings in Auckland—and indeed in New Zealand—is the Auckland Art Gallery dating back to the 19th century. I have got to give credit to those who designed an extension to that art gallery. It is a new modern wing to the art gallery but it is as aesthetically pleasing in a very modern form as the heritage building was in the form that it was created based on a French chateau.Hon David Parker: International awards.Hon PHIL GOFF: It has won international awards as my colleague says. It is something that we as Aucklanders are incredibly proud of. It has not detracted from the effective utilisation of Albert Park. In fact the nature of the building sited on the edge of the park is probably something that enhances the value of the park and certainly the public amenity. So I support the recommendations of the committee. In fact the building is in place—it has been in place for many years—so it is simply acknowledging a fait accompli. I sympathise with those submitters who perhaps as a matter of principle said that we ought to be extraordinarily cautious about utilising our parkland—particularly a park like Albert Park—for other purposes but in this case I think that the use is warranted.Finally I want to touch upon the volcanic cones. The bill as it was introduced in the House and went to the select committee proposed amending the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act so that decision-making powers in relation to excavations on private land adjoining or abutting public reserves containing Auckland’s volcanic cones would be dealt with by the Minister of Conservation rather than by Order in Council through the Governor-General. The rationale for this was that it was inefficient for the Governor-General to be required to make minor amendments but the select committee quite rightly I think rejected clauses 10 and 11 of this bill and said that the status quo should remain. It said that the present system was preferable to giving sole power to the department or to the Minister and that the status quo should be maintained until a review seeking means of protecting the cones in perpetuity could be carried out.I have got to say I have a particular affection for the maunga—the volcanic cones—in the Auckland area. They are historically important they are important to the tangata whenua they are important aesthetically and they are important as areas of recreation. I was brought up in the Three Kings area and I have my electorate office there. Two of those “kings” have been decapitated—absolutely decapitated. We would not do that again. They were used for quarrying purposes. More recently the New Zealand Transport Authority in its wisdom was going to carve out the side of Puketāpapa—Mount Roskill—to put State Highway 20 through. Fortunately the Auckland Volcanic Cones Society the local board and the local people stopped that happening but this emphasises the wisdom of the select committee’s decision. We should delete those clauses—and we have deleted those clauses—but we need to focus on the need to provide protection for an incredibly important part of Auckland’s heritage.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):I just want to give a split call to pick up seamlessly from where the Hon Phil Goff left off and reaffirm that the Green Party will be supporting this bill for the reasons essentially outlined by my colleague Eugenie Sage.The only critical issue here is the process by which the bill has worked its tortuous way through the New Zealand Parliament to its third reading today. It has taken a very long time indeed. Our Labour colleague David Cunliffe said that it was 7 years I think. New Zealand First seemed to think it was 6 years. I can add value to this debate by having checked and can say that it was introduced on the Order Paper in July 2008—[Interruption] Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Yes I can confirm what you are conveying with such grace and eloquence to the New Zealand public—I can confirm that it is 7 years and 2 months since it has been on the Order Paper.So now that we have cleared that up we can acknowledge that all parties I think are supporting it with one exception and that is New Zealand First. I tried to fathom the reason why it would be opposing it and I gather that the reason is that the bill is “old and irrelevant” and that therefore the only sane approach would be to oppose it. So picking up on sanity as being the principle criterion on whether to oppose or not oppose a bill—it is not a bad criterion to use I suppose—we would question whether in fact if a bill is very old that is a sane reason to oppose it.On that we find that one of the principal reasons why it was deferred is the difficulties that arose with regard to the way in which the legislation would apply to the land issue in Ōpua as Eugenie Sage has said. And that apparently seems to have been the misfortune of a Minister at the time in seeking to essentially privatise a particular aspect of a public land. I think that that particular issue is best summed up by my colleague David Clendon who is worth quoting. He said: “The extraordinary thing is that it took so long for the minister to see that the proposed ‘easement’ would have effectively privatised part of a public reserve. While it’s a small area the precedent it set could have created real difficulties for protecting larger sites in the public domain”. I think as he said sanity finally prevailed and those clauses were withdrawn.Those are the kinds of reasons why bills are held up unnecessarily. But that is not a sufficient reason to oppose it and of course there are other clauses in the bill applying to other areas of land as well. If it is irrelevant that would be a reason to oppose but it is very clear listening to Government explanation of the bill and Labour’s comments on it that it is not irrelevant. It is highly relevant. It is necessary and so therefore the Green Party is very happy to support it. Thank you.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I am delighted to follow Dr Graham after that learned and considered oration but I just want to return to the speech of the previous speaker Mr Goff which was certainly one of sound and fury signifying nothing. But methinks that member does protest too much on this occasion. Mr Goff of course has two stock speeches that he delivers in this House whenever he needs to fill in a little bit of time. One is the speech of mock outrage about an arrogant unprincipled Government that is rushing legislation through at breakneck speed and trampling over the democratic rights of the people. The other speech is the one about this unbelievably lazy and incompetent Government that cannot sort out its own legislative programme and takes years and years to deliver. Of course the fact is that neither of these two actually applies.This is simply a case as he quite rightly noted of a bill that is largely uncontroversial. It is obviously going to be supported by people over there. Nevertheless the reason it has taken some time is that there are many communities throughout the length and breadth of the country—we have heard from people from the north right down to the very sage and rapidly ageing new member for Clutha-Southland who spoke of the dramatic impact of this bill in the fine metropolis of Winton. The point is—and it is a serious point—that all of those communities had a legitimate interest. They did need to be consulted. The Government has therefore taken the time to do that job properly. And of course this is not one of those bills that have to be pushed through at breakneck speed.We are a very busy Government with a very full legislative agenda. We have been focusing on issues that matter. That is why we have these extended sitting opportunities—in order to be able to get through some of these other non-controversial measures and I am very pleased that we are doing just that. I thank all members for supporting it.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a short call. There have been some really useful contributions on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and I do want to make the point that this is a bill that will tidy up a whole lot of issues in local communities.I really want to make only two particular arguments in this final debate on this bill and one is about community consultation. The previous speaker Tim Macindoe talked about the length of time it has taken for communities to have input into this piece of legislation. I think 7 years is an extraordinary amount of time to require communities to contribute to this piece of legislation and I think it is a little disingenuous of that member to suggest that that is why it has taken so long to pass this bill through the House.When Minister Lotu-Iiga introduced the third reading he made three statements that I think are very relevant. He said that this bill determines land use of both public and private property; he said that it meant that obstacles are being removed; and he said that the community interest is at the heart of this process. I want to say that this bill is absolutely about and it should be about community consultation processes and how local and central government can work together to ensure that community interests are indeed at the heart of the process.This is where I want to make my second point in this discussion. I want to perhaps pass a cautionary note for when this type of legislation may come to the House in the future with regard to what will happen around the residential red zone in the Canterbury area in particular the 80 or 90 percent of residential red zone in Christchurch that resides within the Christchurch East electorate. What will happen at that time will be some very difficult conversations about the future use of that land.Why it is relevant in the context of this bill is that the council and the Government are talking about swaps of land that may be used to ensure that the public have facilities that are useful for future use. It may mean swaps from what is currently council land to what will become public land in the ownership of the Crown. It is important to recognise that at the time that those consultations happen the public the people of Christchurch East in particular and the people of the wider Christchurch and Canterbury region need to have a fulsome opportunity to discuss the use of that land so that we are not bound up in legislation at a future time to unpick the difficulties and the issues that may come about because of that.I am not going to speak any more on this. This bill has taken a long time to traverse its passage through the House and I commend it. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the question That the Reserve and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.Building (Pools) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business)on behalf of theMinister for Building and Housing: I move That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Bill was introduced as a member’s bill in 1986 in the wake of the report on the fencing of private swimming pools by the Local Bills Committee in 1983. The report highlighted that an average of 10 children under 5 were drowning in private pools every year. In fact this was the leading cause of accidental death for young children and second only to traffic accidents at the time. The report found that local authorities with pool fencing bylaws had far fewer drownings than districts that had no such bylaws. The committee’s conclusions ring as true today as they did 30 years ago: “(a) [Swimming pools] are a significant childhood water hazard; (b) Pool fencing is the most effective means of preventing drownings of pre-school children in private swimming pools; (c) It is totally impossible for parents to supervise their children every minute of the day;”.Since the Act was first enacted it has been successful in reducing the number of fatalities of children under 5 years old in residential swimming pools from about 10 per year to three per year. However the Act is cumbersome for pool owners and councils. There is a lack of consistency in the way in which various councils across the country administer the Act and the level of compliance is often mixed. In short the Act has been a source of frustration for many councils and pool owners.The Government agreed to go to the public to seek their views on how best to strike the right balance when it came to child safety and reducing the compliance costs for pool owners and councils. To that end a consultation document was released Making pool safety easier: Proposed changes to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 containing proposals to reduce compliance costs while maintaining child safety. There were 392 submissions received from pool owners the pool industry safety groups councils professionals involved in pool safety and others. The proposals received strong support with almost all the proposals supported by over 80 percent of submitters. At this stage I would like to acknowledge and thank all those organisations and people who took the time and energy to submit on the proposals. It is really encouraging to see that so many people care so much about the safety of our young New Zealanders in and around swimming pools. The input provided by these submitters has been instrumental in getting the current bill in front of the House.This bill introduces a more consistent and practical approach to protecting young children from drowning in residential swimming pools and will replace the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 with a new subpart in the Building Act 2004 dedicated to pool safety requirements. A pragmatic decision was made to incorporate the requirements in the Building Act 2004 because all the requirements relating to making pools safe are in fact contained in the building code a code that has its genesis in the Building Act.Although the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has been effective in preventing drownings of young children in swimming pools the current law is excessively prescriptive with inconsistent and cumbersome requirements that contribute little to young children’s safety. Specific issues include: some councils granting fencing exemptions for spa pools while some others do not; some councils inspect pools every 3 years while other councils have no regular inspections at all; garden pools and stormwater retention ponds have sometimes been interpreted as requiring fencing under the Act; and conflicting requirements for pool barriers as set out in the Act as well as the building code—under the Act the only type of barrier allowed is a fence. Councils have no enforcement powers other than to take costly and ineffectual prosecutions for breaches of requirements under the Act. Any exemptions to the fencing requirements must be granted by elected councillors which is both costly and inefficient and pool owners cannot appeal these decisions.This bill will reduce the bureaucracy and compliance costs of the current regime while also saving more lives by ensuring more consistent compliance across the country. Spa pool owners will benefit significantly from the proposed new legislation. Currently the rules around restricting access to spa pools and hot tubs are inconsistent and confused. Some councils will grant fencing exemptions for spa pools that have child-resistant covers while other councils will insist on having a spa pool fenced. Few spa pools are fenced in practice yet the rate of drowning is very low because spa pools generally come with a safety cover. Under this bill spa pools and hot tubs with child-resistant covers will not have to be separately fenced any more. This is going to save owners of these kinds of pools a significant amount of money and hassle and importantly it is not expected to affect the risk of young children drowning.Another important change in the bill is that councils will be required to inspect pools 5-yearly. Currently there are no rules around the frequency of inspections. Some councils inspect 3-yearly where other councils do not inspect pools at all. The 5-yearly inspections will mean that pool owners across the country will be subject to the same inspection regime. More important this inspection regime will ensure that pool barriers of all swimming pools across New Zealand will continue to comply with pool safety requirements and thus help save the lives of young Kiwi children.There are a number of other changes designed to reduce compliance costs while making pool safety legislation more workable. Retailers and manufacturers will be required to inform buyers of their pools of their legal obligation to ensure that young children’s access is restricted. Pool safety requirements will not apply to water hazards such as garden ponds and stormwater retention ponds associated with homes. This change ensures that pool safety rules will be focused on residential swimming pools which pose the greatest risk to young children. This change will end the frustration and expense for owners of these types of water hazards. Under the bill any pool barrier will be permitted that meets the performance base standards of the building code. This means that owners of pools will no longer be restricted to fences as the only means to restrict access.Finally notices to fix and infringement notices will be the preferred tools for gaining compliance with court prosecutions following only in the case of serious breaches of the requirements of the Act. These changes are expected to improve pool safety and are estimated to result in six fewer drownings per decade. These changes will also result in reducing compliance costs by an estimated $17 million. This bill will improve child safety around residential swimming pools. It will reduce compliance costs for pool owners. It will result in clearer more consistent flexible and workable pool safety rules. I commend this bill to the House.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I rise to take this call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. Labour supports this bill going to the select committee. New Zealand is an island nation. We are surrounded by water and yet every year an unfortunate number of our people especially our children drown. Many of us cannot swim. We are very pleased to be debating this bill today. It has taken a number of years for this bill to be discussed and Labour is very happy to be in support of this bill going to the select committee.New Zealand’s half-year drowning statistics were recently released by Water Safety New Zealand. Sixty-one people drowned to 30 June of this year 2015. This is one-third up on the number for the same period last year which was 46. January’s drownings at 21 were more than double the number for January 2014 and Auckland’s drownings of 13 were more than triple the number of drownings in Auckland last year. It is absolutely crucial that as a country we collectively as people do everything that we can to protect especially our children from preventable dangers such as drownings. We owe this duty to our children and we owe it to the future of New Zealand. We must also observe our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to take appropriate measures to diminish child and infant mortality.The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 was designed to increase the safety of young children by requiring pool owners to fence certain swimming pools. Proper fencing puts a physical barrier between young children and the pool. Fencing successfully safeguards our children from drowning where human error can often put children at risk. The wandering attention of those who are supervising our children near pools or forgetting to close doors leading to pools can be fatal.Since the Act came into force 30 years ago the number of young children drowning in home pools has gone down by two-thirds from more than a hundred in the decade between 1972 and 1982 down to 30 in the decade to 2012 which is a great result. In the last 20 years 56 children have drowned outside homes though while at home here in New Zealand. Two-thirds of these children drowned in swimming pools while others drowned in spa pools portable pools or garden ponds. The current bill that is being proposed is in order to reduce this number of child deaths due to drowning in domestic pools by six every 10 years. It is a shame that the Government has not given the same attention it has given to the hazards posed by pools to New Zealand’s most vulnerable children to address the stock of damp mouldy State houses.This Government bill proposes to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 as well as to amend the Building Act of 2004. The changes are said to strike a better balance between protecting our children from drowning in home pools and making the legislation more workable for pool owners as well as the local councils. It is intended to reduce the compliance burden on pool owners as well as our territorial authorities in relation to residential pools. The changes could it is said result in cost savings in compliance costs in the order of $17 million if the spa pools with child-resistant covers no longer need to be fenced separately on the property. This bill should establish some certainty especially for councils about their obligations to inspect pools and to do this regularly every 5 years.The existing Act has given rise to a lot of confusion. The very definition of “swimming pool” in the current Act is unclear. The requirements for restricting access to pools are confusing and inflexible. In addition there is no national consistency in the way that councils check pools to ensure that they comply with the Act. The proposed bill would clarify that councils should be inspecting the pools every 5 years. I welcome the attempts to clarify for property owners exactly what their obligations are and to me it also seems sensible to put an onus on the sellers and manufacturers of spa pools hot tubs and portable pools to fully inform buyers of their obligations to encourage compliance.Labour supports this bill to the select committee. This approach will give the general public the opportunity to have their say on the proposed changes. There has been consultation on the issues we are dealing with here as far back as 2008. Consultation on the policy to which this bill would give effect involved water safety groups industry and water safety representatives and Auckland Council amongst others but the general public who own the estimated 60000 swimming pools under discussion and who are the parents of the children we are at pains to protect should also have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I do not think that there would be any New Zealanders either pool owners or non - pool owners who would consider for one minute that the original legislation that was set up nearly 30 years ago was not well intentioned. At the time the statistics for young New Zealanders who were drowning were truly appalling and something needed to be done to remedy them. But as is often the case with good intentions sometimes the road to the ultimate result can be paved with all kinds of fraught difficulties and potholes and problems along the way. So it became very obvious relatively quickly after the passing of the original legislation in 1987 that there were some frustrating inconsistencies with the legislation.As someone who over the years has owned a couple of houses that have had swimming pools when I had young children who were using those swimming pools I became completely frustrated with the process and inconsistency that occurred in terms of compliance with a very good well-intentioned piece of legislation. When you have a problem that is trying to be solved by legislation that is well intentioned but the net result is one of frustration and inconsistency for the people who are trying to make that legislation work—the pool owners who understand the risks for young children young neighbours and people like that who maybe are not able to be watched by their parents or caregivers every second of every minute of every hour of every day—then there are enormous difficulties in making that piece of legislation work. So this piece of sensible pragmatic law that is being proposed in the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill I think comes as keenly awaited by many thousands of swimming pool owners across the country.The bill is a sensible pragmatic solution to what has been a frustrating and inconsistent piece of legislation for nearly 30 years—frustrating and inconsistent but not poorly intentioned as I said. The aim of this piece of legislation is to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and I would say not before time. To then include this in building legislation also makes perfect sense as far as I can see. At the moment the current rules are confused they are inconsistent and they are treated differently in different parts of the country. One local council will do checks more regularly than another local council. There will be inconsistencies in how the closure rates of gates are measured their height and all those sorts of things. There are also inconsistencies to do with the types of fencing or barriers required. So I am delighted that this piece of legislation will provide a greater degree of certainty and consistency across the country and as I said that is not before time.The practical approach to spa pools and hot tubs I think is also something that will be welcomed by the people who own them. One of the annoying and frustrating aspects in the area of spa pools and hot tubs for people who have them is that they have been required to get separate consents for them. I understand that in this legislation the intention is to remove the requirement for consents for the installation and use of hot tubs and spa pools. That will come as a welcome measure on behalf of the people who own them. But more so will be the requirement that having lockable and permanent lids or covers for hot tubs and spa pools will now be the method by which the legislative requirements can be met and provided for. That is also a sensible and pragmatic approach.This bill will reduce compliance costs across the country by many millions of dollars I suspect over the course of its duration. The associated costs for swimming pool owners and spa pool owners over the years have been quite enormous. We understand obviously the gains that have been made in terms of saving lives from drowning have been very very good but they come at a high level of frustration and cost. So to have those frustrations removed and the costs minimised I think will be very very welcome.I am sure we are going to get an awful lot of submissions at the select committee notwithstanding that this is I hope something that will be treated across the House in a non-controversial way. I think there will be a large number of both organisations and individuals who own swimming pools and spa pools who will want to make the point that they have found this existing legislation to be frustrating and difficult to work with. I am very much looking forward to chairing the committee as we go through this process in the House. I think that this bill is as I say keenly awaited by the many thousands of people who own and operate swimming pools hot tubs and spas. It is a timely and useful piece of legislation that I think will relieve the frustrations of a great number of people whilst at the same time not removing in any way the obligations on those people to ensure that swimming pools hot tubs and spas are safe and that our young children in particular are protected from the risks of drowning in unnecessary circumstances. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to it progressing through the House.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I am really pleased to take a call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. We have been talking a lot about protecting children and at the core of this bill is the protection of people’s safety around swimming pools and spa pools. I distinctly remember in 1987 leading up to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 there being a spate of fatalities from drowning in swimming pools. There was a real campaign about addressing that issue. That piece of legislation went through the House and it was passed. It has done what it set out to do. The number of fatalities from drowning has reduced significantly from that time. When we consider our population which has risen over the last 30 years that is a significant issue. So I want first of all to acknowledge that the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has actually done its job. We on this side of the House the Labour Party will support this bill to go to the select committee. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act will be repealed by this amendment bill. We want to make certain that the safety of our children and our families is at the core of these changes. We need to be satisfied that everything that can be done will be done as part of this amendment.I also remember being part of a school board of trustees. I know that every time the Education Review Office review came round that was one of the key features—the school swimming pool. Although we are talking about private swimming pools I want to talk about schools and the role that schools play around water safety. I think they play a significant role and I will link that to this amendment bill by saying that in a lot of our communities our people do not actually have swimming pools and they do not have private spa pools at home but they do visit places where there are swimming pools and there are spa pools. So it is really critically important that schools play a role in ensuring that children in particular know the rules around safety and that they operate under good practice at those schools so that that knowledge can be transferred to when those children are in a situation where they are perhaps visiting a property with a private pool. I know that children can be hugely influential with their parents as well so having a set of guidelines for them will be very good for their parents who may or may not own swimming pools. I think it is a good idea for councils to regularly inspect private swimming pools to ensure that they are compliant. That is a very good thing.I thought I might mention the role of young parents or new parents and parents with young babies. Last night we talked about extending paid parental leave. I think that an additional 8 weeks might be quite helpful for parents to be able to be with their child on safety issues around pools.I think that although it is important to clarify the law and ensure pool owners have those options I do not think the bill should be allowed to put aesthetics above safety. I do not know what the statistics are around drownings concerning spa pools but I would suggest that the change around spa pools in particular is probably more to do with the aesthetics of not having to close off those swimming pools into a defined area by fencing them. That is something I would encourage and that I am sure the select committee will look at.I refer again to the councils’ role in this bill. I would certainly be looking forward to hearing what their contribution to the select committee process will be and how they see this operating and whether there will be significant cost for compliance. I read that 5 percent of young children who drown do so in temporary paddling pools. That is something that probably will not be covered by this bill but it is certainly something that the select committee ought to look at to make sure that it considers all options around the fencing of swimming pools. Also as my colleague Jenny Salesa mentioned a lot of our people who go swimming do not go swimming in private swimming pools. They go to the beach and they go to rivers and that is a whole other area. I think that we need to look really closely at that as well. As I said we will support this bill to select committee and that is my contribution. Kia ora.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. Essentially I guess we have the question here around what good policy is—the balance between public safety on the one hand and the efficient administration of that policy on the other. What is the right landing point with regard to that question?One thing that really underpins this bill as we read it for the first time is that rules need to be effectively applied proportional to the risk at hand and of course consistently applied as opposed to this sporadic application that has clearly been the case of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act since 1987. But to be fair we are not approaching this from a blank sheet of paper. We have an established piece of legislation—that Act that was passed in 1987.We do have to acknowledge that that is an underpinning piece of legislation. It has been successful. It has kept young children safer than they otherwise would have been. The rate of drownings as we have already heard from my esteemed colleague to my left Scott Simpson has dropped from 100 young children in the 10 years to 1987 to 30 young children in the 10 years to 2012. These are young children being saved by this piece of legislation so it is not surprising that the evidence shows that if we fence swimming pools then we obviously reduce the risk of drownings. In fact most if not all—not quite all—drownings occur in pools with non-compliant barriers.But as we have heard there are some challenges with regard to the current law that this bill addresses. As early as 1989 2 years after the initial Act came into place feedback from the community was that it was difficult to work with. The rules were duplicated under two Acts. Initially the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and more latterly the Building Act 2004 were particularly inconsistently applied and cumbersome. I think that that is probably the key message that the community has sent to us over the last few years.There are wide variations in inspections—some are every 3 years and other councils have no planned inspections at all. Also the view around needing a permanent barrier in respect of spa pools is clearly onerous when you look at the nature of spa pools today and the heaviness of the secure lid. That was disproportional to the risk at hand.This bill I think quite sensibly seeks to bring together all those community concerns over the lack of consistency of reviewing the potential and particular barriers that are up there. There is a real focus on spa pools and how to more effectively manage those. The bill has a list of areas that we are going to step through and we are also going to be consistent in respect of the 5-year requirement for all councils to view that you have actually got a compliant swimming pool set-up which I think will be very good. It will also then be giving the council a consistent approach in terms of response to enforcement—a notice of infringement first and following up with the ultimate $500 or even $5000 fine if it unnecessarily has to go to that level.I am very supportive. I think this is good public policy. I am pleased to hear that we have got from what it sounds like pretty broad support from the House. I do look forward to the select committee processes Mr Simpson has outlined. I think we will get a lot of people from the community and I will wait with interest to hear their views on what we have put forward and I look forward to the process. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. The bill repeals the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and brings all pool fencing regulation under the Building Act 2004 as well as making some substantive changes to the existing rules. We hope that this will streamline the processes reduce red tape and make councils’ jobs easier for once. We hope it will reduce some of the costs on councils rather than placing more costs on councils which tends to be the wont of this House.Specifically under this bill spa pools and hot tubs—and there are about 100000 of those in New Zealand apparently—will no longer need to be fenced in the same way that pools are. They will still need to have childproof covers though which are accepted as being very effective in preventing drownings which is the core purpose I would suspect of any legislation in this area. Various councils currently allow spa pools to go unfenced whereas others require fences. It would be good to resolve that inconsistency. On that principle—and I am seeing members of the Government nodding their head in response to that—I hope that they will be supporting my colleague Gareth Hughes’ solar power bill which seeks to do the same thing in relation to solar power around the country. Obviously that is something that is consistent with the National Party philosophy so I am looking forward to that in the future. It is great to get that visual support today.Another thing that the bill will do is ensure that all councils will inspect pools for access compliance every 5 years. Currently again it is a mixed bag—something that we want to change—with some councils inspecting every 3 years and others less frequently. The Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment estimates that standardised 5-yearly testing will prevent—and this is possibly the most crucial part of this bill—up to six drownings over 10 years and that obviously is something we would all want to support I am sure.Another aspect of the bill is that all retailers and manufacturers of spas hot tubs and portable pools will be required to inform buyers about their fencing obligations under the legislation so that when you buy a spa pool you are told what kind of cover you need. It seems pretty straightforward and sensible policy-making. The prosecutions for not fencing a pool adequately will occur in only the most serious cases. Infringement notices and fines will be the most common punishment and will hopefully and surely ensure the same result—a behaviour change. The legislation will not apply for pools with less than 400 millimetres of water. Those types of pools such as paddling or portable pools are seen to be easy to empty and so will be empty for long periods of time and therefore they should not require a fence or a designated cover. Again it seems pretty sensible and clear-cut and something we are happy to support.I would like to note though that from 1993 to 2012 nine children drowned in spa pools in this country and four drowned in portable pools which also did include paddling pools though I suspect not knowing the details of that that that may have had more to do with issues of supervision than the covers of the paddling pools. It was not clear in the evidence that we have whether those spas were fenced or fitted with covers.We are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee and we are looking forward to hearing from Water Safety New Zealand and other experts in the area on what the real-world implications of this bill may be. The Government is saying that this bill will remove red tape and cut costs for pool owners and councils and it is estimating that it will save $17 million mostly from spa owners not having to fence their spas any more and through the prescribed 5-year inspections rather than more regular inspections and that this will save lives as well. So I guess the select committee will test those assertions and we look forward to that discussion. Anything to reduce red tape for city councils and homeowners with the goal of improving safety is something the Greens are very happy to support.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. There are a couple of things that we noted in our discussion in caucus about this bill. It is fair to say that at the outset when the notion was first put up that the Government was contemplating relaxing the rules around fencing there was a little bit of consternation but as we got into the bill and had a good read we could see where the Government’s intentions seem to be focused anyway.Reducing the compliance burden imposed on pool owners and territorial authorities or councils gets a tick from the start point. It is a good thing if we can remove compliance. It is interesting that central government Parliament has a habit of passing legislation and then passing the problem of enacting regulating and managing that legislation on to local government without any thought or consideration whatsoever as to the compliance costs it is foisting upon those local authorities and thereby upon the ratepayers. It is also a bit galling when the same Government runs around and criticises the councils for raising rates without recognising the component that it contributes to it by burdening those councils with heavy compliance costs. So this move gets a tick right at the start.I guess of course the key is maintaining child safety and that is the area where New Zealand First will work with other colleagues at the Local Government and Environment Committee with Scott Simpson as the chair. That is an area that we will be scrutinising.With regard to the enactment of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 it was interesting to read the paper that said that the Act had contributed well to reducing the number of drownings of children aged zero to 4 from 100 in the 10 years before the Act was enacted to 30 in the 10 years prior to 2012. I say it is interesting because that is I would assume against a backdrop of a vastly increased population and an increase in the number of swimming pools in homes.I just put on the record that that figure although it looks good—reducing from 100 to 30 over two 10-year snapshots; prior to enactment and post enactment—one needs to also consider the increase in the population from 1987 to 2012 which is quite substantial and also look at the increase in the number of privately owned swimming pools spas and hot tubs.We know that in certain electorates that support the National Party there are probably truckloads of those things. These guys have got money to burn and they enjoy a very luxurious lifestyle. But for the average New Zealander maybe in places like—well I will not name places. But in other suburbs around New Zealand you probably will not see a lot of hot tubs and spa pools around the back beside the Mercedes or the BMW. But if one looks at the increase in the number of those tubs and swimming pools we can see that that Act is actually an outstandingly successful piece of legislation one would have to say.Again the focus will be on making these changes sensible changes without in any way degrading the standards of safety. Anything that addresses duplication inconsistencies in legislation and legislation that is cumbersome and onerous to manage has got to be a good thing and gets New Zealand First’s tick of approval at that point. So again we will work constructively to reduce duplication inconsistency and any cumbersome parts of the legislation or the two pieces of legislation that have up until now been conflicting. Again we will be focusing on the safety aspects but we would say to the House that we will look to commit ourselves to working constructively on that committee in order to achieve those things.Addressing outdated legislation that does not cater to changes in technology to changes in manufacturing techniques and to what has become the standard and the norm in the market sounds perfectly sensible to us. In terms of the safety design of covers these days as relates to hot tubs and spa baths in Remuera and so on I guess technology has moved on. Manufacturers have a different view these days. Child safety is paramount we assume in the eyes of companies that want their brands to be recognised as good brands safe brands and safe items to have for their families—hot tubs and pools that will not kill their children. As the design has advanced in some ways it clearly has made the legislation a little bit outdated. So tidying that up seems eminently sensible to us.Looking through the other factors that the Government is saying we need to address one is “clarifying that councils should inspect swimming pools 5-yearly …”. That is interesting. Let us see what Local Government New Zealand has to say about that. I am anticipating that it will give a nod of approval because again it reduces compliance costs. “Replacing the current offence provisions involving court proceedings with a more cost-effective graduated enforcement regime that includes prosecutable offences” seems worth considering as far as New Zealand First is concerned. “Relying on performance-based standards in the Building Code to specify the requirements for restricting access to pools rather than the current duplicate and inconsistent requirements” again seems sensible to us. “Requiring retailers and manufacturers to inform buyers about their obligations under the Act when they buy spa pools hot tubs and portable pools so as to encourage voluntary compliance …”—and so it goes on—is interesting.It will be interesting to see the views of retailers and manufacturers. It is interesting that this Government in particular wants to push that responsibility back to the retailer back to the business people back to the manufacturer. So we will listen with interest to what those people have to say. I guess on the other hand in balancing that I am anticipating that this will please Local Government New Zealand. So at the select committee we will no doubt have a bit of a conversation about the balancing act about moving the compliance from Local Government New Zealand across to Business New Zealand. I have no doubt that Phil O’Reilly will turn up and say it is a bad thing and that the Government is passing on red tape and compliance to Business New Zealand.We think this is a sensible conversation to have and at the end of the day one could be forgiven for saying that if a manufacturer produces an item it is its responsibility to ensure not only that the item the hot tub spa bath or pool is safe for consumers to use but that it is safe for them to sell and that they do carry some responsibility to advise the prospective buyer of their responsibilities as well.So all in all we will support the legislation to go to the select committee. We will have that conversation at the select committee. It does appear to us that it does reduce compliance costs for councils which is something that I am quite happy to support. Let us see where we go from there. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. In taking a brief call on first reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill I would like to say that this is a very sensible bill. It brings in some much-needed reforms in reducing bureaucracy and in increasing consistency and the implementation of a regime that provides for the safety of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. But in doing so it does not compromise the provision of that safety.This bill is not a silver bullet for the issue of water safety for young people. We know that of children in New Zealand who tragically drown 80 percent are below the age of 2. So by keeping young people away from the source of this risk we can do much to further increase the safety levels and to reduce the risk of that accidental drowning.But I would like to acknowledge that there is a wider issue of water safety in New Zealand and I would like to also acknowledge my colleague the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who has done so much to advocate for life jackets and water safety particularly among his people in the Auckland region. But I would also like to acknowledge John Morrison the former Wellington city councillor who is on the board of Water Safety New Zealand and has done an enormous amount to raise money for Wellington ocean sports and for better safety training for people who go out boating casually through to those who may fish off rocks for instance or use our coastline for recreational purposes. So there is a wider piece but this is an important and significant component of the wider water safety issue.Just to give an example I know of I used to work in the New Zealand embassy in Tehran where the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 believe it or not applied or at least we sought to make sure that we adhered to New Zealand safety levels. We had a fence with razor wire round the embassy but for the purposes of that piece of legislation the swimming pool itself which was also our water reservoir for emergency earthquake use was not deemed to be properly fenced. Clearly that was illogical and so under this piece of legislation where a barrier complies with the Building Act it will be deemed to be sufficient to keep children out from the swimming pool area. That is very logical.There are currently highly illogical cases where something certainly acts to keep children away from a swimming pool but does not meet the definition of a fence so this modernisation is necessary. The original legislation dates from 1987. There are very few members of this House remaining here who were around in 1987 so this piece of legislation needs serious updating and for that reason I am commending it for further consideration by the excellent Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Eugenie Sage—a 5-minute call.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Mana e te Whare tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te mema o te Whare Pāremata. I am pleased to take a short call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Jan Logie noted the Green Party will be supporting this going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.I could not believe it when I read in the regulatory impact statement that in the 10 years between 1972 and 1982 100 children had died in home pools. It was obviously necessary to introduce the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act which this bill is replacing. As the regulatory impact statement also says overall the Act is working well to reduce the risk of drowning. The number of children who tragically have drowned in pools in the 10 years from 2002 to 2012 was 30. That is obviously far too many but is a substantial reduction in what it was before the legislation was introduced.Although Scott Simpson a speaker from the National Party talked about the current Act as being frustrating and inconsistent and called the bill sensible and pragmatic the key test is where the balance is drawn between the vital need to protect our young children from drowning and compliance costs. The regulatory impact statement also says that compliance costs for councils are $3.5 million annually. Yes we want effective legislation that is easy to administer but protecting our children from the very real threat that home swimming pools provide is vitally important.That is why the Green Party is supporting this bill going to the select committee because we are very interested in the submissions from people like Water Safety New Zealand from swimming pool owners from Plunket from Starship and from others about what the impact of some of these changes will be. Because with things like hot tubs and spa pools—certainly in other jurisdictions overseas they exempt spa pools from fencing if they have got child-resistant covers. There was certainly strong support in the public submissions on the discussion documents for these to be exempt from fencing but organisations like Water Safety New Zealand want spa pools and hot tubs to be subject to monitoring by councils and that is because when the council officers go out to do an inspection they engage with the homeowner. They are able to remind them of the risk that these hot tubs can provide when the covers are off. So that is why we are supporting the bill going to select committee. I think there will be quite a number of submissions around this issue of hot tubs and spa pools and whether they should be subject to an inspection regime.Other parts of the bill in terms of making it clear that the fencing requirements do not apply to things like stormwater hazards or where you have got swale drains to garden ponds I think will be an improvement. In Rolleston for example where there is an effort to improve stormwater quality so there are large swale ponds that are used to help filter stormwater—they are immediately adjacent to houses. The council was wondering whether they should be fenced. And so I will be very interested in submissions from councils presumably in support of the clarification of the law around these swale drains and garden ponds.But it is a question of making sure that in the Government’s drive to reduce compliance costs for councils and swimming pool owners we are not undermining the very important and effective provisions in the current legislation that have significantly reduced the number of child drownings. I think 92 percent of the children who have drowned in a pool have drowned at home or in the pool of someone whose place they have been invited to. Of those drownings 65 percent have occurred while their caregivers have been inside and 80 percent of the drownings were of children who were 2 years old or younger. It is often in a momentary lapse in supervision that those drowning have occurred.There are important provisions in this bill in terms of where doors are located and whether they are to be self-closing—the changes there which we will look at very closely because they contribute at the moment to reducing drownings. So it is the balance between compliance costs but overall ensuring the safety of our youngest citizens. Thank you.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I too would like to join both my colleagues the honourable Ron Mark and Eugenie Sage and emphasise a point that I think is very significant in this particular debate. Although the Labour Party will be supporting this bill for select committee consideration I think it is important for this House to take on board that we need to have a responsible discussion about this. Therefore I would just caution some of the members of the Government who seem to take a gung-ho attitude and think that somehow amending the 1987 legislation is going to save lives. I would just caution that yes legislation does play a part but ultimately if we are wanting to ensure the safety of children it is about people and the decisions that they make and being vigilant about how the legislation is implemented.I say that because the purpose of the legislation is twofold: one it is aimed at reducing compliance costs and two it is about ensuring child safety. When you consider those two aims it almost seems like you have got to have one or the other because the question is: what is the nice-to-have and what is the must-have? The suggestion by some speakers from the Government is that somehow the old legislation did not provide for child safety and yet my colleagues who have spoken before me have identified that safety was achieved by the old legislation. So let us just be quite clear that the old legislation did work—it did save lives.Therefore we have got to ask ourselves how the new legislation is going to ensure the safety of children. That has got to be paramount because if we are asking what is a nice-to-have and what is a must-have I would say that a nice-to-have is the reduction of compliance costs but a must-have is child safety. That is first and foremost. The other thing I want to raise is that although the bill outlines some significant aims to be achieved such as the provision that child-resistant covers will be deemed an adequate means of restricting access to spa pools I think that we have we have got to have a responsible discussion about that. The Government I know loves to put up the argument that legislative change has to be evidence-based. Well let us look at what evidence there is that will support the argument that child-resistant covers do save lives.The bill says that councils will be required to inspect pools every 5 years. Again we have been told that inspection on a regular 5-yearly basis is important and is going to save lives. Let us have a look at that in the select committee. We are told also that retailers and manufacturers will be required to inform buyers about their obligations. I am not sure whether this legislation actually compels retailers. I think the regulatory impact statement suggests that it is merely encouraging that voluntary compliance. Again we have got to look at whether that is going to save lives. The performance-based standards in the building code will be used to specify fencing requirements. Let us look at that to see whether it will save lives. The final one is that non-residential pools such as public school pools and hospital pools will be exempt from the new legislation. Let us consider how that is going to save lives.I do want to also make another point and that is that in points that have been outlined that the legislation covers the one area that I think the legislation ought to cover but does not is the supervision of children by parents. I will tell you why. My youngest son learnt to swim at 4 years of age and by 5 he was quite adventurous. One time he dove into the deeper end of a pool and because he was such a short person he used his feet to push himself once he got to the bottom but he was not strong enough to push himself all the way to the top. Luckily we were there by the pool watching him and cheering him on until we realised that he could not come up on his own so we dove in. So I often observe in public arenas and also in private arenas that it is important that if children are around water there has to be parental supervision.I also want to make the point about safety. Many of us do not realise how important safety is and just how real it is that a child can drown in a puddle and I have been advised so. But the final point just to emphasise the safety issue is that not too long ago I think earlier this week there was a news item about an elderly couple—and my condolences go to the family—who had both drowned in a bath-tub. I raise this only to emphasise that we often do not realise what will happen around water but if we are going to be talking about safety then that has to be paramount rather than the reduction of compliance costs. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call David Shearer.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I was actually anticipating another National Party person speaking—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So was I.DAVID SHEARER: —but I just wanted to say a few words on this bill because I think it raises some issues that have been addressed by our colleagues there and those are around the actual bill. I want to mention a few of those things but I also want to mention some of the broader context of what is happening in New Zealand as well.First of all as has been said up to now the original legislation has had a profound effect on the number of people who have drowned in swimming pools—it was about 10 per year and is now down to about three per year—and as has been pointed out at the same time there has been an increase in our population and an increase in the number of pools that are available. So in a sense it has had a very good impact on safety for small children and this bill will certainly decrease the compliance costs at the same time as not affecting the safety requirements that we all expect.It will also mean that we will be looking at pools and the fencing of pools as to their performance and the way that they are able to protect kids as well as ensuring that there are regular checks by councils. So it reduces compliance costs it helps councils to make sure that those pools are fenced properly and at the same time it does not diminish any safety procedures.But there is a bigger issue and I think that this debate falls in it as well and it is that as we move into spring and into summer and we are looking forward to spending more time at the beach we should reflect on our appalling drowning record in New Zealand. We have one of the highest if not the highest rate of drownings in the Western World.Perhaps some people might say: “Well that’s understandable.” We have got a very long coastline—11000 kilometres of coastline—we have got 500000 kilometres of rivers and we have got more than 4000 lakes. That is a lot of water and a lot of people recreating around that water as well. But surely that means we have a responsibility as a society and as a community to make sure that our kids know how to swim well.Last year we had 105 drownings in New Zealand—as I said one of the worst rates in the Western World—and this year already we have had 18 people drown in January which was double what it was in January of the previous year. There were 18 drownings in January—double what it was in January of the previous year—and already in the first 6 months of this year 61 people have drowned which is a 30 percent increase on what it was the year before. So the trends are all bad. The trends for drowning in New Zealand are all bad and that is likely to get worse.I want to put forward one of the reasons why they are likely to get worse. When I grew up as a kid our local school had a swimming pool and we all went to swimming lessons 3 days a week. Sometimes it was cold but we had to have an excuse note if we were not going to swim that day—some medical reason or whatever. There was a huge push for all schools to teach swimming in schools and that is now going backwards. We are ending up going in the opposite direction.In the last few years since 2008 156 schools that we know of—and there may well be more—have closed their swimming pools. That is an extraordinary indictment on where our emphasis is on teaching good water safety. Water Safety New Zealand reports that another 130 schools in addition to that 156 have got in contact with it to ask whether there is any way that it is possible to keep their schools’ pools open. Add those two figures together and it is close to 300 schools in just the last 6 or 7 years that have had to close are about to close or have threatened to close their swimming pools.What that means is that a generation of New Zealanders are growing up in New Zealand without the fundamental water safety that we—and certainly I—took for granted when we were growing up in New Zealand and that is because the Government is not putting in the resources and it is not paying the proper regard to water safety that it should. It is focusing on national standards and on reading and arithmetic and anything else that it considers important—nobody is denying that—but what that has meant is that schools do not have the resources to make sure that their school pool stays open.Right now schools get about $700 a year in order to make sure that their school pools are up to standard. That does not even pay for the chemicals let alone the general maintenance. Many of these pools are getting older and as a result they do need maintenance and schools are unable to ensure that those pools stay open.So next week as I understand it Jonathan Coleman the Minister for Sport and Recreation is going to be announcing a water safety campaign. If it does not address the issue of schools losing their pools and an entire generation of New Zealanders not being able to do the basic swimming strokes and being able to survive in the water it will be a failure. So I certainly hope that next week we get to hear from this Government that it is serious about water safety it is serious about teaching our kids to swim it recognises that schools have an important role and it gets in behind schools and makes sure that they have the pools and they have got the backing to ensure that they can run an effective school swimming programme as they should and as we have done for a number of generations. We have always put a priority—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!DAVID SHEARER: —on children’s swimming safety and that is what we need to be doing right now.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was not closing the member down just reminding him that there is a bill to speak to. So if he would like to confine his last 2 minutes to that that would be appreciated.DAVID SHEARER: I will come back to the bill because the bill says that it wants to reduce the number of people who are drowning and we have to see that in the broader context of the increased number of people who are drowning in New Zealand. We have made some inroads in fencing off pools but we are missing the bigger picture which is that kids and a whole generation is out there unable to swim because of the negligence of this Government.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.The House adjourned at 11.45 a.m. (Thursday)