Volume 683 Week 20 - Tuesday 21 August 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 683 Week 20 - Tuesday 21 August 2012 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4527. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 21 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
New Zealand Defence Force—Deaths of Corporal Luke Tamatea Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker and Private Richard Harris in Afghanistan 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the incident on Sunday 19 August in the Bamian Province of Afghanistan which tragically claimed the lives of three New Zealand soldiers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That this House express its deep sympathy and condolences to the families friends and military colleagues of the three New Zealand soldiers killed in Afghanistan on 19 August.  
It is with profound sorrow and also a deep sense of shock that just 1 week after this House passed a motion expressing its condolences on the deaths of Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Malone in Afghanistan we should find ourselves here again paying our respects to three of their colleagues. On Sunday morning Corporal Luke Tamatea Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker and Private Richard Harris were travelling in a convoy on the road to Romero in Bamian. They were in the last of the four Humvees and were driving it in order to seek medical assistance for one of their colleagues travelling in the same convoy. At 9.21 a.m. their Humvee was hit by a massive improvised explosive device. The explosion was not survivable. These three New Zealanders who were serving their country so loyally and so well were killed instantly. 
In this House last week my colleague Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said that the Defence Force families knew there were risks in the job but that did not make it any easier when the knock at the door that they hoped would never come did come. On Sunday it came for the families and friends of Luke Tamatea Jacinda Baker and Richard Harris and for their colleagues in the Defence Force and indeed for all New Zealanders. It is of course the families and friends of the three fallen soldiers who bear the loss most acutely and to them we extend our deep sympathy. At this time this House also thinks of the other families who have lost soldiers in this conflict and we know that this will have renewed their pain. We are mindful too that four of the five soldiers lost in the past fortnight were from the 2/1st Battalion based at Burnham. Our thoughts are with that regiment in particular. 
In the last couple of days tributes have been paid to Luke Tamatea Jacinda Baker and Richard Harris and in that way we have put names and personalities to the toll. The three were different but they shared characteristics in common with other New Zealand servicemen and women who have served and who continue to serve in Afghanistan. They were loyal they were brave and they were hard-working members of a team that always looked out for each other. It would not have been possible to ask more of them. 
Our mission and mandate in Afghanistan has been to provide sufficient security to allow the reconstruction to occur which has significantly improved the lives of local people. Through the efforts of our brave soldiers we have seen in the Bamian Province the mortality rate for children under 5 halved and maternal deaths are a quarter of the 2002 levels. Bamian University is now a multi-faculty institution with 2700 students this year of which 15 percent are female. Nearly half of all primary school children going to school in the Bamian Province are now girls. This is a record of which our servicemen and women can be extremely proud. 
At the same time soldiers like Luke Tamatea Jacinda Baker and Richard Harris have been serving New Zealand. Their effort is our contribution to an international force mandated by the United Nations. We have contributed in a way that is built on the finest traditions of the New Zealand military over generations. We have enhanced our reputation as a defence force that is totally committed to the task even when the conditions are difficult or dangerous. As I have made clear in the past couple of days the Government is committed to withdrawing from Afghanistan in the first part of next year and we will continue to work towards the best way to do this. When we leave it will be done in a way that honours the sacrifice and effort New Zealanders have made for a country that is not their own. Bamian is a better place for Luke Tamatea Jacinda Baker and Richard Harris having been there. We are proud of them we mourn them and we wish that they rest in peace. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 A week ago today at this very moment we stood to remember the lives of Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Malone. We paid tribute to their commitment their dedication and the sacrifice they made for their country. We celebrated their achievements in life and we mourned their loss in death. We never imagined that we would be standing here today to pay our respects to three of their colleagues who have also had their lives cut brutally short in the service of their country. It is not right or fair but we must put those feelings aside to come together to express our sorrow at the loss of three young Kiwis who will never get the chance to fulfil the promise and the potential that their lives offered. 
At the age of 31 Corporal Luke Tamatea had already given so much. He had a long history of serving his country in Timor-Leste and the Solomons and he had helped with the tsunami recovery in Sumatra. He was on his second deployment to Afghanistan. He was a relaxed easygoing guy who is remembered fondly in his home town of Te Teko near Kawerau as a mountain of a man and of course as a father. 
Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker joined the army as a medic. She was in Afghanistan to take care of others and was doing just that when she died. She had already received a commendation in 2008 for her professionalism and courage. Jacinda Baker is the first female Kiwi soldier to be killed in action since we entered Afghanistan and the first New Zealand woman to die in conflict since the Viet Nam War. 
Private Richard Harris was just 21. He had already served one stint in Afghanistan. He was a keen sporty guy who enjoyed his life in the army and had a bright future ahead of him. He was far too young to die. Our thoughts and prayers are today with their families and friends. 
We have lost five of our soldiers in just 2 weeks. The lives of 10 Kiwi military personnel have been ended by violence in Afghanistan during our 9 years’ commitment there. The loss is so great it is difficult for families friends colleagues and our nation to bear. We ask ourselves whether it is too high a price. It is the price that we ask the members of our armed forces to be prepared to pay whenever they enter a conflict zone. Their courage and willingness to risk their lives doing their duty in the service of our country is an inspiration to us all. 
We should not forget that our efforts in Afghanistan have made a real difference to the lives of the people there. Children safely attend school they are vaccinated against disease wells and village water supplies have been hooked up and bridges and hospitals rebuilt. Hundreds—perhaps thousands—of Afghan people would not be alive today if not for our presence. That is all thanks to the efforts of our soldiers. That contribution will never be forgotten. 
We have done all that has been asked of us by the international community and as a small nation we have now done all we can. It is time to hand the country back to its own people and its own police forces and security forces. It must be an orderly transition and it will take months to complete the handover to the Afghan National Police and to withdraw our forces and our equipment but it is right after almost a decade that the end of our commitment in Afghanistan be firmly in sight. We should leave the Afghans with the best possible start. 
We thank all of the New Zealanders who have served there on our behalf and who have helped rebuild that fragile country in their many different roles. We recognise their bravery and their willingness to do their best to give others a better life. 
But today we stand with the families and friends of Luke Tamatea Jacinda Baker and Richard Harris as they come to terms with the shock of losing their loved ones. We cannot comprehend the depth of your grief but all New Zealanders want you to know that you are not alone at this most difficult time. You are in our thoughts and prayers. May your loved ones rest in peace. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party stands once again to acknowledge the sacrifice made by New Zealand soldiers. We pay tribute to Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker Private Richard Harris and Corporal Luke Tamatea members of the provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan. This is a painful moment. Ten New Zealand soldiers have now died in Afghanistan since 2010. This is the greatest loss of life and injury in active New Zealand service since Viet Nam. The loss is felt throughout the country. 
Around these walls are various battle wreaths and plaques carved in wood. The 12 commemorating First World War battles were installed in 1918. The remaining 18 plaques commemorate the South African war the Second World War and subsequent events which were added in the 1960s. Perhaps Afghanistan will be added. If it is it will stand as a reminder that almost 100 years after the first battles depicted here we have not learnt how to tame warfare. 
The sacrifice of these three New Zealanders along with the two whom we honoured this same moment last week and the other five who have also fallen in Afghanistan demands that we re-examine our beliefs our values our institutions and our methods of relating between societies in the 21st century. We in New Zealand and all of us around the world must reassess what it will take to ensure that human conflict and the contestation of ideas are handled with greater dignity and in peace. That is the real tribute we can pay these young people and the families they leave behind. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I wish to express our greatest sympathy to the family whanau friends and comrades of these brave soldiers: Corporal Luke Tamatea from Kawerau Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker from Christchurch and Private Richard Harris from Pukekohe. It is with great sorrow that within the short space of 2 weeks we are mourning the loss of more New Zealand soldiers in Afghanistan. They died in the service of their country undertaking a short 15-kilometre road journey to take a sick mate for medical treatment. 
This is the first time since the Viet Nam War that we have mourned the loss of a woman killed in action. It has also not been since the height of the Viet Nam War in 1968 1969 and 1970 that we have lost so many soldiers in such a short space of time. I feel great sorrow for the latest loss of lives and for those who grieve for them and I know how their loved ones are feeling this week having lost my brother in Viet Nam in 1969. The pain of the tragic loss never goes away but the families and friends can always be incredibly proud of the ultimate sacrifice their loved one made in the service of their country. 
New Zealand soldiers working in the provincial reconstruction team have carried out beneficial work in Bamian Province which has greatly improved the lives and safety of civilians there. We admire all the selfless work that these soldiers carried out to help others and we acknowledge that it takes great courage and bravery to serve in such a war-torn area as Afghanistan. This is a time for our nation to remember those whom we have lost and pay them the tribute they greatly deserve. May they rest in peace. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Ka tu ake au ki te tautoko i nga mihi o nga rangatira nga kaiarahi nga kaikorero o nga ropu o te Whare nei kua tukuna atu o ratou poroporoaki ki te tokotoru otira nga mihi ki nga whanau na reira tena koutou. Ki nga toa tokotoru o Tumatauenga ki a Luke Douglas Tamatea e 31 ona tau no Te Teko i Tamaki-makau-rau e noho ana. Tokowha ana tamariki i Kawerau e 12 ona tau i te pakanga i Te Taua o Tumatauenga. Ki a Jacinda Francis Elyse Baker e 26 ona tau no Otautahi he takuta tana mahi. I tera tau ka tohua ia ki te metara toa Chief of Army’s Commendation for courage. Ko ia te hoia wahine tuatahi o Aotearoa i mate i te pakanga i Afghanistan. Ki a Richard Lee Harris e 21 ona tau no Ngapuhi ki Hokianga ki Puketi me Ngati Maru. I Pukekohe ia e noho ana. Ka takoto ia ki Piki-te-Aroha marae takiwa o Rahiri ki te Hokianga. No te Ope Tuatahi me te Ope Tuarua hoki o te Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment ratou katoa e mahi ana ma te Taua Whakatika Takiwa i Bamian. E 145 nga mema o taua ropu e 9 tau ratau i reira. I haere katoa atu enei hoia ki Bamian i te Aperira Paenga-whawha o tenei tau. 
I mate i te pahu nui he mea huna na te Taliban i te rori i te takiwa o Do Abe e tata ana ki te wahi i mate ai o ratou hoa tokorua i nga wiki tata nei. I te wa o te pahutanga i te kawe ratou i tetahi hoa hoia ki te hohipera. E meatia ana na te pai o nga mahi a o tatou hoia ki te whakapakari i nga iwi i Bamian te take i tino pirangi ai te Taliban kia patua. No reira e mihi ana au ki tera ropu taua mo a ratou mahi toa i reira. 
Ko te tikanga ka hoki mai nga hoia katoa ki Aotearoa a te Paenga-whawha o te tau e tu mai nei. Tera pea ka tae ki te wa e tu ai nga iwi o reira i runga i to ratou ake rangatiratanga waiho ma ratou ano ratou e whakapakari. 
Na reira koutou hoki wairua mai ki a matou i Aotearoa nei. Hoki wairua mai koutou ki te whanau o nga hoia kia taea e o koutou hoa te tangi mihi poroporoaki i a koutou. Kia uhia nga korero ki runga i a koutou. Kia ringihia nga roimata me nga hupe ki runga i a koutou. Kia whakangawari ai i tena hikoi ki roto i o koutou whanau. Kia takoto ai koutou i o koutou kainga tuturu i waenga i o koutou whanau hapu iwi. Kia mihia koutou kia poroporoakihia koutou. Na reira koutou haere haere atu ra. 
Ki nga matua tipuna whanau o te tokotoru nei ehara tenei i te mahi mama kia kite ai nga matua i o ratou tamariki e hinga mai ana i mua i to ratou matenga. Na reira tena koutou kia kaha anei matou o te Whare Paremata e tautoko ana i a koutou i tenei wa pouri o koutou. Na reira koutou ki a koutou nga mate a tatou te hunga ora ki a tatou tena koutou kei raro. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to endorse the acknowledgments of party leaders leading figures and spokespersons of this House who expressed their farewell tributes to the three and indeed their condolences to the families and so thank you. To the three warriors of the New Zealand Army: Luke Douglas Tamatea aged 31 of Te Teko who lived in Auckland has four children in Kawerau and served in the army for 12 years; Jacinda Francis Elyse Baker aged 26 of Christchurch a medic who received a Chief of Army’s Commendation for courage last year and is the first New Zealand female combat casualty in Afghanistan; and Richard Lee Harris aged 21 a Ngapuhi from Hokianga Puketi and a Ngati Maru who lived in Pukekohe and will lie in state at Piki-te-Aroha Marae at Rahiri Hokianga. All three were from the 2/1st Battalion of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment and were part of a 145-strong provincial reconstruction team stationed in the province of Bamian for 9 years. All these troops went to Bamian in April this year.  
The trio died in a massive explosion from a bomb concealed by the Taliban on the road to Do Abe close to the area where two of their fellow soldiers were killed in recent weeks. At the time of the explosion they were taking a fellow soldier to hospital. It has been stated that because our troops were doing such a sterling job to improve the lives of the people of Bamian the Taliban really wanted to target and kill them. So I pay a tribute to that troop for their courageous efforts there.  
According to what has been planned the expected withdrawal of all New Zealand soldiers is set for April next year. By that time perhaps the people of Afghanistan would have regained their independence and ability to make their own decisions. In terms of how best they can improve their lives leave that for them to determine. 
Therefore I say to you three return in spirit to us here in New Zealand. Return spiritually to the family of the army so that your fellow soldiers can mourn acknowledge and farewell you three. It will enable you to be shrouded with speeches and have outpourings of tears and mucus cast over you. Those elements will ease the journey back for each of you to your own families and to lie in state in your place of birth among your family subtribe and tribe. And it is there that they will acknowledge and farewell you. So depart go forth goodbye.  
To you the parents ancestors and families of this trio this is not an easy situation for parents to see their children predecease them. Hence I say to you be strong. We the members of the House of Representatives support you at this time of your sadness.  
To you the dead I say unto you remain there among your own and we the living I acknowledge us all and resume my seat 
.] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 Hoi ano hei korero tuatahi me mihi atu ki a koutou katoa e tuku poroporoaki ki a ratou nga rangatira kua mate atu ki tera taha o te ao. E tika ana kia mihi atu ki nga mate i tenei wa haere haere haere. Koutou e nga whanau e tatari tonu ana kia hoki mai ki te kainga e tika ana kia mohio ai koutou anei matou katoa o roto o te Paremata hakoa ko wai te tangata ko tehea te pati e tu kotahi ana i roto i te pouritanga kei runga i a koutou i tenei wa. 
[ 
So to begin with I acknowledge you all who made tributes of farewell to them the chiefly ones who died on the other side of the world. It is fitting as well at this point in time that I say to the deaths farewell depart and journey on. To you the families who are still waiting for their return home it is fitting that you know that all of us here in Parliament regardless who it is and which party it is stand as one with you in this hour of sadness upon you. 
] 
Last week a number of Maori MPs from different political parties debated a range of issues on  
Native Affairs 
. Naturally we all had our different opinions on all of those issues except one: what to do about our troops in Afghanistan. It was nice to hear that on that one issue we were all singing from the same song sheet: bring the troops home. 
I know that in this House it might seem inappropriate to be asking why we are at war when our troops are dying. I do not want people to think that asking questions here today in any way challenges the sacrifice that our troops have made for some have made the ultimate sacrifice. But I also know that when we go to a tangi for one of our whanau who has died in a car accident or from smoking or from an act of violence or from anything else we openly ask ourselves why they died and whether or not there was anything we could have done to stop them dying. Today is no different. Today people prepare for the return of their loved ones from Afghanistan. Today we all mourn those who have died both Maori and non-Maori and we all share in the grief of their whanau and their communities. Today is the right time to ask questions about why they died and whether or not there was anything we could have done to stop them dying—questions that some of the families of those still in Afghanistan want answered. 
They are questions like why exactly it is that we are expected to stay the course when that course has changed from one of reconstruction to a more aggressive role. Are our troops still involved in reconstruction or has that changed to a more direct battle for their survival? Why are we hearing that New Zealand vehicles are being stopped and searched by the Taliban? Is that happening because neither New Zealand forces nor any other coalition forces can guarantee security there any longer? When the Prime Minister himself talks about the need to restore security is it because he too has accepted what everybody already knows—that security is deteriorating in Afghanistan? Is deteriorating security the reason why the Hungarians refuse to patrol at night and is that why New Zealand troops are being asked to take on a greater role there? Does the Government accept that the deteriorating security status in Bamian and across the country means that New Zealand need not commit itself to an American timetable of departure and that we are entirely within our rights as a sovereign nation to ensure the safety and security of our own troops by withdrawing them from front-line action? When the Government says that it does not want it to look like the Taliban is forcing New Zealand out of Afghanistan surely it is not saying that it is willing to sacrifice New Zealand troops to prove how staunch we are. When the Minister of Defence confirmed last night that the reports are true that the Taliban is now specifically targeting New Zealand troops why was he unable to say what additional security is being provided for those troops? Can somebody in the Government tell mothers and fathers at home why it is that the Government has cut back on the resources for our remaining troops when they are under greater threat now than they have ever been? And can somebody please tell us why we have withdrawn the SAS at a time when their support is most desperately needed by our own troops on the ground? 
If the Government’s commitment to reducing funding reducing resourcing and reducing the support levels for our troops in Afghanistan is met by a declaration of specific targeting of our remaining troops by the Taliban then it is time to accept that the reduction in overall security of our forces on the ground presents our Government with one of two simple choices: an immediate enhancement of the security for those on the ground until such time as they can be withdrawn as soon as possible or an immediate withdrawal of all New Zealand troops from Afghanistan. 
Hoi ano hei whakakapi i taku korero ehara i te mea hei takatakahia i nga mahi a te Kawanatanga engari kia mihi atu ki nga whanau e tatari ana kia hoki tika mai nga tupapaku o ratou kia mate atu i tera o nga whenua. No reira e nga mate haere koutou haere koutou haere koutou. Huri tu ki a tatou te kanohi ora tatou e nohonoho nei tena koutou huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
So to end my address it is not as though I am walking all over Government action but rather I am paying a tribute to families waiting for the bodies of loved ones to come directly back to them from those lands over there. And so to you the dead farewell depart and move on. I turn to us the living seated about here to acknowledge you and all of us throughout thank you. 
] 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is with great sadness that I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party on the loss of our three soldiers in Afghanistan: Corporal Luke Tamatea Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker and Private Richard Harris. It is made all the more difficult is it not when it was just this time last week that we paid tribute to two other brother soldiers who lost their lives for the same cause. For the 2/1st Battalion Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment based in Burnham it is five deaths in 2 weeks. It is a credit to our country that we continue to have brave men and women who are prepared to step up and defend democracy at any corner of the world. I recall again those words that are written high above the gates on entry to the infantry base at Burnham: “Remember that prosperity can only be for the free and that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” I cannot imagine the thoughts that will be in the minds of their fellow soldiers still on the ground in Bamian Province but we here today want them to know that we back home continually think about them we care about them and we greatly value their brave work. To the fallen. Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to their families to their friends and to the military at this very difficult time. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Up and down New Zealand in every little village and town the centrepiece is a war memorial upon which are displayed the names of those who have died in battles past. Many of us I suspect have looked upon those names and wondered about the people who are but chiselled memories there. What were they like? What were their aspirations? What were their hopes for the future? Why were they involved? When we consider Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker Corporal Luke Tamatea and Private Richard Harris we consider not only the next set of names to be chiselled into those monuments but real people in our experience doing a real and difficult job and paying an awful sacrifice for doing so. 
We may all well have our own views about the Afghanistan engagement. This occasion is not the time to air those. This occasion this afternoon is one to pay tribute to those who have lost their lives in pursuit of the objectives of that mission and to acknowledge the validity of their service the courage of their effort and the genuine nature of their involvement. There will be other times and other places to debate the wider defence and political questions. 
But today we stand alongside those individuals. We stand alongside their colleagues in Afghanistan—in Bamian—and in New Zealand their families and their friends. We stand again alongside the other families who have lost loved ones in this conflict and for whom the events of the last 2 weeks will be the most awful reminder all over again of their own experience. This occasion this afternoon is one for this Parliament to say to those who are suffering today that you have our support you have our sympathy you have our encouragement and you have our grateful admiration for the sacrifices that have been made in the pursuit of the freedom and the prosperity that we all seek to enjoy. 
 May the memories of Lance Corporal Baker Corporal Tamatea and Private Harris linger for a very long time. May their reputations and their honour be proudly displayed in the annals of our military history. May their families and friends take solace and comfort from the words of this Parliament this afternoon. May they rest in peace. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministers—Appropriate Use of Information 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because they are hard-working Ministers focused on building a brighter future for New Zealanders. 
David Shearer 
: Did the Minister for Social Development abuse her power when she released the personal private details of an individual? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The matter has been looked at by the human rights director and the case has now been settled. 
David Shearer 
: Is he still comfortable as he said with his Minister releasing personal private information as he said he was at the time or has he changed his view? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am comfortable with the actions of the Minister and that is why there was an agreed position by all the parties involved in this case. 
David Shearer 
: Is he confident that the Minister is unlikely as he put it to release private and personal information again as he is reported as saying given that she said she would do it again depending on the circumstances? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister has indicated to me that she is unlikely to do it again. 
David Shearer 
: Does a Minister releasing personal private information for political gain meet the standard to which he holds Ministers to account? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If one looks at the politically motivated campaign that was run around this issue there is at least a bit of context there. But as we can see from the director of human rights there was no case to answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when that Minister with plenty of time to prepare gave the House seriously erroneous information about a major court case? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I understand it the Minister did make an error but he also came down to the House and corrected that error. That is the normal and standard procedure and I remember other members of this House having to make similar corrections to their answers from time to time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when the Minister told the House last week that the Overseas Investment Office was powerless to act while a stay was placed on four farms owned by May Wang yet later told the  
New Zealand Herald  
that his officials were working on getting the farms sold before the case against Mrs Wang is complete? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not going to go into the individual details but I am confident that the Minister has carried out his duties as required by the law and in a professional manner. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You recall the Prime Minister saying that the Minister for Land Information came down and gave this House an explanation. You recall very well because you were involved in the two points of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No. Order! I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! No. Order! This is question time. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet and the member is trying to question the answer the Prime Minister gave. The member asked how the Prime Minister has confidence given these factors. The Prime Minister explained in his answer why he has confidence. That is the end of the answer to that question. It is in the hands of members the precision of the questions they ask. When they ask how the Prime Minister can have confidence in some Minister there may be a whole range of reasons why the Prime Minister has confidence in a Minister. On this occasion I believe that the Prime Minister said he thought the Minister had complied with the requirements of the law and that is why he had confidence in him. If the members want particular answers they have got to be very particular about the wording in the questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You would know full well that he came down and he gave an explanation which you recall we allowed to happen— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member is litigating an answer by way of a point of order. That is totally outside the Standing Orders of this House. The member has been here just as long as I have. He knows that the Standing Orders do not provide for that. The Prime Minister answered the member’s question. The member asked how he can have confidence in the Minister given certain circumstances and the Prime Minister answered why he had confidence in the Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information on the basis that he came down to the House and gave an explanation when that explanation demonstrably and palpably was wrong and false in every respect as to the court case’s timing? How can he have confidence on that basis? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member would really need to direct that at the Minister involved but my understanding is that the Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second week I have asked these same simple questions and now we are being fobbed off on the basis that I should ask someone else. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] If the member does not resume his seat while I am on my feet he will be leaving this Chamber. I am not going to tolerate it any further. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! And the member will stop interjecting. Goodness! This is Parliament. We have just had a serious debate about New Zealanders losing their lives overseas and we carry on like spoilt brats. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will leave the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will leave the Chamber and if he carries on like that he will be named. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to look carefully at what just happened. You invoked people fighting for freedom and at the same time stopped a member asking a question which was a real one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker did not stop the member asking the question at all. The member asked his question and the Prime Minister started answering it. The member actually was concerned about the way the Prime Minister was answering and had the legitimate right to raise a point of order which he did but then he sought to use the point of order the wrong way. What he could have done in his point of order was argue that the Prime Minister was not answering the question. I would have had some sympathy for that because the question asked how the Prime Minister could have confidence in a Minister and that is something the Prime Minister is responsible for. But a member has to comply with the Standing Orders and I will not tolerate in this House the point of order process being abused like that. And I will not tolerate members just answering back from their seats. The member has an absolute right to raise a point of order but it must be focused on what the Prime Minister is doing. He could have in my view raised a legitimate point of order because the Prime Minister was starting to answer in a way that perhaps was not appropriate. The Prime Minister is responsible for his confidence in Ministers and therefore to answer that the question was better directed at the Minister in question was perhaps not an appropriate answer to a question asking about the Prime Minister’s confidence. But the member asking the question did not pursue the point of order correctly. He tried to litigate information instead of questioning the Prime Minister’s answer and then proceeded to argue with the Chair. I am simply not going to tolerate that. In the last few days I have continued to receive numerous communications from members of the public who are concerned about the behaviour in their House. We need to pick up our standards a little. I do not want to turn this place into some boring place but we need to pick up our standards a little and that is not the way to do it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am sure you will go in the fullness of time and reflect on what has taken place this afternoon as you always do. In looking at that tape I would urge you to look at my answer. The member was asking me a question that really spoke to the motivations of a Minister as he was answering a question in this House last week. The point I was making to him was that I was not the person to do that but I was about to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I must not allow any member to litigate even their own answers. The question—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! No the Prime Minister must not do that either. The member’s question was absolutely in order because he asked why the Prime Minister has confidence in his Minister given certain circumstances. That was absolutely within order to ask the Prime Minister that question. And the Prime Minister perhaps got his answer in the wrong order; perhaps he should have answered why he has confidence and then suggested that for the detail of the matter questions should be referred to the Minister. That is where I think there could have been a legitimate point of order raised. But the issue remains that he will not litigate answers in that manner and we will not behave in that manner in the House. 
Financial Systems—Stability 
2. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress has the Government made in ensuring the stability of New Zealand’s financial system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We have made good progress. Non-performing loans held by banks have fallen to less than 2 percent of total loans. Capital adequacy has improved as New Zealand households and businesses save more and borrow less. There is strong growth in retail deposits over the past 18 months and this reduces banks’ reliance on funding their lending from overseas. The Government and the Reserve Bank have taken a number of steps to strengthen regulation of the financial sector which puts us in a good position to weather another global banking crisis should it eventuate. 
David Bennett 
: What are some of the measures the Government has taken to strengthen regulations for New Zealand’s financial system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government picked up the work begun by the previous Government to overhaul capital market regulations established the Financial Markets Authority and continued to work to bring the non-bank deposit takers—that is finance companies—under the Reserve Bank’s supervision. The Reserve Bank has introduced new core funding ratios for banks requiring them to have 70 percent of their funding from retail deposits in long-term wholesale funding. The Basel III capital adequacy standards will apply from 1 January 2013 requiring banks to hold higher and better-quality levels of capital making them safer and more stable. 
David Bennett 
: What further options is the Government considering to further improve the stability of New Zealand’s financial system and to moderate credit cycles? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is working with the Reserve Bank and Treasury to assess whether further so-called macro-prudential tools could help to moderate credit cycles and build additional resilience into the system. Internationally these tools include increased capital buffers adjustment to risk weights by sector and restrictions on mortgage loan-to-value ratios. The Reserve Bank actively monitors macro-prudential indicators such as credit growth each quarter. If these indicators suggest that an unsustainable credit boom is likely the bank would recommend action. At present the bank considers that adjustments are not required because credit growth remains subdued. 
David Bennett 
: What benefits could the use of these extra macro-prudential tools deliver for the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is as yet reasonably unclear what benefits they could offer. Based on modelling work that has been done and international experience there is some potential that these tools might moderate rapid increases in borrowing. However there is no silver bullet. Other policy settings also have a role to ensure we have price stability. For instance we need to ensure that the Government gets back to surplus and that we have sound microeconomic settings that encourage business investment and growth. 
Hon David Parker 
: If economic settings are important how can the long-term financial stability of a financial system be ensured when 4337 people a month are departing for Australia permanently? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The factors that I have outlined in answer to these questions are the factors that are generally considered I think rightly so as those that are important to financial stability and financial stability is an important factor for growth. Those countries that have not had it—that have had unstable financial systems—have got themselves in a real mess. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Minister be so sanguine about stability in the financial system when underlying economic growth is weak jobs are not being created the New Zealand economy is being hollowed out and as a result record numbers of New Zealanders are leaving for Australia—now 162000 people since he took office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the member is mainly incorrect. In fact by international standards we have one of the most stable financial systems. We have moderate growth and new jobs are being created in contrast to most developed economies which continue to shrink. That is why the Government is publishing its Business Growth Agenda in order to work with businesses to ensure we build confidence build investment create jobs and earn higher incomes. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 3 cannot now be asked because under Standing Order 86(1) no other member may ask a question of a member ordered from the House. So we move on to question No. 4. I call Dr Russel Norman. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was advised that another member can in fact deliver a question on behalf of that member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I simply draw the member’s attention to Standing Order 86(1) which says: “no other member may ask a question on that member’s behalf.” Question No. 4. I call Dr Russel Norman. 
BARBARA STEWART (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for Andrew Williams to ask the question which originally was down to be asked by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. Question No. 4. I call Dr Russel Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I will not tolerate that either. 
Afghanistan Bamian—Deployment of Provincial Reconstruction Team 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he recommit the provincial reconstruction team to Bamian province in Afghanistan when the current deployment ends in October; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have been clear that the withdrawal of the provincial reconstruction team from Bamian will take place in 2013. We are continuing to work on dates for that although it is likely to be around April. If the member is asking whether the present rotation will be replaced with another when the rotation ends then the answer is yes. However I will not be commenting on or confirming the specific timing of the rotation changes as is standard practice. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What work has the Government been doing to develop an exit strategy for the provincial reconstruction team given that President Hamid Karzai in early 2011 called for the withdrawal of the provincial reconstruction teams throughout Afghanistan? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government has been working with the Chief of Defence Force and the military on the withdrawal programme. As you are aware in terms of Bamian we are one of the first provincial reconstruction teams to transition out. By transitioning out in around about April 2013 we will be in line with other similar provincial reconstruction teams. We are now working on making sure that the exit of our 145-plus personnel in Bamian Province is done in the safest way possible for those particular men and women. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the number of troops stationed in Bamian increased or decreased since 2010 when the then defence Minister Wayne Mapp signalled that we would begin to draw down the provincial reconstruction team from September 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I simply do not have those numbers to hand. I am happy to go and get those numbers. I can give them to the member. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the current provincial reconstruction team deployment all be withdrawn in the rotation in October or whenever it happens? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I think the member needs to make sure he gets his terminology correct. The deployment is the commitment of our forces to Afghanistan. The rotation is the period of each of the groups that goes through. If the question is whether all of them will be replaced that is an answer that only the Chief of Defence Force can give. That is a matter for him to decide—who comes out and who stays in. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: So if we assume that the vast bulk of the current provincial reconstruction team can be withdrawn in October or whatever the date is that the Government plans to do the rotation is it necessary to send in another deployment to replace them? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The advice I have had from the Chief of Defence Force is yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What defence equipment in Afghanistan is so vital or difficult to remove that it will take until 2013 to pack it up? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well there are a number of issues there. I mean firstly we have three bases in operation in Afghanistan. We have significant bases that need to remove equipment that for a variety of reasons it is not possible nor sensible for us to leave in Afghanistan. We also deal with issues around weather. The member will be aware that the weather closes in when the snows come in November and that continues for a period of time. So overall on the best advice we have had the most probable and likely and sensible date is April 2013. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that we are staying in Afghanistan past the October or thereabouts rotation because of the logistical reasons or because of the commitments we have made to the International Security Assistance Force? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is because of a number of reasons. Firstly we have been on a transition path that is part of an overall commitment made by all International Security Assistance Force and NATO countries as they exit Afghanistan. So our commitments are partly for those reasons. Secondly it is because of logistical reasons. Thirdly it is allowing us to finish some of the humanitarian aid efforts that as we have been pointing out today have been hugely successful. So it is a combination of all these things. I think that if we take a step back what we can say is that we have been there as the provincial reconstruction team since 2003. We all in this House and across New Zealand mourn the loss of those 10 soldiers and we pay tribute to their service but I think we can also look with some great pride at the work that they have achieved in those last 8 years or 9 years and I do not think we would either honour the loss of those individuals or mark properly the contribution that New Zealand has made by making a rushed exit for the door. I think we should do that in a sensible orderly and professional way as has been the basis of all of our efforts in Afghanistan since Helen Clark sent the SAS there in 2001 and the provincial reconstruction team in 2003. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Without dishonouring those who have fallen in Afghanistan does the Government understand that reducing the risk to the remaining New Zealand forces over there could help reduce the risk of any further loss of life and hence will the Government be pulling out of the north-east part of the province which seems to be the most dangerous part of the deployment? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: First let me give the member an assurance that the Government works with the military to make sure that we provide the most safe and secure environment as we possibly can in Afghanistan but put it in the context of the fact that this is a war zone. So the Government makes sure that the resources are there that the support is there we are constantly reviewing what takes place there and we do everything we can to provide security and safety but unfortunately we are dealing with a quite sophisticated insurgent group which has been very active in recent times. So in terms of that the member can take some confidence that we are doing those things. In terms of the withdrawal of the provincial reconstruction team that will be a staged process for a variety of different reasons. But at this point I am not in a position to detail exactly the timing of the different stages as we pack up various different camps and bases that we have. 
David Shearer 
: Will the Prime Minister accept the Labour Party’s support for an orderly transition of the forces out of Afghanistan as promptly as possible? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am more than happy to give the member a briefing on all the things that are taking place the reasons for why we are going through this process and why it is the belief of the Chief of Defence Force and the military that the programme that we are on to withdraw is the right one. I think to be frank we have worked in a spirit of cooperation for a very long period of time with the Labour Party on this issue as I think National did in Opposition and we are more than happy to inform the member of the rationale for what is happening and why we are doing what we are doing. Some of that information is confidential and we cannot put it in the public domain but we respect the member’s word and he would obviously appreciate that information. If he and the Opposition defence spokesman want to have a briefing then I am happy to have that arranged by the Chief of Defence Force. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has his Government changed the mandate of the provincial reconstruction team given that when they were first deployed under the Helen Clark Government in 2003 the then defence Minister Mark Burton stated very clearly that they were not a “combat unit”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have the original mandate that the member speaks of to hand so I cannot comment about whether there are differences from those ones or the ones that my Government has rolled over as each rotation has gone through. But what I can say is that the provincial reconstruction team does a variety of different tasks in Bamian and for the most part those have been engagement with and working with the local community working on areas of development but there has always been an element of providing security for our humanitarian aid efforts so that those workers can carry on the great works that we have seen. As I noted today I think we can be very proud of some of those efforts. We now have a situation where half of all primary school children who go to school in Bamian are girls; there is a multi-faculty institution Bamian University with 2700 people there in operation; and the mortality rate for children under 5 has almost halved. So I think the men and women of whom there are a very large number who have now served in that provincial reconstruction team since 2003 deserve the congratulations of this country on the efforts and the work that they have done and I hope that in the years to come it will bear fruit for the people of Bamian. 
Social Development Minister—Statements 
5. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she stand by all of her statements? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Yes although I do have a tendency to get a little over-exuberant at times as Mr Speaker you witnessed last week. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has she shared with the Prime Minister her statement as quoted in the media that she could in future release the personal details of those who receive Government support “depending on the circumstances”; if so what was his response? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I spoke to the Prime Minister on Sunday on a range of issues to do with my portfolio and it came up in that conversation. He sort of asked me to catch him up on what had been happening last week and I said to him that I have not disclosed any further information in the last 3 years I do not intend on doing it next week and I do not intend on doing it next month but I cannot give a guarantee around every circumstance. It is what I said last week it is what I said on Sunday to him and it is what I still say today. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s position as outlined to the media that her release of the private information of two individuals on Government support was wrong? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have actually read the Prime Minister’s transcript from yesterday and that is not what he said. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Did the Prime Minister ask her not to share the private information of people on Government support in the future? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Absolutely not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Jacinda Ardern—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear Jacinda Ardern. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Did the Prime Minister express to her in their discussion that he agreed with her actions in releasing the information of two individuals on Government support? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think I have reiterated to the best of my ability the conversation I had with the Prime Minister on Sunday. I understand that those members are trying to get some great conspiracy theory but it was quite straightforward. We were merely having quite a catch-up. He asked me to tell him about— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He just ticked you off. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No I never got a telling off. I know what a telling off looks like after last week and it certainly was nothing like that. It was actually quite clear that we were having a conversation about what was going on. I said to him as I am happy to reiterate to you that I have not disclosed information in the last 3 years since then I do not intend on doing it next week I do not intend on doing it next month but I just cannot give every permutation of circumstances that might come up and give an absolute guarantee that nothing might happen. He simply accepted that and I think reiterated that yesterday at his press conference. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: During her catch-up with the Prime Minister did he agree with her that children move in and out of poverty on a daily basis? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Like me the Prime Minister would have seen the Treasury report that does a descriptive analysis of income and deprivation. He would have seen that from 2002 to 2009 only 24 percent of people stayed in the lowest income deprivation—that 76 percent actually moved. I can quote from it if it would help the member: “The mobility is both up and down though there is more for the bottom deciles than the top deciles—only 24% of those in the bottom decile in 2002 were also there in 2009” showing that more than 75 percent actually move around. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does she accept that her statement that she reserves the right to go to the files and release the private information of people who disagree with her can have a chilling effect on free speech in a democratic society? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: See I do not think that information was disclosed simply because someone disagreed with me. I am not going to reiterate yet again what happened at that point but by no means is that my interpretation. In my letter I made the point that people should be free to speak in this country and that I support democracy. I stand by that with every inch of what I have got. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that the Treasury report she has quoted indicated movement between low income and poverty on a daily or a yearly basis? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think it is quite clear that people move whether it be on a particular day or on an annual basis. What you have is mobility of income. I think what the member does not get is that we on this side are not deciding whether we dream up another measure of poverty whether it is 10 percent or 20 percent— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question about the specific Treasury report from which the Minister was quoting. We have not had even an attempt to respond to that yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well with respect I believe the Minister did answer it. She argued that the Treasury report indicates that children can move on a given day over a year or whatever. That is how the Minister answered the question. The question asked whether the report showed children could move on a daily basis and it seems to be the Minister’s interpretation from her answer that she believes it does. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about the Treasury report and the response was either—I cannot remember her words—“I believe” or “we believe”. It had nothing to do with what was in the report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh no no. The Minister if I recollect correctly did refer to the Treasury report in answering the question. It is a matter it would seem of interpretation of the Treasury report. I cannot judge that but I have to take the Minister at her word. She said the Treasury report indicates children moving on different bases. It could be moving on any day or over the course of a year and I cannot— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was quoting from a report. So that we can confirm it is the same report we have I request that it be tabled. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would like to finish my answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think the Minister probably answered sufficiently and I have got to ask her whether she was quoting from an official document. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am happy to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it is a matter of whether the Minister was quoting from an official document. It has been requested that it be tabled and it has to be if it is an official document. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I can table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is confirming she will table it. I thank the Minister. 









Document laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I seek leave to table not just that Treasury report which I am happy to do but also the  
Dynamics of Income and Deprivation in New Zealand 2002 
-2009 
. This is a descriptive analysis. This is actually the information from Otago University that Treasury has got the information from. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For the second document—leave is required to table the second document. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A Minister can table a document at any time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon. I need to seek advice on this because my understanding is not consistent with that. I apologise to the member but in fact Ministers cannot automatically table documents after 1 p.m. on any given sitting day. The Minister is required to table the first document the Treasury document because that was an official document and another member of the House sought that that be tabled. So the Minister is required to table that one. With regard to the second document the Minister mentioned the one from the university—research work—leave needs to be sought to table that one. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s on the internet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I will put it to the House. Is there any objection? There is objection on the second document. There is objection. 
Business Growth Agenda— 
Building Innovation 
 Progress Report and Funding for Research and Development 
6. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What announcements has he made regarding the Government’s work to boost innovation? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 This morning alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications and Information Technology I released the  
Building Innovation 
 progress report which is the second of six reports being released by the Government detailing and updating our Business Growth Agenda. The  
Building Innovation 
 report outlines more than 50 current and new Government initiatives across the innovation space. Specific measures include further information on the Advanced Technology Institute including that it will be named after the late Sir Paul Callaghan; the launching of National Science Challenges asking the public to assist us to identify New Zealand’s greatest challenges and working with researchers to achieve innovative solutions; encouraging the development of innovation parks which involves clustering research providers with innovative private sector firms and start-ups to take advantage of having highly skilled scientists and innovators working in close proximity; and developing a small advanced economies initiative with similar sized and advanced nations to focus on how we can use science and innovation to position for economic growth. 
Colin King 
: How will the Government assist business to boost research and development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has set an ambitious target to increase private sector research and development funding—double from 0.54 percent to more than 1 percent. To help business achieve these goals we have greatly increased the TechNZ co-funding for businesses to $115 million per year in 2012-13. We have committed to the Primary Growth Partnership combining Government and industry investment worth $600 million of which around half comes from the Government. We have committed $166 million over the next 4 years to develop the Advanced Technology Institute. We have a project working to ensure we obtain the maximum leverage from Government funding in terms of increased firm research and development. And we are also examining ways to improve the incubator model to ensure more start-ups have the opportunity to commercialise their ideas and launch products. 
Economic Development Minister—Statements 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Does he stand by the export pamphlet released last week which mentioned competitive— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon. Is this a supplementary question to question No. 6 or is it the primary question No. 7? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I apologise to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 7 the Hon David Cunliffe. 
7. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 First can I say to the member welcome back. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not acceptable. The Minister should not refer to the absence of any member from the House and under the particular circumstances it was doubly unacceptable. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes I do stand by all of my recent statements particularly my statement in the House last week that we have always said that if he had a shave that meant the challenge was on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have already tossed somebody out for repeat offences in the House today. That Minister was warned by you last week. He was warned part-way through that first response. I invite you to consider whether this Minister is upholding the standards that you require of others in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The point of order is a totally reasonable point of order in that the primary question asked was simply: “Does the Minister for Economic Development stand by all his recent statements?”. There is no political provocation in that question whatsoever and therefore I ask the Minister to stand and withdraw his facetious comment at the end and apologise to the House for having made it. [ 
Interruption 
] I have required the Minister to stand withdraw and apologise and that will happen before I hear any other points of order. It is the last comment I want withdrawn and apologised for because it was totally unnecessary and facetious. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I hear the member I hope the Minister was actually genuine in withdrawing and apologising—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The alternative will be if this carries on further that the Minister will be leaving the House just as the other member did— 
Hon Member 
: How is that possible? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —because questions that are straight questions must be dealt with with integrity. If there is a political loading in a question or statements that have political connotations then Ministers are perfectly at liberty to focus in on those and respond to them. But this primary question had none of that and that is why I am taking the matter seriously. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you have made strong rulings this afternoon and are wanting to take a firm line on a certain type of response and indeed as we have seen with a certain type of question. However I would point out that the question does ask: “Does he stand by all his recent statements?”. I do not think it is unreasonable then for him to refer to one of his more controversial recent statements which he could reasonably expect the Opposition to be upset about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member has said and we will not take this any further right now. There is some merit in the point of order the Leader of the House has raised. It is one of the risks around asking such a question: “Does the Minister stand by all their recent statements?”. But today I do not resile from the action I have taken because in recent times there has been too much needling going on when the question does not provoke it. But I do accept the point that the Leader of the House has made—that where such a question is asked there are risks—but I want to leave it at that today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand you want to leave it at that but I think it would be unfortunate if it was left that way. The Minister is responsible for ministerial statements. He has no responsibility for whether my colleague shaves or not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are going to leave it here and we are not going to take it any further. But of course the question did not actually ask about his ministerial statements although I do accept the point that the member is making—that the Minister should be responsible only for statements he makes as a Minister. But I think the exchange has been an interesting one because loose questions are always a little more dangerous. It is very difficult for the Speaker where questions ask: “Does a Minister stand by all their statements?”. It is always a difficult question to deal with. But I want to avoid this—where there is no political provocation in a question I want Ministers to resist the temptation to make political comments in their answers because I am confident they will get the opportunity if they hold their breath and wait for the appropriate supplementary question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister stand by the export document that he released last week which mentioned “competitive advantage” and “science” only once each yet cited “brand” 21 times and “story” 25 times? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes of course I do. If the member would like to take the two documents together—the one released today and the one released last week—and perhaps add up all the words and divide them by the number of times they say “science” I think he will come to a different answer. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he stand by his use of the phrase “voodoo economics” when it was originally used by George Bush Snr to describe exchange rate policies that the Minister himself now describes as orthodox? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure the member is correct but I would describe the term “voodoo economics” as describing something that cannot possibly occur or perhaps selling something that other people might describe as for example a snake oil solution. I do stand by my comment in that regard. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister stand by the innovation document issued this morning which does not even aspire to lift Government research and development investment to one-third of the level of that of Finland; and can he assure the House that if the Government joins its proposed small countries group with Finland he will not send Mr Brownlee as a goodwill ambassador? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Mr Speaker this must be the time that you were referring to! Can I say to the member that I am confident that the target in the paper this morning is a correct target. Can I also say that I note that the two co-leaders of the Labour Party Mr Shearer and Mr Cunliffe have released a document today saying that they would ask us to support Finland more. Can I say that we will be working with all small countries— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Generous as it may be of the Minister to advertise the Opposition’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. It is lucky that I cannot see the Minister in the back row there. I said Ministers only need hold their breath and a question will come where they can have a lot of licence and that question gave the Minister a lot of licence. Clearly I could have ruled it out but I did not because it gives the Minister the chance to respond. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why if the Minister stands by his innovation pamphlet did he simply re-announce initiatives already under way or in the case of seven of the 49 initiatives matters already completed; why did he rely on Business New Zealand to post a draft on its website before the document was actually launched; and why did he rush out invitations to its launch as late as Friday in a desperate attempt to cover up for the failure of last week’s export brochure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate the member has obviously got not much to do since he has come back from holiday but the point I would make is that— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh that’s unnecessary. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well actually the comments made by the member were reasonably unnecessary. But the point I would make is that this is a progress report so it outlines a number of initiatives that are new a number of initiatives that are ongoing and yes a few initiatives that have finished to lay out for the business sector which I must say was very supportive of the report this morning of what is actually more than a dozen new items. Some that have recently started include the investment in science and engineering the investment in increasing the Performance-based Research Fund and some from as recently as November of last year. I think the member is pointing out that the Government has a very busy and very full science and innovation agenda. 
Health Targets—Cancer Treatment 
8. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress can he report on improvements to cancer services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can report that the Government will invest $16 million over the next 4 years to ensure that every district health board can provide its patients with the care of dedicated cancer coordination nurses. All up 40 dedicated cancer coordination nurses will be working in health boards throughout the country by the end of the year. These specialist nurses will act as a single point of contact so that patients and their families no longer have to deal with navigating through multiple people from different parts of the health service throughout their treatment. It is expected that the district health boards will begin advertising vacancies for these roles in the next couple of months. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What evidence is there that this money will make a difference? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The concept is modelled on the successful work of a number of nurses around New Zealand particularly the cancer clinical specialists at the Canterbury District Health Board and in the New South Wales health service which is found to have a high impact on the services for cancer patients. Incredibly during a cancer patient’s treatment they can deal with up to 28 different doctors and many more different nurses. These dedicated cancer coordination nurses will coordinate and improve the quality of care for patients and provide them with a personal point of contact for information and support. This was part of the $33 million Budget announcement in respect of cancer made a few months ago by the Prime Minister. 
Water Rights—Meetings with Iwi 
9. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Is the Government holding meetings with iwi over water rights issues before the Waitangi Tribunal reports back on the Maori Council’s water claim on Friday; if so with which iwi? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. The Government has held and is holding meetings with iwi over water rights issues. These meetings have occurred throughout our time in Government. I would be happy to name the iwi for the benefit of the member but the extent of the Government’s engagement is such that I would have to read out a list of virtually all iwi with whom I have been meeting since November 2008. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Government accept the proposition that the Maori interest in water as presented by a majority of the iwi and hapu claimants to the tribunal is not simply a commercial interest that can be settled with a shareholding or a purchase order but is a deeper interest that includes customary title and guardianship of the special resource; and how would that understanding underpin the Government’s discussions with iwi? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said I have been meeting with many iwi over the years since I have been the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Of course this Government has said and continues to say that it recognises that iwi have rights and interests in water. Take for example the recent joint planning committee that has been established in Hawke’s Bay and will be rolled out as there are settlements with other iwi in Hawke’s Bay which recognises for example Ngati Pahauwera’s rights and interests in the Mohaka River. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Can he confirm that the Maori Party Ministers have arranged meetings with senior Government Ministers for representatives of the claimant iwi representatives of the New Zealand Maori Council and iwi leaders; and what have been the responses to the hui? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where’s the responsibility for that? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have no responsibility for that is the answer to Mr Mallard but I am happy to answer it. I have been present at meetings for which I have had responsibility and I can confirm that Maori Party Ministers have indeed in recent times organised those meetings. My impression has been that the response has been very positive. They have welcomed the opportunity to engage with Government Ministers on these issues but as I have said they are not the only meetings that have been held on these issues and I confirm that since November 2008 I have been holding meetings along those lines. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Government accept that after opposing the Maori Council’s water rights claim being heard under urgency by the tribunal then discounting the authority of the tribunal then downplaying the importance of the claim and then calling for the tribunal to report earlier than it would have done if the Government had not opposed the application for urgency in the first place any secret meetings held in the week before the tribunal releases its interim report are likely to be viewed as desperate attempts by the Government to sidestep a likely ruling by the tribunal to halt the asset sales programme until the Maori interest in water has been settled; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I take issue with what the member said about there being secret meetings. These are not secret meetings; they are very open meetings. They have been held and continue to be held as I have said now for the third time since November 2008 because this Government is interested and anxious to recognise legitimate rights and interests in water. It wants to treat iwi as Treaty partners who are deserving of respect— 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not a historical one. It was specifically about meetings being held this week— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hone Harawira 
: —not since 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is correct and the member referred to secret meetings being held this week— 
Hone Harawira 
: This week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —this week—and the Minister in answering argued that he is not holding any secret meetings this week at all and that the meetings are all open. So he answered the member’s question by pointing out that he is wrong and that no secret meetings are being held. They are all open meetings. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If they are open does that mean I can attend too? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and that will be sufficient of that. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Mr Speaker I have not finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the question has been answered and that is the end. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have not finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the Minister has given sufficient answer to the question. 
Andrew Williams 
: What reports has the Minister received on lake levels of Lake Taupo consent issues for water use from Lake Taupo or any other water rights information for Lake Taupo that may have implications for the Government’s sale of Mighty River Power and if he has not received any such reports why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the issue over the water rights in Lake Taupo relate to iwi the Minister is certainly entitled to answer it but the question did not relate that well to the primary question. But it presumably relates to iwi submissions so the Hon Chris Finlayson may answer. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I assume it relates to the interests that Ngati Tuwharetoa claim in Lake Taupo. They have maintained those particular interests for a number of years and those discussions with that particular iwi continue. 
Welfare Reforms—Initiatives Targeting At-risk Young People 
10. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How is the Government better supporting young people who are either on a benefit or not engaged in education training or employment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 This week marks the start of the Government’s comprehensive youth services for disengaged young people. More than $148 million in wraparound support services will help young people on benefit off benefit and those at risk of going on benefit as well. Each young person will be allocated a service provider who will manage their benefit payments provide mentoring support have an unwavering emphasis on education and training and for those with children also help them with parenting courses. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How have these services been targeted to ensure they reach those young people who are most at risk of long-term welfare dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The new youth services are for 16 and 17-year-olds and 16 to 18-year-old teen parents on benefit and will also target up to 14000 teenagers aged 16 and 17 who are not in education employment or training. We have targeted these young people as for the first time we actually know who is going on benefit and the kinds of services we need so that we can put them on a different path in life. 
Tracey Martin 
: Does the Minister accept that the contract to address the numbers of young people not in education employment or training north of Auckland all the way to Te Hana going to an out-of-area provider has now significantly disadvantaged and competes with successful community providers previously working with these young people such as the Springboard community trust of Snells Beach and the Men and Family Centre of Helensville; if so what will she do to address this consequence? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I have asked the department to do is have conversations with these service providers of which there are 42 throughout the country to see where they can partner with other providers in other areas. So they are saying that they are talking to other providers to see that. There are also as has been identified by the Opposition quite often kids who are 18 years and older who are needing services and actually Springboard and others like it are addressing the needs of those young people as well. So I do think we can cover it and I do not think it needs to be to the detriment of the services the member mentions. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What role would the community youth service providers have? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have selected actually 43. I think I said 42 in answer to the member so I just correct that to 43 community organisations. As I say they are based throughout New Zealand. At full implementation they will be working with around 17000 young people. Each provider has been assigned a geographical area to work within and a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development will allow that kind of information sharing which is already under way and making a difference. 
Schools Class Sizes—Minister’s Correspondence 
11. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Did she send any of her responses to correspondence she received expressing concern about the Government’s plan to increase class sizes to the correspondents’ employers; if so why? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Yes. It is my practice when I receive a letter from a professional on behalf of a school that I reply to the leadership and governance of that school as well as to the person who wrote the letter representing it. Boards and principals are responsible for their schools and for the representation of their schools’ views. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she send any replies to a school board of trustees where the individual writing to her had identified themselves as a teacher but not identified the school they were employed by? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon—I beg your pardon did the Minister not hear the question? I would ask the member please to repeat the question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she send any replies to a school board of trustees where the individual writing to her had identified themselves as a teacher but not identified the school they were employed by? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I seek leave to table a letter from a teacher in Tauranga dated 5 April 2012 headed up “Proposed teacher staffing cuts”. I have removed their home address and their name but all other details remain there and the school is not identified in the letter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Leave is sought to table that document and then I will hear the Minister’s point of order. Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Does the Minister wish to raise a point of order? 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understood the question to be asking me whether I had written to their board. I clearly wrote to them at their home—he is tabling one that has a home address. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not strictly a point of order. I realise the Minister is trying to be helpful though. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did the Minister write to this correspondent whose letter I have just tabled at their home address and not send a letter to that school’s board of trustees? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: In the absence of prescience as to whom that letter is from I am unable to answer that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did any of the people involved in preparing her replies to the letters she received from teachers expressing concern about her Government’s plan to increase class sizes access any Government database or records system to identify the school that the teacher worked at? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. I do not have access to private information about teachers and their schools nor have I asked for such information from my office staff or from staff at the ministry. I have absolute confidence that none of my staff or staff from the ministry would have accessed such information of their own accord. It is distressing to them for the member to assert otherwise. 
Chris Hipkins 
: If a parent sends her a letter about their child’s education using a work email account does she send the response to that correspondent’s employer; if not how does she make a distinction between them and a teacher? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I make it on the basis of representation. When a teacher writes to me above their position and their school address I respond accordingly. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Can the Minister confirm for the House that in no instance where a teacher wrote from a private email address or using their private home address did she send the response to that letter to the school board of trustees that employs that teacher? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I reiterate: I do not have access to private information about teachers and their schools. I have not sought that information. I have written back to the person in their official capacity to the address from which they have sent the letter. If they have written in a private capacity and written from a private address they have been responded to accordingly. 
Community-led Development—Progress 
12. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What recent progress has been made on the community-led development scheme? 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 A significant milestone has been achieved. All five communities in the scheme recently signed funding agreements for a combined total of nearly $1.7 million. They are now ready to start implementing their community plans. The five communities are Whirinaki Mount Roskill Mangakino Cannons Creek and North East Valley in Dunedin. The community plans were developed and agreed by each community. They set out their vision and how they will carry out their community projects and activities. 
Louise Upston 
: What are the benefits of the community-led approach? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: The Government is supporting the five communities to identify their own priorities and develop their own solutions. The people in the communities are able to participate fully so the scheme also helps build leadership skills and community independence. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Afghanistan—Provincial Reconstruction Team and Deaths of Army Personnel 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the deaths of three New Zealand personnel serving in the provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan on Sunday 19 August the range of operations of the provincial reconstruction team the equipment used by the provincial reconstruction team and the withdrawal date of the provincial reconstruction team. 
The deaths of the New Zealand personnel is a particular case of recent occurrence of grave concern to New Zealand and involving ministerial responsibility. However the House has more appropriate ways of recognising such events and has today already done so. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. The accumulation of information or continuing issues do not meet the test of a particular case of recent occurrence. A debate occurs at the point in time when a decision is publicly announced. No decision on a withdrawal date has yet been made and the range of operations and the equipment used by the provincial reconstruction team are ongoing operational matters. 
It is also relevant when considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House to consider whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. The House has before it today the third reading of the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill which may be taken with an Imprest Supply Bill. As is the case with the Address in Reply debate and the Budget debate there is virtually no limitation on the debate on such a bill on the grounds of relevancy. This provides an opportunity today to debate the ongoing operations and the possible timing of any withdrawal. The application is therefore declined. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the withdrawal of New Zealand troops from Afghanistan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move  
That the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill be now read a second time 
. Budget 2012 confirmed that the Government is on track towards achieving the top four priorities it set itself shortly after the 2011 election: responsibly managing the Government’s finances building a more productive and competitive economy delivering better public services within tight fiscal constraints and rebuilding Christchurch. These priorities meet New Zealand’s current needs and ensure that we are well placed to seize future opportunities. 
Getting the public accounts back into order quickly will let us lift the debt burden off future generations and free up resources for investment in productive infrastructure and public services. Budget 2012 demonstrated the Government’s commitment to this objective with an operating surplus in 2014-15 and net debt peaking at 28.7 percent of GDP in 2013-14. I would remind members that this is a dramatic improvement on the fiscal environment the Government faced when it first took office where Treasury projected deficits continuing out into the 2020s and debt climbing rapidly. Although this build-up in Government debt was appropriate in the aftermath of a domestic recession and the Canterbury earthquakes it cannot continue for ever. Instead of looking into the financial abyss we are now within sight of surplus—a fact that is solely down to this Government’s prudent fiscal management. 
A more competitive and productive economy is the key to achieving the living standard that New Zealanders aspire to. The weight of world economic power is shifting towards the Asia-Pacific region and the growing Asian middle class is likely to be a willing buyer of New Zealand made goods and services. If we are to make the most of this development we will need to rely more on savings investment exports and the tradable sector and less on debt and consumption and we will need to create a business environment that rewards effort and enterprise. Budget 2012 made a further contribution towards rebalancing the economy with significant new investments in skills and innovation including the establishment of an Advanced Technology Institute to support our growing cohort of high tech services and manufacturing firms. 
We believe strongly in having efficient high-quality public services. Thirty-three percent of the economy goes towards public services so it is essential that we get the best possible value from this money. The Government has a wide-ranging agenda focused on getting better outcomes from current services seeking new and more efficient ways of delivering services and making progress in areas that will make a real difference for New Zealand: reducing long-term welfare dependency supporting vulnerable children boosting skills and employment reducing crime and improving interaction with Government. Budget 2012 funded a number of initiatives that will further this agenda. 
Finally the Government is committed to rebuilding Christchurch and the reconstruction process is gathering pace. The  
Christchurch Central Recovery Plan  
has laid out an exciting blueprint for our second-biggest city’s future and the Government was pleased to endorse this. Budget 2012 provided additional support for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to support Christchurch’s reconstruction. 
For the previous 4 years there has been significant disruption to economies around the world. Growth prospects for these economies are uncertain. In contrast New Zealanders have avoided substantial reductions in their living standards and are on the doorstep of a rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region. The Government has a sound plan to grasp these opportunities. That plan is built around four clear credible and critical priorities that respond to New Zealanders’ needs and ambitions. These priorities drive the Government’s entire work programme and shape our Budget decisions. Budget 2012 is an excellent example of this and I commend it to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 That is it from the Associate Minister of Finance. That is it in terms of a plan to grow the New Zealand economy—this coming from a Minister whose great achievement has been merging a department that had been merged only 18 months earlier into a big mega-ministry for which he came up with the idea of giving away $1000 of something called “thinking putty”. That is what this Minister did. That is what he did. The Ministry of Science and Innovation found its way into the new Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and to help out the staff there Minister Steven Joyce came up with the idea that they should all get some “thinking putty”. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is that like play dough? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is. On this side of the House what we would ask the Government to find is some “doing putty” to actually get on with doing the job of trying to improve our economy. 
If this National Government’s election was a novel it would be called  
Great Expectations 
. In 2008 John Key toured the country telling New Zealanders that they would get a brighter future and assuring New Zealanders that they would no longer have to wave goodbye to their loved ones at the airport. Well if the novel was being rewritten today it would be called  
A Tale of Two Cities 
. One of those cities is the city of New Plymouth because that is the number of people who have left to go overseas to Australia in the last 12 months—53873 New Zealanders have left New Zealand and headed to another city perhaps Sydney or somewhere else in Australia. That is the legacy of this Government. John Key proudly stood in Westpac Stadium brandished his arms around and said that we could fill this stadium with the people who have gone to Australia in the last year. Well today he could not fit them in. Today he would have to go to Eden Park because that is the only ground in New Zealand that could fit the number of people who have left New Zealand in the last 12 months under this Government’s watch. What is worse is that 40 percent of those people are aged between 18 and 30. That is our future heading overseas while this Government sits back and thinks that it can rely on a mythical market solution—not pulling the levers that are available to it but simply sitting there trying to put its spin out. 
This Government has let New Zealanders down. The expectations that this Government built up coming into office in 2008 it has consistently failed to meet. The legacy of this Budget and the legacy of this Government so far is twofold: the sale of our future and the growing inequality in our country. That is the legacy that this Government is leaving New Zealand. It is selling our future and it is selling our future on a basis of no economic sense whatsoever. Treasury has told this Government that at least $100 million of value will be lost to the New Zealand economy from the sale of State assets. That is $100 million net loss. There is no economic gain let alone the transfer of wealth that comes from the sale of assets that are owned by all New Zealanders and are now being given away to those who can afford to buy them and to boot the $120 million that is going into the pockets of consultants lawyers and accountants to manage that sale process. 
But the sale process is falling apart. It has been marked by mismanagement by insults by poor calculations and by the shifting sands of what this money is for. To call it a dog’s breakfast is an insult to a bowl of TUX. These people have got no idea what they are doing when it comes to selling these assets or to the damage they do to the economy today the damage they do to the future the dishonour they do to the New Zealanders who have built up these assets over generations and the dishonour they do to future generations—[ 
Interruption 
]—who could be benefiting from these assets Mr Goldsmith. The future is being sold off by this Government. That is it. There is nothing more to the Government’s economic plan. 
A group of New Zealand business people the Pure Advantage group was motivated to come to the Government. Those business people said there is an opportunity for New Zealand to grow an innovative economy that is built off our natural environment that does not see the economy and environment in some kind of battle to the death like this Government does but that actually sees the two together as being the future of sustainable economic growth and a fair society. They were dismissed—arrogantly dismissed—by Steven Joyce who says he is not interested in that kind of approach. He dismisses them as being self-interested. These business people are trying to put up a better way for this economy and on this side of the House the Labour Party says we want to work with those business people because they see the future the same way we do with an economy and an environment working together to build better living standards in New Zealand that also supports the beautiful natural environment that we live in and where we can create—as Sir Paul Callaghan who has so sadly left us said—a place where talent wants to live. This Government is driving talent away from New Zealand every single day and it is a shameful record for the Government. 
So in the end the Government has reduced all the big ideas—New Zealand being a financial services hub the cycleway and the Job Summit where there were more people there than jobs created by it—and in the end it comes back and circles its wagons around the asset sales and digging holes in the ground. It is not a strategy for future sustainable economic growth. 
The other legacy of this Government is the growing inequality in this society—the growing gap between the rich and the poor. What did this Budget do to try to reduce inequality? Absolutely nothing. In fact it increased it. Just look at some of the measures which range from the bizarre to the plain mean. The paper boy tax—what was that about? The big plan in taxation from this Government is to try to take away the minimal tax credit that young people working delivering papers and delivering pamphlets actually get. The Budget is removing—actually abolishing—allowances for postgraduate study. How backward-looking is that from this Government? We want more people undertaking postgraduate study we want more New Zealanders improving their skills and qualifications and the rug is pulled out from under them by this Government taking away their allowances. 
Let us not forget something that has not been talked about enough: prescription charges going up. It may be only a small amount of money to members on the other side of the House but a visit to any pharmacy in New Zealand will show you the number of prescriptions not picked up particularly in low socio-economic areas. And the pharmacists will tell you that that charge makes a difference. That is what this Government did: it put prescription charges up. 
There is nothing around child poverty—no measures. The Minister for Social Development wants to deny child poverty. She wants to say that people come in and out of poverty every day. She does not want to measure it because she does not want to have to face up to the damage that her Government is doing to New Zealand. 
And the unfairness in New Zealand will grow. Yesterday we heard that chief executive officer wages in New Zealand rose by 9.9 percent in the last year—9.9 percent. New Zealanders understand that we are in tough economic times. They have accepted a lot from this Government in terms of belt tightening but when it comes to the chief executive officers they got nearly a 10 percent wage increase compared with 1.6 percent for the average worker. This Government needs to face up to the fact that inequality is getting worse and its legacy as a Government will be the selling off of our future and the loss of New Zealanders’ ideal of an egalitarian society. 
 The Labour Party has a different vision. It is a vision where we grow a sustainable economy and create a fairer society where we actually allow people to achieve their potential no matter where they are from and where we harness that potential and that opportunity and give New Zealanders a reason to stay in this country and grandparents the opportunity to see their grandchildren grow up. That is the vision that the Labour Party has. We want to focus on creating jobs on having the Government play a role in pulling the levers—big and small—that help an economy grow on making sure that we support New Zealand firms but also on addressing the big issues that this Government keeps running away from: getting better monetary policy that supports exporters making sure that we have proper savings to help businesses grow making sure that we address the sustainability of a universal superannuation system and making sure that we have a fair tax system that ensures we have the opportunity in New Zealand to grow. 
The Labour Party has a plan to bring a fairer society. It is built around the creation of a world-class education system bringing the economy and the environment together and ensuring that all children in New Zealand have the best start in life. We can invest in our potential for the future. If we invest in our potential if we create equality that creates the obligations we have to one another in our society a social contract where people know the Government is on their side. That is what the Labour Party will bring to Government. That is what is missing from this Government. This Government is now a tawdry Government with no plan for the future and the Labour Party will hold it to account every single day in this House. But moreover we will bring to the country a plan for a fairer society built off a strong sustainable economy. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Appropriation (2012/13) Estimates Bill and the second reading of the Imprest Supply Bill—part of Budget 2012. When the Government was elected in 2008 it inherited a Budget and an economy that were seriously out of balance a country that was living beyond its means and a country that has been rocked by catastrophic earthquakes. Now in its second term we can measure how the Government has responded to these significant strategic challenges. This Government has had an opportunity to remake our economy placing it on a more sustainable footing environmentally but also economically. It could have invested in an economy that was more productive that invested in its people and that invested in education. We could have had an economy that invested in the new economy which is green energy and clean technology. This would have provided more lucrative jobs which would have boosted our economy without trashing our environment. We could have rebuilt Christchurch smarter and made it one of the most sustainable cities in the world.  
The Government had an opportunity. It was inheriting an economy that was broken and it had a huge number of challenges. But now we can measure how it has responded to the challenges and it is clear that it has failed. It is clear that what it has turned out to be is a poor economic manager. What we see from this Government is not embracing the opportunity of the new economy. Instead it is stuck looking towards the past and in fact it has purposefully undertaken a series of measures that have hurt our economy. 
One just needs to look at the statistics. We know that the Government deficit is over $8 billion. We know that gross Crown debt is in excess of $75 billion around 38 percent of GDP. What is even worse is New Zealand’s total foreign debt which is more like 75 percent of GDP. When it comes to growth—the main measure that this Government wants to measure itself on—we have seen the lowest growth in 50 years. We have seen the highest unemployment rates since 1994. We have seen inequality growing and a record number of Kiwis going overseas. Under the quantifiable measures of how this Government has responded to those challenges it is clear that it is doing an abysmal job. 
The fact is we have got opportunities and we have got options but all this Government has embarked on is the path of cut it sell it mine it drill it and frack it. It is the only plan we are seeing from this Government. Grant Robertson quite rightly pointed out that the only measures to increase tax revenue in New Zealand were to focus on the paper boys and the paper girls the changes around postgraduate allowances and the increasing of prescription charges. We see it has cut it. Because of those unaffordable tax cuts a few Budgets ago the Government has dug itself a gigantic fiscal hole. Those decisions which led to the head of Westpac getting $5000 extra a year were fiscally unsustainable and fiscally reckless and demonstrate what a poor economic manager this Government is. 
That tax cut hole has led to the Government now requiring the second leg of the plan which is to sell it. It does not make sense to be selling off these assets which were returning healthy dividends to the taxpayer. If you listen to the Government on some days it is to pay down debt on other days it is to invest in infrastructure and on other days it is to do different things. But it is mad under all those terms to be selling these highly productive assets. Now what we are seeing is that other mostly foreign companies are trying to play us off. Because of the Government’s asset sale agenda we see job losses potentially as a result of the Glenbrook steel mill’s decision. We are seeing Rio Tinto once again threaten to leave the country trying to get lower electricity costs from Meridian. But what we are missing out on is these healthy dividend flows in the future. 
What this Government is quite happy to do is spend taxpayer money to sell these assets. The public relations job this Government wants to do and the admin costs are around $120 million but it will not tell the country because it is officially secret. We know that the asset loyalty share offer could be in the order of $400 million—a $400 million wealth transfer from Kiwis who already own those assets to the richest New Zealanders who can afford to purchase assets. This loyalty share is simply welfare for Kiwis who need it the least and this is what we should be calling it—welfare for those Kiwis who can already afford to purchase these shares. We also know we are going to miss out on the dividends—up to $100 million a year. 
There is a better way and it does not involve drilling mining and fracking our environment which is the only plan this Government has got left. Even under the current economic conditions this is not going to benefit us in a massive way economically. Everyone assumes that we are going to strike it rich if we find a large oilfield or gasfield but it is simply that—an assumption not grounded in reality. This Government has the fourth-lowest royalty and tax rate in the world. This Government has pages and pages of tax exemptions for the oil industry. This Government is quite happy to put oil workers—12 positions—on the skills shortages immigration list to facilitate and expedite getting foreign workers into New Zealand. What we know is there is going to be a huge environmental risk; unfortunately the conservation Minister is not standing up for our marine and coastal environment. It will be a huge environmental risk and a huge economic risk but for 100 percent of that risk this Government is quite happy to sell us short with 5 percent royalty rates when we are going to see hardly any jobs hardly any taxes and hardly any royalties and we know the profit is going to flow offshore. So the only plan this Government has is not even going to boost our economy. 
In fact what we are going to see is that it comes with a massive opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is investing in the new economy investing in the smart economy and investing in the green economy. Internationally this is where the lion’s share of international investment is going. In fact in 2010 for the first time investment in clean energy outstripped fossil fuels. Instead this Government is looking to the 19th century for economic inspiration not the 21st century where we should be looking. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Along with the trains! Along with the trains! 
GARETH HUGHES 
: The trains? The member Goldsmith from an inner-city Auckland seat is arguing against the trains. What we see is that this Government is quite happy to borrow billions to throw at motorways with poor economic returns. Half of them have low benefit-cost ratios. That member is quite happy to keep a third-rate rail system in his electorate in his city because he would rather encourage urban sprawl increased oil demand and an increased cost to council for his motorways—his motorways to nowhere which this Government is quite happy to borrow billions for. It is economically risky is economically reckless and shows that this Government is a terrible economic manager. 
What we should be embracing is the new economy: clean technology and green energy. The home insulation scheme which we are quite proud to be working with the Government on is a great example of that. We have worked with the Government despite disagreeing with a whole host of its plans. The Government says it is because we are against everything. We are only against stupid ideas; it just happens that most of them come out of the National Government. But one good idea where we were able to persuade it was the home insulation scheme. Now we have 230000 Kiwi homes that are warmer drier and healthier because of the Greens. We have seen 4000 people directly employed. We have seen 10400 people indirectly employed and downstream economic benefit because of that scheme. We have seen if you laid the pink batts or other batts end on end an amount that would stretch from Auckland to Invercargill and back again because of this Green scheme. It is a great project having real good economic returns really helping Kiwis and it is a shame the Government is not extending it and not providing more jobs considering we have got the highest unemployment rates since 1994. 
As we saw in the Pure Advantage report we are missing out on the race to be the ones who are embracing clean technologies and being at the forefront of the 21st century economy. It is a $6 trillion industry they predict but this Government as Grant Robertson pointed out rubbished it. In an absolutely rude manner the Government rubbished the Kiwis behind that report who I think have the country’s best interests at heart. Sadly we have got this Government picking winners. It is quite happy to help out its mates at Skycity and to gamble on extra casinos and quite happy to help out its mates at MediaWorks and do whatever it can for the international foreign oil drillers. 
What we should be doing is extending the insulation scheme. We need a capital gains tax to rebalance our economy and put capital investment towards more productive enterprises not more housing bubbles. We should be investing in greater research and development. We should be increasing the minimum wage to $15 helping those Kiwis growing up in poverty—those 200000 Kiwi kids growing up in poverty. We should be putting a real price on carbon not subsidising by more than $1 billion the greenhouse gas polluters in New Zealand sending the wrong signal to keep investing in the 19th century economy not in the 21st century economy. And we need to reprioritise our transport. We need to invest in safer roads. We need to invest in better public transport with real economic benefits. This is how we are going to boost jobs and boost the economy but most important take the opportunity with the new economy not throw it away. Kia ora. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I advise the House that the next call is a split call between two members from New Zealand First. They are two 5-minute calls. What I will do for the members is with 1 minute remaining the bell will go. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 Quality not quantity as we always say in New Zealand First. I rise to take a call on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill which we have described in the past as being the bills that represent the “Fagin Budget” of this National Government. It is the “got to pick a pocket or two Budget” of 2012-13 which basically saw the poor paper boys and paper girls of New Zealand being ripped off for $14 million—a miserable $14 million from the paper girls and paper boys of this country—for this Government to try to help balance the books. 
This will be looked back on a bit like the Ruth Richardson Budget of the early 1990s as a most miserable and miserly Budget where we will see zero growth in many sectors where Government departments are basically on their knees where the likes of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is trying to save $24 million from our front-line people around the world who are negotiating our access to foreign markets and our access and diplomatic ties with many important trade partners and international countries that we so dearly depend on and where the Government is spending $9 million in this Budget to basically save $24 million and where much of that saving will be lost anyway going out to consultants and being farmed out for a net nil result. 
This is a Budget where we will see the likes of the police and the armed forces getting zero increases in their budgets so as a result the morale in the likes of the police force and much of our armed forces is not great because they really are not being acknowledged and rewarded for their efforts in terms of our New Zealand law and order and our defence. 
This is also a Budget where there is an attack on our students our future and the brightest young people of this nation whom we keep referring to as being the ones who will come through and help grow this nation and our postgraduates who will basically struggle to be able to afford to stay with their courses with their postgraduate studies under this particular Budget of this Government. It is a message from this Budget that our brightest and our youngest should head off to Australia and further afield for the brighter future that our Prime Minister John Key keeps talking about. Unfortunately the brighter future at the moment for many of those younger people under this Budget is not here in New Zealand; it is on foreign soils. 
This is also the Budget that will be remembered as the “sale of State assets Budget”. It is where my family’s heritage your family’s heritage Mr Speaker and the heritage of many in this House whose families and loved ones have helped build up this country over many many decades and in fact centuries is being sold down the river—literally down the river—with the sale of firstly our power stations and State-owned enterprises and our power-generating companies. It is where the likes of Mighty River Power will be first on the block to help balance this Government’s future Budgets and where the likes of those important places such as those great dams in the South Island the wonderful thermal power stations in the Taupo area and so many of our wonderful resources are already on the chopping block under this Budget and future Budgets of this Government to help balance the books. As a result many of the reasonably well-off mates of the Government will do well out of the sale of those companies while good average everyday Kiwi families and good average everyday mums and dads in this country will simply lose their national right to those shares in those companies while they are privatised. 
Our veterans are also left wanting with only 10 out of 170 recommendations of a report from 2 years ago being enacted. At the same time the Government is saying that it is going to put money into education but basically the money that it takes will be going into fixing leaky schools leaky buildings leaky Government buildings—billions of dollars worth of them—when again this National Government back in the 1990s was the cause of so many of our leaky problems around this country. This is a Fagin-like miserable Budget. It is a Budget that will always be looked back on by the people of New Zealand as being a no-growth Budget with no vision and basically the people of New Zealand will be very disappointed in this. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill. The economy requires serious attention particularly now that we are in the reprioritisation phase that the Government seems to be going through. The Government is not looking at growing the economy but rather it is looking at growing the discrepancies. One of those groups where the discrepancy is growing is with our senior citizens. In New Zealand First we always maintain that how we treat our senior citizens sends a very clear signal of our status as a developed nation. It is really concerning to see that this vote is decreasing year upon year upon year. It is not clear as to when we are ever going to see an increase in this particular vote. 
In New Zealand we know that we have got a Positive Ageing Strategy. One of those goals is around income: that it must be secure that there must be adequate income for older people and that health care is timely affordable and accessible. These goals are becoming an absolute dream for many of our people. Many of our seniors are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. They are struggling. There is only so much that they can tighten their belts. When it comes to saying that they may be able to find a part-time job to help out that is absolutely impossible. There are no jobs for anybody out there—young people people looking to start a career school-leavers—and nothing for senior citizens or for anyone over the age of about 45. 
We know that their living standards are dropping as our seniors are paying higher prices for electricity for basic groceries for prescriptions for petrol for rates and the list just goes on and on. Many of our seniors are now at the stage where they cannot afford to insure their homes. Some of them insure the exterior of their homes but not the interior. They just cannot afford it. I was talking to one elderly lady who said: “Well if anything happens to the interior of my home I am just going to have to make do. The furniture is getting on anyway.” 
The latest rates rounds are making many wonder whether or not the councils are actually trying to force people out of their homes because there is only so far that money can go. I know of one case where three home units are on a section and they pay the same rates as a house does. They downsized because they thought it actually would be cheaper. That is not logical. 
When it comes to the SuperGold card we were quite pleased to see that some increases had been made in the number of people who actually follow through with discounts for seniors. Private businesses are participating at a greater rate than they ever have before ensuring that our seniors have access to products and services. We can only thank those businesses like TelstraClear which has even offered telephone discounts and mobile discounts for many of our seniors. 
 But the bottom line is that it is time for the Government to come to the party. We know in New Zealand First that we have got two bills in the ballot to help with this. One is advocating for an electricity discount for senior citizens over the winter months and we would like to see this go through. Cold homes are not the best place for our seniors to be in and of course once they are hospitalised it costs far more than a 10 percent discount on electricity over the winter months. I have got a bill in the ballot that is advocating for three free doctors’ visits each year. We know that if we can actually pick up on small ailments before they become serious it will save money in the long run because our seniors will not be hospitalised. 
We need to address these issues. We need to address the growing discrepancies that are happening in our country. We know that seniors are suffering. We need to invest in our society. People do matter and it is time for the Government to take a strong point on this matter. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the third reading of the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. What a long time ago it seems since we had that fantastic Budget read out in this House by the Hon Bill English directed by our extremely hard-working intelligent Prime Minister—a man of the people he was and still is. 
As we have followed this debate over the months and here today one thing has become clear to almost every New Zealander who has tuned in. On this side of the House we are focused on the job at hand and on what matters. On the opposite side of the House at least with the main Opposition party the Labour Party and the Green Party its close close ally—I find it hard to tell them apart not from a philosophical point of view but in terms of who actually is the Leader of the Opposition and which is the No. 1 Opposition party. The reason that it is hard to tell is that there is a bit of intermingling of policy here. The things that Labour used to be so proud of now the Green Party is spouting as its own policy and the things that the Green Party used to talk about when it was dishevelled in all sorts of different directions and not sure of its leadership or the direction it should head in what it stood for and what it did not stand for the Labour Party has adopted all of that. We see it every week in this Chamber and in our media. 
What have we delivered as a Government in this Budget? Responsible management of Government finances— 
Gareth Hughes 
: Lowest growth in 50 years. Record unemployment. 
TODD McCLAY 
: —building a more competitive and productive economy delivering better public services and of course rebuilding Christchurch which is so very important. I want to touch briefly on each of these. But to my colleague from the Green Party who spoke earlier and is now interjecting from afar I want to—[ 
Interruption 
] No I am not pointing at Mr Goldsmith. Nobody would ever accuse him of being from the Green Party. 
What I wanted to say is that we hear from the Greens all the time that the Government has ruined the economy. The Greens are saying that we are doing things we did not tell New Zealanders about. Well last year in November there was an election. Every New Zealander who was eligible to vote had an opportunity to vote. Over the course of the 3 years that we were in our first Government and during 2011 we made a case to New Zealand on a number of issues to achieve what is in this Budget: responsible management of Government finances building a more competitive and productive economy delivering better public services and of course towards the end rebuilding Christchurch. 
The Greens have said that that is not the case that we did not make that case to New Zealanders and that we have pointed New Zealanders in a different direction. But I can say that in my electorate in Rotorua where I was re-elected and in many other electorates around the country Green Party activists—sanctioned by the Green Party leadership or not we are not sure—walked got out in their electric cars or got out on their pushbikes because they care about the environment got big hoardings and stickers and stuck them all over our signs and defaced them. They defaced them all over the country. What they were doing when they were doing that was saying to New Zealanders: “If you vote for these people this is what they are going to do.” What I say to the Green Party is that you can campaign as hard as you want at elections you can have your activists—sanctioned or otherwise we are not quite sure—go and deface all of our hoardings and vandalise our property telling people what will happen if they vote for us but then when we are re-elected you cannot turn round and say that people did not know that nobody knew about this and that we have misled New Zealanders. We have not. We are focused on the job at hand. We told New Zealanders what we would do. New Zealanders accepted that and they voted for us in the largest vote any party has received under MMP ever. 
I also before I get into the detail of this want to say to some of our friends in New Zealand First that we too share your concerns around seniors in New Zealand and I commend you for the work that you do in this area. I am very proud to be able to stand here and say that over the first 3 years we were in Government we increased superannuation payments to people on superannuation in New Zealand in pretty tough times. It was a very difficult time for New Zealand for our economy and certainly great pressure was on the Government books. But what I do want to say is that we did that. I am proud to be able to say that we increased support for senior New Zealanders and I hope that as our economy improves and the Government books get into better shape with other parties in the House we can find ways to do much more for our seniors. We owe them a lot. 
Responsibly managing Government finances—what does this mean? It does not mean spending more money on hopeless projects that the Greens and Labour are forever talking about in this House and in the media: spend spend spend borrow borrow borrow and put off the pain until the future. That is what we are hearing from the Green-Labour coalition. I am going to call it the Green-Labour coalition from now on. It is no longer a Labour-Green coalition; it is a Green-Labour coalition of Opposition parties. 
We have said that we are going to work as hard as we can to get the Government books back to surplus by 2014-15. It is going to take a lot of discipline. It is not going to be easy because we are a trading nation and we know that many of the countries we trade with have themselves gone through difficult issues with their economies. One needs only to cast one’s eye across the seas to Europe to see the great difficulties that they have over there. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh reread the notes again. Go back to the start and read them again. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Thank goodness we are not Greece. Our freshly shaven friend on the other side is back from Europe. I am waiting for his speech to tell us about all the doom and gloom he saw over there. Some of the countries I saw which not Goliath but one of the Davids on the other side of the House visited—one or two of those countries—have quite some problems with economic policy. I am sure that he and Labour will adopt those soon—not Greece I am not going that far but certainly some of the other countries he went to. 
Getting back to surplus by 2014-15 is important for us. It is important and the way that we will do this is by focusing on what we spend taxpayers’ resources and taxpayers’ money on by not being frivolous by making sure that there is a return for the taxpayer—better health care for the money that is being spent—by making sure that our borrowing is reducing and that we are focused on the job at hand. That is the job that New Zealanders have elected us and given us a second term to do. 
Budget 2012 forecast economic growth to average 3 percent a year over the next 4 years with 154000 jobs to be created on top of the 60000 new jobs that were created over the last 3 years of an extremely difficult time with our economy—the global financial crisis of the world. 
We have increased annual spending on science and innovation a very important part of our economy by $385 million as opposed to the hollow promises we hear from members opposite on a regular occasion. That means that by 2015-16 under this National-led Government spending on science and innovation will have increased to $1.3 billion a year. That is $1.3 billion a year that is not being just thrown around as the previous Labour Government did with some of its hare-brained schemes but focused specifically on things that are important for our economy on areas of the economy where we have an advantage where we must do much more in science and where in years to come great dividends will be paid to this country through this new innovation. 
You see New Zealanders are innovative if you get out of their lives leave them alone and allow them to get on. It is a shame that in the 9 years of a Labour Government it spent all its time trying to get into their lives and trying to be in the house with them. Do you remember how it tried to be in the bathroom—the bathroom on the side of the bedroom—and decide how much hot water they should have? Well those were policies of the past. They are polices that we are certainly glad are gone. Again I am reminding members opposite that although as list MPs they may not want to remember there was an election in November of last year New Zealanders had their opportunity to cast their vote to have their say and we got a larger vote than any party ever had before under MMP— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Under almost any system actually. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Under almost any system our chief whip says to me. I have not checked that but he is an intelligent man and I accept fully what he would say in that. 
 What do I want to say? Delivering better public services. That is in health in education and in policing. I am going to touch briefly on health for a moment. Tony Ryall is an outstanding Minister of Health. On Friday of last week I had the great pleasure of going along and visiting the Lakes District Health Board in Rotorua a district health board I have visited on many occasions and standing there and presenting it with a certificate of gratitude on behalf of my community for the fantastic work it has done in all areas but particularly around elective surgeries over the last couple of years. What Tony Ryall has said is important to him and to this Government is not letters to people telling them they have to go back to their general practitioner at the back of a waiting list before they can be treated; he said it is important that we back doctors and nurses to treat these people and he has done an outstanding job. We have delivered more money in that area. 
I want to touch on policing because it is very very important. I have a bill before this Parliament that is halfway through its first reading at the moment and that we will get to focus on in a week or two. It focuses purely on law and order about holding to account those who seek to harm others and to intimidate others giving our community some powers to take back those parts of the communities they think are important to them but giving extra power and authority to our police to get amongst people— 
Hon Craig Foss 
: Labour caucus. 
TODD McCLAY 
: No no I am not talking about the Labour caucus; I am talking about others who cause great grief and harm in our community. But putting aside some of the things that have been in the newspaper of late what I would say is I hope the House can come together and have an adult reasonable and sensible debate on this. This was a fantastic Budget that I commend to the House. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 One of the best things about having spent a couple of weeks in Europe is that I come back and I can actually understand the accent of the member who has just resumed his seat the member apparently for Rotorua. He said he has visited Rotorua recently so we can only take him at his word. He has made two points. The first was to try to demonise our colleagues the Greens and to panic New Zealanders into not supporting the Opposition because of the way he has mis-painted their policies. I think people can see right through that. The second and very telling comment that he made was to say that National’s idea was to leave New Zealanders alone and get out of the road. That is in fact the best that National members can do. The member is nodding. The best that they can do in a historic economic crisis is to leave it alone and get out of the road. 
For the record number of New Zealanders who left permanently for Australia sadly this month—the all-time record for a July—that is not enough. That is not enough. Colin James in today’s  
Otago Daily Times 
 referred to the battle lines being drawn on the economic debate by saying “Voodoo or orthodox—take your pick”. He pointed out that it was actually Mr Joyce who shot himself in the foot by calling others’ policies voodoo economics when actually National members are so fossilised that they do not realise the economic debate has moved on so far past them that they are left looking like relics. It has moved on because New Zealanders have accepted that although we have been through tough times and they have patiently been willing to draw in their belts it is not enough. It is not good enough. It is not enough to provide for their futures to provide hope for their children and to provide good jobs and the security of a roof over their heads. For too many New Zealanders the loss of that hope has meant a queue at the departure gate like this “departure gate Budget” hoping against hope that there would be a way forward. 
There is a mood change on and National knows it. It polls every day. It knows what the numbers are saying. There is a mood change in the wind. New Zealanders are desperately looking for answers. Now National is trying to rush out a series of wafer-thin glossy brochures pretending that they are doing something. Last week there was the export strategy. You know it mentioned science just once and competitive advantage just once. It mentioned branding 21 times and telling stories 25 times. Does that not just say everything? Of the 55 new initiatives 47 of them were already announced. Only eight were new and more than half of those were public relations fluff. That is not what New Zealanders expect it is not what they deserve and it is not what they are going to vote for in 2014. 
So distressed was National at the flop of its export glossy that it rushed out its buff new innovation pamphlet this morning. So desperate was National that it sent out the invitations only on Friday to a captive audience and Business New Zealand jumped the gun by putting its draft on the Business New Zealand website before the Government even released it. Whose document was it? It looks like Phil O’Reilly wrote it and well he might have because the document—the so-called strategy—leaves it largely to the private sector to do all the heavy lifting at a time of national crisis. That is not leadership. That is not vision for the future. That is not even a substantive game plan. Where does that leave New Zealanders who just want a good job and a safe roof over their heads and hope that their kids can still do better than they did—hope that their kids can still do better than they did? 
Well at least they can now see laid bare the two competing views of the economy across the two sides of this House—and I use the phrase a little liberally because I see the Minister of Maori Affairs sagely sitting there wondering which side he and his party are on. They will figure it out before 2014 when the bids are clear. On that side there is an extractive view of the economy. If they cannot cut it and sell it they will mine it or flog it. But it is an extractive view of primary agriculture and mining that they mistakenly believe is going to lift incomes. Well it will not because it is not possible to milk enough cows sell enough raw logs or export enough unprocessed fish from the seas around Nelson. That is nobody’s idea of a smart way to live.  
The 
Global Competitiveness Report 
 by the World Economic Forum canes New Zealand not because we have got a high cost structure but because—just like the rating agencies said—we have under-diversified exports and insufficient knowledge and value content. 
So what is the answer to that? To build that content with a strong economic development and innovation plan. And what did we get? This wafer-thin glossy. It is not worth the glossy little paper it is written on. It is an embarrassment and the Government should put it back in the bottom drawer until it has done some work and it has something worth releasing that Phil O’Reilly did not write. 
Our vision is different. Our vision—I might say quite similar to the Greens’ vision—is a high-value sustainable socially just vision where New Zealanders get good jobs from high-value manufacturing advanced technology high-value services and the primary sector but where we do not just milk it we think it. We add value to the bucket of milk with science nutraceuticals advanced foods and good branding. That is how you make a buck in this world. Labour has the economic policies that will deliver that outcome at the macro level as we have made clear to the public with tax policies that will encourage capital to flow where it does the most good—not to the slick-shoed property developer mates of that Government and not to the slimy bond-traders who are ripping everybody else off and holding the country to account but to real business people building real businesses exporting products and employing New Zealanders. We have a strong universal savings plan that will create the pools of capital for investment while providing the nest eggs New Zealanders need. 
We have a cradle-to-grave view of education being led in the post-school area by my colleague Jacinda Ardern which means that no New Zealander out of school is going to be left on the scrap heap. They will be earning or learning—all of them. We are going to use the unemployment benefit for apprenticeships and get employers employing our young people to give them hope and a real start in the job market. 
Jonathan Young 
: Good idea. Let’s call it Youth Guarantee. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Young we are not going to forget them when they get to your age. We are going to make sure that there are lifelong learning opportunities and I wish you well for your next job. I wish the member well because no New Zealander at that certain age should be left on the scrap heap. There is still life in the old dog as they say. He deserves another chance. When the good people of New Plymouth come to their senses and send him down the road we hope there will be a Labour Government that can help him retrain for something more useful and something more useful than his current employment of propping up this good-for-nothing Government with its vacuous glossies—vacuous glossies. All joking aside— 
Jonathan Young 
: Yeah it is a joke. It’s a joke. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be funny Mr Young—Rev. Young—if it were not for the fact that last month a record number of New Zealanders gave up on their country gave up on their future and left for good. 
We owe them better than that. We owe the guys who earned these wooden plaques around this building and who fought for our country better than that and we remember some tragically today. We owe them all better than that. We owe them every bit of brain power every bit of hard graft every bit of international research every bit of worthwhile investment and every bit of lining up the ducks for a better future. What we do not want is wafer-thin glossy little brochures that talk about branding and spin while New Zealanders are dying on the dole queue or leaving for Australia. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next call will be a 5-minute call with a 1-minute bell. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am happy to take a call on this legislation even though it is a short one. In terms of our relationship accord and confidence and supply agreement but also because of the economic gains that Maori have made in our relationship with the Government we certainly support this legislation. In particular I would like to talk about the Maori economy and its emergence into the wider New Zealand economy as a dynamic and growing force. 
If I could just go back a couple of years to 2009 when we had our Maori economic summit Maori decided that there should be a task force to look at our economy and evaluate its progress size shape and so on. So that was set up. One of the things that happened under that was a review of the Maori economy how to emerge from the recession—and we are just about in that process now emerging. If we look at primary industries Maori own a third of all forests and fishing. If we look at local infrastructure building at collaborating between the small to medium sized enterprises amongst Maori and at Maori branding for export these are some of the actual things that we took up—in particular how Maori could make use of the free-trade agreement with China and go forward from there. 
These are the things we did. One of the things that happened was that we commissioned Business and Economic Research Ltd to do a review on the state of the Maori economy. Instead of $16.4 billion which was touted as the value of the Maori economy 2 years ago it turned out to be $37.9 billion. So it is double what it was before. This put a new light on things and gave Maori an economic arm if you like in order not only to get into coalitions but also to do partnerships with other industries and so on. Interestingly enough—$37.9 billion—everyone thought this was iwi money. In fact $20 billion was small businesses—that is either a small group or a single self-employed person and so on made up a whole $20 billion. That was a wake-up call showing there is plenty of entrepreneurship amongst Maori to increase their business and grow. You will remember that 3 years ago Maori women were third in the OECD countries for entrepreneurship in terms of starting up new businesses. 
On top of that $37.9 billion Business and Economic Research Ltd forecast an extra $12 billion in GDP per annum—an increase—plus 150000 new jobs by 2060 but there was a proviso and the proviso was that it would be only if Maori asset holders invest successfully in science and innovation. Science and innovation have been realised by all industry in New Zealand now as being absolutely essential to value-add to our products before exporting and selling. 
At another conference Ganesh Nana of Business and Economic Research Ltd also said that for Maori the key is “export or die”. We have chosen not to die so we are exporting big-time to China. We have had two expeditions there taking a number of Maori businessmen and businesswomen across to China. On the last one 30 of us went across and business was struck. The thing is that we use what I call a Maori edge—[ 
Bell rung 
]; oh already—Maori techniques: going first of all to Beijing talking with the Ministers Premiers and Vice-Premiers and getting kanohi ki te kanohi trust and then going out into the community and establishing business in manuka honey wines pasture techniques education exchange and food and gourmet dishes. 
China has got a new middle class growing rapidly. They want our foods. In New Zealand we are a food basket for China and we have got to make sure that we capitalise on it. Seafood crayfish fish paua timber—to value-add our timber instead of just sending logs we should be processing them here and getting the value-add plus the jobs that it creates as well to go over. We have got the China Development Bank looking at possibilities of helping us do that. That is only part of my talk so that is enough for now. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Technically this is a 5-minute call going to Opposition members. In their absence I will accept a 10-minute call because I think you are next on the schedule after that. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply Bill. It has been a very interesting debate we have had in the House. Mr Cunliffe gave what sounded like a leadership qualification speech. He reminded me of Huey Long the great American politician of the 1930s whose motto was to suck up the fat and spread it thin. That seems to be Mr Cunliffe’s new approach to politics. His speech was all about demagoguery getting out there and trying to buy votes all around the country. 
Members will by now be very familiar with National’s plan to build a brighter future for all New Zealanders which underpinned the Budget. The priorities are firstly responsibly managing the Government’s finances; secondly building a more competitive and productive economy; thirdly delivering better public services; and fourthly rebuilding Christchurch. We know these themes so well because there has been a measure of consistency in what this Government has done and that is never more valuable than today in these difficult international times. 
The headline measure of our financial management in this Budget has been the fact that we are on track to post an operating surplus in 2014-15. It is not the world’s largest surplus we concede but it is a very important milestone for this country. It will be the first time in a number of years that the Government will be raising enough revenue to pay its way without having to increase debt. We will have the opportunity then to start repaying some of the debt we have accumulated during this recession as we should be during good times when the economy is growing. That represents a huge turn-round given the impact of the 2008 recession. 
It has not been a miserly or mean Budget as some have alleged. There is nothing generous about spending other people’s money. There is nothing generous about spending money you do not have. That is what many of the promises that have been made from the other side are about. The focus of the Budget has been on returning to surplus and at bottom that has been about strengthening New Zealand’s resilience in uncertain times. It is about maintaining New Zealand’s international credibility a status that is hard-won but easily lost. It is about helping to keep interest rates low which has been underpinning the ability of many households around New Zealand to pay back mortgages and increase their savings. It is worth noting that although most sides of this House nod and say that yes we have to get back to surplus they have opposed every single restraint that we have brought to this House in order to get this economy back to surplus. So it is one thing to say it; it is another thing to do it. 
We are very conscious at the moment that New Zealand’s high level of private sector debt is an issue for the country. There has been some natural correction going on as households have been saving in a positive manner for the first time since 2000 and household debt has indeed fallen. But as I indicated at the start returning the Government’s books to surplus and increasing household savings is only part of the solution. 
Another important aspect is that our prosperity depends on building a more productive and competitive economy based on savings and less debt. The Labour Party I accept and agree says it agrees with National on that basic message that we do need to grow our economy—at least that is what David Parker has been saying in recent speeches. I am not sure about the rest. I am certainly not sure about the Greens. I do not think they do want to see growth. But most people are concerned about retaining our people in New Zealand and not losing so many New Zealanders to Australia and that at the end of the day comes down to growth generating jobs and generating products that the rest of the world wants to buy. 
So let us run through just some of the things that the Government has been doing which this Budget has referred to. It is about the tax changes that we made initially in 2009-10 realigning the tax system away from taxing income and on to taxing spending. Labour and the Greens both oppose that. It is about boosting capital markets through the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. That has been opposed. We have been investing much much more in innovation and science. Labour probably says it supports that but when it came to the point it did not. Labour did not do much when it was in power— 
Moana Mackey 
: The R and D tax credit. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: I will come to that in due course. Labour did not do much when it was in power for 10 years. When we talked about getting people off benefits and back into work that has been opposed. When we talked about the focus on primary resources and encouraging the use of our resources around the country—our mining resources—and investing in infrastructure that has been opposed. It has certainly been opposed in the exclusive economic zone bill. And when we talked about investment trade policy and encouraging new free-trade agreements that has been opposed. Labour used to support free trade but it does not seem to any more. When we talked about the 90-day probation period that was also opposed. Labour talks about wanting to grow the economy but when it comes to the crunch it opposes it. 
In recent times we have seen under the guidance of Bill English and Steven Joyce two eminently capable Ministers the Government taking further steps and crystallising its thinking around the Business Growth Agenda. We have two wonderful reports that have been produced recently. The House does need to resist the siren calls of the Labour Party which has gone back to the same old song of the 1960s and 1970s. We have seen some ideas floated from Mr Parker in recent times about forcing Government departments to buy locally made goods even if somebody else can produce them more efficiently and cheaper overseas. I do not see how that has had a good track record for many years. 
We have heard him talking vaguely about controlling the currency. I would love to know how Mr Parker is going to do that. It is a very difficult area. Is he proposing that we should start watering the milk like other countries or printing money? Is he proposing that we should wind back the clock to the 1930s and exchange-rate controls? I am very much looking forward to seeing what Mr Parker is going to do to control that problem. Or is it a return to the research and development tax credits that Labour tried? Well the Labour Party does not seem to have learnt anything from history. Taxes should be low rate and broad-based. Mr Parker’s path of research and development tax credits which were tried is a path back to the shambles of the 1980s when New Zealand— 
Moana Mackey 
: It was only there for a year. You got rid of it before people had even been able to apply for it. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: We had them for decades. They had them for decades in the 1970s and the 1980s. They did not work then and they will not work now. In the meantime although Mr Parker is wanting to take some money off exporters he is wanting to increase taxes on exporters at the same time because export companies all have capital gains. He wants to increase taxes at the same time with a new capital gains tax and also take research and development taxes off them. It does not make any sense to me. It seems very short-sighted and it also implies that local businesses are somehow less worthy. Why should local power telecommunications or infrastructure businesses for example which are every bit as important to New Zealand’s economy its growth and its international competitiveness not have tax credits along the lines that Mr Parker suggests? 
The idea of research and development tax credits is an idea that has passed. It never worked in the past and it will not be working again. The best thing for New Zealand businesses— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Nonsense! They were only in place for 12 months and then you got rid of them. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: You had them for 20 years in the 1970s and 1980s and they did not work very effectively. These ideas look superficially attractive but history has shown that over the long term such breaks rarely succeed in boosting home-grown businesses. The best thing for a New Zealand business is to compete openly in the world on its own merits. There is no magic for this other than producing goods and services that the rest of the world wants to buy for the best price and that is what this Government is keen on supporting. So we have put a lot of thought into what things businesses need in New Zealand. The six areas that come to mind are the ones that are universal. They are not unique to New Zealand. Businesses need access to ideas and innovation to create an opportunity they need money to build businesses they need access to the necessary raw materials they need skilled people to work in businesses they need customers who want to buy their products and access to export markets is implied in that and they need the infrastructure that the businesses depend on such as electricity broadband and transport. 
This Government has gone through in a systematic fashion looking at what those basic requirements are for successful businesses asking that question and producing very detailed and logical plans as to how the Government can ensure that businesses have access to those six essential areas. That is what these Business Growth Agenda progress reports are all about. We have seen the first two come out in recent days on export markets and innovation. These documents here fill me with great hope for the future of New Zealand given the guidance we have from this Government. 
So all in all it gives me pleasure to speak in favour of the Government’s Budget this time around as relayed through this legislation. Thank you very much. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Let us restate for the record why I am here. I am back in this Parliament so that those people in Opposition are over there. I am here so that they are there. We do not want these people in charge of the levers of power and we certainly do not want these rabbits in the lettuce patch of Treasury. So the people of Epsom have put me here so these roosters can stay over there. Is that not good? And they are going to stay over there for a long long time. And because they cannot get over here on policy on performance on leadership or on values they want to gerrymander the electoral system to try to get themselves over here. But I have got bad news for those over there. The people of New Zealand are glad that those roosters are over there and we are here. So I rise to support this legislation today. 
By the way the Opposition members would give us an accountants’ paradise if they were in charge here this afternoon—an accountants’ paradise. They would want to mess with GST they would want to take income tax off the first $5000 and they would add a capital gains tax. There is no political party in the Western World that has promised at the polls an additional extra tax on the hapless populace and been elected. So I want these people over there to continue to propose a capital gains tax continue to propose GST and continue to take income tax off the first $5000 because that means in 2014 they will stay over there. 
Every time I walk through Broadway in Newmarket people stop me and say: “Hey Banksie we’re glad you’re there Banksie and those people are over there.” That is what they say to me. They jump out of taxis out of police cars off the buses and they say: “Banksie we did the right thing. We’ve got you here so that those people those rabbits don’t get in charge of the Treasury lettuce patches.” 
There are interest write-offs from the student loans of our most able learners. We think they should go. Clearly there are major chunks in this Budget that we in the ACT Party would like to remove. There is the pension age that stays the same while life expectancy continues to rise. We would like to see the pension age rise. That would save $1.7 billion a year. If we put a small interest rate on student loans it would give us $800 million a year. And then there is Working for Families the Labour Party bribe that continues to give handouts to families earning over a hundred grand. They are prepared to give bribes to families who earn over $100000 a year because they are so desperate to get across to this side of the House. 
 Then there are doctors’ visits subsidised by hard-working people at Countdown supermarket in South Auckland so that I can have a subsidised visit to my general practitioner. How bad is that! It is called middle-class welfare. It does not work. It is too expensive. It is wrong. We cannot afford it. It belongs to those people on that side of the House but it does not belong in sensible fiscal prudence. Then there are the transfer expenditures comprising Labour’s great spending spree that outlived the Labour Government. In a perfect world we would be taking a harder focus on Government expenditure and reducing expenditure that does little good to anyone in the race for votes. These people spend all of their time on their real job: getting themselves re-elected into Opposition. 
What a fine contribution the fine member of Parliament who spoke before me my biographer Paul Goldsmith made to Parliament this afternoon. Well this Budget has maintained a tax system that rates in simplicity and compares favourably with nearly every other system in the world. It is not a time for big spending. It is not a time for big noting. It is not a time for big promises and it is not a time for these people to get themselves from that side of Parliament to this side of Parliament. So I finish as I began. The people of Epsom are eternally grateful for their own inherent common sense when they put “Banksie” here so that John Key and this Government could be on this side of Parliament and these roosters could be over on that side of Parliament. I have not heard one constructive contribution from anyone on that side of Parliament on how we are going to build investment and growth in jobs and start paying our way. This bill the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill is a good beginning. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is a further 5-minute call. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to stand in this third reading of the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill and I just want to address a couple of remarks that the Hon David Cunliffe made just recently. It is hard to think that that is Labour’s best contribution that it can make to this country as he simply said that we are a nation that is focusing only on extractive industries such as dairying and oil and gas. Well I come from the province that has the lowest unemployment rate in this nation because of those two industries—dairying and also oil and gas. We have around about 3.6 percent unemployed which is not good enough. We want to get more people into jobs. But we are seeing that those two industries have undergirded a remarkable GDP in our province. 
It is not only those two industries but also the industries that they support whether it be financial services or engineering even to the extent that there has been diversification of manufacturing and engineering. We now have a company called Fitzroy Yachts Ltd which is reputedly the best luxury yacht builder in the world. Last year at Monaco it won a tremendous award for building the best yacht in 2011. We see in this great province of Taranaki very low unemployment because of these industries. Let us not take them for granted. Let us not minimise them. 
These are industries that also have a very good reputation for their concern and care for the environment. The Taranaki Regional Council is famous in this nation for its riparian planting programme. There are 17000 kilometres of streams in the province of Taranaki and a vast majority of them are being planted out with shrubs on the shorelines of these streams in order to capture and filter away nitrates and keep our waterways pure. We also know that there is a very high environmental safety record regarding those industries that are involved in the oil and gas sector. We also know that these industries are great contributors to the way of life of people in Taranaki and also in New Zealand. So we are very proud that we do support and encourage these industries in our province and in our country. 
Really when you look at Taranaki and what it has to offer the lifestyle and all the opportunities in terms of employment that give people international qualifications and international ability to work anywhere in the world in these industries and when you look at what these opportunities offer New Zealanders you can see what can happen to this country when it comes to economic transformation. We know that there is one particular field that is 50 kilometres offshore; it is called the Tui Area field. It used to be that oil and gas extraction was the fourth-biggest export earner in this country. Yet when the Tui field came on stream it immediately jumped to No. 3. It surpassed our timber products and our export markets which tells us that just one significant find has the ability to bring a big kick into our economy. 
When we look at what we want to do in terms of our schooling and our modern learning places when we see what we want to do in terms of our hospitals and when we see what we want to spend in cities like Christchurch and its rebuild it is very important that we have some game-changing industries in our country. I think it is very important to acknowledge the Business Growth Agenda which our Government is rolling out and how we are turning not just Government policy but also Government departments round to be far more integrated with business. Indeed it is private enterprise that is the substantial tax base for this nation and we want to encourage that. We want to see innovation. We want to see an increase in our export markets and in our selling to the world so that we can continue to see this great nation of New Zealand prosper and make great progress. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are back to 10-minute calls. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Yesterday I spent the day in my electorate with Russia’s David Frost Sergey Brilev and a television crew visiting all manner of productive primary sector activity in the Wairarapa in preparation for a television film that will be shown in Russia around the Prime Minister’s visit when he goes to Vladivostok in the middle of next month. I have got to say that we were on a dairy farm talking to the cocky and I said: “Well how do you think things are going?”. The cocky said: “Really well.” He said that he had great confidence in John Key and his exact words to me were: “Because John Key knows what he’s doing and I’ve got to tell you”—he said to me—“the other people don’t.” He said: “I will be supporting National at the next election because National knows what it’s doing.” There was one farmer who knows what is very sensible and what is good for this country. He knows that we have to invest in the primary sector because that is where this country has a competitive advantage and doing that will stimulate new jobs. He knows that in the Wairarapa for example we have got to save our winter water and feed it out in the summer when it is dry and we do not want to take 6 years or longer going through the resource management complications that the previous Government the Labour Government left us with. Every day we wait we are locking up jobs and we are stopping people being employed. We need to build a more competitive and productive economy. 
The Budget that we have just passed this year forecasts economic growth to average about 3 percent a year over the next 4 years. That means 154000 jobs created on top of the 60000 new jobs created in the past 2 years. And if Mr Groser is successful in getting free-trade agreements with India with Korea with Japan and with Russia then we will continue to expand the opportunities for employing people because— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many has he signed in 4 years? One. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Let me explain to that member that once we signed the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement in the first year we sold an additional $850 million of product—in the first year. In this year under review we have sold an additional $3.35 billion worth of produce to China. Think about how many jobs exist because of that new level of export. Groser is doing a great job and I commend him for it. 
The Government’s responsible fiscal management in particular our discipline around spending—no new expenditure no new borrowing—and our capital management is strengthening New Zealand’s resilience in what I think are still very difficult times. We do not know whether Spain is going to fall over and if it does whether Italy will follow. There is still uncertainty out there. What we have to be careful to do—and this is what John Key is doing—is maintain New Zealand’s international credibility a status that is very hard-won but very easily lost as a number of countries around the world are finding out. He is helping every one of my constituents through his astute fiscal management because we are keeping interest rates low and mortgage rates have never been lower—not in my lifetime. They have never been lower. They have gone from 21 percent as I recall under Prime Minister Lange down to 5.7 percent now. 
We are also getting growth in New Zealand that is forecast to be higher than that of many other nations. New Zealand is only a quarter of 1 percent of the world economy so we are affected by what goes on in the rest of the world. The good news is I think that if we continue to do things right under John Key’s leadership we can stand out from a large pack and we already do. Growth in New Zealand over the next 3 years is forecast to be higher than in Europe by half a percent higher than in the UK by just over 1 percent higher than in Japan by 1.5 percent and higher than in the US and Canada by 2 percent. New Zealand is expected to have around the same growth rates as Australia—around about 3 percent. That is because growth in New Zealand would be based on strong fundamentals as I was told by a dairy farmer in Masterton yesterday. 
We have strong fundamentals. We have sound economic and financial institutions. We are producing the sorts of goods and products and providing the sorts of services that will be in demand over the coming decades. This is why companies like Xero are doing so well on the stock exchange. Xero partly invented in Greytown in the Wairarapa has done extremely well on the stock market this year going from about $2 a share to about $5.50. Why is that happening? Because it is a company that is based on the internet. How is it doing well? Because we have spent $1.5 billion out across New Zealand building a decent internet. These are the sorts of things and the sorts of services that are going to be in demand over coming decades. 
Sixty percent of our exports now go to Australia or to South-east Asia in particular the most vibrant and thriving regions of the world. We are moving our resources from Europe where we have traditionally spent effort promoting our exports and now we are spending much more effort trying to grow our export drive in Asia because that is where the economies are growing quickly in the global market place. 
The fact that we are also managing the economy and the Government’s finances providing stable Government in tough economic times and building a more competitive and productive economy based on savings and productive investment is being monitored by agencies external to New Zealand. If you have a look at Standard and Poor’s you will see that it is affirming an AA rating with a stable outlook for New Zealand. That is really welcome news and I think it confirms independently that we are headed in the right direction and are better placed than many other countries. Affirming New Zealand’s long-term foreign currency rating on 3 August Standard and Poor’s noted that this country’s fiscal flexibility resilient economy and strong political and economic institutions would stand it in very good stead. New Zealand is one of only nine countries with the highest possible AA rating and a stable outlook with Moody’s and it has an AA rating with Fitch Ratings. Standard and Poor’s notes that New Zealand has favourable prospects for sustained growth while there remains strong demand for agricultural exports. The Government is making progress in getting its own deficits and debt under control and it is on track for a fiscal surplus in 2014. But New Zealand’s high level of private sector debt is its biggest vulnerability according to the external agents. 
We have got a very resilient economy. This country has got extremely competent Government management in the form of John Key and Bill English. This is recognised— 
Andrew Williams 
: Ha ha! 
JOHN HAYES 
: You might laugh Mr Williams but I can tell you that it is strongly recognised in the Wairarapa and that is why you are sitting here leaderless—because your leader is not being sensible. Where is your leader Mr Williams? On “Planet Labour” you can impose all the economic development you like and then pretend you can have more jobs. Well that is fairy tale stuff—it does not exist. Labour wants to slow down New Zealand’s development for its own political reasons. The simple reality is that my constituents are telling me in the Wairarapa that we need more higher-paying jobs in this country because they want to support families and they want decent public services that are world class. Tony Ryall is delivering that and it helps people make their future in this country not abroad. Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to support this legislation. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 Well I would like to thank “Dr Dolittle” for that wonderful presentation. It was incredibly enthusiastic—Maurice Williamson almost fell asleep. They are so proud of their programme that the best they can do is the man in the bow tie. What a cracker! The spirit the esprit de corps and the enthusiasm of John Hayes were bar none. John Hayes made a very interesting point. He said that this Prime Minister John Key and the National Government know what they are doing. Well I can do no better than quote one of their mates Rob Cameron the head of the Capital Market Development Taskforce a Government appointment. Presumably he is a mate of John Key “Dr Dolittle” and the others over there. Rob Cameron said that he backed the sale of State-owned enterprises— 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a longstanding rule that members are addressed by their correct names in this House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I apologise Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes I think the member knows so apology accepted. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am speaking of course of John Hayes in case there is any confusion for those listening out there. Thank you to the junior Government whip. Rob Cameron said he backed the sale of State-owned assets. He said that the management of the scheme has been “a disaster”. So that is what Rob Cameron a mate and an appointee of the National Government said about John Key’s management and the Government’s management of the sale of State-owned enterprises—and as we know 80 percent of New Zealanders do not want their assets which they already own sold. It has been an utter disaster from start to finish. I have never seen an attempted initial public offering—and I have worked for a number of companies that have been engaged in initial public offerings—so botched by an entity in history in this country. 
In respect of Mighty River Power this is the worst time to sell it. We have the worst economic conditions the worst market conditions and a tribunal hearing hanging over the Government’s head. Why? Because of the incompetence of the Prime Minister because of the incompetence of the finance Minister the State-owned enterprises Minister and the Treaty negotiations Minister aided and abetted by those geniuses in the Maori Party—the weekend warriors—who went around the marae and said they would fix the Maori ownership issues and the property issues. They would fix it. The deal has been done with their paymasters in the National Party and it was done so well of course that the tribunal now is considering the matter and we know from listening to the Iwi Leaders Group and the Maori Council that if the Government does not listen they will be off to court. The sales process has been totally 100 percent botched and now we know that the Prime Minister has talked about delaying the sales. I think that is a good thing colleagues. Anything that delays these sales and gives the people of New Zealand the opportunity with those of us who are on the right side of this argument in Parliament to stop these asset sales is a good thing. We should have a referendum where people will have a direct say—and then there will be no more talk about mandates from this crew over here. 
So this as John Hayes described it—alias “Sir Les”; oh no sorry John Hayes—the Prime Minister and the National Government know what they are doing. Well not in the eyes of 80 percent of New Zealanders and not in the eyes of Rob Cameron. It has been a botched mismanaged initial public offering from start to finish. 
Then what do we hear today? Well Solid Energy another one that is on the block with this crew. Oh hang on Solid Energy’s books are not that good. Why? I do not vent any fault of its own on that but there are international ramifications in terms of China with natural resources and the orders they are putting in for things like coal and other natural resources. Ah the books are not really that good. So the Government has suddenly decided that maybe this might not be the best time to sell—likewise with Air New Zealand. If you actually look at the litany of problems some of these State-owned enterprises have you will see Meridian Energy being put over a barrel in respect of negotiations with its biggest customer the Bluff aluminium smelter. Is this a really good time to get Meridian Energy up and sell it? I would not have thought so given the leverage that is being put over it by some of its clients. So this from a Prime Minister—to quote John Hayes the man in the bow tie in case you missed him: the Prime Minister and the National Government know what they are doing. Well even their own mates say they do not know what they are doing in respect of State-owned enterprises and it is a disaster. 
If you look at some of the record of the National Government it knew what it was doing it said in tourism did it not? I note the big silver bullet for the economy where we now have 50000 more people unemployed and about 80000 or 90000 young people are not in work not in training. We have the biggest training opportunity in New Zealand’s history called the Christchurch earthquake but how many apprentices have we had in 23 months out of that? Zip. But the big hit was going to be the cycleway. We had the Associate Minister of Tourism I think— 
Hon Member 
: Who’s that? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am trying to remember. It is the chap from Napier—help me—Mr Tremain. He came to the select committee and we said: “OK well if this was going to be the big hit how many permanent jobs has it created?”. He could not name one. How many businesses have been created. He named two—one I think was a fish and chip shop in Napier. As people got an appetite up as they cycled around they whipped into the old double beef burger and chips. They might have bumped into Gerry. Second was a bicycle shop. Well you would naturally think that might pick up the pace if you had a cycleway running down the side of the shop. So the stone-cold end of that were two businesses. We do not know how many permanent jobs but two businesses are going gangbusters and I congratulate those two solitary businesses somewhere in Napier. 
The other achievement of course—remember the financial hub? New Zealand was going to be an international financial hub. Where has that gone? Zip gone gone by lunchtime. Then there was mining in national parks—another “you beaut” Gerry Brownlee bulldozer D9 special; gone botched. And this from a Government to quote John Hayes that apparently knows what it is doing. It knows what it is doing to the extent that 1000 Kiwis talented Kiwis young and old are leaving our shores every week for places like Australia—every week. These guys of course were going to fix all that. They had the ideas they had the brighter future—gone are 50000 Kiwis a year leaving to go to Australia. John Hayes is the big hitter the impact player from the National Party. He is the man National puts up when it really is in trouble I am told to make the case that this is a solid Government that has a growth strategy. What is it? A 120-point plan. There are so many plans so many points so many reviews that they are running out of ink and xerox paper in the Government departments and yet we still have its legacy of 50000 more people unemployed than when it came to office. There are 50000 people a year leaving New Zealand. The 120-point plan—if there is a plan perhaps to get people on the end of the xerox machine copying and typing all these plans then maybe that might be a full employment strategy. 
But the truth is as Mr Hayes knows it and as he expressed with such enthusiasm did he not? He sort of eased and oozed enthusiasm. It sort of dripped from every pore. He was so enthusiastic about his Government’s programme. As he knows it is off course. I just say to Mr Hayes amongst all the hyperbole and all the clichés out of all the sorts of Crosby/Textor spin briefings that he has read can he give us some facts? Why is it I say to Mr Hayes that there are 50000 more people unemployed than when he came to office? Why is it that 50000 Kiwis a year under his Government’s regime are leaving for Australia? Why is it that his Government has botched the asset sales? [ 
Interruption 
] Hang on. We have got Rumpelstiltskin in the corner there having a go. Give us one example where the initial public offering of State assets has not been botched. Give us an example where New Zealand people have got behind this asset sales programme. We know they have not because 80 percent of the polls say the people are against it. Give us an example where progress is being made. 
How many apprentices are we getting out of Christchurch? Look at the Christchurch rebuild—tragic slow. What is the Government’s response? We know one of the big blockages down there is insurance so after 23 months the big fella Gerry Brownlee gets up jumps up and down stamps his feet and says to the New Zealand people: “I am brassed off with insurance companies.” We applaud. We were brassed off 22 months ago. That was I think 3 or 4 weeks ago and what has been the physical or practical action to back up these fine words? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: A big fat zero. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Zero—absolutely nothing. And this Government knows what it is doing! Well the people of Christchurch know what has to be done down there but the problem is they just cannot get any action. Clichés and fine words and Ministers being brassed off and stamping their fist occasionally to be followed by zero is not a plan is not a Government in charge and is not a Government showing leadership whether it be in training whether it be in health. Then we look at some of the myopic things they are getting sucked into. Hekia Parata apparently knew what she was doing over the teacher-student ratios. What a botch-up. I could use more colourful language but this is a sacred place. 
Then we have Mr Banks whose greatest contribution is to put a bill into Parliament to get rid of 31 Acts that do not exist. We will not mention envelopes. We will not mention Dotcom. What an absolute botch-up that has been. And this is from a Government to quote Mr Hayes that knows what it is doing. Accident compensation—Nick Smith went troppo really troppo. He checked out in more ways than one. I say to Mr Hayes to show us a Government that knows what it is doing and show us a Prime Minister who knows what they are doing because I am sure that outside this Chamber the people of New Zealand would love to see one as well. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 This is a Budget that does not just entrench our current account deficit but would create an asset deficit and entrench a skills deficit an environmental deficit and potentially also a democracy deficit in Christchurch. Asset sales are a cornerstone of this Budget and that is looking about as derelict and crumbly as some of the buildings in Christchurch. The asset sales programme is in disarray. This John Key - John Banks Government should just admit that asset sales are poorly conceived poorly timed and unlikely to yield the revenue that the Government had claimed and call them all off. 
When asked about how he saw the Government’s sales plans for Solid Energy given the plunging international prices for coal and coke Solid Energy Chief Executive Officer Don Elder was reported in Saturday’s  
Press 
 as saying: “in the current world there aren’t too many normal investors looking to buy coal companies [but] the people who invest in coal companies are saying there are bargains left right and centre.” So why give away shares in Solid Energy at bargain-basement prices when that company could be repositioned with a much more progressive research and development and investment strategy to increase its investment in biomass and biofuels instead of speculating on a climate-destroying lignite conversion plant in Southland? Why give away shares in Solid Energy and our other energy companies when they could be repositioned to get a slice of the trillion-dollar renewable energy market internationally? Solid Energy is looking to cut $120 million off its operating costs because of those falling coke and coal prices. A good place to start would be to stop preparing for asset sales. The company has wasted $130000 on that but we have hundreds of thousands of people signing up to our petition to seek a referendum on asset sales. Asset sales are opposed by the public. We will get that referendum. 
If the Government goes ahead with asset sales in the current recessionary climate it will be selling at the worst possible time assets that have been built up over generations. It will be taking the wrecking ball to the dividend stream that we receive from Meridian Energy Mighty River Power Genesis and Solid Energy. There is huge uncertainty with the Waitangi Tribunal yet to report. The whole issue of Treaty rights over water is nowhere near close to being resolved. So that means that potential bidders for Mighty River Power will downsize their bids to take account of this uncertainty—similarly with Meridian Energy and the Tiwai Point contract being renegotiated. 
 Asset sales would be a disaster—the same disaster that this Government has overseen in terms of failing to create jobs and failing to create hope. There are 65000 more people out of work today than when National came into power. With its Budget and with its whole economic direction this Government is failing to give hope to young people. There has been a failure to stop the flood of New Zealanders across the Tasman. More than 1000 New Zealanders a week are going across the Tasman because they have given up on John Key’s brighter future and they are seeking their future in Australia instead. That is creating a skills deficit and a human deficit. 
We are getting a democracy deficit in Christchurch because of the Draconian powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in planning and facilitating the city’s post-quake rebuild—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. The member cannot interject: “Tell the truth.” I ask the member to withdraw that comment. I ask the member to withdraw that comment. 
David Bennett 
: I withdraw. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: It is a democracy deficit because we have not seen the information about key decisions. We are not getting enough transparency around those decisions. We do not know who is going to be making the decisions the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority or the Christchurch City Council on some of the key civic assets that Christchurch residents will be funding through their rates as well as their taxes. Will it be elected councillors on the Christchurch City Council representing Christchurch citizens or the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority making decisions on things like the future of the Centennial Pool? In June as part of its long-term plan the council passed a unanimous resolution asking staff to report back on the feasibility and cost of repairing the Centennial Pool in central Christchurch so that people in the central city and in Christchurch East would have somewhere to recreate and somewhere to swim. The council’s own engineering reports show that the pool could be repaired for a cost of around $1.8 million to $2.3 million and the council had earmarked money in its own annual plan for operating costs for the pool. Yet the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s blueprint for the central city shows a playground where the pool is. This Thursday the city council will further consider the issue and there will be a major democracy deficit if the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority through its compulsory land purchases overrides the decision of the city council to investigate the repair and restoration of the pool facility. The pool was used prior to the quakes by around 1000 people daily. 
We need to tackle the fundamental problems in our economy with a smart Green economic plan. If we had had a Green Budget that would have been about ensuring that we protect our natural assets that we share our prosperity fairly and that we have a good quality of life. That Green Budget would have involved retaining our State-owned energy companies in public ownership and refocusing them towards exporting their renewable energy expertise. A Green Budget would have extended the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme to another 200000 homes over the next 3 years. That would create jobs for another 4000 people directly and another 10000 people if you include the indirect effects. A Green Budget would have moved to a fairer tax system and enhanced our fiscal resilience by introducing a capital gains tax excluding the family home. That would enhance the revenue stream for the Government and it would help shift capital away from the largely unproductive property sector into much more productive uses including the clean-technology sector. A Green Budget would have reprioritised our transport spending away from billion-dollar motorways that we cannot afford and towards sustainable investment in better bus and rail systems taking account of peak oil. A Green Budget would have put a price on the commercial use of water—again to provide a tax on resource use rather than just relying on taxes on income. It would have put a real price on carbon. And it would have supported a living wage by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. 
A Green Budget would recognise that “Planet Economy” lives on and relies on planet Earth. It is not somewhere else. The exploitation agenda of this current Government means that even its rhetoric has moved away from balancing the environment against the economy to just getting on with it and to hell with the environment—full steam ahead with the use and abuse of natural resources. That is why we have seen at the weekend the Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce commenting that the Government will be sitting on the shoulder of local government whipping it along. The Government is proposing amendments to the Resource Management Act that would gut the sustainable management purpose of the Act. It would speed applications through. That is why Ministers like Steven Joyce want the Bathurst Resources—an Australian mining company—proposal on the Denniston Plateau to go ahead regardless of the fact that there are virtually no coal measure ecosystems protected on Department of Conservation land other than on the Denniston Plateau. That mine would totally destroy a lot of the biodiversity and the distinctive species there. This Government’s agenda is about resource exploitation and to hell with the environment. A Green Budget would involve a much more sustainable footing for our economy that puts the respect and protection of nature as the centrepiece of sustainable economic use. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Following on from that rubbish really from the Green Party I think we need to look at the practicalities of the real world we live in. Often we hear about reports of what the world will look like in 2050 and often you see some of those reports. I was just reading one from PricewaterhouseCoopers about the shift of global economic power in 2050. It makes for very interesting reading. Basically when you look at those reports they have one common feature and that is that the world is a numbers game. It is a numbers game in the sense of number of people. World economic power—the ability for countries therefore to deliver to their people the services and the rights that people expect—will be determined by the size of the population. It will be determined not by its geographical footprint nor by its resource footprint but by its human footprint. That is a completely different approach from what we have had in the history of the world for the last couple of hundred years where it has been about the space that someone conquered or the area that was under control. Now it is about the number of people who work in your economy. 
What we have seen in the last few years with the world economic recession is part of that. It shows that there were some dynamics in the world economies that were not structured the right way and that there was an emphasis on borrowing at the wrong time for the wrong things. Essentially it was a wake-up call for the West that the Western economies were not performing any more. Those economies had got out of sync with what it actually takes to make money and to deliver for your people going forward. The Eastern economies have delivered over that period of time and continue to deliver now because their economic fundamentals are much closer to what is required to deliver for an economy. That is the big wake-up call that is happening to the world at the moment. New Zealand is in a bit of a precarious position in that situation because we are not in the heart of that wake-up call in Europe so we are not feeling the pain that many European countries are feeling. We live in an environment that is distinctly Asian. We trade with Asian countries and so we have been insulated a little bit from what is going on. Australia is in the same position. It has been insulated. We live in a Western economy but we have been insulated from the effects of what is happening to those economies because of our position in the world. 
And that positioning means we have to be very careful in the decisions we make in the next few years because it would be very easy for New Zealanders and Australians together to think that they are comfortable and successful and can carry on the mantras and policies of the past. Those Western policies will not serve those countries that well going forward. Those countries New Zealand and Australia need to go back to the economic basics and make sure we pay our way in the world. That is what the New Zealand National Government with our coalition partners has been doing for the last 3 or 4 years and will continue to do because the people of New Zealand understand that need. They understand that the world has changed. The ordinary New Zealander out there has probably lost money on their biggest investment their house and they realise that they could lose their job in the business they work in if that company is not competitive in the world market. They know that economic reality. They do not have the luxury to sit in places like this and spout off some great ideas about some green economy that does not actually exist or spout off some Labour mantra about trying to make everybody equal when that does not exist either. They live in the real world and in the real world you have to compete you have to get training you have to get education and you have to work hard. These are fundamental things that the Labour and Green parties would never accept but they are core National Party beliefs and they are represented in this Budget and continuing Budgets because the public understands what they need and what needs to happen. 
Just going back to that report—if you go back to those 2050 reports look at some of these dates. In 2013 Brazil is to overtake the UK—the UK the great empire. In 2016 India a former colony takes over the UK in size. In 2021 Indonesia beats Spain. In 2025 Brazil beats Germany. In 2031 Mexico beats the UK. And in 2045 India beats the USA. That is the real world and those countries are big populations and they are young populations. 
Dr David Clark 
: In 2012 New Zealand moves to Australia. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Our friend over there says what happens to Australia? Australia is a very interesting point. Australia moves out of the top 20. Australia loses its position in the top 20 because it has not got population. We have a distinct relationship with Australia and that is an important part of what we have to do to be competitive. When you look at the facts about Australia there are New Zealanders going to Australia at the moment because of the mining boom and the job opportunities there through the mining boom. But that is not sustainable for the long term compared with our agricultural and primary-based industries that rely on water which is a much more renewable resource going forward than the mining boom that Australia now faces. I think and this Government thinks that we are in a better position. 
So when we look at those statistics and when we look at the need for New Zealand to develop its economy we have to look at what we have to do to make that happen. New Zealand will never compete with Indonesia or China on a population basis; we just have not got 200 million people. But we can and we need to trade with those countries. That is our success. We are building the tradable sector of the New Zealand economy so that we can trade. On the other side of this House we hear rhetoric of things like capital gains taxes and increased income taxes trying to do all those things that will hurt the tradable sector of New Zealand. What has the Government delivered? It has delivered low interest rates. It has delivered the right economic infrastructure for New Zealanders to grow their businesses. That is how we will grow and trade with those other countries. 
We also need to make our economy competitive in the way we deal with some big issues. That is around things like education to make sure that all our young people have a start in the modern world and we do not accept the failures of the past and say that a group of people cannot succeed. The world order will mean that you will not have that privilege. The privilege of feeling that we can say no to a group of our people and that they are not able to play the game is not going to be enough going forward. That is an old Western ideology that is not going to last in the modern way. We need to encourage education and the delivery of education and the Government has made big strides in that area. Some of those things are not popular but they are important in achieving our end goal. 
So in essence the world has changed. It has changed very quickly in the last few years and it will change immensely in the next decade or so going out to 2050 as those reports indicated. But what is essential in that change is that the Government delivers the right infrastructure for New Zealanders to take advantage of that world order. That is what this Budget does. It focuses on what is required and needed for New Zealand going forward. The rhetoric on the other side of the House is dreamland rhetoric. It is not practical and it is not endorsed by the New Zealand people because the New Zealand people see through it. They know that the plan on this side is the practical plan that will work. The plan on the other side—if they have a plan—is something that is completely impractical has no chance of working and that is why the New Zealand public supports this Government in this very good Budget. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this debate on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill on that part of the Budget that takes some 19 percent of Government expenditure and that is health. The total health budget is something in the order of $14.1 billion so nearly 20 percent—19 percent—of the total Government appropriation. If one were to believe Tony Ryall one would think that all health services are performing better than ever before: there are no difficulties here move right along there is nothing to see except those occasional statistics that the Minister wishes to shine a very fine spotlight upon. Those are the things where targets have been met because of the blood sweat and tears of our professional health staff working in district health boards who because they have been funded to do so but sometimes not have worked extremely hard to meet the targets—the short-term measurable targets—that the Minister has set them. 
The truth however of the health landscape out there is one of cost cuts of chaos and of impending chaos. The expression “death by a thousand cuts” takes on a new meaning under this Minister of Health. There is a whole new meaning to that expression when we realise that the funding in the health sector is $230 million down on what is needed simply to keep up with cost pressure never mind catering for a larger ageing population or an impending diabetes epidemic. Never mind those things—simply looking at cost increases the Government is $230 million down on what is necessary in that area. So the district health boards are not even being funded to break even. They cannot cover their costs. They cannot meet the increasing demand of an increased population and an ageing population. 
In the health budget only $358 million was new money. The district health boards in particular are being asked to do more with less. They are being asked for example to absorb all of the KiwiSaver liability that they have not been previously asked to cover. There was no additional appropriation for the covering of the KiwiSaver liability. That used to be taken care of centrally by Government which is no longer to be the case. So what we have now is some of our district health boards spending huge proportions of their new funding in covering new liabilities—not funding that was given to them or tagged for that purpose but funding that they have to give out because the Government has withdrawn from liabilities it covered previously. 
Let us take for example Canterbury—our most smitten of district health boards our most desperate district health board trying to recover from its devastating earthquakes and at the same time meet the Minister’s short-term measurable targets. Canterbury District Health Board has a projected liability for KiwiSaver of $8.6 million. That is about 42 percent of the new funding it has been given. So nearly half of its new funding which is meant to be delivering all these things the Minister requires is having to be spent on KiwiSaver contributions. There is no recognition of that. The KiwiSaver contributions are critically important to the economic welfare and future of this country. If we are ever going to deepen our domestic capital markets KiwiSaver and New Zealand superannuation are the mechanisms to do it for us. However the Government is not taking any responsibility for that and so Canterbury District Health Board is having to take up 42 percent of its new funding to cover that liability. Even a little wee district health board like the West Coast District Health Board is having to spend 34 percent—one-third—of its new funding on its KiwiSaver liability. 
Listening to the Minister of Health as I say one would think that all was well in the health garden. Well it is not rosy in that health garden. I would like to stress for just a moment a number of the things that have been cut by this Government. Let us take just a few down-to-earth practical examples. The Dannevirke out-patients clinic was cut. Counties Manukau District Health Board has had to cut funding which included two Maori health programmes and Auckland University’s evaluations of the board’s 5-year $10 million scheme to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes. These efforts out in the community are being cut because the Minister is requiring district health boards to turn on more elective surgery procedures so he can go and award certificates to those poor district health boards that have tried desperately hard without the funding to do what the Minister requires. 
As an example of this I would like to quote from the  
Nelson Mail 
. Just recently the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board showed that it had performed 6209 operations—150 more than during the last financial year. Yet the district health board’s surgical services manager Dorothy McKeown said that its elective teams had done a terrific job to surpass the elective target—which they have and I take my hat off to them—while at the same time ensuring that no one was waiting longer than 6 months but she said: “We were required to support this with extra resources that were not budgeted for.” 
So what gets cut? What gets cut? Well the Government has cut numbers of things. It does not matter whether we look back a couple of years or we concentrate on today. The abandoned school food guidelines for example were an absolutely no-cost item that this Government chose to cut when it came in because it was something that the Labour Government had put in place. They were food nutrition guidelines to secondary schools to school tuck shops encouraging them to sell only healthy food. What has that done? Well quite frankly it has done nothing to improve our obesity problem and the tendency towards type 2 diabetes that that problem will produce over time. 
The Government has cut front-line public health programmes: some $12 million from tobacco control $8 million from sexual health promotion and prevention programmes $1 million from public health alcohol and drug services $4 million from mental health workforce development and on it goes. This Government is cutting health at every turn and in fact replacing what should be long-term health goals with short-term measurable outputs that the Minister can then trumpet. Those are the things that he is funding and he is not acknowledging what the experts are saying which is that in order to reduce our health liabilities and the cost of health in the future we need to be putting more into prevention. 
There is a report that has gone to the Ministry of Health because it wanted to find out how to deal with diabetes care and management given that the Government has cut the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme. When we have this epidemic coming down the tracks at us why would a Government stop the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme? The report says that there was a recurring theme amongst those who were consulted that prevention and early intervention were not being funded as a priority by this Government or even included as a specific target. For all that the Minister trumpets successes in the health portfolio he is really jeopardising the future health of New Zealanders. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill this evening. Obviously this Budget is part of a wider Government plan—a plan to get New Zealand back on track. One part of that plan is to get economic growth and grow our businesses in New Zealand. I was privileged enough last night to go and talk to the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce. What I was speaking to those people about was what the Government is doing around business growth and what the Government can do to ensure that they have got confidence so they can invest in their companies. That is the one thing that the Government can do well: give businesses confidence so they back themselves so they grow their businesses so they take some risks and so they invest when times are tough. They grow they employ more people and they grow our economies because the only way that New Zealand is going to grow its economy is by trading—trading its way to success. 
The Hutt I have got to say must be the most underestimated area for business in New Zealand. It has got some of the most incredibly innovative and inspiring businesses in New Zealand. If I was to pick just one of the tens twenties or dozens of businesses I can think of one would be Fraser Engineering. This business is in the Hutt. What it does is it manufactures fire engines. But it manufactures them not only for New Zealand now; in these tough times it has found new markets as well. Now it is going into Australia and it has got some significant contracts in Australia making its fire engines as well. It employs 100-odd people. I went around its factory the other day and it is impeccable. You could eat your lunch off the floor. It is beautifully tidy. It is progressive. It is inspiring. The staff obviously love the organisation and love working there. It has got some very long-term staff there it is progressive and it is backing itself. It is backing itself in these tough economic times to go into emerging markets and grow. 
I was lucky enough also the other day to be part of the Business and Parliament Trust; I went to Coca-Cola Amatil. It is investing in New Zealand as well. It has just opened a new bottling factory. Wandering around and talking to the staff there they love Coca-Cola Amatil. They are well looked after. They are well looked after and they have got a sense of pride in their product and what they produce. This is an example of a company that is growing and investing in New Zealand as well and employing more people because of that. So as a Government we have got to ensure that we can give them the confidence that they need to grow their businesses in New Zealand. 
We have identified six key drivers for business growth in New Zealand. The first one is skilled workplaces because we know that when our trainees go out into these businesses they need to have the skills to be able to match what the industry needs for its business. There has got to be a direct match from the industry training organisations and what they are producing to what the businesses need and where they are going in the future. So what we are doing is we have looked at the industry training organisations and we have made some changes. We are out talking to them at the moment consulting with them at the moment about how we can get that stronger and how industries can have a real voice about what they need in their trainees coming out so that their skills are well matched with the businesses and the businesses can grow in the future and have a constant good highly skilled stream of workers coming through. 
Another area is innovation and research. Obviously we have just put out a progress report called  
Building Innovation 
 and here it is. We put one out last week or the week before on exporting. I recommend anybody to go and pick them up. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have done them. They are really really informative about what we are trying to do in these sectors for economic growth. The good thing about these is that you can actually hold the Government to account on the progress we are trying to make with our economic drivers for business. I think it is really important that there is accountability back with the initiatives that we have got in place to ensure that we can be held accountable for what we are doing as well.  
 It is interesting because when you go around talk to the businesses and talk to them about what they are doing it is all about innovation it is all about research and it is all about making their products better and better and better so that they can stay competitive in these global markets that they are entering. 
What we have done is put in place a new ministry which is known as the superministry the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. It has brought together science and innovation economic development employment and housing and building. The important thing about putting these four ex-ministries under the same umbrella is that they will be talking to each other a lot more. They will not be working in silos as has happened in the past. When you think about it it makes sense. Science and innovation economic development employment—they should all be talking to each other interacting with each other and ensuring that each lines up with the others so that they are all going in the right direction and they are not working against each other. 
I suppose the other big initiative we announced in the Budget—$166 million over 4 years—was the advanced technology institutes. If we are serious about growing businesses helping them to grow in New Zealand and staying cutting edge we have to invest in their technology and their ability to access research and access researchers more easily to grow their business and stay competitive. One of the ideas around the advanced technology institutes is that the researchers can go into businesses and work directly with them. What we have heard from businesses is that they have got these great ideas and they can commercialise them which is fantastic but they really struggle to take them to the next level because they cannot get the researchers in their businesses. They do not need them full-time. They want them for only 6 months to come in and give them a bit of a help to get their research moving along and to come and go out of their business. What we are trying to do is facilitate research with businesses to make it much easier. 
We also know that we have got some great innovators in our Crown research institutes as well and what we are trying to do is allow them to get their great ideas and commercialise them to be able to take them to the market much quicker. So we are looking at it from both sides to actually try to make the most of the great ideas that we have got and also help the businesses to access researchers so that they can actually grow their businesses as well. 
The other area we are looking at is capital markets. Obviously if a business wants to grow it needs to be able to access capital markets and there are many ways you can do that—many vehicles you can use to grow your capital markets. Obviously one of them is through the banks through other investors through foreign debt and through foreign investment. There are many many vehicles you can use to grow your business and we have got to ensure as the Government that we have got capital markets strong enough so that businesses have a range of capital that they can access. We did significant reform in the last Government with the Hon Simon Power doing a lot of work around our capital markets and ensuring that they are a lot stronger. 
The other area that we need as one of our key business growth areas is obviously infrastructure. In Wellington in particular we have just got Transmission Gully out of the starting blocks. It has taken about 30 years but it has just started going through that process now and that will be great for New Zealand and for businesses in Wellington which will be able to get their goods and services up and down and out of Wellington in a much more efficient and effective way. Not only that we have also invested heavily in our rail to ensure that our freight can move around New Zealand much more quickly. Not only that we also have the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. Ultra-fast broadband is very important to New Zealand business to ensure that we stay connected with the world. 
The last area I want to touch on is our exports. Once again we put out a couple of weeks ago a similar progress report on exports and I recommend that you go and pick it up and see what we are doing in this area. We have done significant work on our free-trade agreements and in 2008 one of the most famous free-trade agreements for us has been that one with China which people talk about. Since we have had that free-trade agreement our exports to China have increased by 160 percent. That is fairly significant. The one thing that businesses do say to us is that we need to get channels open to get into these new markets so that we can access them. Free-trade agreements are one vehicle. The other one we are looking at is working with Australia much more closely to use joint channels to open up some of these new sectors these new markets for our businesses to work with Australian businesses as well. 
We have got a strong growth agenda for our businesses and I am sure that over time we will get this brighter future because our exports will be the way that we trade out of this recession that we have gone through and we get the growth that we are looking for. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Back on 24 May I listened to the Prime Minister say this in the Budget debate: “In the end” he said “when you spend more money than you earn it is called Greece and you go broke.” Since then we have had a number of statements in this House by National Government Ministers who have used the example of Greece. They have basically said that if we do not sell the assets we are going to end up like Greece and if we do not follow the National Party’s economic prescription we are going to end up like Greece. 
This got me thinking because I have been wondering in recent months what economic model the Government is following with regard to transport where it has proceeded to spend billions and billions of dollars of New Zealand’s taxes on a series of white elephant motorway projects without providing a shred of evidence that they will promote economic growth. So I went back and did some reading about Greece and the countries of southern Europe that have been so badly affected by the global financial crisis. I found some really interesting information which I want to share with the House. What I learnt about Greece was that in the years leading up to the Greek financial meltdown Greece invested €20 billion on motorways between 1994 and 2004. Greece unleashed the biggest motorway building programme that Europe has ever seen—€20 billion. Unbelievable. What is more—and this is really interesting for the members on the National side of the House in light of the fact that this Government wants to start borrowing to fund the roads of national significance—what is really interesting is that between 1991 and 2005 Greece borrowed €4.7 billion to fund this extraordinary motorway building binge up and down Greece. It is incredible. It is amazing. 
I also found when I began to look into the Greek model of economic development that it had a 10-point plan— 
Dr David Clark 
: Oh a 10-point plan—sounds familiar. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That rings bells. That rings bells. Greece was cutting Public Service jobs it privatised the national railway and it established a superministry. It is becoming very clear. The more we look into the Greek economic model the more— 
Moana Mackey 
: Uncanny. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —it bears an uncanny resemblance to the economic development model that we have seen coming from this National Government. It has all become clear. I bring this information to the House tonight in the interests of illuminating the debate and explaining to New Zealanders that there is in fact method to Steven Joyce Bill English and John Key’s madness. It is not just a random collection of 10-point plans and glossy booklets; there is actually a plan and it is the Greek economic model. We can see it coming through most clearly with regard to this Government’s transport policy. I have to ask whether or not it is any coincidence that the former Minister of Transport Steven Joyce was known in this House as the “Colossus of Roads”. 
Moana Mackey 
: OK now it’s just spooky. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is very spooky. It is deeply unnerving and deeply unsettling. We know that this Government is not following the Finnish model. It has made it very clear that it does not like the Finnish model. It does not believe in it. I have been wondering in recent days whether in fact it has been following the Muldoon model with the roads of national significance because this group of mega-projects costing billions and billions of dollars has been hand-picked by the National Government. It has thrown billions and billions of dollars of taxes behind these projects. The projects have very dubious economic significance and now we find out that this National Government wants to borrow to fund these projects. 
Clare Curran 
: It’s all Greek to me. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well this is very reminiscent of the Think Big projects of the 1980s. The Government wants to saddle future generations of New Zealanders with the costs of these ill-advised hand-picked infrastructure projects. It is absolute madness. But the Government says that no it is not Muldoonist and it is not Think Big. What we can say today based on my extensive research is that it is the Greek economic model that underlies this Government’s transport policy. Borrowing billions and billions of dollars and pouring them into these white elephant motorway projects— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Before I was so rudely interrupted by the dinner break I was explaining to the House that extensive research has revealed that the National Government’s transport policy has in fact been inspired by the Greek economic model. Greece is the gold medal motorway builder of Europe. It has blown tens of billions of euros much of it borrowed on a massive motorway building binge in the decade leading up to its financial meltdown. And its policy bears an uncanny resemblance to the roads of national significance policy. 
Moana Mackey 
: Do they employ Crosby/Textor? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I think the Greeks do employ Crosby/Textor as their contract propagandists. What are the distinguishing features of this Government’s transport policy? Undoubtedly the roads of national significance are the defining feature of this Government’s policy. By the time this Government leaves office at the end of 2014 it will leave our country a legacy of a number of giant concrete white elephant projects that are of very low economic value by the Government’s own figures. Some of these projects these seven roads of national significance were given the green light by the then Minister of Transport Steven Joyce before the most rudimentary economic assessment had been done of their worth as major infrastructure projects. 
The roads of national significance have become a synonym for wasteful spending and out-of-control unaccountable transport spending. Last week it was revealed by Radio New Zealand that this Government has spent in the last couple of years $8 million on public relations consultants— 
Moana Mackey 
: How much? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —$8 million—to try to sell the roads of national significance to an increasingly sceptical public. On top of that it was also recently revealed that $216 million was spent on investigation and design for five of the seven motorway projects. Some of these projects will not be built for years—for decades probably. 
Moana Mackey 
: They can’t pay for our rail line. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Yes that is right. The Government is closing down parts of the railway network. It is cutting spending on new public transport projects. It is flatlining the spending on the maintenance of local roads. Every member in this House particularly the member for Invercargill will know that the neglect of local roads is a major issue that has made provincial New Zealand very angry and very resentful about this Government’s policy. 
If it was not bad enough that the roads of national significance are simply in many cases a waste of money—these projects do not stack up—they have also had the effect of squeezing out most other categories of transport spending such as as I have said local roads. The New Zealand Transport Agency said last week that it is facing a $160 million shortfall for the maintenance of State highways. That is new information that has just come to light. It has a $160 million shortfall for looking after maintaining and renewing our State highways. That is another consequence of this Government’s policy of putting all of the transport eggs into the basket of the roads of national significance. 
At the same time we are seeing KiwiRail being set up to fail. There is an unrealistic KiwiRail Turnaround Plan which bizarrely requires KiwiRail to find $3.8 billion from its own balance sheet to invest in capital expenditure. That is totally unrealistic and that is what is driving a series of almost inexplicable decisions by KiwiRail the most recent of which is laying off 181 track workers. They are the very people who are needed to improve the state of KiwiRail’s network so that KiwiRail can compete with long-haul trucking. The worse the state the tracks are in the slower the trains go and the less KiwiRail can compete. What is this Government doing? It is forcing KiwiRail to lay off 181 workers who maintain the track. It is ridiculous. 
We recently found out that KiwiRail purchased 7000 Peruvian rail sleepers which are rotting on the tracks. That is an example of poor el cheapo procurement policies. Again we lay that at the door of this Government’s unrealistic KiwiRail Turnaround Plan. Following the Greek model has not served this Government’s transport policy well at all. It is unbalanced it is all about roads and it is time for a change. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise for this the third reading of the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. This is a Government that I am very proud to be a part of. It believes that building a more competitive and productive economy is so important it is one of National’s four main priorities this term and a big part of Budget 2012. 
Post-Budget I surveyed my electorate on the North Shore. I asked them about the issues that concern them the most—the local issues and the national issues. I received hundreds of responses the majority of which emphasised the need to get the books back into balance by 2014-15. That is a message that is very clear to the people of the North Shore and to most of us who have electorates. It is something that is totally lost on the Opposition of course. My North Shore constituents were very worried about law and order as well and about benefit reform. They wanted there to be more emphasis on getting people off welfare and into work. 
The majority of the North Shore people whom I surveyed and who responded believe that jobs are vital. It is important to emphasise at this time that we in this Government have created 60000 new jobs and we need to keep to that plan and we need to focus on what is important and on what is planned and sustainable economic growth that will create permanent and worthwhile jobs. One of the best ways to achieve growth is by building a very competitive economy. We understand that very well. It is that competitive economy that allows our businesses to trade successfully with the rest of the world. Our Business Growth Agenda is a key element in building that competitive and productive economy. 
The braying from the Opposition—it is a kind of a little yappy murmur at the moment which will no doubt build up if some of the key players come on in—does highlight its inability and longstanding ignorance to understand exactly what it is that New Zealanders want. They want better and higher-paid jobs. For the benefit of Opposition members—and in the faint hope they just might listen and learn something because they really do need to learn—let us spell it out very very slowly for them. Why is it important to have jobs? Why is it important to have more and better-paid jobs? Jobs give people income to support families instead of the cradle-to-grave mentality that the losers on the other side promote. Jobs also pay taxes to pay for public services. We understand that really well. Of course we need more and higher-paying jobs so that people will choose to live here and choose to stay here. Jobs depend on businesses that are competitive. These are businesses that sell something that people value. 
Of course businesses in turn look at six key things: ideas and innovation and that is an opportunity and we need to create that opportunity; capital to build businesses; resources and that is access to necessary raw materials which are very important for business; skilled people of course to work in those businesses; customers who want to buy the products and that leads to export markets; and of course infrastructure. Businesses depend on electricity broadband and internet. They are all initiatives and all goals that this Government is focusing on. It all makes sense to us because it is common sense. Again it is pretty much unknown and uncharted territory on the other side. If we want more and better jobs for Kiwis we need to encourage more businesses to be based here. That is why the National-led Government is spending a lot of time focused on those six key areas. 
We ask ourselves constantly and we measure it as well whether we are making access to those six key areas any easier. Our Business Growth Agenda will ensure that Ministers and departments are focused on these six very important areas. The finance Minister Bill English and the economic development Minister Steven Joyce are all progressing progress reports on each of the six areas in order to give greater visibility to the Government’s actions and progress. In the past fortnight the Government has released the first two progress reports on our Business Growth Agenda. So we have the  
Building Export Markets 
 progress report and  
Building Innovation 
 hot off the press just released today. 
 I will come to the innovation initiatives in just a moment but I will start with our plan to help build our export markets because it is a particularly important one for my North Shore electorate. At a business breakfast in Takapuna on Friday morning my local exporting companies urged the National Government to keep up the good work. They applauded our commitment to increasing the contribution that exports make to our economy from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. These are targets. They are measurable and we will get through them. 
People on the North Shore exporters who are trying to make a living know that this target is an important part of our plan to build a more competitive and more productive economy. That goal of increasing the ratio of GDP to 40 percent is ambitious and it is difficult. That is probably why the losers on the other side could not even give it a shot because they did not know too much about stuff that is hard and stuff that is ambitious. What is required for that to occur is to have a shift away from producing goods and services for the domestic economy and to move towards our international markets—in particular those fast-growing Asian markets. 
A local Takapuna frozen-fish exporter is a pioneer in the field and has been building markets in China since the late 1980s. Here is Dr Jian Yang coming in to join us. He is somebody who is very very focused on helping this Government achieve the markets that it needs and to develop the markets it needs. The Takapuna exporter whom I am referring to has put in a lot of years of hard graft which is again an unknown to the people who are on the benefit on the other side of the House—that is before they got into Parliament of course. Now they have got a bit of a meal ticket and the older ones just will not let go. They have got no retirement plan of course. 
Our free-trade agreement with China is helping this exporter to actually attract much-needed investment because he wants to expand his business—because guess what? That is good for him and it is good for our economy. 
Another National-led Government agreement we signed on to and joined that makes a huge difference and which was highlighted by my local exporters last Friday was the World Trade Organization Government procurement agreement. This Government procurement agreement means effectively that Kiwi businesses are going to get much better access to an estimated $1.6 trillion worth of overseas Government contracts. It is a lot of money and a big opportunity for us. Under this agreement which is a very worthwhile one—Tim Groser is a very hard-working Minister; he is the kind of guy who gets things done unlike the predecessors on the other side of the fence—countries cannot discriminate against any businesses from another country in their Government procurement processes. It means that our businesses are going to be able to export more products and services to more destinations which is another welcome and very practical development and one that we applaud. 
Frankly the people on the North Shore are much more in touch with the sort of reality that we all live in and as other people who have spoken in this estimates debate have referred to there is a lack of reality on “Planet Labour” and among the other Opposition people. North Shore and Kiwi exporters are helped by other Government initiatives that have been announced as well. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Tourism New Zealand and Education New Zealand those three important agencies are now being encouraged to work with both the public sector and the private sector to develop a New Zealand story. That is going to help our stakeholders. I have heard from my North Shore electorate just how hard it is for smaller exporters as they struggle to get brand recognition. It is difficult for an individual with a product or a service to break into a market like China. Our reputation as a country is an entry point and the New Zealand story is going to help them. 
Building innovation to get higher economic growth and greater prosperity—New Zealand as a whole just has to keep investing in innovation. It is as simple as that. This is a report that gives a very clear picture— 
Kris Faafoi 
: A very long script. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: —of the more than 50 policy initiatives that the Government has under way. The concentration span of the people on the other side of the House is not all that it could be but fortunately you know there are more intelligent people on this side who are paying attention because they know only too well that our aim is clear: to improve innovation to improve competition and to improve the commercialisation of smart ideas into research of new products. One of those targets—and I think this where this Government varies from its predecessors—is that we are almost doubling the amount of money businesses spend on research and development from 0.5 percent of GDP to more than 1 percent. The co-funding tools we are doing are excellent as well. It is a lot of money and we are doing the primary-growth partnership—endless initiatives. I would suggest perhaps we should hand this report over. Perhaps I should table this report so that Opposition members will have something to read that they can learn from. 
What would Labour do? It would put costs on business a capital gains tax on all businesses. Well that is going to be great for growth is it not? It will more than double employer KiwiSaver costs—hello? Irrigation taxes—they will knock the farmers. That is a particular sport of the Opposition of course. A minimum wage increase that would cost thousands of jobs an accelerated emissions trading scheme tax on the farming sector—this is all the sort of stuff that is going to stifle growth and stifle business. The cancellation of the 90-day trial period. It has been an enormously successful initiative— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: 13000. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: —13000 jobs. Thank you Minister. Absolutely. Again all they want to do is rip it down and return us back to the 1970s industrial relations policies because of their union backing. They would wind back National’s ACC changes as well. That would result in higher levies. The losers on the other side of the House will never get it but fortunately this Government does. We have targets and goals and we will work towards them. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Moana Mackey 5 minutes. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 The amazing thing about that speech with all the nasty and frankly unnecessary comments towards members on this side of the House was that Maggie Barry had them written down. Sometimes members come into the House and they say things in the heat of the moment and sometimes you go back and you get an email from people saying: “You know it wasn’t very becoming of our representatives to behave like that.” and you say: “Fair enough.” You know you get wrapped up in the heat of the moment you forget that people are watching and it might not seem appropriate. But she had them written down. She sat in her office and wrote all those nasty vitriolic statements about the Opposition. She wrote them down. That is extraordinary. Apart from the fact we are not meant to read speeches in this House to read a speech out like that and for someone who is in only her first year in Parliament to already be that nasty is frankly very very disappointing. 
One of the comments she made that I found interesting was that she said everyone on this side of the House was on a benefit before they came in to Parliament. That is what Maggie Barry said. Well I was not. I was a scientist before I came into Parliament and I can tell that member that everything that is laid out in that science and innovation plan is not good enough—not good enough. National has gone backwards in terms of assisting science and innovation and then lo and behold we found out over the weekend that now in charter schools we are going to be teaching creationism instead of evolution. How is that pro-science and boosting science? How is that going to enhance the reputation of science in New Zealand? We are now going to be teaching not evolution but creationism in charter schools with unqualified teachers. So I say to that member—with her 10-point plan 60-point action plan summit this summit that pamphlet glossy booklet—how about less hooey more “do-ey” from the National Government? Less hooey more “do-ey” because I am sick and tired of all the action plans and the glossy pamphlets. 
The only jobs that have been created under this National Government have been people who produce pamphlets and glossy little publications that are outlining the Government’s next great big idea for the economy because all the others have failed going right back to the Job Summit. Remember the Job Summit? When the National Government first came in it was going to create thousands and thousands of jobs. It created practically none apart from in the pamphlet-producing sector of the economy which is a very important sector of the economy but there is so much more that the Government could be doing. 
Maggie Barry talked about the importance of getting into China. Let us take that example because I agree. One of our best assets in New Zealand for getting into a lot of these international markets particularly China is our mayors because mayors are very very highly regarded in China. The Mayor of Opotiki has gained enormous access to China. He is working on a project that will create jobs. He has been able to do that because of his status as a mayor when he takes delegations there to forge those relationships and to do it in a way so that local government is not doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to the relationships that we are developing with these important overseas markets. Well we have a bill at the Local Government and Environment Committee at the moment the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill—Maggie Barry is a member of that committee—which seeks to do away in some cases with the roles of provincial mayors. They will no longer be responsible for the economic environmental social and cultural well-being of their communities. The bill will limit their ability to do these things and if it forces amalgamations it will actually take those mayors out of the picture entirely. 
Just about everything Maggie Barry said in that speech is contradicted by what the National Government is actually doing and that is a frustrating thing. It keeps talking about jobs. Well where are the jobs? We have been sitting here for 4 years waiting to see when all these promised jobs are going to eventuate and nothing in Budget 2012 is going to do that. Do you know what the big king-hit economic plan of Budget 2012 was? Taxing kids on their paper routes. Taxing kids on their paper routes was the big surprise economic plan of the National Government in Budget 2012. How mean is that? How mean is that that at the time when you are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders and taking assistance away from those who need it the most you tax kids on their paper routes. And what the National Party said about that was: “You know it’s not that much money anyway. It’s only a few hundred dollars.” Well when you are a child and you are saving and when like most of us on this side of the House did you are saving to go to university and pay the fees all that adds up. It might not be a lot of money to people on that side of the House but we know that for the people we represent in this Parliament it is a lot of money and it was appreciated. Taking that away to pay for unaffordable tax cuts that overwhelmingly went to those who needed it the least is not what a Government’s priority should be in the tough times. 
There was nothing in Budget 2012 that is going to grow the economy. There was nothing that is going to bridge that gap between the jobs that are starting to come out now the jobs that are out there and the people who are unemployed who need the skills to do those jobs. That is where the Government focus should be and the Government dropped the ball in 2012 Budget again. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 We are coming soon to the end of a long journey that began on 24 May and this debate when wound up is going to be something of a vote of confidence in the Budget and in the Government’s agenda. So it is opportune I think to reflect on what we have heard in this House and what the public of New Zealand have been listening to over the last few months and also on the alternatives that have been put by the Opposition parties. I just want to do a bit of a summary of this contest of ideas if you like. The Government has laid out four main pillars to its Budget this year. They are responsibly managing the Government’s finances building a more productive economy better public services and rebuilding Christchurch. I just want to go through them one at a time. 
It is true that when we inherited the Treasury benches the one thing that the Labour Government did leave us was low net debt. That was a good legacy. The other legacies of course were 10 years of deficits an unemployment rate forecast to reach nearly 9 percent and a debt to GDP ratio forecast to get up to nearly 70 percent. There is no one big lever to pull. This is about many many policy initiatives: fiscal policy welfare reform Resource Management Act reform and building infrastructure—roads rail and information and communications technology. So how many of these little levers have Labour supported? None. Labour has said no to absolutely every single growth agenda this Government has had. It would be nice if there was just one—just one—that we could point to and we could at least say: “Well at least it has got the right idea.” But it has said no to further intensification of the agricultural sector no to more mining or oil and gas exploration no to making welfare work for our most vulnerable no to public sector reform—the list goes on. 
So what is Labour good at? Tax and spend—tax and spend. It would put back a punitive top tax rate. It would put a capital gains tax on business. It would double KiwiSaver costs on business. It would put in place irrigation taxes and minimum wage increases cancel the 90-day trial period go back to the 1970s industrial relations framework put in place extra transport charges and wind back the ACC reforms that have just put half a billion dollars back in the pockets of hard-working levy payers in this country. It would cancel the mixed-ownership model. So there is another $5 billion to $7 billion that it would need to find to fund just our promises not its promises which include universal student allowances and investing billions more in public services for no output—none whatsoever. It would go back to the high interest rates that that debt would lead to with no output whatsoever. 
Do you know what? For all of that Labour is still not as bad as the Greens. It is absolutely not as bad as the Greens and at least it is up front about what it would do. But the Greens want to de-intensify farming in this country by 20 percent by smacking all businesses with punitive emissions trading scheme charges and they oppose every single free-trade agreement. Where was Metiria Turei this week? She was in Canada supporting Canadian farmers who are given 300 percent subsidies and opposing our farmers competing on a level playing field with the Canadians. Well I find that just outrageous but it is absolutely consistent with the Greens’ agenda which is anti-business anti - foreign investment and xenophobic. 
I want to go on to that more productive economy and I will start with the Greens. It is really hard in straitened times to find that extra investment to boost the economy through innovation through the Performance-based Research Fund through the new Advanced Training Institute and through the many other initiatives we have to improve science and innovation in this country but we have done it. What did that icon of science in this country—that is the late Sir Paul Callaghan—say about the Greens’ policies? He did not beat around the bush. He thought that the Greens’ policies were quite crazy: “There is absolutely no reason why we can expect to be best in the world at Clean Technology. … It is absurd in particular because we have proven particularly dreadful at developing advanced knowledge-based industries or leading technologies in any of those areas …” What he thought our brilliance was in was the weird stuff the good stuff—the little niche markets that those big economies will not invest in. We are good at agricultural science. We are very good at agricultural science which is why the Government is investing in those things. 
Even Labour in terms of innovation—just today when we issued our progress report on innovation Labour’s David Shearer said: “Where are the bold innovative ideas we desperately need?”. He said there was not one single new idea. Well guess what? The report was not about new ideas. The report was a progress report on the plethora of good ideas that are being focused on now. I would accept that if there was one just one idea from Labour—one new idea that was not a rehashing of that tired old innovation strategy the research and development tax credit. My tax accounting mates would just love that to come back because all it would do is give them incentives to manage accounting—not to manage innovation but to manage accounting. So I am looking for just one idea from Labour. 
I want to move on now to better public services. It is true that it is really tough in straitened times to build more productivity in public services but I am absolutely amazed and grateful for the effort that is being put in by our hospitals our schools our police our prisons and our defence forces—bless them in the tough time that they are having this week—and the productivity gains that are being made. With virtually no new money there are 27000 more elective surgeries a year. Nobody is flying across the Tasman for cancer treatment now and nobody is waiting in the middle of the night on gurneys in emergency department waiting rooms. We have set some challenging targets have we not? We have actually said that we are going to set goals for those public services and we are going to stand or fall by them and I think that is very very bold. There has not been not a Government in this country that has done that much. 
Lastly there is rebuilding Canterbury. I think everybody across this House will accept that that is one of the single largest challenges the Government and this country face and will do over many decades. It is encouraging to know that all parties support those efforts although I would note that the Greens want to tax some more. After Earthquake Commission levies have gone up and the probably $15 billion that by the end of this will have been funded by the Government through the taxpayer what do the Greens want to do? Hit the taxpayer again. So I wish those people in Canterbury all the best for that rebuild. 
In summary this is a contest of ideas. It is a contest of ideas in this Budget put up by a Government with prudent fiscal policy and spending restraint led by an outstanding leadership team—not just the Prime Minister—and a disciplined caucus and as senior whip I can speak from experience on that. Contrast that with a Labour Opposition pseudo-led by three Davids and a Goliath that is racked by infighting with no policies and no ideas—an angry angry Opposition—and the Green Party which is the worst anti-business anti - foreign investment party in this Parliament bar none. Well I know who the public have confidence in because they put them on the Treasury benches in 2008 and returned them there in 2011. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Paula Bennett you have just over 6 minutes. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Mr Speaker 6 minutes is long enough to actually extol the virtues of this Budget of the future of this country and just where it is heading under this Government. This is a good pragmatic responsible Budget which is taking us forward in I think some still quite difficult times. 
I want to stand up first of all though and congratulate Bill English and say thank you to him on behalf of all those teenagers who are out there and who are struggling for the $148 million extra that you put into this Budget on behalf of this country for those young people who actually need it the most. And they do need it. At the moment we have young people who are floundering who are lost in this country. This Government has actually decided that it is going to stand up for them and put the kind of support around them that they actually need. In this Budget alone we saw $80 million going into extra childcare and support for those most vulnerable mums and dads in this country—teen parents. 
Hon Member 
: Labour don’t like that. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No no that is right. Labour members did not vote for that. They did not vote for an extra $80 million in childcare going to teen parents so that they have got options and opportunities to get an education and to get the kind of training that they need. 
You know we have the debate too often in this House about how we are dividing up that pie of money instead of how we are growing it. This Budget is about growing it. It is about giving businesses the opportunities so that they can take on those young people and have those kinds of jobs. We hear often in this House “Where are the jobs?” and “Where is it happening?”. Well let us tell that to the 88000 beneficiaries who went off welfare last year and into work—88000 beneficiaries went off welfare and into work. Those are not the ones who went off welfare to go on to superannuation not the ones who went off it to go into a relationship and no not those few who went off it to go overseas—those 88000 beneficiaries went off welfare to go into work. Let us include because some of these will be included those who got job opportunities because of the 90-day trial period policy that this Government put in place. So those are the kinds of developments and kinds of opportunities that actually meant more for those very people who needed it more. 
Actually benefits at the moment are 4000 below forecast. We have 4000 fewer people on welfare than has been forecast. In fact that has been the way the whole way through. I see actually the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove was here at one stage saying there would be 24000 more people on benefits in the Christchurch area—24000 more on benefits. Well actually in total it went up by about 500 and of course now it is 46 percent less than it was a year ago for young people and 39 percent fewer on benefits in Christchurch alone overall for the unemployment benefit. 
Let us not forget though that these members opposite are the members who will not vote for welfare reform and will not vote for a future for those young people and for those on benefits. They would rather have them sit there lost of hope lost of opportunity not having the chances to actually move forward. It was quite an extraordinary week last week and I am sure colleagues will agree when we actually heard the Labour Party and their friends standing up and saying we should not drug test those who are on the unemployment benefit and they should not be made to take opportunities to get into jobs. It is—[ 
Interruption 
] No no—we saw we heard. We heard Helen Kelly on  
Close Up 
 I think it was where she did sort of try to sell the virtues of people being able to sit on benefits for long periods of time not actually having obligations to be drug-free and in a position where they can take jobs. 
Andrew Little 
: No she didn’t. The Minister’s making it up. What a disgraceful Minister. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well actually it is true. So we were kind of thrilled—kind of thrilled. It was quite helpful seeing her there but it was also quite—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do not think we should forget though how much this Budget actually did help those most vulnerable. We have seen 96 more front-line workers for Child Youth and Family. We have seen more than 149 social workers put into schools to support those children and their families who need it most. 
I do not think we can go past a programme and initiative as big as the Prime Minister’s mental health initiatives. They cross over from education to social development to health. The depth of them quite frankly is kind of staggering and has certainly increased my workload dramatically—and I am sure that many fellow Ministers would agree—but for all of the right reasons. Let us not go past health care which is actually there for those vulnerable people who need it most. This is a chance to talk about our under-sixes who are getting 24/7 health care now under this Government—under the Budget—which is stepping up. 
But none of those changes makes a bigger difference than a job does. What the Opposition does not get and what this side does is that it is businesses that will employ the people who need the jobs. It is businesses that create jobs. No job will be given to any person in Waitakere tomorrow unless an employer says they can take someone on and for them to do that they need the confidence of a stable and responsible Government that is going forward for them. No job will happen for anyone in this country unless a business stands up or a person has the right kind of backing with the skills and initiatives to stand up and take the courage to move forward themselves. Past Governments can wring hands but this is about action that makes a real difference for them. We see those jobs being created in the worst of times and in some of our hardest times. We will see them go forward. We will see people moving forward and getting the kinds of opportunities that they want. 
Sue Moroney 
: Go to Australia. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well those 88000 people who went off benefits last year and into jobs did not go to Australia. I am sure that we could do a whip around now and get a ticket for that member if she would like one because that we would see I am sure as an investment. There is not an electorate in the country that would miss her and actually there are not many others who would as well which is the truth of it. 
The reality is that these are times when we need to be looking at the future. It is something to stand up here and talk about the future for our kids but we need to think about the future for those who are in it and those who need it now and that means actually getting back into surplus. It means being responsible about what we are spending and whom we are spending it on. I am proud that we have looked after the most vulnerable. This has always been a National Government that would do that. We need to actually have more of it. We need to see this country move forward. This is a Budget that I am really proud to support on behalf of this Parliament. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The time for this debate has expired. I shall put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. Party vote? The Clerk—[ 
Interruption 
] It is timely to remind the House that party votes will be taken in silence. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill read a third time and Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill read a second time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2012/13) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 16 August. 
Part 1A Duties and restrictions ( 
continued 
)  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 We are returning to Part 1A of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. When we left this during our last exciting instalment we were looking particularly on this side of the Chamber at some elements of the Minister for the Environment’s substantial Supplementary Order Paper 100. In particular some questions had been asked of the Minister around both the impact of new clause 17A and also the meaning of the replaced clause 17(3). 
On the latter the Minister I think the last time we were debating this was acknowledging that there was no intent to create a situation of a continuous loop of an application where an application if it were incomplete would be returned and the person would then be able to put in a new application and that would then start the process again. The concern we had is that we did not think clause 42 of the bill which is covered by new clause 17(3) was sufficiently clear to allow people to be able to understand the way in which the process would work for incomplete applications. So I think the Minister at that time was going to go and get some advice on whether or not a further Supplementary Order Paper was required to give that clarity about what happens with an incomplete application. 
Clause 42 of the bill talks about the Environmental Protection Authority returning an incomplete application if it decides that it “does not include an impact assessment that complies with section 40” and says that “The EPA must return an incomplete application and give the applicant a written explanation for its finding that the application is incomplete within 10 working days after the application is received by the EPA.” Under new clause 17(3) that incomplete application then becomes a new application if it is resubmitted. So we were seeking some clarity from the Minister around whether or not there need to be further changes made to ensure that there is an understanding that this is not a process that could simply go on and on ad infinitum with incomplete applications being returned and new applications being put in. We would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on new clause 17(3). 
The other matter is around new clause 17A which essentially says that planned petroleum activities can commence and continue under this law. My colleague Moana Mackey raised a concern about the Petrobras application off the East Coast of New Zealand where it has had approval for seismic activity. Would this clause mean that it could move to drilling without having to go through under the new rules? We have not yet had a response from the Minister to indicate whether or not that is in fact the impact of new clause 17A. Obviously it is a concern for us. We are not talking just about existing activities here; this is about planned activities. We on this side of the Chamber want to ensure that we understand what this clause means. It would provide to us significant concern if indeed a planned activity meant in the case of Petrobras that just because it got the approval around seismic work it has a continuing approval for drilling rather than it having to go back to the new processes that are established under this bill. 
They are the two concerns that we have got around Part 1A. I hope the Minister is going to be able to respond to us and to indicate whether or not she is looking at some amendment to clause 17(3) and to clarify the meaning of clause 17A because a planned activity is quite a different thing from an existing activity. Certainly people on the East Coast of New Zealand have had significant concerns about what Petrobras has been doing. They would be very alarmed to learn that just because it had approval for seismic surveys and seismic testing it would then be able under this clause to go on and move to drilling. That kind of loophole is something that we on this side of the Chamber are very concerned to make sure we are not putting in. 
We expressed our concern at having this Supplementary Order Paper put forward at short notice. Hopefully the Minister has had time in the interim period to answer some of our questions. I look forward to the Minister taking a call and answering those two questions. 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 1A. It is quite a short part of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and so I am more than happy to address Opposition members’ genuine queries in the expectation that we should be able to move through this part with some ease. The issue that Mr Robertson has raised around clause 17 and my proposed new clause 17(3) we did touch on last time the bill was in Committee and I gave Mr Robertson at that stage the assurance that there was not a cyclical process created. It seems that he just wants confirmation of that with the benefit of some reflection and I can assure Opposition members that I went away and double-checked that point. I went back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and checked with the drafting and it has come back and absolutely and categorically made it very clear that it is as I indicated to the member the last time and there is no possibility of a continual loop which he was concerned about. So that addresses the first point. 
The second point I think can be addressed equally quickly and that is the concern that Ms Mackey raised around a particular application—and obviously I do not want to start discussing particular applications. I think the point the member is referring to really relates to Part 4 of the bill which talks about transitional activities right now so I would rather we had that discussion then. The clauses 17 and 17A relate to the situation once this regime is in place and we have a set of regulations. If in the future those regulations are changed and people have started an activity whether it be planned in terms of committing to rigs and drilling programmes and the like with one set of regulations and at some point a future Parliament promulgates new regulations that covers how the transition works between those two. So I do not think it is probably quite the concern members were expecting. 
Moana Mackey 
: It might be the same issue though. 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: Well it could be but of course that is something the Parliament of the day can take into account when it promulgates those regulations—the point being that people are entitled to proceed on the basis of the law as it stands. They work on that basis and if there is a change we need to have some mechanism for making sure that that is seemly. So that is the intention of this part of the bill. No doubt we will have more discussion on the original transitional provisions as we move into this regime when we get to Part 4. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of Gareth Hughes to clause 15 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1A as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Part 1A as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Requirements and consents 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I have a number of amendments in my name on Supplementary Order Paper 103 and also on another Supplementary Order Paper that I do not have the number of at the moment amending Part 2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill which is the processes around the requirements and the issuing of marine consents under the legislation. 
The first clause that I have an amendment to in my name is clause 27. This is around the regulations prescribing standards methods or requirements. As I mentioned in my speeches on earlier parts of the bill an awful lot in this piece of legislation is being left to regulation. It was very disappointing. During the select committee process we would have really liked to have the regulations alongside the legislation because it was hard to really know what the impact of the legislation was going to be how effective it was going to be when in fact the guts of it was in regulation that was still being developed by officials. The particularly disappointing thing was that we could have held off on reporting back on this bill but we were told that the regulations were a way off and then basically the minute we reported it back the regulations were suddenly released for public consultation. It was literally that quick. That was disappointing because for a few more weeks we could have sat down and gone through the regulations and given a far more considered report back to the House. But c’est la vie. That is what happens and here we are debating this part of the bill. 
My concern and the reason I put up this amendment to clause 27 is that there really is not a strong decision-making methodology in the bill. There are some things that have to be considered but really the process of applying for a marine consent being issued a marine consent and the appeals around that are actually very very unclear. My fear is that this is going to result in an awful lot of uncertainty. There are some obligations on the Environmental Protection Authority as to what it needs to take into account and there have been some information principles put in but I really do not feel that they are strong enough in order to really guide the authority through the process to allow applicants both those from industry who are applying and those who are submitting on those applications to really know what the process is meant to be so that they can challenge it if they think that it has not been adequate. We had a very good submission on this from Simon Terry of the Sustainability Council who really raised it as a major concern and said it was a similar concern with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act when that went through Parliament as well. The way they plugged that gap was to allow for regulation-making abilities in the legislation. 
When you read clause 27 it is possible that in fact it could fall within the ambit of this piece of legislation to provide for the regulations to provide the decision-making methodology. But it is not clear and in fact the advice that has come back from officials is that no it is not the intention of the legislation to allow for decision-making methodology to be provided in regulation. The officials consider it may actually be ultra vires of the legislation and so I have an amendment in my name to clause 27 to add in decision-making methodology to the list of things that can be done by regulation either by this Government if it decides it wants to actually provide more certainty and provide a clearer process and a more transparent process that guides the Environmental Protection Authority far more strongly than the bill currently does or by a future Government that intends to clarify this. 
There really is nothing in this bill to give guidance to the Environmental Protection Authority on how it is meant to weigh up the various factors. There are an awful lot of things it needs to consider but I think as the Green member Eugenie Sage said in an earlier speech there is no guidance as to what takes precedence over things. There is no priority given to the various things that the Environmental Protection Authority is required to consider. We think this is a very very big gap in the legislation. It is a gap that could be easily fixed. If we are unable to get support from the Government to allow this to proceed then we may look to writing to the Regulations Review Committee to ask it whether it could consider the matter of whether or not this kind of power would fill the gap as indeed it did with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The last thing we want and one of our big concerns about this legislation—and we have said this the whole way through—is for it to be a field day for lawyers an absolute field day for lawyers which is perhaps why the law firm for the oil and gas industry was so effusive in its support for this piece of legislation when it came to the Local Government and Environment Committee. And why would it not be? 
I have a number of other amendments and I want to go to the main ones first. If I get time in this speech I will come back to the others. One of our really big concerns is the creation of all these new legal tests in this legislation. It is undefined legal language. We had 20 years of Resource Management Act case law that we could call on to provide us with those legal terms that we could use in this legislation so that everyone knows exactly what that means. This is not about extending the Resource Management Act out into the exclusive economic zone. It is not about saying the Resource Management Act now applies beyond 12 miles. It is just about saying that through 20 years of Resource Management Act case law there are some pretty well-understood terms. Internationally there are some well-understood terms. It would make sense given that these two schemes are going to operate side by side the Resource Management Act and the exclusive economic zone legislation. The line that lies between them is jurisdictional only. It is there only because within 12 miles it is our territorial waters and beyond that it is not our sovereign territory. We are able to exploit the resources there only because we are a signatory to an international convention. So why would you have two regimes regulating exactly the same thing side by side with completely different processes and completely different legal tests? It does not make any sense unless you want the exclusive economic zone regulation to be more permissive—or tougher but in this case it is more permissive. So it is only if you actually want the test to be different that you would not use the same legal tests that exist under the Resource Management Act. 
One of the ones that we have here in clause 33A “Information principles” is “favour caution”. “Favour caution” is not found anywhere else in New Zealand; it is not understood what that means. Industry and environmental advocates are going to fight it out in the courts. That is going to be the only way we actually determine what “favour caution” means. How does that provide any certainty? I have an amendment in my name to replace “favour caution” with “a precautionary approach”. “A precautionary approach” is well understood. People know what it means. They know where the goalposts are. The oil and gas industry in Taranaki has been able to operate under the Resource Management Act and it has not been completely stymied by the legal tests there. The Taranaki Regional Council when it came and submitted at the select committee said it would prefer more consistency with the Resource Management Act because it is used to dealing with it and it understands it. Now it is going to have to come to grips with a whole new set of rules a whole lot of appeals and a whole lot of concerns as people grapple it out and try to fight as to what this “favour caution” means. 
As I said ultimately it will be the courts that decide what “favour caution” means. It may go against the Government’s wishes. It may end up being tougher than the Resource Management Act but I doubt it because all the indications given from the Government so far on this piece of legislation have been that it wants to do more of this so I think the inference could be taken that it was intended to be more permissive on balance rather than tougher. But on this side of the Chamber in the Labour Party we wonder why you would not use well-known legal tests to save people the lawyers’ bills and to save people the uncertainty. The answer is that the only reason you would not is that you do not want the tests to be the same. That is the only reason. 
If you remember this is a jurisdictional line. It is not about resource allocation. It is not about the environment. It is not about science. It is not about any of those things. It is just about where our territorial waters end. That is why the line is drawn there. So why do we have a completely different test? There may be some projects that actually operate across that line so they have to go through both processes—the Resource Management Act on this side and the exclusive economic zone processes on the other side. They are facing completely different legal tests for exactly the same activity. Well that is just nuts. That is just nuts. It is not clear. It is going to create enormous uncertainty. We really hope that the Government takes that on board and goes with language that is well known. 
I also have an amendment on the adaptive management approach which I will probably leave for my next call because I think that will perhaps take too long. 
One of the other areas that I have proposed changes to is around when regulations are going to be changed and who gets to be notified who gets to be told. I have proposed some amendments to make sure that when regional councils iwi and stakeholders are being engaged in this they are being given all the information possible. At the moment the Minister is required to provide basically just a summary of what is about to happen. Well we think they should be given the full text of what is about to happen. They can be given a summary too if that is what the officials want to do but they need to see exactly what is about to happen. As we see with this Supplementary Order Paper the devil really is in the detail. Then there is an out clause for the Minister to not have to go through that process of consultation if the changes are only minor or technical. I have an amendment in my name to add in clause 32(3) “that have no potential to increase an adverse effect on the environment or an adverse effect on persons with an existing interest”. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am standing to support Part 2 of this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Part 2 as we have heard covers the making of regulations and the processes around marine consents hearings and decision making. We received a number of submissions on these issues and we did make some minor amendments to the bill. The Minister for the Environment has also made further changes in her Supplementary Order Paper 100. 
The regulation-making powers in this part are modelled on section 43 of the Resource Management Act. The Local Government and Environment Committee believes that it sets out clear limits for the use of regulations. The Regulations Review Committee has reviewed the legislation has ticked it off across its lists of what regulations should be and has signed it off. We are familiar through the Resource Management Act with the three classifications. They are of course permitted activities discretionary activities and prohibited activities—the default in this case being “discretionary” unless permitted by a marine consent or by a specified exemption. Because of the lack of information about the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and the nature of the emerging technologies that may be used to look at resources in that area this bill seeks to favour caution and environmental protection. 
There were several submissions concerning consultation requirements around the making of regulations because some people considered that the terms were too narrow. However the consultation requirements on regulations are flexible and they are flexible for a purpose. They are flexible so that the Minister can tailor the consultation to suit the significance of the proposed regulations. For example consultation on the first sets of regulations may be much more robust and more comprehensive than perhaps on some more minor regulatory changes later on. At a minimum the Minister must notify and allow the opportunity for comment from the public iwi authorities and persons with existing interests who are likely to be affected by the regulations. The select committee subsequently made amendments to add the requirement for regional councils to be directly notified because of course regional councils are responsible for the 12-mile zone in their coastal plans. As I said before this bill is predicated on caution because of the size of the exclusive economic zone the unknown qualities of our waters and the new and emerging technologies that may be used to access the resources. 
In making the regulations the Minister must take into account a very comprehensive list of requirements. The Minister must take into account effects on the environment effects on existing interests cumulative effects and effects that may occur in New Zealand—the land of New Zealand—or even in the waters beyond the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. The Minister must also take into account effects on human health and the importance of protecting biological diversity and the integrity of marine species and ecosystems. Also he or she must be aware of the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species. Of course we must take into account New Zealand’s international obligations and look at the economic benefit to New Zealand of an activity and the efficient use and development of natural resources. The Minister must also consider the nature and effect of other marine management regimes best practice in relation to the industry involved or the activity involved and in relation to whether that activity is permitted or discretionary the desirability of allowing the public to be heard in relation to the activity or type of activity. And finally—a catch-all—the Minister must take into account any other relevant matter. So you can see that it is a very comprehensive list and this is the list that will inform good regulation. 
Part 2 also covers the processes around marine consents. The select committee looked at these consents and added the requirement that the Minister must have regard to public interest when being heard in relation to marine consent applications and for any marine consent hearings we also added the ability to allow the questioning of a party or witness by the leave of the Environmental Protection Authority. Part 2 also provides rules around the timing and notices required for hearings and the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper tightens that up further by providing a time limit for a hearing to be completed and that is 40 working days. Of course there is a significant amount of work to be done to develop these regulations under this legislation but we believe that Part 2 provides a robust and sensible framework for this work to begin. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Grant Robertson. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Oh thank you very much Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I thought we were going to have a different outcome then. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well we are in your hands Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You have the call. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Thank you very much for the call. I am sure my very good colleague will speak soon on this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I wanted to pick up a couple of the matters that Moana Mackey raised—in particular her amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 103 to clause 33A. What this particular part of the bill is about—what it should be about anyway—is both what is certainty and what to do in a situation of uncertainty. This is the bit of the bill that during the submission process and in terms of the comment that has been made around the bill both those who make it their life’s work to protect the marine environment and those who seek to undertake economic activity in the marine environment need certainty and want certainty and I am not convinced that it is provided by this particular clause. 
Clause 33A “Information principles” tells us in subclause (2) that “If in relation to the making of a decision under this Act the information available is uncertain or inadequate the Minister must favour caution and environmental protection.” As my colleague Moana Mackey has said the phrase “favour caution” does not have legal precedent or meaning in a New Zealand context. And as Moana Mackey said the question has to be asked as to what is intended by using a phrase that does not have any previous usage and does not have previous precedent. What is the point in using it? If the point is to create a precautionary approach as it is understood in law then surely the Government would use the words “precautionary approach”. It is the logical thing to do. It is an understood term. It has been talked about in international environmental law since the early 1980s. It has been present in terms of New Zealand’s role. New Zealand signed up to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development at the Earth Summit in 1992 which had the precautionary approach. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Nick Smith was there. He was chanting “precautionary approach” over and over again throughout that debate such was his enthusiasm then for the concept. But now today here in this exclusive economic zone legislation new language appears with the notion of favouring caution. It is clearly a deliberate approach by the Government to put in a different piece of wording and the only conclusion that can be drawn from that from this side of the Chamber—I happy to be proved otherwise—is that the Government is seeking to create a more permissive regime in the exclusive economic zone. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well the member Dr Smith might want to take a call and explain the logic behind using a term like “favour caution” which has no meaning and no status within current New Zealand law rather than the term “precautionary approach”. If the reason is not that they want a more permissive approach I would be very interested to hear from the member why that is there. But more to the point the way in which the Government it appears is trying to manage this new term “favour caution” comes in the concept of “adaptive management”. If we go down to clause 33A(3) it says: “If favouring caution and environmental protection means that an activity is likely to be prohibited the Minister must first consider whether providing for an adaptive management approach would allow the activity to be classified as discretionary.” 
So the whole notion of what it is to favour caution and what happens if there is some conflict around a piece of development and how it might occur falls back to these adaptive management principles. We on this side of the Chamber have considerable concerns about the definition of “adaptive management” that appears in this bill. The problem with adaptive management drilling at the depths that will be drilled at in the high seas going into uncharted territory—both literally and figuratively—is that we have a great concern that the concept of “adaptive management” will not be able to be implemented in the way it is meant here because of the absence in their definition of the notion of irreversible effects. 
Moana Mackay in her Supplementary Order Paper 103 has new clause 62A which would actually define the adaptive management approach in such a way that the most important bit of it is subclause (2)(c) which says that an adaptive management approach “does not include allowing an activity to commence if its effects are likely to be serious or irreversible.” I would have thought that that was the kind of sensible amendment that the National Government would want to agree to because it is about providing certainty for everyone involved in this scenario. It is about certainty for those who wish to undertake economic activity and certainty for those who want—[ 
Bell rung 
]—Mr Chair very briefly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Grant Robertson. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Very briefly Mr Chair. I will not take my full call now that I have bargained for it. But I am sure the Chair would like to hear more from me on this topic having given me a full 5-minute call on this matter. 
The most important element of this is making clear that if the adaptive management approach were to include allowing for activity whose effects are likely to be serious or irreversible it is clearly not adaptive management. The point here is that the idea of adaptive management is that you can change the way in which an activity is being undertaken to meet whatever concerns are being raised. In these kinds of activities it is quite clear that a severe risk is run that those who will be undertaking the activity will be potentially involved in activities that may be serious or irreversible. It just seems ridiculous to have a notion of adaptive management in these areas that does not take that into account. So I hope that the Government will take on board this concern and also perhaps answer to us the reasoning behind the removal of the precautionary approach for the “favour caution”. I note that Dr Smith appears to be about to defend this; I await that with interest. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want to congratulate the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment on Supplementary Order Paper 100 and the work that she has done to knock this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill into really good shape. I think this is going to be one of the really good bits of environmental legislation that is advanced by this Government. The first question that I would love to have answered by members of the Opposition is where their party was when it did 46 drills during their last period in Government without any exclusive economic zone legislation. For 9 years they sang “Drill baby drill!” without any legislative framework at all. They had 9— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This has been a very good debate so far around the detailed matters contained in the bill. I just urge the member to actually talk to the bill rather than make a political speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: He has not been going for a minute yet and I am sure he will come back to the content of the bill. I will listen very carefully. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I totally understand why Labour is really defensive about this. The truth is that it had 9 years in Government and we have got this gaping hole in our environmental statute in that an area 20 times New Zealand’s land area does not have a proper environmental statute. We campaigned on filling that gap and we are delivering on that promise. I am proud of that and proud of the contribution that we make. It really is a tribute to how pedantic Mr Robertson has become when the fault with this bill— 
Grant Robertson 
: Come on talk to the bill! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me explain. The great difficulty with this bill is rather than talking about the precautionary principle it says that “the Minister must favour caution and environmental protection.” So the great big contribution to environmental protection in New Zealand is an argument over whether the words “must favour caution and environmental protection” are as good as putting into the law the precautionary principle. 
I can understand why our friends in New Zealand First have said they are not going to have a bar of this silly game that Labour is playing dancing on the head of a pin. They know this is good law just as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has come out and said that this is good law. Mr Robertson asks why it is that in terms of this bill we are not using the very specific language that was in the international negotiations at Rio. The simple reason Mr Robertson—and this will be news for you—is that the legal uncertainty over the precautionary principle if we look at principle decisions— 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh come on! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Look you asked the question and when I give you the answer you will not hear us out. If you actually look through court decisions on those that have chosen to put that precautionary principle it creates huge uncertainty. I actually commend the Minister. The language that we have in this bill could not be more plain—could not be more plain—than simply saying that the Minister must favour caution and environmental protection where there is uncertainty. How could it be more clear than that? 
The part I most enjoy in this debate is this point: members opposite have consistently argued that they do not want balance that they do not want to have a piece of legislation that is carefully balancing New Zealand’s economic opportunities in the huge exclusive economic zone with the need for environmental protection. Well I have to say Mr Robertson that I look forward to going to the electors in 2014—and probably 2017 and 2020—and saying that we on this side of the Chamber are balanced and members of the Opposition are not balanced because they are not. They are not balanced. They have consistently argued and when it comes to this issue they have a simplistic view that underrates the economic opportunities that there are for New Zealand within the exclusive economic zone. 
I simply want to support particularly this part. I want to commend the Minister for the great job that she has done. My advice to the Opposition’s environment spokesperson is that he is going to have to do a damned sight better than pedantic arguments over the words “showing caution” or the “precautionary principle” if he really is going to put up a credible argument that this is not damned good law that Parliament should get on and support. I am actually very disappointed that on such a key area of public policy filling a gap in New Zealand’s environmental laws that Labour left for 9 years— 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I think the previous speech by Nick Smith as always sought to twist slightly how the law operates. That is partly because of this whole concept of adaptive management which I will get on to in a minute. I think the number of Supplementary Order Papers that are before the Committee on Part 2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill reflect unfinished business in the Local Government and Environment Committee and a number of concerns that Opposition parties raised there that have not been resolved. But before going on to those I would like to record the Green Party’s thanks to officials. There was a lot of debate in the select committee and a lot of interchange with officials and they dealt with that very professionally and have put a huge amount of work into the bill. 
In terms of the Supplementary Order Papers that the Green Party is proposing one of them in my name Supplementary Order Paper 90 is around this whole issue of adaptive management. The concept of adaptive management is one of “suck it and see”. The previous speaker has referred to caution and the cautionary approach. Like Labour—and we support Moana Mackey’s Supplementary Order Paper 103—we say that “caution” is a very new term in the legislation. It contributes to legal uncertainty and to opportunities for more litigation by using that term rather than the more commonly understood “precautionary approach”. But if this cautious approach means that an activity is likely to be prohibited through regulations or a marine consent application is likely to be refused by the Environmental Protection Authority then the Minister for the Environment or the Environmental Protection Authority must consider whether using the adaptive management approach would allow the activity to proceed. That means that it proceeds at a certain scale and there is monitoring done to determine whether it can continue and be expanded. 
In our view both clauses 33A and 60A create quite major obstacles to the Minister prohibiting damaging activities and to the Environmental Protection Authority declining consent to them. As submitters such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society noted it turns the precautionary approach on its head because it fails to recognise that there are situations where a “suck it and see” approach through adaptive management is not appropriate. That is where there is a risk of causing irreversible environmental harm.  
Supplementary Order Paper 90 in my name redefines adaptive management to exclude an activity that risks causing irreversible harm such as affecting the population of a threatened species or destroying a biodiversity hot spot like a seamount. It would omit this requirement in clause 33A(3) that before prohibiting an activity the decision maker first has to consider adaptive management. The Green Party is concerned about the changes that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 would make to the definition of “adaptive management” because that further expands the scope for using it.  
When we were considering Part 1 of the bill and when we passed that relevant part of Supplementary Order Paper 100 we effectively omitted the bill’s definition of “adaptive management” from the interpretation clause which would have clearly allowed a marine consent to be revoked and the activity discontinued. Omitting that and then relying on clause 62A for the definition of “adaptive management” means that there is no clear ability for the Environmental Protection Authority to revoke a marine consent to ensure that an activity is discontinued if it is found to have greater impacts than the Environmental Protection Authority expected. The experience under the Resource Management Act is that when you review consent conditions you cannot cancel a consent. So the former interpretation and definition of “adaptive management” was quite critical to allowing the Environmental Protection Authority to revoke a consent. My concern is that that is now gone.  
I think that is quite typical of the permissive approach to the Government’s oceans management through the exclusive economic zone regulations which as Moana Mackey mentioned came out after we had reported back from the select committee. That permissive approach is illustrated in the fact that seismic surveying is permitted under the regulations. That is despite there being the potential for quite significant impacts on marine mammals and fish because where you get these seismic surveys occurring you get these big high-pressure airguns being towed behind a survey vessel. They produce pulses of high-energy sound which is directed at the seabed but it can spread horizontally for hundreds of kilometres. That can have an effect on marine mammals that is quite disturbing. For them it can be the equivalent to us having a 747 jet engine taking off nearby. So we have a concern around adaptive management.  
One of the other issues of concern is that in clause 33(3)(e) as Nicky Wagner pointed out one of the list of matters that the Environmental Protection Authority must consider when making regulations is “the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species”. Yet when the Minister is making regulations and also in the parallel provision for the Environmental Protection Authority in clause 59(3)(e) they can consider an impact on a threatened species and their habitat only if the Minister of Conservation has previously gazetted a species as threatened. Only two species have been gazetted by the Minister of Conservation as threatened species: the New Zealand sea lion and the Hector’s dolphin. Our Supplementary Order Paper sought to change that so that there was a reference to the New Zealand Threat Classification System lists and the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species. We did not want the political process set out by the bill that the Minister of Conservation must gazette a threatened species as threatened for it to be given status under clause 33. That remains a concern.  
We are also concerned about the failure in Part 2 of the bill to have any provision for spatial planning in the marine environment because the Government has tendered more than 40000 square kilometres of offshore seabed for oil and gas exploration yet we do not have any provision for deep-water marine reserves and no legislation to do that. There is no regime for creating these deep-water marine reserves to balance the exploration that is occurring. That is why Gareth Hughes’ Supplementary Order Paper 102 is important because it makes amendments that would provide for marine reserves in areas such as the Kermadec Islands to be extended offshore. Some of the protection initiatives that we have at the moment such as the benthic protection areas are totally ineffectual. We are already seeing applications for prospecting for phosphate in those areas and there is no constraint on that.  
We have got a number of changes in our Supplementary Order Papers. We support Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper 103 seeking to replace “caution” with “a precautionary approach” and we have major concerns about adaptive management.  
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 in the Committee stage of this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Just at the outset I would like to respond to Dr Nick Smith’s comments that the bill is actually good law and that it has been substantially knocked into shape by the Minister for the Environment. I would like to just say that in terms of Maori and Treaty relationships this bill falls well short of measuring up in terms of the protection of Maori interests. But firstly I would like to also just stand in support of the two Supplementary Order Papers from my colleague Moana Mackey Supplementary Order Paper 103 and Supplementary Order Paper 106. 
But getting back to the issues in terms of Maori rights I am picking up on the Maori advisory committee. The Maori advisory committee is a positive step in terms of its relationship with the Environmental Protection Authority and it would have been good to see the role of the Maori advisory committee strengthened. The Maori advisory committee has a power only to advise. There is no power to bind nor is there an onus on the Environmental Protection Authority to even show that it has taken on board any of the recommendations or advice from the Maori advisory committee nor is it obliged to take anything into serious consideration. This is not good enough and it does relegate Maori interests as secondary under the consenting process that is outlined in Part 2. 
The advisory committee yes has a power to advise but again it is only “may”. Its power to advise is optional; it is not mandatory. The Environmental Protection Authority may choose to receive the advice of the Maori advisory committee but it does not have to. So that is not good enough and we do not want a situation where the advisory committee or Maori interests are merely just a box that is to be ticked in the consenting process. Consultation with Maori must extend beyond the Maori advisory committee and include iwi and hapu as views do differ from region to region. I refer to the submission from my own iwi down in Ngai Tahu where they had very strong views as to their role as kaitiaki in terms of the exclusive economic zone because equivalent to 50 percent of the exclusive economic zone falls within the Ngai Tahu takiwa. 
The next area where this bill falls short in Part 2 in relation to tangata whenua interests is around the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was disappointing that the Supplementary Order Paper that we put up on Part 1 to broaden the recognition or adherence of the general obligation of the Treaty between the Crown and iwi was not adopted. But the bill does need to be strengthened to give better effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As I mentioned there is no general obligation on the Crown to give effect to those principles and there are only references to specific clauses in terms of activities through the consenting process but there is no general obligation that is an obligation on the Crown. Just as an example if we go through Part 2 clauses 32 33 and 46 do not give proper effect to the principles of the Treaty as the provisions are largely toothless and do not impose any concrete obligations. It is merely a notification-type obligation by the Minister or by the Environmental Protection Authority. The bill does not recognise the special relationship Maori do have with their taonga which in this case is the marine environment and this is a clear breach of Treaty principles. 
There is long-established Waitangi Tribunal jurisprudence and the like on these Treaty principles and that means that there is a duty to give effect to the relationship of iwi or Maori with their taonga. How can the bill claim to give effect to the principles of the Treaty when the bill breaches the most important principle the principle of partnership and when a key aspect of that partnership is the relationship with taonga and it is omitted from the bill? The principles of the Treaty are not given concrete enough effect and this may expose the Crown to legal action in terms of failure to adhere to its Treaty obligations. The bill does not actively protect interests of active protection. They are not given full effect. Instead these duties are delegated down to bodies such as the Environmental Protection Authority and other lesser bodies. 
Recognising the special relationship that Maori do have with the marine environment is fundamental to this bill. It was a key part of the submissions that many iwi and other interested Maori groups gave to the Local Government and Environment Committee and unfortunately they have not been given expression in the bill. That does arguably open up some litigation risk around those in addition to the shortcomings from all of the other areas that have been identified earlier in the debate. I will just conclude my contribution here but I will pick up in Part 3 some other aspects around the tangata whenua interests. Kia ora. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a call on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting Part 2 of the bill as we did Part 1 of the bill. In that respect as we have said in this House before we will support what we believe is good policy but we will oppose bad policy. In this case in New Zealand’s interest we believe it is in the interests of New Zealand and of this Parliament to pass this bill in its entirety and for the country to get on with it. This has the potential to increase the economic performance of this country. With the fifth-largest economic zone in the world we owe a level of responsibility to the people of New Zealand to ensure that there is an Act in place to cover the 200-mile economic zone and this bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament will do that. We do understand of course that there are some reservations on the part of some parties over some of the clauses and some of the terminology but in many cases it is very much just words and in a sense pedantry over the determination of how the wording is best put. We do believe however that it achieves the outcomes that we are seeking in the main. In the vast majority of cases it serves the purpose that we are seeking. 
I also would like to concur with other members of Parliament who have made the comment that the officials have done a great job through this whole process and through the Local Government and Environment Committee process over this year. This has been a very very significant part of the Local Government and Environment Committee’s work this year. There were a huge number of submissions from a great many organisations and the officers and officials have done a great job of bringing all that information together reporting back to the committee and providing very very good feedback information and advice as to how those various submissions impact on the overall parameters of the bill. 
Likewise I would like to thank the Minister for the Environment too for her input in being able to address many of the concerns and issues that were raised by the committee agreeing to some changes where appropriate and agreeing to some wording changes to give effect to some of the concerns that were there. Although not meeting all the concerns the bill we believe again goes a sufficient way to meet the vast majority of the concerns of those who were submitting and those who were raising the concerns. We are somewhat appeased by the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright has advised that she has a level of support for the bill now that many of the concerns have been addressed and it is very very heartening to hear that in her role she does feel that the bill now has great merit to move forward. For many of the submitters to the bill and many of the environmental organisations I am sure that they likewise although still having some concerns about the marine environment must be greatly relieved at some of the changes that were made to assist. 
In terms of New Zealand’s economic performance we do have a huge responsibility here. When you are talking about the vast area of ocean and the fact that the New Zealand landmass that we inhabit or the above-the-surface landmass is something like only 5 percent of the total area of the zone that is taken up by this exclusive economic zone and you think of this mass of water out there then you can appreciate the implications that it has for the New Zealand economy. We looked at many many submissions on many areas of the exclusive economic zone which included areas like the Chatham Rise. I had not realised how significant the Chatham Rise is and how vast it is and the resources that are out there that potentially could have a huge impact on the New Zealand economy. Likewise many of the other areas around the coast that were brought to our attention and the potential that is there provided it is done in an environmentally sustainable way and in a very sound and secure manner that ensures the environmental concerns and protections are there and that the environment is given the benefit of the doubt. Should there be any grave concerns about any planned projects then certainly the New Zealand First Party will want to ensure that those procedures are in place. 
We believe that the wording now provides sufficient safeguards—sufficient for the Environmental Protection Authority to effect what is the will of the Government and what is the will of this Parliament to ensure that the exclusive economic zone is properly policed and properly administered. It also ensures that there are also options for appeals through the High Court and through the Court of Appeal and also for some aspects being handled by the Environment Court in terms of some of the applications for various things to ensure that there are also the legal sides for recourse should that occur. 
 We constantly hear in this Parliament about the need for increased economic development in this country for more jobs for opportunities for our young people and for our people to have a more secure workforce. Our marine environment does offer the opportunity to provide that in New Zealand. We are very very fortunate as a small country of 4½ million people to have such a vast marine environment out there and a potential resource that could greatly impact on the well-being of the people of New Zealand. We therefore have to do all we can to both protect that environment and make sure that it is there for future generations but at the same time make sure that the resources that are available there can be properly taken and properly used in a proper manner and that that is done so for the benefit of this country. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I am delighted to have an opportunity to take a call on Part 2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. I am sorry that I was not able to be at the Local Government and Environment Committee because this is a very interesting experience even now hearing the aspirations for the bill which unfortunately seem to me romantic. Basically we know less about the deep ocean than we do about Mars and the surface of the moon. We do not know at 3000 metres what is going to happen. Basically this bill although laudable because we do need legislation that regulates the marine environment is romantic. We have no ability to know whether we can sustainably manage something that we are yet to understand. Part 2 actually provides the opportunity for marine consents as if it was something just down the road as if it was a dairy farm or as if it was a block of conservation land where we are able to count species. 
Actually we know hardly anything about what happens at 3000 metres. We have some experience in the shallow water and actually off the coast of Tauranga that did not go terribly well. Having scraped a lot of oil off I know that even in the shallow water with a tiny spill it is very difficult to restore the environment. They appear to be nothing to do with it but actually when we are talking about risk management and sustainability you cannot invoke caution if you are going to ignore precaution. That is what the debate is actually about. Whether you are talking about the  
Rena 
 minor disaster or what happened in the Gulf of Mexico—best practice I do not think so. We do not know what to do about this in terms of adaptive management. Adaptive management regimes where you can adapt what you are doing because you have some control over the environment are valid. But in 3000 metres off the coast of say Whanau-a-Apanui in the deep ocean where we do not even know the species that we are potentially destroying it is gambling. Let us just admit it—it is gambling. 
I would like to move to some other points about Part 2 and support the comments of Rino Tirikatene about the issues around the Treaty. I remember vividly the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. It was never about the beach. It was about getting Crown control and the right to permit seabed—read my lips—and foreshore resources. That is what it was about. That is why Elvis Teddy got in that boat with Whanau-a-Apanui went off the coast and got arrested for whatever the court could dream up but in fact the case failed. The case failed even though the navy tried to arrest them. Part 2 is about granting consents and I am talking about the rights of people to say no the rights of people to say: “I do not want this to happen in my rohe.” That is why the history is important in respect of Part 2. This is setting up tests around possibly being cautious when in fact we already know that some communities have said no. What about the ability to contest the information? 
I just want to look at clause 60A in Part 2 where they talk about favouring caution. The reason why they have not used the precautionary principle is that it has meaning. “Favouring caution” is a wonderful new phrase. It is like a traffic light. Perhaps we had better not go for green we will just go for orange and when we like it we will go for green. That is what “favouring caution” means. The precautionary principle was discussed at Rio in relation to deep sea mining and this is what was said by Dr Helen Rosenbaum about the precautionary principle: “if there’s any uncertainty about the nature of the impacts but there is a reason to believe there are going to be serious negative impacts then projects should be delayed.” The reason this is not in the bill is because precautionary is an extremely strong test. Actually it is sometimes argued that if you do not understand what you are doing you do not do it—sorry not you Mr Chair. If people do not understand what they are doing then they do not do it whereas being cautious is open to any form of interpretation. 
I would just like to quote clause 60A(4) which says: “In this section best available information means the best information that in the particular circumstances is available without unreasonable cost effort or time.” Does that sound like the precautionary principle? No because it is not. It does not even sound like caution to me. It sounds like: “We don’t want to limit the opportunities here.” If we do not know what is under the ocean and we are not sure what impact the deep sea drilling is going to have or the seismic blasting or anything else is it going to be an unreasonable cost to find out? Is it going to be a bit of an effort or is it going to take too much time in which case we do not want to limit ourselves. [ 
Bell rung 
] I will not take my full 5 minutes but just to say briefly that if you are talking about robust legislation and what is basically an extremely unknown environment Part 2 does not meet the tests. It is very important that principles like the precautionary approach and adaptive management are actually workable. It is not workable to talk about this environment that we do not even understand and try to apply these tests which actually in the Resource Management Act need to be stronger. Many of us have struggled in respect of the Resource Management Act in our ability to participate meaningfully. 
If we are talking about the development of resources in this country we are not talking about the people of the East Coast getting a job; we are talking about Petrobras Nautilus Minerals Inc. and the other multinationals that will be fronting this week at the Pacific Islands Forum as well. Basically what they are saying is “Open slather. We want to get in there.” This bill has the opportunity to provide some prevention but I would like to also acknowledge what Rino Tirikatene said about the role of Maori and the Treaty in it. If the advisory committee which is mentioned in here in the Environmental Protection Authority is optional then how does Whanau-a-Apanui say that they do not want this? How do they say no if the advice around tangata whenua is either optional or mere advice? I do not know but I have spent far too many years of my life in the Environment Court where advice from tangata whenua has been ignored where optional information has been ignored and where the idea that someone is going to benefit and someone is going to make money means that we can enter into environments that we have no baseline data about that we do not understand and that we just hope. 
The difference between the land and the sea is that the sea looks as if it covers everything up. That is why we dump all our waste in it dump all our sewage in it and dump all our pollutants in the sea—because we cannot see it and we have got no imagination. We lose species when we do that. We lose threatened species we lose integrity of our fisheries and we lose opportunities for the future. I am very disappointed that the bill is so loose. I understand that it is improved and I am grateful it is improved but I cannot accept that sustainable management is possible or that adaptive management is possible in Part 2 if you do not even know what the environment is that you are planning to manage. Basically we are running out of oil on the planet so now we are going into the deep ocean. No one would be doing it if they could get it from somewhere else because it is too hard. This is going to be even harder. We are going to do damage and what is scary is that we can go through all the loops and processes but without any baselines we are not going to achieve sustainability or environmental protection. Thank you. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith and Andrew Williams both talked about the law being adequate and that we should not dwell on pedantries as we consider this piece of law. That is not good enough. Our job here as lawmakers is not to promote business or any other particular interests but to make law that is fit for the purpose and does the job and that is to ensure that the words that we approve and that this Committee approves not only achieve the objectives that the legislation says it needs to meet but also satisfy the international obligations that we have entered into as well. 
One of the important things is to ensure particularly when it comes to this part that the regulation-making provisions are consistent with the obligations that we have entered into. When you look at clauses 27 28 and 29 in the absence of any reference in clause 10 in a previous part to the fundamental international obligation of preserving and protecting marine life and the marine environment it is noticeable that that objective is missing in those regulation-making parts. 
 There is no overriding or overwhelming guidance in regulation-making powers for the obligation to preserve and protect marine life and the marine environment to apply. That is a glaring omission and it would be good to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon Amy Adams about what principles and values are going to guide the regulation-making provisions in the absence of anything in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill that is going to require the Government to fulfil the obligations that we have entered into to preserve and protect. 
We do not go as far as those others who have expressed concern about the Gulf of Mexico and the  
Rena 
. One was a genuine blowout of an oil rig and the other was a beaching of a vessel which caused an oil spill. But the critical issue for the oil drilling whether it is on land or offshore no matter how deep the sea is not the depth of the sea; it is the geological structures that are being drilled into. That determines what happens. That determines the pressure at which the oil or gas comes out. That is the risk factor that needs to be assessed. That is still something that is entirely appropriate for this legislation to govern. There is nothing there that points to that specifically but it is not a question of being anxious about that particular risk except to know that it is being properly taken care of. 
The other point I wanted to talk about is clause 50 which is the mediation provision in the bill. What started out in the original bill as a reasonably good mediation provision that allowed the Environmental Protection Authority to send parties—an applicant for a marine consent and objectors to it—away and mediate agree on those things they can agree on and hone down those things they cannot and for those to be the subject of any ruling or further discussion was a good model. That is a good provision. But the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 amends that and takes away the requirement not to have the mediation but the requirement for the mediation to then be reported back to the parties and to the Environmental Protection Authority itself so that it can carry on with this determinative role. That is a great pity. It is not just a great pity but it is actually not a very good process. 
If the parties are going to be sent off for mediation under clause 50 which is a very sensible thing to do—to get those things that the parties know they can agree on resolved and sorted and to get those things that they definitely cannot agree on and let those be the subject of the determination by the Environmental Protection Authority—that means that the mediation process must be concluded before the Environmental Protection Authority makes a determination and that the Environmental Protection Authority knows what the points of agreement and disagreement are. That makes complete sense. But the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 would mean that there is no requirement for the mediation process to be concluded nor for there to be any report back to the Environmental Protection Authority. That has the potential to waste enormous amounts of time and the great thing about the provision as it is at the moment is that it would allow what might otherwise be time-wasting activity to be honed down and refined and allow the genuine points of disagreement to be discovered and then be the subject of a proper hearing. 
Moana Mackey’s Supplementary Order Paper 106 puts back in a proper and effective process and requires that the Environmental Protection Authority not conduct a hearing of any objections to an application for consent until such time as a mediation has taken place and any agreements noted and recorded and there is a general report back from the mediation process. That is a good thing. I just prevail upon the Minister and ask the Minister to think carefully about that. If as the Government says it is it is so concerned about the business interests that are at the forefront of this debate then one thing that business will be most appreciative of is a process that allows it to sift out those things that should not waste the time of a judicially operated body such as the Environmental Protection Authority and allows it to conduct their hearings efficiently minimising costs to all parties and allowing good sensible decisions to be taken. 
With a mediation process that allows that—a mediation process that once entered into means that there cannot be a determination role played by the Environmental Protection Authority—it means that the parties actually have an incentive to as much as possible reach agreement on their points of disagreement. That must be a more constructive approach to take. Indeed it is the very approach that we would like to take with the entire bill but that has not proved possible so far. I simply prevail upon the Minister to think carefully about that clause 50 and leave it so that there is some integrity to the process the mediation process does not become a waste of time and the determinative process that the Environmental Protection Authority conducts can also be conducted efficiently and in the best interests of all parties that come before it. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I still have a number of amendments in my name that I have yet to be given the opportunity to speak to so I am grateful for the call. I think a general concern we have about Part 2 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is that it seems that there are many more barriers to people submitting on applications than there are to the applicants. It seems—and as we come into Part 3 we will discuss the removal of appeals to the Environment Court—that there is that general tone throughout Part 2 of the bill and the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 takes those a little bit further. 
My colleague Andrew Little has just been speaking on my Supplementary Order Paper 106 in relation to mediation. In fact the Minister does not need to support the Supplementary Order Paper; she just needs to withdraw her amendment in hindsight. But we were trying to put in the Supplementary Order Paper in order to outlay what our concerns were. I have had a conversation with the Minister about that and I appreciate that we agree to disagree on this matter. 
Although I certainly appreciate the concerns the Minister has about wanting to facilitate these processes and make them move smoothly we would have liked a bit of a protection in there to say that this cannot be used to try to undermine the mediation process while that is happening at the same time as a hearing. The Environmental Protection Authority could benefit from having that information in front of it. We would have liked to see some words around the situation where the discussions that are occurring at mediation do not have a material impact on the hearing and where things can be taken off-line. For example people with existing interests might just need to have a discussion with the applicant and that can be done outside the hearing. Absolutely but we I think would have liked to see that protection put into wording. 
I do not believe that the Environmental Protection Authority is going to try to abuse this power. That is a reality but I always like to have these belts and braces so that people can feel that their rights are not going to be usurped and there is some protection there. I do not believe for a second that the Environmental Protection Authority is going to suggest that Greenpeace and Petrobras go through a mediation process. I appreciate that this will probably be for small technical things. I think that is just where we would have liked to see that protection put into law but I appreciate that the Minister for the Environment has decided not to support that. 
I do have another amendment in my name that I hope the Minister will take a call on which is on the time limit for the hearing. New clause 52A in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 says: “A hearing must be completed not later than 40 working days after the first day of the hearing.” That seems very reasonable because I doubt many hearings are going to go for longer than that. I have an amendment in my name that explains that where there are exceptional circumstances where you have a particularly complicated case—for example where something arises and the Environmental Protection Authority may need to call in an international expert and it may be hard to get that person in—we can be clear that actually the 40 days have to be 40 days of hearings not just 40 consecutive days or 40 working days. It is 40 working days. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment is nodding. Yes I know that is what it is in the bill but just to clarify that in exceptional circumstances—and I know that off-line the Minister has indicated to me that that is somewhere else in the bill. It would be useful if she could tell me where that is and then we could have— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: 147. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sorry? 
Hon Amy Adams 
: 147 and 148. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: And what part is that in? 
Hon Member 
: 3. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Part 3. OK we will have a look at that before we get to Part 3. 
But we are concerned. Again it comes back to I think the conversation that we had on Part 1 or Part 1A about just making it clear that when we were talking about clause 42 which is around incomplete applications we would have liked to see it made clear that you cannot just go through that over and over again. I think it is the same here. It would not hurt to make it clear in this clause that even though there is a time limit of 40 days in exceptional circumstances where we want to make sure that we have the best decision-making processes and the best information available to the Environmental Protection Authority it is in fact able to extend that hearing beyond 40 days. I will have a look at that when we come to Part 4 of the bill. 
 My colleague Grant Robertson talked about the amendment that I have in my name on Supplementary Order Paper 103 around adaptive management. That is a real concern. We had a big discussion about it at the Local Government and Environment Committee. Obviously it was another area—it was along the same lines as the precautionary approach—where some people had big concerns about the use of adaptive management. But we really do feel that having some language in there around the fact that where the effects are likely to be very serious or irreversible adaptive management is just simply not appropriate for most of the things that occur in the exclusive economic zone. We were focusing deeply on oil and gas exploration but this covers a much much broader variety of activities. In fact I suspect that most of the marine consents issued under this legislation will relate to the laying of pipelines fibre-optic cable and things like that. 
There may be other areas where in fact adaptive management can be used and is appropriate but where the effects on the environment especially are likely to be irreversible that undermines the whole concept of adaptive management because it means you cannot pull it back. Adaptive management is about allowing something to go ahead and tweaking it as you go. When it comes to an irreversible change to the environment there is no tweaking that can happen beyond that. So I would again really urge the Minister to think seriously about how adaptive management has been laid out in the bill. 
There is a much smaller issue but I do want to mention it because it does occur throughout the legislation and it is in clause 60A the information principles. We are seeing this throughout the bill whenever there is any guidance around what information the Environmental Protection Authority needs to consider when it is considering an application. We notice in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that there has been a real narrowing down so that in many cases it can be only information that it has sought. So if someone has provided it previously with some information that might be relevant which might indicate environmental impacts that may well be serious or irreversible and where they may be concerned that the Environmental Protection Authority has made a decision that goes against the advice that has been provided in that paper unless the Environmental Protection Authority itself has sought that paper then it does not have to consider it. 
I think that in terms of the Environmental Protection Authority developing up its knowledge base suddenly the bill says that the only things that need to be considered in legislation are things that the Environmental Protection Authority has actively sought out itself—although we welcome other amendments the Minister has made to require it to consider the input of the Maori advisory committee. We see it in the amendments to clause 59(4)(b) as well where it is only the information that has been sought that must be considered by the Environmental Protection Authority. Suddenly we are narrowing down what it needs to consider. I am not quite sure why that is. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister says it is not but it would be useful to know what it is. It is one of those things where you think it could have a large material impact on the processes and the ability of people to challenge the Environmental Protection Authority when they really feel that they provided some very strong evidence and the evidence was not even considered at all because it now falls outside the requirements of the Environmental Protection Authority to do that. 
That is about all I have for my contribution on Part 2 but I do just want to briefly respond to the comments made by Nick Smith when he gave his somewhat wide-ranging speech on Part 2 of this piece of legislation. I think that any political party that has not taken stock of its policies in this area post the Gulf of Mexico and post the  
Rena  
is not taking the issue seriously enough and its members are being neglectful in their duties as parliamentarians. Certainly both those events were game-changers. I went to a public meeting in Whakatane around the  
Rena 
 where there was real anger and the Hon Dr Nick Smith did not want to answer a lot of the questions that people were having around the application off the East Coast by Petrobras. They were game-changers. 
Well Hekia Parata can pull faces at me. We would have loved to see her during her time as Associate Minister of Energy and Resources on the East Coast— 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: I was happy to answer the questions. I answered the questions. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well you were not happy to answer questions when you were the Associate Minister of Energy and Resources. That is the problem Ms Parata. We would have loved to have the Minister at many meetings up there. 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: I continue to do so in my home area. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know it is your home area. That is why we were so disappointed. 
But following on from the comments the Hon Dr Nick Smith made yes we did a lot of the stuff when we were in Government. But we took stock and said: “Really have we got those bottom lines right? Are we addressing the concerns of the public?”. This legislation which started its life under a Labour Government but was much more environmentally stringent we simply do not believe meets that test. So Nick Smith can attack us for that but the reality is that they were game-changers. We saw what happens when oil gets in the water in the eastern Bay of Plenty and the Bay of Plenty and the public have concerns and they have every right to expect that their representatives in Parliament will take those concerns on board and learn from them. I guess that is the difference between being in a progressive party and being in a party that is constantly about the status quo and with no new ideas. 
So I would welcome the Minister’s comments on some of those parts in the bill. But certainly on the issue of the time limit of the hearing we will get to it when we come to Part 4. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to make just some brief comments in relation to the cultural impact assessments and Supplementary Order Paper 101 which is in my name. The Local Government and Environment Committee had very strong submissions from iwi supporting the need for environmental management of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf but highlighting the need for quite major changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill if the Crown was to meet its Treaty obligations and particularly the principles of partnership active protection recognition of rangatiratanga and active participation in decision making. We recognised that the Minister for the Environment’s Supplementary Order Paper 100 with its changes to clause 59 certainly provides for the Environmental Protection Authority to take account of any advice it receives from the Maori advisory committee. 
But this is not enough and it is not early enough in the process. There needs to be another mechanism and that is why my Supplementary Order Paper 101 provides for changes to have cultural impact assessments. This will be a mechanism that would ensure that applicants engage with iwi in developing their application. As Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu noted in their submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee “There is likely to be a low level of understanding of iwi interests and associations with the marine environment amongst applicants and potentially EPA staff.” So the Supplementary Order Paper provides for cultural impact assessments as quite a practical mechanism for both applicants and the Environmental Protection Authority to be in a position to adequately identify effects on cultural values and then identify ways of avoiding remedying or mitigating those effects in a manner that reflects tikanga and incorporates an iwi perspective. 
 These cultural impact assessments are increasingly used in applications for water takes so requiring applicants to include a cultural impact assessment as part of their whole impact assessment for a marine consent application by amending clause 40 would give the Environmental Protection Authority the confidence that that impact assessment properly reflected an iwi perspective. It would also in the process of developing that cultural impact assessment provide a mechanism by which the applicant and iwi could really engage in some of the practical issues. 
The other matter I would just like to comment on in this call is Supplementary Order Paper 102 in Gareth Hughes’ name which provides for the contribution to climate change to be one of the list of matters that the Environmental Protection Authority takes into account when it is considering an application for a marine consent and submissions on that application. The Environmental Protection Authority is currently debarred from doing that by clause 59(6)(b) and that parallels a similar provision in the Resource Management Act. The rationale in the Resource Management Act for debarring consideration of contribution to climate change is that regional councils are dealing at the regional level and matters of climate change should be dealt with at the national level. But the Environmental Protection Authority is a Government agency that is working at the national level and it is responsible for environmental management at the national level. It is entirely appropriate then that it should be considering issues around climate change. That is why Gareth Hughes’ amendment seeks to rectify this situation and ensure that the very important issue of climate change is one of the list of considerations that the Environmental Protection Authority must take into account so I commend that Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We move to the vote on Part 2. We have Eugenie Sage’s amendments to clauses 33 and 59 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89. These are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 33A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 101 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 40 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of Gareth Hughes to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Moana Mackey to clauses 27 32 47 and 49 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Moana Mackey to clauses 33A 60A and 62A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 in the name of Moana Mackey to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just as a matter of interest if you do not ask for a party vote I do not give one. You must ask for a party vote. 
Part 3 Objections appeals and enforcement 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes the schedule. 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I did want to take a brief call to start our discussion on Part 3 and there are really two points I want to comment on. The first is to commend the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee of course across the consideration of the whole bill which I have been remiss in not doing to date in the Committee stage. In particular I commend the committee on reviewing the changes that were made to this part of the bill. I thought the committee made some excellent suggestions which really have enhanced the bill particularly in the way we have made it clear now through the select committee’s recommended amendments that any person can apply for an enforcement order to a consent and the consent conditions issued by the Environmental Protection Authority. I certainly think that that will give considerable comfort to some parties who were concerned about that part of the bill initially. 
The other change to this part of the bill that I want to comment on is one of the more significant changes that I am recommending in the Supplementary Order Paper in my name Supplementary Order Paper 100 and that is to clause 125(1)(b). The bill as reported back from the select committee contains a maximum penalty of $600000 for a company for breaching the Act and through the Supplementary Order Paper in my name we are recommending that that limit be increased to $10 million. This is a sizable increase. It is more than simply moving it up a bit. It really represents a significant change and reflects I think quite rightly the severity of the potential actions in this space and the seriousness with which we as a Government and I would hope we as a Parliament would reflect the views we would take of anyone breaching this Act. 
I think that it is a way in which this House can send a message to judicial bodies coming after us who are considering the appropriate manner in which to deal with any company that chooses to come here and has scant regard for the laws this House puts in place. I think it is important that we recognise not only the type of activity that we will be dealing with in this space and in the exclusive economic zone we are fortunate in that there is a much more narrowly defined set of potential activities that we are considering and also the likely players that work in that space. It is certainly my view that it is important to set penalties that are of a size that companies of that magnitude will take notice of. 
It is certainly my intention that with a maximum penalty of $10 million we will be sending a very clear message to those companies that we expect full compliance with the legislation. We expect full compliance with the regulations. And if they choose not to act in full compliance they can expect to be dealt with harshly. So I think this is an important change and one I wanted to discuss my rationale for in this Chamber and I would hope that we get support for this part of the bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Just to pick up where the Minister for the Environment left around the question of penalties in clause 125 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill I want to congratulate the Minister on that amendment. I think as she has noted the change here is a significant one. Even my maths can tell you that moving from $600000 to $10 million there are a lot more zeros and it is certainly something that on this side of the Chamber we are very pleased to see has been included. I think there was a feeling in the Local Government and Environment Committee and in the submissions that came in that the amounts of money that were being considered in terms of penalties simply were not adequate for the possible damage and the seriousness with which this Parliament would view such a matter so I do want to congratulate the Minister on her amendment to that particular clause. 
In the spirit of that I seek her agreement to Moana Mackey’s changes to clause 125(2) (3) and (4) which are outlined on Supplementary Order Paper 103. These are other penalties that we believe should also be increased in order to indicate the seriousness with which we would deal with these— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Yawn! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Sorry is there someone over there who is not enjoying this? No. Under clause 125—sorry to keep Judith Collins but it is only the small matter of the destruction of part of the marine environment. There is no need for the Minister to stay awake for that—none whatsoever! 
Jacqui Dean 
: Protection of the marine environment. Carry on. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Both—the protection actually; that is right Jacqui Dean. Clause 125(2) covers— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Grow up silly boy. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well no I am the one who is actually trying to make a serious point here. Clause 125(2) states: “Every person who commits an offence … is also liable on conviction if the offence is a continuing one to a fine not exceeding $10000 …”. Moana Mackey is proposing for that to be increased to $100000. Clause 125(3) states: “… summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10000 and if the offence is a continuing one to a further fine not exceeding $1000 for every day …”. Moana Mackey is proposing that that be increased to $10000 every day as well. So these are in line with the amendments that the Minister has already proposed and I would hope that she will see fit to adopt those along with the one that she herself has proposed. 
The other matter in Part 3 that I would like to draw attention to is clause 103 “Appeals on question of law”. On this clause we believe that the Government has taken far too narrow an approach on two specific points. First is the point that appeals can only be on questions of law and not also on questions of fact and second is the place to which appeals may go. In this case it is proposed to be the High Court. My colleague Charles Chauvel has a Supplementary Order Paper that proposes amending both so that appeals can be on the questions of law and fact and also that those appeals should find their way to the Environment Court. 
There is a lack of full appeal rights in this particular law. This is one of those issues where we welcomed the Minister making this bill more consistent with the Resource Management Act in the purpose clause. We did not think it went quite far enough. Here is another example where we believe having more consistency with the Resource Management Act would be the appropriate thing to do particularly around the question of where these appeals should go. The Environment Court was the place under the Resource Management Act that drove the development of case law. It was the place in which there was further policy development as a result of the Environment Court being involved and it does seem to me that in the case of the exclusive economic zone we are going to see a significant amount of case law develop over time and that the Environment Court is the appropriate place for that to go. The question of whether or not the Environmental Protection Authority has the expertise to deal with everything is certainly one that I would raise here but more to the point I think the Environment Court has the experience through the Resource Management Act process to play a very important role here and that is the appropriate place for appeals to go. 
We also do believe that those appeals should be beyond just matters of law. That is a very limiting provision. Again these are going to be significant cases that are going to be taken here. These are going to be people who have concerns that perhaps will not be able to be dealt with through the Environmental Protection Authority processes. There will be occasions on which the Environmental Protection Authority perhaps does not have the competence in law to be able to deal with these matters. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill and no progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.