Volume 642 Week 55 - Thursday 13 September 2007 
Volume 642 Week 55 - Thursday 13 September 2007 
[Volume:642;Page:11851] 
Thursday 13 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Property Law Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill and to the first readings of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day. 
Questions to Ministers 
Corrections Minister—Rugby Tour Advice 
1. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Did he advise the Prime Minister of his intention to take a suspended prison manager with him on a rugby tour since the Cabinet Office manual states that “the Prime Minister should be advised in writing of conflicts that are of particular concern or that require ongoing management”; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 No; I made an independent decision. 
Simon Power 
: Has he read the section in the  
Cabinet Manual 
 that states that “appearances and proprietary can be as important as actual conflict of interest in establishing what is acceptable behaviour”; if so how would those whistleblowers who made the allegations against the suspended prison manager perceive his inclusion on the rugby tour as anything other than a personal endorsement from the Minister? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot prejudge what they may or may not think regarding the decision. In hindsight I believe I made the wrong call. It has placed unnecessary stress on my ministerial colleagues on my staff and on my triumphant parliamentary rugby team. For that I apologise and that is why I offered to resign. 
Simon Power 
: Does he agree that despite transferring responsibility for Mr Morgan’s investigation because of Mr Morgan’s relationship with his senior private secretary his decision to include Mr Morgan on the tour actually strengthened the appearance of a conflict of interest by establishing a direct link between the suspended prison officer and himself that could be perceived to influence the investigation? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Again I cannot prejudge what perceptions one might or might not draw from this decision. I said that in hindsight I believe the call was wrong. Perhaps it was naive of me to think that I could keep sport free of politics. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm reports that indicate that in addition to warnings from his senior private secretary Mr Morgan himself questioned whether his inclusion in the rugby tour would create a conflict; and if they could both see the conflict it could create why could he not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I had discussions in my office. I had no direct contact at all with Mr Morgan. As I said before I now in hindsight realise that that call was the wrong one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether Mr Morgan played in any other parliamentary rugby team games prior to going to France and post the launching of an inquiry into the prison officers in which he was concerned; if the answer is yes if there was not a conflict of interest in those prior games why would there be one just because he went to France? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that he was an active participant in the parliamentary rugby team for at least 3 years prior to the trip to France and played a very active role in a number of charity games around the country and for that we are grateful. 
Simon Power 
: How can he now have any moral authority as the Minister of Corrections to speak out against corruption in prisons when his actions send a message to other staff that zero tolerance does not apply if a prison officer is to travel with the Minister? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That is a ridiculous assertion. Every inquiry is completely independent of the Minister’s office or anyone in my office. I have full confidence that the inquiry will continue and make its rightful conclusions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether he regrets that this country has become so politically correct that even something as innocent as a charity rugby game is now to be the cause of allegations of a conflict of interest and does he recall the way his colleague Mr Parker was treated when he was found to be totally innocent and did not receive one apology from the people who made the allegations in the first place? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I let the other question from the member go to the Minister even though it was questionable whether it was within a ministerial responsibility but the matter had been raised generally. But I think for that question there is clearly no ministerial responsibility. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not contesting your ruling but the point I am trying to make is the question that goes to the core of the Minister’s judgment. The point I am trying to make is that this country is so descended to that sort of petty politics that that is a central issue of ministerial responsibility. Personally I believe it is not; I believe that people are entitled to a private life and an opportunity to go offshore albeit briefly paid for by themselves. I think I can ask the Minister whether he regrets the circumstances that he is in. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made his point quite clearly through what was not a point of order. 
Simon Power 
: How does he think the 5800 Department of Corrections staff feel when they hear the Prime Minister say he will continue to be their Minister for the moment as a punishment; will they feel any better knowing they will be hamstrung by having him as a caretaker Minister until the fifth Minister of Corrections under Labour is announced? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not think anyone has ever pretended that the Department of Corrections portfolio is an easy one. I will continue to do my job to make the changes necessary and improvements in the Department of Corrections that we have seen since the National Government let the department languish for too long. We have made huge improvements in reducing the number of escapes reducing the assault rate in prisons and expanding the number of drug and alcohol treatment places in prisons. I will continue to get on and do that job. 
Simon Power 
: Does he think that the Prime Minister has confidence in him as Minister of Corrections and is he confident of keeping the portfolio after the reshuffle? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I believe she has confidence in me to continue in the job as long as she and Cabinet decide that that should be the case. 
Question time interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we have all seen the parliamentary rugby trophy handed to Damien O’Connor by Dover Samuels. Perhaps a notice of motion would have been a better way to do it. Would you please remove it. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I know this is unusual but I am sure the House would grant leave for that trophy to be tabled. 
Trophy by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure the Clerk will find a place for it up here on the Table. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Land Transport—Investment 
2. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How much is the Government expecting to invest in land transport in the 2007-08 year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This Labour-led Government is forecast to invest over $2.7 billion in land transport in the coming year which is about $300 million more than we expect to collect through fuel excise duty road-user charges and motor vehicle registrations over the year. That compares with 1999 when the then Government collected $1.7 billion yet invested only $1.1 billion. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What reports has she seen about the dedication of all land transport revenues such as fuel excise duty into the National Land Transport Fund? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen the  
Hansard 
 of 5 April 1995 which documents the debate on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ Road Transport Revenues Fund Bill which aimed to dedicate all petrol tax to roading. Labour and the Alliance voted for that bill. However all except one National member voted against it including the current spokesperson on transport Mr Williamson. Mr Williamson did not want the petrol tax paid by the people of New Zealand to go into roading and he doubted whether the Labour Party would support the bill which it did. Mr Williamson went on to say it was unlikely that the Labour Party if it came to power would dedicate all that revenue to land transport. How wrong he was! 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How much of the spending is to be allocated to the most dangerous stretches of road or traffic black spots to make them safer and to lower the road toll further in light of the fact that the Government now seems unwilling to increase the driving age from 15 despite widespread support for such a measure? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A sizable proportion of the National Land Transport Fund is dedicated to improving roading and addressing black spots. I would say to the member that he ought to test this House as to whether it wishes to raise the driving age of young New Zealanders. I think it is probably timely that this House was tested to see whether it would like to see the age raised. It is a question that this House could decide on. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen the International Energy Agency report of July this year which I have raised previously in the House and which is now featured on the cover of the  
Listener 
 saying that demand for oil is expected to exceed supply by 2012 leading to shortages and price rises; and is she not concerned that the billions of dollars planned for motorways might be better spent on less oil-dependent alternatives? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There does need to be a balance of expenditure between roads whether they are State highways or local roads and other alternatives including passenger transport. I am proud that this Government has to a very large extent taken that issue on board and put its money where its mouth is. I know that the member appreciates that including the investment we have made into rail which was badly neglected in this country. We are committed to investing further funding into passenger transport because we do need to ensure that more people shift off the roads and into public transport. I believe we will see that over the years to come. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What further reports has she seen about the dedication of all land transport revenues such as fuel excise duty into the National Land Transport Fund? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: On 25 July this year I announced the full hypothecation or dedication of all fuel excise duty to land transport activities. This decision ensures that the funds collected from road transport users will be used to fund activities that benefit those same users whether it is in roading or in passenger transport. I saw however in the  
Wanganui Chronicle 
 this week that the doubter Mr Williamson said that National now supports this policy so I presume that is another policy flip-flop. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer and the answers to the earlier questions does the Minister accept that by transferring all the petrol tax across to the National Land Transport Fund now instead of next July the need for a regional tax in Auckland could very well be negated? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The short answer I am sorry to tell the member is no. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen the  
3 News 
 poll from Sunday night that shows that 55 percent of New Zealanders believe that this Government is not doing enough to combat climate change and is that not a really strong mandate for her to shift more money out of unsustainable roading and into— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Walking. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: —more choice for the travelling public like better public transport ride-sharing facilities for cycling and yes I say to Winston even walking? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is exactly what this Government has been doing and maybe one day the member will even give us credit for the big changes we have made to the investment into public transport and into roads and cycleways and for the commitment we have made to ensure that the new roads that are built take account of those issues. Unfortunately we mainly get the brickbats. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What reasons did he give in his Cabinet paper entitled  
Review of the Electoral Finance Regime 
 for recommending that the regulated period operate from 1 January to polling day? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: That a longer regulated period would enable a greater proportion of what is actually campaign expenditure to be accounted for. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the Cabinet paper there was one sentence covering the matter he has just raised and can he tell us how Cabinet came to such a significant and Draconian decision on the basis of one sentence of reasons? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot confirm that there was only one sentence in the Cabinet paper on that matter. I can count nine. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that an exception to the 1 January regulated period has been made for organisations communicating with their own members which will effectively legalise pamphlets like the Council of Trade Unions  
Election 05 
 pamphlet openly endorsing the Labour Party— 
Hon Annette King 
: And they declared it. 
Hon Bill English 
: —and that they will be allowed to spend as much as they like on such pamphlets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As my colleague reminds me the Council of Trade Unions actually declared that pamphlet unlike some others we could mention. Secondly that exception could equally apply to organisations such as Business New Zealand which to my knowledge has never campaigned on behalf of the Labour Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of the Electoral Finance Bill will be that unions will be able to leave this kind of pamphlet in every staffroom every supermarket every fastfood outlet—in fact everywhere that they have some members—and will be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To follow up my previous answer I can confirm that organisations can distribute to their membership and that covers organisations that notoriously tend to support the National Party. For example I am sure that the same rules would apply for the organisation that laughably calls itself the Kyoto Forestry Association. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received reports to the effect that only one party in this Parliament is concerned about the 1 January date due to the fact it is awash with money and will have been forced by the end of the year—prior to 1 January—to have spent it on billboards talking about one law for all and “Kiwi not iwi” which is the kind of material it ran for the last election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that fact and I can further confirm that yesterday Mr English tried to give the impression that the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboards were not actually electioneering. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] Now if we have finished the interchanges outside of the Standing Orders we will return to the Standing Orders. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why when the Government has set the regulated period at up to 11 months in election year it has kept the cap for candidate spending at $20000 which now has to cover 11 months rather than 3 months and is this a shoddy attempt to protect useless Labour MPs who are expecting to get rolled from their seats? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No what it is more likely to do is to stop National Party candidates with extraordinarily deep pockets who have been running around the business sector getting very large donations and spending vast sums of money from getting their useless backsides back into this place. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now telling us that although an incumbent member of Parliament will be able to spend his or her full public funding for parliamentary purposes and the leader’s office of any party will be able to spend large amounts of public money on information and on selling its party a candidate who wants to stand against an incumbent MP will be able to spend only $20000 in the whole of the election year when the previous rules were $20000 in 3 months? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the member skates over—as he did yesterday—is the fact that parliamentary spending is capped. It is not an open-ended budget at all whereas what a number of National Party candidates want to spend is a totally open-ended budget. Secondly he also skates over the fact that there are rules around that and that it cannot be electioneering within a strict definition. That is most important. Of course what is most difficult for the National Party is that it has to be promoting policy. When a party does not have any policies spending money on blank billboards is a waste of money. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the law designed to stop as an example what happened in Aoraki at the last election when Jo Goodhew raised $51000 by way of donations only to come to Parliament and after that disappear from public sight? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what the ministerial responsibility for that is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The last part I think at least shows us that every cloud has a silver lining. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that the Government supports a much tighter restriction on political candidates than there used to be at the same time as it has opened up for unlimited spending on publications like this one from the union movement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The limit on political spending increases the time within which the money is able to be spent—there always were those limits. The matter that the member refers to has always been uncapped but of course he can always raise the issues via the select committee process should he actually deign to turn up to participate in it. 
Refugees—Fraudulent Claims and Refugee Status 
4.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he believe someone who the Refugee Status Appeals Authority states “has a history of giving false evidence about numerous matters concerning his claimed Christian activities including the alleged consequences of those activities.” and “has produced fabricated documents in both his first and his second refugee claim including self-serving fraudulent letters.” is the kind of person New Zealand should consider granting refugee status to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I believe that Immigration New Zealand and the relevant appellate bodies— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to have a conversation they will please take it outside the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The debate back here is taking place because someone behind me made a rather serious allegation. All I said was: “Look I never crooked some old Japanese lady.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is all very interesting but it is not a point of order. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I believe that Immigration New Zealand and the relevant appellate bodies which have all of the relevant information before them are the best places to decide whether a person meets the requirements for the grant of refugee status rather than the court of public opinion. Of course I have refrained from referring to specific appellate bodies or tribunals by name in relation to a specific case. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just like to indicate that my next question will be slightly longer than I would normally ask but it does contain— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is all right. 
Peter Brown 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. Does the Minister believe that someone who during his initial refugee claim and first appeal maintained that he was baptised in New Zealand not in Korea then subsequently claimed to have been baptised in Korea before he moved to New Zealand and even produced what was judged to be a false Korean baptism certificate to support his claim—a move that led the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to note the appellant’s “willingness and propensity to produce false documents to bolster his claims and then to modify his evidence wherever necessary to patch up any inconsistencies in those false documents”—is the kind of person New Zealand should allow to remain here? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am prevented by the relevant sections of the Immigration Act from commenting on this matter in any detail. I judge that it would also be inappropriate for me to prejudge a matter that may come before me at some future date. 
Keith Locke 
: Why does New Zealand not follow the example of Australia and some other countries in not deporting Christian converts from Islam back to Iran because of the dangers of persecution there particularly since President Ahmadinejad came to power? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is not appropriate for me to comment on the policies of other countries. I would note however that no advisory has been received from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in respect of that country. I can further confirm that the New Zealand Government is continuing to negotiate with the Iranian Government on seeking a resolution to travel document issues for Iranian nationals. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister believe that a person whose “attendance at church his conversion of an Iranian woman and his attempts to convert remand refugees were all activities calculated for the sole purpose of advancing his refugee claim” as stated by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority which rejected his claim that he made a genuine conversion to Christianity is the kind of person New Zealand should allow to stay here? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that I am prevented by the relevant sections of the Immigration Act from commenting on this matter in any detail. 
Keith Locke 
: Is not the Minister’s approach of trying to deport Iranian Christian converts to third countries both unrealistic in that it would be hard to find a country that would grant them permanent residence and also saying that New Zealand is heartless or less compassionate than other countries in this respect? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In respect of the first part of the question I am advised that there are indeed real possibilities for third-country removal for people in the same type of situation as this particular case. In respect of the second part of the question I do not believe that the New Zealand Government has acted heartlessly in this matter—quite the reverse. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister confirm that the appellant in refugee appeals 74256 and 75889 from which the quotes in my preceding questions were drawn is an Iranian who has recently ended what his supporters such as Keith Locke have called a hunger strike but what his lawyer now claims was “a fast and not done to try to blackmail the Government” and what was ultimately probably nothing more than a farce and can the Minister confirm who this man is? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am prevented by the relevant sections of the Immigration Act from commenting on this matter in any detail. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table refugee appeal No. 74256 from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table refugee appeal No. 75889 from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article headed “Germany halts deportation of Iranian Christian” from BosNewsLife News Center. 
Document not tabled. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article from People’s Daily Online headed “Netherlands suspends deportation of homosexual …”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a press statement from Peter Brown on 17 August headed: “Setting the Record Straight”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a second statement by Peter Brown 90 minutes later on the same day with the same heading but half the size because— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of a  
Scoop 
 interview with Peter Brown where he tries to explain— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table an article by Keith Locke where he advocates and supports Pol Pot. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a document setting out how we followed Australia with respect to the  
Tampa 
 refugees—they took none and we took all of them. 
Document not tabled. 
Beneficiaries—Debt to Work and Income 
5.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many beneficiaries are in debt to Work and Income and how much do they owe? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
 on behalf of the  
Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I am advised that 178496 current Work and Income clients have debts that they owe and that the total owing is $324.8 million. That money includes benefit overpayments benefit fraud and recoverable assistance which constitutes 43 percent of established debt. The vast majority of those debts are under $1000 each. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister confirm the answer to question for written answer No. 11509 which showed that almost 70 percent of beneficiaries are in debt to Work and Income and is that figure acceptable? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It depends on the cause of the debt. Forty-three percent of that debt includes advance repayments. I am sure that even that member would support our social security system being used to advance money that is then repaid to the State rather than those people having to resort to loan sharks—or maybe that is her preference. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the amount of benefit-related debt? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The most significant thing we are doing is getting people off benefits and into paid work. Under the Labour-led Government New Zealand has achieved record low unemployment levels. We are also taking an early intervention approach to detect potential overpayments and stop them from continuing. Data matching is taking place between the Inland Revenue Department the Department of Corrections the Department of Internal Affairs the Customs Service the Accident Compensation Corporation the Housing New Zealand Corporation and Work and Income. The Ministry of Social Development is investigating all suspected cases of overpayments and where fraud is being committed the ministry is prosecuting. 
Judith Collins 
: How can it be that benefit numbers have gone down but benefit debt has gone up? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I recommend a new maths approach to the member who consistently uses new maths. For example in her press statement of 6 July she compared beneficiary numbers and got them wrong she compared debt levels and got them wrong and she compared numbers of staff managing beneficiary debt and got them wrong. The member needs to get her facts right before she poses a question. 
Judith Collins 
: How can it be that in 2002 beneficiary debt was $500 million and now 5 years later we have fewer beneficiaries but a debt of $750 million is owed by current beneficiaries and former beneficiaries? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member is comparing the number of people who were on a benefit with the number who are on a benefit and off a benefit. One cannot compare one lot of data sets with another then say the figures are moving in the wrong direction. The total number of people on benefits is down the total number of people who are working on benefit fraud is actually down and the total debt is down. The member needs to get her facts right before she can ask a serious question in the House. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she agree with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development Peter Hughes who in 2005 said: “Benefit debt is a bad thing. It gets in the way of people getting on with their lives. It gets in the way of people being able to stay in work and move forward and succeed.”; if beneficiary debt was such a bad thing in 2005 how come according to his ministry’s figures 70 percent of current beneficiaries are in debt to Work and Income? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I support people whether they are on benefits or in low-income jobs being able to get recoverable assistance—financial support—through our social security system rather than having to resort to loan sharks. That member clearly does not support that view. The amount of debt that is being established under our Government excluding the recoverable assistance advances has fallen from 1.61 percent of total benefit expenditure in 2001-02 to 1.18 percent. That is in the opposite direction of the incorrect figures that that member continues to put out. 
Judith Collins 
: How can it be in the best interest of beneficiaries for them to be encouraged to take on debt they simply cannot afford to the extent that 70 percent of current beneficiaries are now in debt to Work and Income—and that is not even including all those who are in debt everywhere else? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Recoverable assistance should be and is available to people on benefits or in low-income jobs. If it is that member’s party’s policy to return to the 1990s when people on benefits or low incomes had to resort to going to loan sharks for essential items then that will be really bad news for a lot of New Zealanders. 
Physical Activity—Promotion 
6.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: What is the Government doing to promote physical activity among New Zealanders? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 This weekend kicks off a 7-week Push Play campaign targeting people who want to exercise more but who lead busy lives and do not know how to get going. The campaign provides Kiwis with an activity diary that will enable them to devise a plan that suits their lifestyle. They will receive support in emails from celebrities such TaweraNikau Maggie Barry and Robbie Magasiva. People who take part in Push Play Nation with be rewarded with health and will be entered to win prizes donated by the private sector. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister for Sport and Recreation tell the House whether he has seen any other proposals for promoting physical activity in this country? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen quite a few. I have seen some very active members including probably the best-looking 60-year-old in the House at the moment. My colleague Chris Finlayson was active this morning. But I have seen a report from the National Party which seems to think that junk food is an appropriate reward for enticement into sport. That is something I disagree with. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Question No. 7 was set down for the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. I note that the quote that is specifically used in the question “We have not grown our coal-fired power” is clearly recorded in  
Hansard 
 as being from the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. So I am surprised that the question has been redirected. The question specifically refers to the issue of the Government’s policy of carbon neutrality. I wish to be reassured that in my supplementary questions I will not be constrained as a consequence of the Government’s decision to divert the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. As the member well knows it is within the discretion of the Government to decide to whom the question is assigned. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It must be simple; it is the same person. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That Minister well knows that Ministers will often duck questions simply because questions have not been set down for the right Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would we please just settle. Would the member ask the question without interruption. 
Coal-fired Power—Carbon Neutrality 
7.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How does he reconcile his statement to the House last Wednesday “We have not grown our coal-fired power” with the official Government figures showing an increase from 1533 GWh in 2000 or 4 percent of New Zealand’s power to 5119 GWh in 2006 or 12 percent of New Zealand’s power and with the Government’s goal of carbon neutrality? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Energy 
: I will answer on behalf of the Minister of Energy and the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues who is currently opening yet another wind farm. No new coal-fired generation has been built in the term of this Labour-led Government. The rise in generation is because of cheap Maui gas running out and the Huntly power station switching from using primarily gas to using primarily coal. But I am pleased to inform the House that last year less coal was burnt for generation than in the year prior to that. This trend will continue because of the recent commissioning of Huntly E3P Power Station and substantial renewable investments by both State-owned enterprises and Contact Energy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the expanded use of coal under this Government—seven times that of new wind energy—be consistent with the Government’s goal of carbon neutrality when coal is the dirtiest form of energy and the single-largest global source of greenhouse gases? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Some people can tell the difference between capacity and generation. If people had been brighter in the past and we had all understood the importance of climate change 20 30 or 40 years ago— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Even 10 years ago. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —or even 10 years ago then we would not be in this situation. I am not prepared to do what that member suggests which is to shut down the power station and have Kiwis go cold at night. That is what that member wants. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the future of thermal generation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As it happens I have. I have also seen a report that Nicky Wagner supports carbon neutrality. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen a report that Nicky Wagner supports carbon neutrality. I have seen reports that Nick Smith wants to get out of the Kyoto Protocol at the first opportunity. I have seen reports that John Key wants to stay in Kyoto but I have seen a report that states that John Key thinks it is all a hoax. I have seen a report that the National Party’s spokesperson on energy is bullish on the future role of fossil fuels and all I can say is that the National Party at some time is going to have to say what its policy is rather than going around emitting a whole pile of methane. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If Governments during the 1990s had taken the repeated advice of many energy analysts who urged them to renegotiate the Maui gas agreements to allow a slower depletion rate and a longer lifetime for the field through more efficient use of the gas would we be burning as much coal at Huntly as we currently are? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a really interesting question and I think the answer is probably not. But there are some other factors involved such as whether Methanex would have kept going for longer under that sort of arrangement if the gas was available for longer and on the balance of the different sorts of fossil fuels it is very hard to say what would have happened. But certainly the National Party has to take a lot of responsibility for the fact that we are running out of gas. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Seeing that the Minister has challenged National about its ideas on climate change I seek leave to table our paper  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Government’s decision to spend $3.4 million on a brand new 8 megawatt coal burner at the Waiouru Military Camp that over its 30-year life will emit one million tonnes of carbon dioxide sit with the Government’s policy of a carbon neutral Public Service? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know that that member prefers cold soldiers. We prefer them to have reliable energy and that means of course that we will have to make other savings within the Public Service. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the army’s new coal-fired boiler will emit 100 times as much carbon dioxide as the Ministry for the Environment will save by going carbon neutral and does that not show the shallowness of the Government having a handful of paper-pushing departments going carbon neutral while the real sources of carbon are ignored? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Not only the Public Service but the State sector is going in that direction. It will take time and it will— 
Hon Bill English 
: What’s the difference? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I know the difference even if the member does not. After having been a Minister for 6 or 9 years Bill English is showing his ignorance again. It is a challenge and this Government is up to it but the Opposition does not care. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister say that the Government is heading in the right direction when that one new coal burner which started to operate this week will emit more carbon each year than all the Government departments that are proposed to be carbon neutral by 2012 will save—in fact it will be 60 times the amount of emissions saved by the idea of the Government’s VIP fleet going to more efficient cars—and is it not true that the Government is trying to catch mice while forgetting about the elephants of climate change? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We can see mice and we can see a rat as well. This just shows to Parliament the fact that as a country we have an enormous challenge. It takes time to implement policies like this and I for one am not prepared to go to Waiouru and tell the soldiers that we do not care whether they freeze. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the documents in respect of the new boiler at Waiouru where there were alternatives of both wood-generated— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to table the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand weekly report of 10 August 2007 where it states that Gerry Brownlee was quite bullish about the role for fossil fuels— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that actually relates to the answers to question No. 2 which is the  
3 News 
 TNS poll of people’s views on climate change. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Maori Land Court—Services 
8.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What is he doing to enhance services at the Maori Land Court? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Courts 
: Last week the refurbished Tai RawhitiMaori Land Court was opened by the Minister for Courts. The Tai RawhitiMaori Land Court is the fifth Maori Land Court premise to have been substantially refurbished in the past 3 years. The others are at Christchurch Wellington Rotorua and Hastings. 
Moana Mackey 
: What work is already being done in the Maori Land Court to improve services? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Maori Land Court has benefited from the largest-ever ongoing investment in court facilities under this Labour-led Government. We have invested in information technology infrastructure and in access to court records through the Maori Freehold Land Registration Project and Maori Land Online and work is ongoing on the new geographical information systems project. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does the Minister agree with the comments made by the Labour MP Shane Jones in the  
Mana 
 article “Maori land: a blessing or a curse” that the Maori Land Court is a relic of colonialism and is set upon maintaining its own perpetuality; and what does he think his colleague meant by such comments? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I would invite that member to ask him sometime. Certainly it is both of those things. Like the high performance of my colleague over in France for the rugby I am certain he has a really clear view on the Maori land issue. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What progress has been achieved in actioning the recommendations from the Law Commission Te Ohu Kai Moana and the Maori Land Court itself that the Maori Land Court should be empowered to resolve mediate and determine disputes arising from the receipt and administration of Treaty settlement assets? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I certainly can assure that member that along with Te Ohu Kai Moana and the devolution of the assets they are doing very well within the framework of the legislation and are certainly well-minded by that court. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought the question was rather specific and asked about the progress. With respect I do not believe I really got an answer to the question. Would it be appropriate to ask the Minister to have another shot at it please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister just make a reference to the Law Commission report which I think was the substance of the question. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Several aspects have come out of the Law Commission report and certainly they are being practised in a whole lot of forums as that member understands. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the answer really just told me there is a number of reports. We are asking for a little bit more depth to the answer if that is possible. Could we have another shot please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately the member cannot actually get the answer he wants. The Minister must however address the question and I think he did. 
State Services Commissioner—Inquiry into Environment Ministry Appointment 
9.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Has Dr Mark Prebble completed his investigation into the public service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell; if not when is the investigation expected to be completed and the report made public? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 No; I am advised by the State Services Commissioner that the inquiry is not yet concluded and a completion date is yet to be determined. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the report be released by the Minister or by Dr Mark Prebble who has an independent statutory responsibility for the investigation and who is a subject of the investigation or by the independent investigator Dr Hunn? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe it will be released by Dr Prebble. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Ministry for the Environment release the Auditor-General’s report into how the ministry handled conflicts of interest; if so when? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I suggest the member direct that to the Minister for the Environment. It is not an issue on which I have an answer for him. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that on 2 July the Ministry for the Environment management team agreed to set up a register of interests for staff including “any relationship which may exist between partners or family and political groups” and is that register still intact? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am Minister of State Services; I am not responsible for the Minister for the Environment. I do believe that there was a suggestion that such a register should be set up. However I am not sure whether it is in place and the member might like to direct his questions to the correct Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister of State Services telling the House that she does not know whether the Ministry for the Environment has set up a register of interests that requires all of its staff to declare any relationships that may exist between partners or family members and political groups; if she does not know is not that gross irresponsibility when this has been such a controversial issue? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not believe it is because the Minister of State Services does not go around directing chief executives of other departments as to how they should manage their departments. I suspect that if the Minister did the member would be the first to complain about it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister of State Services support a register of interests that as agreed by the management of the Ministry for the Environment requires its staff to declare any relationships that may exist between partners or family members and political groups? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not personally support such a register and I have said that publicly. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister does not support such a register what steps will she take to ensure that a Government department that has agreed to set one up takes it apart and does not ask its staff whether they have any relationships that exist between partners or family members and political groups; what is she going to do about such a register? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will be taking no steps. It will be a decision that is made by the chief executive. I do not direct the chief executives of other departments. If the State Services Commissioner wishes to raise that then he is perfectly entitled to. It is not my role to go around telling chief executives how to run their departments. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Government so confused over this issue that despite the fact that the Minister of State Services is opposed to the register the fact that the Prime Minister has said she is opposed to such a register which requires public servants to declare any family members who may have a connection to any political group and the fact that the New Zealand Public Service Association Inc has said it is opposed to it there may well be one such register in the Ministry for the Environment and that she is not going to do anything about it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is correct. We still run in this country a democracy. We still have in this country the ability for chief executives of Government departments to run their own affairs as long as it is within the law and is proper. I do note however that that is the same party that objected to its members of Parliament giving their personal information about what issues and assets they hold unlike the rest of this Parliament which was quite happy to be open and transparent about the issues and our business. I think there is a little bit of a double standard going on here. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of a Ministry for the Environment group leaders meeting which agrees to a register of interests that includes the political affiliations— 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: —of family members of public servants. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members have already decided. All members have to do is identify the document. The document was clearly identified. Members do not give a speech relating to the document. 
Aircraft and Equipment—Sale Proceeds 
10.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What will the net return to the New Zealand taxpayer be as at today under the terms of the current sale offer when all Skyhawk and Aermacchi aircraft and ancillary equipment are sold after all expenses including fixed variable and cost-of-sales items are taken into account? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 A heads of agreement was signed with Tactical Air Services for the sale of the aircraft in September 2005 conditional on the approval of the United States Department of State. For reasons not attributable to nor under the control of New Zealand Tactical Air Services has not yet received that approval. Unless and until that occurs it is not possible to calculate the net return. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question asked what the net return would be as at today with costs being calculated today. It was a very specific question. The Minister has had a good deal of time to investigate the answer. Any Minister worth his or her salt would have a business plan that would look at that before— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member well knows members cannot require specific answers to questions. Ministers have to address the question and in this instance the Minister did actually address the question. 
Heather Roy 
: When he responded to question for written answer No. 8841 in 2006 by saying that the Skyhawks would be kept at a level to enable operational regeneration by the purchaser did he mean that all required aircraft consumables and rotables would be fitted to the aircraft; and did the previous Minister of Defence Mr Burton go so far as to sign up to provide additional spares for the fleet as well; if so is not the cost of this almost as much as the entire sale price? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not sure that the member’s question made a lot of sense. The spares do have an accounting value of nil and obviously all the spares would be sold with the aircraft which are being turned over once a year but are not being kept in a flying state. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the cost was of operating the air combat wing and what the cost would have been of retaining it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The monthly cost of operating the air combat wing was approximately $16 million or around $200 million a year. It might interest the House to know that the total value of the aircraft is much less than the cost of operating them for 1 year. The cost of retaining an air combat wing would have required a capital investment of over a billion dollars and to operate them would have required an increase in the operating baseline costs of about $1.2 billion over 10 years. That is probably why the National Party has done a total flip-flop and now reversed its position of wanting to retain an air combat wing. Its unreconstructed branch in the ACT party however still has that funny delusion. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What progress has the Minister made since his visit to the United States in May of this year—where he apparently has very good relationships—towards getting State Department approval for the sale or will this just go on and on and will it be the case that as the Prime Minister says the aircraft will be simply of interest to “the odd collector” which she stated last month? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The progress that was made was that I was able to draw to the attention of both the State Department and the Department of Defense the fact that there was a problem. They were able to give an explanation and an expression of regret. The failure to give approval had nothing to do with New Zealand but everything to do with matters between it and Tactical Air Services. In respect of the Prime Minister’s comment the A4s—the Skyhawks—are of course very old aircraft with a limited value. The Aermacchi however do have a greater actual value and if this deal does not go through—and the deal involves the sale of both sets of aircraft—then the Aermacchi would probably be sold separately. They are in flying order. 
Heather Roy 
: How much longer must the air force suffer loss of operational budget by having to maintain the Skyhawks and Aermacchis and when the sale finally goes through as he insists it will can the air force expect fair and reasonable recompense for its interest-free lending to the Government for this bungled sale? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not know where to begin answering the total misstatements inaccuracies and untruths in that statement. Let me remind the member of what I said before. It costs about $130000 a month to maintain these aircraft. When they were operating we were spending $16 million a month. The ACT party apparently wants to spend several billion dollars on an air combat wing but promises to halve the tax people are paying and ACT has never explained the discrepancy in those two stances which are totally inconsistent. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table a statement in the  
Dominion Post 
 of August this year where the Prime Minister says— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Crown Minerals—Confidence 
11.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals; if so why? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Once again the answer is yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: When the Minister said in answer to a question last Wednesday that Macdonald Investments “took the very unusual step of going from an exploratory permit directly into mining” what did he mean by “unusual” given this is a natural progression if a commercial discovery has been made? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: In the context of the implied allegations made by the member at the time it was an unusual step in that Macdonald Investments had not completed the exploration phase—this was the whole purpose of the member’s questions last week. Macdonald Investments took the unusual step instead of completing its obligations under its exploration permit of determining it would rather go straight into mining which of course is good for the company good for employment in the area and good for the West Coast. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the role of coal in New Zealand’s future electricity generation? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: As a matter of fact I have. The first report is from National’s associate energy spokesperson Chris Auchinvole and states: “Coal will play a major role in New Zealand’s future power generation.” The second report is from National leader John Key and states that National will have a policy that encourages climate-friendly choices like windmills hydro power and tree planting and reduces the desire for climate-unfriendly behaviours like burning coal. This is yet another example of National’s MPs saying one thing and their leader saying something that is totally the opposite. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister confirm that the company Macdonald Investments has not made or declared an actual commercial discovery on the West Coast? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Any actual or usable commercial discovery has to be determined by the operation or company making that discovery. It is the company’s judgment not mine. MacDonald Investments has decided that it has made a discovery to the extent that it wants to invest in mining. I cannot see what the member is complaining about. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Did the Minister receive any advice from Crown Minerals other than the selected information he tabled last week; if so did any of that advice propose an alternative recommendation to Macdonald Investments being granted a 40-year mining permit? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am not sure where the member is getting his information from in regard to this matter but— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am very happy to answer the question if Nick Smith would be courteous enough to allow me to do so. The original advice from Crown Minerals in regard to the permit was that the company had not completed the obligations of the exploration permit. My decision—as provided for in section 38 I think of the Crown Minerals Act—is a determination based on what the company put forward to Crown Minerals. It put forward a proposal that instead of being required to complete its obligations and drill—as the member seems to want—a well in an area that it then knew would not have produced anything it wanted to move straight into mining and drill in a much better location. I say: “Good on them!”. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister tell the House what operations Macdonald Investments has on the ground on the West Coast following its years of exploration and the granting of this significant mining permit other than a couple of wells pumping water a shipping container and a bicycle? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please address the question. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am very happy to Madam Speaker if I am able to. The advice from Crown Minerals was to accept the offer made by Macdonald Investments to mine. I am not sure what operations Macdonald Investments has on the ground on the West Coast; I have never visited and have never talked to the company. The member lives in the area so perhaps he might. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I seek leave to table two photographs of Macdonald Investments’ wells which produce less gas on a daily basis— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a page from today’s website of the National Party in which it says under the photograph of John Key that National members support the Marsden B upgrade— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek leave— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members must remember that points of order are heard in silence. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek leave to table the only known media comment on Chris Auchinvole as the Opposition associate spokesperson on energy which states— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek leave to table a speech made by Mr John Key leader of the National Party entitled “50 by 50: New Zealand’s climate change target”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] If members want to have a conversation would they please take it outside. It is very difficult for me to hear members from their own parties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point a point of order Madam Speaker. I was surprised that the member’s leave was denied by his own members so we will again seek clarification— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order as the member knows. 
Pacific People—Economic Potential 
12.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: What steps is the Government taking to grow the economic potential of New Zealand’s Pacific people? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Recently the Labour-led Government launched two new plans aimed at boosting the economic potential and prosperity of Pacific peoples in New Zealand. These plans involve a partnership with 25 Government agencies tertiary education providers and the private sector. The Pacific Economic Action Plan and the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan focus on key areas for real action including education; workforce development; business development; creative emerging and growth industries; entrepreneurial culture; and leadership. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What specifically is being done to lift the economic potential and prosperity of Pacific women? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: The Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan focuses on key actions and milestones in the four areas of education workforce development business development and leadership. The aim is to boost the economic potential of our Pacific women through a series of actions. Examples include a mentor programme for top Pacific tertiary achievers; practical community training to upskill Pacific women workers to move out of traditional jobs such as cleaning; and proactive support and seminars for Pacific women to start and to develop new businesses. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why are these plans to grow the economic potential of New Zealand’s Pacific people so necessary? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Our Pacific people have made real gains under this Labour-led Government—there are more jobs less unemployment cheaper doctors’ visits more opportunities higher educational achievement better housing and more financial support today than under the National Government of the 1990s when our Pacific people suffered badly. We have made huge progress and we can do more. Our Pacific people especially our women are under-represented in leadership roles business ownership income levels and tertiary education. These plans aim to build on our achievements to date and use smart practical actions to drive our Pacific people and Pacific women towards full economic participation and success. 
John Hayes 
: I seek leave to table an email trail prepared by Pacific academics responding to the Government’s latest Pacific thought leaders conference. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill has been reported back from the Health Committee which recommended that it be passed with amendment. I thank the committee for its careful and extended consideration of the bill. 
The bill was introduced back in June last year largely to deal with the risk posed to the over half a million New Zealanders receiving water from community drinking-water supplies that do not meet the New Zealand drinking-water standards. The bill builds on the Government’s overall drinking-water strategy but it marks something of a departure from an emphasis on encouraging rigid compliance with standards and represents a move towards a more flexible risk-management approach. At the same time the bill brings in legal duties as opposed to the current situation with purely voluntary standards. With these duties also comes substantial assistance from central government. The Drinking-water Assistance Programme allocates over $150 million of technical and capital assistance to drinking-water suppliers in order to help them to manage the risks associated with their water supply. 
The drinking-water standards were developed for a reason. Most other developed countries have minimum standards in law providing specifications as to what constitutes water that is safe to drink. The New Zealand standards are based on the World Health Organization guidelines. When the water now going to half a million Kiwis does not meet standards it is for a reason—such as faecal contamination. 
The risk from water is manifested in two main ways. First we have the highly visible outbreaks. New Zealand has on average 16.8 water-borne disease outbreaks a year which affect a total of 100 or 200 people. However the much larger problem is the individual cases. Rather than an identified and quick obvious cluster of cases the problem I am talking about here is that of individuals getting sick from their water and often not even realising that water was the cause of their illness. These cases are the iceberg lurking below the surface; they do not attract much publicity but the Institute of Environmental Science and Research estimates that there are 18000 to 34000 such cases in New Zealand every year. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research expects that further work will reveal this to be an underestimate. 
Since I introduced the bill we have had new figures on drinking-water quality. The annual review of drinking-water quality in New Zealand released in January showed that there are still over half a million Kiwis receiving water from supplies that do not comply with standards. Also agreeing with us is the OECD which in April called on New Zealand to bring in minimum standards. Although recognising the recent improvements in the proportion of the public water supply that fully complies with drinking-water guidelines the OECD stressed that further progress would require nationally consistent and legally binding drinking-water quality standards. The Consumers Institute of New Zealand added its voice to the chorus this year by urging that the bill be passed as soon as possible. 
At the same time since the introduction of this bill several events in the real world have underlined the need for action. For example in February there were two separate incidents where sewage leaked into Lake Wakatipu the drinking-water source for one of New Zealand’s premier tourist destinations. This spill came on the back of two other spills in Queenstown in 2004. One of the 2004 spills was of particular concern as it entered the lake about 30 metres from Queenstown’s water-supply intake. Luckily on those occasions the water supply did not appear to have been contaminated but we should bear in mind that it was a sewage spill like this that was suspected to be connected with an outbreak in Queenstown back in 1984 which resulted in an estimated 3500 people becoming sick with some hospitalisations and half of the town’s children being too ill to attend school. It is worth noting that the Queenstown water supply still provides no protection against pathogens such as cryptosporidium. The source of the supply is still a high-risk one. There have been a number of other contamination events around the country since the bill was introduced many of which have resulted in consumers needing to boil their water to ensure its safety. 
Since the bill’s introduction the Health Committee has had a highly fruitful submission process which has resulted in a number of improvements made to the bill. Many local councils that run drinking-water supplies were concerned about the potential for the bill to interfere with their planning processes and priorities under the Local Government Act. I acknowledge in particular the huge amount of work that Local Government New Zealand has put in to examining the bill and working with the select committee to come up with constructive suggestions for improvement. This has occurred not only at a national level but also at a local level where mayors and their councils have made the effort to appear before the select committee and to attend special meetings around the country to work through the issues. 
One of the key amendments recommended by the select committee as a result of this process is an adjustment to the duty on suppliers to take all practicable steps to comply with the New Zealand drinking-water standards. I should note at the outset that this duty in keeping with the bill’s focus on risk management rather than rigid compliance was not an absolute duty in the introduced bill. It did not state that the supplier must comply with the standards; it said that the supplier must take all practicable steps to comply. This echoed the approach used in the Health and Safety in Employment Act which does not state that employers must ensure the safety of their employees; rather they must take all practicable steps to ensure their safety. Accidents happen but an employer or a drinking-water supplier must be prudent. 
The select committee’s amendment gives suppliers more certainty as to what they need to do by saying that if they have a public health risk-management plan and if they are implementing this plan they are deemed to be taking all practicable steps to comply with the standards. This means that a supplier knows in advance what it has to do. 
Another key amendment recommended by the committee is an adjustment to the dates at which suppliers become subject to the bill’s legal duties. The bill as introduced has a staggered timetable. Larger suppliers are generally already meeting the bill’s requirements so an earlier compliance date for them is appropriate. Smaller suppliers need more time so the bill as introduced gave them until 2012 before the legal duties started to apply. Local Government New Zealand was concerned about the compatibility of these dates with its planning process under the Local Government Act. The select committee has thus recommended an adjustment to those dates that will give suppliers between 1 and 2 additional years. 
A further amendment from the committee to which I want to draw the House’s attention would lead to the creation of a special category of drinking-water supply to allow for the special circumstances of rural agricultural drinking-water supplies. The bill as introduced provided flexibility for such supplies to employ efficient solutions. For example if treatment were necessary then the supply could use point-of-entry treatment for each house on the supply. 
I need to touch on another of the committee’s recommendations which is to introduce the concept of affordability as a consideration when determining whether a supplier is complying with the bill’s duties in relation to the drinking-water standards. As I have already said the duty to comply with the standards is not an absolute one; instead suppliers are required to take all practicable steps to comply. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill I say that the National Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed to it because firstly it puts an undue burden on the consumers and ratepayers of New Zealand; secondly we believe that the Government has overestimated the health issues associated with drinking water around the country; and thirdly we believe that the Government has no appreciation of the practicalities of how its proposals will affect New Zealand communities. 
The first thing National in Opposition did when this bill came forward was to look at the costings involved with the burden that this legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers. If one were to take a step back one would find that the most interesting thing about this bill is the continual opposition of Local Government New Zealand to this legislation. This is a Government that apparently prides itself on listening to and consulting with Local Government New Zealand yet it is pushing through this legislation in the face of opposition from that organisation. This opposition was expressed as recently as in the last few days when the president of Local Government New Zealand Basil Morrison expressed considerable concern about the cost burden that the legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers quite unnecessarily. 
To go back to the cost I say that the Government’s original estimate on the cost to ratepayers was as low as $50 million. But it originally advised the Health Committee that its estimate was between $50 million and $275 million. So that is the estimate—between $50 million and $275 million! But wait for this we subsequently heard at the Health Committee from the Ministry of Health staff that the 2006 Water and Wastes Association Conference increased the estimate to $300 million. So it is no wonder that the National Party Local Government New Zealand and large numbers of ratepayers and consumers are saying that this bill which has not proven its necessity in any way will be a significant cost on New Zealand ratepayers of in the Government’s estimate anywhere between $50 million and $300 million. We suspect that it is at the much higher end because Local Government New Zealand advised the select committee that the bill as introduced could have cost up to $800 million in terms of the burden that councils and local government would have to face despite the fact that there is no strong argument that the public is necessarily at risk. The officials gave us various numbers on cryptosporidium and campylobacter but these are things that are also borne on food and are not necessarily related to water supplies and the select committee received some quite significant evidence on that matter. 
A very good story was brought to us by a mayor of one of the communities. I think he was the mayor of Feilding. He said that he got all this evidence of several hundred people in his community contracting various illnesses because of drinking water. He actually tried to locate where those cases happened and he could not do it. That is my recollection of the advice that we got at the select committee—and I can see that Dr Coleman agrees with that. So we do not think these numbers are as good as we would like them to be. Certainly when the Government gives an estimate that it could be anywhere between $50 million and $300 million we know that there are some real problems associated with this bill. Having said that I point out that the National members on the select committee have worked to try to improve the situation for consumers and ratepayers. We have managed to convince the Government that if it is going to push this legislation through then it should make affordability an important part of it. We managed to convince the Government that very small water schemes should not be subject to the level of oversight and cost burden that was originally proposed. 
It became clear from listening to Government members on the select committee that they had no appreciation of how small community water supplies work in rural communities. The burden that was going to be proposed by this legislation was significant. When I lived in a rural community at Thornton Beach I got my water from my neighbour who had a bore. I was his only customer other than his cows. The costs restrictions burdens and obligations that would have applied under this legislation to the chap who supplied me with my water would be significant. 
We had a very good case study come from a lady in Pauatahanui near Wellington—near Porirua. She came and talked about the seven or eight neighbours who relied on the spring on her property. She supplied the water to these people. As she took us through her understanding of the obligations and the burdens that she would face it became clear that there would be significant risk to many people not from the quality of the water but from the fact that the supplier would turn the tap off because the obligations and burdens would be so significant. 
I think that we worked well on our committee to make sure that those sorts of remedies could be fixed. But even with those changes Local Government New Zealand remains opposed to this legislation. It is strongly concerned about the costs it would put on ratepayers and water consumers. The question that has to be asked is this. When this is a Government that so prides itself on working constructively with Local Government New Zealand why is it continuing to push through legislation that Local Government New Zealand says will be costly quite unnecessary and way beyond the risks that are applied to consumers? 
During the rest of this debate the National members who contribute will be taking the House through not only the cost issues and the uncertainty and the difficulties with that but they will be taking the House through the concerns we have about some of the health evidence given to the committee that tried to describe the level of the risk. Thirdly we are going to touch on the fact that Local Government New Zealand—which the Government so prides itself on having a good relationship with—was strongly opposed to much of what has been proposed in this legislation. National members will also touch on improvements that would be beneficial including the fact that amendments have been made to enable a future Government to have timelines that might better reflect the ability of local government to respond in light of the significant costs that Local Government New Zealand says will befall not only consumers but will befall ratepayers in various communities around the country. 
The concerns of Local Government New Zealand were considerable. According to long-term council community plans—LTCCPs—the funding shows that 20 councils will have to spend over $2000 on a per capita basis and some will have to spend more than $4000 on a per capita basis to comply with this legislation. That is why it is so important to put affordability into the criteria for the requirements to comply with the legislation—and we put those in. A number of councils were very concerned about that matter. Marlborough Rangitikei Thames Coromandel Timaru and Whangarei in particular were concerned about the costs that various users would have. 
National members will talk about that because a review of the long-term council community plans across the country revealed that over the next 10 years $2.7 billion will need to be spent by local government much of it as a result of what has been proposed in this legislation. That is a very significant burden on local government ratepayers when the consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water they are getting. The consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water because the vast majority of them are aware that quality is always a trade-off between cost and benefit. We believe that it is a trade-off that consumers and ratepayers should be making rather than having a heavy-handed expensive proposal put on them by central government. 
As I said earlier in the remainder of the debate National members will not only take the House through the three key areas of how improvements have been suggested by us at the select committee but also how the cost the health evidence and the lack of consultation and cooperation with Local Government New Zealand mean that the House should not support the progress of this legislation. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I found that speech made by the Opposition spokesperson on health issues the Hon Tony Ryall to be rather sad—especially when two of the National members on the Health Committee are health practitioners. It is simply disgraceful that they do not support this bill and I will tell the House my reasons. A family member of mine is a public health practitioner in Nelson. That community has been screaming out for this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill since 1993. I wonder whether health practitioners who work in rich metropolitan areas are really aware of the causative link between the quality of drinking water and water-borne infections. If they went to Te Puia or Ruatoria the community would tell them about the number of people affected. The kaumatua and kuia would say that they know there is a sickness there and that they are losing family members to bowel cancer and stomach cancer. They say: “The drinking water here is patu but we can’t afford to fix it.” I wonder whether those health practitioners on the select committee actually listened to the submissions made by people from small communities. The answer is no those people can never come to a Health Committee to talk about drinking-water legislation. 
Why do those members not listen to public health practitioners in this country who have the evidence on this issue and clearly point out the risks to the health of 500000 or more New Zealanders who are currently exposed to drinking-water supplies that do not meet the drinking-water standards for New Zealand? Those standards are based on World Health Organization standards. We know about the outbreaks of water-borne illness that have happened in this country. The member Tony Ryall said he did not really think there were water-borne outbreaks. I tell him to get close to his public health practitioners and they will tell him. Let us look at campylobacter for example. The member said it is linked to food but it is linked to water too. The rate of campylobacter in New Zealand is that of England’s. Is that acceptable? Is it acceptable for National members to simply sit back and say that the costs to local government of implementing the bill outweigh the public benefits to those in New Zealand? I do not think so. I do not want to be part of a Government that sits and does nothing about public health protection for the well-being of New Zealanders and says the costs to local government are simply too high. 
Members opposite bleat on about Local Government New Zealand having said the costs are too high. For goodness’ sake! This Government has committed $154 million over 10 years to help upgrade small suppliers of drinking water to areas with populations under 5000. That is an astonishing contribution to benefit those small communities which of course can never meet the cost of upgrading their water supply. The Opposition has health practitioners on the Health Committee and they know about the principles of public health yet they say the cost of fixing our drinking water is too high. That is why National will do nothing and will not support the bill. But the public health sector and the Ministry of Health have been saying to local government and local bodies that drinking-water legislation is desperately needed. They have worked on the issue for 14 years and have kept asking for this legislation to be brought to the House. The National Government did nothing during its decade in office. 
We now have a bill before the House but National will vote against it. That is simply shameful. I know that the two health practitioners opposite know about public health principles and know that something should be done about safe drinking-water. Do we ignore 61 cases at a school camp in Christchurch 67 cases in Wainuiomata 187 cases in May 2001 69 cases of viral gastroenteritis at a ski field—no National would not ignore that—and 49 cases at a school camp in Waikato? That is appalling yet they use the argument that it is not necessarily linked to water. They say it could be food-based campylobacter. I cannot believe that. Those practitioners know that people who get campylobacter which is one of the potentially water-borne diseases in New Zealand can get fevers headaches abdominal pains nausea vomiting and can have as many as 10 watery often bloody bowel movements daily. Is that all right? I say it is not all right. This Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill will fix that problem. Nothing else does. It will fix drinking-water supplies for our poor deprived communities. 
How can Opposition members sit there and say they are not going to do anything about it? I am proud to be in a Government that says it will do something about it. This bill will raise the standards of drinking water to compare New Zealand favourably to the OECD. The health practitioners on the other side of the House will say: “Labour did nothing and how does New Zealand compare on the league tables with OECD countries?”. They know but ask what we are doing about it. Yet they vote down a New Zealand public health drinking-water bill. Well I say tell that to Dr Ed Kiddle my brother-in-law in Nelson who says: “For goodness’ sake! What are you doing? Get it into Government get it into the law.” 
The health practitioners sitting opposite know that it is simply not good enough for water-borne diseases to be so prevalent in New Zealand. I cannot believe the flip-flop the Opposition has done on this issue. The Hon Pete Hodgson was asked a question in the House and he replied: “I have had several reports. One was from the Hon Nick Smith last month stating that 24 percent of our drinking water is unsafe that that is ‘an appalling statistic’ ”—this is Dr Nick Smith from Nelson who also said enforcement action is urgently needed. The Minister’s reply continued: “I received two other reports a few months earlier. Those stated that New Zealand is known for having the best standard of drinking water in the world that it has excellent standards of drinking water and that this is a problem that does not need fixing.” Those statements were made by Dr Coleman and Dr Blue. It is simply unbelievable. 
The National Party is both deeply concerned about the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water and deeply unconcerned. If that is the nature of the National Party’s concern then it is no wonder that it has not managed to formulate any health policy of any credibility with public health practitioners in this country. National cannot even work out what it wants to do about New Zealand’s drinking water. I am very sad about that. Opposition members can carp on about this issue yet New Zealanders in every community—not just small rural isolated communities but metropolitan communities—know the level of campylobacter outbreak. I was a councillor in Rotorua where we had dairy faecal contamination of our drinking water. As local body politicians we were deeply concerned about that. We knew there were kids coming to school with horrible symptoms who were infecting their schoolmates and feeling lousy. How could those children learn? How can those practitioners opposite say that 500000 New Zealanders who are at risk from drinking-water supply systems that simply do not meet the standard do not matter. 
This bill is long overdue. I am sorry it has taken us 7 years to get it to the House. I am proud it is here now. I know that public health units around the country are saying: “Hallelujah! Bring it on!”. I believe that once the local government sector really wakes up about the $175 million we are putting in to assist local government costs it will meet this. They have said: “Bring in the standards. Bring in the bill and we will comply.” The local government sector always folds in and likes the contribution for bringing water schemes up to speed so that New Zealanders drink safe drinking-water. 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sure that during the Committee stage we will hear the clause-by-clause breakdown. I will be interested to take my turn. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Hearing Steve Chadwick’s contribution really shows us where the Labour Party is going wrong on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We heard a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-science and all sorts of bizarre explanations why there is actually a need for this bill. We heard stuff like the drinking water on the East Coast is giving people bowel cancer and stomach cancer. We heard all sorts of odd stuff in the speech from Steve Chadwick who is standing in for the Minister of Health—that there was an outbreak and some sewage was poured into Lake Wakatipu back in 1984. One has to ask how this bill will actually stop sewage from being poured into Lake Wakatipu. That sums it up really. 
This bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is an answer to a problem that has not been defined. When one looks at the evidence for the need for this bill one sees it is not solidly there. We have to be cautious before imposing these massive costs—$2.3 billion over 10 years. It is amazing when one looks at the priorities of this Labour Government. It is so concerned with getting this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill through but the reality is that we do not have typhoid in New Zealand. We do not have these really severe water-borne epidemics. We also do not have elective surgery. That is really the problem. We do not have a focus from this Government on the real problems in health. 
The Government is rushing to do things like head up to North Shore Hospital and erect a statue. All the local failed list MPs were rolled out to back up Helen Clark to put up a statue to shed light in places where darkness has descended. The Government is rushing to get this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill through and to spend all this money on purifying the drinking water which frankly may or may not be contaminated; the Government does not know. At the same time it is ignoring the basic health problems in New Zealand. The fact is that people cannot get elective surgery. The fact is that patients in North Shore Hospital in my electorate are sitting on trolleys. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Prevention. That is what this bill is about. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: This bill will prevent the problems at North Shore Hospital? We are not having the water-borne epidemics that these Ministers and members are talking about. It is interesting. As Dr Ryall said— 
Moana Mackey 
: Dr Ryall? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: He used to be known as “Justice Ryall”. Mr Ryall said that this Government likes to pride itself on consultation with local government. Person after person from local government came to see us at the select committee. They said: “Look! This bill will impose an absolutely intolerable burden on councils. It will be absolutely impossible to pay for this.” We have over 20 councils in New Zealand that will have to pay more than $2000 per head per capita of the population they serve in order to solve a problem that to those councils does not actually exist. We heard from a couple of councils that will have to pay over $4000 a head. We heard that over the next 10 years $2.3 billion of council expenditure— 
Steve Chadwick 
: What about the subsidy? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Let us talk about the subsidy; we have to get on to the subsidy. Steve Chadwick talked about the Government subsidy. I can tell members that what came out of that is that the Government subsidy will be for capital expenditure only. It will not cover operating expenditure to solve this problem. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It helps. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It helps but it will still result in massive costs being imposed on local government. The Government knows this but it has no answer. 
The thing with this Labour Party is that it does not have any voters in rural areas any more. It has lost all its rural seats. Frankly Labour does not care about anywhere but the vote in South Auckland and west Auckland because that is the only hope it has. It has given up on Jill Pettis’ seat in Wanganui; that is for sure. The Government knows that Labour is going out in Rotorua so really it does not matter if a whole lot of costs are going to be imposed there because the votes will not be there. The votes are not there for Labour. If we look at the scientific evidence here we will see— 
Jill Pettis 
: So National only does something if there are votes in it? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No. It is not a matter of that. It is not a matter of that at all. I am saying that this Government is quite prepared to impose this cost on rural people and on local government because frankly it has given up on those people and it does not care. It is keen just to see this bill being bulldozed through at any price whatever. It is definitely a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. 
 But it is the spend and tax Government that we have now suffered under for 9 years and the people of New Zealand have had enough of it and Local Government New Zealand has definitely had enough of it. As I said we had mayor after mayor and chief executive officer after chief executive officer coming in and saying: “Please do not impose this on us.” As Mr Ryall said we managed to get some concessions out of them. We had ludicrous situations where people who were supplying one or two or a mere handful of rural customers were going to have to comply with this standard. It was pointed out that at the end of the day the customers would just turn off the tap. So once again the Government yielded to this and finally started to see common sense. 
But what is really concerning is that there has been no real legitimate cost-benefit analysis to justify imposing this expense on people. We have heard these vague testimonies about what has happened overseas and about outbreaks in Russia and Wisconsin but we have heard no solid evidence about what happens here in New Zealand. The member for Rotorua talked a lot about campylobacter. Well campylobacter is actually a food-handling disease and is a disease that we get from chickens. The Government is not using any evidence to link up its arguments and that is the key problem; there is a flaw there. There is not sufficient evidence to support its case. There is not the evidence to justify this $2.3 billion of expenditure. With $2.3 billion over 10 years we could do a heck of a lot for the health of New Zealand in areas where we know we will get a return. That is the problem. There is no focus from this Labour Government on what really counts and what is really going to deliver the changes that we need in this country. 
This bill will impose a completely unnecessary level of compulsion. As we heard during this inquiry the vast majority of town water suppliers throughout the country actually comply with the standards. We heard that when it came down to it the bill’s provisions were going to affect 16 percent of water suppliers throughout the country who would really have to clean up their act and many of them would just end up turning off the tap anyway. So it seems to be completely ridiculous to impose another level of cost and bureaucracy on suppliers who are already complying. At the end of the day it will be the poor old ratepayers the people who pay their taxes who keep local government going and who keep the country going—basically the people who are out there working—who will end up paying for this. I can tell members that people in New Zealand are pretty much fed up with seeing their taxes being spent on things that they do not need to be spent on basically for this Government to come up with answers in areas where there really are no problems. So there has been a flawed rationale behind this whole bill. 
Let us consider the rates of water-borne outbreaks. We heard this story about something happening on a ski field about 20 years ago but there has not really been much more detail to back it up. We have not seen the hard science from the East Coast which that member from Rotorua was talking about—the links between stomach cancer and bowel cancer and contaminated water. I tell members that if there really was a link the Health Committee would be really glad to have a look at it because bringing up that sort of fatuous argument does nothing to justify this $2.3 billion of Government expenditure. It really is a ridiculous situation. 
But what was really interesting was what we heard from the officials and Tony Ryall touched on this. Originally the estimate was this would cost about $50 million. Then we heard that it might be $50 million to $275 million. Then they had a conference last year and said: “Well actually it is going to be $300 million.” It is pretty hard to see how much this whole thing is going to end up costing. But what we can say is that we do have figures from some of these councils and they are all from the South Island. The Mackenzie District Council which covers 3000 people will have to pay $3 million to comply with this legislation. I do not know how much cholera and typhoid we have had in the Mackenzie Country lately but I would like to bet that it is not too much. The Ashburton District Council—Ashburton is another area that Labour will never hold—will spend $10 million over the lifetime of the long-term council community plan and the Clutha District Council will spend $20 million. In Owaka 200 ratepayers will have to pay $750000 to comply with this. Central Otago with 23 water suppliers will spend $5 million. 
The problem is that these Labour members think there is a massive problem here with the drinking-water standard that is causing some sort of water-borne outbreak of terribly debilitating diseases throughout the country. There is not. That is the issue. If we had some competent people on the Treasury benches who could take this $2.3 billion they could do a helluva lot with that money over the course of the 10 years it will be spent. 
This bill is a bit like hair dye. One can apply it to try to cover up a problem but at the end of the day the problem lies underneath. The reality is that this Government is out of time it is out of answers and it just does not know which problems are worth focusing on. It is sayonara to the Government. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow that member. He is intelligent he believed what he was saying but in this instance he was totally wrong. We do need some facts on this particular situation. New Zealand First supports the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It is long overdue and we unlike the National Party support all practical steps being taken to improve the drinking-water standards in the cities where our National members mainly live and in the country towns. 
The Health Committee worked hard on this bill and we have to acknowledge the patience and the significant input from the select committee officials and the input from the Local Government New Zealand representatives. We know that quite a number of improvements have been made to the bill as a result of their input. And of course we must acknowledge the input here of New Zealand First and the Greens as well. We know that most drinking water in New Zealand is supplied by local councils with quality standards currently set by a voluntary compliance regime—voluntary not compulsory. This has delivered good water to the city where Mr David Bennett lives but in the small communities with populations of 10000 people or fewer water standards are variable—good in the winter perhaps not so good in the summer and councils are less likely to be involved. Small communities with populations of 10000 or fewer really do not have the same quality of water that we have in the towns and cities and they may have higher costs and some administrative work to actually comply with this legislation. 
 We have to recognise that these smaller and more isolated water systems will create some challenges for communities where the council is not involved. We must remember too that these communities have access to their own resources and also to the funding and the technical assistance funding that has been made available by the Government. So it will be absolutely essential that the relevant authorities work through the details of the funding and technical assistance available and that the level of funding is reviewed to ensure it is adequate for the implementation of this bill for small suppliers. 
I must say that it would be extremely remiss of a Government not to ensure that it had a comprehensive risk management strategy in place to ensure that people and communities have clean drinking-water available at all times. We would expect that to be done and we would blame the Government if it were not. Clean drinking-water is a basic requirement for any First World country—and we like to think of ourselves as a First World country. The strategy in this bill is to have a drinking-water standard to set out the duties of drinking-water suppliers and to have a register of community drinking-water suppliers—and it is a sound strategy. We do not need a voluntary regime any more. We need to have a regulatory regime to promote the quality and safety of drinking water rather than relying totally on the voluntary mechanisms that have regulated the drinking-water sector in the past. Other developed nations have this sort of framework in place and it is time for New Zealand to move in this direction. 
Compared with international experience we know that New Zealanders do not value good-quality drinking-water. The reality is that we do not even think about it; we just expect it to be there when we turn on the tap as a normal part of life. We know that we have a looming diabetes and obesity problem and it is really essential that parents and relevant agencies can promote water as a viable alternative to fizzy drinks and any other types of drinks that our children are consuming. 
In some parts of New Zealand there have been drinking-water system failures that have caused relatively minor illnesses. Fortunately none at this time has resulted in death but I would imagine that the people affected did not believe that the illness was minor when they got sick. The example that first springs to mind is the very recent occurrence at the Cardrona ski field. 
Threats from new pathogens and a slowly changing attitude by all Kiwis to the duty of care from public providers mean that higher standards will be demanded from the institutions that regulate and deliver drinking water to us. Over the summer months I like most other MPs have received complaints from people about the smell and the taste of the water they are receiving. Of course we must include in this the many organisations that deliver drinking water to those of us in rural areas who are dependent on rainwater that we get only from tanks. We have to buy water from suppliers over the summer months and we do notice a significant difference in the taste of it. 
Like most parties we had some concerns about the costs that could be expected to follow on as a result of this legislation and we would like to see this level of funding reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate. Risks are always associated with providing essential Government financial assistance because we know that this financial assistance has to manage a whole range of risks that in themselves can be a challenge. The very last thing we want to see is that larger suppliers complete their funding applications quickly. We have to realise that they usually have readily available all of the clerical support and expertise needed and that they receive the funding. That can leave insufficient funds for smaller suppliers that still have to meet the same requirements as the larger ones and that in many cases will need a longer time to prepare their applications because of a lack of clerical expertise and the resources to make the necessary changes to their plans to apply for the grants and of course to get their water and their water treatment plants to a standard that meets the changed requirements. 
We have to realise that it is always possible that the funding assistance could have been used for water schemes that would have happened anyway or for any necessary routine maintenance that should have happened many months ago—in some cases years ago. I saw some photos of plant that had not been well-maintained and although it may not have placed public health at risk it certainly made one wonder about the hydrated iron oxide or the iron oxide hydroxide content commonly known as rust—for the information of Mr David Bennett—that people are unknowingly being exposed to. 
We have to ask whether these suppliers will actually be applying for the financial assistance programme and of course we have to say that they will be. So we can see some challenges ahead for this particular programme but we are still very pleased to support it. 
We are pleased to see too that technical assistance will be available to all suppliers. Technical expertise and assistance is essential for the success of this legislation. Of course we need sufficiently trained people to enable this technical assistance to be available when it is requested. 
Just in wrapping up I would like to inform the National Party that according to the Ball report the occurrence of water-borne disease in New Zealand has been demonstrated by quite a number of studies. I quote: “Based on current available data two separate estimates of the burden of ” disease are “18000 and 34000 cases per annum.” That is significant. Preliminary results from work in progress suggest that those are underestimates and that is very very bad for us. 
So we in New Zealand First support this legislation. We are looking forward to working and seeing this legislation come into force because we know that clean wholesome drinking-water is absolutely essential for New Zealanders. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill which we will be voting for with great pleasure. This was a very interesting bill and it was considered by the Health Committee at great length. The committee members have given this bill exhaustive consideration and we have made very very substantial amendments to it. 
One thing that all submitters agreed on—in fact I cannot recall any submitters saying anything to the contrary—was that water is too important to be left to a voluntary standard as the National Party is advocating. Everybody agreed that this is important—that there needs to be a mandatory standard for water and that we cannot simply leave it up to the free market. 
We have had a number of debates around the extent to which we have a problem with our water in New Zealand. It is true as some have said that to date there have not been significant problems in respect of people becoming ill from water in New Zealand and thank heaven for that. But I would point out that just a few weeks ago Canterbury’s top health watchdog was warning of the potentially huge health effects that may occur if the Central Plains Water scheme—a huge $350 million irrigation scheme—went ahead. He said this could result in an explosion—[ 
Interruption 
]—well he is the top health watchdog—in the incidence of crippling and potentially fatal water-borne diseases such as campylobacter and cryptosporidium. Canterbury’s medical officer of health Dr Alistair Humphrey who is a credible person said these concerns had not been given the attention they needed. 
Wally Clark a professor from the University of Canterbury said that water was a big concern especially where dairying was concerned and that campylobacter and cryptosporidium previously little-known diseases had become commonplace in Canterbury with the growth of dairying. These diseases were really bad and were increasing he said and he added that we needed to look at their incidence. He said that South Canterbury had the highest rates of campylobacter in the world and that there were issues relating to the potential degradation of aquifers serving residents in Christchurch. He pointed out that if we are going to see an expansion of dairying in New Zealand as we inevitably are then issues around water supply may very well become more commonplace. 
I agree with a previous speaker from National that if we are concerned with campylobacter in our water and are correctly moving to try to do something about it then we should be even more concerned about campylobacter in chicken because the overwhelming cause of campylobacter in New Zealand is chicken and we know that that is mostly to do with the way chickens are raised in the slaughterhouses. So why are we not making an equal effort to clean up the slaughterhouses and the sheds in which chickens are raised? However I will not get distracted by that issue except to make that comment. 
It is also true however—and National has already pointed this out—that when the original submitters came to the Health Committee the majority of local government was opposed to the bill and it was worried about the effect of the costs on rates. Local Government New Zealand came to us with very alarming estimates of the cost that this legislation might result in for ratepayers and it was worried that the cost could virtually bankrupt some of the smaller authorities in New Zealand. 
The Health Committee listened to the concerns of Local Government New Zealand and bent over backwards. I can think of no other bill that has come before Parliament where there has been so much genuine consultation—in this instance with Local Government New Zealand. We authorised Andrew Forsyth and his team—the officials working on the bill—to meet with local government. Those officials went to local government all around New Zealand they listened to its concerns and there was a genuine dialogue. Local Government New Zealand expressed a view on the particular issues that it was concerned about and we sought to address every single issue that it raised. We bent over backwards. I think this would possibly be the most genuine case of consultation and negotiation over legislation that has occurred in a very long time. 
As a result of the extensive consultations that we undertook we have made a whole series of important changes to this bill. I notice that the National member Tony Ryall whom Dr Jonathan Coleman referred to as Dr Tony Ryall—but he is in fact Tony Ryall—said that National had brought about some changes to this bill. I can assure anyone who may be listening that if we try to see where the changes came from we will find that they certainly came from the committee as a whole but in particular from New Zealand First and the Green Party because we had the votes and because both Barbara Stewart and myself expressed huge concern about this issue. We were not prepared to go ahead with legislation that would impose Draconian onerous and unnecessary costs on local government so we insisted that our officials make changes and as a result they did so. It was an example of MMP in action and of MMP parties requiring much greater consultation and negotiation. This resulted in more amendments and changes to the bill than would otherwise have been made. 
I actually believe that most of Local Government New Zealand is appreciative of the work we did and agrees with this bill. I suspect National members do too but they want to have a point of difference to campaign on so they are opposing it. But I think in their heart of hearts they agree that we need mandatory water standards and that this bill actually addresses the major concerns that were presented to us by Local Government New Zealand. 
We have created a new category of rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers with much more flexible obligations in respect of their drinking-water standards. We have created a new definition of “neighbourhood drinking-water supply” based on the number of people supplied. We have generally allowed suppliers serving fewer people to be given much more time to comply. We have amended the time lines so that the suppliers can align themselves with the time lines of the Local Government Act. That was in response to a concern that many people expressed which was that if there were going to be a significant upgrade suppliers would have to include that in their long-term local government plans. 
We have defined the term “all practicable steps” which councils must take to implement the standards to include affordability. That was a specific request made by Local Government New Zealand that we have agreed to. We have effectively taken on board virtually all those concerns of Local Government New Zealand including staggering time frames until 2012 and until legal duties are applied. 
There is one other little thing I would like to comment on. Under the bill the Minister will in future be able to amend or revoke drinking-water standards. We received a submission expressing a legitimate concern that this provision could somehow be used by a subsequent Minister to bring in mandatory water fluoridation effectively by the backdoor and without local consultation. So we made a further amendment stipulating that this provision will not enable mandatory water fluoridation to be introduced into New Zealand. We have also required the Minister to undergo a 3-year consultation period before amending a drinking-water standard and we have made a further amendment stipulating that legal duties under the new standards will arise only 2 years after the standards have been passed. 
So I think members will see from some of those provisions—and there are other provisions as well—that we have very extensively amended this bill. We took into account all the concerns of Local Government New Zealand. We extensively consulted with it and I believe we have come up with a bill that meets the need to have mandatory drinking-water standards and does so in a way that will not impose onerous costs on local government. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is encapsulated in one simple sentence—the right to clean safe water is a fundamental human right. Standards are required and need to be enforced as there are numerous sources of threats to clean drinking-water. So we in the Maori Party have been happy to put forward our support for the bill as a party that stands up for the fundamental human rights of people. One would have thought that this would be an aspiration that all parties in this House would stand up for but of course it is now part of the international record of shame that our current Government will in New York on 13 September—that is tomorrow—put forward its opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a declaration that addresses both individual and collective rights cultural rights and identity and rights to education health employment language and others. It is a declaration that outlaws discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them. It ensures their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic social and cultural development. But no it is not a declaration that this Government is prepared to support. 
For Maori water rights have a particular value. Every iwi and hapu has a river or a lake so every iwi and hapu has been concerned about the global commercial interests that are being pushed through Governments with multinational companies looking to buy water rights. Ko te tikanga kia noho tonuma te iwi a-rohe te whakahaeremoonaake mana moana. Each tribal area should be responsible for its own territorial waters. 
So we look at the strategy underpinning the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill to see how tangata whenua are engaged and involved in the improvements in risk management in respect of drinking water. We are interested that the bulk of the 47 submissions received were from local authorities and water suppliers who of course have a vested interest in the quality of drinking water. What we know is that there are a host of threats to safe clean drinking water in Aotearoa. There is for example agricultural runoff; horticultural sprays; pest eradication spray programmes; industry both intentional and unintentional; stormwater mixing with drinking water due to infrastructure problems and flooding; lead water pipes; and possums and birds contaminating roof water and so on. 
Some or all of these issues are pretty much a constant feature of daily life as reported in the nation’s media. Any differences in water-supply quality tend to be due to where Maori choose to live. In other words as has already been highlighted in some of our rural areas where there are high Maori populations there are also some of the highest rates of E. coli and reported drinking - water - borne diseases. There are some big issues that need further analysis around the purity of the water supply to our marae. We have tended to overlook the damage of runoff from the roof and the quality of the water from springs and the question is: how careful are we? 
Hapu and iwi as kaitiaki of water would suggest that the management of water should be jointly managed with local authorities. We notice that the select committee gave emphasis to its extensive consultation with Local Government New Zealand and we in the Maori Party can only wonder whether there was extensive consultation with whanau hapu and iwi to discuss the new drinking-water standards. Although the Health Committee concluded that water supply has historically been the responsibility of local government we can only ask too what priority the select committee has afforded to those who persevere and embrace the spiritual and cultural guardianship of Te Ao Marama. 
Our whakapapa responsibilities of kaitiakitanga require us to exercise responsibility in a way that measures the wealth and well-being of resources such as water and I want to talk about the association between wealth and water. Any analysis of the economic environmental and social condition of Maori must include the sustainability and quality of the water supplies within our communities. Wealth is as much about living well as a whanau hapu and iwi as it is about the ecological capacity of our planet. That is where the welfare of Maori is absolutely connected to the public health risk-management plans that this bill creates as a duty and an obligation on suppliers. 
We do however agree with the concerns put forward in the minority view of our friends in the National Party regarding the impact of the compliance costs from this bill on local government and water rates. It has greatly concerned us as a party that an intractable political and corporate culture is approaching the economics of environment protection as another indicator of GDP. We would be extremely concerned to see the good governance responsibilities involved in managing public health risks being translated into further downstream costs for ratepayers. We are of course alarmed at the pollution of the ecosystem and the devastation of disease vectors that have increased the reservoir of potential water-borne human pathogens carried by animals—in other words the harmful impact of contaminated drinking-water whether done intentionally or recklessly. So on that one count alone we will continue to support this bill so that Maori can anticipate a future of living in good health and in reasonable prosperity. But we are also mindful that low-income communities in particular may be more vulnerable to water contamination if they are already lacking sufficient nourishment to fight off the harm. 
Once again it comes back to rights—the right of New Zealanders to benefit from living in a clean safe and healthy environment and the right of New Zealanders to prosper from the protection restoration and enhancement of mauri the life force within our natural environments. 
Finally despite the shameful performance that this current Government has demonstrated concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples I am aware that on 22 March World Water Day a number of agencies internationally called for a United Nations convention on the right to water. We in the Maori Party respecting water as a taonga are interested in learning the position of the current Government toward such an international convention. 
We absolutely endorse the provision of safe affordable water for drinking and sanitation as a basic human right. We do not believe that the privatisation and trading of water rights sits alongside indigenous rights or human rights. Our commitment to supporting the bill at this its second reading is to do so in the interests of protecting and preserving a stable and secure environment for future generations. Such a goal reflects our party’s belief in genuine progress true wealth and kaitiakitanga. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. A safe drinking-water supply is about as basic a human need as you can get and although currently 71 percent of the New Zealand population is served by a water supply that complies with some standards the rest are served by a water supply that is either non-compliant or not known to be compliant. The other 29 percent of the population in areas where suppliers are unable to substantiate the quality of the water they supply are largely living in small rural communities. 
To date we have been served by a voluntary regulatory scheme but that leaves nearly one-third of New Zealanders not covered by that scheme. How many New Zealanders who are reliant on uncertain water supplies I wonder does it take before we will support the type of change that we are looking at in the House this afternoon? The phase-in approach to a multifaceted strategy for improving risk management in regard to our drinking water is I believe the way that we can spread the cost but it concerns me that we should be weighing up water quality in mere monetary terms. Hearing some people suggest that we cannot afford it worries United Future. It is of concern that the burgeoning role of local government means that it baulks at the costs associated with drinking water and maybe that is a discussion for another day. United Future believes that we cannot afford not to plan for a future that includes clear drinking-water standards. 
Several years ago I was fortunate enough to attend an international conference in Viet Nam on water. I left with two clear impressions. My first impression was that we should be very grateful for what we have. Most of the countries at that particular conference talked about sharing water supplies with other countries literally upstream with different priorities and different standards. Often there were great tensions around the sharing of very very scarce water supplies. The second impression I came out of the conference with was that we should not take for granted this very basic resource which was described by many at the conference as the new gold and new oil. In fact international experts at that conference talked of future wars being waged over water not oil and they said that a sustainable healthy water supply needs to be deliberately planned for. 
I congratulate the Health Committee which United Future does not enjoy representation on on the sensible changes that I see it has made and on the collaborative way it has worked. We are very happy to support the second reading of this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very very pleased to stand in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in this second reading in the House and what an extraordinary debate we have had so far. It is very telling that with nearly every other party in the House supporting this bill National members have decided they want to play politics with it. They want to be able to go around next year saying that Labour has put up the cost of people’s rates and what they are forgetting is that we are actually dealing with the public health of some of our poorest communities and some of our poorest New Zealanders. I would like to hear the next National speaker tell the House what dollar value National members would place on the public health of these poor New Zealanders before those members would suddenly be willing to support this bill 
The Government wants to ensure that all New Zealanders on community water supplies have access to safe drinking-water just as people in urban centres in New Zealand enjoy already access to safe drinking-water. Compared with other OECD countries we do have relatively high rates of preventable illness caused in part by water-borne germs. 
Jo Goodhew 
: In part. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Apparently according to National we should not do anything because only a few people get sick from water in New Zealand. Well I want the next National speaker to tell the House how many New Zealanders have to become ill in this country from water-borne diseases before the National members will suddenly start caring about those New Zealanders and start supporting this bill. The dollar value and the number of New Zealanders are what I look forward to hearing about in the next National speech. 
Currently about 71 percent of New Zealanders enjoy drinking water that complies with standards and is safe. That is very good. The suppliers of that water will be largely unaffected as a result of this bill. But some of the smaller water suppliers do not meet the standards and with some of them we simply do not know whether they meet the standards because the Ministry of Health is not able to obtain that information under the current powers that it has. This bill addresses that. This Labour-led Government is investing $154 million to help upgrade and improve small water suppliers. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman said that the subsidy scheme was useless—which means that National wants to get rid of it let us be clear about that. Maybe he should talk to the Opotiki District Council which put in place these kinds of schemes in the 1990s when there were no subsidies. The council has said to me that it would have loved to have been able to do that under a Labour-led Government—to have been able to get the subsidy for the capital works. So the next National speaker can tell us whether they will keep these subsidies or expand them. I suggest that they will not. Maybe they will give tax cuts to E. coli. Maybe that will solve it because tax cuts seem to fix everything else for National. 
We heard from National that consumers are not complaining so we should not do anything. Well consumers do not know in many cases whether their water is up to standard. I guarantee that there is not a rural community in this country who if told that their drinking water had unsafe levels of E. coli or campylobacter would say that that is OK or their first question would be how much their rates were going to be. They would say that they wanted their water fixed because healthy and safe drinking-water is a right not a privilege—especially in countries like New Zealand. 
I was talking to my colleague Jill Pettis and she informed me that in the 1980s under the fourth Labour Government the wonderful city of Wanganui enjoyed subsidies from the Labour Government for their waste water—millions and millions of dollars. What did National do the minute it came into Government? It scrapped those subsidies. So let us be clear National does not have a good record of supporting small communities—in rural and provincial New Zealand—on safe drinking-water and waste-water standards. New Zealand is unusual amongst developed nations in relying almost entirely on voluntary mechanisms for safe drinking-water. This bill goes a long way towards addressing that. 
We do as I have said have high rates of largely preventable gastrointestinal disease: campylobacter is twice the rate in New Zealand as it is in England and three times that of Australia and Canada. We do not like being beaten by Australia in anything and I think this is a particularly important area. The current state of New Zealand’s drinking- water legislation also gives little protection or deterrence against a major outbreak of disease in New Zealand. So we are also thinking ahead. Imagine what would happen if we had a major outbreak of a disease in our drinking water in this country—either deliberate or accidental—and this Government with the support of the other parties in this House had not done anything to put into place standards that allowed forward planning and public health plans in order to help us to deal with it. What would National members say? Would they say: “Well that’s OK Labour. We don’t mind that you didn’t do it because we think it would have put rates up.”? They would be on it like white on snow. They would be all over it and asking why Labour had not done anything while it had been in Government all of that time. 
Well here they sit today voting against this legislation which is forward looking and will protect the health of New Zealanders—unlike the situation we have seen overseas in Milwaukee for example where 70 to 100 people died and 400000 people became sick as a result of water-borne diseases that were unforeseen. The National members throw up their hands and say that they do not care. They say that they do not care because it does not meet their cost-benefit analysis of protecting New Zealanders’ health. 
We accept regulation to ensure the safety of food and discretionary consumer goods. There is no discretion over drinking water. Unless we want to pay ridiculous amounts for bottled water which most people cannot afford we do not have a choice. We have to have water and most people get it from a supply that they assume is safe. I think most New Zealanders do not realise that the safety around that supply is voluntary—it is completely voluntary. I think if they were to know or become fully aware of that they would want something done and they would want everyone in Parliament to vote for it. 
As I said this legislation will just bring New Zealand into line with other First World countries but it will not make it compulsory to comply with the drinking-water standards. I congratulate the Health Committee on the very good practical work it did in looking at the way in which we run the system and realising that in some places it will just not be realistic that some of these things can be enacted either quickly or indeed at all. But where that happens we need to know that there is a plan in place to deal with the possible health impacts of not complying with drinking-water standards. I think that is the least that our rural communities can expect from their Government. 
I thought it was interesting looking at the research from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and the Dunedin school of medicine that showed that rates of illness from water-borne diseases were higher in areas where the water did not meet the standards. Dr Jonathan Coleman can stand up in the House to tell us that water is not a problem and that one gets campylobacter from chicken not water but that is not borne out by the evidence. We know that the young the elderly and the sick are particularly vulnerable; everyone may not die nor get really sick but we know that there are some New Zealanders who are particularly susceptible to these diseases. If they have other pre-existing conditions it can be fatal. 
I think that those people also deserve to know why the National Party thinks that their health is not worth supporting through this bill. It is also important to note that an estimated 70 percent to 95 percent of cases are not notified so we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg when we look at this issue. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How do you know if they are not notified? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Jo Goodhew can shake her head. She does not care about the people who cannot afford good water because they do not vote for her; that is what it comes down to. When it comes down to it—and it is not very nice—the reality is that small communities that do not have these schemes and that really cannot afford them are the poor communities that John Key used to care about when he talked about the underclass but apparently he has completely forgotten about them now. When the rubber hits the road the underclass is empty rhetoric—unless they want a nice little ride in John Key’s limousine. 
We in Labour believe that those people deserve and are entitled to the same healthy drinking-water that Jo Goodhew enjoys. That may be anathema to National but it is certainly not to Labour. That is why this bill more than any bill underlines the fundamental difference between the two major parties in this House. Labour believes that these standards should apply to everyone; National members believe as always that those standards should apply to their mates and the people who vote for them—everyone else can go to hell in a handbasket as far as they are concerned. 
I will quickly address the compliance costs. There was a  
New Zealand Herald 
 article in which Mr John Key gave a speech to the Local Government New Zealand conference in Dunedin. He cited the example of Owaka which had to install new infrastructure for drinking water at a cost of $750000 for 200 ratepayers. In fact a report from the Central Otago District Council—the actual operator of the supply—estimated the cost to fully comply with the standards will be between $10000 and $55000. 
 I expect that many of the estimates National members are using in this House are completely overblown. Many of the estimates National members are using are simply there to scare these communities. Many of the estimates are there to somehow justify National’s politicking with this bill which is about the most fundamental human right that we have in this country: the right to clean safe drinking-water—for everyone not just for people who vote National. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 National opposes the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the excellent contributions from Tony Ryall and Dr Jonathan Coleman. We think the intentions of this bill are commendable and laudable. We also agree that water is essential for life and that New Zealanders should have access to good safe water. But this bill is not the mechanism to achieve that. This bill is costly to ratepayers it is impractical and the issue of affordability has not been factored into it. The small and rural ratepayers will be the ones who suffer. They will bear the brunt of this bill. Basically the bill is what Dr Jonathan Coleman said it is—a legislative sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is micromanagement to the nth degree. 
The vast majority of water suppliers we heard from in the select committee give high-quality water to their communities. They undertake self-improvement and they monitor. This is voluntary—they are not forced to do anything—and they are doing it very very well. Only a small number of water suppliers about 16 percent have a problem and need to clean up their act. We also agree that these groups should absolutely be providing safe water and all practical steps should be taken to improve drinking water. We also absolutely agree that if there is a clear link between drinking water and infection urgent and firm action should be taken. But we think this bill is overkill. 
The Health Committee received a submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. It detailed 23 outbreaks of water-borne infection that had occurred in the last 30 years and it gave us quite a lot of detail. I will go over the four examples that have occurred in the last decade—the rest had occurred prior to that. 
The first case in the last 10 years occurred in a rural school in Hawke’s Bay in 2001. The problem was that faeces from cattle had got into the source water. The reason there was an infection was that the ultraviolet treatment machine was malfunctioning. I do not think this bill would have somehow fixed up the ultraviolet treatment machine. The second example occurred in Banks Peninsula in 2004. The problem there was that an effluent pipe in a septic tank had broken and it discharged into a spring-fed drinking-water supply. Again I do not think this bill would have fixed the septic tank or the effluent pipe. The third example occurred in a Nelson camp in 2004. In actual fact when one reads through the information one finds that there was no proven link. So that one goes. 
The last case that happened in the last decade was at the Cardrona ski field in 2006 and I agree that this case was a valid legitimate issue. There was a problem with effluent overflow that went into a stream. The drinking-water supply was not registered the treatment comprised filtration and ultraviolet treatment the cartridge did not comply with the requirements of the drinking-water standards for New Zealand and the efficacy of the ultraviolet treatment was not known. 
That 2006 case is a fair enough example and only the other three examples occurred the last decade; everything else happened 20 years before that. I say to members that the world has moved on in the last decade. We now live in a world where there are standards of accountability responsibility duty of care and informed consent. We can see that the incidents of water-borne outbreaks have been very rare in the last 10 years and certainly what happened prior to that is all very historical knowledge. 
The cost of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is massive. We have heard the Government figures. It gave wide-ranging figures—from $50 million to $275 million. Local Government New Zealand which opposed the bill—and still opposes it—estimated that the cost would go right up to $800 million. That is a massive amount of money. Who will take the brunt of that sort of cost? It will be the ratepayers and it will be the rural communities in particular. We have little rural communities that are paying massive amounts of money. Mackenzie District Council paid $3 million over its plan the Ashburton District Council paid $10 million and the Clutha District Council paid $20 million. This is big money. Really this bill is a sledgehammer. It will not fix up pipes that get broken. It will not fix up a problem that is not a problem to begin with. 
National supports voluntary compliance and the education of communities not this legislative approach that will not solve the problem. The Opposition thinks this bill is costly to ratepayers impractical and unaffordable. It is legislative overkill to the nth degree and we oppose it. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I agree with Jill Pettis who has just interjected that there was no passion in the previous speech by Jackie Blue. I do not think that Dr Blue in her heart of hearts really believes the speech notes she was given. I would have assumed that as a medical doctor her driving passion would be public health. I also find it ironic that there is another medical doctor in the Chamber from Northcote whom I would have thought would also be driven by the need for public health. 
You know those members are from the party that if it had the opportunity—just watch this space—would sell off water in this country and make it a private good not a public good. National would be in so fast with every French Japanese or American private water company that members would not believe it. Did members think National members would sit here for 9 years 10 years or 15 years in Opposition as some sort of version of “Labour-lite” saying that they are lovely and wonderful and that they really care? Do members honestly think that National’s policy thinktanks are not looking at the tradable commodity of water? Members should look at what National did in respect of electricity. Do members honestly think that in the next cut should we ever have the misfortune of having a National-led Government water will not come up for contention? National members are not shaking their heads; they are actually smiling with embarrassment because they know they have had exactly those kinds of conversations. 
National says that it is for private enterprise. If it was given half a chance it would roll back the barriers even further and we would not be having this kind of public health debate. In a future Parliament we would literally be having a debate about who exactly should own and run the water supply in this country. 
I compliment the Minister Pete Hodgson and the Government on this bill. It is a needed bill. I compliment the Health Committee on the work it did. Hamilton has an excellent water supply. I take my hat off to the Hamilton City Council. It does a wonderful job. 
David Bennett 
: Hear hear! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: In fact I think David Bennett was with me and Sue Moroney just a wee while ago at the opening of a water plant in my electorate. I guess that when one lives in a place like Hamilton one takes for granted safe secure World Health Organization - standard water when one turns on the tap. I guess that coming from a wonderful city like Hamilton we do indeed take that for granted. 
As previous speakers have said we take for granted the thought that New Zealand has the purest water in the world. The Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is not about the wonderful image we have of beautiful streams and that kind of thing; it is actually about water coming out of people’s taps from various community drinking-water schemes. 
It may come as a surprise to many New Zealanders to learn that their community water supplies have been virtually unregulated. Indeed New Zealand is unusual amongst First World countries in that we rely on largely voluntary measures to protect the safety of our water. [ 
Interruption 
] Someone says that I should put a bit of passion into it. I am putting passion into it. My passion is never to allow the other lot on the other side of this House ever to get near the Treasury benches where they would start to privatise this country’s drinking water. They know in their heart of hearts that if they were given the chance that is exactly what they would love to do. 
This bill is very important. At the moment we rely largely on voluntary measures to protect the safety of our drinking water in this country. New Zealanders accept regulation to ensure the safety of food and discretionary consumer goods but drinking water—a commodity that people have little choice but to accept from the local supplier—relies for its safety on the goodwill and voluntary actions of the body that runs the water supply. The point of this bill if you like is to get a more consistent standard of water supply throughout the country. 
I am interested to know whether if one lives in a blue-chip suburb somewhere in Auckland where one can take quality drinking-water for granted one does not relate much to people in smaller communities where that right is not guaranteed. 
I acknowledge the work of the Health Committee. The committee’s notes state the fact that New Zealand has relatively high rates of largely preventable gastroenteric diseases. The campylobacteriosis rate in New Zealand is twice that of England and three times that of Australia and Canada. I am not the scholar that the previous speaker is so I ask members to forgive me if I mispronounced the word—although any medical doctor would understand what it is. 
This is not a laughing matter. We cannot say: “Look it’s not really a risk. Is it really worth the cost?”. It is a serious public health issue. We do not represent the poorer areas of Calcutta. We are and aspire to be a First World country. If the other crowd opposite came to power they would be happy to have a First World drinking-water supply in the blue-chip suburbs of Auckland but a Third World drinking supply in some of the smaller communities of New Zealand. We do not have that belief. They would really worry that it was too expensive. They will be all right but some other communities will not be. 
Indeed the disease I was talking about is just one of the potential water-borne diseases in New Zealand. I know that the member for Hamilton East is listening intently and seriously at the moment. I thank him for that; he is taking this issue very seriously. Campylobacteriosis can involve fever headache abdominal pain nausea vomiting and as many as 10 watery often bloody bowel movements daily. The symptoms may persist for a week and prolonged illness or relapses may occur in adults. Jackie Blue did not tell us that. She is a medical doctor and I am a lay person but I think I should commit this information and make the contribution to the debate in this Chamber. 
National members say that the burden of disease is actually more of a problem for rural communities. Well I am sorry but that is just not good enough. For a party that proclaims to have some sort of aspiration to represent rural communities better than those on this side of the House I find that statement ironic. Do National members remember the slogans “one law for all” and “one New Zealand for all”? We say that there should be one standard of drinking water for all. 
I take this opportunity in the closing stages of my contribution to acknowledge the significant changes and additions that have been made to the bill. I note the comments on page 2 in particular of the report into the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I thank the Health Committee for the very good work it did. I notice that it has gone through the bill and refined and improved it. For example the following amendments have been made to the bill. The suppliers who are implementing an approved public health risk management plan are deemed to comply with the requirement to take all practical steps to comply with the drinking-water standards. The committee has suggested longer time frames for compliance in order to align with Local Government Act 2002 processes and the creation of a new category of drinking-water supply called a rural agriculture drinking-water supply with different and more flexible obligations. 
 The committee tried to look at the micro-practicalities of the legislation but the bottom line is that there should be one standard of drinking water for all. We hear about “one law for all” so how about “one World Health Organization – standard drinking-water for all”? Incidentally this Government and a number of parties in the House are committed to the public ownership and control of drinking water in this country. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to join my colleagues in opposing the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and it seems really important that I start by expressing some concern about the drinking water in the debating chamber. Such was the invective of the member opposite Martin Gallagher that I think the drinking water may well have been endangered. I wonder whether it needs to be changed after listening to that speech from the other side. 
I speak on this bill in the knowledge that in my 2 years in Parliament few other bills have caused such an outcry from the rural people and the territorial local authorities of my electorate—Aoraki. I am worried about the misrepresentations made in the House today. First of all the whole of the Health Committee worked very very hard to improve this bill—not only advisers but all parties worked very hard. It is disingenuous of an earlier speaker to suggest that the improvement was all down to New Zealand First and the Green Party. In fact considerable work was done by all parties. 
I want to help out the member opposite who said he was not as learned as Dr Jackie Blue by explaining what this magazine is. It is the Food Safety Authority magazine  
Food Focus 
 and it states: “Campylobacterosis is an important food-borne disease in New Zealand and has the highest level of notifications. There are a lot of cases of this particular problem but most of them are food-borne cases.” Let me begin with a reference to a statement made by the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson during the first reading of this bill: “Water can never be made completely safe.” Well that is a good start. But the Minister prefaced that statement with the word “Although” and then set about explaining just how much money he wants the ratepayers of New Zealanders to pay to reduce the potential risk to public health. 
This is where I need to make a very strong point. The National Party does not oppose clean safe drinking-water for the people of New Zealand wherever they may live. This party does not oppose that but we believe that in many respects this bill is set up to fail. The cost is so high that it simply will not happen. We know this because we had significant representations made to the select committee. When the Minister referred the bill to the Health Committee he said it must be reported back to the House by December 2006. There are a number of reasons why that did not happen. Partly it was because of the concerted effort of all parties in the select committee process. There were 47 submissions and we heard 26 of them. Most came from local authorities and water suppliers which is no surprise. But do not be mistaken by the summary of support numbers. It is really hard for anybody in New Zealand to say that he or she is opposed to improved drinking-water—it is unlikely one would find anyone who would say that. But there are people who oppose this bill and the nature of it because they believe it represents significant financial risk. 
Back in January of this year the Ministry of Health put out a press release entitled: “Steady improvement in the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water.”—interesting considering it came up during the select committee process. It stated: “The quality of New Zealand’s drinking-water is improving steadily according to the  
Annual Review of Drinking-Water Quality in New Zealand 2005 
 which provides the most up to date information on the quality of our tap water.” We know there have been improving numbers of registered water supplies. We know that drinking-water supplies have been improving prior to this bill. Dr Paul Prendergast the Ministry of Health’s principal public health engineer said that the figures mentioned in the review did not “necessarily mean that 24 percent of New Zealanders received unsafe drinking-water in 2005 it simply means water suppliers did not demonstrate that the water was safe.” That is an important point to make. 
There were significant flaws in the development of the rationale for this bill; the most important being the Government’s belief that there will be significant improvement in gastrointestinal infection rates as a result of the bill. But the ministry was unable to demonstrate clear unequivocal links between a lot of these gastrointestinal problems and drinking-water supplies. 
I acknowledge there have been significant improvements to this bill but I just want to spend a small time on considering some of the objections to the bill. Both Federated Farmers and Rural Women surveyed their members. The concerns of Federated Farmers mirrored the concerns of many other submitters; 31 percent of their members responded to the survey which is quite a bit higher than it would usually get. In answer to the question: “Do you support the introduction of the drinking-water standards as compulsory compliance standards?” there were some interesting responses. Some people talked about being in an area where their water was graded E but there had not been outbreaks of disease. Some people thought the standards were overkill. Some said it seems an expensive way of over-regulating for schemes that are perfectly safe and have little risk of becoming dangerous. Some said the voluntary standards work; there is minimal ill health related to drinking-water standards. 
They were also asked: “Do you think the bill should proceed despite the financial costs outweighing the benefits?”. Some said in response that if they cannot prove the benefits outweigh the costs then forget it. They said: “We live here by choice”—in rural areas—“and accept that risks apply.” There was a feeling that the costs would add to the overburden on ratepayers. They said: “Costs will increase our rate bills.” I think generally the people in rural areas have said yes they want safe drinking-water but they want it in an affordable manner. I really want to reiterate that that is National’s point. 
When the National Party decided to oppose the bill it did so knowing that after all of the work that Local Government New Zealand undertook during the select committee process it had retained principled opposition to this bill. Local Government New Zealand worked with us in the select committee and achieved significant improvements to the bill. Those improvements have been covered by some of National’s previous speakers so I will not go into those again. The fact that Local Government New Zealand has principled opposition to the bill tells me that the costs it has estimated for its long-term council community plan expenditure both operating expenditure and capital expenditure are too high. 
I will touch briefly on the per capita costs for capital expenditure for long-term council community plans that will hit some councils very hard. Two of these councils—Queenstown and South Taranaki—have a figure exceeding $4000 per capita. Five councils—Marlborough Rangitikei Thames Coromandel Timaru and Whangarei—have per capita expenditure of more than $2000. That is just one example of what these particular councils and what Local Government New Zealand are concerned about and one of the reasons why Local Government New Zealand retains its principled opposition. 
I will close there because the rest of the debate will give us plenty of opportunity to further canvass during the Committee stage of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland 
Bill read a second time. 
International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill which will amend the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 has been thoroughly considered. It has been subject to a national-interest analysis by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The bill was examined before the second reading by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which recommended that it be passed with no amendments. 
First I would like to thank the House for its support of this bill and for allowing its rapid passage. As noted in the second reading debate the International Finance Agreements Act allows New Zealand to belong to and to meet its obligations as a member of various multilateral financial institutions including the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The passage of this bill is the next step towards New Zealand becoming a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency—or MIGA—which is the final agency within the World Bank Group to which New Zealand does not belong. New Zealand first became a party to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency convention in Seoul on 6 September 2005. 
The national-interest analysis concluded that it was in New Zealand’s interest to join the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency as its services are well aligned with our broader development interests and to a lesser extent with our foreign policy interests. The analysis also noted that the assessment of whether New Zealand should join the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was based on three broad categories: firstly supporting multilateral organisations; secondly contributing to development goals; and thirdly supporting the New Zealand private sector. 
Multilateral forums or agencies such as the World Bank are an important part of the international architecture and are an important way in which New Zealand may influence our external environment. In this way the goals of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency are aligned with New Zealand’s aid and development goals. Further the subscription to the agency is able to count towards the Government’s goal of achieving aid contribution equal to 0.35 percent of gross national income. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency provides specifically targeted insurance products which seek to mobilise private sector resources in order to help address stark development challenges such as the development of infrastructure or the creation of jobs. It also provides political and foreign risk insurance for equity investments into frontier underdeveloped markets which often may be affected by war or civil dispute. 
National has observed that this reduces the costs of capital for private sector firms aiming to invest in developing markets. But it is also about helping firms handle uncertainty and find their feet in foreign and challenging markets by leveraging off the World Bank’s knowledge of conditions on the ground. I note that the agency’s most recent guarantee has encouraged $85 million of investment into Afghanistan to improve telecommunications. 
Assuming that the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is passed New Zealand will be required to deposit a copy of the Act with the World Bank. New Zealand will then be required to pay a subscription fee. The subscription that will be involved is the purchase of one of 513 shares at a cost of approximately US$5.5 million—10 percent is in cash and 10 percent is via a promissory note. The remaining US$4.4 million will be subject to call by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. The fund is unlikely to be called upon as a call would require the agreement of all shareholders. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National is supporting the International Finance Agreements Bill and I want to make some general points. The Labour Government has been going on and on and we have heard the vein-popping speeches which have become so ubiquitous that television commentators now refer to them as the standard modus operandi for our Minister of Trade. I have to say to Mr Goff that if he wants to become the leader of the Labour Party he has to look a little bit more authoritative and a bit more dignified than when giving these bizarre kinds of speeches. I tell him to change tack if he wants to overthrow the boss when the time comes and that could be quite soon. 
One of the interesting things we have noticed about these vein-popping speeches—where the sweat is on his brow—is that Labour is in a state of panic because National has said that actually it does make sense to have a bipartisan foreign policy. And actually to be honest for a long time there has been a bipartisan foreign policy. The Government is deeply alarmed about this and there is reason for its alarm. Labour members will have read Colin James’ articles in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 where he says John Key is not so much the competitor of Helen Clark—and of course he is—but that he is actually the successor. 
I see Mr Shane Jones smiling because he of all people knows the truth of that and he of all people knows the opportunity it provides for his personal political ambitions. He knows that it is not really a smart idea to become the leader of a party when it is going into Opposition immediately after a Prime Minister of 9 years has resigned. A little time needs to elapse and there need to be other people to take that job in the interregnum. So he can see the desirability of all that and he understands the implications of that. There is a significant and important point I am making here. When Colin James refers to Mr Key as the successor— 
Lesley Soper 
: What’s this all about? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This is about continuity a certain level of continuity so that other countries can get a sense of the way New Zealand approaches foreign affairs and so forth. 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s this got to do with the bill? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: For the benefit of Ms Pettis we are talking about a bill that we will vote for and if she thought about it for a minute she might realise that actually Labour is voting for the bill National is voting for the bill and some other parties in Parliament are voting for the bill. What does that tell members? Does that not tell members that there is bipartisanship on this particular issue? Is that not the message that they are supposed to understand and get? Is that not the message that New Zealanders understand and get? That is I suppose the contemporary nature of 21st century politics when the raw ideological divisions that so beset New Zealand politics last century—the 20th century—where so much of the body politic was contested on sharp ideological lines— 
Hone Harawira 
: Hear hear! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That no longer applies in the 21st century. It is interesting is it not? The Maori Party member says: “Hear hear!”. The Maori Party actually wants a sharp ideological division in the 21st century as well. I say that time is passing by for those particular contests he has referred to in his various speeches. I want to make this point. South Pacific nations almost universally say: “We’re going to sign up to this bill because it assists foreign investments.” Indeed as the Minister noted it assists developing countries with foreign investment from developed countries particularly countries like New Zealand. He said: “Well the only reason they are supporting it is that it is the only deal in town.” 
Actually why is it surprising that it is the only deal in town? This is an agreement essentially sponsored by the United Nations the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They are in fact the international institutions to which all countries sign up and they are the deal in town. There is no alternative UN. There is no alternative World Bank. There is no alternative IMF. What does the Maori Party think the alternatives are if they are not to work through the important international institutions that I and other members in the House support and have great faith in? They build stability opportunity and prosperity for New Zealand. 
So I want to put on record that National is pleased to support this bill. We see it as an important part of New Zealand playing its role in building stability in the Pacific and projecting to the outside world that as a nation we are a responsible international citizen. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am glad to join the debate this afternoon. I do not think this debate will be quite as passionate as the previous debate on water but nevertheless it is a very important bill that I believe will be perused and discussed as we go through the afternoon. 
If I had not made the uncharacteristic interjection on Mr Mapp I wonder whether he would ever have got around to talking about the bill itself. I do agree though that New Zealand has for a long time adopted a bipartisan position on most issues around foreign affairs. But there have been many differences over the years between the Labour and National parties. On matters of defence of nuclear issues and of overseas aid there has always been a degree of difference. Certainly the Labour Party’s attitude towards some developing countries is quite different from that of the National Party when one gets down below the surface to what is in National’s policy. Some of us remember Don Brash the previous leader of the National Party whose views on nuclear issues were vastly different from those of Labour. So we have not always had total agreement on matters that fall under the umbrella of foreign affairs. 
This International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is having its third reading. The National speaker was right when he said that there was accord between the parties on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this bill and the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The bill amends the International Finance Agreements Act of 1961. This gives New Zealand the authority to become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency which was established by the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency that entered into force on 12 April 1988. This bill is necessary in order for New Zealand to ratify that convention and it is time that it was done. There have been a succession of Governments both National and Labour since the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was formed so this amendment bill and the ratification of the convention is most timely indeed. 
The committee raised a number of issues during its hearings. We learnt during the process of the advantages and disadvantages to New Zealand of the treaty entering into force. The advantages of New Zealand ratifying the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency include for example contributing to international efforts to promote development through facilitating foreign direct investment flows. That is important for New Zealand. It is also about enhancing New Zealand’s credibility and reputation at the World Bank through increasing our support of that very important organisation. It is considered that these advantages support and contribute to the reasons why New Zealand should become a party to the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. 
There is another aspect relating to our ratifying this convention—that is unless New Zealand is a member of all five institutions of the World Bank Group it is unable to chair any annual meeting of that group. That is an advantage of some significance to New Zealand and is a worthy reason why we should ratify the convention. 
The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is in essence an insurance agency. Its mandate is to encourage development and alleviate poverty by mobilising investment into developing countries and to encourage private sector development. The alleviation of poverty is a critically important issue. By ratifying the convention New Zealand’s subscription obligations towards that process will count towards our gross national income as part of our overseas aid target. The alleviation of poverty is something that Labour Governments in New Zealand have always felt very strongly about and they have put a lot of effort into it internationally. The committee did talk about the potential fiscal risks to New Zealand taxpayers by our being in the agency. But it is worth noting that any annual loss that does occur is shared between all shareholders so it limits our liability. 
The agency operates within a company structure so New Zealand and other member countries are afforded limited liability as its shareholders. Article 8(d) of the convention states:“Liability on shares shall be limited to the unpaid portion of the issue price.” So for New Zealand this will be equal to the value of 513 shares at an estimated value of roughly $9 million. But of this only around $900000 will be held by the agency with the remainder being subject to call. The committee was concerned about the potential for fraud abuse. However insurance companies manage matters such as moral hazard and adverse selection and the agency charges a premium based on risk which includes the reputation of the host Government. In extreme circumstances the agency will refuse to guarantee for political risk for instance if a loss is almost assured. 
So although this bill is not one that will attract a huge amount of attention—I know that it will not be on the front page of the newspapers—nevertheless it still is an important bill. So being a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency means that New Zealand as a member of the World Bank Group will contribute to the World Bank’s mission of poverty elimination and the achievement of the millennium development goals. The core mission of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is to enhance the flow of capital and technology to developing countries for productive purposes by providing a range of key services. This is an important bill. It will largely remain below the radar in the minds of most New Zealanders but nevertheless it is significant and I am pleased to have spoken to it this afternoon. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. It is always a great privilege to follow my colleague Dr Mapp who has put the context of the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill in the broader framework of the problems facing Labour and its desperate attempt to make foreign policy a divisive issue for New Zealanders. [ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely I say to Dr Mapp. He has provided that broader political framework and I shall make just a few brief comments on the substance of the bill as I do not think I can improve on his comments. 
This bill has gone through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and has attracted quite careful attention from the parties that have been watching its passage. It has attracted broad support. Along with a number of members of this House I was a little surprised to find when we first came across this issue that New Zealand was not already a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency given that there are 170 members and that we historically have put a lot of emphasis on multilateralism. It is the one avenue of diplomacy where New Zealand’s small size frankly does not really matter as much because ideas count as well as power. Nevertheless this lacuna existed and this bill will fix up that problem. It is part of a broader jigsaw if you like of putting in place international cooperation that for the first time will include New Zealand within its aegis. 
The second thing I would say is that this measure is a fairly low-cost solution from our country’s point of view. From memory the contingent liability is US$5.5 million and we have an immediate cash liability of 10 percent of that. So the cost of this solution is pretty modest. I would imagine it is deeply improbable that the full contingent liability—modest though it is in itself—will ever be called upon in the future largely because of the very prudent management principles underlying this agency which are reflected in the bill. 
The design is prudent. If members look at article 15 of the new schedule 7 which is in the schedule of the bill they will see that it involves careful cooperation with the host country which I think is absolutely necessary. Foreign investment remains a sensitive issue in many of these developing countries. This is not a case of the World Bank going in with its muddy boots on over the top of host country wishes. It will not operate without the express consent of the host country. 
I think the design is prudent in terms of management of risk. It has a limited risk of up to 150 percent of the capital on call and each individual project is capped at US$110 million. In a sense this is quite a modest amount of money. It indicates that we are not talking about mega projects or mega power projects; we are talking about relatively modest projects by the standards of international capital with a maximum liability of US$110 million. 
It attacks real problems as previous speakers in previous stages of this bill have pointed out. It is very very difficult for private companies—whether they are New Zealand companies or companies from other countries—seeking to put some investment opportunities before these developing countries to get private market insurance for expropriation or for breach of contract by the recipient Government. Of course this measure would not cover breach of contract by a private actor in those countries. It is very difficult if not impossible to insure against war and civil war which are quite explicitly set out in the relevant provisions of this bill. 
This is prudently designed legislation. I think New Zealand is right to get into this agency. It is fundamentally important in terms of lowering risk premium and opening up development opportunities for developing countries. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tenatatou katoa i te Whare. In 1914 Emiliano Zapata the Mexican revolutionary said: “It is not only by shooting bullets in the battlefields that tyranny is overthrown but also by hurling ideas of redemption words of freedom and terrible anathemas against the hangmen that people bring down dictators and empires.” Today we follow that tradition by opposing the latest sorry saga in a stream of international financial agreements this big brother to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which itself was dumped 10 years ago following strong opposition from all around the country. Today we have the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency backstopped by the world’s great financial brothels: the World Bank the International Monetary Fund the International Finance Corporation and—to no one’s surprise—some rather puffed up but altogether petty and rather pretentious little pimps from right here in Aotearoa. 
Yesterday the Nats tried vainly to win the Maori Party over to this bill even going so far as to tell us that we should support it because the Greens did only to have the Greens vote six opposed to it time after time after time. The Maori Party also opposes this bill because we oppose the corporate takeover of Aotearoa in 2007 in the same way that society railed against the corporate excesses that led to the crash of 1987 and in the same way that society opposed the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in 1997. We oppose this bill because it demeans us as a nation and because it lowers our credibility to a point where Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa spokesman Murray Horton could say that New Zealand is rapidly becoming the $2 Shop of the South Pacific while all the while trying to dominate the economic sovereignty of small Island States. 
 Yesterday I made the point that the Maori Party is not opposed to development per se but that we are opposed to development and investment that strips indigenous people of their right to control their own future. We see that in how this Government has allowed us to become trapped in a stranglehold of binding obligations that are part and parcel of these international financial instruments. I quote the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which recently stated: “The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency has a unique comparative advantage that neither private companies nor the New Zealand Government can match because of the unique relationship the World Bank maintains with the host Governments of developing countries.”—and we know what that is; it is a case of: “Either you take it or we pull your loans.” The committee goes on: “This means that there are few alternatives to MIGA’s products for New Zealand firms.” What that means is that the agency is locking us into a smothering monopoly run not by us but by the World Bank. 
Although the text of the bill is paved with the pretence of concern about struggling regional economies and the gap between the rich and the poor it is also blatantly clear that this bill is intended to surrender another mark of our sovereignty to the big-money boys. 
Me te mihi ano hoki ki a koutou e oku whanaunga itera taha i te meana koutou tenei taha o takukorero. 
[ 
Acknowledgments to you as well relations of mine on that side because this part of my address is yours. 
] 
But then I guess that giving away the economic and political sovereignty of the nation is just par for the course for a Government that is today leading the charge against a document designed to support the sovereignty of the world’s indigenous peoples. Today is the day on which the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be voted on at the United Nations General Assembly. Today is the day when this Government including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Dover Samuels Mita Ririnui and Shane Jones will formally oppose that declaration—a document that has taken 24 years of scrutiny and sacrifice by indigenous people the world over to bring it to this point. Today—as we consider this bill—is the day when New Zealand’s great myth of racial harmony will be cruelly and finally exposed for all the world to see. Today—as we consider this bill—is also the day when indigenous peoples the world over will wonder how a country so strong on human rights for children can be so cold on human rights for its own tangata whenua. 
Today—as we consider this bill—is a day of great shame for those Maori MPs who would sacrifice not only the nation’s sovereignty through this Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency bill but also their people’s hopes and dreams so that they might retain their precious seats on the Treasury benches. In speaking to this bill I note this: I will retain forever my whanaungatanga to those Labour Maori MPs who today have forsaken their people but I will also lose forever a measure of my respect for them because of the damage they have done to their people’s hopes and dreams. 
I understand that the word “hypocrisy” is heavily frowned on in this Chamber and that one may not use it to describe the actions of another member of Parliament so I will not use it. But the duplicitous dealings that characterise this Government’s actions the double-standards by which this Government gives corporate rights greater status than the rights of Maori people and the acts of self-deception as practised by this Government and evidenced by the granting of rights to overseas investors to benefit from privileges that ordinary New Zealanders are denied are a slight on our nation and a stain on what little credibility this country ever had in terms of race relations. This bill calls on New Zealand to insure commercial enterprises that have no loyalty whatsoever to New Zealand. This bill calls on New Zealand to insure risky capitalist ventures whose sole motive is profit. This bill does nothing for our sovereignty. 
Yesterday I said that the Maori Party was opposed to this bill. I missed a bit. I apologise for my error and I clarify our position here. Today I can confirm that the Maori Party absolutely totally completely and utterly supports the vote at the United Nations to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Today I can also confirm that the Maori Party is equally absolutely totally completely and utterly opposed to this bill and will be opposing it with the votes it has by virtue of its holding the majority of the seats allocated to the indigenous people of Aotearoa. Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I say to the people of New Zealand that the member who has just resumed his seat Hone Harawira is a man of absolutely muddled thinking. How can we possibly say that this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill which is supportive of economic development in our small Pacific neighbours will impact on our sovereignty? For goodness’ sake! He is a man of totally muddled thinking. 
This Government has had the past 8 years to pass this legislation. It has fiddled and fiddled its time away and it is in the twilight of its stay on the Treasury benches. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Shane’s happy about that! 
JOHN HAYES 
: I realise that Shane Jones is particularly happy about that because the departure of his party from the Treasury benches will create a very interesting opportunity for him. 
We should be looking at our Australian neighbours. They have had this legislation in place now for the better part of 8 years and it has been helping Australian companies to get into areas of political risk. Any Australian company doing business in Fiji whose business was upset recently by the restoration of martial law there would be covered under the policies that are available under this convention. How does that in any way impinge on one’s sovereignty? 
As for the Green Party’s opposition to this bill it is something I just fail to understand. The Green Party members came to the select committee and debated the issues and they were supportive of the issues. They did not in any way declare a contrary position or disagreement with the cross-party support that we were trying to put in place yet they come into the House now and oppose this legislation. The next thing they will be doing is making Ahmed Zaoui a list candidate—high up on their list—and they will be doing it to advertise their name to put their name in the public domain. At least that is nothing to do with sovereignty but it is all about trying to grab a headline which is really all that the Greens are about. 
 We need to think about the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency in the context of our economy and the economies that are important to us around the world. I do not buy into the Labour mantra that supporting this convention will assist poverty eradication. In my view that is total meaningless nonsense. This will do nothing to contribute to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals of halving the number of women who die in childbirth of decreasing by a third the number of people who do not have access to water or of increasing incomes. That is total drivel. Everything that the Labour Government and the Minister have said when the bill was introduced and this evening—presenting the mantra that the convention is in accordance with our aid agency’s goals and with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals—is just arrant nonsense and totally meaningless because those goals will never be measured and they will never ever come to anything whatever. 
The reason that members should support this bill and the reason why I rise with my colleagues Dr Mapp and Mr Groser to support it is that it will help New Zealand businesses. The same party that is promoting this bill had a principle back in the 1980s that we must move away from socialising businesses’ losses. So what did Labour do? It got rid of the Export Guarantee Office and it got rid of all the supports for businesses that had been covered as a taxpayer expense. As I have pointed out to this House before in the mid-1990s the Iranian Government through its own State-owned banks defaulted to 14 New Zealand companies on $100 million of letters of credit. If we had been a member of this scheme then the cover could have kept those New Zealand companies out of difficulty. We have moved to a situation where the Government is offering no principled approach to the issue. Members will remember that Labour removed the support that existed back in the 1980s. It was removed by Roger Douglas and Mike Moore. Now we are coming back—the worm seems to have turned full circle—to a point where this Government is saying it wants to socialise businesses’ losses again but to do it on an international scale and to do it through this convention. 
I happen to think that this measure is a good business opportunity. Going into the scheme will cost us a maximum of US$1 million. Sure there is some risk that down the track we would have to meet up to another US$4 million if there was a run on the company providing this support. But the upside of making this investment of US$1 million is that it will help small to medium sized businesses in New Zealand—those businesses with fewer than 300 members those businesses with less than US$15 million worth of assets and those businesses with less than US$15 million worth of annual income. It will help them for a period of 3 years to try to establish themselves. 
But if we think about the context of Fiji where democratic government has been removed and replaced with martial law we realise that had we been a member of this convention 12 months ago any New Zealand companies operating there could have insured themselves against that risk. They would not be suffering the financial losses that they are having at the moment. Because countries that operate under this convention and seek insurance cover also have to be members of it the same opportunity would apply to companies doing business in Papua New Guinea which is often perceived by our companies as a difficult and high-risk market. It would also operate in Samoa where there are lower risks. It would operate in the Federated States of Micronesia in Palau and in Indonesia. 
I do not support what we are doing in the sense of the mantra that the Government provides to us; we are supportive of the legislation just because we can see real benefits for individual New Zealand companies and for the Pacific economies on our boundary. With those words I give our full support to this bill. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
A kia ora anotatou e te Whare iteneiahiahi. Te mahi tuatahi me mihi au ki te kapu. Ae teneikapuwhai mana ahakoangakapua o te raruraru e tauana ki rungai a ia nau mai hoki mai ki waengatonuitenei Whare i roto o Aotearoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to us of the House this afternoon. The first thing for me to do is to acknowledge the cup. Yes indeed this prestigious cup despite its being shrouded by problems that have landed upon it I welcome you upon your return to the inner chamber of this Parliament House of New Zealand. 
] 
Before I launch off and offer some lucid thoughts in contrast to the drivel I heard from my whanaunga from up north and that very vague sort of recitation of a half-baked career I heard from the member for Wairarapa I will acknowledge the presence of the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup which has been brought back to Aotearoa. It sits unfortunately under a cloud of some discontent controversy and tumult inspired by a half-baked campaign from Mr Power. Let us hope that our national team brings home the real Rugby World Cup and that we retain both of them in 2011. 
I spoke earlier about the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill and I do not propose to repeat a great deal of what I said earlier. This bill enables us to burnish and deepen our credentials in relation to how we are intervening in less developed countries and in those nation States that require our assistance. 
There is one thing the member for Wairarapa said that I actually agree with. There is if not an arc of instability a range of troubles lying not too far from our borders in the Pacific and it is our obligation in Aotearoa to ensure that we are developing the best remedies for that. One of the best remedies is to grow the size of the economies in those islands. New Zealand businesses are unwilling or afraid to put too much capital at risk if there is no prospect of their either recovering their assets or collecting on their receivables. By joining the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency we improve the prospects of our businesses extending in that direction. 
Of course my whanaunga Hone Harawira seems to connect this measure with the failed attempt of Mugabe and his supporters of Gaddafi and his supporters to assume the mantle to talk for Maori rights and the Treaty on behalf of the people of Aotearoa at the United Nations. Let us leave the United Nations to those nation States that are suffering collapse so that they can learn so that they can resume the journey of knowledge that will take them back to 1648 when the Peace of Westphalia created the first notion of a nation State. Let us leave the United Nations for handling those sorts of problems. I ask whether one single person in Aotearoa believes that by associating with Mugabe and associating with Libya our race relations and the endeavour we are putting together as a people driven by a common purpose—to create a more prosperous stable and harmonious Aotearoa—will be advanced one iota. Who believes that we will be advanced one iota by an association with that half-baked idea? 
It has taken 24 years to arrive at some indigenous rights accord that is meaningless vague impractical and completely incapable of being implemented. It has very little application here unless we are capable of deepening the sense of shared responsibility in our own country. I know of not a single New Zealander who treats his or her country with pride who would be pleased to have the United Nations lecture us. So the less I hear from the United Nations and the less I hear from the people who hope to vote to impose that accord on us—an accord that has absolutely no application to how people here live their ordinary daily lives—the better I will feel. I accept that it is an instrument of exaggeration and that it will be a device used to confuse our people throughout the marae that somehow this measure represents a diminution of the country’s sovereignty or a diminution of Maori rights. That shows just how far the Maori Party has got to go to connect with the hard relevant and real issues that confront Maori families every day—not these flights of fancy wandering around with Marsh Arabs and whoever else bedevils the United Nations. 
Let us come back to this contribution that our country is making. Not only will we put a small amount of capital into the putea so to speak but most important the bill reminds us that we cannot have a civil society in a failed nation State situation without a growing economy—and economies cannot grow as islands unto themselves. So if this legislation allows us either through Government agencies or private investment to deepen and improve infrastructure and enables people to take commercial risks in a situation that is politically diabolical then we should celebrate that. 
That is a better option than the inhabitants and members of those societies thinking that Aotearoa will be a soft touch for them. In the light of the problems for example that ravage Fiji’s economy if the people there are foolish enough to believe that 4.2 million people in Aotearoa will welcome them with open arms they are wrong. We would rather see people develop their own countries. We will play a constructive role but we will not have them rely on the belief that they can come here and sustain their own countries through remittances etc. So I say to the opponents of this bill that it has nothing to do with overwhelming those countries’ sovereignty. It has nothing to do with undermining their capacity. Many of those failed nation States those small Pacific Islands have already undermined themselves. 
This is an attempt for us to take a place of pride—small though our contribution might be—to ensure that our Pacific Island neighbours grow large and prosperous. They may even—perish the thought—emulate the girth of the last speaker John Hayes. He is a man who in a career that took him to far and distant climes demonstrated that the wines of New Zealand not only could be taken to distant areas—into dusty irrelevant and boring rooms—but also could be consumed. The man comes back into the House to demonstrate that he indeed had a long varied—I could not say “rich”—and obviously enjoyable career if his physical shape is an indication of the high level of living that his career afforded him. 
I join my colleagues on this side of the House—and Jill Pettis—in commending this bill to go forward. I remind listeners not to listen to a single thing that came from the member for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira who said that the United Nations’ decision was somehow an advance on race relations and an elevation of Maori aspiration. No let us leave the United Nations to those nation States that are warring with each other whether they be Kurds or whether they be from Darfur or Zimbabwe. Leave the United Nations to them. Let us bring our take of Maori and Pakeha in Aotearoa on to our own maraes—and this is the highest legislative marae in the country—and we will find our own solutions in our own country. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 44; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill 
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. These two bills were previously parts of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. That was an omnibus bill which was introduced to Parliament on 13 March and had its first reading on 20 March. The bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration. Following the committee’s report back to the House and the second reading the Committee of the whole House debate took place on Tuesday 11 September. This date happened to be the sixth anniversary of the attacks on America which of course had resounding effects on the international aviation security environment.  
The main elements and objectives of the original bill remain unchanged. They are to provide aviation security officers with the power to search for and seize items prohibited or restricted from being taken on aircraft; to enable the screening and searching of airport workers; to provide a power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and undertake pat-down searches; to require that airlines deny carriage to passengers who refuse to be searched; to provide a power for aviation security officers to seize potential weapons; to enable foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand and to enable New Zealand to deploy inflight security officers should the Government ever decide to do so in the future; to formalise the process for checking the backgrounds of people working in areas critical to aviation security; and to provide a general regulation-making power to ensure that the law is able to respond to new aviation security matters in a timely fashion. 
 As reported back from the select committee on 2 July the legislation retained the key provisions with some positive suggestions for amendments to the provisions regarding the seizure of prohibited items inflight security officers and consultation with the industry and a general regulation-making power to ensure that the law is able to respond quickly to new aviation security measures.  
I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee again for its consideration and recommendations regarding the seizure provisions. The amendments contained in the legislation were drafted prior to the implementation of the new liquids aerosols and gels restrictions that came into effect on 31 March this year. These restrictions have meant that a large quantity of low-value items such as water bottles have been seized—many more than had been expected. Consequently officials have worked with the industry on options to address its concerns. A solution was proposed to the select committee by officials and this is reflected in the select committee’s amendment to these provisions. I think it was a very sensible amendment to make in the circumstances.  
I emphasise that the legislation is clear that the provisions dealing with inflight security officers are future-proofing provisions and will not come into force until the Government considers that they are necessary. It is likely that any situation that required inflight security officers to be deployed on foreign or New Zealand aircraft would arise at very short notice. It would be imprudent of the Government not to have legislation in place to deal swiftly with a situation where it was necessary to continue flights to and from New Zealand in such an enhanced security environment.  
The select committee process has resulted in improvements to the provisions in the legislation regarding inflight security officers. Submissions to the select committee raised the useful point that if inflight security officers were ever deemed necessary it would of course be desirable to consider industry views. The legislation has been amended so that there is a mechanism for the Director of Civil Aviation to do that. It is my view that airlines would probably refuse to fly in such a stretched security environment but it may be necessary for the Government to make a decision on that issue.  
In my first reading speech I indicated that the Government would welcome a discussion at the select committee of the advantages and disadvantages of the legislation’s general regulation-making power. The current rule-making powers can be very time consuming and limit the Government’s ability to make rapid changes to aviation security legislation in response to international security events or short-notice changes in international practice. As we are all aware the international aviation security environment can change dramatically overnight. The select committee’s amendments to the regulation-making power are welcomed. The scope of the power is now more specific and the relationship between the various forms of delegated legislation relating to aviation is clarified. These amendments ensure that we are able to respond to threats requiring immediate attention.  
As I had indicated in my second reading speech I introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to clarify that body-scanning technology that presents an unclothed image of specific passengers cannot be used. It is important to note that technology in this area is developing quickly. Early versions of body-scanning technology showed detailed unclothed images of the passengers being screened. However as the technology has developed such detailed images are much less likely to be produced. Manufacturers of screening technology are aware of the privacy and dignity concerns relating to such images and solutions are being developed that achieve the necessary security outcomes while still maintaining the privacy of passengers. It is important to ensure that the legislation preserves the privacy and dignity of passengers by not allowing technology that presents a detailed unclothed image of an individual specific passenger. That is why I introduced the Supplementary Order Paper which all parties in the House supported and I thank them for that.  
There are currently no inflight security officer programmes in other countries where the officers do not have a firearm capability. If New Zealand used unarmed inflight security officers I would expect that other countries would not see these measures as adequate. Further if New Zealand was to require that inflight security officers must be unarmed this would raise problems for our air services agreements that enable us to fly to other countries and for our obligations to consider security requests from those countries. These could result in the cancellation of flights to those countries and would call into question the integrity of New Zealand’s aviation security. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.