Volume 667 Week 55 - Wednesday 22 September 2010 
Volume 667 Week 55 - Wednesday 22 September 2010 
[Volume:667;Page:14191] 
Wednesday 22 September 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Subject to Standing Order 350(2) I seek the leave of the House for the member for Mana the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban to make a valedictory statement on Tuesday 12 October at 5.30 p.m. I have consulted the Leader of the House about this time and it suits the Government as well as the Hon Winnie Laban. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Prime Ministerial Responsibility—Confidence in Ministers with Party Roles 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I indicated that I would give further consideration to the acceptability of questions to the Prime Minister concerning confidence in Ministers where those questions had a party connection. The Leader of the Opposition’s primary question asked the Prime Minister whether one of his Ministers had shown good judgment and had his support to which the Prime Minister replied “Yes.” A supplementary question put a particular circumstance involving the Minister to the Prime Minister and asked how that was good judgment. The circumstances related to the actions of the Minister. It had a party connection but the Speaker does not rule a question out of order simply because it has a party connection. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 147/1. 
The supplementary question did not ask the Prime Minister to take responsibility for a party matter. It did not ask for party information or seek a party opinion. In effect it asked for the Prime Minister’s opinion of a judgment made by a Minister a matter that may be relevant to the Prime Minister’s confidence in a particular Minister. Had the supplementary question been a primary question it may well have required authentication. But in the House the Speaker must make an instantaneous judgment. There is no time for analysis. Where there is doubt the practice of Speakers is to allow the question rather than taking the initiative in ruling it out. Having considered it further I stand by my judgment to allow that supplementary question. 
That said where a question does contain a party connection it will undoubtedly have implications for the reply. A Minister is under no obligation to address the party connection part of a question in his or her reply. The Prime Minister gave a reply to the supplementary question. Clearly it did not satisfy the member who asked the question and I myself had some concerns. I have reflected on that situation. The question in effect asked for an opinion and it contained a party connection. In such circumstances the Speaker cannot judge the adequacy of the reply. It is up to the member to clarify the reply through further supplementary questions. 
The basic rule in respect of questions to Ministers is set out in Standing Order 369. Questions must relate to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. In practice a wide view is taken of the concept of ministerial responsibility. The scope for questioning Ministers and in particular the Prime Minister is broader than simply the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. In the same way that Ministers may be asked about the general conduct of their departments the Prime Minister can be asked about the conduct of his Ministers. Although the Prime Minister is not answerable for statements or actions taken purely in a non-ministerial capacity such as those taken as a party leader or in a personal capacity the Prime Minister can be asked about how such actions or statements may or may not affect his view of a Minister’s judgment and his confidence in a Minister. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax System Changes—Tax Calculator 
1. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much demand has there been for the tax calculator taxguide.govt.nz and what are some of the benefits it confirms from the tax changes on 1 October? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am pleased to confirm that the website taxguide.govt.nz has been popular since the Budget and demand is increasing. As of this morning the calculator has received almost half a million page views. Clearly New Zealanders are keen to see the effect of the Government’s tax package for themselves. The website confirms that the GST income tax switch on 1 October will leave the average family about $25 a week better off the average worker about $15 a week better off and a couple on New Zealand superannuation about $11 a week better off. It is no wonder the tax guide is popular and I hope more New Zealanders will follow the example of the Opposition and spend a good deal of time looking at it. 
Hekia Parata 
: How will the Government’s tax package leave an average household better off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If we take the case of a couple in their early 40s who jointly earn an average household income of $76000 a year—one working full-time earning $50000 and the other part-time earning $26000—have two children receive Working for Families and pay $300 a week in mortgage repayments under the tax changes that household gets a tax cut of $45.85 a week and pays an extra $21.14 in GST. So overall that household is $24.71 a week ahead or nearly $1284.92 a year better off. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the calculator confirm the analysis by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that half of all households will be worse off as their tax cut is wiped out by rising food prices GST and other one-off charges? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No it does not confirm that. What it confirms is that comparing the GST increase with the tax cuts the vast majority of New Zealanders will be better off. As I pointed out to the member yesterday real after-tax incomes will in fact rise between October and December by 1.2 percent according to Treasury. 
Hekia Parata 
: How will the Government’s tax package leave an average wage-worker better off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If we take the example of a plumber earning $50000 a year—the average full-time wage—paying $120 in rent and saving $50 a week under tax changes that person receives a tax cut of $29.42 a week and pays $13.51 more in GST. So overall they are $15.91 a week or $827.32 a year better off. But I remind the House that these tax cuts are not just about the hip pocket they are about the vital need to rebalance our economy away from consumption and borrowing and towards investment exporting and saving. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How will the 160000 people currently unemployed be better off when the consensus is that unemployment will remain at high levels for the next 2 years while food prices rents—and I do not know where he found a figure of $120 for rent because it certainly was not in Auckland—and power prices continue to rise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All those people who are on a benefit will be compensated on 1 October and the longer-term benefit is simply that if we continue on an economic track where all growth is funded by borrowing and people spend too much then none of those people without jobs will get proper jobs. With the kind of rebalancing assisted by this package they have the hope of getting a real and sustainable job. 
Hekia Parata 
: How will the Government’s tax package leave a couple receiving New Zealand superannuation better off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Let us take the example of a married couple who are retired and receiving New Zealand superannuation with no investments but who own their own home which is fairly typical. Under the tax changes they get a tax cut of $11.52 a week plus a $10.12 increase in their New Zealand superannuation payments because of the impact on tax cuts on the average wage and they will pay an extra $10.87 a week in GST. Overall the retired couple will be $10.77 a week better off or $560 per year better off. 
Freshwater Management Reform—Proposed National Policy Statement 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will he recommend the adoption of the board of inquiry’s proposed national policy statement on freshwater management now that the Land and Water Forum has reported back; if so when? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Land and Water Forum involving 58 diverse organisations with an interest in water has recommended the adoption of a national policy statement on fresh water but it also recommended that we amend the one recommended by the board of inquiry. I have been further advised by officials and stakeholders that the version recommended by the board of inquiry is ultra vires—that is it goes beyond what a national policy statement can do under the Resource Management Act. That is why the Minister of Agriculture David Carter and I have asked officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry for the Environment to work on a revised national policy statement taking on board the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum. If any significant changes are made from the board of inquiry report the law requires that there be a process of consultation publicly. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of his answer that he accepts the recommendation of the Land and Water Forum that we need a national policy statement does he also accept its recommendation that we need it quickly and what does he understand by the word “quickly”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly I want to make it plain that the Government has made no decisions on the Land and Water Forum report. We hugely welcome it. The fact that we have organisations like Federated Farmers and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society coming to a consensus around the way forward on freshwater management is the Government thinks a huge step forward. We have received the final report only today. We want to get advice from officials but it is the Government’s view that we have been treading water—excuse the phrase—for a long time on freshwater policy and we need to make progress. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with the Environmental Defence Society’s chairperson Gary Taylor that it is crucially important that we have the national policy statement as soon as possible and that other issues can be dealt with separately; if so when will we have the national policy statement? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I certainly agree that we have over 53 recommendations to consider from the Land and Water Forum’s report. I do not think the Government’s response will be a single measure. It will be a package that will take some time—likely a number of years. I certainly accept that there is a need to get on and resolve the issues around the national policy statement but the Government has not yet decided on that programme particularly given the advice from officials that the board of inquiry version will need to be amended in order for it to be consistent with the Resource Management Act and given that the law itself requires a process of public consultation on any changes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked this question in three separate ways now seeking some kind of time frame. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give an exact time frame but I ask you to ask the Minster to give some kind of time frame for when we will have the national policy statement. Currently we do not have anything out of him about a time frame. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member but I ask him to reflect on the last supplementary question that he asked. If he had asked specifically: “What is the time frame?” it might have been possible for me to insist on a more precise answer but the member actually asked whether the Minister agreed with a statement by someone called Gary Taylor if I remember the question correctly. The Minister answered that perfectly correctly. He said he agreed with some aspects of what that person said so the remedy is in the member’s own hands. If he wants to receive a precise answer he has to ask a precise question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you read the primary question you will see that it does say “when”. I was giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt as obviously there is an extended time frame but I was trying to get a more specific time frame—and the primary question did say “when”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has further supplementary questions. He can chase that matter up very precisely with the Minister given that he is not satisfied with the answers so far. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that the Land and Water Forum’s laudable report suggests it will take considerable time to develop the environmental and economic tools necessary to maintain the quality of water emerging from new storage schemes will he now advise the Prime Minister to abandon his goals of seeing new water allocations in place in Canterbury next year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly what I think is hugely encouraging in the Land and Water Forum’s report is that we have key environmental organisations like Fish and Game New Zealand the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the Ecologic Foundation and the Environmental Defence Society recognising the economic opportunities that go with storage and equally so organisations like Federated Farmers recognising the need to lift the game around water-quality standards. I think that is a huge step forward. I do not recall the Prime Minister saying any storage facility would be built next year. I know he is a tremendous Prime Minister but I do not think he can do it quite as quickly as that. Members opposite should not doubt this Government’s view that fresh water is an incredibly important resource. There are economic opportunities that go with it and we want to advance those economic opportunities but ensure that they are met with fundamental environmental bottom lines. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When will he recommend the adoption of the board of inquiry’s proposed national policy statement for freshwater management? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We received the Land and Water Forum’s report just today and Cabinet has not had the opportunity to consider any of the recommendations. I and my colleague David Carter have asked for officials’ advice on the amendments that would come from the recommendations in the forum’s report. I hope we will have those by the year’s end. We have also given commitments quite strongly to the Maori Party and to the Iwi Leadership Group that we will consult them on such decisions. I think this is an issue that we should make progress on next year. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can he give a commitment to this House that major new schemes to store and allocate water that come into effect before the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum are acted upon will be subject to the sorts of environmental rules that the forum’s 58 stakeholders signed up to? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is certainly the Government’s view that if we are to have expanded irrigation in New Zealand—and large economic opportunities would come from it—we need to make sure that that is matched in parallel by good environmental standards that will ensure that water quality is not compromised by taking advantage of those economic opportunities. There is a huge amount of work to do in response to this report and that work begins today. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that adopting the proposed national policy statement would be the swiftest way to immediately set rules for clean water so that we can get on with cleaning up our degraded waterways; if so does he believe that simply making progress on it next year is really fast enough? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw the member’s attention to exactly what the Land and Water Forum representing 58 organisations like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Fish and Game and the Ecologic Foundation said which was that the current draft is a basis to work from. They are not recommending that the Government immediately adopt the Land and Water Forum’s report. 
Hon Member 
: What’s the Government doing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I hear the Labour member’s interjection. What I would like to know is what the previous Government did in 9 years about freshwater management. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he give this House a guarantee that the proposed national policy statement will not be weakened when he finally recommends it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What the Government will do is consider alongside the board on inquiry report on the national policy statement the advice that we have received from the Land and Water Forum. I have already indicated to the member that I and David Carter have indicated to both the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry for the Environment that we want advice from those officials so that we can put a robust national policy statement in place. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question; it asked whether it would be strengthened or weakened—whether he can guarantee that it will not be weakened. He did not address that part of the question—that was the only part of the question actually. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has to be realistic. He cannot expect the Minister to give exactly the answer that he might want to hear because there may be no yes or no answer. What does “weakened” mean? The Minister explained to the House what would happen and what has to be considered in dealing with the report. The member who asked the question may consider some of those matters to strengthen or weaken it but those are matters of opinion. I cannot insist on a Minister giving a precise answer to that kind of question because there is no precise answer to that kind of question. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance Mr Speaker. The Minister said he did not recall the Prime Minister talking about new storage being built in Canterbury next year— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a matter of order. The member seems to be litigating the answer given by the Minister and he cannot do that by way of a point of order. 
Brendon Burns 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must hear what the issue of order is. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table a written answer to a parliamentary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought to table what? 
Brendon Burns 
: A written answer to a parliamentary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we do not table written answers to written questions; they are available to all members already. 
Ministers—Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
3. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he believe that all his Ministers have met the requirement of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards in their ministerial capacity their political capacity and their personal capacity; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because as far as I am aware they have. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he believe that his Minister Rodney Hide upheld the highest ethical standards in his personal and in his political capacities when he did not disclose but covered up his law and order spokesperson’s criminal act in stealing the identity of a dead child? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I am not responsible for either the selection of candidates or the background of candidates in partners that the Government has a confidence and supply agreement with. Nor would there be any reason for me to question the backgrounds of those members. In no time prior to the public statement made in this House by David Garrett had I ever had a discussion with Rodney Hide about that issue. Therefore he could not have misled me because he did not. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What has he done to hold Mr Hide his Minister accountable for his failure to meet what most New Zealanders would regard as an ethical standard given the  
Cabinet Manual  
requirement that Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their actions in a personal and a political capacity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think it is important here to understand the difference between judgment and ethical behaviour. The  
Cabinet Manual 
 clearly states that Ministers are responsible to me for their ethical behaviour not for their judgment. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Prime Minister have to say about accountability for good judgment and high standards to the mother of the dead baby who says that she has suffered huge stress and anxiety as a result of this criminal action yet she still sees Mr Hide drawing a ministerial salary and the Prime Minister getting right in behind him and supporting him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Although I have stressed today that questions to Ministers can be quite wide in relation to the wider responsibility of Ministers for public affairs that question which referred to matters relating to someone totally unconnected with Parliament would need rewording to bring it within the Standing Orders. I do not believe that the Prime Minister can be answerable for how another person might feel about something. I do not want the member to lose a supplementary question; I invite him to reword his question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports about the distress suffered by the mother of the dead baby caused by the criminal act of her child’s identity being stolen and the involvement of a member of Parliament supported by his leader who covered up that story and how does he think that she feels about that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Prime Minister is happy to answer the question I am happy for him to do so but I stress that the Prime Minister is not answerable at all for how a person outside this Parliament might feel about something. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make just a brief contribution to say that the style of questioning that the Leader of the Opposition used was identical to the one used by Rodney Hide yesterday when he asked whether the Prime Minister had seen reports that related to Mr Goff. When you listen to the wording used by Mr Goff I think you will find that it was in order for a question that was asked yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to take more time on a point of order like that. I invite the member to go back and have a look at the  
Hansard 
 of the Hon Rodney Hide yesterday. It was a somewhat different situation as it referred to a report he had written to the Prime Minister himself and the Prime Minister answered in relation to that report. The first part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question seemed fine. He asked whether the Prime Minister had seen a certain report. That is fine. But then the question asked how he thought someone outside Parliament totally disconnected from this place might feel. I do not want to prevent the Prime Minister from answering a question should he wish to do so but I cannot ask him to answer the question given the way last part of it was worded. I am in some difficulty here. I am prepared to give the honourable Leader of the Opposition a third go at this because I do not want him to lose a supplementary question but the Prime Minister is clearly not answerable for how someone—[ 
Interruption 
]; I am on my feet—outside of this place might feel about something. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports about the distress suffered by the mother of the dead child whose identity was stolen and is he prepared to relieve that distress by holding the person accountable who covered up the theft of that child’s identity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have seen reports. That is why I think Mr Garrett’s behaviour was unacceptable— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What about the Minister? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What about the guy who covered it up? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let me finish. That is why I believe it is wholly appropriate that Mr Garrett should resign from Parliament. As to the latter point I am not responsible for whom political parties select as their candidates. I simply make this one point: the  
Cabinet Manual 
 clearly says that in all these roles and at all times Ministers are expected to act lawfully. I make the point that this matter was covered by a suppression order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the relevant part of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 because it not only requires the Prime Minister to be accountable for lawful behaviour but also— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot add that last bit. Leave has been sought to table part of the  
Cabinet Manual 
. I accept that it is not readily available to all members. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that Mr Hide had complied in every respect with the high standards that he had set was he confusing high standards with double standards? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and I can say about Mr Hide that as a Minister he has conducted his affairs in his portfolio to a high standard and that in all of my dealings with him as a Minister he has been honest and trustworthy with me. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The Prime Minister says that Mr Hide has conducted his ministerial capacities to a high standard so does he also agree that Mr Hide has conducted his personal and his political capacities to that same high standard for which the Prime Minister is also accountable? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Hide has carried out his affairs in a personal and private capacity to a high ethical standard. But I am not responsible for whom he might hire as an MP. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that he is the only person in the country who believes what he has just said? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Would the Prime Minister consider it acceptable in his interpretation as Prime Minister of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 for a Minister to sign a painting that the Minister had not painted and then to arrange to have the evidence of that painting destroyed before it could be investigated? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both sides of the House: this carry-on during a point of order will cease immediately. A fair question was asked; a point of order has been called. I want to hear what this point of order is about. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the question that is being asked by Rodney Hide is not only hypothetical but about a third person who is not in Parliament. You have previously ruled that there cannot be questions put to the Prime Minister about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has jumped to conclusions. I never heard any member or person named. It was hypothetical indeed and hypothetical questions are allowed. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I would not think that that would meet the standards of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and I think that raises a very interesting point about when a member or a Minister is acting as a Minister as opposed to when a Minister is acting as a member of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Prime Minister. The Labour front bench may not like the answer the Prime Minister is giving. The deputy leader of the Labour Party will not interject while I am on my feet if she wishes to stay in the Chamber. The members may not like the answer the Prime Minister is giving but he has a right to give an answer to what was a perfectly fair question within the terms of the Standing Orders. I could not hear the answer; I could not hear it at all and I must as Speaker be able to hear the answer. The right honourable Prime Minister may carry on the part of the answer that I just could not hear if he can determine what part that is. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The answer is no and if the member wants to ask a question about other Ministers in the previous Labour Government who did not fit within that category of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 then this party will need to lend his party some supplementary questions because he will not have enough to ask them individually. 
Economic Growth—Reports 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Finance [ 
Interruption 
]— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to Aaron Gilmore but again both front benches will cease interjection; the previous question has been dealt with. Members will show some courtesy to the member seeking to ask question No. 4 Aaron Gilmore. 
4. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The lift in growth is becoming apparent through the balance of payments statistics which show that both profits and imports are rising. Statistics New Zealand today published the balance of payments data for the June quarter 2010 which show the current account deficit for the year ended June of $5.6 billion or 3 percent of GDP. This compares with deficits averaging about 8 percent of GDP over the previous 5 years. Despite this lift in growth the outlook for the current account is improving. The Reserve Bank forecast shows the deficit averaging about 4 percent of GDP over the next 3 years or about half of the average of the recent past. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What does today’s data reveal about external debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The news on New Zealand’s external debt is less encouraging. These liabilities have risen by almost 40 percent to $164 billion over the past 5 years which is something of a measure of the mismanagement of the economy. Net international liabilities are now 87 percent of GDP which is one of the higher ratios in the developed world. It is not apparent that New Zealand has acquired good-quality assets as a result of this big upsurge in debt owed overseas. One consequence is that the annualised balance on investment income is again more than $10 billion in deficit despite interest rates falling and that will be a permanent drag on New Zealand incomes. The data reinforced the need for New Zealand to tilt the economy towards savings exports and investment and away from excessive borrowing excessive debt and excessive Government spending increases which characterised the economic management until 2008. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What steps is the Government taking to address New Zealand’s current account problems? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand needs to raise exports and save more. Government policy is aimed precisely at those needs. Next week on 1 October the tax system changes in ways that will encourage savings and productive investment and will discourage consumption and tax-driven speculation. Although the vast bulk of taxpayers will be better off the real gains will be in the longer term as the changes help to change the incentives in the economy. At the moment we also have the Savings Working Group undertaking some important thinking about how to further improve savings performance in New Zealand. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister explain how a reduction in productive employment in primary and manufacturing industries of 11 percent and 5 percent respectively offset by increases in public administration and social assistance employment of 21 percent and 26 percent respectively over the last 6 years helped grow the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree with the member’s analysis. Too many of the new jobs that were created since about 2004 were essentially either funded by Government spending increases that turned out to be unsustainable or by excessive borrowing which equally turned out to be unsustainable. The number of jobs in the export sector of the economy actually shrank; in fact there have been no net new jobs in our export sector since 2002. That is why the Government needs to manage Government spending much more tightly and reduce back-office expenditure where it can. The Government must also make sure that resources move from the sheltered parts of the economy—essentially Government domestic housing and so on—into the export and trading part of the economy because in the next 10 years we have to earn it before we spend it. In the last 10 years we spent it well before we earned it. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What alternative economic policies would lower growth and leave the economy poorly positioned for the future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is a steady stream of suggestions about different ways to manage the economy which includes increasing personal income taxes borrowing more fiddling with the GST system increasing Government spending irresponsibly and meddling with the Reserve Bank tool kit. All of those suggestions have come from the Opposition and they are the same policies that got New Zealand into trouble. That is why we are changing them. 
Freshwater Management Reform—Strategies for Sustainable Reform 
5. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he agree with the  
Fresh Start for Freshwater 
 report that sustainable reform must reflect the values and interests of both Treaty partners and what strategies does he have in mind to recognise this? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government is very mindful of the huge interest from Maori in issues regarding fresh water. That is why we initiated in consultation with the Maori Party a separate process of engagement with Maori through the Iwi Leadership Group. I met with the group yesterday; during the meeting we received the sad news regarding Sir Archie Taiaroa. We agreed out of respect to defer our discussions on the Land and Water Forum report until November. I note though that the iwi leaders indicated to me a strong level of support for the report. 
Rahui Katene 
: What guarantee can the Minister give to iwi that a national land and water commission will be established in co-governance with iwi as recommended by the forum? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is one of the 53 recommendations of the Land and Water Forum. The Government received the final report only today and has not had the opportunity to consider that or the other recommendations. I am keen to firstly have a dialogue with New Zealanders through public consultation on the report. We are keen to have direct dialogue with the Iwi Leadership Group and I also welcome a dialogue with parties in this Parliament including the Maori Party. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree that the transition to any new system of water allocation should proceed hand in hand with Crown-iwi discussions on iwi rights and interests in water management; and what progress can he report on discussions with iwi about water rights and interests? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In discussions on Waitangi Day and many other discussions the Government has had with iwi leaders their huge interest in water has been repeatedly highlighted. I also say that in the discussions I have had with the Minister of Maori Affairs he too has made the claim that water is a very significant issue for iwi. The Government specifically has established and worked with the Iwi Leadership Group on water policy. Those discussions have progressed very constructively and we have scheduled a further meeting in November to specifically consider the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum. 
Superannuation—Compensation Available from 1 October 
6. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “We are boosting New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pension to fairly compensate for the GST rise”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because that is what the facts clearly show. After 1 October superannuation rates will immediately be increased by 2.02 percent to compensate for the price effects of raising GST. In addition to this superannuitants will get the benefit of lower income tax rates which will increase the amount of superannuation they receive in the hand. As a result of both these increases superannuitants will be more than compensated for the rise in GST. 
Hon Annette King 
: When he told single superannuitants living alone that they would be $15 a week better off from 1 October did that mean that superannuitants will have $15 extra a week after they have paid for the increase in GST on all goods and services other Government charges such as accident compensation the cost of the emissions trading scheme and inflation; if not what did he mean? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first thing I should have told them is they were right to vote National because the emissions trading scheme would have been twice as expensive under Labour. I would tell them the same thing that every Government has told superannuitants since New Zealand superannuation was brought in: general increases in the overall cost base are met with the CPI adjustment that takes place on 1 April every year. 
Chris Tremain 
: How much more will superannuitants receive in the hand after 1 October? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister of Finance earlier used an example of a married couple who are retired and receiving superannuation. Under the 1 October tax changes they will get a tax cut of $11.52 a week plus an increase of $10.12 a week as a result of GST going up. That makes a total of $21.64 a week. It is worth noting that since 2008 tax cuts and ongoing price adjustments have meant that that couple would have seen their superannuation payments go up by a grand total of $71.26 a week or just over $3700 a year. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he received correspondence from single superannuitants pointing out that after paying the increased cost of power telephone rates bus fares doctors’ bills insurance and groceries they will be worse off and does he think that they are incapable of working out the tax switch that affects their back pocket? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not see all the correspondence that comes into my office but if letters of such a nature came in I would go back to those superannuitants and say this. First they will be better off absolutely as a result of the GST tax switch. Secondly any changes that affect the overall price base—electricity and the like—will under our Government as they were under previous Governments be updated on 1 April of each year. Thirdly I point out that this Government has been running an inflation rate that has been substantially lower than under the previous Government because we have good economic management skills. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he consider that spending over $250000 to send a letter to all superannuitants in New Zealand—which fails to tell them how much GST they will pay and what impact the emissions trading scheme and other increases in Government charges and increased inflation will have on their tax switch—is a good use of taxpayers’ money? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I cannot confirm how much the letter I sent out cost because I genuinely do not know. But I do know that every dollar of taxpayer money spent on that letter was a better dollar invested than those spent on the one sent out by that mickey mouse party yesterday which did not even convince a scuba-diver that 15 percent GST was the responsibility of this Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has anyone explained the meaning of double standards to him given that he criticises Labour’s GST pamphlet which cost a fraction of the $250000 he has spent on a letter to superannuitants that did not tell them the whole truth about what will be left in their pockets after 1 October? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I say to National members that I struggled to hear the member asking the question. I encourage them to be a little more reasonable in their interjections. I invite the Hon Annette King to repeat her question so that I can hear it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has anyone explained the meaning of double standards to him given that he criticises Labour’s expenditure on a GST pamphlet that cost a fraction of the $250000-plus that he spent sending a letter to superannuitants that fails to tell them what will be left in their pockets after 1 October? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No but I managed to watch the TV3 news last night which pointed out that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders will get a brochure from the Labour Party that is nothing short of a lie. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say this again to National members. Their own senior whip is seeking to ask a supplementary question and they would be advised to show their senior whip some courtesy. 
Chris Tremain 
: Can the Prime Minister name just one other country in the world with GST at 15 percent or higher that exempts fresh fruit and vegetables? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I thank the member for re-asking Phil Goff’s question and I say that he did it better than Phil Goff did yesterday. I am advised that 23 OECD countries have GST or VAT rates of at least 15 percent. Of those 23 countries only Mexico and the UK have no GST or VAT on fresh fruit and vegetables. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports on exempting certain goods from GST? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. The issue of exempting certain basic necessities from GST was discussed in the Tax Working Group’s report earlier this year. The Tax Working Group rejected this idea stating: “However narrowing the GST base would substantially reduce the efficiency of the tax and increase compliance and administration costs while having limited impact on equality. For example removing food from the base makes almost no difference to the distribution of tax across income levels but loses 20% of GST revenue. This fall in revenue would then need to be recovered by higher rates of GST or increasing other taxes.” There was a time when the Labour Party knew that the GST system we had in New Zealand was the right one—that was a time when it was not desperate. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he promise before the last election not to increase GST? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I said that I had no intentions of raising GST to cover the deficit and we are not doing so. You see that is the reason—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to be able to hear the Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is the reason I will make this prediction: we will not go into 2011 with Phil Goff reversing this policy. Why not? Because when New Zealanders get their $4 billion of personal tax cuts they will not want Phil Goff and his bunch of muppets to take them away. 
Freshwater Management Reform—Progress 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for the Environment—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know there is a bit of excitement and passion around some of these issues—I understand that—but I have called Louise Upston and the unhelpful interjections should cease. 
7. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What progress has the Government made on improving freshwater management in New Zealand and the collaborative process outlined in National’s 2006  
Bluegreen Vision  
document and 2008 election policy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Today we marked a significant milestone with 58 diverse organisations with an interest in water coming to an agreed way forward on water reform. This milestone is as significant as the Forest Accord that was struck in the 1980s on the vexed issue of indigenous forests. It is significant that organisations as diverse as Federated Farmers the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Fish and Game and Fonterra are recommending a way forward on how to progress better management of fresh water. 
Louise Upston 
: Does the Minister accept that proper measurement of water takes is an important part of improving management; if so what steps is the Government taking to ensure that water takes are measured? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We cannot manage what we do not measure. That is why the Government has moved to provide for—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite are interjecting; I think it is out of embarrassment that in 9 years Labour’s programme of action on water went absolutely nowhere. Only 31 percent of water takes by volume were measured. The new regulations coming into effect in November will ensure that 98 percent of water takes by volume will be measured by 2016. 
Louise Upston 
: What financial commitments has the Government already made to improving water quality in New Zealand and how does this compare with spending over the past decade? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This Government is investing $94 million in the 5 years from 2009 to 2014 in initiatives to clean up some of New Zealand’s iconic waterways—places like Lake Rotorua the Waikato River and Lake Taupo. The $94 million over 5 years compares with just $16 million or one-fifth of that amount spent in the previous 5 years. I think that shows the level of commitment that members on this side of the House have to improving New Zealand’s freshwater quality. 
Tax System Changes—Tax Calculator 
8. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does the Government’s tax calculator still omit the effect of inflation when attempting to establish whether members of the public will gain or lose from his Budget 2010 tax switch; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; because the calculator correctly provides information on the effects of the switch between income tax and GST as it affects taxpayers on 1 October. As I said yesterday even when all forecast cost of living increases are taken into account—and the calculator is not designed to take into account all forecast cost of living increases—real after-tax wages are forecast to rise by 1.2 percent in the 3 months to 31 December 2010. This means that the increase in wages will more than offset the effect of inflation and that 1.2 percent increase in those 3 months compares somewhat favourably with the 3 percent increase in real after-tax wages over 9 years under the Labour Government. Those calculations are based on the same data series used to calculate annual adjustments to national superannuation. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 500000 New Zealanders whom he said had dialled into the online tax calculator have been effectively misled not only because it has still omitted inflation but because the numbers that he has quoted account for Labour’s 2008 tax cuts under National’s real income growth figures? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can confirm that 500000 people have looked at the tax guide which is a lot more than the number of people who signed up to go to Mr Cunliffe’s speech in Rotorua today at lunchtime which I understand was two and that is why he cancelled it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that a serious attempt was made to answer that question at all. I invite the Hon David Cunliffe to repeat his question if he would like to. He does not have to. If he would rather go on he is welcome to. I give him the choice. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I would be delighted Mr Speaker. I could do it again and again. Can the Minister confirm that the 500000 people whom he said had dialled into his tax calculator were effectively misled not only because it continues to omit the effects of inflation but because the figures that he has quoted include Labour’s 2008 tax cuts under National’s so-called net income increase? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have explained to the member any number of times the tax calculator is exactly the same as the tax calculators that were used by the previous Government. It is designed to show the impact of the increase in GST on 1 October versus the reduction in income taxes and it shows that most New Zealanders will in fact be better off. As I have also explained to the member although the effects on 1 October are important to people and they will be interested in them the real benefits of these tax cuts are about the long-run rebalancing of the economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he further confirm that he has based his estimates on a data set that pre-dated the 2008 election and that if that and the tax cut anomaly are corrected there is far higher real income growth under the previous Government than under the current one? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is trying to conflate two different sets of numbers: one is the tax calculator and the other is a calculation of real after-tax incomes and they set out to measure quite different things. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At no stage in that supplementary question as opposed to the previous two did I mention the online tax calculator. The Minister began his response to a question I did not ask— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member should give the Minister a chance to answer the question. On this occasion I believe that the Minister was attempting to answer the question in a pretty genuine way. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I stand by my point. The primary question was about the tax calculator and the member is trying to mix up those calculations with calculations of real after-tax wages. I guess the test will be whether Labour believes this tax switch makes New Zealanders worse off. If so I look forward to seeing Labour members campaigning in 2011 on reversing the tax switch. Then I will believe that Labour members seriously believe what they are saying about these changes making New Zealanders worse off. 
David Bennett 
: What reports has he seen on previous tax cuts and inflation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen reports that confirm that tables explaining tax cuts in October 2008 did not include the impact of inflation which at the time was running at 5.1 percent in the final months of the dying Labour Government and that is with no GST increase. So it was actually right about that—with a tax calculator it does not make sense to include inflation. After the tax cuts on 1 October this year real after-tax wages even accounting for all cost of living increases will have increased very significantly since late 2008 but more important the tax changes will help rebalance this economy away from excessive consumption and debt and towards savings exports and sustainable jobs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Were his revised net income estimates assisted by forecast revisions to the inflation track which itself reflects the faltering recovery loss of confidence reduced GDP growth and high unemployment; and will he now concede that he has just proven to New Zealanders beyond all doubt that his Government lacks a plan for jobs and growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. We do not follow Labour’s “muppet-nomics” as it has been called. The fact is that the member cannot have it both ways: he cannot claim that New Zealanders will be worse off because inflation is too high and then turn round and say that the economy is failing because inflation is low. He needs to make up his mind which story he is telling. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand figures indicating that the Minister has misled the House in his response— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot allege that. The member is seeking leave to table a document. He cannot allege in doing that that anyone has misled the House. He must simply identify the document that he is seeking leave to table. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek to table Statistics New Zealand figures that show that for the last 5 years the current account deficit was not 8 percent on average— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that that is a proper description of any Statistics New Zealand document. The document will either be a series relating to New Zealand’s current account or it will be a document relating to a standard Statistics New Zealand release and that is what the member should describe to the House not his interpretation of what it shows. I am still none the wiser as to what the document is. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table from Statistics New Zealand the balance of payments fifth edition ratios quarterly for March June September and December for the current account balance from the 2005 second quarter to the 2010 second quarter at minus 6.9 percent of GDP which indicates— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am very grateful. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —not minus 8 percent as claimed by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. The member is trifling with the Chair. I accept that he gave a very accurate description of the document and I am grateful for that but the bit he added at the end is totally out of order. He cannot use leave to table a document to tell the House about the document. He must only identify the document. He did that— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to seek leave for the document to be tabled. Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance because that appears to have left us in a difficult position. The Minister has quite clearly either deliberately or accidentally made an error— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down immediately. The Hon David Cunliffe is in grave danger because he is a senior member of the Opposition and he knows that he cannot litigate an answer by way of a point of order. He must not do that. 
Rugby World Cup—Accessibility of Broadcasts for Deaf Community 
9. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Will he ensure accessibility to Rugby World Cup television broadcasts for the Deaf community by requiring captioning on all public channels; and will he remind all broadcasters of their obligations to provide reasonable access for the Deaf community under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
Television New Zealand (TVNZ) is the only New Zealand broadcaster that has the ability to carry out the live captioning of matches. It is broadcasting seven Rugby World Cup games live including the final semi-finals the bronze final two quarter-finals and the opening match and all seven will feature live captioning. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will he extend captioning beyond the Rugby World Cup given that the United States of America has had captioning of all sports games on television since 1982? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As I said only TVNZ has the ability to do live captioning. The Government spends $1.9 million a year on captioning for the Deaf community and in consultation with its members has decided how the money will be spent. So 240 hours a week of prime-time television is broadcast with captioning and I think that is a pretty satisfactory result. 
Melissa Lee 
: What reports has he had of calls for greater expenditure on public services in addition to public broadcasting services? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I have had reports of a party that wants there to be greater expenditure on a range of public services. Surprisingly it is the same party that is deeply opposed to free trade mineral surveys Resource Management Act reforms tax reforms and road building—in fact just about anything— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I look at the primary question and I struggle to see how the Minister is telling the House about anything to do with the primary question. The primary question was around accessibility to Rugby World Cup broadcasts for the Deaf community. The member who asked the supplementary question tried to extend that to a question about parties calling for more public expenditure. I accept that the Minister in his answer mentioned what the Government spends via TVNZ on captioning but I do not believe that that is a sufficient reason—I am happy for the member to ask specifically about that issue but to extend that to a wider question around what other parties might be calling for in terms of wider expenditure simply stretches the Standing Orders too far. I invite Melissa Lee to reword her question. 
Melissa Lee 
: What reports has he had of calls for greater expenditure on public services in addition to public broadcasting services like captioning? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot see how the Minister of Broadcasting has any responsibility—well let me not presume. The Minister of Broadcasting is welcome to answer that question in terms of the portfolios for which he is responsible. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The point is that that member is calling for there to be more expenditure on public broadcasting but there is absolutely no plan to pay for it and that seems to be a consistent theme. That is the answer. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At no point in my question did I call for public expenditure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that the matter has been dealt with. The question was asked and the Minister answered it. That is the end of that matter. 
Overseas Investment—Sale of Crafar Farms 
10. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: When does he expect to announce the decision on the sale of the Crafar farms? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The Overseas Investment Office is continuing to assess the application by Natural Dairy (NZ) Holdings Ltd to purchase the Crafar farm interests against the requirements of the Overseas Investment Act 2005. I have been advised that the Overseas Investment Office has written to Natural Dairy seeking further information and has yet to receive its response. When the assessment made by the Overseas Investment Office has been completed it will provide a recommendation to the decision-making Ministers. To date no recommendation has been made. I have further been advised that the application is extremely complex and that the Overseas Investment Office cannot be specific as to when Ministers can expect its recommendation. 
Hon David Parker 
: Without commenting about the specifics of the Crafar farm application—I understand that would be difficult for the Minister—does he think New Zealand farm owners should be able to sell their farms to the highest bidder irrespective of whether that bidder is from New Zealand or overseas? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is a very difficult question to answer because every case has to be treated on its merits. That is why we have an Overseas Investment Office why every one of the applications is processed and why finally Ministers make a decision based on those merits. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister believe that opposition by New Zealanders to overseas ownership of farmland is substantially caused by prejudice about the ethnicity of buyers or has the Prime Minister changed the Minister’s mind? 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question is very narrow. It relates to a decision on the sale of Crafar farms and now we are venturing far and wide into general policy issues about overseas investment. 
Hon David Parker 
: It has been a matter of public record that the Minister has said he thinks opposition to purchases by Chinese interests is caused by their ethnicity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That of itself would not necessarily bring the question within order but in answering the primary question the Minister emphasised that these matters need to be treated on their merits and then there was a supplementary question and I believe that the Minister expanded things somewhat in his answer. That is why I believe that the question is not unreasonable given the answers that have been given. So I invite the Hon David Parker to repeat his question but be mindful to try to keep it within the scope of the primary question. 
Hon David Parker 
: I will repeat it word for word: does he believe that opposition by New Zealanders to overseas ownership of farmland is substantially caused by prejudice about the ethnicity of buyers or has the Prime Minister changed the Minister’s mind? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Again without commenting on the specifics of the Crafar farms application what outcomes for New Zealand other than economic matters does he think are relevant to decisions to allow or reject applications for foreign investment in New Zealand land? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The criteria are very clearly set out in the Overseas Investment Act 2005. The Overseas Investment Office lays out its advice based on each one of those I think 17 criteria and then the final recommendation is made to Ministers. That is how it has always been done even when Labour was in power and sold off very large tracts of our farmland to overseas investors. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister accept that in the changing world economic environment stricter controls on the sale of rural farmland to overseas buyers are appropriate? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: What I do accept is that any Minister making these decisions has to be mindful of what the Act says and work within that Act. That is why as one of the two Ministers making decisions on a number of these applications as they come through I am very mindful to stay within the law. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about what the law is. I asked for the opinion of the Minister as to what the law should be. That question has not been addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An opinion was sought and the Minister gave his opinion. I think his opinion is that the law should be upheld and that is a perfectly fair answer when an opinion is sought. 
Public Transport Auckland—Commuter Rail Network 
11. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on developing the commuter rail network in Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Another milestone was passed on Saturday when I and my good friend Mike Lee opened the Onehunga branch line which includes the three new stations of Penrose Te Papapa and Onehunga. This $13.6 million investment will provide 49 weekday services between Onehunga and Britomart offering an easy 25-minute trip. Modern and efficient transport corridors across all modes are vital to ensuring that as Auckland grows its productivity and its economy grow even faster. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does the investment in Onehunga fit into the wider commuter network investment? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Thirty-seven years after commuter services to Onehunga ceased it is once again open for business thanks to the Government’s overall $1.6 billion investment to upgrade and electrify Auckland’s urban rail network. I thank the finance Minister. However I must caution that there remains further work to ensure this new network is financially sustainable in terms of fair revenue and subsidies from ratepayers and the New Zealand Transport Agency. This is very important before new projects to further extend the network could be sensibly considered. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Given that he boasted with great conviction in a recent speech that “there has been plenty of progress in this area. Over the past 18 months I have attended many project sod turnings and station and line openings and I look forward to attending a few more as projects near completion.” how many of those projects were approved and had funding started on his watch and if the answer is none does he not think it is time to give just a little bit of credit to the previous Labour Government which got these projects going? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think it is fair to say that transport projects are proceeding much faster under the current Government. I fully expect the trains over time to arrive on time the cars to depart on time and other such positive improvements. I can confirm for example that the electrification of the Auckland railway network has been voted by the current Government and that is heading on towards a $1 billion investment. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)—Minister’s Statements 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by all statements that she has made and that have been made on her behalf in relation to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: Yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she stand by the statement made on her behalf in relation to the 90-day scheme on 16 September 2010 that “The Government has always said that the good-faith requirements to be communicative and responsive with employees … imply and include telling employees why a trial period has not worked out.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: What sanctions apply to an employer who refuses to give a reason for dismissal under the 90-day scheme and what remedies does an employee have available under her proposed law? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government made sure there were adequate protections in the bill in a number of areas in terms of the trial period. 
Hon Members 
: Name them. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Requiring any trial period to be entered by written agreement; allowing the trial period only for new employees; retaining good faith which is the aspect the member refers to; protecting employees against discrimination; and ensuring employees on a trial period are treated the same as all other employees regarding leave wages and other entitlements. 
Darien Fenton 
: What remedies are available to an employee who is dismissed under the 90-day scheme and given no reason given that section 113 of the Employment Relations Act says: “If an employee who has been dismissed wishes to challenge that dismissal or any aspect of it for any reason in any court that challenge may be brought only in the Authority under this Part as a personal grievance.” yet section 67B says that a person dismissed under the 90-day scheme “may not bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have to say that my detailed knowledge does not quite extend to all of the matters raised in that supplementary question by the member. In fact I could not possibly remember them all. If the member would like to put her question in writing I am sure that the Minister of Labour will answer it for her. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The Prime Minister absolutely stunned this House and the country this afternoon by defending Rodney Hide’s cover-up of the theft of a dead child’s identity as being ethical. Then he stunned the country again by condemning his predecessor’s action in signing the back of a painting that was a donation for a fund-raising effort at a kindergarten. The actions of Mr Garrett Mr Hide and Mr Key in the cover-up of the theft of that dead child’s identity caused immense distress to the mother and to the siblings of that child. The actions of Helen Clark were an altruistic step towards helping children but Mr Key was prepared to condemn Helen Clark’s action which caused no harm— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but could you do something about Melissa Lee and other members screaming as they left the Chamber. They were not even interjecting from their seats but screaming like banshees as they left. I do not think that is appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not say that members were screaming like banshees. But if any member is interjecting while leaving the Chamber and it comes to my notice I will be hauling them back very promptly. I apologise to the member that I missed that. I say to members still in the House that the level of noise is just unreasonable. There is nothing wrong with some interjections but when the level of noise gets as high as that it is just impossible to hear the speaker. The general debate is held so that we can hear what members have to say about issues of public importance. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There will be no sympathy amongst ordinary Kiwis for a Prime Minister prepared to defend the cover-up of an appalling crime but then ready to condemn his predecessor a decent person who committed no crime did no harm and acted with good intent. That is double standards and it brings no credit on this Prime Minister. 
Mr Key must be the only person in this country still prepared to defend the actions of Rodney Hide in the cover-up of that passport fraud and the stealing of a dead baby’s identity. One thing that New Zealanders hate more than anything else is hypocrisy. That is what we saw in the ACT Party’s actions—the party that was against name suppression but was prepared to have it apply to the criminal offending of its own law and order spokesperson the party that opposed clean-slating minor convictions but wanted to clean-slate the actions of its law and order spokesperson without any formal judicial process and the party that apparently defended the rights of victims but effectively was happy to see the gagging of the family of that child who had to watch the hypocrisy of people who said one thing but did something totally different. 
This ACT Party is the party that brooked no excuses for the criminal actions of offenders in this country but were more than happy to find plenty of excuses for Mr Garrett. What this issue is about is that Mr Hide knew about those actions and he knew about the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another. But he was happy for that to happen provided the public did not know about it. 
I say that under the  
Cabinet Manual 
 Mr Key has an obligation to hold his Ministers to account if they do not show the highest ethical standards. Mr Hide’s actions were anything but ethical. Not only has Mr Key not held Mr Hide to account but also he has protected him. He has kept him on as a Minister notwithstanding the double standards on perks notwithstanding the allegations by a former Minister about Mr Hide being a menacing bully and notwithstanding the despicable cover-up of Mr Garrett’s actions. 
Mr Key demeans his position as Prime Minister. He has put politics ahead of the public interest. He keeps Mr Hide on despite breaches by Mr Hide of ethical standards for one reason and one reason alone. He wants the five votes of the ACT members. He tries to make MMP the issue but the issue is a lack of ethical standards by Mr Hide and a lack of leadership by Mr Key. Mr Key should have stripped ACT of its ministerial positions. National is tarnished by a party that the public sees as scandal-ridden and unworthy. It is time that Mr Key stopped his defence of that unacceptable behaviour. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Korero; tena koe e te Whare miere. Tuatahi he mihi aroha he mihi mamae ki a Jim Nicholls raua ko Sir Archie Taiaroa. Moe mai korua i te Atua. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and the House. But firstly a loving and painful greeting to Jim Nicholls and Sir Archie Taiaroa. Rest there in the presence of God you two. 
]  
It seems appropriate today as we mourn the loss of these two great men and in particular the loss of Sir Archie Taiaroa to acknowledge the distinctive legacy of Sir Archie Taiaroa in some of the fundamental issues impacting on tangata whenua. At midday the Land and Water Forum presented its report. It demonstrated that water is regarded as a taonga of paramount importance. Throughout the report we are acutely aware of the obligation of iwi to be responsible for the well-being of the landscape including our water and waterways. We think of the pivotal role that Sir Archie has played in the Whanganui River claim upholding the mana of Te Awa Tupua as an essential expression of the people. 
Sir Archie was a leading figure in Maoridom a statesman in this nation and an influential ambassador for tangata whenua both at home and across the world. We honour him today and we pay tribute to the guidance and leadership he gave to this Parliament and this Government particularly through the relationship with the Iwi Leadership Group. It is absolutely right that we pay homage to him as we turn to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. 
I place on record the utter appreciation and admiration of the Maori Party for the leadership expressed by the whanau hapu and iwi in the development process leading up to this bill. On the front page of the bill there is a statement: “The Bill recognises the mana tuku iho of iwi and hapu as tangata whenua over the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand”. It states further that the bill “contributes to the continuing exercise of that mana by giving legal recognition protection and expression to the customary interests of Maori in the area.” These are critical words and they represent the advice and the strategic wisdom of our finest iwi leadership. 
The Maori Party went into the process of seeking the repeal of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act with a clear intent in mind and that was to ensure that the door was open to enable hapu and iwi to be at the table with the Crown. Our focus was first and foremost to legally restore the rights that the 2004 Act extinguished as if the Act had never been passed. We did that but in the process we have been able to achieve so much more than we ever anticipated. We see the critical role that tikanga plays in any application that can be made before the court. Clause 97 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill will allow the High Court to refer questions of tikanga to the Maori Appellate Court or to obtain the opinion of a court expert on the question. This is a distinctively indigenous solution. Another significant feature of the bill is the introduction of the shared burden of proof. The Court of Appeal in the Ngati Apa case challenged Parliament to recognise that the onus of proving extinguishment lies on the Crown and the purpose must be clear and plain. In this bill specifically clause 105 the Crown’s responsibility is made explicit—another distinguishing feature of the bill. 
I want to make some remarks about the role of the Maori Party in getting this bill up. We are quite clear that the Maori Party does not own the takutai moana. It is not for us to settle this issue. The ultimate goal of Maori is to have mana and tikanga in the takutai moana duly recognised in the law. Putting it another way recognition of customary rights is a matter between the Treaty partners—that is tangata whenua and the Crown. This bill creates a pathway for negotiations. It does not resolve the issue of customary rights but it opens the door that was slammed shut in 2004. 
Throughout this process we have been privileged to learn from the leadership of iwi for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It was iwi leadership that advocated for non-nationalised minerals to be removed from Crown ownership and it was our whanau hapu and iwi that insisted that mana be recognised as enduring inalienable and including the right to development. 
The bill achieves two key things. It repeals Crown ownership of takutai moana and it gives iwi the right to make claims for custom to court. It simply restores the rights of tangata whenua to argue their case. That is the challenge before us now: to ensure that the Maori Affairs Committee is the place in which all the korero is had and where the negotiating points are debated. We urge all New Zealanders to contribute to this debate and in doing so to truly give value to the intrinsic value of the marine and coastal area for every person in this land. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 At the end of next week we will see the implementation of one of the more significant tax reform packages in New Zealand for quite some time. It is an important measure in assisting the rebalancing of the New Zealand economy. The changes on 1 October will reward effort. They will reward work savings and investment and they will help Kiwi families get ahead. Just as importantly the package as a whole will help to deal with the consequences of the appalling mismanagement of this economy through the term of the previous Labour Government. This tax package will openly favour savings investment and exports. It is designed to increase the disincentives to consume too much to borrow too much particularly for property speculation and to exacerbate the imbalances that built up in this economy over the first decade of this century. 
I think a number of New Zealanders will be very familiar with the idea that GST will rise from 12.5 to 15 percent—not from 0 percent to 15 percent as the Labour Party is putting in its pamphlets. When it comes to misleading numbers and implications there is not much that could be more misleading than that. But New Zealanders are probably not quite expecting the reduction in income taxes and it will take a couple of pay— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re a fool. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh! The member for Waimakariri is really struggling. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it in goodwill. I was certainly not calling Mr English a fool; I was calling Mr Quinn a fool. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members should not do that to interrupt us. We will not have this ongoing interjection. Members should not interrupt speeches for trivial reasons so I apologise to the Hon Bill English. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That intervention just shows why the member for Waimakariri is doing so well in the Labour Party. That is his most insightful and thoughtful contribution in this term of office. He is lost without Mike Moore as he has been for about 15 years. 
I am sure people will believe the income tax cuts when they actually see them but here is just one figure: after 1 October 72 percent of New Zealand earners will have a top statutory tax rate of 17.5c. The lower 72 percent of New Zealand earners the lowest earners will have a top statutory tax rate of 17.5c because we believe that incentives matter across the board. One of the features of this package is that when we take account of the range of tax increases that are occurring—because this is a roughly neutral package; tax cuts are offset by other tax increases—we see that the impact of those tax changes is broadly even across the income groups. The Government took the unprecedented step in the Budget of producing a number of measures on the equity impact of the tax cuts. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Deceiving the community. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It does not do that. New Zealanders can like the Opposition go to www.taxguide.govt.nz put in the figures that reflect their own circumstances and calculate just how well they come out ahead from the tax changes—or otherwise. 
There has been a bit of discussion about inflation. As I pointed out in question time the Reserve Bank forecast for inflation actually showed that the forecast for inflation is now lower than it was a number of months ago. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That’s because there’s no recovery. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Those members either have to argue there is high inflation in a growing economy or if the economy is failing they have to accept that there will be lower inflation because of a slower-growing economy. 
The fact is that even with the GST rise the one-off inflation rate will get to a bit over 5 percent. That is about the same rate as it was when Labour left office with no GST increase and no one-off price increase. Of course New Zealanders are wearing the consequences of a number of Labour’s decisions. For instance the increase in accident compensation levies is directly attributable to the reckless incompetent management of the taxpayers’ single largest asset. It is taking us 2 or 3 years to clean up that mess. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 There is a Maori proverb that says “To utter the name is to invoke the presence” or to put it another way “To steal the name is to steal something precious from a family”. My heart goes out to the family who suffered the crime of identity theft—members opposite may not like it of course; they treat it with disrespect—perpetrated by a representative in this House covered up by a Minister of the Crown and protected by the highest office holder holding a seat in this Chamber as of today the Prime Minister. The perpetrator was protected by him. 
As the Prime Minister wrapped his arms around Mr Rodney Philip Hide did anybody believe Mr Hide’s story that he did not know the detail of Mr Garrett’s crime—that he did not know the detail that Mr Garrett stole a dead baby’s identity and that he did not know there was a permanent suppression order? The argument that he did not know is false and the falsehood lies in the fact that Mr Hide covered it up. The only reason Mr Hide covered it up is that there was a permanent suppression order in place. If there had not been a permanent suppression order in place Mr Hide would have said to Mr Garrett that he would not be a member of Parliament in ACT—well he might have. 
Paul Quinn 
: Aided and abetted. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: But I suspect that Garth McVicar stands charged as a hypocrite today because to use Mr Quinn’s term he aided and abetted a man to get off a conviction with a reference. He aided and abetted a man to get permanent name suppression. As Phil Goff said I wonder whether Garth McVicar and David Garrett were complicit in all this with Rodney Hide— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am a bit confused. I understand the speaker is accusing me of aiding and abetting— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. If the member is concerned about something the member in debate is speaking about he can take the next call. National has further calls. I apologise to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: They were aided and abetted by Rodney Hide. Did any of those gentlemen—hear no evil speak no evil see no evil; Hide Garrett and McVicar—ever consider that in putting in place assisting and standing up for permanent name suppression which they all railed against in public they had gagged a 93-year-old woman and her family from ever speaking out on this crime? Did they consider that they had tortured that family day after day year after year as that 93-year-old woman had to watch Mr Hide Mr McVicar and Mr Garrett gallop around the country calling for zero tolerance? They railed against suppression orders. 
What Mr McVicar said is very interesting because he stands charged with utter hypocrisy. He said on 13 January 2007: “We are here for the victims a voice for them”. I ask Mr McVicar whether he has rung up the 93-year-old woman and asked her to join the “sensible sentencing club”—which to quote him no one wants to be a member of—given that she is a victim at his hands and his best mate’s hands of a crime that was covered up by Mr Hide and protected by the Prime Minister. 
Mr McVicar said the public was sick of watching as well-known defendants appear to use their position to get lighter sentences. He also said on 15 December 2007: “If a role model goes off the tracks the court should be sending a deterrent message.” I wonder what Mr McVicar says today and what the Sensible Sentencing Trust thinks of him. He never revealed the fact that he gave a character reference to get Mr Garrett off a conviction and that he provided an excuse and character reference for permanent name suppression. I wonder what he says to the Sensible Sentencing Trust. 
He sent me an email on the night the “three strikes” legislation was passed reminding me that he stands up for victims. Well he stands accused of hypocrisy and I invite him to go and meet those victims. I invite him to reconvene the victims’ conference he had in this Parliament and explain himself to those who were there because he is still wrapping his arms around Mr Garrett. 
I look at Mr Hide’s statements and I see a man whose truthfulness and factual statements are all over the place. On 15 September he told  
One 
News 
 that obtaining the fake ID was a prank. Later on  
Close Up 
 he was asked whether he had said it was a prank and he said that no it was horrific. On 15 September Rodney Philip Hide told  
Close Up 
 that he had known the circumstances of this case before Mr Garrett became a candidate. He reiterated that in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 15 September. But on 17 September he said to Mr Garner that he could not remember whether Garrett had told him he had stolen a dead infant’s identity: “I don’t know what level of detail I knew.” 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Before I start I join with a number of other people in passing on my sincere condolences on the death of Sir Archie Taiaroa. I worked with Archie a lot in the early 1990s on Maori broadcasting and the establishment of Maori radio and as recently as last year I worked with him on the issue of the “h” in the spelling of Wanganui. He was a man amongst men; he was a legend. He was spectacular and I will always feel richer in this life for having known him and worked with him. 
On 1 October this year a great event will occur. It is an event that is in line with what I have wanted as a politician for the entire time that I have been in this House. It is a move away from taxing incomes and a move towards taxing spending. This is a spectacularly good move which the Minister of Finance Bill English brought in in the Budget this year. It comes into effect on 1 October and it will be one of the most important things to stimulate our economy. It is a tax shift away from taxing earnings because earnings are a good thing and towards taxing spending especially consumption-type spending because spending is a bad thing in my view. If people choose to go out and buy plasma screens and splash out on all sorts of consumer luxuries that is fine but that is where people should be paying tax and I absolutely congratulate Bill English on this rebalancing. 
This change does a number of things that are just fantastic which Mr English referred to in his speech. The first one is that nearly three-quarters of all taxpayers will pay a maximum tax rate of 17.5c in the dollar. That is outstanding. I remember times in this country’s history when the marginal tax rate was 66c in the dollar; people kept a third of what they earned and the Government took two-thirds. Now Mr English has rebalanced the taxation system and got it to a point where most taxpayers—three-quarters of them—will pay a maximum of 17.5c in the dollar. 
Yes there is an increase in GST. I find it interesting that Labour is so opposed to that because I remember a couple of things. First of all GST came in at 10 percent. I was around in those days in the mid-1980s and I am sure a lot of members of this House were in politics then. Do members know what happened? There was not a mutter not a murmur and not a whisper of GST until Labour got into power. Was it in Labour’s manifesto? No. Was it mentioned on the hustings? No. Was it canvassed with anybody at all? No. Suddenly Labour got into Government and it did not increase GST by 2.5 percentage points as this measure does but it slammed it in as a brand new tax at 10 percent saying “Here take that”. There was no consultation; it was a done deal. 
One might think I was criticising Labour for that but I am not. I think introducing GST at a rate of 10 percent was a very good first step and I congratulate Labour on doing it. But not long after that again with no compensation and with no discussion Labour put the GST rate up from 10 percent to 12.5 percent. That is a 25 percent increase—2.5 percent on 10 percent is a 25 percent increase. We have not done even nearly that because our 2.5 percent increase is on the 12.5 percent. Yet Labour did that with no compensation to income earners no compensation to superannuitants and no compensation to people on lower incomes. And guess what! That was all OK. It was perfectly acceptable for Labour to do that. 
Now Bill English has come out with a complete rebalancing package where people will get a lot more of their income in their hands to keep. Let me give members a couple of examples. The average wage earner will be about $15 a week better off even after paying the increased GST. Did that happen when Labour did its increase? No it did not. The average family—so this is not the average income earner; we are going to the family level—in New Zealand based on their circumstances and spending will be $25 a week better off under this package than at present. Here is the question: who would reverse that? I guess the question is whether the Labour members will get up in the House today and say that if they back get into Government which I do not think will be for a very long time GST will go back down to 12.5 percent. Not on your nelly! Labour thinks this is a great idea and it is just posturing on this issue. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin my contribution to the general debate this afternoon by acknowledging with considerable sadness the passing of Sir Archie Taiaroa and I extend my sincere condolences to his family his friends his colleagues and his admirers throughout the country. He is one of the few people of whom we can say that he truly has left our country in a better state for his being a citizen of it. I want to pay the highest possible tribute to him. I know that many colleagues will be paying their respects in person to his family. I will not have that opportunity but it is a rare privilege to be able to do that in this House. 
The last few days have been quite extraordinary in terms of this Parliament. I think that the Prime Minister John Key is the last remaining New Zealander who is prepared to stand up for Rodney Hide for the ACT Party and for David Garrett. Rodney Hide came into this House a lot larger and a lot louder than he is now saying that he was going to stop the perk-busting of politicians. He was not a politician. He was elected as a new breed of people in this Parliament and he was going to stamp out perk-busting. Not long after that he was exposed not just as a person not able to stop perk-busting but as a perk-taker himself. As long as it was done under the radar and as long as people did not know about it he said that was all right. I recall John Key saying nothing about that at that time. He did not stand up for him but certainly did not give him any penalty or punishment. 
David Garrett came into this House with even stronger principles if one looked at it from the outside without any knowledge. He has now broken every single principle that he has ever campaigned on and he did not campaign quietly. He railed against people having name suppression—absolutely railed against it. Yet he had his own name suppressed. There is a word for that. He is being charged of hypocrisy by people up and down this country. That is the charge that is in front of David Garrett at the moment. He campaigned for openness and transparency and at the very same time he was denying the truth about his own life to the public of New Zealand. He rallied against criminals and their excuses. He said that there is no excuse for any bad behaviour but suddenly he has found a huge number of excuses for his own behaviour his own deceit and his own hypocrisy. 
Rodney Hide the leader of the ACT Party knew about David Garrett’s actions before he came into this Parliament. But he did not worry about it because he never knew that those actions would become public. At the very same time and this is the worst aspect of this disgraceful behaviour the family of the dead baby whose identity was stolen by David Garrett had to watch him deceive the country about openness and transparency about never giving criminals any excuses and about his “three strikes and you’re out” position. They were not able to ever raise the disgust that they felt knowing that he had stolen the identity of their dead baby and was now parading up and down the country with exactly the opposite view because Mr Garrett had been given name suppression—something that he opposed for other people. So for that family this Parliament should hang its head in shame. Rodney Hide should personally visit them and apologise for his support of David Garrett when he knew the facts of the situation. This behaviour cannot be passed off as a youthful prank. It was a considered theft of a dead baby’s identity. I do not think that very many other actions can be held in such low regard. I do not understand why John Key is backing Rodney Hide. He is the last-standing New Zealander to defend him. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
:  
Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa; huri noa i to tatou Whare tena tatou katoa. Ko te kupu tuatahi he poroporoaki tenei ki a Ta Archie Taiaroa ki a Jim Nicholls hoki. Ki a raua tahi haere haere oki atu ra. Hoki mai ki a tatou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker; and to us throughout our House greetings to us all. The first statement is this farewell tribute to Sir Archie Taiaroa and to Jim Nicholls as well. To both of them I say depart farewell rest there. I come back to us so greetings to us all 
.]  
I just wanted to pay my short respects regarding the passing of Sir Archie Taiaroa and Jim Nicholls both of whom are being mourned across the nation today. 
In turning to this general debate this afternoon I am delighted to have the opportunity to join with this team on the Government benches to talk about the great story we have to tell in terms of our economic plan. This morning in the Mana electorate I attended two events that in parenthesis tell the kind of story that this Government is interested in supporting and growing. The first was about how we deal with young people whose lives are going off-track and how we help them to rehabilitate and restore themselves to the opportunity of being positive participants in society. This meeting took place between Waitangirua and Cannons Creek in the Mana electorate. Then just down the road I attended the graduation of the Computers in Homes programme where 57 individuals and their families had completed a 9-week course. As a result of that they have the opportunity to get a job or improve the job they have. This Government is interested in providing incentives and support for people to get into work. 
Earlier this week I also attended a very vibrant and dynamic meeting of women in business in the northern end of the Mana electorate. These women have started their own businesses or are growing their businesses. They remain confident about and feel very buoyed by the strong structural platform that this Government has put in place and the kind of direction we are going in. 
Tomorrow the Venus Club another club for women in business will be launching in Porirua which is in the central part of the Mana electorate. Again we have actual practical examples on the ground of people who have become more and more confident about the economic plan that this Government has put in place. 
I want to tell a fuller story about the area from Porirua to Paraparaumu which are the two boundary ends of the Mana electorate. We so often are condemned to hearing the most negative exceptions about those areas and I want to try to put the narrative in place that tells us a fuller story. Yes there are some dire situations that individuals and families are experiencing in terms of their housing and health conditions. Those situations are directly related to the shameful deferral of maintenance that that Opposition the Labour Party oversaw during its 9 years in Government. When we had the best of economic conditions it failed those people as the State landlord. The Mana electorate is reaping the consequences of those irresponsible and shameful behaviours. This Government is determined to turn that round not only in that area directly but also in terms of how we can assist families in the Mana electorate through the tax cuts that are coming into being on 1 October. 
I can tell this House that in 2009 the worst of economic times in this country the Porirua City economy outperformed the Wellington region and New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] If the yabbering members opposite are interested in facts rather than their versions of stories they might take the time to listen. Porirua City is very proud of the achievements it has made economically. It is very proud that the real value-added GDP growth in Porirua was 2.1 percent while in the Wellington region it was 0.1 percent. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What a load of nonsense. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I will not be shouted down by members who are naysayers and who want to cast the most negative version across Porirua and the wider Mana electorate. Employment growth there has been 3.7 percent while in the Wellington region it has been 1.9 percent. There has not been very much growth in the small-business units but more staff have been taken on. The introduction of tax cuts on 1 October will benefit a wide range of families in the Mana electorate. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I do not know which electorate the previous speaker Hekia Parata has been campaigning in but that is certainly not the message that we have been getting on the streets in Mana at all. I would like to start by joining my parliamentary colleagues in recording the passing of Sir Archie Taiaroa. He was truly a great leader. Many people have been shocked since his sudden illness on the weekend and his death is truly a loss for our country. I would also like to put on the record my commiserations to his whanau on the loss of a truly great New Zealand leader. 
I think many New Zealanders today after question time will be asking themselves what it will take for Prime Minister John Key to lose confidence in his Minister Rodney Hide. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What more could he do? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What more could Mr Hide possibly do to lose the confidence of the Prime Minister? Today the Prime Minister said in question time that he believed that Mr Hide was acting ethically. Mr Hide covered up a heinous crime committed by one of his own MPs and gave that member the law and order portfolio. It is a true slap in the face to the victims of Mr Garrett’s crime and it has caused great pain to the victims of that crime. 
How can the Prime Minister stand in this House and say that behaviour is ethical? How can he defend that behaviour? 
Paul Quinn 
: Helen did; she who must be obeyed. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Apparently Mr Quinn thinks that signing a painting for charity is the same thing as stealing a dead baby’s identity. Well I tell the member that is it not. 
Paul Quinn 
: No Taito Phillip Field. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell Mr Quinn that Taito Phillip Field is in prison. If Mr Quinn and Prime Minister John Key think it is OK to have a Minister in their Government who covered up the identity theft of a dead baby then this is a sad day for the Parliament of New Zealand. This Prime Minister promised higher standards would be set by Ministers. He said his executive would be different from previous ones but what has happened has been nothing short of a disgrace. Mr Hide should be relieved of his ministerial portfolios. 
This is not an isolated incident. We can look back at a pattern of behaviour from Minister Rodney Hide and this behaviour has been raised in the House many times. He went on TV and encouraged people to break the law but that was OK with Mr Key. He charged people $45 to come and hear him speak in his capacity as the Minister of Local Government but it was OK with Mr Key for a Minister to charge the people of New Zealand who pay the Minister’s salary to hear him speak. Mr Key thought that was all right. Mr Hide then went to a function and bad-mouthed Mr Key saying he does not do anything and has no principles. That was also all right with Mr Key; he forgave that. The great perk-buster Mr Rodney Hide then took his partner on a taxpayer-funded trip round the world for which he then had to pay money back but that was all right with Mr Key. Mr Hide breached  
Cabinet Manual 
 rules by endorsing a company when he was a Minister but that was all right with Mr Key. Mr Hide was all right when David Garrett was accused of sexually harassing a female staff member. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And there’s more of that to come out too. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: There may be more of that; I do not know whether that is the case. But apparently that was also all right with Mr Key. That behaviour was considered to be appropriate and ethical for a Minister. 
When Mr Garrett made some particularly repugnant comments on sterilisation Mr Key thought it was all right that Mr Hide defended Mr Garrett in that case. There was the appalling treatment of Heather Roy the bullying of one of Mr Hide’s own colleagues. That was all right with Mr Key. He thought that Mr Hide did a good job of handling that as well. There was the way that Mr Hide has handled the Auckland super-city legislation. It was anti-democratic not to give Aucklanders the right to decide on how their local government would be run. Apparently that was all right with Mr Key. 
But the worst thing of all is that Mr Key is defending a Minister who has covered up the identity theft of a dead child. Well the Labour Party says Mr Key is now the only person who is defending Mr Hide. Mr Key is the only person who thinks that Mr Hide deserves to keep his Cabinet position. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. We are seeing probably the biggest tax reforms this country has had in the last two decades. This Government is sending out a clear message with these reforms and that clear message is quite simple: we will reward hard work. We will reward the people who go out there and work hard by reducing their personal tax rates. We will reward people if they go out and invest and if they go out and save because we want New Zealanders to think about what they are doing with their money and about how well they can do with it. 
New Zealand is renowned for being a country of spenders. We are very good at spending everything we have and we are very good at borrowing to spend money we do not have as well. Part of the reason why we are in a recession in New Zealand now is that people have borrowed to spend money on consumables. They have borrowed against their mortgages to spend money on increasing their personal assets like a car. Instead of saving to do that they have borrowed on their mortgage or they have run up credit on their credit cards. So this Government is sending some clear messages out there: let us work hard let us invest let us save and let us get ahead. If the reason that people are borrowing for investment properties is to get ahead through tax advantages then they will not be able to do that any more. If people want to go out and spend every single cent that they earn on consumables then they will be paying a portion of that spending on GST. We have made a whole range of reductions in personal tax and we have increased GST to 15 percent. We have not made GST 15 percent; we have increased it by 2.5 percent to 15 percent. In effect we have given a $4 billion tax cut to New Zealand and we have taken some money back by increasing GST to the value of $2 billion. New Zealanders overall will be $2 billion better off. 
Last night I went to a Wellington kindy association AGM held in Johnsonville in Ohariu. When one looked around at the parents the mums and dads at that AGM one could see that they work hard. They want to get ahead and they want these tax cuts. Those parents do not measure their success by measuring how well this Government does with regard to GDP; they measure their success by their real wages by their real salaries by how much they take home at the end of the day by how much they have to play with by how much they can spend on groceries and clothing and by how much they can spend on taking their kids on a holiday. That is how they measure their success right here right now. This Government is delivering a tax cut to those families on 1 October. 
It is interesting that we talk about what families in New Zealand want. They just want to be left alone to get on to get ahead in life and to do their thing without having the Government coming back and saying that if they reach this much when they are earning then it will take this benefit away from them for doing that. Those families want to work hard and earn money take it home and decide in their own home how they will spend that money. That is not too complex. 
In fact we see that these tax cuts are quite significant when we look at a couple of the income brackets. I will talk members through those because people talk about this in concept but not many people actually get the changes. If people earn up to $14000 a year their tax rate changes from 12.5 percent to 10.5 percent. If people earn between $14000 and $48000 a year their tax rate moves from 21 percent to 17.5 percent. That is quite a big drop. If people earn between $48000 and $70000—we are talking now about people like teachers police officers and nurses—their income tax rate drops from 33c to 30c in the dollar. If people are lucky enough to earn over $70000 their income tax rate drops from 38c to 33c in the dollar. What does that mean in terms of what people take home at the end of the day? If we include the increase in GST the average wage earner in New Zealand who earns about $50000 will be about $15 a week better off. The average family in New Zealand will be $25 a week better off. A retired couple receiving only New Zealand superannuation will be $11 a week better off. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I join with my colleagues in expressing my sympathy over the passing of two great leaders of the Maori community. I am sure that all members in the House will join with us in that. Sir Archie Taiaroa was a great New Zealander. 
I will talk today about what is happening in Auckland. Next week many local government workers will find out whether they have their jobs. Many will not have their jobs. Of course the Public Service Association (PSA) has worked for these people and they have redundancy packages. I think that is good—ordinary workers with decent redundancy packages. But there comes a time when things will be hard for all New Zealanders. 
What is surprising is the amount of rumour going around about some of the eight chief executives and what will happen to them. People are saying that they are getting a golden handshake. Some of them will get a six-figure sum. Some of them will get a substantial six-figure sum. These people are at the moment on six-figure contracts. They are being paid that amount of money yet they will get an additional payment. These people are on fixed-term contracts. I challenge Rodney Hide to tell the people of Auckland what is going on. When one is earning more a year than the Prime Minister I ask whether one should be getting a huge payout. 
People will find out next week what has happened to their jobs and they will get a redundancy package that has been negotiated. The PSA has done a good job but people will see that some of those chief executives are doing all right. They are already paid large sums which means that they are required to do the extra yard—go out and do the overtime work on weekends—but now they will get extra rewards. 
I say to the local government Ministers that people in Auckland need to know what is going on. I know that John Carter is busy working as the Minister of Civil Defence and I do not want to distract him from that. But the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide must know all about this matter. I ask who will pay these six-figure sums. Well elderly people who own their own homes will have to go into their purses to get some money to pay for these huge redundancy handouts golden parachutes—call them what we will. Those people want answers. 
How accurate are the rumours? The challenge for Mr Hide is to tell people exactly what is going on. He should not keep it secret. Mr Hide has a background of keeping things secret but the people of Auckland of course want answers. People are looking around and seeing how unfair the system is. Chief executives might get close to half a million dollars when they clear their desks close the door and walk out of their offices and they will be quite happy. Council workers who do the ordinary jobs that are so important will look at what the PSA has for them. They think that is fine. But when they start to do the comparison they will wonder. They can say to themselves that they worked hard. Many of them went the extra yard. But in the end those people need answers. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 From 1 October New Zealand will introduce the biggest tax reform package that this country has seen in a generation. This tax cut package is the commitment that the National Party made to the electorate when it went to the polls at the last election and the National Government is delivering upon it. The tax cut package puts a whopping $4 billion into the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis. Yes GST will rise providing $2 billion but the net benefit to Kiwis will be positive. It is projected that the average family on $70000 will be $25 per week better off after accounting for the GST increase. This has to be good for New Zealand. 
From 1 October Kiwis will see significant increases in their wage packets and will have the choice to spend that money or to save it. Importantly real after-tax wages are forecast to rise by 1.2 percent in the last 3 months of this year. This is an excellent result. I am confident that we will look back on this initiative in many years’ time and say that this was a pivotal point for the future of New Zealand’s prosperity. 
There is an inconvenient truth for the Labour Party in this package. Many high-income property investors will now face higher taxes as depreciation is removed from commercial and residential property. The Labour Party wants to paint this package as tax cuts just for the rich. How far from the truth can that be? In fact many property investors will now be paying higher taxes. Previously property owners have been able to claim losses through the non-cash accrual of depreciation but they will now face paying tax on their property investments. Given that most investment properties generally rise in value not fall this is a sensible move. This is part of the rebalancing of the economy and it will help to change investment decisions from non-productive investment in residential property towards productive investment in the production engine of the economy. That rebalancing needs to take place and this Government is delivering upon it. 
We throw lots of different statistics around this House in a game of ultimate one-upmanship. We are all guilty of this as we attempt to manoeuvre our political chess pieces in an effort either to regain or to retain the Treasury benches. Of all the statistics that have been thrown around this House since I have been an MP for some 5 years it is the ability of a Government to lift the wages of its constituents above the rate of inflation that I believe is most important. Real wage growth is the genuine measure that indicates whether a Government has been able to improve the lot of its citizens. This should be the focus of any Government and particularly for those parties that claim to represent low-income earners. 
The previous Labour Government achieved real wage growth over the 9-year period it was in office but it achieved real wage growth of just 3 percent. That is an annual real wage growth over that 9-year period of 0.3 percent per annum. It is absolutely appalling. It is unbelievable. The interesting point is that most of that wage growth was achieved in the first 4 years of that regime. Throughout the period when we had some of the highest-ever surpluses in the economy of this country of $6 billion and $8 billion the previous Labour Government achieved virtually zero real wage growth for cleaners for factory workers for the people whom it claimed to represent. That is an indictment of the worst kind. 
There were three failings at the nub of this result: firstly a failure to control inflation and we heard today that towards the end of the term of the previous Labour Government inflation was over 5 percent; secondly the fact that many Kiwis were continually being pushed into higher and higher marginal tax brackets; and thirdly a philosophical opposition to allowing taxpayers to keep more money in their back pockets. Even when Michael Cullen was forced into adjusting the level of marginal tax rates he reneged. He reversed them. 
It was not until the death knell of the previous Labour Government that Labour finally accepted that the workers of this country deserved to be rewarded. That last-minute decision was far too late to impact upon its record of real wage growth of just 3 percent. Let me say that again—Labour achieved 3 percent real wage growth over 9 years. What sort of record is that for the cleaners and the production factory workers of this country? It is abysmal. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I pay my respects to Sir Archie Taiaroa. I acknowledge what a great leader he was and I convey our condolences to his whanau. Today is a members’ day and my member’s bill the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill was to be debated in the House. However I have delayed its consideration because I want the vote on the bill to be a personal or conscience vote. Animal welfare is above all an ethical and moral issue. I wrote to the Speaker requesting that MPs be allowed to exercise a personal or conscience vote. It was considered by the Business Committee yesterday and supported as I understand by the Labour Party the Green Party and the Maori Party. But National argued that animal welfare was an economic issue not an ethical or moral one and that MPs should not be allowed to vote with their conscience on this issue. 
I have written once again to the Speaker requesting that he reconsider my request. The simple fact is that animal welfare is an ethical and a moral issue. Some farmers may wish otherwise. They may wish that it was just an economic issue and that it was left up to them to decide whether they consider it profitable to treat animals humanely. The reason that so many New Zealanders feel passionately about animal welfare the reason there were protests outside Parliament today about animal welfare and the reason a petition on animal welfare was presented to Parliament today is that it is an ethical and a moral issue. It revolves around questions such as whether animals have an intrinsic value and should therefore be treated with compassion and respect or whether they are just the property of humans and can be manipulated and treated in whatever way farmers want as long as it makes them more efficient sources of cheap meat milk and eggs for humans. 
These ethical and moral issues are particularly important when we consider an animal such as a pig. Pigs are highly sociable intelligent and very curious. Professor Stanley Curtis who spent his career studying pigs taught them to play computer games using joysticks which they were able to move with their snouts or by holding them in their mouths. He said that pigs are one of the most intelligent animals on earth and that they far surpass the mental capacity of dogs. They communicate with each other constantly and given a choice they will live in families or small groups. They love to root around in the soil and forage for food and socialise. They have a strong mothering instinct but when they are cramped together for long periods of time or locked in cages their social skills break down. They become aggressive and frustrated and engage in infighting. Imagine how these sociable animals feel when they are locked in cages unable to exercise search for food be part of a family socialise or build a nest for their young. 
This begs the question a moral and an ethical question for this Parliament: do we have a right to require highly intelligent animals like pigs to live miserable lives of suffering just to satisfy our desire for cheap meat especially when we can farm it perfectly well in humane free-range conditions where pigs are able to express normal patterns of behaviour? Parliament needs to consider whether it is ethical to treat animals in a way that would be considered torture if it was carried out on humans or even companion animals. Why is it a crime to keep animals such as dogs in a cage for long periods of time but perfectly acceptable to keep other animals such as pigs and hens in cages for prolonged periods? These are ethical and moral issues that this Parliament has to consider and debate when it considers my bill. We cannot have one law for companion animals and a completely different law for farm animals. Animal cruelty surely is animal cruelty whether it happens to a pig or a dog. I acknowledge that there are economic issues that we need to consider but ultimately I want my bill to be a conscience vote. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee and its chair the Hon David Parker for dealing with this bill so quickly and efficiently. The select committee reported back to the House on 10 September and recommended that the bill with amendments proceed. This was good news for the board of governors of Christ’s College and for the school itself as it cleaned up after the 4 September earthquake. 
Christ’s College which was established in 1855 is one of the oldest schools in New Zealand and has a cluster of beautiful heritage buildings in the centre of Christchurch. Luckily they have sustained only minor to moderate damage. Like many heritage buildings in Christchurch the damage has been mostly to chimneys and the gable ends of buildings. The school had done substantial earthquake strengthening in the past and the boarding houses which have been strengthened to 67 percent of the building code were undamaged. Several buildings will need further earthquake-strengthening work but that had already been planned and specialist workmen are now busy restoring some of the most intricate stone and slate work. The school is fully insured and will continue the repairs until all the buildings are restored. The boys although evacuated after the earthquake have returned to school and it is now functioning as normally as possible. 
The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 to remove difficulties in administering trust funds invested in the college. Over the past 155 years the college has received numerous bequests from various donors. The terms of some of those bequests require that the annual income generated by the funds be applied to specific purposes—for example the provision of prizes for certain subjects or sports or the provision of scholarships for pupils who meet those criteria. Accordingly the school holds the funds on trust to be applied for those specified purposes. 
However over the years the stated objects of a number of the trusts have become largely redundant. Also some of the trusts receive income that is either in excess of or insufficient for their needs. The board of governors’ submission to the select committee advised that of the 148 mostly small trusts that the board administers approximately 28 could not be administered because of changed circumstances. In the past when problems of implementation had occurred the board had engaged directly with the original donors to agree to a variation of purpose. In many cases variations had been agreed but nowadays many of the original donors have already passed away and even some of the agreed variations are in need of amendment. 
Trustees can apply to the High Court under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 to approve a new trust purpose in certain circumstances. The new trust purpose must be as close as possible to the original one. The process involves the submission of a trust variation scheme to the Attorney-General who will report on the scheme to the court. There is also a public notification and objection process. However the college would need to make a separate application to the High Court for each trust variation and the board estimates that it would cost approximately $50000 each time. That is not practical when we consider that many trusts are small. One example is the Balfour Divinity Prize which was established in 1880 with a bequest of $100 for a gold medal to be awarded to the boy who passed the best examination in divinity in the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles—in Greek! Other examples of bequests with redundant purposes include the 1919 gift to the college to provide bursaries for the sons of soldiers. They include the sons of those who had fallen or suffered as part of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force and the sons of members of various forces of the British Empire or who had served in the Great War. Another estate was left in trust to educate orphans from named Christchurch orphanages which no longer exist. Funds can now no longer be distributed from those trusts and are just accumulating to the benefit of no one. 
The select committee found that the amendment bill was generally consistent with the law related to charitable trusts and reported that the issues as described in the preamble were proved to its satisfaction. Similar problems have been identified by other organisations and have been addressed in legislation such as the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill 2009 which was recently passed in this House. The select committee suggested that the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill use the wording from the Charitable Trusts Act which has an established body of case law supporting it. It recommended that clause 5 which proposes a new subsection to vary the proposed purposes of charitable trusts in certain circumstances be rewritten. It also suggested inserting a new subsection 4A in clause 5 which would allow the governing body to use for another purpose excess income from trusts that generate more than necessary for the donated purposes. That is consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act. 
Finally the committee was not comfortable with the term “for the benefit of the college” in case the functions of the college changed over time and then trust funds could perhaps be applied to non-charitable purposes. The committee therefore recommended amending new section 5(3) in clause 5 to require that trust funds be used for charitable purposes and that new section 5(4B) require that any new purpose be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given. 
The board of governors has always made it clear that the college wishes to and as a trustee must ensure that to the fullest extent possible the objects of the trust continue to be met and that the board’s approach to any variation of purpose would be as sympathetic to and consistent with the original purpose as possible. The board of governors has also assured the select committee that before exercising this power to vary the original purpose it will complete a detailed review of the trust to ensure that the original purposes cannot continue to be met fully. 
Again I thank the select committee for its thorough and thoughtful work. The bill as amended will solve the problems of dealing with numerous small trusts administered by the college. It contains enough checks and balances to protect those trusts and the Attorney-General still maintains his role as the protector of charities. He will still have general oversight and will be able to inquire into the trusts if he believes that the trustees at any stage overstep their powers. The committee has done an excellent job in reshaping this bill. It is good legislation and I commend it to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to support the second reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and to note firstly how important it is that Christ’s College one of the great important façades and institutions of my electorate of Christchurch Central has come through the quake with only modest damage. It is important to know that an institution like that is up and operating. That is important for Parliament and for the nation to know. Of course even though Christ’s College has had some earthquake strengthening that was no guarantee that it would come through a force 7.1 quake. 
I note that the Catholic Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament which has had $700000 spent on it in the last 3 or 4 years is still closed and may be closed for another year. Many other churches in particular and other buildings across our city centre have suffered much worse than Christ’s College has. 
Christ’s College is an independent school finely led by the headmaster Simon Leese. The purpose of this bill is to acknowledge that changes are required to the trusts that have been supporting the college from its founding days in the 19th century. There have been changes in the nature of those trusts and this bill acknowledges that. This bill is parallel to another bill that I brought through the House last year for the Methodist Church which is also headquartered in the Christchurch Central electorate and which similarly faced trusts that were out of date. The process to take change through the High Court was enormously difficult complex and expensive. This bill seeks to assist that issue. 
We the Labour Opposition support this bill but I note that through the course of the Government Administration Committee process changes were made and those changes were quite important. They were on the issue of what the college’s trustees were able to do in introducing new purposes for a trust. There were concerns about that; we wanted to ensure that those purposes would still be charitable purposes. I understand that those changes are recognised and accepted by the Christ’s College Board of Trustees; that is appropriate and was in the legal advice to them. That issue reflects similar concerns about the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. It is a very important principle that when a trust is established albeit that could have been a century ago or thereabouts the people setting up that trust have very clear intent about what they want it used for. Although we as a Parliament want to change a trust’s purpose where it is no longer appropriate at all we do want to generally ensure that the moneys still are directed towards the kind of intent that the people who founded the trusts envisaged a considerable number of decades ago. 
So the Labour Opposition supports the second reading of the bill and its progress through Parliament. Thank you. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill which was brought to the House by MP Nicky Wagner has had a thorough scrutiny in the Government Administration Committee. I commend my colleagues in that select committee because we gave this bill the scrutiny it needed. 
I will tell members why I felt the bill needed a bit of scrutiny. A number of years ago over a period of years families throughout Canterbury South Canterbury North Canterbury and indeed the length and breadth of New Zealand made bequests to Christ’s College traversing matters such as scholarships for tutelage for sons and grandsons of soldiers and for the purposes of a sporting activity such as fives. A number of trusts were set up and kind donations were made into those trusts but over the years the funds are no longer needed the activity is no longer appropriate or the sport is no longer played. 
So the proprietors of Christ’s College found themselves in the position of holding on to sums of money for which they had no good purpose. As they told us in the select committee the sums of money served no use. There is no use having funds accumulating in various accounts for which there is no purpose so the select committee looked at the provisions of the bill. 
There are a number of precedents for the circumstances surrounding this bill: the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act was recently passed in this House and dealt with the same problem of funds given by bequest for a purpose that no longer exists. There is also the Anglican Church Trusts Act 1981 the Presbyterian Church Property Act 1996 and the Roman Catholic Bishops Empowering Act 1997. So we can see that this is not an uncommon problem and it was one that we were happy to deal with. 
I must credit Nicky Wagner MP for bringing this bill to the House and providing such a good link. I think it is really important for a good local MP to provide a good link between the promoters of a bill and the select committee—and indeed this Parliament. Nicky Wagner has done a particularly good job in this instance in keeping the connections going between the promoters and Parliament. 
This bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. Members can see without even my comments prefacing this part of my speech that the legislation is well and truly out of date. What the bill seeks to do—and I think we have achieved this in the select committee—is to remove difficulties in administering trusts and property that have been invested in the college. 
The select committee needed—and wished—to tighten up a couple of the aspects of the bill as it was presented to us by the promoters. We recommended replacing the wording in the original bill as presented to the House with words from the Charitable Trusts Act. It was felt that aligning the words of that Act with those in this bill provided certainty to the intention set out in this bill. I think the promoters accepted the suggestion of the select committee to do that and were very happy to have those words put in. 
Another concern raised by members of the select committee was that the wording in the bill was a little bit loose. Some of the sums of money sitting in redundant trusts were intended for the benefit of the college yet if we go back to each individual trust we see that some of those monies were given for quite specific purposes. So it was the select committee’s wish with the agreement of the promoters that a new purpose be as close as reasonably possible to that for which the property was given to or vested in the college. If the bequest was to advance sporting interests then it was the intention and wish of the select committee that the wording in the bill reflected that. So in time to come when the proprietors of Christ’s College decide to use a bequest fund it will be for a purpose as close as possible to that which was intended in the first place. 
I was particularly happy as a committee member to see the tightening up of the wording in the bill. We did not want to see a bequest made many years ago by the family of a fallen soldier to go to something quite unrelated to that bequest because maybe the family would not have liked that. In a bequest associated with the family of a soldier or soldiers—because a number of boys of course of Christ’s College fought for our country—I felt that we needed to keep the purpose as close as possible to the original intent. 
The bill as returned to the House for its second reading keeps the spirit of the bill introduced to the House by the promoters of the bill and indeed by Nicky Wagner who brought it before us. We have also managed through the select committee process to keep the spirit of bequests as close as possible to the original intention of those people who made the bequests. With those words I commend this bill to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I beg your indulgence Mr Assistant Speaker Roy at the start of my contribution and say that on behalf of all members of the House who reside south of the Bombay Hills we wish you all the best for tomorrow evening in Invercargill. I think I can speak on behalf of most members. [ 
Interruption 
] There may be a few noises from north of the Bombay Hills but I hope that things work out well in Invercargill. 
Paul Quinn 
: Until Wellington goes down. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right; that is precisely the point. Mr Quinn has totally blown my cover. Here I am congratulating the member for Invercargill and Paul Quinn blows my cover. I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker this week you can hang on but after that we want the shield back. 
It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. The bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee and the member who has just resumed her seat Jacqui Dean reflected on the discussions that took place at the committee. I think it was a good example of a private bill coming to the House. Generally speaking I think most members think that is fine—the particular organisation needs to be able to do what it needs to do to continue to operate and we should just let the bill go through and it will be fine. However I think that what the select committee process drew out was the importance of select committee scrutiny. This is not a bad mark on Christ’s College at all. The college governors have been entirely cooperative with the committee but I think it draws out the importance of every bill getting the scrutiny it needs in this House and not bypassing the process and thinking it does not matter. This certainly was a situation where the select committee I believe has added significant value and has ensured some consistency and— 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s a great select committee. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well it is a great select committee and it is chaired by the Hon David Parker. Mr Gilmore— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Who’s the deputy chair? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The deputy chair is Jacqui Dean. While we are at it let us name all the members—there are not that many. On this side of the House we are very proud of our chair David Parker. He led the Government Administration Committee through its often trying and difficult work programme so that it was able to come up with a good result with this bill. 
I want to pick up on what Jacqui Dean was saying about the fact that all of us on the committee understood what the preamble of the bill means. For many organisations including Christ’s College when they are dealing with trusts that are based in the past and with bequests that are from long ago it is difficult for them to be always able to continue the exact purposes of those bequests and trusts. We understand that the administrative burden that can fall on organisations when they want to vary a trust can be very hard. A school has education purposes and it would like to see as much money as possible go directly to that; it is certainly not in our interests to put a further administrative burden on those organisations. We can understand why Christ’s College instigated the bill and why it wants the changes to be made. 
Having said that I point out that when the committee came to analyse the bill a number of concerns were raised about the exact wording. Again other speakers have referred to this. Firstly it is a question of any inconsistency between the wording here and the wording in the Charitable Trusts Act. The Charitable Trusts Act does try to operate across a range of very different trusts but the point is that charitable purposes are what should lie behind any situation where the Act comes into play. Therefore the committee recommended changing the language so that it is consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act and the board of governors at Christ’s College was happy to go along with that. 
Another area where the committee wanted an amendment was to allow the governing body to use for another purpose excess income from the trusts that generate more than is necessary for their donated purpose. We were comfortable that this was consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act but we needed to make sure that the language was correct. 
The area that I think concerned the committee the most as Jacqui Dean alluded to was the more general language about being able to extend a new purpose for the trust for the benefit of the college generally. Again this is no black mark on the college itself; it was merely trying to create an environment in which it felt it could manage the bequests and the trusts in a way that was beneficial to the college. But we felt that it could spread things too far particularly around the notion that perhaps the college may be undertaking activities that are not for educational purposes. They may be doing different kinds of activities that support the wider purposes of the college and the board of governors. We wanted to be able to keep some kind of management that was close to the idea of a charitable purpose. That is why we have inserted an amendment that requires trust properties to be used for charitable purposes. This is an area where it would have been easy for the committee to simply let that pass but we wanted to make sure that these trusts are used as closely as possible for the purposes for which they were originally put forward. 
So following on from that the committee is also inserting a requirement for the purpose of the trust to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given. I do think that is important. Jacqui Dean has alluded to cases involving soldiers who died in the war where money came from their families and to trying to make sure there is a way of reflecting that. More broadly we want to make sure that particularly the educational purposes of these trusts are kept in mind. 
On this side of the House we are obviously acutely aware that one of our former members Dr Michael Cullen has in this House expressed his gratitude to some people who helped him get his scholarship into Christ’s College. Perhaps he did not express his gratitude in a way that noted just how grateful he was but he certainly did note the people who had paid for his education through Christ’s College. There was a scholarship that had a particular purpose to allow someone like Michael Cullen who would not otherwise have been able to afford to attend Christ’s College to be able to be there and what great benefit the country has had from that scholarship. I am sure those farmers in the South Canterbury area whom he alluded to are very pleased they were able to put him through Christ’s College. It is an important example of the fact that there are a lot of different trusts and scholarships go through Christ’s College and it is obviously important that in the future if there is a need to make change Christ’s College will make that change and it will be as close as possible to the purposes of the original trust. 
We are happy to support the bill with those amendments. We think that this has been a good exercise in drawing the attention of the select committee and the House to the fact that we will need to amend private bills from time to time to ensure there is consistency. The governors of Christ’s College have been helpful and have worked with the committee to ensure that we now have a workable situation whereby they can deal with trusts and the property of those trusts and can make changes but that when they do make those changes it will be done for charitable purposes. Any changes will ensure that the property is used for a purpose that is as close as reasonably possible to the original giving of that trust. For all those reasons the Labour Party is very happy to support the second reading of this bill. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I will start as others have today with a mihi to the whanau hapu and iwi of Sir Archie Taiaroa of Te Ati Haunui-a-Paparangi Ngati Tuwharetoa Ngati Apa Ngati Wairiki and other iwi and to the whanau whanui of Hauraki for the loss of Jim Nicholls who was one of the rangatira of the area in which I live. I recognise those rangatira. What they have brought to this nation is very important to the Green Party. 
I turn my attention to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to change the trust deed of Christ’s College. It is reasonably innocuous. It hardly caused a flood of submissions; in fact there was only one I believe which was from the college itself. The Green Party voted against the bill at its first reading because we thought the manner of amending the trust deed lacked the checks and balances that other legislation involving trust deeds has upheld. However the Government Administration Committee recommended that some changes be made to the wording particularly in relation to new trust purposes. It is important to us that resources created for charitable purposes can be modernised without losing the overarching charitable purpose. We are in favour of the clauses amended as a result of the select committee’s work notably new section 5(3) inserted by clause 5 which requires that trust property be used for charitable purposes. I think it has been quite well explored. 
As we understand it some major issues have been addressed so the Green Party is happy to change its vote. That is why the select committee process is valuable. It allows us to do such things and to hear in depth the detail of legislation that can be improved. Then we can review whether we are voting the right way. Select committees provide an opportunity to improve badly drafted legislation and bring it into line with best practice. We all put together bills in haste and it is great when they are brought into line with best practice. 
We are pleased to see that the select committee reported issues about the circumstances in which charitable trusts can be varied and a new trust purpose begun. We are pleased that these changes have been accepted by the instigators of the bill. We still have some concerns about the lack of independent oversight of the trust changes such as churches have had in their deeds when that legislation came through the House. But we recognise that if we want to we can make suggestions by way of an amendment during the Committee stage of the bill. 
We are pleased to be able to support this member’s bill now that it has been tidied up without losing its original intent. We have no problem with varying trust deeds if they are done properly and we will continue to seek improvement. As a smaller party we cannot be on the all the select committees but we deeply value their work when they are able to improve a bill. 
As the education spokesperson for the Greens I am much more concerned about the resourcing and development of the public school system and kura kaupapa for the benefit of all than I am about some of the wealthier schools in the country. I am deeply concerned about national standards public-private partnerships and special education in the public system. 
However we are focusing on the Christ’s College bill and the Green Party is happy to say that it can support it at the second reading debate. We look forward to the Committee stage as an opportunity to introduce amendments if we think they are needed. We recognise the effort that the member Nicky Wagner and the select committee have put in to improving this bill. Kia ora koutou. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I come to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill today as the MP for Te Tai Tonga recognising the changed context between when this bill came before the Government Administration Committee and this point the second reading. Between then and now—this will be news to members—a massive earthquake struck which caused damage to the older buildings of this high school. 
Grant Robertson 
: Really? Why didn’t anyone tell us? 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Look it is just completely missing from the media. I am sorry but it has happened! Christ’s College is one of New Zealand’s oldest schools being over 160 years old and it was clearly distressing to witness the damage that happened when the chimneys tumbled down into the dining hall below. But like so many communities and families affected by the quake it is not the damage to the bricks and mortar than have stood out in the response to this natural crisis. The spirit of generosity indeed the expression of manaakitanga has been very humbling to observe. I make reference to the support that Christ’s College has offered for example to ULearn. It has opened additional classrooms to ULearn in order to replace the old Cranmer Centre which is now no longer able to be used. 
The ability of Christ’s College to think outside itself and adapt to circumstances is actually at the foundation of this bill which is being presented for debate by the local member Nicky Wagner. Specifically this legislation enables the trustees to change the purposes of the original trusts. The change is required to remove difficulties in administering trusts vested in Christ’s College that can no longer be applied in accordance with the original intentions of donors. There is however a commitment that trust property should still be applied for educational and charitable purposes or near enough to that. But just as Christ’s College opened its gates to consider the needs of ULearn during the aftermath of the earthquake in this bill the college has recognised that the purposes and intentions of donors in the earlier days are no longer relevant to modern times. As Nicky Wagner has pointed out outdated bequests to left-handed rifle shooters sons of World War I and II soldiers and pupils from orphanages really no longer fit the times just as the prizes for sporting events that are no longer run and subjects that are no longer taught no longer fit the times. 
The bill allows trustees to vary the purposes of charitable trusts in certain circumstances. It will also allow the governing body to use for another purpose any excess income from trusts that generate more than is necessary for their donated purposes. That is consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act. The college’s board of governors has assured Parliament that before exercising the power to vary the original purpose of a trust it will complete a detailed review of the trust to ensure for the avoidance of doubt that the original purposes cannot continue to be met fully. 
The Maori Party is happy to support the college in updating the framework upon which its bequests and assets have been given over the years. This bill modifies the 1910 Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act seeking a law change that will enable the school to use the funds it has been privileged to receive in a way that is appropriate for this century rather than the last. We have read the advice of the Government Administration Committee on the bill and we are happy to extend our support for the further progress of a bill that is very much along the lines of providing a necessary and useful update. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 Unlike some families in seven generations there has never been a Gilmore to have blessed the grounds of Christ’s College as a student and I suspect that in the next seven generations there probably will not be one either. I think that in the 160-year history of Christchurch Christ’s College has represented all the things that are good and bad in Christchurch. In my own little world I attended a school on the other side of town called Shirley Boys High School. We had constant battles against Christ’s College on the rugby field and occasionally on the cricket field. 
It gives me great pleasure to stand here today and support the further progression through this House of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. Christ’s College has an enviable reputation in Canterbury and in New Zealand and this bill will help to enhance that. I just heard someone say jokingly before that left-handed rifle shooters will no longer receive scholarships. As a left-handed shooter I am a bit devastated by that I must say! I believe this bill puts into place in the legislation a tidy-up and a change of intention that I believe the people who made those bequests would be very happy about. 
I have had the pleasure of working on similar bills to this one that have been before this House—in particular the tidying-up of similar trusts relating to Anglican and Catholic societies which had large numbers of trusts with small amounts of money. This bill in a very similar way goes towards tidying up uncertainties that may exist and applying them to things that make sense. It was good to see the Government Administration Committee put forward some of those tidy-up changes with regard to the Charitable Trusts Act. The same problems existed with regard to the Anglican and Catholic bills that came before the House. 
It is also good that this bill has been brought to the House by the wonderful member Nicky Wagner who I know has spent many years living in the area close to Christ’s College. The land and the issues around the college have been very close to her heart. 
I will share a little story about Christ’s College that I remember vividly. I had the misfortune of playing a game of cricket there a number of years ago. It was a two-innings game. In the first innings I was out first ball which was very embarrassing. But I had the very great fortune— 
Hon Member 
: No kidding. 
AARON GILMORE 
: Yes that was very embarrassing but in the second innings of the game I managed to get 100 not out. I always remember that story about Christ’s College and remember what a great school it is. The person who bowled me out with the first ball ended up playing cricket for New Zealand and he was one of the great players from Christ’s College. The reason I did not get out in the second innings was that he tore a ligament and could not bowl in that innings so I was very happy about that. 
Now I have a 7-year-old son. We constantly drive past Christ’s College and he always calls it the Harry Potter school. Some members may know the grand hall that exists in Christ’s College. It is very similar to the grand hall that is used in the Harry Potter 
movies. The fact that it survived the earthquake which Rahui mentioned earlier on is an interesting example of how great that school is and of how well it was built. 
The funds discussed in this bill could be applied to the school in future to send students there to get the benefit of the great education that the school provides. I look forward to more good students coming out of that school. It has been pointed out that Dr Michael Cullen was an ex-pupil as was Robbie Deans one of the great Cantabrians who has been lent to Australia to basically ruin his career and blot his copybook before he comes back and takes the Canterbury Crusaders to another Super 15 title which is what I think will happen. 
One of the interesting things about the bequests and changes is that a number of very wealthy former students of Christ’s College have not been touched on. They may be able to donate their own funds in future to this school or to some of the trusts. There are people like Bill Hamilton the founder of HamiltonJet. He was one of New Zealand’s great business people. That gentleman was an former pupil and he did a lot of good things not just for the school but also for the community of Christchurch and New Zealand. Another great former pupil of the school is Sam Neill a famous New Zealand actor. I suspect that he will also donate handsomely to the school and maybe even to some of the trusts and organisations. That may occur with these changes. The school has had some other great former pupils like Sir Charles Upham New Zealand’s only VC & Bar. The spectrum of politics sport and business shows us of the breadth of students who have come from this fine institution. 
This bill in terms of where we are in its second reading goes only to help enhance the quality of students in the future and not just so that we may have left-handed shooters or the situation where one scholarship was awarded to the person who came second in the under-15 hurdles as Mrs Wagner just informed me. I say good on the person who had that scholarship put into an enactment but this legislation’s tidy-up will mean that many other students will benefit from it for many years to come. I think that is a good thing. Thank you very much. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is always privilege to follow a speaker as eloquent as Mr Gilmore. I reassure him despite what he may think that the college was not named after him. However I was impressed at the way in which he managed to work Harry Potter into his speech. I want to recap on what a good job the Government Administration Committee did on this bill— 
Grant Robertson 
: Great committee. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The all-powerful Government Administration Committee is chaired by the Hon David Parker who did a sterling job. The committee is very ably deputy chaired by Jacqui Dean from the National Party and she is accompanied by Mr John Hayes who is always a beacon of light and hope. He is a bit like the Waldorf to Allan Peachey’s Statler; he always brings joy to the room whenever he arrives at the Government Administration Committee. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: That was actually funny. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I thought it was quite good. I enjoyed the hearings on this bill. The Government Administration Committee took it very seriously as we do all of the legislation referred to us. Not very much gets referred to the all-powerful Government Administration Committee and it is always a privilege to have a piece of legislation that we can actually do something with. 
We raised a number of concerns throughout the hearings on this legislation. The first concern was whether there was any justification for the wording in the bill being different from the wording in the Charitable Trusts Act. I put that question to the college. The college lawyers who appeared before the committee several times could not really give us a good quality reason why it needed to be different from the Charitable Trusts Act. They had drafted the bill in such a way that it did not link to what the Charitable Trusts Act said and I thought there may have been a reason for that. They were unable to give us that reason so we thought that in terms of the legal situation it was probably safer to go back to the wording of the Charitable Trusts Act so that if at any point there is a dispute about what this bill is intended to achieve the courts will have a body of case law already there. There is a strong body of law already around the Charitable Trusts Act and we wanted to make sure that that was not overridden simply by the minor wording changes that the original draft of the bill contained. 
The committee also recommended inserting a new section to allow the governing body to use for another purpose excess income from trusts that generate more than is necessary for the donated purpose. I think that is quite important and it is consistent with the provisions in the Charitable Trusts Act. We saw no reason why those trusts should continue to grow unnecessarily simply because the purpose does not require the amount of money that trusts are able to generate so that was a fairly pragmatic and sensible thing to do. 
The committee was concerned about what some of the more redundant trusts involved and whether it would be fair to say they were redundant and we had robust discussions with the college about this. One trust that was listed in the schedules we were given by the college related to providing financial support to a student experiencing hardship. The committee put some pretty tough questions to the college as to why it needed to change that trust deed. To this day I do not believe that the college could seriously put its hand on its heart and say that there are no students experiencing financial difficulties and therefore it could not dispense that money somehow. The college gave us a variety of reasons and in the end after we had quite a long discussion about it I was satisfied that there was justification for rearranging the trust as part of the wider rearrangement of the trusts it is doing. 
We were concerned that the bill as introduced was too general in describing a purpose for a trust as for the benefit of the college. “For the benefit of the college” could have included renovating the grand hall that Aaron Gilmore talked about before and which he likened to the grand hall in the Harry Potter books. We thought that although that would certainly be for the benefit of the college it would probably be inconsistent with what the money was gifted to the college for in the first place. We wanted to make sure that it was for charitable purposes not simply for the benefit of the college and that was one of the changes we made by inserting a requirement for trust property to be used for charitable purposes. Again I think that was a fairly sensible amendment. 
The committee also recommended inserting a requirement for a new purpose of a trust so that it is to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given. In the case of the example I mentioned before—supporting students who might otherwise be in financial hardship—if there were reasons why the trust as it stood could not practically be used for that purpose we wanted to make sure that it was applied in such a way that it was as close as possible to that purpose. For example it could be that a number of very small trust funds could be grouped together and a common purpose found for them that was as consistent as possible with the original trust funds but accumulating a more substantial sum of money so that it could be a more meaningful grant and so on. I think that is very sensible. We did not want the college to be able to simply say “Well we don’t think this is important any more so we’re going to focus on our priorities.” potentially against the wishes of the people who had donated the money. 
I think it is really important when we are talking about bequests and donations that we show good faith towards the people who make those kinds of donations and bequests. I think that if we create a situation whereby somebody cannot be certain when giving money to any kind of trust that it will be applied to the purpose that they wish it to be they will be more reluctant to do so. We need to tread very carefully to ensure that we do not create a precedent that allows a college such as Christ’s College to apply the funds in such a way that was never intended by the donor. 
We did look at the Anglican Presbyterian Catholic and Methodist Churches and at the way in which they had brought similar legislation before the House. We modelled a lot of our discussion around the provisions in that legislation to ensure that it was consistent. I will be interested to look at the Supplementary Order Paper that the Greens will put forward. I understand that they want to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that strengthens some of the checks and balances in a similar sort of way as the Methodist Church of Australasia in New Zealand Act does. At the moment the bill even as reported from the select committee does not contain quite as fulsome a checks and balance process as the legislation regarding the Methodist Church does. 
Generally speaking the Labour Party is comfortable with this bill. We put some pretty tough questions to the college during the course of the hearings on the bill. I was pretty comfortable that the college answered the concerns and the questions we raised. I acknowledge Nicky Wagner. She sat through all of the committee’s deliberations on this legislation. It was a test of stamina and I was impressed that she had the perseverance. I acknowledge her contribution and that of the other committee members. Overall it is good legislation and I commend it to the House. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is interesting that I have been given an opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I am not from Christchurch and I am certainly not an old boy of Christ’s College. In fact my schooling probably could not be any more different from what one would have had at Christ’s College. Ruapehu College is a long way from the august historic grounds of Christ’s College. In fact I suspect that for the first time ever Ruapehu College and Christ’s College have been mentioned in the same sentence—and it happened in this Parliament. There are certainly no Ruapehu College amendment bills on the books that I am aware of. I doubt whether I will ever have the privilege unlike my fine colleague Nicky Wagner of bringing such a bill to the House. 
Perhaps the most enjoyable part of the debate this afternoon has been hearing of Mr Gilmore’s experiences of playing cricket on the hallowed green grounds of Christ’s College and noting that he made a duck. I once made a duck in an interschool cricket match. It was against Taihape College. I remember it well. It was 45 years ago and it was my first game as the captain of the Ruapehu College first eleven. 
Grant Robertson 
: There were only 10 players. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: We always struggled to have 11 players; I can tell Mr Robertson that I think my sister filled in. I remember it well. We arrived at the ground in Taihape and the first thing we had to do was clear the sheep off the paddock. It was on a school day so classes were in. We had to mop up the droppings mark our own wicket get changed behind the tree and proceed to play the game. But it was very character-building I am bound to say. 
This is a very simple bill. It amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 to remove difficulties in administering property vested in the college. I suppose we could say it is legislation for pulling things into the 21st century. I have been very impressed during the debate by all the great talk of the Government Administration Committee—is that what it is called? 
Grant Robertson 
: That’s right. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I had never heard of it before. But clearly it plays a very important role in this Parliament because it gives Chris Hipkins something to do. It gives the young man some purpose in life so all credit for that to Nicky Wagner. I commend the committee for tightening up the provisions of the proposed bill and for calling on the wording of the Charities Act. I think it shows the value of having a committee like that and of the select committee process generally. 
I conclude my brief remarks by paying tribute to the member whose name this bill is in. Nicky Wagner is a very fine representative of Christchurch. She works very hard for the people of Christchurch. I have spent time with her in central Christchurch and know how widely recognised and appreciated is the work that she has done. It is to Nicky Wagner’s credit that the bill has come for its second reading. In the great tradition of Ruapehu College I wish Christ’s College well and commend the bill to the House. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak during this second reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and I must pay my respects to all those who have spoken before me. I also recognise those families in North Canterbury which is the bottom end of the Kaikoura electorate who still—to this very day—seek out such colleges to send their children to. No doubt they include families whose bequests have brought about the situation we are now confronted with with regard to this particular bill. I also thank the Government Administration Committee members for their diligence and there is no doubt that their advice which was taken and applied to new section 5(4) inserted by clause 5 of this legislation is very appropriate. If we just turn our minds back to clause 4 earlier in the legislation about the purpose we understand just how important it is to tie in things in a seemly way and I am quite confident that the integrity of the trustees principal and teachers at Christ’s College will ensure that. One has to marvel at the strength of the old boys’ network that emanates out of Christ’s College. No doubt there will be a very strong connection with families to ensure that the provisions of this particular bill will not be abused. 
When one thinks about the time that Christ’s College has been in existence one might think that some 100000 pupils had gone through that college but in fact about 13000 pupils have gone through. Today there are some 660 students at that college: 220 boarders who live there and no doubt travel from all over the country to get there and 440 day boys as they are described. As a college it certainly measures up well with regard to any other schools throughout the country. The school is a product of the Anglican settlement of Canterbury in the 1850s and in fact when we look around the Parliament building that we have here today we see that the college dates from the very beginning of our democracy. So there is great history in Christ’s College and it is one that we are particularly proud of. 
When we look at the structure of the philanthropy that has been displayed towards Christ’s College we understand that the solution we are dealing with here will be sensible and pragmatic. There are 28 trusts. If we consider the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 we find a provision there to seek a variation from the original trust deed but that would require trustees to go to the High Court for that approval not just once for all the 28 trusts but for each variation to each trust deed. One would be required effectively to seek 28 High Court decisions to get the changes that are necessary. It is with great pleasure that I see Dr Hutchison arriving and on that basis I have great passion and enthusiasm for the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill to proceed. Thank you very much. 
Bill read a second time. 
Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I firstly pay tribute to my colleague Colin King for making an excellent speech in his last contribution. He certainly saved my skin. I note that the Local Government and Environment Committee has advised against passing this bill due to the restructure of the councils in the Auckland region. It is not often that a bill such as this is enthusiastically and unanimously supported in Parliament in its first reading but due to a twist of circumstances is likely to be voted down today. 
Grant Robertson 
: No reflection on the member. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: There is no reflection whatsoever. The purpose of the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill is to amend the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and the Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000 to ensure that the levies for the museums are calculated only on the basis of the population of the Franklin District that is contained within the boundaries of the Auckland region and not that contained within the boundaries of the Waikato region. 
Undoubtedly this bill was initiated to right a wrong whereby people living in that area were inappropriately being given a double levy—firstly from the Auckland museums and secondly from Environment Waikato. In other words it was a double whammy. Those people are very fine people; they come from a wonderful part of New Zealand: Glen Murray Port Waikato Limestone Downs Onewhero and the Waikaretu Valley. They are all magnificent parts of our fine country and it is indeed right and proper that this anomaly is righted. 
It is also interesting to note that the Franklin District Council by land mass is two-thirds in the Waikato area but by population two-thirds live across the river in the Auckland area. 
The main provision of the bill amends both Acts by inserting a new definition of “district”. Clauses 5 and 7 insert into both Acts the following definition of “district”: “district in relation to the Franklin District Council excludes any part of the district of the Council that is not within the boundaries of the region of the Auckland Regional Council.” 
In terms of background as I said before this bill was to right an anomaly. I must emphasise that both of those two museums—the Museum of Transport and Technology and the Auckland War Memorial Museum—are iconic institutions and deserve support but those living in the Waikato part of the Franklin District were perhaps being unfairly treated. The computation of the levies is based on the population living in the Auckland region. 
In terms of the Auckland governance reforms the Local Government and Environment Committee considered that because they were going to happen anyway the bill would be put aside until it could be sorted out. In some ways it is a bit of a shame that the bill did not go straight through because as I said it was enthusiastically and unanimously embraced by this House. I think there were certainly a lot of unknowns about how long it would take to put the royal commission’s recommendations into law and as we all know the new Auckland Council will come into being on 1 November of this year. 
I remind the Opposition that it was really interesting when Phil Twyford and a team from Labour came to Pukekohe and pointed out that they supported splitting Franklin at the river as was recommended by the royal commission. 
The provisions in the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 make the intent of this bill redundant because the Act repeals the definition of contributing authorities and replaces it with a definition of Auckland Council. This means that from 1 November the boards of the two museums may levy the Auckland Council only for 2011 and subsequent years. Those levies will be subject to maximum values calculated on the basis of capital value and population within the territory of the new Auckland Council. Local authorities and ratepayers outside the boundaries of account of the Auckland region cannot be liable for those levies. 
It is important to point out that the Franklin District Council acknowledges that the intent of the bill is met by the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act. However it had interpreted that the relevant provisions would come into effect on 1 July rather than 1 November. Therefore the Franklin District Council had not raised the necessary levies from properties within the Environment Waikato part of its district from 1 July this year. The council told the committee that as a result there will be a deficit of approximately $280000—about $198000 for the Auckland War Memorial Museum and $82000 for the Museum of Transport and Technology—once its assets are transferred to the new Auckland Council. In a convoluted sort of way that seems a little bit equitable because at least this year people in the Waikato part were not rated. However the rates have been taken out of a reserve fund that the Franklin District Council has and that will mean that its contribution at the wash-up of the new Auckland Council will be less than it would be otherwise. 
As I mentioned the Franklin District Council requested that the committee recommend that the bill be enacted with a retrospective commencement date and then repealed when the provision in the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act came into effect. The committee was advised that the Acts pertaining to the two museums required their boards to fix the amount to be levied against each of the contributing councils for the 2010-11 financial year by 30 April. So enacting the bill with a commencement date of 1 July would therefore not resolve the matter. The committee said furthermore that it was greatly concerned that this problem has arisen and that the ratepayers and the museums could be affected but that it did not believe it was Parliament’s role to resolve the issue. It also said that retrospective legislation of this kind in a local bill could set an undesirable precedent so therefore it recommended that the bill not be passed. 
This afternoon I spoke to Sally Davis the chief executive of the Franklin District Council and she expressed her concern that the residents of Franklin have not been treated well. I think a message for the new mayor and the council of the Auckland City is that they should ensure that the rural parts of the new Auckland super-city are promoted and not forgotten. I hope that message will be supported throughout this House because the rural parts of the new Auckland region mainly composing Franklin and Rodney are about 75 percent of the land mass of the new city but will have only two representatives on the new council of 21. So it is vital that the new council supports both Franklin and Rodney and the rural sector in terms of its action over the years ahead. So thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It is appropriate that it be discharged. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am sure that the good member for Hunua Dr Paul Hutchison has represented his electorate very ably in the issue of the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill but this issue has simply been superseded. It has been superseded by the decisions made by Rodney Hide which were really about fast tracking Auckland governance. He left the great fight that the member Paul Hutchison was fighting for the good people of Hunua in the slipstream. 
Moana Mackey 
: Collateral damage. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: A bit of collateral damage; he fought the good fight well. 
When we began the process of looking at Auckland governance we began it very moderately. It began in 2006 and everybody agreed with a memorandum of the mayors of Auckland that it was a very good idea to start looking at regionalisation and the prospect of a super-city. Labour actually initiated that process. It moved along at a moderate pace with the royal commission report until the findings of the royal commission report when this Government came into office and gave the whole power to organise and reorganise the Auckland super-city to a Minister in another party. What a shambles has ensued from that time! 
I pick up on a couple of points that the member for Hunua raised. The good people of Hamilton Rodney and Franklin all enjoy the amenities of the Museum of Transport and Technology and the Auckland War Memorial Museum. When we are looking at regionalisation of iconic institutions like the Auckland War Memorial Museum we do not want to be quite so parochial about who contributes to the long-term future of the Auckland Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. 
It was Labour again that brought in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill which we all supported; I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee. National supported the legislation only in the dying hours of the election campaign. Only then did it say that it was a great idea and it would be a vote loser if National did not support it so National decided that it was all in favour of it. It certainly was not in support of it right through the select committee process until the end. National decided that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill was great and that it would keep afloat iconic institutions like the Auckland Art Gallery the Museum of Transport and Technology Coastguard Northern Region and some of the wonderful institutions of Auckland. What a great initiative that was too. For pure popular demand National decided that it would hop on board and support it. 
We are trying to encourage all regions of New Zealand to support these icons. There is a big anniversary coming up for the Auckland War Memorial Museum that I am sure all of New Zealand will enjoy. The 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Great War is not far away; the planning is all under way. 
The principle of this bill was about apportioning the amount of rates from Franklin that would have to be involved in the Auckland regional amenities legislation. It has simply been superseded and for that reason alone we are not passing this bill. 
It is interesting that I hear in the mayoralty campaigns in Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast saying that Wellington needs a regional amenities funding bill so we can work much more closely with all the outlying district councils. Those districts enjoy the benefits of some of the wonderful icons of Wellington like the International Festival of the Arts the opera and the Vector Wellington Orchestra which is under a great threat at the moment from Creative New Zealand’s reorganisation of funding lines. As a regional orchestra it is saying that it has no long-term certainty for funding at all. That is a Wellington issue. 
It is the same sort of issue that we heard in Auckland about the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra; I am sure the good member opposite has gone to enjoy the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. I am sure he does not see that it belongs only to the good people of Auckland; in fact people from the Bay of Plenty Rotorua Hamilton and Rodney all come into Auckland to enjoy these amenities and their benefits. A proportion of rates had to be fairly apportioned to the councils that came under that Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. 
I think the process under the super-city restructure for the arts and for iconic institutions like the Auckland Museum has been really poorly managed by Rodney Hide in the Auckland super-city legislation. I have been to meet the staff of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Auckland Art Gallery and they are saying that they are not really sure where they fit. They feel like third-tier organisations in the Auckland super-city and that they will actually come under an Auckland events centre. They are really worried about that generic management of great institutions like the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
Rodney Hide certainly has not got right the Auckland super-city restructuring in terms of arts and valued institutions. There will be problems. In fact there may need to be legislation when the Auckland super-city restructuring all shakes down. What impact will it really have on the Auckland Museum and on the Museum of Transport and Technology? There may need to be legislative changes that people have not even anticipated. It is definitely a shambles up in Auckland at the moment for the arts community. That is simply because of the speed with which this Government was determined with Rodney Hide in charge to get a tick in the book and get this all implemented tickety-boo by this election. 
We would have taken a much longer and more measured approach to looking at what would be the effect of this change instead of this rapid and rather hasty implementation without people having a say. I have met people in Auckland who do not even understand what district they are in in the super-city. They do not even know which ward to vote for because they have not participated or been made aware until the billboards went up which part of Auckland they belong to. The consultation with the good people of Auckland has been simply shabby. 
Labour will be opposing this bill because we agree with the Local Government and Environment Committee that it has been superseded. All the efforts in the past that caused such stress to the people of Waikato Franklin and Hunua about whether they were in or out have been superseded. They had to sit and wait then get on the streets and have a petition signed by 10 percent of the electors of each of the regions—140000 from Auckland 40000 from Waikato and 6000 from Franklin were unsure about the boundaries. These are good voters. These constituents were totally confused about the boundaries in the super-city. Now those people do not need to worry any longer apparently because this bill is not going to happen. Those people will not have to contribute to the Auckland regional amenities fund. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I commend the member for Hunua Dr Paul Hutchison for the logic reason and structure that he took in his introductory speech on the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. I contrast that with the irrelevance of the speech from the Labour list member Steve Chadwick. 
I wonder whether I can continue with the theme of my speech about Christ’s College and devote the next 5 minutes to the governance of Ruapehu College. Maybe in 5 minutes time I will have achieved my objective for the day in getting the name of my old school mentioned in  
Hansard 
 more often than that fine school in Canterbury. 
I seem to recall that I spoke in the first reading of this bill in favour of it being referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I now find myself speaking in support of the select committee’s recommendation that this bill not be passed because of the restructuring of governance in the wider Auckland area. 
The need for this bill came about in the first place because of two pieces of legislation the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and the Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000. They required the Franklin district to make a contribution on the basis of population to the running costs of both of those institutions. 
The select committee came to the view as I have said that this bill is no longer required. I note with interest and empathy Dr Hutchison’s very strong support for the area and his sense of representing his community in this House in the very best possible way. He has done that and all credit to him for it but it really is a simple matter: since this bill was introduced there has been a major restructuring of the governance of the Auckland region. 
I think the elections for the new council have started. I seem to recall that my ballot papers arrived on Monday. I will no doubt exercise my democratic right cast my vote and ensure that as many candidates as possible who identify with the left of politics in New Zealand do not get elected. I guess that was one of the great things about going to Ruapehu College—that the school was always represented in an electorate that returned a National member year after year after year. 
In conclusion I say that this bill will not be passed. There is no longer any necessity for it to be passed and I think it can now be dispatched reasonably quickly. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I want to pay tribute to the member for Hunua Dr Paul Hutchison who is coming to the end of a fine political career. He was highly regarded by the people in the Hunua district. The member for Hunua stood up—briefly—and articulated the fears and concerns of his constituents. He did it once then he was steamrollered by the National Party. Since then he has been very very quiet about how the people of Hunua feel about the super-city. This bill we are debating tonight the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill reflects the concerns and the fears that the people in that member’s electorate have about the way the National-ACT Government has shafted democracy in Auckland. 
If there is one man whom Dr Paul Hutchison has to blame for the impending finale of his political career it is Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide was set up by this Government to do its dirty work. It gave him the job of restructuring Auckland governance because it thought that he would be able to do this very dangerous high-risk job and he would attract all the political flack then when things got out of hand the Prime Minister would be able to shrug and say: “That’s just Rodney Hide not us.” But Rodney Hide’s credibility as the Minister of Local Government who is the Minister responsible for creating the Auckland super-city is so utterly tarnished and damaged not only because of what he has done to Auckland democracy but also because of a list of things as long as your arm that have destroyed the credibility of the Minister of Local Government. I am not going to detail that full list because I think the House and New Zealanders who are listening will know that he is the most damaged man in New Zealand politics. 
The consequence of the damage to Rodney Hide’s credibility has been that the Auckland reforms are completely tarnished in the eyes of Aucklanders and Rodney Hide’s political carcass is hanging around the neck of this Government. The people of Franklin—the people who asked for this bill to be brought to the House—regret it. They regret that they were dragged kicking and screaming by Rodney Hide into the Auckland super-city and the belated and rather modest attempts that Dr Paul Hutchison made to express their concerns did not make the slightest bit of difference. 
The people of Franklin like the people of Rodney and like the people right across the Auckland isthmus are disillusioned and disenchanted and there are plenty of reasons why. It is not just because they were roped into paying a certain amount every year through their rates for institutions like the Museum of Transport and Technology or the Auckland War Memorial Museum which is what this bill initially attempted to deal with; it is because they have lost their democratic voice in local government. Through the setting up of council-controlled organisations by the National-ACT Government 75 percent of local government has been corporatised. [ 
Interruption 
] The member Steven Joyce was responsible for insisting at Cabinet against the advice of Treasury and two other Government departments on corporatising transport and that is the very thing that the people of Franklin resent because it has been imposed on them. He insisted on having an undemocratic corporate model for the Transport Agency which is going to spend more than half the rates of the people of Franklin. What democratic say will they have over his corporate jack-up of a super-city? They will have very little say and that is why the people of Franklin are concerned. 
The other reason they are concerned is that they are worried they will lose their voice and that they will lose the identity of the region of Franklin in this super-city. They have good reason to be afraid because this ACT-National Government has taken away the powers of local communities. It has set up these toothless local boards which have no ability to make by-laws. Steven Joyce’s Transport Agency has the ability to make by-laws and it is run by a bunch of hand-picked corporate directors. For the people of Franklin their local board under this super-city will not even have the ability to make a by-law. They will have to get on their knees and beg the Auckland Council to make a by-law for the region of Franklin. Well how democratic is that? It is no wonder they are ticked off. 
What else are the people of Franklin concerned about? They like the majority of Aucklanders who have said this in recent opinion polls believe that their rates will go up because of the Rodney Hide - John Key super-city and we imagine that they would have good grounds for their concern about that. Rodney Hide has been going around town saying that the user charges will go down under his super-city. The cost of having one’s dog registered under the new Auckland Council will be $70. Well the people of Franklin currently pay $60 to have their dog registered. Rodney Hide is going around boasting that building inspectors will cost $110 an hour in the new Auckland super-city. Well I have news for members. In Franklin I say to Dr Hutchison people pay no more than $112 but it is often as low as $73 for a building inspector. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s a great area. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well the member will have to go a long way to convince the people of Franklin that they are getting a good deal under the super-city. 
The other thing that the people of Franklin are concerned about is their water rates. Rodney Hide has gone around for the last couple of weeks saying that— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are a long way away from museums. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The people of Franklin are concerned about the costs that they will have to pay under the super-city which is what this bill originally set out to address. It was intended to address the costs that they would pay through their rates for being part of wider Auckland. We know that it is the policy of this Government and of Citizens and Ratepayers the National Party proxy in Auckland to roll out user-pays charges for waste water. That is what people are concerned about. They are worried that their waste-water charges will go through the roof and the people in Franklin are extremely concerned about that. 
We know that recent polls tell us that a solid 50 percent of Aucklanders do not want the super-city. They do not like it; they do not trust it. Well the last poll that was done in Franklin showed that 90 percent of people I say to Dr Hutchison do not want the super-city—90 percent. That is almost twice as much as the number of people in Auckland who do not want it. I think that the member for Hunua will have a very hard job explaining to his electors how he went into bat for them and represented their democratic interests when the next election comes around. 
The other issue that really grates on people in Franklin is not only the fact that the people on the Waikato side of the old boundary had to pay a share of the contribution to the museums but also those people care about their publicly owned assets like the Ports of Auckland and they care about vital infrastructure. This Government is obviously setting up those assets to be privatised and we saw that when the third super-city bill removed the democratic right that Aucklanders have to approve it in a referendum before the Ports of Auckland can be sold off. Well this Government legislated that right away because it does not care about people having the right to make a decision about whether their assets are privatised. That is why in the local body elections that are currently going on the people of Franklin are expressing their concern. They want to vote for candidates who will save the assets from privatisation and will not flog them off to overseas owners. 
We have recently seen the kind of shonky behind-the-scenes decision-making that Aucklanders and the people of Franklin have come to fear with this super-city. We have seen this Government putting in a new computer system for the Auckland super-city which is costing $62 million and which the Government did not put out to tender. This is exactly the kind of concern that the people of Franklin have about the way their rates are being spent. It is what motivated them to ask for this bill to be brought to the House and what do we see? We see shonky mates’ rates behaviour from the hand-picked mates of National who have been put in place to run the new Auckland Council. What did they do? They let a contract for computers for $62 million without putting it out for tender. I predict that this is the kind of behaviour we will see more of. It is exactly what the people of Franklin feared. All the way along it is not only the fact that the people of Franklin have been forced to pay for these museum levies but also the people of Franklin like the people of wider Auckland were never given a say on the super-city. They were never given any choice they were not listened to and they were treated with contempt by this Government. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to join Dr Paul Hutchison in speaking to the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. We have a situation where the bill has effectively been overtaken by events that have been led by this Government in combining a number of rather fractured and dysfunctional aspects of our major city Auckland. This bill was originally introduced on 13 August 2008. As we know in November 2008 New Zealand had an election. The people of New Zealand voted in a John Key - led National Government supported by the ACT Party and National also appreciates the support we get from the Maori Party. 
However I draw members’ attention to the fractious nature of libraries and museums. Even down at the Hurunui District Council we have problems with distance and the ratings of libraries and museums. At the last local body elections down there the people of Cheviot were particularly concerned about not having access to the library in Amberley. When we stop and think of those distances we realise they are rather short but that is the nature of funding. I think one can see that originally there was a lot of merit in bringing forward this bill. 
Dr Paul Hutchison a very good member took this bill up to ensure that those historical wrongs were put right. However with the speed and the agenda of this Government in working towards having the greater Auckland City go to the local body elections to choose one mayor and one council— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: One plan. 
COLIN KING 
: —to have one agenda one plan is very important. I believe that the structure that will now affect the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology will be a better one. 
It is appropriate that the Franklin District Council wrote to the Local Government and Environment Committee and acknowledged that the bill was redundant in the sense that the events in Auckland had overtaken it. From my point of view the select committee’s recommendation is appropriate. National will vote that this bill does not proceed. On that basis I will say that the bill should not progress and I will sit down. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is an honour to follow Colin King who had such an authoritative ending to his speech. Both sides of the House agree that the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill should not proceed. Obviously as the Local Government and Environment Committee noted the bill should not proceed because the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act has superseded it. It is important to reflect on the process by which that Act came into being while reflecting on this bill because we have to set the context. 
I think it is worth noting firstly the excellent work that the select committee did on the bill. Would it not have been good if all of the legislation regarding the change to Auckland governance had found its way to a select committee? Perhaps if that had happened the people of Auckland might have had a true opportunity to be listened to. What we have seen with the change in Auckland governance is the activities of one Minister Rodney Hide—the tail wagging the dog of the National Government. Now perhaps National members might be looking across at Rodney Hide who is the Minister responsible for the legislation that superseded this bill and asking whether they want to be associated with that man. Do they really want the public of New Zealand to think that Rodney Hide is leading the strategy for the National Government for our biggest city and for the biggest change in local government in New Zealand’s history certainly since the 1989 reforms? Do they really want the National Government to be led by Rodney Hide? He is a man whose credibility has been destroyed a man who has covered up the most despicable of acts and as a Minister he now has no credibility to be leading a process that this bill has now been superseded by. National members have to ask themselves that question. Rodney Hide has clearly got it wrong in Auckland and my colleague Phil Twyford has talked about that. 
Of course there was a need for change in Auckland governance. Of course there was a need to bring together the people of the Greater Auckland region in a way that would benefit transport and those issues that cut across different parts of the city. But the way that the National Government has put forward the reforms for Auckland governance has been unacceptable. It has overridden democracy. It has put in place people who will enforce the agenda of Rodney Hide and others in vitally important organisations. 
When I look at this bill which refers in particular to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology I wonder whether part of the $62 million computer system that the Auckland super-city is putting in place might one day find itself at the Museum of Transport and Technology. When people visit the museum and look at it they will say: “Gosh $62 million. That was a lot of money to spend on a computer system. It’s unbelievable that it didn’t go out to tender.” It is absolutely incredible that a project as important as that as important for Auckland and its future did not go out to tender. Once again that is an example of the way in which the process of the Auckland governance reforms which superseded this bill have been railroaded through have not been subject to due process and in fact are a black mark on this Government. The Government needs to reconsider whether it is appropriate that those reforms continue in this way. 
One of the interesting aspects of this bill is that it cuts to the question of regional amenities. Obviously the people of Auckland and the people of Franklin have had some difficulty ironing out exactly where the boundaries lie and that is the reason why this bill came forward. I speak here as a member representing the Wellington region to say that this issue is vexing many of the councils in this area. The Wellington City Council which oversees a number of excellent facilities in the region has been looking to other councils to ask if it can sustain these facilities without the support of people in the region. As we know the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology are visited by people from the Franklin area and they are visited by people from a number of other regions nearby. The question automatically arises: what should be done about that? 
The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act was passed and it enables the Auckland region to look at things on a regional basis. As a Wellington member of Parliament I am certainly well disposed to the idea of something similar to that happening in Wellington. Obviously in Wellington we have a great deal of important artistic and cultural institutions such as Te Papa the International Festival of the Arts the National Opera the Royal New Zealand Ballet the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra the New Zealand School of Dance and the New Zealand School of Music. These are all vitally important parts of our cultural infrastructure here in the Wellington region. We need them to be sustainable because quite frankly people in Wellington will look and say that now we have this very powerful entity in Auckland will we be able to continue to hold on to these regional amenities in the Wellington region? I think the answer is that obviously we want to hold on to them and we need to make sure that the whole region can look towards cooperating on that. I look forward to the end of the local body elections when we will find out who will be representing those Wellington councils. Certainly as a Wellington MP I will want to work with them on that. 
This bill has indeed been superseded by the process that has occurred in Auckland. From Labour’s point of view that process has not been acceptable. It has not been democratic. It has shown up the Government in a very poor light. The connection with ACT leader Rodney Hide in this regard is something that the people of Franklin I am sure will remember and the people of Auckland generally will remember. Although this bill will be discharged tonight after its second reading it is fair to say that it reminds us of the stain on this Parliament of the way in which the National - ACT Government has forced on the people of Auckland a structure and a process that they have not had a proper say in. The Government lost a great opportunity to put in place a truly democratic Auckland governance structure which could have gotten over some of the problems that have bedevilled Auckland for many years but still kept a democratic process in place. That is something that Parliament needs to reflect on very seriously as this bill is discharged. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill which was brought before the House by the very hard-working National member of Parliament for Hunua Dr Paul Hutchison. I believe that he has represented his constituents very well in bringing forward this issue which is concerned with a rating anomaly. Members on the other side have gone into a variety of rants about changes to the Auckland super-city that are not relevant to this legislation. This bill arose because of a rating anomaly associated with two Acts of Parliament that allowed for levies to be raised for the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology on the basis of the population of the Franklin District. 
We have had quite a wide-ranging discussion on the super-city. It was interesting to hear Labour members criticise the Government for the decisions that were made about Franklin. I can understand that Franklin has had a period of uncertainty and now a period of change with the super-city but I want to put on record that Labour did not support Franklin’s decision to have a unitary council which was its preference. Labour is suggesting that it would have been fully behind Franklin but it was not fully behind that proposal and did not support it. In effect Pukekohe and the rest of Franklin would have been divided by the Waikato River boundary. Anyway we are not talking about the super-city; we are here to talk about the challenge the Franklin District has with funding. The hard-working Local Government and Environment Committee came to the conclusion that this problem could not be solved by Parliament. When the bill was introduced in 2008 clearly a problem existed. However times have moved on. 
This Government is very effective in getting things done in partnership with the ACT Party and the Maori Party. We are firm believers in delivering for New Zealanders and the changes in Auckland are but one example of that. In effect those changes mean we are not in a position to support this bill. There has clearly been a major restructuring of local government since its introduction. We do not believe that it is Parliament’s role to resolve the issue of the levies in this particular instance. I recognise the local member’s support encouragement and representation of his constituents. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatau. Kei te korero tatau mo tetahi pire e pa ana ki a Waikato no reira na runga i tera whakaaro me huri ki te titiro ki te ahuatanga ki a Te Po Nui a Jim Nicholls e takoto mai ra i roto o Hauraki i waenganui i tona iwi i tenei po. Apopo ka tukuna atu ki te kopu o Papatuanuku. E aroha atu ana ki a ia ko au tera i mahi nei i tana taha. Kei te takoto a ia i runga i tona marae i Mataiwhetu i roto o Thames o Hauraki. Ko ona iwi ko Ngati Maru Ngati Whanaunga Ngati Hako me ki ko Pare Hauraki a Tainui waka era e tangi ana. 
Na ko Jim te Tiamana o te Kaunihera Kaumatua o Hauraki to ratou mangai hoki i runga i te Poari Kaitiaki Maori o Hauraki tera Poari o tona iwi ka mutu ko ia te tiamana tuarua a te Kaunihera Maori o Aotearoa. No reira e tika ana i tenei wa kia timata ake waku korero hei wawahi ake i taku korero a me te poroporoaki i a ia. Kai te penei tonu au na runga i te mea ko tenei pire e hangai tonu ki a Waikato. Na reira whakaaro ake ki a ratou kua ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. Ko ia tera ana tae atu ki a Te Atawhai Taiaroa tera o nga pou o roto o Aotearoa. No reira a kati waiho ratou ki a ratou kia moe anei tatau e korero nei mo te take nei. 
I a au e whakaaro ake nei kei te rere tonu nga whakaaro mo te hunga utu reti me ki o roto o Ngati Maru Ngati Paoa Ngati Tamatera Ngai Tai me etahi atu wahi o roto o Waikato. Ko tenei pire tetahi o nga take kua roa me ki e wanangatia ana i roto i nga Kawanatanga i nga tau kua hipa. E ai ki taku e mohio nei ko te Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill i tae mai i timata mai ai i te 13 o Here-turi-koka ara o Akuhata i te tau 2008 a ka mutu ka tukuna ki te komiti whaiti ara ki te select committee i te 4 o Poutu-te-rangi Maehe i te tau 2009. E ai ki taku e mohio nei e rua nga wahanga o te pire nei me ki ko tera e pa ana ki te Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 
i te tau 1996 me te Whare Taonga the Museum of Transport and Technology Act i te tau 
2000 
.  
Ko te tikanga o tenei me ki rawekeweke i tenei pire me ki ko te ata whakatau i te utu mo nga whare taonga me ki kia kautehia na runga i te tokomaha o te tangata e noho mai ra i roto o Franklin 
 
 otira te hunga kai roto i te rohe o Tamaki-makau-rau kaua ko ratou kei roto o Waikato. 
Engari i a au e korero ana ki aku hoa ki a Hone Harawira ki a Pita Sharples i puta te maramatanga ka mutu ko tenei take e hangai tonu ana ki a Waikato me ki kua whakaara ake a Waikato i tenei take etahi o nga iwi nga tangata o Waikato i tenei take o roto i tenei pire. No reira he pai tenei kia tae mai enei momo pire me nga tono a tena a tena a tena a tena. Ka mohio tonu te Paremata ae he take nui tera kai roto i te hapori. No reira anei ano tetahi huarahi hei whakaara ake i te iwi i o ratou whakaaro. Me ki he mama noa iho te tikanga o tenei pire he mea hai whakatau i nga moni ka utua ki te Franklin District Council 
ki te Auckland War Memorial Museum 
me te Museum of Transport and Technology 
. 
 Kai reira tonu tetahi wahanga o te Rohe o Franklin 
.  
He uaua te whakamarama ake tenei take i roto i te reo Maori no reira tera pea me huri ki te reo Pakeha mo te wa poto. 
[ 
Greetings to us Mr Assistant Speaker. We are addressing this bill that relates to Waikato and because of that I turn to look at the situation concerning Te Po Nui Jim Nicholls lying in state tonight in Hauraki among his people. He will be buried in the womb of mother Earth tomorrow. I sympathise as I have worked with him. He lies upon his marae at Mataiwhetu in Thames and Hauraki. His tribes are Ngati Maru Ngati Whanaunga Ngati Hako of the Hauraki Gulf and of the Tainui canoe. They are grieving there.  
Jim was the chairman of the Council of Elders of Hauraki their representative on the Hauraki Maori Trust Board his people’s board and deputy chair of the New Zealand Maori Council. So it is fitting at this time that I preface my address by bidding him farewell. I have done this because this bill relates directly to Waikato. My thoughts are therefore with those who are no longer to be seen including Te Atawhai Taiaroa one of the pillars in New Zealand. So enough leave them to rest there as we debate this matter. 
As I ponder here my thoughts immediately go to the ratepayers of Ngati Maru Ngati Paoa Ngati Tamatera Ngai Tai and of other places in Waikato. This is one of those bills that have been the subject of prolonged discussions within Governments over past years. According to what I know the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill arrived on 13 August 2008 and was referred to a select committee on 4 March 2009. I understand there are two parts to this bill. One refers to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and the other to the Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000. It was to amend this legislation so that specific contributions could be made for the museums based on the population of people residing in Franklin particularly those in the Auckland region but excluding the ones in Waikato.  
But it was while I was discussing this with fellow colleagues Hone Harawira and the Hon Dr Pita Sharples that I realised that this matter did indeed relate to Waikato because some of them raised this issue in this bill. So it is good that these kinds of bills come here with submissions from different individuals. Parliament will then know that yes that is an important issue in the community. So here is another way for people to express their views. This bill is simply the instrument whereby contributions are determined from the Franklin District Council to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. One part of the Franklin District is still there but it is difficult to explain in Maori so I will turn to English for a short time. 
] 
As others have said—and it is a bit difficult to explain clearly in Maori—the bill seeks to ensure that in calculating the levies payable by the Franklin District Council to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology any part of the district of the Franklyn District Council that is not within the boundaries of the Auckland Regional Council is excluded.  
My colleagues have told me of the frustration that many Franklin citizens shared with them as to why their hard-earned rates should go into Auckland facilities that do not have any direct relationship to their community. We noted the view of the North Shore City Council that this issue should be dealt with as a part of the Government’s comprehensive governance reform process for Auckland. At this stage of the reform process it sees no reason to have interim or separate measures enacted. That might be all very well on paper but the Maori Party has no confidence that the special interests of those within the boundaries of Franklin district will be addressed simply by leaving it to chance.  
Kei te tino tautoko ake i tenei pire na runga i tana aronga ki tenei momo uauatanga i roto i te pire i tenei wa. We are pleased to support this bill as it addresses an apparent anomaly in the current legislation that covers the method of calculating the levies relating to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. We note too that Federated Farmers view the present arrangements as inequitable on farmers and other rural landowners in the southern part of the Franklin district. 
We believe it is vital that that local government authority has acknowledged mana whenua. Our policy preference is that local government will enhance the development of local and regional business; commercial partnerships between local and regional authorities; industries and business; and local whanau iwi and hapu. In order to do that councils must know who is in their specific territorial region and who sits outside. For all those factors and most particularly because of the wishes of the people the Maori Party is happy to support the bill at its second reading. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee. 
Colin King 
: A very good committee. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is an excellent committee; I agree with the member. The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a private bill which is promoted by the Royal Society of New Zealand. The society is a body corporate that has operated in New Zealand since 1867 and is currently based in the great electorate of Wellington Central. The object functions and structure of the society are set out in the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. 
The current object of the society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. That in turn leads to the functions of the society. The first current function is to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology including—without limitation—the promotion of public awareness knowledge and understanding of science and technology and the advancement of science and technology education. The second function is to encourage promote and recognise excellence in science and technology. The third function is to provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists. The fourth function is to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in science and technology for members. The fifth function is to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community. The final current function is to do all other lawful things that the society considers are conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. 
This bill seeks to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act to incorporate the humanities into the object and functions of the society. It will also make several other minor changes that I will outline shortly. The society has approached me to be the member in charge of this bill as I am the member of Parliament for the electorate in which the society’s head office is located. As I have said the main purpose of the bill is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act to incorporate the humanities into its objects and functions. This means for example that the functions of the society will be expanded to include the functions of fostering in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities and of encouraging promoting and recognising excellence in the humanities. The definition in clause 5(2) of the bill says that the humanities include: “English and other languages history religion philosophy law classics linguistics literature cultural studies media studies art history film drama and American studies”. 
Specifically the bill adds to those functions that I read out earlier: “to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities: to encourage promote and recognise excellence in the humanities: to establish and administer for members a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities: and to do all other lawful things which the Council of the Society considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of the humanities in New Zealand:”. The incorporation of the humanities into the objects and functions of the society will mean that many people involved in the humanities may be admitted as members of the society and that people who have achieved distinction in research for the advancement of the humanities will be able to be elected as fellows of the Royal Society. The society will obviously also be required to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities as it currently does in relation to science and technology. 
The society’s decision to expand the objects and functions of the society to include the humanities was based on three main factors: a desire to integrate the structure and function of research in New Zealand; a recognition of the need to build on and integrate the complementary knowledge provided by different disciplines; and the fact that academies of scholars in other countries such as Canada and Scotland have academies that also range across the disciplines. It is fair to say that in recent times there has been a growing awareness among the pure scientific community—I defer to my colleague Moana Mackey who comes from that community—to work more closely with the social science community. Many members of the House will be familiar with the work of Professor Sir Paul Callaghan and Bill Manhire at Victoria University who have worked very hard to try to draw together what they call the “parallel universes of writers and scientists”. It is a little bit like that. For those of us from a social science background it is fair to say that the pure scientists sometimes have some difficulty in understanding where we are coming from—and no doubt vice versa as well. 
Shane Ardern 
: Venus and Mars. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Scientists are from Venus and social scientists are from Mars; I thank Mr Ardern for that. It is true that the work that Bill Manhire and Paul Callaghan have done has been excellent and is mirrored in many other parts of our research sector. 
Before I came into this House I worked very closely with an organisation called the Centre for Sustainable Cities which is based at Otago University’s medical school. It brings together people from the pure sciences—such as physics and energy research—right through to people in the social sciences particularly those in the public health area and those who do research into housing. It is a very good way of being able to draw together and create an inter-disciplinary approach within our broad research communities. 
I think it is very timely that the Royal Society has chosen to come to the House to amend its functions to reflect the fact that the humanities are having an increased role and increased importance in the research community. It is only right too that it does this following on from consultation with the Council for the Humanities. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the society and the Council for the Humanities on 9 February 2010 to incorporate the humanities into the society. As is the nature of a body such as the Royal Society which is governed by statute this bill has come to the House now to get our endorsement for that process. 
As I mentioned at the start there are a couple of other elements to this bill that I would like to note. The first is that another purpose of the bill is to rename the academy council of the society the academy executive committee. This will be a matter of great interest to members in the House. The reason for this change is to avoid confusion between the academy council which was established to contribute to the achievement of the objects of the society by recognising and encouraging excellence and outstanding achievement in science and technology and contributing to the intellectual leadership role of the society and the overall council of the society which has a governing role. This means that the academy council of the Royal Society will after this bill has passed be called the academy executive committee and any potentially confused social or pure scientists will know the difference. 
The bill also amends the standard for the election of companions of the society to put greater focus on leadership and also to include the humanities now that they are part of the society’s wider functions. The final purpose of the bill relates to changes that were made to the council’s structure in 2008 by way of a wash-up provision to make sure that all of the constitutional changes that have been made are now reflected in the law. In particular the bill amends the election process for councillors of the society so that the process is consistent with a new council structure and it clarifies processes for councillors appointed by regional constituent organisations. 
To achieve the purposes of this bill we need to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. This is a bill that should not generate too much controversy. I hope that pure scientists in the Chamber will be able to accept the arrival of the social scientists and see that they will now all be able to work together in harmony and ensure that we can support those research endeavours that are taking place right around New Zealand in many universities and other research institutions. I think this bill will make for a stronger Royal Society and I commend it to the House. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to join my colleague the member for Wellington Central in supporting the first reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and supporting its referral to the Education and Science Committee which I have the honour of chairing and to which the member for Wellington Central is an occasional but very very positive contributor. 
I will not cover the ground that he has covered; he gave an excellent outline of the purpose of the bill in its various provisions. But I want to make a few comments about the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is a long-established body; it was established in 1867 and known until 1933 as the New Zealand Institute. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
:How old were you then Allan? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I had not quite started school. 
Grant Robertson 
: Ruapehu College. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It was Ruapheu College—I thank the member. I am getting closer to my objectives tonight and there will be a couple more opportunities before we have finished. 
The Royal Society was set up as a mechanism to bring together a number of research and science organisations around the country that did not have the resources to publish the papers that were being delivered them to keep records of their meetings and their activities and that sort of thing. The Royal Society of New Zealand Act which was passed in 1997 currently legislates for the provision of the Royal Society. The society’s primary purpose has been to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology including the promotion of public awareness knowledge and understanding of science and technology and the advancement of science and technology education. So the Royal Society is responsible for the distribution of public funding for scientific research and public education for the publication of a number of journals for holding meetings and seminars for awarding medals like the Rutherford Medal and the Pickering Medal and for science education. 
It is on that note that I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the role that the Royal Society plays in this Parliament each year. In conjunction with Science New Zealand the Royal Society sponsors a series of lectures known as the Speaker’s Science Forum which as chair of the Education and Science Committee I get the honour to chair. This year we have had maybe a dozen lectures on a Tuesday night over the dinner break from some very eminent New Zealand scientists. Some of us like me do not have a scientific background. It was my misfortune to attend Ruapehu College and to be in the fifth form in 1965 and sitting School Certificate when the teaching of science was particularly weak. In actual fact that year it was a disgrace. I do not blame Ruapehu College for that but I do blame a particular teacher whose name is well known in this House but I had better not mention it. Ruapehu College was a great school for me by the way. 
I have the privilege of hosting the Speaker’s Science Forum and as one of the members of the Royal Society said to me one evening after a particularly successful and enjoyable occasion where else in the world in any Parliament would we have one-quarter of the members of Parliament in one room during their dinner break listening to a lecture about science? I commend these lectures to those members of the House who have not yet attended any of them. Members have missed the last one for this year as it was held a week or so ago but I commend them to members next year. Not only do we get to hear from an outstanding New Zealand scientist and learn about an aspect of science or technology that is current in New Zealand but we also get to enjoy the fellowship of members of the Royal Society of Science New Zealand and of our own colleagues. For goodness’ sake I have even been known to share a dinner table after the lecture with members of the Labour Party! I humbly apologise to my colleagues on this side of the House for that dreadful breach of protocol but I believe those members benefit from that sort of company from time to time. 
The purpose of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is to enable the Royal Society to incorporate the humanities into its work and I welcome that. I think that is a great step forward. If the Royal Society can—and I sure it will—bring to the humanities what it has brought to science and technology it will be great for this country and particularly for those who have studied the humanities and take a leading role in their fields. 
The Royal Society resolved in November 2008 that there was a need to expand its activities. Something else happened in November 2008. 
Louise Upston 
: What was that? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: What was it? Something else very significant for this country happened in November 2008. Oh that is right; the Labour Government got thrown out of office. So two great things happened in New Zealand in November 2008. But enough of that. In the spirit of the bipartisanship in which the Education and Science Committee operates I am sure that the committee will enjoy holding what I assume will be a limited number of hearings on the bill. That committee has had a very heavy workload this year and it continues to have a very heavy workload. It has had to deal with some pretty challenging issues. I think members will find dealing with this bill a particular pleasure. I commend the bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is a testament to the transformative power of science that it has facilitated the breaking of bread between Allan Peachey and the evil socialists on this side of the House. I am happy to stand in this House as a member of the Labour Party and a member of the Royal Society of New Zealand to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I thank my caucus colleagues and my whips who apparently think I am some kind of science snob and thought it would be amusing to put me on the speaking list on a bill that introduces the humanities into the Royal Society. They thought it would be character-building. They will be very disappointed because I wholeheartedly support the introduction of humanities into the Royal Society. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Really? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I do; it is called personal growth. Look how far I have come. 
I was genuinely hurt that my good friend and colleague Grant Robertson would insinuate that I would think that his qualification is any less than mine although I do note with absolutely no judgment that his particular qualification is not on the list. But that is all right; I am sure that is something that can be amended at the Education and Science Committee. I am sure it is a mere oversight. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: What is it Moana? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: His politics degree. It is not on the list. But this is something that will be debated at the select committee. 
In all seriousness this bill is very important. One of the goals of the previous Labour Government was to facilitate more multidisciplinary approaches to research. We did this through the centres of research excellence of which there are a number around the country now which bring together a number of disciplines under the banner of particular areas of research. They have had enormous success in bringing the private sector the universities and the Crown research institutes to work together so that we are not doing overlapping research but are in fact coordinating that research. 
The multidisciplinary approach has often been the Holy Grail. Sometimes it is difficult and we make jokes about the hierarchy of the scientific community but it is actually very true—there is a hierarchy a pecking order and sometimes it is difficult to get around that. But when we can the outcomes are outstanding. I recently visited the centre for the study of agriculture food and environment at Otago University which is not a centre of research excellence but a multidisciplinary group. It brings together economists sociologists geographers physicists marine biologists and statisticians. All these groups work on areas of public policy. 
I think it is a shame that more MPs do not know about this group because some of the areas it works on are absolutely key to what we do here. The group looks at the gap between what the Governments try to do and what the public want and how they feel about it. It uses the example of renewable energy which New Zealanders overwhelmingly support. Then it looks at what happens whenever we try to build a wind farm or to develop tidal energy. So much expense is added because of the public backlash. The group says that sometimes politicians do not do that work and there are things it is working on now that can be put in place to make sure that when these projects come up we can save time and money and all the angst that often goes with them. This group is a very important unit. It looks at the areas of fisheries agriculture and right across the board. I recommend that members of Parliament visit this group. 
One of the problems is that its funding is now uncertain. With this new approach to funding research in New Zealand which is that everything has to be business-based this is a group that will save us money and will have public benefit for the country but because it cannot absolutely quantify exactly how much money that will be its funding is now uncertain. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Crazy. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is. I think all members of the House would think it is crazy. So I think this is a very timely bill from the Royal Society. It promotes the multidisciplinary approach which should make all members of this House think very carefully about the expectations we put on the scientific community and on the research community. Sometimes there is truth to that adage about the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I think that sometimes the scientists and the researchers in our universities and our Crown research institutes find it frustrating that politicians and parliamentarians really do not understand exactly their needs and the value they can contribute to our society. I hope that this will be part of the debate on this bill. 
Labour supports an evidence-based approach to policy. Clearly the social sciences and the humanities have a big role to play in that. I think all parliamentarians should adopt an evidence-based approach and when we are spending taxpayers’ money we should be able to point to the research that says it will work and if it will not work we should justify for example why we are spending so much money on boot camps when every single bit of research says they will not work. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I take on board all the glowing comments made by previous speakers about the value of the humanities the social sciences and such like. When we look at the functionality of this bill we see that it is structured in a way that will advance collectively not only the fundamental sciences but also the humanities. I have to confess that although science may not have been a great subject at Ruapehu College when the chairman of the Education and Science Committee was there I had to do a bit of research to find out what humanities were. I would say that a lot of people in New Zealand would need to go to Google or something like that and inquire as to what humanities are. It is quite interesting that humanities are described as academic disciplines that study the human condition using methods that are primarily analytical critical and speculative as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences. So I learnt something there. 
When we sit down at the Education and Science Committee and go through this bill I am sure that there will be a fair amount of collegiality on it. I am certainly looking forward to that. I certainly can attest too to what the chairman was saying before about the Royal Society of New Zealand’s sponsored lectures in Parliament the Speaker’s lectures. They were a great series and they certainly covered an enormous range. It surprised me just how broad the Royal Society of New Zealand was in its context so it will be very interesting to see what comes out of the humanities’ involvement with the society and their incorporation into it. We look forward to this bill coming to the select committee. I am sure that it will not take too long for us to go through the process and take advice on board. On that basis I support the bill and look forward to receiving it at the select committee. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. The introduction of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill brings us a step closer to fulfilling a commitment made by the Royal Society of New Zealand in February this year when its memorandum with Te Whainga Aronui the Council for the Humanities agreed to bring the two organisations closer. The Green Party is very happy to support this bill as seems to be the mood tonight. As a person who did an arts degree at undergraduate level and then went on to do a postgraduate science degree I will feel somewhat less divided in my membership of the Royal Society of New Zealand given that it is— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: You’re an expert on this. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Yes it is a very interesting place to be when one is moving between these two fundamentally different disciplines or approaches. 
Shane Ardern 
: Dangerous ground I’d say. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Quite right. To an extent this returns the Royal Society of New Zealand to its roots back to the Royal Society in the UK. That society came together in the 1640s as a college of natural philosophers who were delving into this then new model of observation and experimentation that in time became the empirically based science that we understand now. Clearly this reintegration with the humanities is as I say coming back to the roots of that organisation. 
Natural philosophy was a branch of philosophy a theoretical branch coming from an ethical base endeavouring to understand nature as it was then comprehended—dare I say it what we would now refer to as the environment. Clearly there is a long history to the evolution of natural philosophy through to the scientific method objective observation and the like. The downside I guess of the scientific method which is clearly incredibly powerful and has been a very productive approach was the degree of hubris or pride and the disallowance of indigenous forms of knowledge investigation understanding and interpretation of the natural world. In the Western context the reaction to the success of the reliance on the scientific method were the more extreme forms of postmodernism. We are finding that pendulum swinging back closer to a centre point to acknowledge the value of both the scientific method and of a humanities or an arts-based approach to advancing knowledge and research. 
In the modern age if you like back in the late 1950s CP Snow in his lecture  
The Two Cultures 
 and then his book  
The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution  
described the predicament very well when he observed that academics in schools of the arts were not only unwilling to talk to the scientists and vice versa but effectively unable to. They were almost unable to communicate with one another. Clearly in the 20th and the 21st centuries that degree of division within our academic and our research bases would be simply unacceptable and would not advance us at all. In my own discipline of resource management it was clear that it was critical that resource management decisions are best made when they are not only based on good scientific understanding geology ecology earth science and all the other scientific disciplines but also within the cultural context established by law history and economics. It is only with people who are trained and who understand the powers weaknesses limitations and strengths of all of those sub-disciplines that we arrive at very good management decisions like how to deal with our natural world how to manage in the interests of our communities and how to get good economic outcomes. 
In short we believe this is a good bill. It is timely. We are very pleased to see the society and the council coming together in the firm belief that the new organisation will over time become much stronger than the sum of its parts. Kia ora koutou. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker 
. 
 Kia ora ano tatou. A ko te tikanga o tenei pire e ai ki taku e kite nei he ahua marama ana. He whakawhanui i te whainga me nga mahi o te society nei kia tapirihia atu ki te mahi rangahau a-tangata ara ko te humanities. E tika ana ki te ata rangahau i te society nei i te mea mai i tona timatanga i te tau 1867 kaore ano tetahi kia to mai me ki i te ropu nei ki te ao hou. Ko te mate ke koinei anake te mea e whakaarohia nei e te Royal 
Society ki te to mai i te hunga nei ki te ao hou ara ko te humanities 
tera. Ehara i te mea he huarahi mama tenei. Kua puta te pire nei i muri mai i nga mahi a nga pukenga o Kotimana me Kanata me tetahi kirimana i waenganui i te society nei me Te Whainga Aronui mo nga humanities.  
Kua kaha whakapau te Royal 
Society ki te kupu kotahi. Ara ki ta te Pati Maori me huri ke ki nga kupu e wha: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Na ko te whainga nui o te pire nei he hiahia no ratou ki te aki ki te whakanui ki te whakarangatira i tenei mea ko te humanities. He mea pai tera. Na reira me patai i te patai penei a etahi atu: he aha tenei mea ko te humanities? Ara ano nga momo reo nga momo tuhinga nga momo ture nga hitori nga momo kaupapa here nga momo tikanga a-hahi tae atu ki nga mahi a-rehia. Me ki technology anthropology ano hoki cultural 
studies te mea te mea. Ara ano he korero mo te ahuatanga o te tangata. Ko te mate ke kaua ko te tangata Maori kaua ko te tangata whenua ranei. Karekau he paku korero i roto i te ture ara te Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ki a matou me whai wahi te tiriti i roto i tenei momo ako. Me whai wahi ano hoki tenei mea te cultural competency.  
I te mea a ko ake nei ka puta te purongo o te Wai 262 me titiro whanui tatou. Ko te tirohanga whanui e korerohia ana ko tera me ki i roto i te reo Pakeha me ki ko tetahi korero kua korerohia nei. Anei te korero tino rangatiratanga and kaitiaki by the claimants over indigenous flora and fauna and other taonga and also over matauranga Maori Maori traditional knowledge. Ana ko tera korero kua roa e korerohia ana i roto i te Wai 262. No reira koinei te tikanga o taku ki atu me titiro whanui tatou ki enei ahuatanga katoa kaua ko te humanities me tana titiro whaiti nei me whakawhanui tonu te titiro. Ka mutu kei te titiro ano hoki penei i taku e korero nei kei te titiro matou ki te ahuatanga o te piringa o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki tenei pire. Na runga i te aha? Na runga i te mea ko te Tiriti o Waitangi i tona whanuitanga he titiro ano ra ki nga rawa o Tangaroa ki te whenua e takoto nei ki te taiao me ki nga momo rangahau enei ahuatanga katoa. No reira ko ta matou ko te ki atu me titiro ano hoki ki a ngai Maori me te ahuatanga o te noho o te tangata me tana mohio ki te Ao Maori me nga mea o iwi ke. Koinei te ahuatanga o tenei mea. Te tumanako ia ka tautoko tenei ropu i te whakaputanga o Mataatua tae atu ki te whakaputanga o te ao ara i te reo Pakeha Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  
No reira he paku whakaaro noa ake enei kua puta i a matou i te po nei mo tenei pire. Kei te tautoko ake te Pati Maori i tenei pire i tona panuitanga tuatahi me te tumanako ia ka korerohia whanuitia enei take i te komiti whaiti. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to all of us once again. The purpose of this bill appears fairly simple: to expand the objective and functions of the Royal Society to include the humanities. One would think it both logical and necessary that a society that has been operating since 1867 actually becomes updated. Believe it or not all that the Royal Society thinks is necessary to meet the contemporary need of our communities is to add one word: humanities. It is not as easy as one might think. This bill has come about only after the analysis of scholars from Scotland and Canada and as a consequence of this society signing up to a memorandum of understanding with Te Whainga Aronui / the Council for the Humanities.  
But if the energies of the Royal Society have gone into just one word— humanities—the Maori Party wants to encourage a wider focus on just four words: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. What exactly do we mean by humanities?  
Examples of the disciplines of the humanities are ancient and modern languages literature law history philosophy religion and the visual and performing arts. Other disciplines include technology anthropology and cultural studies. They are about the human condition but not about Maori humans or tangata whenua. There is no reference in the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 to the Treaty of Waitangi. It is our view that the Treaty should be included in these areas. The development of these areas should occur within an environment of cultural competency.  
As the report on the Wai 262 claim draws near we should be aware of the broader vision of that claim. Basically that vision is one that promotes tino rangatiratanga and kaitiaki by the claimants over indigenous flora and fauna and other taonga and also over matauranga Maori Maori traditional knowledge. That stance has been long discussed around the Wai 262 claim. And that is why I said we should take a broad view in terms of these matters as opposed to the narrow view of the humanities. In subsequent phases of this bill we will be looking for the connection between the Treaty of Waitangi natural resources the environment the economy the arts and culture and research science and technology. We would also like to see a greater understanding between Maori and non-Maori cultures and support for indigenous declarations such as the Mataatua declaration and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  
These are our views expressed tonight about this bill. The Maori Party will support this bill at its first reading and looks forward to further debate on these matters in the select committee 
.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill in the name of Grant Robertson. He was so disappointed I did not continue my speech on the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill that I wanted to rise and make sure that he was able to hear some more of what I have to contribute to the House. 
I acknowledge the clarity with which the member for Wellington Central explained the purpose of this bill so I will not go into a lot of the detail other than to say that it is tidy-up legislation at the request of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I think one of the interesting things is that in effect this bill brings the humanities or the social sciences into the world of the Royal Society of New Zealand. We have heard about the potential that could occur with such a blend. I think one of the members of the House referred to it as the difference between coming from Venus and coming from Mars. It might also be seen as blending oil and water depending on one’s perspective. But I do not think anyone will disagree with me that this is an important step forward for the development of the Royal Society with the inclusion of the humanities and social sciences in its strive to foster another wing of science in New Zealand. I believe that it will enhance the work that the society already does in terms of excellence in research and science. 
I also agree with Allan Peachey the chair of the Education and Science Committee and former student of Ruapehu College that we will have a good discussion when the bill gets to the select committee. I shall look forward to seeing whether there are any additions that Mr Robertson might want to put forward in terms of aspects of the humanities that might be extended to be included. This is a bill that I believe we will all support. It is important to note that $500000 from Vote Research Science and Technology goes to the society each year to support its objectives and functions. This is a Government that supports science and technology and I am proud to support this bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 This is just a brief call in reply to thank members for their support of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill in its first reading. It has been fascinating to hear of the qualifications and scientific expertise of members across the House. 
I did not attend Ruapehu College; I went to a high school in Dunedin. I did not take science classes for very long and it is much to my regret that I did not because it is a subject that I greatly enjoy. I am a graduate in the humanities and I look to my fellow graduate in the humanities across the House the Hon Judith Collins for support. I have an honours degree in political science. 
Political science is not on the current list of humanities subjects in the bill. Obviously when the bill finds its way to the select committee we may need to discuss that matter although I do note that the bill states “includes” those subjects. Perhaps it is simply taken as read that political science is one of the leading humanities subjects. 
In all seriousness I take on board the comments made by Te Ururoa Flavell. I am sure that the Royal Society of New Zealand will be listening to this debate and they may well contact Mr Flavell to discuss his suggestions. I am sure that the committee will be interested to talk about them. I thank colleagues for their support for the bill and I look forward to its quick progress through the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee. 
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. First I acknowledge most people in this House for the way in which this bill got to the House in the first place. I must acknowledge people like Judith Collins who helped me get the bill in without having to go through a ballot. I also acknowledge Pita Sharples the leadership of the Green Party at the time and especially my own Labour colleagues. This bill has been completely successful and even if it falls tonight it will have done the job it set out to do. I acknowledge that this bill went to the Social Services Committee on 2 July 2008—in the last Parliament. The report back from the select committee states: “We note recent announcements by the Government that it will introduce legislation that will address the issues covered by this bill.” I think that when one has a member’s bill accepted by the Government through the select committee process one has to be pleased. I have been kept up to date by the chairwoman of the committee Katrina Shanks and I thank her. I also thank Simon Power with whom I have talked about the bill. 
This bill is about something we looked at even before the time when Mr Singh who owned a liquor store in Randwick Park was shot. But that highlighted the issue. I had been working with a young Manukau city councillor Daniel Newman over the issue of the explosion in the number of liquor outlets in South Auckland. But this bill is not just about South Auckland. It is about the number of liquor stores exploding all over the place and into neighbourhoods and we see the results of that. Young people can get a dozen cans of ready-to-drink liquor for less than $20. It is a real problem; it is a huge problem. When I have people like Daniel Newman working with me to get a bill before the House it is really worthwhile. When the bill came into the House it passed its first reading by 113 to 2. The two members against the bill at the time were Rodney Hide and Heather Roy. They were like mountaineers roped together and they did not want the bill because I think they thought it dealt just with South Auckland which it does not. 
We see booze outlets on every street corner. Dairies sell more alcohol than milk. We have seen the explosion in the availability of liquor in supermarkets. Of course we have also seen the explosion that runs parallel with the increasing availability of liquor—the increase in domestic violence. Domestic violence alcohol and crime are all partners that are a scourge on our communities. I think that the cooperation across the House is Parliament at its best. It is very good that people support this measure. There will be a vote at the end of this debate and whether or not the bill goes any further it has done its job and that is what is important. 
The Law Commission has come out with a huge book—a report. Some people might use the report for a doorstop but I suggest to them that they read it very carefully. I have changed my mind quite a bit over liquor. I used to be one of those people who thought that there should not be an age limit for the purchase of liquor and I voted for 18 as the age limit. I have changed my mind; I think it should be 20. I am not going to go for the 18-20 split 18 for licensed premises and 20 for off-licence premises but so be it. But this bill has given people an opportunity to think about what is going on. My only disappointment is that because of the Law Commission’s report it is going to take some time before a bill gets into the House. I see that as being necessary; I am not seeing that as a criticism. But it is unlikely that we will have new liquor laws in the term of this Parliament. We may do; maybe there will be cooperation where people want to see liquor laws changed dramatically. 
Let us look at what has been happening. The key features of my bill really give local communities far more say. If people apply for a liquor licence they will have to do a social impact report and I think that is hugely important. The public will have more time to put in objections. At the moment it is 10 working days. I think that should be lengthened but however long the Government decides it should be so be it. But we also want to have organisations like schools churches and kindergartens being able to say what the impact will be on them; at the moment they cannot. I think that when people start thinking about this they will realise that communities are trying to take hold of the issue themselves. Yes we have had people who have been hand-wringers and who think this bill is likely to fall at this hurdle. Well that is not a problem. We have people from the Labour Party my very good colleagues from the National Party the Maori Party and the Greens all very sincere in their belief of what should happen. No one in New Zealand actually thinks that the law does not need to be changed. 
Why did this bill cover only a small area? Well I have been here a long while—some people say too long. 
Cam Calder 
: No never! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Thanks. The member from the North Shore is yelling out that he wants me to stay longer. When we see things changing in a society and the law tries to catch up with that later I think feelings are fairly intense. When we can look around at many off-licences and see a dozen ready-to-drink beverages for $20—and they taste so sickly sweet that young people think they can swallow them down like nobody’s business—of course there are consequences to that. Alcohol makes a huge difference to the work of the police. Any moves that we can make to help the police combat liquor with better laws will be to our advantage. 
Later on I will move that there be a personal vote on this bill but I invite people to have a close think about the bill. I realise that many people will think this bill has done its job completely and will vote for it to be ended. There will be others who think that getting the bill into the House may keep the Government a little more honest. I conclude by thanking all those people who have helped with what is a very serious proposition. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call tonight on the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. First of all I congratulate the member George Hawkins on bringing this member’s bill to the House in 2008. This member has a huge heart. He saw an issue in his patch and wanted to make a difference. He saw the destruction that liquor was causing where he is in South Auckland so he brought a bill to the House to try to address that. The bill is quite narrow; it is in relation to licences and the number of outlets there can be in an area. The number of outlets that have appeared popping up all over the place like mushrooms is a concern for all New Zealand. George is absolutely right when he says that one can walk down the road especially in the area where he comes from and on every corner one can see liquor outlets that are selling liquor in one form or another and selling it very cheaply. 
The Social Services Committee which I chair looked at this bill and we decided that we would not support it or recommend that it be passed by the House for the simple reason that times have moved on a little bit. Liquor reform has come into place and we have had the package that the Government has put out. It adopted 126 of the 153 recommendations from the Law Commission and these recommendations cover the bill that George brought in. The select committee voted down this bill before its return to the House for the reason that there will be legislation later on that New Zealand will debate that will cover these issues and many other issues as well. 
We all know that liquor and alcohol issues are not isolated just to liquor outlets. There is a much bigger discussion which this country has already had and we have had some clear signs from the people in this country that they are not happy with what we do with our liquor and alcohol or with the way in which we drink in New Zealand. In fact I have been out and about in Ohariu on that issue. I held a public meeting at which a cross-section of people in the community talked to me about what they saw were the issues with alcohol in their patch of Ohariu. It was interesting that one of them was a bar owner in the city—he owns a number of bars—but he was one of the biggest advocates for tightening up the opening hours. He said that he was happy for bars to be closed at 2 a.m. because after that time bars in the city make no money. He was happy to say that we should raise the drinking age to 20 because he did not want 18-year-olds in his bars and clubs. 
It was really interesting. Where we thought we would have opposition there was none. It was the sector itself that was sending clear messages back to me in Ohariu that people are happy for the provisions to be much tighter. There was a real cross-section of people at that meeting. We had a great discussion about demand and supply and I feel that a lot of this legislation is hitting the supply side of the issue: restriction of the number of licences restriction of the hours for drinking liquor bans and a restriction on the purchase age—the whole area to do with liquor and supply. 
But if we want to talk about our drinking issues we can see that it is not just a matter of supply but demand. It is the way we are drinking the culture of drinking and the way we accept binge drinking as acceptable. A couple of months ago I went out with the police in Wellington. They picked me up at midnight and dropped me off at 4.30 in the morning—it was a bit like a date. They showed me exactly what is happening in the city in Wellington in the early hours of the morning. It was pretty appalling and we have to see it to believe it. At 3 o’clock in the morning people are still queuing to get into clubs; their night is still going and they have another club to go to after the current one. 
I saw the way in which girls particularly were drinking on the streets: falling over feeling hilarious that they were all so drunk and throwing up into rubbish bins—it was a great blast. Well it is not a great blast. Actually when we are doing that and we think it is really funny then something is going wrong. And something is going wrong out there with the way our youth in particular think it is great to drink like that. But it is not just a youth issue: it is a generational issue. I know that within my own age group we still see people going out and getting wasted. But what signal is that sending to the youth of New Zealand? Not a very good signal at all. 
After having been out with the police and holding a public meeting I am now on a crusade around my schools. I am going into social studies classes at my secondary schools and talking to students about drinking. I ask them what their views are on drinking and I find they are really interesting. They are 14 and 15-year-olds and some of them are already going out drinking which is really interesting but a bit distressing. But the consensus coming out of those classes is that we have to do something about the way we are drinking. The students in the classes at the schools that I visited were OK with the drinking age being raised. 
It is interesting to see that there is a lot of support for change in the way we are drinking and support for the alcohol and liquor reforms. Therefore I am looking forward to seeing legislation come to the House in relation to the liquor reforms. I thank George Hawkins for the work he did in bringing this issue to the fore back in 2008 when he was really concerned about what was happening in his communities. That is a sign of a very good local MP. So I say congratulations to him and I thank the House for allowing me to speak tonight. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi maku hei timata korero he tuku atu i nga whakaaro ki wera nga totara o te Ao Maori kua hinga atu ara ko Ta Archie Taiaroa raua ko Jim Nicholls. Na reira e kourua haere haere haere atu ra. Ka oti. 
[ 
To begin with the first thing for me to do is to convey condolences to those totara of Maoridom who have passed away: Sir Archie Taiaroa and Jim Nicholls. So to you two depart farewell journey on. It is done 
.] 
About 2 months ago my brother was sworn in as a District Court judge at our marae and his first week on the job was down in Wellington at the court around the corner from Parliament. On the Wednesday evening after 3 days on the job we had dinner at Parliament. Of course I asked him about his impressions of his first 3 days on the job. He said to me that it was very sad but if it were not for alcohol he would be redundant. He said that 80 to 90 percent of the cases that he had seen in those 3 days were the result of alcohol-related incidents. I think we really need to reflect on the fact that a District Court judge is basically saying that he would be redundant if it were not for alcohol. 
I am on the horns of a dilemma because I am also Labour’s spokesperson on tourism and the tourism industry and the alcohol industry are comfortable bedfellows. We have to realise that tourists come here and enjoy a drink—they enjoy the wine the bars and that whole scene—and it is an important part of tourism. We do not want to be killjoys. I was talking to a person in the tourism industry who said to me on the whole alcohol issue that I had to remember exactly who I am the spokesperson for. I am the spokesperson on tourism. I said to him that was right but he had to remember that long before I was the spokesperson on tourism long before I was a member of Parliament and in fact for all of my life I have been Maori. I have to balance up the effect and the impact of alcohol on Maori. 
I will quote a few things from the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand’s Maori action plan 2009-12. It said that 66 percent of Maori youth aged between 12 and 17 years identified themselves as drinkers. These people are not even legally allowed to drink yet 66 percent of Maori in that age group already identify themselves as drinkers. Thirty-six percent of Maori surveyed were binge-drinkers with Maori adults reporting that they had consumed on average 8.9 standard drinks on the most recent occasion they drank alcohol—so 9 standard drinks. Some people would have had one or two and others would have had 15 16 18 or 19 standard drinks on the most recent occasion. Thirty-one percent of Maori adult drinkers reported getting drunk on the most recent occasion with 16 percent reporting that they had intended to get drunk on that occasion. Worse still 45 percent of Maori youth aged 15 to 17 reported getting drunk the most recent time they drank alcohol with 25 percent—a quarter—reporting that they had planned to get drunk. Sixty-six percent agreed that it is acceptable to get drunk at parties; we just heard the member Katrina Shanks talking about how people go to Courtenay Place and deliberately get drunk. 
This vulnerability of our intoxicated youth worries and concerns me. Most Maori drinkers reported having experienced some form of harmful or regrettable experience from their drinking in the previous 12 months. Added to that  
Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey  
also identified that the most common lifetime disorders among Maori were anxiety disorders at 31 percent followed by substance use disorders at 26 percent. I would say that the anxiety disorders were contributed to in no mean way by the substance use. 
The facts that I have just read out from that report are supported by my experience up in Kaitaia as an educator. I recall having a conversation with a policeman who told me that on Thursday Friday and Saturday nights the police go around picking up and dragging up intoxicated school-age students—primary school age intermediate school age and college age—from the alleyways and the car parks of Kaitaia. He told me how they have to drag them into the police car and half the time the kids vomit in the back. The police get them home to the parents knock on the door—the parents do not know where they have been—and basically give the children to the parents telling them to make sure they do not choke on their vomit. That is the reality of the situation in Kaitaia. 
This policeman told me about one particular girl who went to the school where I was principal whom he had to pick up one night when she was totally comatose. I said that that girl’s family could not afford to buy alcohol and did not have the money for it. I asked how she got the money to buy the alcohol. He said to me that she does not buy the alcohol. She gives favours to the guy at a particular liquor store and that is how she gets her alcohol. We have to be mindful. At the time this girl was 12 or 13 years of age she was giving favours in return for alcohol. 
The Law Commission report  
Alcohol In Our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
 said: “There is little scope under the present Act for communities to have a say in licensing decisions.” The Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill which George Hawkins has brought to the House changes that. It gives communities the chance to have a say in alcohol licensing decisions. The report also says: “A common theme in the consultation was the disempowerment many people feel because the existing legal framework effectively discounts the views of the local community when making decisions about where and how alcohol is sold. Several people told us the category of people who can object to a licence application needs to be widened but the real concern of many was that even though they lived in the neighbourhood there was no basis on which they could object to a licence application other than in relation to the suitability of the applicant.” This bill changes that. 
The report says: “That the community had alcohol-related problems and locals did not want any more liquor outlets in the area was no basis for an objection. Community groups are increasingly expressing their concerns about alcohol and its impacts as our consultation demonstrates. They want more say in decisions about where and how alcohol is sold supplied and consumed in their neighbourhoods.” The bill that George Hawkins has brought to the House does exactly that. It gives the communities more say on where and how alcohol can be sold. Also the bill “requires an applicant for an on-licence or an off-licence to carry out an evaluation of the social impacts on the community.” I ask how one carries out an evaluation of the social impact on a 12 or 13-year-old girl who has to give favours to somebody in exchange for alcohol. The social impact on her life and her family’s life into her future is immeasurable. 
We as Maori have a bit to answer for ourselves. I was just talking to my colleague Stuart Nash about when our marae dining hall was opened in 1990 up north and we had 50 kegs of beer. We got through only 38 of them that night which because of our attitude at the time we laughed about. That illustrates the attitude that we have towards glorifying alcohol. As I stand to speak now I am embarrassed by that attitude from us as Maori which allows alcohol to become such a big part of our lives. Hopefully this bill will go some way to changing that attitude but it certainly gives communities the power to make decisions regarding alcohol within their communities. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill had its genesis in good sound common sense. It is an attempt to overturn a jandal-slapping sort of sale of liquor bill from a previous decade. The fact is that the sale of liquor has been the subject of dog’s breakfasts of legislation for many many decades as people have sought to liberalise and somehow change New Zealand’s drinking culture and turn it into something it is not. Members who were involved in politics years ago will remember the votes that tried to turn the New Zealand drinking culture into something sort of cultural. 
Paul Quinn 
: The French. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Apparently we all needed to be drinking like the French. We know that the French drink all day at various times. They start at a young age and they carry on until they fall over. No one seemed to remember that they have a high rate of alcoholism in their country. But we sought to move the drinking culture within New Zealand away from something that was confined by hours age legislation and occasion and turn it into something where anything goes. Our drinking culture certainly needed to be changed but boy some dumb stuff was done. 
Now people are seeking to march the sale of liquor legislation back about 30 years forgetting that 30 years ago one was not allowed to have liquor in the vicinity of a dance hall for instance. That meant there would be about 50 guys standing around the boot of an old Vauxhall with a couple of crates in it sharing 10 flagons. In those days it was a totally different world from the one we find ourselves in today and now thankfully the member George Hawkins has quite rightly brought before the House a bill that says it is time we had a bit of balance. 
Previous Parliaments wandered off down the track of liberalising everything. We took the age down to 18 and we took off any constraints on new products like the ready-to-drinks that were spoken about. We tend to give some credence to people who make their money out of the liquor industry and we listen to their lobbying. 
We decided that a supermarket was something that sold alcohol and we did not think that every corner dairy would also seek to sell alcohol. We thought that a supermarket that was acres and acres in size was better and more careful than any other vendor of alcohol. What quickly happened was that those big supermarket chains moved as fast as they could to sell as much alcohol as they could as cheaply as they could at any hour of the day that they could. They did a really good job of it to the effect that today 70 percent of all alcohol consumed in this country is sold by supermarkets to people who may or may not enjoy too many drops. 
The point is that as far as the retail side of it is concerned supermarkets are probably the most compliant of any alcohol retail outlet. It is much harder to buy alcohol from the supermarket when one is drunk or underage than it is to buy it from anywhere else but that does not mean we do not have a problem with supermarkets selling alcohol and the new legislation that is coming before the House will restrict that. 
The ready-to-drink concoctions that have become so popular with people especially young people wanting to get into drinking alcohol are being marketed to young people as alcohol that does not even taste like alcohol. They sell it by the pallet-load and it has alcohol per volume of somewhere between 4 percent and 20 percent. The proposed legislation will reduce the alcohol per volume to no more than 5 percent and that is a good thing. 
Obviously the House is looking quite strongly at the split-age option whereby people over the age of 18 can buy alcohol in hotels and on licensed premises but people must be 20 years of age to buy alcohol at an off-licence. The purpose of that of course is to raise the de facto drinking age which at the moment is somewhere around the early to mid teens. We need very much to do something about that. 
The thrust behind the Hon George Hawkins’ bill is about giving local people the ability to impact on local decisions as to who can sell alcohol within their communities. We have ridiculous situations where dairies opposite secondary schools are selling alcohol at $1 per can or $1 per ready-to-drink. 
An 18-year-old student can wander across the road at lunchtime and legitimately buy alcohol in lots of one or two because that is the way the vendor is prepared to sell it. Vendors are not allowed to sell cigarettes in ones and twos but they can sell cans of alcohol in ones and twos and some of them are up to 20 percent proof. Students can drink that alcohol in the school grounds as part of lunch—or maybe it is lunch—and then head back to the classroom for a snooze before heading home after school and picking up a bit of alcohol to knock off when they get there. It is absolutely ridiculous. 
The gap in the current legislation means that no good-minded citizen is able to object to a new consent being granted on the basis that there are already enough liquor outlets in the community or on the basis of their proximity to schools or other venues around the community. That is fundamentally wrong. Mr Hawkins’ bill seeks to change that and allow local people to have some input. 
We know that there will be a national alcohol plan and that district councils will be encouraged to have district alcohol plans and part of that planning process will be consultation with communities. Any application for consent—not just for new premises but also the reinstatement of an existing consent—will be up for members of the public to object to on a whole range of sensible bases and good on them. 
I thank the member for bringing the issue before the House. I believe that in many ways it has been a catalyst for the Law Commission and parties on both sides of the House to look at the issue and to give back to the communities the ability to object to local consents which are the very mechanisms people are using to have a negative effect on our children and our communities. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 We would like to congratulate George Hawkins on his Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill which is tremendously worthwhile and will give communities some say over where liquor licences should be granted. We will certainly be voting to support the bill. 
I remember when I was a Wellington city councillor back in the 1990s— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Oh the 1990s. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —yes it was a long time ago—somebody decided to set up a bar right next to a school in Strathmore. It was also right next to where a whole lot of people lived along with the school in a very densely populated residential area. The whole community was totally opposed to it. Nobody wanted the bar which was going to have gambling machines in it to be established at that particular location. So the entire community came together. It was probably the biggest meeting ever held in the history of Strathmore. The whole community rallied around the cause and passed a resolution that it did not want that liquor outlet in its community right next to the school and the community church. In the end despite the whole community being unanimously opposed to the liquor outlet there was nothing the community could do. It realised after many months of trying to stop the liquor outlet with the help of me and other councillors that basically it was completely powerless. The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 had relaxed conditions for obtaining a liquor licence to such a point that someone could set up a liquor licence anywhere in New Zealand and the community was completely powerless. 
When this legislation was being considered at the Social Services Committee a submitter said that it had got to the point in New Zealand where the only things that people needed in order to get a liquor licence were a car park and a urinal and away they went; they could sell alcohol and the local community had virtually no say and no input. I was horrified by that personal experience and I wondered why this Parliament had allowed it to happen. I ask why this Parliament allowed liquor outlets to be established in just about any community in New Zealand and the conditions to be relaxed to such a point that communities had absolutely no say in whether or not a bar or liquor outlet could be set up right next to a school or a church. What was Parliament thinking in 1989 when it passed the Sale of Liquor Act and allowed that to happen? The same legislation allowed liquor to be sold in any supermarket in New Zealand and in our dairies and now supermarkets sell 70 percent of all the alcohol sold in New Zealand. I guess that there are members of Parliament who were here and who voted for the Sale of Liquor Act which liberalised the sale of liquor to such an extent that we have had this proliferation of liquor outlets all over New Zealand. 
At the Health Committee a few years ago the Public Health Association made an interesting submission. It presented a map of New Zealand that showed where the most liquor outlets were in New Zealand. The most liquor outlets were in low-income and poor areas of Auckland in particular but that was the case for all over New Zealand. In every low-income area there was a vastly increased number of liquor outlets liquor stores fast-food outlets and gambling outlets. It was completely predatory. We could see that the people setting up the liquor stores and gambling outlets were literally targeting the low-income areas of New Zealand whereas areas like Remuera and so forth had very few outlets at all. So it is completely predatory. 
We congratulate George Hawkins on this bill which will give communities a say in alcohol licensing decisions; it is very very long overdue. It will mean that there will have to be an evaluation of the social impact on the community. For example once this bill is through the people of Strathmore who helplessly tried to stop the liquor outlet from opening there all those years ago will be able to have an evaluation of the impact. They will be able to say that they believe a liquor outlet will have a disastrous impact on their community and that they oppose it. 
No doubt the reason the Sale of Liquor Act went through which so liberalised the sale of alcohol in New Zealand was the influence of the liquor and hospitality industries. Their influence resulted in such an extraordinary liberalisation in New Zealand and the taking away of the rights of communities to have a say on where liquor outlets should be. We will see and we are seeing now the same influence of the liquor and hospitality industries on the debate on liquor legislation in New Zealand. We had the Law Commission report which was a very far-reaching report but immediately the Government decided that it would back away from the critical areas that Sir Geoffrey Palmer said need to be dealt with—namely the issues of price marketing sponsorship and advertising. I ask why the Government is ducking for cover over those issues and why it refuses to deal with those issues when it has been told that they are the most significant issues that have an impact on liquor in New Zealand. Everyone in this House knows that it is because of the power of vested interests—the power of the liquor industry the hospitality industry and the food industry. Those industries will have more say and more sway over this Parliament and what it agrees to than all of the submissions made by all of the people of New Zealand—and there is overwhelming support from the people of New Zealand. 
People are clamouring and saying that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for this Parliament to get it right and clamp down on the proliferation of liquor outlets all over New Zealand and on the absolute saturation of marketing sponsorship and advertising of liquor. We have this opportunity and that is what the people of New Zealand are clamouring for. Unfortunately the ghastly reality is that the influence of lobbying from the liquor and hospitality industries will cause this Government to fail to take the action that is needed because it does not want to get offside with those industries. That is why we have the problem we have today and I fear that the influence of those industries will prevent us from taking up any comprehensive set of policies as the Law Commission has recommended. 
I do not know how many members saw  
Close Up 
 last night but there was a discussion about why the Government would not lower the blood-alcohol level. An expert from Australia was saying that it was an embarrassment. He said that quite simply the power of the liquor and hospitality industries was the reason it was not happening. Bruce Robertson chief executive of the Hospitality Association had said on his website that the reason it was not happening was due to lobbying by the hospitality industry and the liquor industry. So those industries admit it. They admit that their lobbying is preventing the Government from taking the action that is needed and I think that is a tragedy. 
I offer George Hawkins our congratulations. It is a fantastic bill. We will be supporting it and we just wish that the Law Commission’s very comprehensive report was being implemented by this Parliament and that we could finally start to undo the harm unleashed by the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker me mihi ra ki te mema ki a George Hawkins i tenei po. Kei te whakaae atu au ki ta te mema nei a mo tana whakaaro nui ki te whakatakoto i tenei pire ki mua i te aroaro o te Paremata. Me mihi ra ki a ia ko te tumanako ia ka eke ki te taumata e wawatatia ana. Tata ki te kotahi rau tau kua hipa i puta enei korero i tetahi o nga rangatira o taua wa. Ko Ta Apirana Ngata taku e korero nei. He korero e pa tonu ana ki tenei o nga pire. Anei tana korero:  
[ 
Mr Assistant Speaker I congratulate the member George Hawkins tonight. I support the member and his great foresight in bringing this bill before Parliament and hope that what he is seeking is fulfilled. Close to a century ago one of our finest leaders of that period Sir Apirana Ngata gave a frank account relevant to this bill and I quote: 
 ] 
“there can be no question as to the amount of damage liquor has done to the people of my race … Whether the Maori will in a generation or so become a hardened and seasoned drinker like the incoming Europeans I do not know … My position is clear-cut; and that is so far as the supply of liquor to Maoris is concerned from my youth until now I have and shall oppose it everywhere.” 
Koinei ta Apirana Ngata. He nui taku puaroha mo taua whakaaro. Ko nga tatauranga e ki ana tokotoru o ia wha tangata neke atu i te tekau ma waru tau te pakeke kua tohungia he kaiinu waipiro a hautoru o aua tangata kua tohungia he tino kino ta ratou inu waipiro. Na enei tatauranga matou e tino awangawanga ana. E tino awangawanga ana matou mo nga ahuatanga inu a nga rangatahi me te ahuatanga whakatairanga o tenei ngangara. E pumau tonu ana matou ki te whakapono he nui nga huarahi whakamama ake i nga tuahuatanga kino kua puta i tenei mea te waipiro e pangia ana e Ngai Maori. Ko tetahi huarahi kua kitea e matou ko te mahitahi a-whanau nei.  
No reira ki te hoki ki tenei pire ko ta tatou inaianei he rahui i te tuku raihana hokohoko i raro i te pire Sale of Liquor Act 1989. Me ki penei e noho ahuareka ana matou ki te whanuitanga o nga whakaaro puaki kua whakatakotohia. I tera wiki i mea atu te Kaunihera Waipiro ara te Alcohol Advisory Committee ki te Komiti mo nga Take Maori me pera te tirohanga o te Kawanatanga ki te kaupapa waipiro ki tera o te tupeka. E ai ki a Gilbert Taurua kaiwhakahaere strategic operations general manager me whai turanga teitei ake nga take waipiro ki te taha hauora. E ai ki nga tauira inu nui tonu te waipiro ka unumia i roto i tetahi wa roa. He korero whai tikanga tenei. Na te iti o te utu nga ahuatanga whakatairanga me te ahuatanga inu i roto i nga hapori kua noho kohatu tenei ngangara me ona kino katoa.  
No reira i te putanga o te purongo e kia nei ko te  
Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
 harikoa ana matou i te mea i tohungia nga huarahi awhina ki te whakakore i te ahuatanga inu waipiro. Tautoko ana matou i nga momo huarahi pera i te whakaheke taumata inu waipiro ina e taraiwa ana tetahi te whakapiki i te tau inu otira te rahui hoki i nga whakatairanga i nga panui hoki mo te waipiro. E whakapono hoki ana matou me werohia nga kamupene waipiro e pehi kino ana i wa tatou hapori. I te ao tika i te ao pono me ki ka kore e kite i te waipiro i waenganui i nga hapori. Engari i tenei ao kikokiko nei me aro tatou inaianei ki te awhina i wa tatou whanau hapori hoki ki te tiaki i a tatou ano a-hauora a ki te whakamama i nga kino o te waipiro.  
Mohio tonu ahau i te whakatau a te komiti mo tenei ripoata ina ko ta ratou kaore he take ki te tautoko i nga mahi e korerohia ana i roto i tenei ripoata i te mea e ahu pera tonu ana te kawanatanga. Hoi ano kua whakataketia te kaupapa a Minita Power i te mea kaore nga huarahi pera i te take tapiri e whakamahia ana ki te whakaiti i te inu waipiro. A kua whakataketia ano hoki te Kawanatanga mo te korero noa iho mo tenei mea te rahui i nga haora mahi o nga toa hokohoko waipiro. No reira te ahua nei kaore nga ture hou mo te waipiro i te eke ki te taumata e tika ana e ai ki te ta te tirohanga a etahi.  
No reira ka tirohia anotia e matou te aronga o tenei pire ara ki te rahui i te tuku raihana hokohoko i raro i te Sale of Liquor Act 1989. E rata ana matou ki te tikanga ara kia tuku arotakenga ia kaitono tuatahi mo te panga o ta ratou tono ki nga hapori otira te panga a-moni nei a aha ranei ki te rohe e tohungia ana. Ka rua ko nga take mo te utu me te panga o te waipiro ki taua rohe. Ka noho nga arotakenga nei hei mea kitenga mo te rahinga. Otira e tautoko ana matou i tenei ahuatanga i te mea ka kitea nga nekenekehanga o nga hapori ki te whakatau me ahu pehea ratou.  
Hai korero whakamutunga nei au e noho whakahihi nei i te mea i tae mai a Toi Te Ora no roto i toku rohe o Te Waiariki ki tetahi hui o te komiti whaiti. He ropu hauora a Toi Te Ora. Ka awhina tenei ropu i nga tangata toru rau mano neke atu i roto o Waiariki me Waikato hoki i Tauranga i Whakatane i Opotiki i Kawerau i Rotorua tae atu ki Taupo. Ko ta Toi Te Ora ki te komiti i tautoko ratou i te wahanga hou 9A mo nga tono a-raihana. E whakamarama ana i nga painga me nga utu me whakamarama nga raihana nei i nga pehitanga o te waipiro a-moni a-tangata nei i te takiwa a me tuku i enei korero ki te marea. No reira na runga i te ahuatanga o enei korero otira oku ake wheako hoki me te hiahia o te Pati Maori ki te rahui i te waipiro ki te manaaki i te oranga me te hauora o wa tatou whanau e tautoko ana matou i tenei pire i tona panuitanga tuarua. 
[ 
That is what Apirana Ngata said. I have great sympathy for Sir Apirana Ngata’s view. According to statistics approximately three in every four Maori over 18 years of age identify as drinkers with about one-third of those identifying themselves as binge drinkers. These are statistics that concern us greatly. We are especially concerned about harmful drinking amongst youth and heavy promotion of products designed to appeal to young people. We believe that much can be done to reduce alcohol-related harm experienced by Maori. We have found a method: it is a collective whanau approach. 
So we come back to this bill. What we should do right now is to restrict the granting of on-licences and off-licences under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. I have to say we are interested in the scope of the proposals. Last week the Alcohol Advisory Council told the Maori Affairs Committee that the Government should take a similar approach to alcohol as it does to tobacco. Strategic operations manager Gilbert Taurua said the harm caused by alcohol needs to be a higher priority in the health sector. He said Maori drinking patterns show that a large amount of alcohol is drunk over a long period of time. This was an important message. The prevalence of alcohol its low cost and  
relentless marketing 
 have created a permissive environment in which excessive drinking has become normalised bringing with it undue harm to our communities.  
So the Maori Party welcomed the release of the report Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm which gave a very clear indication of the range of measures that could be initiated to address ways to help change the drinking culture. We support various measures which include lowering drink-driving limits lifting the purchasing age and limiting liquor promotion and advertising. We also believe that an alcohol industry that has had an inappropriate influence on our communities needs to be challenged. In a perfect world alcohol would not feature in our communities but the reality is that 
it does 
so we now must strive towards enabling our whanau and communities to take control of their health and limit the damage that alcohol can do in their community.  
I know that the rationale of the select committee members in determining their report was to say that they thought this bill overlapped the Government’s work programme on alcohol reform and as such they did not see it as needing to be supported. However the package announced by Minister Power has been heavily criticised for failing to use devices such as excise tax to reduce alcohol consumption. There has also been criticism that the Government is merely tinkering around the edges with regard to restricting opening hours. Quite frankly it appears to some that the alcohol reforms are a disappointment. 
So we look anew at the aim of this bill to restrict the granting of on-licences and off-licences under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. We are satisfied that every application for an on-licence must be accompanied by an evaluation carried out by the applicant—firstly for the likely social impact relating to monetary and non-monetary costs on the area to which the application relates; and 
 
 secondly taxing the costs and impact of liquor consumption in that area. These evaluations will be available for public inspection. Indeed we support this because communities can determine  
with greater transparency  
what is in their best interests.  
In conclusion I am really proud that Toi Te Ora from my electorate of Te Waiariki came to a select committee hearing. Toi Te Ora is a health organisation that helps approximately 300000 people in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions 
— 
Tauranga Whakatane Opotiki Kawerau and Rotorua including Taupo. Toi Te Ora told the committee that it supports new section 9A for applications for on-licences to include  
an  
evaluation of benefits and costs. This evaluation should include the likely social impact of liquor consumption and monetary and non-monetary costs to the area to which the application relates and that these must be made available for public inspection. Based on this address my personal experiences and the desire of the Maori Party to be more vigilant in restricting alcohol use in order to take care of the well-being and health of our families we support this bill at its second reading 
.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill proposed by my honourable colleague George Hawkins 
MP for Manurewa. I am privileged to be the National MP based in the vibrant and diverse electorate of Manurewa and I have to report that there is a strong united voice asking for help in reducing the ravages of alcohol there. 
I have listened to residents’ views at many public meetings and sporting clubs when visiting the RSA and at the Sunday markets. It is a common theme. Responses to my recent surveys are clear. The pendulum has swung too far towards the liberalisation of alcohol laws. The residents of Manurewa know the statistics all too well. Many of them have suffered directly or indirectly alcohol-related harm. Alcohol is estimated to contribute to up to 1000 deaths a year and is a major driver of crime. Police say that alcohol is implicated in 30 percent of all recorded offences 34 percent of all recorded family violence incidents and 50 percent of all homicides. 
This National-led Government is committed to reducing the level of alcohol-related harm in all our communities. We are listening to public concerns. The Government’s package for alcohol law reform is the first stage in our response and adopts in full or in part 126 of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations. Our package aims to achieve three things: less alcohol-related harm including deaths family violence drunken disorder and accident compensation claims; a reduction in our binge-drinking culture especially among young people; and a reduction in the number of alcohol outlets and their trading hours. 
A key feature that has proved very popular with the residents of Manurewa whom I have spoken to and I am sure with my colleague the Hon George Hawkins is that the proposed legislation will give the local Manurewa community the right to decide how many outlets there are where they are and how long they are open for. When a decision is made to grant a licence the objective of our law must be considered as well as the provisions of the local alcohol policy and crucially whether the amenity of an area would be lessened should the licence be granted. We are giving local communities the choice to determine the outcome in their area. We will be giving parents more tools to manage their children’s access to alcohol and requiring more parental and individual responsibility for supply to minors. 
As my colleague Chester Borrows pointed out earlier those ready-to-drink alcohol mixes that we call RTDs will be restricted to 5 percent for its alcohol content. I am delighted at this initiative. They taste like soft drinks but they pack a hell of a punch. Ready-to-drink products will be required to be sold in containers limited to holding no more than 1.5 standard drinks. We will investigate a minimum pricing regime by giving retailers a year to provide sales and price data. If they are not forthcoming then the Government will consider regulatory options. 
I applaud my colleague George Hawkins for bringing this bill to the House some years ago in an effort to get the then Labour Government to address this huge problem of alcohol-related harm. As I have outlined the National-led Government’s package of reforms is comprehensive and in the opinion of the Social Services Committee the package of reforms has actually overtaken this bill. The select committee has recommended that this bill not be passed as far more comprehensive legislation is imminent. It is for this reason I concur with the select committee that this bill should not be passed. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Before I start my speech Mr Assistant Speaker could you please indulge me when I say “Good evening sir.” to Barry Goggin. On the 9 September Barry retired as one of the parliamentary gallery staff after 17 years’ service. He is a fine chap a very good bloke and I hope he is enjoying his retirement because it is well deserved. 
I stand in support of the second reading of the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Cam Calder who said he is based in Manurewa—even though he lives on the North Shore—has decided to vote against the bill. I am quite astounded by that because he stood up and outlined the real problems faced by people in the electorate of Manurewa and then proceeded to say he was speaking against the bill. That is not a good stance. 
In my time tonight there are only two questions that I will pose and then answer. First of all I ask what sort of society we want to live in and secondly I ask what sort of message we as members of Parliament want to send to our communities about alcohol. But before I discuss those questions I compliment my colleague the Hon George Hawkins on bringing this member’s bill to the House. Mr Hawkins is an example of a Labour MP who understands his communities who talks to his constituents and who acts on the recommendations of those who come to visit him and offer their counsel. I congratulate George. He has undertaken wide and varied consultation on this bill. I congratulate him on seeking to amend the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. When George decides to leave this House—and I know he has a few more terms left in him yet—he will be sorely missed by his constituents and he will leave huge shoes to fill. 
But I remind the House that this bill does not relate just to Manurewa; it relates to the whole country. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that under the Standing Orders a member is not allowed to barrack in the way that Mr Quinn is doing without sitting in his actual seat. If he really wants to interject in that manner he should go to the back of the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member—and I presume he has heard me say this on a number of occasions—that yes the rules according to Speaker’s rulings are that members may not shift their seat for the purpose of interjecting. However I note that the member has shifted because members do drift down to this end of the House and there is interjection. It helps to make shall I say a more engaged place. The interjections were light and friendly but were a little lacking in humour I might say. I did not think they interfered with the member’s speech and I just invite the member to continue with it. 
STUART NASH 
: I will provide an answer to the first question I posed about the sort of society that we want to live in. As politicians we have a unique opportunity to help to define the types of communities that we live in and our children grow up in. We have opportunities to send messages about the sort of society we want to create for our families and friends and for the country’s citizens. For me a number of messages are important in terms of creating safe and secure communities. 
The first message is that it is not acceptable to have a liquor store or a store advertising and selling alcohol on every street corner. We have enough problems with alcohol in our communities and more advertising in dairies where children buy their sweets is hardly the type of message we want to send to young children who are growing up. This bill deals with that problem. Alcohol causes more harm than almost any other drug in society and we need to send the message that drinking to excess is not normal healthy or acceptable and will not be tolerated by the wider community. 
The second message is that in a fully functioning and democratic society we need to have laws that respect the views of all who participate in the health and wealth of our communities. Let us be honest: alcohol sales affect many more people than those involved in the actual transaction. Alcohol for example is often drunk near to or at the point of sale. So we should let those who may be impacted by the drinking of alcohol comment on where and when a retailer can be located. This bill deals with that problem. It does so by granting any person the right to object to the granting of either on-licence or off-licence applications provided the objector can produce evidence that he or she would be adversely affected if the application were successful. 
The third message is that this bill requires that a report on the social impact of granting a liquor licence must be provided by a person who applies for a licence. Again that forces applicants to take responsibility for their proposed actions. This measure is a sea change. It is long overdue and it is most welcome. If the evaluation shows there will be harm to the community I have no doubt that under this legislation the application will be turned down. This bill is an example of democracy as it should be practised: with the input of all citizens and the applicant showing responsibility. It is about time we had that I say. It makes absolute sense and I fully support the ability of those in the community to have a say on activities that have an adverse impact upon them. 
My second question asked about the sort of message that we want to send as members of Parliament to our communities about alcohol. This year the Law Commission chaired by Sir Geoffrey Palmer put out a huge volume entitled  
Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
. The report was tabled in Parliament. I will read out a couple of points that make very disturbing reading. Members probably know about them but they are some of the elephants in the room that we just do not like to mention. Well the time has now come for us to be absolutely aware. The report states: “New Zealand has a pervasive culture of drinking to excess. National drinking surveys consistently show that around 25 percent of drinkers—the equivalent of 700000 New Zealanders—typically drink large quantities when they drink. Despite the incontrovertible evidence linking intoxication to a range of serious harms as a society we have developed a dangerous tolerance for drunkenness. The latest drinking survey shows … Ten percent or the equivalent of 224000 adults consumed enough to feel drunk at least weekly. … for a large sector of the population there is a dominant pattern of heavy intermittent drinking episodes the worst pattern for the drinker’s own health outcomes and the worst for damage to those around them.” Is this the sort of society we want to create and leave for our children? 
In the report a section entitled “What’s the problem?” states: “Alcohol is the backdrop to so many issues. Issues which New Zealand is not addressing very well issues like obesity suicide sexual health injuries and so on. … for a significant number of young people today drinking is not merely an adjunct to their social lives but the focal point drunkenness is not an occasional by-product of drinking but an end in itself.” Is that the sort of society that we want to create? 
The report further states: “Research suggests that a discernible relationship between a high concentration of outlet numbers (usually referred to as high outlet density or outlet ‘clustering’) and alcohol consumption at a neighbourhood level. … The Committee pointed in particular to an apparent relationship between outlet clustering and the extent of underage drinking.” 
I say this is the sort of harm that the Hon George Hawkins has witnessed in the Manurewa electorate this is the sort of harm and the sort of behaviour that the Hon George Hawkins does not want to see all around this country and this is the reason for this bill. Earlier I posed two questions. The first was about the sort of society that we want to live in. The answer to that is a society where all citizens have a say. George Hawkins’ bill allows for that. The second question I posed was about the sort of message that we as members of Parliament want to send to our communities about alcohol. The answer is a new message: responsible drinking is the only way forward. Drunkenness is simply not cool; in fact it is downright stupid. 
I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins. I think this is a wonderful bill. It does a hell of a lot to address the concerns that many people in New Zealand have about the state of drinking in our society and about the prevalence of alcohol outlets in our communities. I commend this bill to the House and I hope that all 122 members will vote for it. Thank you very much. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill which is in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. 
I understand that this bill was first introduced in 2008. There were 53 submissions and 34 submitters who wished to be heard. Ten of them were heard in the previous Parliament before the change to the most excellent National Government under John Key. Since that time the Social Services Committee has kept in close touch with the Hon George Hawkins. Its members were well aware that Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission report was due to be presented so they put the bill on hold pending that very comprehensive report. 
I must agree with previous speakers that the pendulum has swung too far in New Zealand. Alcohol is now a $5 billion industry—a $5 billion industry. One of my concerns about alcohol is the effect it has on our children and in fact on our unborn children—the effect of alcohol on children in utero and the number of children born with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The Law Commission report estimated that some thousands of children a year were affected by the disorder. This is an extremely worrying concern because those children will never have a chance to achieve their full potential. Often mothers and fathers have no idea of the implications of their drinking which impacts on literally thousands of New Zealand children. So there is no doubt that the importance of this subject is enormous. 
I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins on bringing in this member’s bill which is generally focused on local communities having a say. There is no doubt that members of the South Auckland community have been particularly strong in their concerns about liquor outlets in their area. The Hon George Hawkins has listened to them. Their concerns were manifested in a march and rally at the Manukau City centre about 6 weeks ago. Representatives from all parties were there on that particular occasion but I must admit that I do not think the Hon George Hawkins was there. [ 
Interruption 
] He was there! I thought he was campaigning for the local board of Manurewa but— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Manurewa Action! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Manurewa Action Team yes but conscientiously he was marching—he was there—and so was my excellent colleague Dr Cam Calder who is doing a tremendous job down there in Manurewa. He is obviously the natural successor of George Hawkins but of course that will be after George Hawkins has become a board member for that area. 
But the point is that on that march the local community was very strong about the adverse effects of alcohol in South Auckland the huge number of outlets in that area the violence associated with it and the sorts of examples we have heard from other speakers of alcohol outlets being close to schools. The message from that rally was absolutely crystal clear: they wanted to have a say as to how alcohol was sold and distributed in South Auckland. That message reflects the attitudes of the whole country. 
The good news is that the National Government is responding in a very comprehensive way to Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission report. It is responding in 126 ways to the 153 recommendations. The basis of that response with regard to local communities is that licences will be harder to get and easier to lose—harder to get and easier to lose. That is a very very important message and one that George Hawkins certainly supports very strongly. Local communities will have the power to decide how many alcohol outlets are in their communities where they are and at what times they are open. That very much encapsulates what the Hon George Hawkins’ bill is all about. 
It was very interesting to hear the rhetoric from Labour members. The Social Services Committee recommended to Parliament that at this stage of events the bill should not be passed and instead the comprehensive package that is to be put into place by the National Government should come forward. The National Government undoubtedly has already made a great series of interventions in terms of policing and enforcement. There are 300 more police in areas like South Auckland and 600 throughout the country. But more important there will be tougher alcohol laws in this comprehensive package and in particular and in response to this bill local communities will have much great say on how alcohol will be dealt with in their communities. 
It is right and proper that Parliament follows the guidance of the Social Services Committee recommendations that at this stage the bill is not passed and that the comprehensive recommendations of the National Government are accepted. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I am delighted to endorse and echo the fine comments and conclusions of my colleague the member for Hunua and as other members have done at the outset to acknowledge the considerable work of the member for Manurewa the Hon George Hawkins on this issue. I would also like to acknowledge my predecessor as the MP for Hamilton West Martin Gallagher who also demonstrated a determination during his time in this House to confront the problems caused by alcohol abuse in our communities. As some members will know Martin is currently a candidate in our local body elections and looks likely I should say to bolt in. He has been a Hamilton city councillor before and in fact was deputy mayor before he was first elected to Parliament. I welcome the prospect that he will be back on our council and I look forward to working with him in our respective roles. 
Martin and I both welcome this Government’s decision to implement the vast majority of the Law Commission’s alcohol reform recommendations and it is very good to have his endorsement of the Government’s lead in this area. We are both especially pleased at the powers that will be given to councils to implement local alcohol plans. That is a very important measure that my constituents our civic leaders the police our health providers social agencies and many others warmly welcome. 
In light of those comments and as we have heard from one or two members tonight there may be some people watching or listening to broadcasts of Parliament this evening who are puzzled that this bill will be voted down tonight. So I want to stress as other members have that it is neither a slight on the member for Manurewa nor a signal that members are taking these issues lightly. On the contrary it is because the problems the bill addresses are about to be presented to the House in a much more comprehensive measure and for that reason only the Social Services Committee with Mr Hawkins’ agreement—it was good that he came to a select committee meeting recently and talked to us—is recommending that this bill should not proceed at this point. I commend the member for Manurewa for concluding that events have overtaken this bill and that his work is done. It is a sensible and pragmatic decision in the circumstances. 
I look forward to discussing the measures in this bill and many other related issues when the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report is introduced to the House in a few weeks from now. I agree with my colleague Chester Borrows that there are some ridiculous arrangements governing the sale of liquor in our communities at the present time and that we have major problems as a consequence. Almost unfettered access to alcohol is certainly contributing to our binge-drinking culture. In turn it is exacerbating a major health problem that is a special concern of mine—I did not know that my good colleague Dr Hutchison was about to mention it as well but I am delighted he has done so—and that is our nation’s significant incidence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I try to raise awareness of that serious health concern in my electorate whenever I can especially when I talk to school groups and younger audiences. It is a tragic fact that hundreds of babies are conceived each year to mothers who have consumed too much alcohol. In many cases in fact probably in most the mother has no intention of becoming pregnant and drinks dangerously for some time before and after conception in complete ignorance of the dangerous risk she is taking. It is a lethal error. 
Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a lifelong disability that can have severe physical and intellectual consequences. It is a tragedy that we hear so little about it and that so few young people in particular are aware of the serious risk they take in drinking regularly and heavily while being sexually active. I hope and expect that the more comprehensive bill we will start considering in the House later this year will provide an opportunity for members to promote much greater awareness of foetal alcohol syndrome and a raft of other alcohol-related concerns. 
There is certainly a strong desire in Hamilton for vastly improved alcohol legislation and that is why I say to members opposite who have been interjecting regularly throughout the evening that it is important that the Government has taken the considered approach that it has. We have given officials the time they needed to convert the huge array of legislative reforms into workable legislation that will come before the House. The idea that we should rush the measure is likely to be a recipe for the mistakes that Parliament has made in the past when alcohol reform legislation has been too ad hoc and has dealt in a piecemeal fashion with parts of the problem. It is right that we tackle this problem comprehensively. That is what the Government’s response will be all about when the legislation comes before this House and I look forward to debating those measures when it does. I certainly am committed to ensuring that we get it right this time and that we take a major step in the right direction to tackle our alcohol-related problem in New Zealand. 
I conclude—I think I am the last speaker before the member has a chance to sum up—by commending the member for Manurewa once again for his work on this issue and for his pragmatic decision in relation to this bill at this time. I look forward to all members of this House participating in a very positive fashion towards the implementation of a really improved liquor control regime later on this year. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I am really disappointed particularly with those two doctors Cam Calder and Paul Hutchison on the other side of the House. They spoke so passionately about the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill because they know at heart the damage that alcohol does to adults children and unborn babies. Anyone who has anything to do with drinking knows the harm it does. I am really disappointed in Cam Calder particularly who pretends that he lives in Manurewa. He does not live in Manurewa. He opened an office there recently but only George Hawkins who is the local MP and I actually live there. 
Hon Member 
: He doesn’t live there either. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: That is probably right; I am probably the only one who lives there. But George Hawkins is a good member for Manurewa and I am delighted that he has taken leadership in promoting this bill. 
I am probably the only MP here who does not drink. I am not aware of anybody else who does not. I do not drink. In the past I have not taken a lot of interest in these sorts of bills and because I do not drink people might think I oppose anything to do with alcohol. But tonight I am very keen to speak because this bill was introduced by my very good friend George Hawkins who is forever very conscious of the work he does in the community. In Parliament he reflects the aspirations of and is conscious of problems in that community. A couple of weeks ago he spoke in the House on his Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill a local bill. 
Very clearly my background is one in which any drug or substance that impacts on and impairs one’s faculties is banned. My people for the last 1500 years have not drunk. Now that we know the harm this drug has done to our society they were probably right in not drinking. 
This bill should be called the “Empowering Communities Bill” because that is really what it is all about. Basically it is empowering local communities to make sure that any new liquor outlet is not opened without their consent and without consultation with them. One could also call it the “Harm Minimisation Bill” because that is what it is supposed to do. 
I have a couple of statistics. For example in 1990 there were eight licences per 10000 people in New Zealand. That included on-licences off-licences and club licences. By the year 2006 there were 35 licences per 10000 people. That is almost more than a 400-fold increase in the number of outlets. In a place like Manurewa South Auckland that has done a lot of damage to the community particularly in relation to crime. We know that a lot of those crimes are committed against minorities. I know a lot of Indian people and one should never forget Navtej Singh who was killed because some people wanted to steal alcohol from his dairy. Similarly a number of other crimes have been committed because of alcohol. As we know from police reports 90 percent of crimes happen after 11 o’clock at night and are often related to the consumption of alcohol. 
This bill is important. Labour members and in particular the Maori Party have been promoting anti-smoking bills and so has the Green Party. Alcohol is a substance that harms not only the person who consumes it but also the people around that person because of the effect on driving and because of people going around drunk. Cigarettes often have bad effects on the consumer. Alcohol often impacts on family relationships on unborn babies—as has been said before—and on the wider community. So for the life of me I personally cannot understand why we need more outlets and why we have loosened regulations. That is something that for me at least I cannot understand. It is something that causes so much harm in the community and it is being allowed so openly and so much. 
Corner dairies have been mentioned. There are a couple of issues there. I personally do not believe that dairies should be allowed to sell alcohol but at the same time I have to say that some of my Indian friends have said that there has to be a level playing field. We cannot target just the dairies. If outlets like dairies have to stop selling alcohol why not the big supermarkets? If we are going to look at the hours of opening of these outlets there has to be a universal rule. Whether it is a dairy a small shop an RSA or a supermarket the rules must be similar. I have been approached by a number of dairy owners who are very concerned about some of the issues discussed in the Law Commission report on alcohol by Geoffrey Palmer. They are concerned that they might be targeted. We have to make sure that small corner dairies’ interests are taken into account when we are considering this bill. But I personally do not believe that dairies should sell alcohol because they are supposed to be selling food and other items that are useful for the community. 
All in all I support this bill. But I am really surprised tonight to hear members on the Government side of the House all telling nice stories about how bad alcohol is but still not supporting this bill. That is very disappointing. 
Once again I commend George Hawkins my friend and colleague who has brought this bill to the House and the effort he has put in behind this bill. I know that on our side of the House most of us if not all of us will be supporting this bill. I am delighted that the Green Party and the Maori Party will be supporting this bill as well. With those few words I commend this bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is that the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be read a second time. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request a personal vote be taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: You can do that once I have put the question. I want to get the sense of the House—that is the process. The question is that the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be read a second time. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [ 
Interruption 
] The Noes have it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request a personal vote be taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: OK let us have a personal vote. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 53 
Anderton (P) 
Dyson (P) 
Kedgley 
Robertson G 
Ardern J (P) 
Fenton (P) 
King A (P) 
Robertson R (P) 
Barker (P) 
Flavell 
Laban 
Sepuloni (P) 
Beaumont (P) 
Goff (P) 
Lees-Galloway (P) 
Sharples 
Burns (P) 
Graham 
Locke 
Shearer (P) 
Chauvel (P) 
Hague 
Mackey (P) 
Sio (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Harawira 
Mahuta (P) 
Street (P) 
Clendon 
Hawkins 
Nash 
Turei 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hipkins (P) 
Norman 
Turia 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
O’Connor 
Twyford (P) 
Curran (P) 
Hughes D (P) 
Parker (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes G 
Pillay (P) 
Davis 
Huo (P) 
Prasad (P) 
Teller: 
Delahunty 
Katene 
Ririnui (P) 
Chadwick 
Noes 61 
Adams 
Dean (P) 
Key (P) 
Smith N 
Ardern S (P) 
Douglas (P) 
King C (P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Auchinvole (P) 
English (P) 
Lee 
Tisch (P) 
Bakshi (P) 
Finlayson (P) 
Lotu-Iiga (P) 
Tolley (P) 
Bennett D (P) 
Foss (P) 
Macindoe (P) 
Tremain (P) 
Bennett P (P) 
Gilmore (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Upston (P) 
Blue (P) 
Goudie 
McClay (P) 
Wagner (P) 
Borrows (P) 
Groser (P) 
Parata (P) 
Wilkinson (P) 
Boscawen 
Guy (P) 
Peachey (P) 
Williamson 
Bridges (P) 
Hayes (P) 
Power (P) 
Wong (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Heatley 
Quinn (P) 
Woodhouse (P) 
Calder (P) 
Henare (P) 
Roy E (P) 
Young (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hide (P) 
Roy H (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Ryall 
Coleman (P) 
Joyce (P) 
Shanks (P) 
Teller: 
Collins (P) 
Kaye (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Goodhew 
Motion not agreed to. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given that we have made excellent progress I seek leave for the House to now rise until next sitting day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.