Volume 661 Week 37 - Wednesday 24 March 2010 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 661 Week 37 - Wednesday 24 March 2010 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 24 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Christian Porter MLA Attorney-General of Western Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region led by Mr Qianba Puncog Chairman of the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Business of the House 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I seek leave for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill to have its second reading on Thursday 25 March 2010 despite Standing Orders 287 and 263 should printed copies of the bill as reported from the Maori Affairs Committee not be available. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask for 10 minutes’ indulgence in order to speak to the Acting Leader of the House before that leave is put to the House? There is no initial opposition to it but I want to catch up. There has been a subsequent discussion and I want to make sure that both sides of the House are on the same page as it were. If we could put the leave again in 10 minutes’ time that would be most helpful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it helps to expedite the business of the house I am very happy for that leave to be sought again after further discussion. 
Questions to Ministers 
Benefits—Beneficiary Numbers 
1. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many beneficiaries are living “the dream” on a benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I did not say people were living the dream on a benefit. I said and I directly quote: “If someone genuinely can’t find work in 12 months they’ll be able to demonstrate their job search when they reapply. If a real demonstrable effort has been made their benefit will be reinstated. If not well I’m afraid the dream is over.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she stand by her statement about having been on the receiving end of the domestic purposes benefit and knowing what it is like to live and struggle day to day; if so why was it a struggle for her with all the assistance available at that time but in her view a dream for an undisclosed number of beneficiaries now? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I reiterate that I have not said that it is a dream for those who are struggling. Let us make it clear. What I did say yesterday is that it is not easy to put one’s head up and juggle a family and juggle those sorts of educational requirements to get oneself into a job but I back people that they can. I know that the member herself said on the radio this morning that she worked full-time as a sole mother so she is a classic example of people who can do it. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the objective of the changes she is introducing is to create a fairer benefit system as she has claimed why are 5896 women in receipt of the widows benefit many of whom are caring for dependent children not required to face a part-time work test? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is interesting that it is Labour’s policy to work-test those on the widows benefit but it is not the— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. I did not talk about Labour’s policy; I talked about the Minister’s policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been raised and there should be no interjections. I will just remind members of that at this stage. The member raises a fair point—that the Minister should not allege in answering that something is the Labour Party’s policy because she has no right to allege that. I ask the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We will not be work-testing those on the widows benefit but the implication is that members on the other side would be. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Why is it so important to take action now to reduce welfare dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The cost of doing nothing is enormous both financially and socially. With demographic changes looming the rising tide of welfare dependency threatens to mortgage our children’s and grandchildren’s futures and we will not sit back and let that happen. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did the Attorney-General tell her and the Prime Minister before yesterday’s announcement that the legislation she tabled discriminates on three prohibited grounds under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—namely sex marital status and family status—and in the words of the Attorney-General the different treatment of people “does not create a fairer benefit system or encourage beneficiaries to enter or return to employment”; if so why did she ignore his advice? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I certainly did have a conversation with the Attorney-General on where he was sitting on this with regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and certainly we could see that at some level he felt there was discrimination. But as I said members on this side of the House have made the decision that we will not be work testing those on the widows benefit or on the woman-alone payment. I stand by that. We will be working with those who are on the domestic purposes benefit with children and who are working part-time helping them to get ahead under their own steam. I am incredibly proud of this move and I think it is going in the right direction. I think that it is a discrimination that most New Zealanders will see as being fair and reasonable. 
Rahui Katene 
: Would she agree that over 3000 young people involved in Community Max being meaningfully engaged in a real-life working environment with the support of the community have indeed been living the dream; and what action is she taking to ensure that 3000 graduates are supported to take up further training and employment opportunities post - Community Max? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes Community Max has been a great success. Everywhere I go I hear such positive stories about where that is at. One of the examples I recently heard of was with Tamaki Ki Raro Trust based in South Auckland. All of the 16 young people whom it has taken on have gone into work so they have all gone into a job. Others are going into training. Work and Income is working very closely with them to make sure that there is a transition once they come out of Community Max. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did she and the Prime Minister cover up this scathing report from the Attorney-General which they must have had yesterday when they released their announcements but did not give to the House until 2 o’clock today? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am not responsible for when the Attorney-General puts his papers before the House but I have faced criticism from members on that side before when our legislation has not been tabled in time and this was very technical legislation relating to the Social Security Act so I wanted to make sure that members on the other side of the House had enough time to get into the detail of it so that they could stand up and be the Opposition for once instead of sitting back and leaving a whole lot of people on welfare wondering. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of that answer did the Attorney-General raise the concerns he had as long ago as the Cabinet policy committee or Cabinet itself; if so why did she and the Prime Minister fail to act on his advice or to disclose it to the public until today? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I previously said yes I have had conversations with the Attorney-General on this matter. I find it absolutely incredible that members on the other side of the House are standing up and saying that we should be work testing those on the widows benefit and those on the woman-alone benefit. We are proudly standing up and saying that we will see the right obligations and incentives for New Zealanders to get ahead and take responsibility for themselves. I will stand by that every time and I think New Zealanders see that as very fair. 
Welfare Reforms—Future Focus 
2. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Who will be better off under the Future Focus welfare package announced yesterday? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 New Zealand will be better off. All of the 345000 beneficiaries will benefit from the legislated CPI changes including 28000 who will be better off as a result of abatement changes: 14000 sole parents who are working part-time now 9100 invalids 1600 widows and 3200 superannuitants and veterans. In addition 3 million taxpayers will be better off knowing that we are getting support to the people who really need it. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How much better off will those beneficiaries be? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The CPI increase will be up to $5.34 a week. The combined changes mean that a widow working part-time could be up to $9.89 better off a week. A sole parent working 16 hours a week could be $19.34 better off a week. Those figures do not include the extra income they will get in wages. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does she agree with her ministerial colleague Peter Dunne who said that children could become collateral damage in her welfare reforms; will she give a guarantee to this House that no child will suffer as a consequence of her changes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The changes that we are making in sanctions mean that instead of the 100 percent cut-off of benefits if people were not meeting their obligations which is what happened previously under the Labour Government there will be an in-between step. Under Labour there was a 100 percent cut-off. If people were not meeting their obligations they could lose 100 percent of their benefits. We are putting a fair step in the system that says they could first lose half. We are also making an absolute guarantee that no one on the domestic purposes benefit would lose more than half of their benefit. They can still get the accommodation supplement and the extras that go on top of their benefit. Actually parents need to take responsibility for their children. The obligations are not onerous. Parents need to step up and make sure that they are there. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a long and interesting answer but there was not one reference to the Hon Peter Dunne which was the basis of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Had his colleague asked just that question I would have asked the Minister to answer it but Carmel Sepuloni asked two parts to the question and the Minister focused on the second part which she is perfectly entitled to do. 
Katrina Shanks 
: When was the abatement level last changed? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The amount beneficiaries can earn before their benefit is abated has not been changed since it was increased by the previous National Government in 1996. So it was obviously not a priority for the last Labour Government through all of the good years when it chose not to return some money to people’s own pockets. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to members that it has been very noisy today. I realise this issue arouses quite a lot of feeling so I accept a bit of noise. But I ask please for a little respect. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
3. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements regarding health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including the statement that despite doubling the health budget the previous Government got less for it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he still support the Southland and Otago district health boards cutting home support services; if so what does he say to Lisa Gray who said in her local paper: “When mum’s home help is cut her meals on wheels will end too. Receiving help is a prerequisite for eligibility for meals on wheels.”? She goes on to ask the Minister: “Can I coin a new word—geriatricide.” 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would say to that lady—and I am unaware of the particular circumstances that she has raised—that it would be very important for her to be in touch with her district health board because the chairs of the boards have been quite clear that no one will be unsafe or forced from home as a result of these changes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does he say to the Christchurch man who received a letter from his doctor on 17 March stating “My request for you to have a knee X-ray has been declined because of financial restraints. We could try again later if things get a lot worse or you could pay to go privately.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would say to the member that if she has a specific case that she would like me to look into I will be very well prepared to do so. I can tell her that the Canterbury District Health Board last year received a substantial funding boost of $52 million. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has he received on improving front-line health services and in particular childhood immunisation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have received a report from the Ministry of Health on progress in getting more Kiwi kids immunised. I am pleased to be able to report that the national immunisation coverage for 2-year-old children has now reached 85 percent the highest that it has ever been and that the June 2010 target figure has been met already. This is an amazing achievement when we consider that the figure was only 75 percent a few short years ago under the previous regime. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What advice would he give to the 66-year-old south Dunedin man who received a letter on 26 June last year telling him that he would get his eye surgery within 6 months but who is still waiting for that surgery 9 months later? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would say that it would be very concerning if the facts are as the member represents them. If she is prepared to give me details of the case I will look into it. I can observe that far more elective surgery is being provided for patients than was provided under the previous Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does he say to the people of Canterbury who have been told in an article headlined “Health cuts ‘hitting the front line’” that they have lost a Samoan community health worker a Maori community health worker and contracts for chronic conditions care and child health care which are all front-line services and which have all been cut? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would say to people in Christchurch that they know we have inherited a very difficult situation in their district health board area and that despite our putting $52 million of extra money into the area there are problems. I would also say to those people they should not necessarily believe everything that is put to them by the member opposite. Yesterday she said a general practitioner— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It cannot help the good order of the House for Ministers in their replies to suggest that members of the public should not believe certain statements that are made by members. This is a very clever Minister and I am sure he can craft an answer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is perfectly valid; he does not need to comment on the Minister. He is pursuing under a point of order the kind of thing that he was just saying should not happen. The member is quite right. I ask the Minister to desist from referring in any derogatory way to the questioner. That is not really necessary in answering a question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Members of the public in Christchurch should not accept everything that the member opposite says because under scrutiny what she often represents to be the case does not prove to be the case. I would say that work is under way in Canterbury to look at the various contracts and that work is being led by general practitioners nurses and primary health organisations. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the letter to the 66-year-old south Dunedin man to whom I referred telling him that he would get his surgery within 6 months who is still waiting for it 9 months later. It has his name removed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table a second document which is a letter from a local general practitioner in Christchurch stating that a patient’s knee X-ray has been declined because of financial constraints and that the man could try again if things got worse or could pay to go privately. Again it has been “anonymised”. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can the member confirm that the general practitioner whom she says is a general practitioner is actually a general practitioner? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I blame myself for allowing this to happen but in the interests—[ 
Interruption 
]—a point of order is being considered—of the House being better informed about what the document was I did not interrupt the Minister. I come back to the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking leave to table that letter. Can she give the House an assurance that it is a letter from a general practitioner? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Actually you do not need to ask that Mr Speaker because I said it was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that. Leave is sought— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —I accept that the member had a perfectly fair point—to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table a third document which is the letter to the  
Southland Times  
that I referred to in my first supplementary question from Lisa Gray in relation to her mother’s home support cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I check whether that letter was published in the  
Southland Times 
? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well we will not be seeking leave to table that. 
Budget 2010—Tax Package 
4. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What issues will the Government consider in deciding on its tax package for the Budget? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: There are a number of considerations for the Government. Any changes need to contribute to a better-performing economy. We need to encourage more productive investment savings and exports and have less borrowing consumption and Government spending so we can increase the wealth of families in New Zealand. The tax system is one large policy lever we can pull to achieve this. Unlike the previous Government which was all talk and no action around the economy this Government is doing a number of things to turn round the economy. For example we are investing billions of dollars to build schools ultra-fast broadband electricity transmission and roads—all of which will help increase productivity create new jobs and help families get ahead. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What will the Government take into account when considering options for improving the tax system? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Another important issue is ensuring the tax system is fair and equitable for all New Zealanders. That is why our starting point is considering personal income tax cuts across the board not just for those on the top marginal rate. The vast bulk of households will be better off as a result of the package of tax measures in the Budget delivered on 20 May. We will also make sure that individuals’ taxable income more accurately reflects their true income and we will move from a system that has nominally high tax rates which both harm growth and are being widely avoided to one that is fair to all taxpayers. 
Stuart Nash 
: Talking of “fair” and “equitable” how will tax rate alignment and significantly reducing the top marginal rate for the 8 percent of New Zealanders earning over $70000 benefit the 70 percent of Kiwis earning under $40000? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I note that according to a number of surveys the proposal to reduce tax rates across the board is widely supported by New Zealanders. I think it is important to point out to the member that we currently have a tax system that taxes labour and investment income at relatively high rates taxes consumption at relatively low rates and generally gives money back to people when they invest in investment property. Therefore is it any wonder that our economy is tilted towards consumption and property investment that we have a shortage of savings and that a high proportion of our skilled labour lives overseas? Those are the problems we have to solve. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next question I say that that was a very interesting answer but I am not sure it said anything about how changes to the top tax rate would assist someone under $40000. I invite the Minister to answer the question asked. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was making the point that if we did not reduce the top tax rate then a number of things would not happen. That is what I was seeking to explain to the member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member has a further supplementary question he can explore it further. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What are some of the problems with the current tax system that means it is neither fair nor equitable? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Tax Working Group identified a number of problems that show that the current tax system is unfair for hard-working New Zealand families. For example since the previous Government increased the top personal tax rate there has been very slow growth in the number of taxpayers reporting higher incomes compared to growth rates in earlier years and a major spike in those earning almost exactly $60000 a year which was quite magical. This is most evident for people earning more than a million dollars a year. Between 1999 and 2007 the number of people in this category barely grew at all unlike previous years indicating a greater use of income sheltering and undermining of the integrity of the tax system. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You’d know all about that. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Careful. The Government will make a number of changes that will not only make the tax system fairer and more equitable but also help increase productivity and exports. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: In deciding on the Government’s tax package in this year’s Budget why does he intend to trade off horizontal equity for vertical equity as he indicated in an earlier reply today when horizontal equity—that is the same treatment for taxpayers with the same capacity to pay—is likely to increase savings investment and entrepreneurial activity and to lift our productivity growth? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government acknowledges that high marginal tax rates are a disincentive to people to work hard and get ahead but by the same token the Government thinks it is inequitable in the New Zealand context to have flat income tax rates which I think is what the member was proposing in his question. 
David Garrett 
: How can taxpayers have any confidence in this year’s Budget when Paul Morgan and Wayne Mulligan can rip off Tekau Plus to the tune of millions and all the Government will do is call for a “value-for-money” audit when the Minister should be asking the Auditor-General or the Serious Fraud Office to conduct a fraud investigation? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a fair way outside the original question. 
David Garrett 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I speak to the point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member who asked the question was on his feet first wishing to speak to the point of order. 
David Garrett 
: The primary question uses the word “issues”—what issues will the Government consider? Surely one of the prime issues must be the integrity and the use to which money is put and the controls on the use of that money given that it is taxpayers’ money. That has to be a primary issue surely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard very briefly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I would like in fact to defend the Minister. That question was well wide of the primary question. There might be an issue around the level of revenue to be got and if a supplementary question had led to that it could have been possible for the member to get there but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have spent enough time on it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —this issue is about revenue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have heard enough. Rather than just rule the member’s question out of order I invite the member because he asked a question in good faith to ask a question that does relate to the primary question. Although David Garrett mentioned the word “issues” in the question it is issues in respect of the tax package that the primary question covers. So I invite the member if he would like to to ask a supplementary question that is consistent with the primary question. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister intend to conduct investigations where there is good evidence that taxation moneys have been ripped off? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In terms of the tax package the Government is definitely working to improve the quality of our taxation system to ensure that tax avoidance and evasion are much less able to be done but I have no comment to make on the individual case the member mentions. 
Education National Standards—Alternatives 
5. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What alternatives to her current approach to national standards did she consider before she introduced legislation on that subject? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I considered the approach of the outgoing Labour Government which saw almost one in five students leaving school without the skills needed to succeed in the modern economy. I rejected that approach in favour of legislating for the ability to set national standards to meet National’s promise to New Zealanders in the 2008 election. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How many school annual reports did she read as she was finalising this decision? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Many. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What is her understanding of the reporting requirements for schools’ annual reports in relation to academic progress for the year 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am very happy to answer the question but I do not actually have responsibility for the variance reports that individual schools report. They are required to report to their communities and to the Ministry of Education but what they actually put in those reports is entirely their responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty simple question about her understanding of the reporting requirements. The Minister got close to it at the end— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I just told you. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No she told us what she did not have responsibility for; she did not tell us what she did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point the member is making. I invite him to repeat his question because he was not as I understand it asking about the contents of any particular report but about the requirements which the Minister does have responsibility for. I invite him to repeat his question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. What is her understanding of the reporting requirements of schools’ annual reports in relation to academic progress for the 2009 year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: My apologies I misheard the question. Schools are required to report on variances from targets that they have set against their charter on an annual basis both to their community and to the ministry. 
Colin King 
: Why did the Government introduce the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill in December 2008? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Government was elected with a strong mandate for change. Parents told us they wanted clear and plain-language reporting on their child’s progress at school and they should not have to wait for that. The national standards legislation was passed in the first 100 days of the John Key - led Government because this Government knows that raising educational standards is critical to New Zealand’s success in the modern economy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As she has read many school reports—which she indicated to the House earlier—and understands the importance of the variance part of those reports which of those reports did she refer to the ministry for follow-up? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I received my warrant as Minister on 18 November and the legislation that enabled the Minister to set national standards was passed on 9 December. I referred no reports to the ministry in that time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Do I take it from the Minister’s response that in spite of the fact that she saw many reports as she was finalising this decision and understood the variance requirements none of them required further attention? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I referred none of them to the ministry between the date of accepting my warrant and my putting the legislation through the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If none of those many reports that she received in that time period was bad enough to require ministry attention what was the problem she was trying to legislate for? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government was elected with a mandate to improve educational standards because almost one in five children in our education system—almost 150000 children—is failing. They are leaving school without the skills in reading writing and maths that they need to succeed. That was the mandate. That was why the legislation was passed in the first 100 days. 
Surgery Breast Reconstruction—Improvements in Treatment 
6. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on improving treatment for women requiring breast reconstruction surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have been advised that the Hutt Valley District Health Board has announced that it is to restart delayed breast reconstruction surgery for women in the lower North Island for the first time since 2006. For the first time in nearly 4 years women in Hawke’s Bay Whanganui Manawatu Wairarapa Wellington and Nelson-Marlborough can ask their general practitioner to refer them to Hutt Hospital for breast reconstruction. The Hutt Valley District Health Board plans to undertake 300 of these delayed operations over the next 3 years. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Is it expected that the women who will benefit from the surgery will be new referrals; and when are these operations expected to commence? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Some of these women were told that they would get their operations and were put on waiting lists in 2006 when the district health board stopped taking referrals and stopped doing delayed breast reconstruction. But I am further advised that the first of these delayed operations has already been delivered. Although some of these patients have been waiting for up to 10 years by the end of June 18 women who were on the list in 2006 will have received their breast reconstruction surgery. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What other advice has he had in relation to the recommencement of this surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have been advised that for the first time the Hutt Valley District Health Board is contracting the neighbouring Boulcott Hospital to help deliver delayed breast reconstruction operations. This is a good example of how the public and private systems can work smarter together for the benefit of patients and of how district health boards are trying to reverse the legacy of the previous Government. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Reaction from Mining Industry 
7. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in his handling of the minerals stocktake given reported concerns from mining industry leaders about his handling of the issue especially the proposal to remove protection from parts of Great Barrier Island which those same mining industry figures reportedly described as a “blunder”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: New Zealanders can have confidence because for the first time the industry has a Minister who is committed to growing the contribution of the minerals sector to the New Zealand economy. This commitment is reflected in the strong positive statements of support from Straterra the mining industry’s group; from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand; and from many of our mining companies which have made very complimentary remarks about the Government’s policies. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister seen the comments of Minerals West Coast West Coast mayors and other elected representatives supporting the Government’s balanced approach to minerals and the conservation estate? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The support in the member’s electorate has been very strong. That region was founded on mining and feels betrayed both by Labour and by Damien O’Connor. This Government is committed to growing the West Coast mining industry. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Which of the following figures is correct for the potential value of minerals on Te Ahumata Plateau: the figure on page 21 of  
Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond 
 which values it at $4.3 billion; or the figure in the geologist’s report that says it is about $1.28 billion? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The information about the value of New Zealand mineral resources is not well known and that is why the Minister of Energy and Resources has committed $4 million for GNS Science to go and find out the detail. My worry is that members opposite refuse to know—and do not want to know—the value of New Zealand’s mineral resources. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister stand by his claim that the mining of pristine conservation park areas is the equivalent of one postcard on the whole of Eden Park or does he agree with the well-regarded mathematician on Television One last night who said that his own calculation shows that the correct comparison is not one postcard but 121 postcards; if so is the mining contemplated 121 times worse than the Minister has been telling the public? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The analogy that the Minister gave was intended to give New Zealanders an idea of the scale and of how infinitesimally small the area that is proposed to be mined is. It depends on whether the area is the area of the field or of the entire stadium grounds and it also depends on whether we take the area where the mining will actually occur as compared with the area that is explored. Depending on which approach one takes the numbers can be different. However I have to say that the number will be a whole lot bigger than the infinitesimal amount of economic growth that occurred under the previous Government. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How was the $1.5 billion figure on page 27 of the discussion document for the value of minerals in the Otahu Ecological Area and the Parakawai Ecological Area reached given that the geologist’s report on the two areas says that there is no reliable basis for determining a dollar value for the Crown minerals within the Otahu Ecological Area and that the Parakawai Ecological Area has a potential value of several tens of millions of dollars? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not have that specific detail. But I point out to the member opposite that we are unlikely to know what the value of those mineral resources is while they are included in schedule 4 as there is no incentive to even find out. Members on this side of the House are saying that we need to get a better understanding of the value of this country’s mineral resources and leverage off them so that we can be a prosperous country. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence in the Minister’s handling of the mineral stocktake when there are billion-dollar inconsistencies in the figures he is using and when after having spent about 8 months and having made some supposedly important changes in the terms of reference the discussion document was released with tracked changes still included? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In terms of having an exact figure for the value of New Zealand’s mineral resources the honest answer is that we do not know. Perhaps if the previous Government had actually made a wise investment in GNS Science to find out some of that information it would be more reliable. The Minister is committed to making a smart investment in getting additional information so that we can have a more accurate estimate of New Zealand’s mineral resources. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister was referring to an official document could he table the official postcard from which his estimates have come? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave as the Prime Minister is not in the Chamber today to answer my question to defer my question to the next sitting day’s question time when the Prime Minister is present. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Welfare Reforms—Prime Minister’s Statements 
8. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How many people exactly does he think need “a kick in the pants” from the welfare system? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: As he said yesterday this Government believes in a welfare system that supports people when they are most in need encourages them to get back to work and occasionally gives them a kick in the pants when they are not taking responsibility for themselves their families and other taxpayers. Therefore only those who fail to meet their obligation to try to find work will need a kick in the pants. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very specific question that asks for a very specific number. The question has been set down for some hours now and I would expect the Prime Minister to address the question directly. That has not been done. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member looks carefully at her question she will see that she asks “How many people exactly does he think …”. There is no specific answer to a question like that. Members putting down primary questions need to be mindful of that if they want precise answers. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the House—given the failure to provide the answer requested which was the number of people—that he has introduced major changes to the benefit system to punish more beneficiaries without assessing exactly how many people are actually being targeted by this policy? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is quite clear that people who fail to meet their obligations to try to find work will be the people to whom these sanctions apply. The purpose of this policy is to give folks a nudge towards making themselves available for work. As the member knows the longer that people are out of work the harder it often is for them to get back into it. 
Metiria Turei 
: What is the point of a targeted policy when he has no idea who the target is? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think New Zealanders and this Parliament know full well whom we are seeking to support. It is not good for people to be long-term unemployed. It is good for the Government to do everything it can to encourage those people into work and to provide them with the support and encouragement they need. 
Metiria Turei 
: How will his Government apply sanctions to people who need a “kick in the pants” without also delivering a “kick in the pants” to the children who rely on those people for their very well-being? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: A benefit will be cut only if someone fails to meet his or her obligations to look for work. That means doing things like attending interviews when they arise and making oneself available to take a job if it is the right one. All that people need to do to get back their full benefit is to meet those obligations. Parents have responsibilities to their children and part of their responsibility is to make sure that they meet the expectations around their receiving income support. 
Metiria Turei 
: Do the children of parents on the unemployment benefit deserve a “kick in the pants” if their parents are unable to find work in an increasingly competitive market in a recession? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Nothing will happen to people’s benefits if they are unable to get a job. The purpose of this policy is to say that it is not good for people to be long-term unemployed. New Zealanders know the consequences of it for people. Under the Government led by Annette King and Phil Goff during the 1980s the number of New Zealanders who languished in the long-term unemployed category increased massively. That was bad for our society. 
Metiria Turei 
: Do children with disabilities and with serious illnesses deserve a “kick in the pants” if their parents are forced out to work instead of staying home to care for them? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is very clear what this policy is about. It is about saying to New Zealanders that we think being in work has value and importance and that those who are long-term unemployed or who are in need of encouragement to get into work should get that encouragement because being in work is good for people. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it not the truth that the Prime Minister made his abusive comment just because he wants to join with his National Party colleagues in putting the boot into our most vulnerable families? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No that is just absolute nonsense. This Government and this Prime Minister want to help New Zealanders to get ahead. Part of that is saying to people that it is not good for them to be long-term unemployed. We want to put in place policies and supports that encourage those people into work when it is available for them because that will be good for them good for their children and good for New Zealand. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Savings from Enterprise Transformation Programme 
9. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he agree with Housing New Zealand that the Enterprise Transformation Programme to replace existing IT systems is expected to result in savings of $70 million per year; if so how was this figure calculated? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Although this is an operational matter I have been advised by the chief executive that the draft business case on the Enterprise Transformation Programme which has yet to be approved by the board has outlined up to $70 million per annum of expected efficiencies. With regard to the second part of the question I advise the member that this figure was calculated very carefully. 
Moana Mackey 
: Given that last week Housing New Zealand Corporation was forced to admit that the cost of scoping the business case had almost doubled to $10 million can he guarantee to the House that costs will not blow out even further given claims from insiders that the costs to date are in excess of $20 million? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I really do not quite understand where the member is coming from. This project was initiated by Housing New Zealand Corporation when her party was in power. Deloitte was chosen by Housing New Zealand Corporation to be the key partner when her party was in power so— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him but I think the question that Moana Mackey asked was a reasonable one about whether there are risks of the costs of the project escalating. I think the answer should focus somewhat on that. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will be very happy to come to that point as the last part of my answer. Therefore so much of what is happening now was put in train before National came into Government. But we have put all sorts of extra monitoring in place. This programme is being looked at by Treasury and the State Services Commission did a check on it. Yes we will make sure that best practice is followed even though in the end all the decisions that are made are a fully operational matter for Housing New Zealand Corporation itself. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does he reconcile claims by Housing New Zealand Corporation that its systems are so outdated that it is becoming difficult to conduct its business with a report from Resultex commissioned by Housing New Zealand Corporation that says the existing information technology systems are reliable and “there was not a single issue raised that related to the reliability of the underlying infrastructure. This is so unusual as to merit specific mention.”? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I can tell the House that a number of the information technology systems that Housing New Zealand Corporation is currently using such as Rentel were developed in 1993. That by my calculation is 17 years ago. I tell that member that any information technology system as old as that is not valid for modern-day requirements. The specifics that this Government has put on Housing New Zealand Corporation for the delivery of service require the corporation to have modern-day information systems in order for it to do its job. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is he even aware that Housing New Zealand Corporation commissioned a report from consultancy firm Resultex which independently reviewed its systems and concluded that the existing systems are very reliable and suffered remarkably little downtime and which conclusively rejected claims that the existing systems are no longer fit for their purpose? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I and the Minister of Finance as shareholding Ministers are doing what we should be doing as Ministers—that is keeping a watching brief asking the corporation to keep us well informed of progress and using State agencies like Treasury and the State Services Commission to do the detailed monitoring. But in the end finally after the business case is finalised this decision will be made by the corporation. The chairman of the corporation has offered to that member the opportunity to come and discuss it with him and she has not yet taken him up on that offer. 
Moana Mackey 
: Given how much pains he took at yesterday’s Maori housing conference to stress that there is not a single extra cent left in the coffers to fund housing projects does he think it is good value for taxpayer money for his department to spend $10 million on preparing a business case for the replacement of an information technology system that Housing New Zealand Corporation’s own reports say does not need to be replaced? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: When we are developing information technology projects best practice determines that we do a very detailed business case before the final decision to spend is made. Developing such a detailed business case requires the expenditure of money and to date I am convinced that the spending by Housing New Zealand Corporation on the development of that business case has been within what the Government considers to be value for money. 
Prisons—Increase of Existing Capacity 
10. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any reports on measures to cope with the forecast increase in prisoner numbers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. I am very pleased to report that great progress has been made with the implementation of double-bunking in our prisons. More than 700 bunks have been restored in the Northland Spring Hill and Otago corrections facilities. Installation of the final 170 bunks at Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility is now under way. When completed in September double-bunking will have added nearly 900 prison beds. This is one of the measures that will help avoid the prison bed crisis that we were heading into under the previous Government. 
Melissa Lee 
: Has the double-bunking project tracked to budget so far? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It has done better than that. I am very pleased to report that savings of $30 million against the original capital budget have been achieved so far. These savings have been obtained through design innovations good planning and excellent collaboration between the onsite project teams custodial staff and the contractors. An independent capital cost review of the project will occur shortly so that the positive lessons from this project can be applied to future projects. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Management of Councils 
11. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by his statement that “given how these councils have been run I would be surprised if there wasn’t some ability to make savings”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] The noise on my right on this occasion—from the Government benches—was so loud that I could not hear Phil Twyford so I invite the member to repeat his question. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Does he stand by his statement that “given how these councils have been run I would be surprised if there wasn’t some ability to make savings”? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes indeed. The present Auckland councils’ combined operating budget is $2000 million and I am confident that the structure will ensure better value from rates and central government funding by reducing duplication and delays in previously intractable problems such as transport issues. Services such as administration office systems finance human resources and information technology will be integrated and streamlined. Each council now operates its own systems so there are real savings to be made. Unified decision-making better transport and infrastructure and more efficient delivery of services will all contribute to a great Auckland region where people will want to live and do business. 
Phil Twyford 
: Can he confirm that under his third super-city bill six of the seven council-controlled organisations planned for Auckland will be required to pay tax on council activities that are currently non-taxable? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: We are still working through the tax details but I can say this. Inland Revenue Department officials have advised the Minister of Revenue and me that there will be no increased tax exposure for the Auckland Council. Indeed they advise that there will be less tax. For example— 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he can confirm that under his third super-city bill six of the seven council-controlled organisations would be liable for tax and the answer so far does not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness I think the Minister said in answer that some of these decisions have not yet been finalised but he then went on to advise the House of Inland Revenue Department advice that contains quite helpful information for the member I would have thought. Had the Minister been political I would have stopped him but it seemed that he was being helpful to the House. If the member is now seeking the call to ask a supplementary question I will let him do that. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: But I want to finish answering. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have heard enough answer. 
Phil Twyford 
: Why did the Minister say that no decisions have been made on tax issues for the Auckland Council when his third bill clearly makes six of the seven council-controlled organisations tax-liable; and is this not just another example of his rushed and shoddy handling of the super-city process? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Au contraire. Indeed over $100 million of existing tax losses that are now stranded will be made available to the entire Auckland Council as a consequence of the work that I and the Minister of Revenue have done. I have been advised by officials that the tax savings for the entire Auckland region as a result of the restructuring is estimated to be about $10 million a year ongoing. If the  
New Zealand Herald 
 told the truth that would be its headline because there will be tax savings for the new Auckland Council as a consequence of the work that this Government is doing. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: As the Minister seems to be relying on tax losses to make up for the extra tax involved in these council-owned companies is the Minister aware that the Christchurch City Council runs its council-owned organisations at a significant profit and that dividends of hundreds of millions of dollars are regularly made to offset rates charged in our city; if so is he seriously telling the House that he and the Government are planning to run the new council-controlled organisations at a loss in order to prevent tax from being paid to the Government? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I am not saying that; I am saying that tragically there already is $100 million worth of losses within the structures of the Auckland councils that cannot be realised and is lost and the new structure adds up to savings of $10 million a year for ratepayers. That is real money that will be saved. Indeed the advice that we have had from the Inland Revenue Department officials is that there will be savings in terms of taxes of $10 million each and every year—I repeat for Mr Anderton—as a consequence of the restructuring. That is good news for Auckland. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is it not true that even if we believe the Minister’s promise to make the council-controlled organisations tax-neutral Aucklanders will still have to pay more under his plan in rates water rates and GST on rates and to top it off $34 million in consultancy fees and executive salaries for the transition to a super-city they do not even want? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No. Once again that is not true. 
Phil Twyford 
: How is it fair for Aucklanders to pay all those extra costs when they have been given no choice on the super-city when his council-controlled organisations will lock them out of decision making on three-quarters of the council’s operations and when his local boards will have no powers to make by-laws? 
Hon Member 
: Have a think. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I am thinking because I am trying to work out how to explain in a simple way for the member that the restructuring saves the tax liability of the Auckland Council to the extent of $10 million a year. I would have thought that was extraordinarily fair. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked him about the fairness of Aucklanders paying the costs of the super-city while having no input into and no decision making on the outline and the shape of the super-city. He did not answer that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully to the member’s question because I feared that a point of order might be raised. The member made a series of statements in his supplementary question—a series of statements. How the Minister responds to a series of statements contained in a supplementary question is really up to the Minister. If the member wants detailed answers he has to ask precise questions. Some of his colleagues could give him some lessons on that. 
Migration Business—Progress in Attracting New Migrants 
12. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What progress has the Government made in attracting business migrants to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Last July the Government announced it would revamp the business migrant scheme to boost economic performance. The changes have made it easier for migrants to invest or set up a business in New Zealand and to gain permanent residence. There has been healthy interest in the new policy. Immigration New Zealand reports that over 100 expressions of interest have been received by prospective migrant investors since last July. In total new immigration policies have attracted approximately $194 million in potential new investment. 
David Bennett 
: How does the performance of this Government in attracting business migrants to date compare with that of the previous Government? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The current Government has attracted more business migrants in 8 months than the previous Government did in 2 years. In other words the previous Government took three times as long to produce less than half the result. 
Rahui Katene 
: How confident is he that the business skills being sought after in attracting migrants are not evident in the 64000 New Zealanders officially registered as job seekers and in particular the 21000 Maori job seekers? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Business migration policies aim to complement existing capital and entrepreneurial skills within the economy so there is no such thing as having too much of either. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. News just in from Great Barrier Island: Phil Goff is there on yet another tour. I do not know how many tours he has made this year but I recall that he has been on the “Axe the Tax” tour and the Harley Davidson tour. Of course we are looking forward to the valedictory tour soon because Labour members cannot wait to see that happen. They know that they are in a dire situation. They know that they have not got a chance with Phil Goff at the helm. 
It will be interesting to hear what is actually happening on Great Barrier Island today because I predict that Mr Goff will not be talking about the 74 mines on public land that he was part of authorising under the previous Government. He will not be telling the good people of Great Barrier Island about the Pike River mine. He will not be talking about gold and gem concessions in Paparoa National Park. No I think he will be turning on one of his usual acts where he pretends to be at one with the local people. 
But you know the reality of it all is that Phil Goff I believe does not have any real problem with mining. I do not believe that he has any objection at all. What he does not like is the idea of New Zealanders becoming wealthier and doing better because he is the leader of the party of zero aspiration. The problem for Labour members is that if New Zealanders do better and become wealthier their party does not get in. Fundamentally they do not want to see New Zealand doing better because while New Zealand is doing better there is no way that Labour will get a run on the Treasury benches from the electorate. There is something fundamental in everything that the Labour Party says: it is against everything but we do not know what it is for. Phil Goff went on the “Axe the Tax” bus but he could not say whether he would reverse a rise in GST. He cannot tell us whether he will reverse any of the changes to the welfare system that will make New Zealanders get out there work harder and further their lot in life. 
If the New Zealand public decides that mining on conservation land can go ahead I bet that if Phil Goff gets the chance he will not turn that decision round because Phil Goff is an opportunist who is running out of opportunities. Darren Hughes over there is nodding—he is quite happy. Members opposite know that things are getting worse and worse for them. They have seen what has happened in Australia with Tony Abbott who is someone in Opposition who actually believes in something and they are thinking that if they put Trevor Mallard up as leader they might start getting some traction. The public cannot stand Trevor Mallard but at least they know what he stands for. With Phil Goff they are in real danger. With him they have someone who has been all over the paddock. When he is on Great Barrier Island today I do not think he will be talking about the time when he was part of a hard-right Labour Government in the 1980s when he was demanding hard-right reforms. He likes to distance himself from Roger Douglas these days but that is his political pedigree. When we look at Phil Goff’s record over the years we see that yes he has gone back and forth many times on many things. 
The one thing he has not managed to do while he has been the Leader of the Opposition is outline a plan for growing the economy. What our Prime Minister has done is say that New Zealand has to do better as a country. We have to earn more. We have to provide incentives for people to get off welfare and better themselves in life. There is a coherent plan. Every week the Government is rolling out policies that will make New Zealanders better off and wealthier and give us the income we need to pay for social services hospitals and the police force. Labour members want to keep the people in South Auckland subjugated and below the radar. They want to maintain the huge welfare spend. Their basic tactic is to tell people on a benefit not to worry because Labour will look after them; all they have to do is vote Labour not get above their station in life and not do a little bit better. They should not listen to Mr Key. They should not get their kids educated properly so that they can get a university degree and realise their potential. No Labour wants to keep them there on the bottom level. 
I do not think Mr Goff will today be telling the people of Great Barrier Island how last year he was very happy to take the Labour caucus down to Blackball to celebrate Labour’s mining roots because he says one thing and does another depending on whom he is talking to. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. The previous speaker the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman was the member who destroyed the by-election campaign in Mt Albert and he was offering advice about leadership. He is the “Maestro of Self-defeat.” He is also the man who distinguished himself recently by being kicked out of this Chamber for refusing to apologise. We have heard from him a reminder of the A B and C of politics. The Government has united “A” for Aucklanders “B” for beneficiaries and “C” for conservationists who all hate the Government’s policies. That is why the Government is extremely worried. Polling results are showing that popularity is plummeting in Auckland. Those Aucklanders whom the Government did not disenfranchise through the super-city have been completely estranged as a consequence of the Government turning Great Barrier Island into “Gerry Brownlee’s Krakatoa”. 
Secondly the Government has shown its cruel colours by bashing not only beneficiaries but also most important those Aucklanders who love their environment. The Aucklanders who are seeing the green line being covered in diesel muck and National Party ideology in Coromandel are rising up. They will not stand by while one democracy is stripped out of the super-city and two Auckland is handed over to corporate gnomes and turned into some sort of commercial Gotham City model. In addition to that Rodney Hide drives the waka yet he drives Paula Bennett out of politics; her seat is narrowly held. She will not need to come back from her  
American Idol 
 gig when she goes overseas because she will have no seat to come back to. Similarly she does not need to go to learn about Sarah Palin over there because she is doing a good job here in our country. [ 
Interruption 
] She will be aided by the member for Maungakiekie who realises what the consequences will be of Mr Hide’s rantings and his very very destructive quality of leadership in the super-city where he consistently promises people that he is listening but does exactly the opposite hoping that they will get the blame. 
Day after day the super-city is stressed and emphasised as the lie it is by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which has Rodney Hide in its sights. Rodney Hide went from Rodney down to the Waikato continually telling people that if they participated in the process their democratic ambitions would be realised. The exact opposite has happened. In addition there are no opportunities for slippage yet the entire thing is slipping. The elections are not very far away and the super-city is miles away from being put in place. But it suits Mr Hide’s ideology. Those are the people who will suffer quite apart from Mr Maurice Williamson’s bitter moaning that he does not like the word irirangi and instead prefers “help”. I encourage him to get Maori lessons from the Speaker. 
But let me come back to mining. In the right place mining is not a fatal economic consequence but this is a Government that has chosen to mine the most sensitive areas and to turn an economic development debate into an exercise in destroying New Zealand’s clean green image and its conservation values apparently in order to perform a step-up exercise to catch Australia. Not only has the Government united the conservationists it has also enraged all the people who have fought for the last 25 years to move away from the Muldoonist approach of digging up and quarrying the nation towards investing in innovation long-term economic change and jobs. 
 There are three things afflicting this Government. First it has lost interest in creating jobs and that is why it is belting beneficiaries. Second it has decided that the quick-fix remedy is to dig up the countryside. It thinks that by digging up the countryside it will create sustainable wealth but that will be a short fillip for foreign-owned companies. The jobs will be scarce and the degradation in those very sensitive areas will be very long term and I would think irreversible. The third and most egregious failure afflicting the Government lies in Auckland. That is where the vast majority of voters are settled. They know that over 50 to 60 percent of their current democratic influence has been handed over to shadowy organisations hand-picked by Rodney Hide. This is a travesty. The environment is being destroyed along with the Government’s political reputation. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise this afternoon on behalf of all New Zealanders: farmers business people employers and families. On 1 July—in just over 3 months—this Government will force upon the people of New Zealand an experiment a grand new experiment unlike anything launched anywhere else in the world. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not surprising that there is so much banter and discussion in this House. All of the political parties in this House bar the ACT Party have been part of this huge fraud this emissions trading scheme tax that starts on 1 July. 
Why is the ACT Party is alone in opposing this tax? From 1 July we can expect an immediate increase of 5 percent in electricity and 4 percent in petrol and we can expect those increases to be doubled on 1 January 2013. The increased costs of electricity and petrol will flow through the whole economy. They will flow through the costs of everything—food housing and clothing—everything. Just a fortnight ago Alan Bollard the Governor of the Reserve Bank confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that his latest estimates for inflation take into account a 5 percent increase in electricity prices and a 4c per litre increase in petrol costs as forecast by Treasury last November. Our families will pay our businesses will pay and our farmers will pay. 
What makes this such a tragedy is that our emissions trading scheme tax goes further than similar taxes in any other country in the world. I say again that we are conducting an experiment unlike any other country in the world. We will be the first country to tax our farmers—that is right. Our farmers have enough to compete with in an unevenly trade-balanced world but we are the first country in the world to tax our farmers. 
Just last November the Prime Minister proudly told the Federated Farmers national executive that agriculture would not be coming into the emissions trading scheme until 2015. He said that we would not be taxing methane from animals until 2015. Farmers might have felt some sense of comfort from that. Well they should not have done because if we take average dairy farms we see that no less than three-quarters of the tax that farmers will pay will come as a consequence of their use of electricity and petrol and through the emissions of dairy processing factories. Although it is all very well for the Prime Minister to tell farmers that they will not have to pay for the cost of their animals’ methane until 2015 farmers will be paying from 1 July this year. If any farmers are listening to this debate this afternoon they might be surprised to find out that they are paying from 1 July but it is a fact. It is a fact. Of the average $10000 cost for dairy farmers no less than three-quarters of what they will pay relates to petrol electricity and the cost of emissions. 
I ask why we are doing this to ourselves. Our three major trading partners are Australia China and the United States. I ask what our three major trading partners are doing. Are they taxing their people or increasing the price of electricity for their citizens? No they are not. The ACT Party stands alone in opposing this move. It is not surprising that the House has fallen into silence because other members should be ashamed. 
I ask why we are conducting this experiment. It is not too late to change. Overnight—12 hours ago—President Sarkozy of France announced that France is abandoning its intention to introduce a carbon tax. Why is that? It is because the French people have risen up in protest. Finally they can see that France would be foolish to tax its people when other countries in Europe are not doing that. If Nicolas Sarkozy can show leadership and abandon the French carbon tax as he has done in the past 24 hours then I call upon the Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key to show the same leadership and show the people of New Zealand that things have changed in the last 5 months. 
This House was told time and time again last year that we would not lead the world; we were to be a fast follower and our emissions trading scheme tax was to be based on that in Australia. What has happened is that there is no Australian emissions trading scheme tax. There is no United States emissions trading scheme tax and there is no such tax in China. Why do we allow the power generators to earn hidden profits and why do we tax our people this way? 
I seek leave to table a study done by Meat and Wool dated 17 February 2010 that shows that the price for the average dairy and beef farmer will be about $10000 and that it will commence on 1 July this year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Gisborne Chamber of Commerce to the Prime Minister; Anne Tolley the MP for East Coast; the Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith; and Tim Groser on the impact of the emissions trading scheme on the Gisborne region. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table a document from Neil and Esther Henderson third-generation farmers in Gisborne outlining the cost of the emissions trading scheme on their beef farm and stating that it will make it uneconomic. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was this a letter published in any public medium such as a newspaper? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: No it is a private letter. It is a statement from Neil and Esther Henderson outlining the impact on their family. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table an extract from the online Paris  
Le Monde 
 newspaper of yesterday’s date in which France announced its intentions to abandon carbon taxes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Finally I seek leave to table the English transcription from the French press association outlining France’s announcement that it will be abandoning carbon taxes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 What we witnessed in this House this afternoon was quite interesting. In fact I have some advice for Television New Zealand: it does not need to fund any more reality television programmes because “Survivor: Labour Party Leader” will be a best seller. What we saw today was a trial to determine which person gets to stay on the island—and it could be Great Barrier Island. I say to Phil Goff that I am sorry but he was voted off the island today. One of the pretenders to the leadership Shane Jones was in full flight trialling out for “Survivor: Labour Party Leader”. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get his call to trial out tomorrow probably or maybe his little stunt in the House yesterday was a trial for “Survivor: Labour Party Leader”. What is really clear is that the current incumbent is on the island today according to Jonathan Coleman but he will be voted off. 
The most fantastic part of Shane Jones’ speech was the bit when he said that the National Party’s popularity was plummeting. If this is what plummeting popularity feels like then I really am very happy for it to continue. When I go around my electorate in Auckland I hear nothing but commendation of what the Government is doing regarding say local body amalgamation. People are commending Rodney Hide for taking eight local authorities and getting rid of the nonsense and the duplication. 
I come now to an issue that does need to be given some consideration and does need to be carefully thought through. I am talking about the very careful mining of very specific sites. I think that if the claims were true and we were going to rip up the whole country and do open-cast mining across all our pristine areas then not a single New Zealander would support that—not one. But I do not know of any New Zealanders who not would say that under the right circumstances provided all the conservation values were protected if not enhanced and if it was done in a careful manner at a low scale at certain points then yes they would consider that to be good for the economy. I can tell members that many New Zealanders say all the time that the big difference between Australia and New Zealand is Australia’s mineral wealth. I say to people that actually no it is not. Australia’s mineral wealth per capita is not any better than ours; it is just that Australia is taking advantage of it. 
New Zealanders know today that we cannot carry on borrowing $240 million every week or a billion dollars every month and not have a day of reckoning. They know when they do their household accounts that the day of reckoning will come if they are spending more than they are earning. I am not hearing one suggestion from the lazy Labour Opposition about how to lift the incomes of New Zealanders lift our GDP and make us a wealthy nation. 
Phil Twyford 
: How about research and development tax credits? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Twyford you should not be wasting your time here. You should be moving on to your next electorate selection. You have at least 64 more to go before you have wiped them all out so I would not waste time by being in the House if I were you. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Our colleague was just inviting you to move on to your next electorate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we should get too pedantic about that. I apologise to the Hon Maurice Williamson for the interruption. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is like being savaged by a sheep when Kennedy Graham takes a point of order. I am really happy about that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is about the practice of referring to a point of order on which you have ruled. I think it is a long-term Speaker’s ruling that when a ruling has been made one moves on and does not refer back to it in the way that the member has just done. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The way that the member referred to it though did not in any way dispute my ruling. He was building it into a speech. I think the member’s point is certainly valid. I ask the Hon Maurice Williamson to be careful. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will be very careful. I can tell members that New Zealanders are looking to a Government that has a plan to lift our national incomes and make us once again a wealthy nation. That is what is important and there is a huge list of measures that have already been put in place. When we get our briefing list to come down to the House and speak in the general debate I have to actually call the people in our research unit and ask whether there is any chance of getting a shorter list because the list of good stuff just goes on for page after page and we have only 5-minute calls. 
All I can say is that from my perspective New Zealanders want to have a Government that will do some stuff that will lift our economy. I am happy to go on record as saying that provided proper conservation values are protected and that provided sites are chosen that will mean there is very little disruption and surgical-type mining can be done I am a big fan of mining happening. I holiday and own a place on the Coromandel Peninsula and I do not want to see the Coromandel Peninsula wrecked. But no proposal that has been put forward even looks as though it would wreck the Coromandel. We will have to trudge inland and into the mountains for some time to even locate the spots that are in question and what will be done will be done very carefully. This proposal is really good and I am proud to be a member of this Government. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the Minister was speaking he referred to documents that are prepared for him to speak in the House. I invite him to table the documents that he referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot do that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: He said he was referring to documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot do that. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 This House is expecting Government legislation soon on regional governance in Canterbury. It arises from the ongoing tension that exists in Canterbury over the vexed issue of water. Canterbury’s water has become the bell-wether for the current political debate in New Zealand. This is between two alternative philosophies embraced by different sections of the New Zealand public and also in this House. The first postulates economic growth as the paramount value yet in the primal mists of the political jungle this Government has an instinctive awareness that not all is right with the environment. It intuits that the people also are concerned so it utters soothing noises to assuage the masses: “We shall balance our economic opportunities with our environmental responsibilities and we have a subgroup—the Bluegreens—to salve your conscience. The Prime Minister himself is a member so nothing to worry about.” The second philosophy embraces sustainable development: the economy is forever subordinate to the environment whether or not humans choose to acknowledge it. 
These alternative world views play out before our eyes over Canterbury water. The growth mania is at its height in Canterbury today which comprises almost a quarter of New Zealand’s farmland. Dairy fever has hit its peak in my province; it has grown by 61 percent in 6 years which is almost half the national increase. This is in a region where the natural climate is dry but “not to worry; human technology has freed us from Nature’s primitive grasp”. So the thirst for irrigation is unquenchable. 
The Canterbury region accounts for 70 percent of this nation’s irrigation yet the dairy industry wants more so the developers urge Environment Canterbury to grant consents and Environment Canterbury responds with untrammelled accuracy that its job is to protect the environment. This enrages the developers who conspire with the local authorities to instigate a ministerial review. This is conducted with great solemnity involving a former Deputy Prime Minister as the chief independent reviewer. It is delivered with the sonorous tones of analytical dispassion and professional insight. The independent reviewers themselves assemble in the Minister’s room to brief MPs—an odd procedural arrangement in itself but who is counting around here? 
The Creech report recommends the replacement of the Environment Canterbury council with a temporary commission and a semi-permanent water authority both appointed by and answerable to central government. Through a carefully calibrated form of tough love local democracy is throttled and dies. In fact the Creech report is a shoddy piece of work that fails rudimentary tests of professional standards. 
First the report lacks intellectual integrity. It criticises Environment Canterbury for being science-driven and not science-informed. The Creech report is politically driven and not politically informed. If it were politically informed it would acknowledge that democracy is bigger than business; that the subsidiarity principle is bigger than Government; and that one does not replace elected councillors with appointees of central government just because they are making decisions one might not like. That is political arrogance of the highest order. 
Second the report purports to be an organisational review but it sets no clear criteria for judging institutional efficiency that allows for contestable judgment. It cites a selective range of what it calls “external opinion”. I could assemble a selected range of external opinion that would say the opposite. It would have equal claim to partial truth. 
Third the report rests its views on what it calls the “enormous and unprecedented gap between Environment Canterbury’s responsibility and capability” but although it makes a great play of advancing three options it fails to include the obvious one—that is to give Environment Canterbury the resources to do the job. That would retain local democracy and meet the Government’s stated concerns but of course the report does not include that option; to do so would not meet its underlying purpose. 
Fourth the report is a shameless exercise in prejudgment. Its starting premise is also its conclusion. The report seeks to identify what it describes in its terms of reference as “ECan’s poor performance record”. It then concludes 67 pages later that Environment Canterbury’s performance has been poor and that it needs to be replaced. That was a brilliant exercise in circular logic which would fail a level 101 Master of Business Administration test. 
This crisis is not over Canterbury water though Canterbury water is in crisis. This crisis is over a particular world view that is driven by central government arrogance. The Creech report is part of a juggernaut that is gathering speed in Wellington—from local democracy to centralised corporatism from Environment Canterbury to “New Zealand Incorporated”. The Key Government is making the fatal mistake that humans can balance the economy with the environment. We cannot do that; the economy is a subset a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. If we ravage the environment we destroy the economy and human society with it. I say: “Mr Prime Minister give us back our province and retain your integrity as a national leader.” 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 What is it about the Labour Opposition that does not want New Zealanders and New Zealand to succeed? What is it about the Labour Opposition that seems so anti economic growth and does not want us to make the most of our economic opportunities? What is it about the Labour Opposition that does not seem to realise that if we encourage economic growth in a sensible and rational way then we are better placed to have better health better education and better welfare? 
What is it about the Labour Opposition that has such a dislike of our mining industry; an industry that can contribute sensibly significantly reasonably and responsibly to our economic growth and can actually contribute to jobs? Finally what is it about the Labour Opposition that wants to so deliberately damage our international reputation and our “100% Pure New Zealand” image with mischievous and irresponsible scaremongering? 
The Government released a discussion document—and look at the reaction. It is a discussion document; it is not policy. It is not a decision; it is a discussion document. Immediately after we released that document the mischievous Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society went on a membership drive. After the release of the document the society said the Government was going to target Tongariro National Park Mount Aspiring National Park and Kahurangi National Park. Yet the discussion document is specific. It states that there will be no change to Tongariro National Park no change to Kahurangi National Park no change to Mount Aspiring National Park. 
It is possible to mine responsibly on conservation land and there are examples of it now. As the Minister of Conservation I am more than aware of the need to protect our iconic conservation land. I saw a quote this week from Jane Clifton in the 
 Listener 
 and it sums up the reaction to a T. She said: “It has been the accepted convention that when Labour grants a mining licence it is a sensitively handled best-practice maximising of opportunities and when National grants a mining licence it is a barbaric exploitation of our priceless heritage to the benefit of its big-business mates.” I have to say that there is a word for that and I am not allowed to use it in this House. We already have sensible mining. 
I quote Chris Carter the previous Minister of Conservation. He said: “the Pike River coal company had to come up with a host of environmental protections and meet very stringent safeguards.” That is a good quote; we like that. We will be doing the same. We will have the same protections and the same safeguards. Even Mr Goff has said: “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conversation estate available to environmentally sensitive mining.” We agree. Annette King has said that if mining was done in areas that are not key conservation areas on the conservation estate and if it is done well she does not think that people would have a lot of difficulty with it. Well we will do it and we will do it well and we agree with what Annette King said. 
Chris Carter the previous Minister of Conservation said in relation to Pike River Coal: “This mine does represent an intrusion into an area of high conservation values”—in fact it is a national park—“and a decision on whether to allow it to go ahead has been a very difficult one to make because of this.” We agree; some of these decisions are difficult but they are balancing economic opportunities very seriously with our environmental responsibilities. 
Even the Greens have been mischievous on this. Metiria Turei said: “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species”. But what do the Greens say now? They say it is different when National wants to be responsible; it is different when we want to make the most of New Zealand’s economic opportunities for the betterment of New Zealand and it is different when we want to be responsible with the conservation estate. It is totally different than under Labour! As I have said there is a word for that. 
What annoys me is the damning of the mining companies. Yes Pike River Coal is in Paparoa National Park—and it contributes to the endangered blue duck programme. It contributes to pest control and it has paid over $100000 for conservation work. It paid for a public road in a national park. Mining and conservation can go hand in hand responsibly. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I have been doing some research into ACT’s local government policy which is very relevant to the discussion in the House today because the ACT Party appears to be driving the Government’s local government policy in Auckland. I will read to the House a couple of very relevant pieces from the ACT Party’s local government policy. ACT’s local government policy describes the current situation in relation to local government. What does it say? It says that local government is vulnerable to interest group capture: special interest groups get money for programmes yet everyone ends up paying for them. Actually that is a description of Rodney Hide’s super-city plan. He says that everyone pays—the Auckland public pays—but a special interest group gets the benefit. Who is he talking about? He is talking about National and ACT’s business mates who are about to inherit the entire Auckland super-city thanks to these reforms. 
The ACT policy also describes dictatorial powers that remove freedom and choice. Actually that is a description of the super-city as well. Those are exactly the powers that Rodney Hide is exercising right now in taking freedom and choice away from Aucklanders—Aucklanders who have never been consulted on the super-city. They have had no say in the matter but they will have to pick up the tab for the super-city fiasco. 
Further on down ACT’s local government policy also states that councils get captured by narrow interest groups which is unfair to everybody. Again that is a great description of Rodney Hide’s super-city. I do not know if members have noticed but only three organisations have come out in support of the Government’s council-controlled model and they are the Employers and Manufacturers Association the Council for Infrastructure Development and the Property Council. Everybody else in Auckland is against the council-controlled organisation model and against the corporatisation of local government in Auckland. Here is a classic example in ACT’s local government policy of how a narrow-interest group of big-business lobbyists can seize control of local government and can get its hands on assets that Auckland ratepayers have paid for over generations. 
We saw in question time this afternoon another example of the shoddy and rushed handling of the super-city when the Minister of Local Government explained that in spite of his third super-city bill no decisions had been made yet. That bill is currently before a select committee and it makes it absolutely clear that the council-controlled organisations are taxable entities which is why the  
New Zealand Herald 
 reported today on its front page that Aucklanders would be up for tens of millions of dollars in taxes. But Rodney Hide said: “Oh we have not made any decisions yet. We are still talking about it.” What an absolute joke! 
It is clear to members on this side of the House to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and to Aucklanders that the costs are mounting. In relation to transition costs for the super-city already $34 million in executive salaries and consultancy fees has been racked up by the Auckland Transition Agency and that is only for the last few months. I ask members who will pick up the tab for that. It will be the Auckland taxpayer. The Auckland taxpayer will also have to pay increased water rates. We know that if the volumetric pricing from Metro Water is rolled out across the rest of the city an ordinary family of four on the North Shore in Waitakere or in South Auckland will be copping an extra $700 a year in their water rates. That is what Aucklanders will have to cop as a result of this Government’s super-city. 
Already we are facing huge delays in the roll-out of the new information technology system for the super-city. Experts in the information technology industry are estimating that it will cost anything from $20 million to $100 million to create the new information technology system for the super-city. But the kicker is that the cost of fixing up the leaky home situation in Auckland will be about two-thirds of the estimated $11 billion to $20 billion that PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates is the national cost of the problem. Two-thirds of that cost will end up on the tab of Auckland ratepayers and the Court of Appeal has made that very clear this week. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is quite clear that Phil Twyford’s party does not really want him. I think it would be far better for him to take up meditation because it would give him something to do in Opposition. Labour is in dire straits not only in relation to its leadership but also in my electorate in the Wairarapa. Here is a headline: “Labour looks far and wide for Wairarapa candidate”. I will go on and read a little section from this article from the 68-year-old educationalist who is leading the party in the Wairarapa: “The priority was building a strong party organisation and reviving branches previously disbanded.” The Labour Party is in complete disarray not only here in Parliament but also right through this country. 
Why is the Labour Party in disarray? I can tell members why. When this Government came into office it inherited an economy that was in terrible shape. Why was it in terrible shape? It was because at that point New Zealand had been in recession under Labour’s administration for at least a year and probably for 3 or 4 years. To put that into context the tradable sector in the New Zealand economy had been in recession for the last 5 years. Let me show members this graph I have: we can see GDP here and years are this way. The gap between the red line and the white line is Government spending on the top line and the tradable sector coming down. There is a huge gap. That is why Labour went. That it why you are in disarray and that is why you will stay there. What you have done is fuel New Zealand’s debt to the world. I will show the good people in the gallery— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know I am speaking from an unusual position in that I am in a Green seat—I was about to leave the House if it is not out of order to say so—but as far as you are concerned Mr Speaker the member’s remarks were grossly offensive. He was saying that you are gone you are going and why you are not coming back. This member has now been here for I think about a year and he should know better than that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. I remind John Hayes not to— 
Paul Quinn 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. I remind John Hayes not to refer to the Speaker. I can assure him that the Speaker is not in disarray. 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The rules are quite clear. People are able to speak only from seats that are allocated to their party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not aware that members are able to speak only from particular seats although I stand to be corrected on that. A point of order was raised and I think it was a fair point of order. 
JOHN HAYES 
: What we need in this country is a far better-performing economy. We have to encourage savings investment and exports particularly from electorates like mine. We have to reduce consumption. Why do we have to reduce consumption? Let me tell members what Labour did when it was in office. It doubled the amount of aid we are giving away to foreign countries but at the same time it took the number of staff it employed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade from 250 to 500. It increased the Government salaries for those earning $100000 or more by 375 percent. 
There are four things we have to do to take this country forward. The first thing is that our policies have to be fair; the second is that we have to give families choice so that they can get ahead; the third is that whatever we do has to be good for the economy and it has to help imbalances; and the fourth is that we have to create jobs and we have to spread money around everywhere. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Spread money around everywhere? 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes we have to spend money everywhere because what we are doing is locking up money in the welfare system and we keep paying it to people who do not necessarily need it. I am sick and tired of having people come through my office who are long-term beneficiaries who are perfectly able to get out and get jobs but who have had no incentive to do it. So I commend my colleague Paula Bennett— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the member tell them that? 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes I do tell them that and I absolutely commend my colleague Paula Bennett for the brilliant decision she has taken this week to start to modify welfare payments. We have to understand that every dollar we give away has to come from somebody’s pocket. When the Government gives money to somebody it has to take it from somebody. Much of that money comes from people who earn from $12.50 to $15 an hour. So I absolutely support those policies. 
I also say to the people who create hysteria over mining that there has been no decision from the Government to get into the conservation estate and mine. What is on the table is a discussion paper. Those of us old enough to remember the Department of Lands and Survey will know that it was closed down and much of its land was given to the Department of Conservation. That land had no conservation value whatever. In my own electorate south of Mount Bruce are 341 parcels of land with the Department of Conservation that have no conservation value whatever. I am very interested to see much greater emphasis on mining because off the coast of the Wairarapa there is a huge volume of carbon hydrate that can be harvested brought ashore and used to set up a carbon-based hydrocarbon industry. 
This Government took the edges off the recession in 2009; in 2010 it is focusing on jobs and growth. It has made multibillion-dollar infrastructural investments and we see those on the Rimutaka hill road and on just about every road in this country. Everybody is noticing the amount of work that is going on. The National Government is cutting red tape and regulation we are making better business innovation and trade and we are improving education and skills because we do not want all those children leaving school without them. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 The previous speaker John Hayes got a clap for that speech; I thought that people would rather forget it. 
I will talk about Auckland governance and I will go back through a little bit of history. Three bills relating to Auckland governance have passed or will pass through this House. On the first bill there was no consultation. It was rammed through on a weekend. The second bill had some opposition. In relation to the third bill I have to say I am disappointed that the Maori Party has not been fighting in the trenches as the Labour Party has been. 
I go back to the second bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. One of the Maori Party members said: “This bill is an insult to due process an insult to partnership an insult to justice and an insult to the mana whenua of Auckland. The Maori Party will be opposing this bill every step of the way.” Who said that? 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Hone Harawira. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is right. When it came to the third bill Labour was in the trenches facing the Government at the select committee. The Greens were there; David Clendon was there. But where was the Maori Party? Well Dr Sharples talked about various things. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Did they speak up? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They did not speak up; they did not even show up. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Correct me if I am wrong but the same rules apply within select committees as in the House. Members cannot go on about the non-appearance of a member either at a select committee or in the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes briefly. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Very briefly. The member is quite right: the same rule applies to both. But the member speaking is referring to a political party; he has not identified an individual member of Parliament. He was talking about a particular political party’s approach so I do not think that that triggers Speaker’s ruling 25/2. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member certainly cannot refer to individual members as being absent from a committee but it sounded to OK me. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Labour Party and the Green Party were fighting in the trenches for Maori representation on the super-city. But what did the Maori Party have to say? 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What did they say? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Nothing! One has to be there to say things. Were they listening to the Maori people of Auckland? No they were not. They were too busy getting a flag put on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. That was their big achievement—a flag on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. In 16 months as a Government party the Maori Party got a flag put on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. 
I have to tell Dr Sharples that the people in his electorate are really disappointed. He has changed his mind. He says that he regrets what the Government is doing but what he is really on about is working away in the background changing the basis of voting. He does not like the idea of one person one vote. I think that he is actually planning to have an Upper House so that he can retire into it. It will not be very surprising if that is where he is tracking down. The Minister of Maori Affairs was also clear about the need for Maori seats on the advisory board and the worthlessness of having an advisory board. Did the National Government listen? No. Did the Minister say it loudly enough? Did he say it strongly enough? Rodney Hide got to the Prime Minister’s ear first and he made his point. Who is the more terrifying for the Prime Minister: benevolent Dr Sharples or Rodney Hide the bulldozer who is straight in? 
We can see that the Maori people especially in my area of South Auckland have been let down by the Maori Party. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh that member can squawk but her whip should have made sure that Maori attended a select committee to hear what people were saying. That is very important; it is a part of the process that the Maori Party wants so much—part of the process that ordinary Maori families who are paying high taxes and who will be paying even higher taxes want representation on. But they are not getting it from the Maori Party. That bill was very important for one-third of New Zealand’s population—one-third of New Zealand’s population—but where was the Maori Party? It was missing in action. Its members were not anywhere but Labour kept the fight going in the trenches. 
You know even John Banks of Auckland City is talking about how the bill will not work too well and saying that council-controlled organisations will have a life of their own. They may have a life of their own but there will not be any Maori people on those organisations either I dare say. They will not have Maori on them. 
I feel sorry for Mr Henare. At the time of the second bill he went around the country around Auckland and to marae but he could not say a thing. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 What is it about a stocktake of New Zealand’s mineral resources that brings on such hysteria amongst people? I have here a membership drive on behalf of Labour’s mates the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society that makes some pretty extraordinary claims. In this broadsheet it says “Dear Ms Dean. Help us stop the mining of our precious national parks. Shockingly New Zealand’s national parks are under threat of mining.” It goes on to say: “Imagine huge diggers like the one pictured above”—and I will be tabling this document for the benefit of the House—“removing a majestic mountain in Mt Aspiring National Park … bucket-load by bucket-load”. It continues: “If these landscapes are destroyed forever all the millions of native plants and creatures living there will suffer the same fate.” Come on! “From the slow-moving giant snails to the raucous kaka—all will disappear.” I ask Forest and Bird whether that is what will really happen. I will give members one final quote from this attempt to secure my membership of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Table it. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I will be tabling it. It says: “We will do everything in our power to fight to keep these special places safe from mining companies”. 
But is this the reality? I do not think it is and I will tell members why. For example Rio Tinto has had a major impact on the Kakapo Recovery Programme. That is not news; that is well known to people even to Labour’s mates such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. Rio Tinto gifted 80 hectares of land to the public as part of its Kakapo Recovery Programme and has injected well over $3 million into the Kakapo Recovery Programme since it first signed the agreement in 1990. Does New Zealand need to be protected from that? I do not think that it does. The funding has helped to support breeding programmes and population monitoring of the critically endangered parrot on predator-proof sanctuaries. Just over 50 birds remained when the partnership was first signed in 1990. Rio Tinto the mining company has helped to boost bird numbers to the current figure of 123 birds. I do not see those figures in this somewhat unbalanced fact sheet. 
The Solid Energy goat control programme—that is pest control by Solid Energy—was an initiative driven by Solid Energy to provide funding for a 5-year carbon research programme involving 20000 hectares of goat-infested native forest near Mokihinui on the West Coast. Far from New Zealand needing protection from mining companies and people doing everything in their power to fight to keep these special places safe from mining companies we should be thanking them. We should be encouraging the mining companies in their ongoing efforts to rehabilitate our environment. This Government believes that economic development can and does go hand in hand with the environmental protection that I have just talked about. 
I will to focus on a mining operation in my own region of Otaga. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The “o” was mined out. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Otago—an electorate called Waitaki which is bigger than the Otago region and also encompasses some of Canterbury. I will talk about the mining operation of Oceana Gold whose Macraes goldmine employs 600 people. That is a lot of people employed in the Otago region. Its annual wage bill is between $30 million and $40 million. Most of that money is reinvested into the communities of Macraes Oamaru Palmerston Waikouaiti and Dunedin. As for Oceana Gold’s expenditure in the district it purchases reagents and goods and services to the tune of $50 million a year. If we have a look at the multiplier effect of 3:1 or 4:1 we see that if the mine were to close Otago would lose 2000 jobs. That is a significant impact in the Otago region. That is a significant impact brought around by a mining operation. 
I seek leave to table this document from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document— 
Hon Members 
: What is it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document the member was quoting from during her speech. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 First it was Aucklanders being denied a real say in the set up of the super-city. Now it is mining in their backyards that is being imposed on them against their will. 
The problem is that this Government has no ability whatsoever to listen. I will give an example of that. In a recent edition of the  
Hauraki Herald 
 there was an article that quoted one of National’s highest-calibre MPs—everyone on that side of the House wants to be like her—Sandra Goudie. There was a quote from her saying that she was unaware of opposition to the prospect of more mining in her electorate and that she believed that any concerns had been generated by political opponents. The fact that a National Party MP particularly the one who is the member for Coromandel is unaware of any opposition to mining goes a long way to showing how much that Government does not listen. That member only had to read the newspapers or listen to the radio to hear opposition to mining. That member would not have got it from the local group though because it also said in the paper that Coromandel Watchdog spokesperson Denis Tegg said that his group did not bother voicing concerns about mining issues to Mrs Goudie who he described as a very minor backbencher. He said that the people there had made a decision not to talk to her because it is a waste of time and energy. I think that is what a lot of Aucklanders are thinking at the moment not just about Mrs Goudie but also about a lot of Auckland MPs on that side of the House— 
John Hayes 
: Especially the Westies. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: That includes the one from Wairarapa Mr Hayes. 
At the other end of the spectrum we have National Party MPs in our newspapers not knowing the policies of their party. They are coming out and saying that they disagree with what their party is advocating for. We on this side of the House cannot work out whether Nikki Kaye did not know the values of the National Party before she became a politician or whether she has worked out that Auckland Central’s values do not align with the National Party and now she is trying to look different from what the National Party is putting out. That is something we are still trying to understand. 
Regarding the mining issue it has come up time and again that the Government is not listening. It is not listening not just with mining but also with what has been happening with the super-city. The hidden agendas that exist on that side of the House have also come out. There are hidden agendas that go back 2 or 3 years and are only beginning to surface at the moment. We have seen hidden agendas around privatisation with that Government over there. We have seen the hidden agenda of mining even in the electorate of Waitakere. Two years ago the MP for Waitakere Paula Bennett referred to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill as confiscation by stealth as did Nick Smith. When Nick Smith and Paula Bennett went riding into Waitakere they said that they wanted the Waitakere Ranges to be a national park. I repeat: Nick Smith and Paula Bennett wanted the Waitakere Ranges to be a national park. Now that a few years have gone by we can look back and wonder whether national parks were what they really wanted when they went there or did they just want to dig them up? Perhaps Nick Smith and Paula Bennett had the possibility in the backs of their minds of digging up the Waitakere Ranges in a ploy to mine in that area too. 
I have to commend our spokesperson for Auckland Issues Phil Twyford for the wonderful job he did regarding the super-city legislation. He continues to hold that side of the House the Government to account with the legislation it is putting through. That legislation is not only the corporatisation of our democracy but also the local being taken out of local government. We saw a shambolic process with regards to the consultation that occurred. Aucklanders are not silly. They are not happy with the National Government. Some of the comments I heard while I was on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee were quite offensive to Aucklanders. I think it was Mr Bridges who said while we were taking submissions “Who cares about 900 submissions on the super-city?”. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I have sat through this hour-long debate in some amazement particularly at the contributions from the Opposition. We started off with the leader-in-waiting Mr Shane Jones. He gave us the ABC of the Opposition power play: lots of hot air lots of bull. It was devoid of any contribution on how to advance this country. We then had Phil Twyford’s contribution to the debate. Do members know what Phil told us? 
John Hayes 
: Put it on the bill? 
PAUL QUINN 
: No no Phil told us that the Minister of Local Government had responsibility for local authorities. It was an outstanding contribution! We did not know that; I thank the member for advising us of that. Then my dear friend and colleague George Hawkins’ contribution to this debate was to confirm that in fact he is Shane Jones’s speech writer in terms of Shane’s Maori Party comments and Maori Party bashing. We concluded with Carmel Sepuloni. I had no idea what she was talking about so I say only that perhaps Lynne Pillay has started in the process of mentoring her in preparation for her new role as the candidate for Waitakere. 
The reason that the Opposition is over there and that this party is now running the country is that there are very serious issues to be dealt with. When this Government came in Government expenditure was out of control. It had increased by 50 percent over 5 years. Household debt was burgeoning as the community and the country went on a spending binge. We have productivity issues. The Public Service was out of control with a 375 percent increase in 5 years in the number of public servants who earned more than $100000 a year. That party over there and that member over there stand and try to tell us that they represent a group of people who earn over and above $100000 a year in wages and income. They then try to tell us that we do not understand the issues that face this country. National took over we moved in because we were elected to establish the framework for running this country. 
One of the reasons this country has gone downhill as my learned colleague Mr John Hayes has already pointed out is that we have not been paying our way. This country cannot go on spending money unless it starts to export more goods. We are not a big enough country to generate economic growth from our own production if we just buy it ourselves. We have to produce quality goods and export them to the rest of the world. That is something unfortunately that Labour when in Government failed to understand. In fact if we look at the period of Labour’s administration we see that throughout it the percentage of the current account deficit to GDP was in the vicinity of 9 percent. In the short period that this administration has been in Government we have reduced that to around 2 percent and it is still improving. 
Those are the sorts of issues that this Government is concerned about and they are some of the reasons that we have tried to expand the economic export base away from our traditional industries such as primary produce dairying and others. We have tried to expand the base because doing the same things will not work. [ 
Interruption 
] I just want to make sure that the member can hear. In fact we have to explore new ideas new territory and grow the economy. That is why we have decided to look at the enormous amount of untapped wealth that this country has in its mineral resources. We will take our time to achieve that. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill gives effect to a deed of settlement signed on 6 May last year between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi and Ngai Tahu of the South Island and the Hauraki tribes of the Coromandel for an early settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement aquaculture space obligations in those regions. The settlement is for $97 million and will meet the vast majority of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations. It takes into account the most productive waters for aquaculture in the country covering the Hauraki Gulf the Marlborough Sounds Tasman Bay and the remainder of the South Island. These waters have been a food basket for tangata whenua for about a thousand years and are now a food basket for not just our country but the world. 
The Crown made an undertaking to settle its obligations to Maori in the aquaculture sector as part of the aquaculture settlement. However it is a disappointment that the combination of the moratorium and the subsequent aquaculture legislation made it too difficult to provide the new space that was promised to Maori and the difficulties that there were in trying to buy existing marine farming space proved that to be an ineffective way of providing iwi with space. Thus we have the deed and the agreement that have led to this bill. It was quickly obvious that it would not be practical for the Crown to settle its obligations under the aquaculture settlement Act by providing marine farm space. The deed of settlement in this bill overcomes those difficulties. Agreeing to the deed of settlement and developing this bill have required a great deal of collaboration and hard work both by Crown officials and iwi and it is as a result of innovative thinking and a desire from both sides to reach a quick and fair settlement that we have been able to get to this point. The fact that the settlement spans more than half of New Zealand’s coastal area and well over 90 percent of the aquaculture sector is testament to that achievement. 
The deed of settlement and the bill have both received overwhelming support from iwi and from local government as well as from the aquaculture and seafood industry. The process leading to the establishment of the deed of settlement in this bill is a model of how Treaty partners should work together as one—frankly not only between the Crown and iwi but also between iwi themselves. It is quite an achievement that all iwi of the South Island were able to set aside old differences and come together to reach an agreement for the entire South Island. This is the first time that this has been achieved and as an MP who represents the upper part of the South Island I give my congratulations and my thanks and I pay my respects to both Te Tau Ihu iwi and Ngai Tahu for making this happen. It is an example of what can be achieved with leadership with flexibility with pragmatism and with a willingness to settle past grievances and work together for a brighter future. Most important it is an example of what can be achieved with good faith and a determination from both sides to reach a settlement. 
The process started with a genuine interest in negotiating an early regional settlement that was outside the scope of the existing settlement legislation. The request was met with a desire from the Crown to work together to find an early settlement so that iwi the Crown and the aquaculture industry could move on with finality and also with security. The proposal from iwi in partnership with the Crown for an early regional settlement was innovative. The agreement of the parties to extend the negotiations beyond the realm of the South Island so as to include the Hauraki tribes of the Coromandel area was unprecedented. This demonstrated a spirit of cooperation. Allowing the Hauraki tribes to come on board and join in the negotiations established an agreement that covers almost the country’s entire aquaculture sector. Rather than having fragmented settlements all parties united as one for an efficient and expedient settlement. 
Developing a way to agree on a fair value for that marine farming space is a considerable achievement. It has never been done before on this scale. Determining a value for marine space is very challenging. It required a lot of hard work from iwi leaders from negotiators from Crown officials and also from expert consultants. Developing a way to allocate the settlement among the large number of iwi who are here today required hard work and commitment from Te Ohu Kaimoana and from iwi leaders. It is historic that so many iwi would come together to agree on a settlement like this. To finalise the settlement so expediently and on such a large scale is an achievement that we have not seen before and I hope that we will see it again. 
The bill also paves the way for the remaining iwi outside the South Island and the Coromandel region to enter into agreements with the Crown for an early settlement within their rohe. This is a strong point of the bill that I want to stress to try to ensure progress. The bill will not only give effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and iwi of the South Island and the Coromandel but will give effect to future agreements the Crown may enter into with the remaining iwi. This positive aspect of the bill will be felt throughout the entire country. In fact it is already being felt. Officials have already engaged with iwi of the Bay of Plenty the Chatham Islands and other regions about an early aquaculture settlement in those regions. I also note that the iwi of the South Island and Hauraki have been willing to lend their support in helping the remaining iwi to come to similar settlements in their particular rohe and I want to publicly express the sincere thanks of the Government for that ongoing support. 
 There are many people to thank for their hard work and vision in getting to the point of the third reading of this bill today. I particularly acknowledge the foresight of the Te Tau Ihu fisheries forum and its chair Richard Bradley in initiating the opportunity for an early settlement. I also acknowledge the contribution of other iwi leaders from Ngai Tahu and from Hauraki whanui. I thank former Ministers the Hon Parekura Horomia and the Hon Jim Anderton for their work in seeing the potential to negotiate an early financial settlement across these areas and for starting the negotiating process. This was later progressed by current Ministers and the honourable Phil Heatley who have worked to pick this process up and carry it through to completion. I also thank the Crown negotiating team of Peter Murray and Nicholas Manukau from the Ministry of Fisheries as well as acknowledging the work of consulting firm LECG and Bob Roche of Greenwood Roche Chisnall. I acknowledge the work of Te Ohu Kaimoana particularly the work of Archie Taiaroa Peter Douglas and Laws Lawson who together with the chief iwi legal adviser Justine Inns provided support to iwi throughout the negotiating process and assisted iwi to reach agreement on how they wish to share the settlement assets between them. This was no easy task and I commend them for their efforts. 
I also thank the Maori Affairs Committee and its chair the Hon Tau Henare for their efforts and for the efficient manner in which this bill progressed through the select committee. With the support of iwi the committee made two very useful technical amendments that have strengthened the bill and have proved its effectiveness in application. I acknowledge the comments made by the Hon Tau Henare during the second reading when he said this was one of the first bills that he had seen go before that committee without there being even a hint of dissent from anyone around the table. I congratulate all members of the select committee on a job that was well done. 
In conclusion I say this settlement agreement provides something of a pathway firstly to developing long-term aquaculture legislation that will enable the industry to grow. For both Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders there have been lost opportunities over the last decade and there is important work for this Government and this Parliament to do so that we may all pick up on the opportunities of the industry. I also note in closing that this Parliament has before it the very challenging issue of the foreshore and seabed legislation. Again I say if the good spirit and the way in which this tricky issue has been dealt with can flow into addressing that challenge then New Zealand will be the winner. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 A kia ora ano tatou e te iwi e whai taringa mai ki a tatou i tenei ahiahi mo te wahanga whakamutunga mo tenei pire e pa ana ki te pamu mataitai; me te mihi atu hoki ki te Ohu Kaimoana na ratou tenei kaupapa i poipoi i to ratou wa a tutuki noa penei i a tatou e matakitaki i tenei ra. Nga mihi noki ki te Minita tawhito a Piripi Heatley e noho mai ra a me tenei matamua o matou i te reanga Maori o te Ropu Reipa a Parekura. Na reira kia tau nga mihi nunui ki a ratou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to the people listening in this afternoon to the third and concluding reading for this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill; acknowledgments must go to Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd which kneaded this strategy about in its gestation to its conclusion that we are witnessing here today. I would like to acknowledge the role that the former Minister the Hon Phil Heatley sitting over there had in this process; and a senior to us of the Maori caucus in the Labour Party the Hon Parekura Horomia; the highest accolade upon them all 
.]  
Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Barker for the opportunity to address the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. First I join Dr Nick Smith in acknowledging the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission otherwise known as Te Ohu Kai Moana because in many respects much of the intellectual capital that lies behind the efforts reflected by the iwi as they came forth to derive a solution was undertaken under the leadership of Te Ohu Kai Moana and in particular by the chief executive officer Peter Douglas and the principal analyst Craig Lawson. Not only politics causes these things to move into a state where parliamentarians can reflect the will of the legislature and move it towards Royal assent; creative and very pragmatic people are also needed. Obviously the officials have their task which is at the end of the day to guard Treasury’s purse and they were dragged along into the process as well. In a fit of goodwill let us all acknowledge earlier politicians who made their contributions. 
This bill relates to an important part of the economy from which for a long time successive Governments have sought to generate greater export earnings. I refer to our ability to take coastal space apply to it farming technology within the vicissitudes of climate and weather choose appropriate species and create goods and services out of that enterprise. That is it in a nutshell. We have perfected techniques of farming in our country and aquaculture is an example of very intensive farming. It is not without its critics. 
This bill enables iwi to move into a position where they can stand as a part of the industry. Underlying this legislation is a desire not to perpetuate ongoing iwi wrangles or to have Maori standing aloof from the industry. It is based on a philosophy that the way to resolve historical grievances related to property rights etc. for iwi in resources is to turn them into contributors of value and developers of the resource and to give them a platform where their fortunes do not come from collecting lazy rent but from taking a risk along with their fellow New Zealanders by investing time and energy managing risks collecting capital and joining the race to create export-led wealth. That is what this bill is really about. This is a sensible bill because it prevents ongoing wrangling amongst our people—and by that I refer to our Maori iwi. We have been blighted in the seafood environment by far too much internal Maori strife. Dr Nick Smith was correct in isolating this as an example where people have been forced to acknowledge whether they came willingly or as a consequence of exhaustion that the only way that they would develop wealth in this industry was to park personality ancestral historical and geographical disputes and to commit to an industry. 
There are other ways to do this. For example there could have been a model where Maori would have received as the putative owners of the seabed and foreshore—whoever that class of Maori might be—some sort of royalty or rent. I am not in the school of thought that any Maori should be able to become a complacent observer and a recipient of rent. I think that Maori as a consequence of the Treaty settlement process ought not to do anything other than commit to the industry that they now find their rights based in. These historical rights were of place of a food-gathering variety but they were not static; they were organic. As circumstances facing Maori after the Treaty changed they have had to move in such a way that their entitlement has reflected societal limits tolerance and ambitions through our medium of politics to give institutional expression to these ancestral interests. 
This is a very important point: there can be no long-term joy from a Maori commercial aquaculture settlement unless revenue wealth and jobs flow from people’s being active participants in that industry. In that sense this bill is as much about economic development as it is about lawyers arguing the extent nature and character of an ancient right embedded in the seabed and foreshore. I think that anyone looking forward to deriving a solution for the seabed and foreshore must always remember that this issue came as a consequence of people feeling that they had been blocked from the marine farming industry. That issue went through a circuitous route and there was litigation at various points in the judiciary. As the then chair of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission I can assure members that no one was more surprised than me when Sian Elias delivered her judgment. In fact that particular body of work was at one time referred to by us as the “Lost in Space” project. However the space that we sought was coastal space and we were blocked. That is why we funded the litigants in this legislation to the tune of several million dollars. But it was never originally about recovering the title to the seabed and foreshore; it was actually about marine farming. Marine farming is what this bill provides an avenue for. 
Of course there is no way that the bill would have been a success unless it foresaw future problems. I isolated such an area last night concerning ensuring that political difficulties within the communities of interest do not spill over and impede economic development. I give full marks to the chair and the members of the Maori Affairs Committee in particular the Maori members who were being lobbied I should imagine by various participants and advocates in this process. Although we describe this legislation as innovative the real innovation has to come from the skills and imagination that we bring to the industry of aquaculture. As a consequence of the Minister for the Environment saying that he has other reform work I look forward to being able to take those areas that were historically used for growing shellfish and start growing other species of fish there. We should ensure that our future developments are driven by what the markets overseas will absorb. The key to making a long-term success of this industry is identifying where the burgeoning markets are where their ability to pay is what they want to purchase and whether we can now grow that type of resource to satisfy the changing markets. 
I say to Dr Smith that from this side of the House there will be a great deal of enthusiasm in seeing what innovations he and his Government are prepared to bring forward so that this area grows as markets change and so it is not condemned to grow just Pacific oysters or mussels—or in some cases salmon. Now that this potential blockage is out of the way it is important that all of us who regard this as a key natural resource capable of being used to generate export earnings allow other types of economic activity with other species of fish etc. to occupy those areas so that we are not growing produce or causing Maori to be locked in an industry that is based on a historical appreciation of what New Zealand can generate as opposed to what markets want. I think if that flavour is injected and that sort of vision is borne by the stewards of this settlement on the Maori side then the aquaculture industry will be a lot richer. Thank you very much. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 E nga waka e nga mana e nga reo tena koutou katoa. I acknowledge the South Island iwi and the Coromandel-Hauraki iwi involved in the process of bringing this legislation to the House. The previous Government did an awful lot of work with them looking for a unique solution to address a settlement that needed to happen with regard to the aquaculture space that had been claimed by mainstream marine farmers in this country for a number of decades. The previous Government did a lot of work. Our Government team carried on that work but we could not have done it without the cooperation and smart thinking of South Island iwi and Coromandel-Hauraki iwi so I acknowledge them. 
It was somewhat of a highlight in my career as Minister of Fisheries to be at Te Papa for the signing ceremony with the Prime Minister where we all gathered and celebrated a unique settlement a settlement that meant cooperation and finding a unique solution. It was a delight for me to be there because it was the first time that I had ever signed a settlement. It was a joy and I cannot say much more about it than that. 
The reason it was necessary to come up with this legislation and with it a financial settlement of a sum of $97 million - plus—a whole lot—is that when the original aquaculture reforms were passed under the previous Government in late 2004 in time for the beginning of the 2005 year it was decided that Maori would receive two things. The first was 20 percent of historical space—that is 20 percent of the space already farmed for aquaculture prior to 1992—and the second was 20 percent of all future space that would come on stream. The figure of 20 percent was chosen presumably to reflect the 1992 fisheries settlement that had been passed whereby 20 percent of quota would go into Maori hands when fish stocks were brought into the quota management system. The difficulty was that the 20 percent of space already farmed pre-1992 was to be gained by getting space that would be farmed in this country in the future or by purchasing sums of the space that was being farmed contemporarily. Unfortunately no new space has come on stream since the legislation was passed. Because no new space has come on stream there has been no ability to uplift some of it and pass it to Maori as part of the settlement. There was an option to hand over a cash equivalent. However that could not occur before 2012-13 under the 2004 settlement legislation. 
Many members will know these details and I am speaking broadly because there is a fair bit more to it than that but generally speaking that was the case. Maori had the smarts to approach the Government and say that they appreciated the fact that no new aquaculture space was being generated or was coming on stream and that they wanted to look at the option of having a cash settlement instead whereby they could take that payment and do with it as they wished. It might be to invest in the fishery in aquaculture or in something else but they would be free to do that. The Government of the day decided that that was a very good idea and I congratulate it on that work. This legislation where that amount of money those good wishes and the right to take the settlement will happen is being passed today and we are celebrating it. We are pleased about that. 
However this represents only about 92 percent of the debt owed to Maori under the 2004 settlement. About 8 percent of space still needs to be settled upon either with space or with a cash settlement and we send our good wishes to those iwi involved in that process. We hope that progress can be made in that process in light of the progress that is being made here today. 
I acknowledge one group that very rarely gets acknowledgment in the fisheries sector—I do not know why that it is—and that is Te Ohu Kai Moana and its team. Those people have done a tremendous amount of work over the last 5 or 6 years which is when I have been particularly involved in fisheries and I have seen it. They have gathered together whanau hapu and iwi across the country and have worked to establish which iwi are mandated iwi organisations with regard to both the fisheries settlement and the aquaculture settlement. They have worked tirelessly to bridge arguments over boundary issues and other aspects. Those are not easy problems to work with at all. I am sure that the Te Ohu Kai Moana team does not claim always to have got it right or to have necessarily done it the right way but those people are still in there and are still working tirelessly. The same characters are still involved after many many years. Given the bruising that some of them have been through I think it is important that we acknowledge their work. 
The important thing today though is to move on. I think there is the will in this House and across parties whether it be Labour National the Green Party the ACT Party and all others—with the Maori Party included of course—to see that aquaculture progresses in New Zealand because it has not done so for many many years until this point. All of us want to see it progress. We want to see the rules unbundled and to have some sort of streamlined process whereby marine farmers can get on with producing marine farm products on the space that they already farm in a much better way and to get on with producing marine farm products on new space in large and sensible areas. We want them to continue to do that respecting those who are concerned about the environment respecting the rights of those who currently fish recreationally commercially or customarily and respecting the rights of other New Zealanders to use the water. We want to set marine farmers free to better farm the space they already have and to farm new space as well. 
I congratulate those who have put the final touches on this legislation and I thank them. I commend the process to the House and to my parliamentary colleagues and I ask them to show a dogged determination to support more reforms that will come through to set marine farmers free to farm fish responsibly. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 Maori were promised two specific commitments by 2014. The first was 20 percent of all new space from 1 January 2005. The second was the equivalent of 20 percent of pre-commencement space—that is aquacultural space—that would be approved between 1992 and 2005. As Minister of Fisheries from 2005 to 2008 I commenced a review of how the Crown could settle its pre-commencement space obligations to Maori as required under the settlement Act. The Ministry of Fisheries prepared a consultation document which was released to iwi beneficiaries and the review addressed the progress of the settlement to date. More important it provided a plan of how the Crown intended to implement and fulfil its pre-commencement space obligations under the settlement. 
It was clear that just about everyone could see that the Crown would not be able to deliver space by 2014. Maori were not separate from the group who saw that very clearly and many of them were of a mind to try to settle so that they could move on with development areas both in aquaculture and elsewhere that would enable them to fulfil their obligations to the members of their own iwi and hapu. 
The agreement encompassed in the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill today signals the commitment of Governments—both the previous Labour-Progressive Government which commenced this process and the current Government which has continued it and deserves congratulations on that—to ensure that aquaculture in New Zealand and the current completion of Treaty settlements can continue to make progress both in general terms and in particular cases. 
As the then Minister of Fisheries I sent an invitation to iwi requesting a proposal for an early settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations. That invitation was issued after listening to iwi who wanted me to consider a regional settlement. Iwi responded in kind to that invitation and have worked tirelessly—and they deserve our congratulations and our thanks for that—together with officials from the Ministry of Fisheries who also remain remarkably unacclaimed by the country in general and who deserve our thanks as well. Together they worked to produce the agreement that is embodied in this bill. 
The agreement and subsequently this bill mirror both the desires of iwi for the settlement and the direction of the Crown’s plan to settle Maori aquaculture issues. The agreement that is in this bill provides for a payment of around $97 million for a full and final settlement of the Crown’s current pre-commencement space obligations in the Coromandel and the whole of the South Island. This agreement has been possible only because many iwi have found a way to work constructively together to reach a settlement both with the Crown and with each other. All those in industry and Government who participated in this agreement and the bill that has resulted deserve our thanks and our congratulations on the way in which they have worked. The ability of all parties to reach a significant milestone in such a short time is testament to the commitment that has been shown by all involved. It would have seemed almost “mission impossible” just 2 or 3 years ago to think that today we could be putting this bill through the House. 
The agreement and the bill mark an important stage of the Maori aquacultural settlement and it covers most of New Zealand’s highest-value aquaculture development including the Hauraki Gulf the Marlborough Sounds and the Tasman regions as well as the rest of the South Island. The bill reflects the goodwill that has been shown by both the previous Government and the current Government and by iwi to work together to settle a Treaty claim and bring certainty to all parties. The iwi representatives and their officials in Te Ohu Kai Moana should be commended for their contribution to this settlement. The early settlement will assist iwi and the aquaculture sector in their future endeavours to grow the aquaculture industry which in my view and in the view of many others is an important element of New Zealand’s future growth and progress. 
Aquaculture is of course a growth industry. It has great potential for employment and investment opportunities for Maori and I am sure I am joined by all my colleagues in this Parliament in wishing them well in their endeavours. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Mea tuatahi anei taku mihi ki a koutou nga morehu o nga aitua i te Tau Ihu o te Waka i Ngai Tahu i Hauraki. 
[ 
The first thing for me to do is acknowledge you the survivors of calamity from Te Tau Ihu o te Waka Ngai Tahu and Hauraki 
.] 
I will take a couple of minutes to look at the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill in my own particular way. Going back to front as some people accuse me of doing every so often I say that this agreement between the Crown and iwi is the result of some detailed background work over a very long period by among other people Te Ohu Kaimoana Te Tau Ihu and Hauraki and also by industry people to put together and develop a viable model for various types of aquaculture and enterprise. This was developed to assist iwi to understand the business of aquaculture so that they would be informed of what might be required whenever there was new space but also so that it could be used to estimate the value of space based on real productivity. There was also a wish by the Crown to develop a generic methodology to value space across New Zealand so as to have that agreed for use in the coming years namely in 2013 and 2014. 
The Government and the Crown recognised that there would be no substantive new space because of the moratorium that had been placed upon the industry. The Crown invited iwi to put a proposal to it. All those in the South Island including Te Tau Ihu Ngai Tahu and among other people Hauraki agreed to work together and with Te Ohu Kaimoana to put the proposal to the Government. The Government applied this methodology then engaged with Te Ohu Kaimoana and iwi advisers on the assumptions and parameters of a deal. Te Ohu Kaimoana and iwi advisers compiled a robust—I must say a very robust—proposal based on the range of methods to ensure some pragmatic answers that made sense as a whole and were internally consistent and were also meant for allocation purposes among tribes without contest between each other. That is the big tick in this whole process because for years and years and years whenever there has been anything to do with paua crayfish or whatever fish live in the ocean there has always been an element of to-ing and fro-ing backwards and forth from the court trying to get the court to decide via litigation. 
I take my hat off not so much to the Government but to the people out there who were put behind the eight ball by the moratorium first and foremost. That stopped any development or any iwi or other people in the industry—non-iwi or non-Maori—from working through an industry that I think holds the key to one part of this country’s economic development. I want to put that out there now. I congratulate Ngai Tahu Te Tau Ihu Hauraki and Te Ohu Kaimoana on their job of coming up with a robust proposal. I also congratulate the Crown on accepting that in a way there had to be a resolution and a pathway where people could move on and also use that process for the development of the industry. When we look as far back as 1990 and the Sealord deal we see that this settlement between iwi and the Crown heralds a new era of cooperation particularly when it comes to what is in the water. The cooperation I talk about is not only between iwi and the Crown but also between iwi and iwi and between iwi and organisations like Te Ohu Kaimoana. I have to say that even I have railed against certain issues over what seems like forever. 
I take my hat off to the previous Minister of Fisheries because I think he did a sterling job in trying to bring this settlement to fruition. I congratulate my colleagues on the Maori Affairs Committee whom I also think did a sterling job and a very very quick job. When we were faced with the submissions we had no questions or worries and we felt that it was our duty to return the settlement bill to the House as soon as possible. There are unlimited opportunities here for Maori and for the nation. If there is one thing the world needs now—and it is not love because there is plenty of that going around—it is food. Food will be the gold standard in years to come. If there is one thing we as a nation do very very well it is produce food and sustenance that the world is after and the world will be after. Again I take my hat off to the business people and the iwi who are on the cusp of not only their own economic development but also this nation’s economic development. They are feeding the world after they have fed the home people. 
Finally I want to say that without this settlement if it had not been signed off the industry itself would have been in a terrible way. I do not think we would have been able to secure the opportunities to come that I think are just around the corner. It behoves the Government also to work extremely hard on developing that industry and making sure that there is a level playing field for everybody and that the conditions are right so we can take our opportunities around the world. All we have to do is look at two big nations China and India where there are three billion-odd people who need to be fed. I know they cannot do it themselves. With the help of many iwi and businesses around this country I think we will take our fair share of the business opportunities around the world. No reira nga matua nga kaumatua nga kuia ano te miharo ki a koutou katoa. No reira tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I come to this third reading of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill with a great deal of joy—in fact almost as much joy as I have in biting into a succulent Bluff oyster or ripping apart a delicious green-lipped mussel from outside Catherine Cove for such form the focus of this bill. It is the same joy that takes me back to 6 June 2009 when the Prime Minister the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples signed a deed of settlement with the iwi of Te Tau Ihu Kai Tahu and the iwi of the Hauraki. 
It is the same joy we experienced in December 2004 when the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act was passed. For those who may have missed the detail the 2004 Act provided for a full and final settlement of Maori commercial aquaculture interests from 21 September 1992. It opened up the opportunity for the marine farming industry to continue to grow while at the same time ensuring iwi access to coastal marine space to develop their marine farming issues. As a direct descendant of Ngati Koata Ngati Toa Ngati Kuia and Kai Tahu I remember the terms of that Act in lucid detail. The 2004 Act committed the Crown to provide the equivalent of the 20 percent of existing aquaculture space in the coastal marine area that was issued on or after 21 September 1992. Importantly the legislation also required 20 percent of all new aquaculture space identified in the coastal marine area to be transferred to iwi via the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Settlement Trust. 
The 2004 Act was one of great promise. Maori enterprises were well placed to capitalise on growth in the fisheries and aquaculture industries and they could see considerable potential for contributing to the export markets in the fishing sector. The Act signalled new horizons that would see increased utilisation of the Maori asset base in economic and social development. There was a call for investment to support potential Maori aquaculture interests including innovative research and development. However it was a horizon that we would wait some time to see. 
Indeed in the years that have passed by since the 2004 Act we have seen as much progress as one would see standing on a bank of the Orari River waiting to spot eels hiding beneath the rocks of the riverbed. We waited and waited and waited and still the tuna never appeared because the trick as any good eeler from Arowhenua Marae would tell us is that the tuna will never come all on their own. One needs to get into the water shift a few rocks to flush them out and be prepared to act and that is what we have seen happening with this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. 
When the Maori Party came into the relationship agreement with the Government we inherited a space in which we were well aware that aquaculture policy had stagnated under the previous Government. In particular the costs delays and uncertainties inherent with the aquaculture regulatory process were simply unsustainable. Quite simply the previous Government’s aquaculture reforms did not work with no new marine farming space being populated since 2004 and with little prospect of some being opened up in the future—in fact there have been 9 long years of more inaction I tell Mr Hawkins which is far worse than not being at a select committee hearing. 
 The amendment to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 that we are welcoming today provides the Crown with an additional option for complying with its aquaculture pre-commencement space obligation. In particular this bill incorporates into the Act provisions that deal with regional agreements. The bill therefore must be seen in the context of the $97 million early settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations to iwi. The bill gives effect to an agreement between the Crown and the iwi of Te Wai Pounamu and Hauraki for an early settlement in the pre-commencement space obligation in these regions. The Crown is demonstrating a genuine commitment to fulfil its obligations to iwi albeit in a limited way given that there is a general consensus that very little space is available for new aquaculture—mainly mussel farming—developments. 
The Maori Party has advocated urgent progress to ensure that iwi will get full value from settlements so in this regard we welcome the intention from the Crown to make up for lost time and previous efforts. Most important of all we welcome the proactive movement of the people. Today I stand in this House to commend nga iwi o Te Wai Pounamu me Hauraki a conglomerate of Ngati Apa ki Te Ra To Ngati Koata Ngati Rarua Ngati Kuia Ngati Tama ki Te Tau Ihu Ngati Toa Te Atiawa ki Te Tau Ihu Rangitane o Wairau Kai Tahu and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board. 
These iwi have come together motivated by two powerful drivers. Firstly they seek to make the difference in enabling early settlement in respect of Te Wai Pounamu and Hauraki. The bill provides a solution to the limited prospects for generating settlement assets for iwi by 2014. The second effect of the iwi initiative is that it will allow the same scenario to be negotiated in other regions. Iwi who are consulted appear to favour regional agreements seemingly based on the fact that there is no new space. The select committee also spoke enthusiastically about this first agreement as a template and exemplar for other regions. Its report also noted the willingness of Te Wai Pounamu and Hauraki iwi to help other iwi to achieve similar settlements. All of this is very positive; I remind the House that some estimates suggest that there is great potential for aquaculture to be a $1 billion industry by 2025. 
The Maori Party fully endorses the response from the select committee which identified the overwhelming support from iwi and industry for the early pre-commencement space settlement provided for in this bill. There are however some issues inherent in the context of mussel farming that I want just to touch on. Mussel farms of course are an artificial construct and some adverse effects must be taken into account as we develop further such as the debris of mussel shells that litter the seabed floor or the loss of juvenile fish that become entangled in the farms and depleted as prey. We must always weigh up the ecological balance and the arguments around sustainability. In this light I recognise the initiative of Golden Bay Cement which is removing debris from the seabed and recycling it as a form of pure lime. We want to support the aquaculture industry to be an ecologically sustainable one and we welcome any initiatives the industry can bring forward to ensure environmental quality and biodiversity. 
This is a great day to celebrate the initiative that iwi have taken in advancing Maori aquaculture development. I acknowledge the sentiments expressed by Minister Smith in respect of seeing that as something we can build on for the foreshore and seabed negotiations. We hope that those negotiations will go as well as this negotiation has gone. We in the Maori Party fully agree with the select committee that the process undertaken to agree the deed of settlement and this bill is an excellent example of cooperation and collaboration between iwi and between the Crown and iwi. We are delighted to support this bill. Tena tatou katoa. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker e nga mema tena koutou katoa. E nga kuia e nga kaumatua o Te Tau Ihu o te Waka o Kai Tahu o te Hauraki Maori Trust Board; tenei te mihi ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou kia ora koutou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and all members. To the elderly womenfolk and menfolk of Te Tau Ihu o te Waka Kai Tahu and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board I extend greetings. Greetings greetings and greetings to you all 
.]  
I too want to pay tribute to those who have finally brought about this settlement and this legislation that enshrines an aquaculture deal. I pay tribute to Te Ohu Kai Moana. I would especially like to mention Peter Douglas the chief executive officer and Sir Archie Taiaroa. I particularly want to mention the iwi of Te Tau Ihu in the area where I am privileged to live. I also acknowledge Kai Tahu and the people the iwi represented by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board. I want to go back into some of the history of the caretakers of this settlement and therefore the caretakers of this legislation and I acknowledge Parekura Horomia Jim Anderton and more recently Phil Heatley. I pay tribute to all those custodians. It is fitting in fact that the legislation and the progress of this settlement have spanned the lifetime of more than one Government. The previous speaker’s comments aside it is fitting that we recognise that Ministers who hold the portfolio of fisheries for however long or short a time do so as guardians and custodians of a resource that must be managed and cared for in a sustainable way. 
I also pay tribute to the Maori Affairs Committee and the chairperson Tau Henare for being a guardian or custodian of this legislation and shepherding it through to its third reading today. All these people who have touched or impacted on or influenced this deal this settlement and this legislation are due credit today. This is the way it seems to me that enduring settlements are arrived at. There is nothing more satisfactory in this House in my experience than giving life to an enduring settlement that works to satisfy the short medium and long-term aspirations of all those who have participated in its development and who have for a long time held to goals ideals and aspirations that this kind of settlement can be achieved. 
The Labour Party supports this legislation of course but we do so for a number of reasons. We support it because it secures a sustainable future for New Zealand’s aquaculture industry. We have heard already from previous speakers that the aquaculture industry currently is worth about $320 million annually but there are aspirations within the industry for that figure to increase to $1 billion per annum by 2025. There is a lot of work to do before that aspiration can be realised but one thing is certain—that aspiration cannot be realised without this legislation and the agreement to which it gives life underpinning it and being there to secure its future. 
This legislation will underpin industry and give it the stability it needs to move forward. Members on this side of the House support it because it gives financial resources to iwi and hapu as promptly as possible and it gives iwi certainty. That certainty is a long way from the tension and conflict arising out of the commercialisation of aquaculture which culminated in a bitter dispute over the foreshore and seabed. What we are achieving in this settlement and in this legislation is a deal of certainty that heads this country in a different direction from the conflict that marked the foreshore and seabed debate. 
That is not to say that there is not further debate to be had over the foreshore and seabed legislation and whatever might finally replace it but it is to the credit of all the participants in this process that an agreement has been reached because such agreements are good for New Zealanders—all of them. Such agreements provide certainty and stability. They provide the chance for development the chance for economic growth and the chance for all to share in the benefits. 
One of the things that I am particularly pleased about which this certainty now provides and underpins are the developments that are already under way in research and development in aquaculture in my home town of Nelson. Currently joint research activities are going on between the Wakatu Incorporation and the Cawthron Institute. These research activities are designed to improve the quality size and proliferation of shellfish within the aquaculture industry. It is a puzzle in Tasman Bay and one that I have not yet got to the bottom of as to why the oysters stop growing at a certain point. They get to a certain size and then they stop growing. The reason is not clear either to scientists or to iwi. I know that Fred Timiha feeds oysters by experiment in his garden. He uses porridge and they grow incredibly fat. I have not enjoyed the pleasure of one of those oysters yet because I think he is still growing them. I think he wants them to become super-size oysters and perhaps he will share the secret with the Cawthron Institute before very long. 
This legislation gives certainty that the investment that is being put in jointly by the Cawthron Institute and the Wakatu Incorporation will develop grow and enhance an industry from which we can all benefit. The Marlborough Sounds Tasman Bay and the Hauraki Gulf are areas that should be secure breeding grounds for this vital and embryonic industry in New Zealand. This industry has nowhere near achieved its potential. It is to the credit of the iwi involved and the various Ministers who have shepherded this legislation through that we have reached the third reading of the bill where we can celebrate a deal of certainty and a vibrant future for the aquaculture industry. 
It is a great pleasure to speak to the bill and I look forward to celebrating the passage of this third reading with the kuia and kaumatua in the public gallery shortly after the passage of the legislation. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
:  
Tena koutou nga manuhiri nau mai haere mai. Tena koutou katoa. Firstly I join with previous speakers in welcoming the guests in the gallery. I am sure this is a great day for them. They are seeing the passage of the legislation and seeing some finality of a task that they have been pursuing for quite a long time. Other speakers have canvassed pretty well the basis and background to this legislation and the way in which we arrived at this monetary settlement where $97 million will be paid out. 
I join other speakers in acknowledging and paying respects to those who teamed together to bring this solution before the House. I refer to former Ministers who have had responsibility for this arrangement. Some of them have already been mentioned: the Hon Jim Anderson the Hon Parekura Horomia the Hon Phil Heatley and now the Hon Nick Smith who is shepherding this bill through its final stage on behalf of the Hon David Carter the Acting Minister of Fisheries. I record as others have done the outstanding efforts of Te Ohu Kaimoana in working with iwi and the Government to find a practical solution to a challenging problem. 
Also I record my appreciation of the cooperation and camaraderie that exists within the Maori Affairs Committee. I have said on previous occasions that one of the reasons I came to this House and stand in this House was my desire to ensure and accelerate Treaty settlements and I point out to the chief Labour Party whip that I can say that with honesty. 
Like many Maori I became frustrated with the lack of process and the stalling of Treaty settlements. Now each time I stand in this House to speak on a Treaty settlement I do so with pride because it is important that these issues are dealt with and that people can get on with their lives and look to the future. 
I have no doubt that the Maori Affairs Committee understands that point and that is why its members work as one to expedite these bills. Other speakers have alluded to the fact that very little has changed because the select committee quite rightly in my view does not see its job as being to interfere in a pact a contract a deed that has already been worked through over a period of time between the particular iwi and the Crown. 
It is really only in exceptional circumstances that the select committee may inquire a bit further if it believes that it is necessary. In my experience the committee has done that very rarely and that is the way I believe it should be. I am proud to stand and join with others in acknowledging the outstanding work of those involved. 
This settlement is a cash settlement of $97 million and there has been some discussion about the aquaculture industry. The truth of the matter is that the way the money is spent is a decision for the iwi once they receive it. Whether they choose to spend it on aquaculture will of course be for them to decide and them alone. 
The aquaculture industry as we have heard has enormous potential but it is an industry that has stagnated over too long a period. It is my hope and I am sure the hope of my colleagues on this side of the House that we can once again kickstart the industry because it has enormous potential and members have already alluded to that. Hopefully kickstarting the industry and giving it support—already something in the order of $1 million has recently been made available to assist the industry and an economic group I think has been formed to provide guidance to the industry—will encourage the recipients of this package to direct it to the industry but ultimately that will be a decision for them. 
With those concluding remarks I congratulate and acknowledge the iwi present and the recipients of this package and I wish them well. No reira e kui e koro ma tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
So greetings to you the elderly womenfolk and menfolk greetings to you and greetings to you all 
. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Otira kai te Kaihautu tena koe. A tena tatou i roto i te Whare tena tatou e mea ake nei ki enei o o tatou whanaunga rangatira kua tatu mai roto i te Whare i tenei po; hei ata whakaarohia i nga korero pahupahu aha ranei o nga mema kua tu nei. No reira koutou ra nga rangatira mai i Hauraki mai i Ngai Tahu mai i nga wahi katoa i korerohia nei nga mema i te ahiahi nei; tenei ra te mihi ake ki a koutou ahakoa kua tu whakaiti kua tu whakahihi ano hoki tenei i te mea ra ka nui taku mohio na koutou nei tenei ture i arahi mai mai i tera rau tau tae noa mai ki tenei rau tau me ki ra ka roa koutou e hikoi ana; ka roa koutou e tautohetohe ana e taupatupatu ana a ki tena ki tena ki tena ki nga Kawanatanga katoa mai i taua hikoi i tenei ra na kua tatu mai koutou ki te mutunga ra o taua hikoi. Hoi ano ra ka nui ra te mihi ake ki a koutou. Na ka whai hua ra tenei ture o koutou ka whai hua te motu katoa. No reira tenei na e tu whakaiti e whakamihi ana ki a koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us in the House and to those who acknowledged these of our illustrious relatives who have arrived here in the House this afternoon to listen carefully to the contributions or mere rhetoric perhaps by members who have taken the call. So to you noble people from Hauraki Ngai Tahu and from all the places that members referred to this afternoon I humbly and proudly acknowledge you knowing full well at the same time that you guided this legislation through its journey from the past century through to the present century. Let us say that you have walked the walk for a long time and debated again and again for a long time with everyone and all Governments during that march; today at the end of your journey you have arrived. Indeed there is much to commend you for. Now should this legislation of yours bear fruit the nation as a whole will benefit. So I stand to humbly acknowledge you. 
] 
I want to start my contribution to this debate in the same way that my colleague the Hon Maryan Street did during her contribution and in the first instance that is by way of acknowledgment. I say that because I think everything pertaining to this settlement and its very very long journey to the House this evening has already been covered many many times over. My contribution is to acknowledge those who have made it happen. 
I want to acknowledge Te Tau Ihu Ngai Tahu Hauraki iwi and all those who participated in the discussions and deliberations all the hui around the country and all the hui with Government representatives be they Ministers members of Parliament or Government officials over a long period of time to ensure that this settlement was done in what I would like to say is a timely manner but I do not think it has been but certainly done in a fair way. As the Hon Tau Henare stated during his contribution to the third reading debate at no time during the discussions at the Maori Affairs Committee was there any sign of any dissension amongst the committee members. That was because the decisions made by and the solutions provided for the previous Government and this Government were provided by the iwi concerned. In other words there was a local solution to a local problem. That local problem and the solution will be of benefit for all of Maoridom. Although I fully understand the benefits for the aquaculture industry from the top of the South Island—in fact the South Island in total and Hauraki—I cannot resist the attempt to boast about the benefits for myself and my whanaunga across the House when it comes to aquaculture development in Te Moana-a-Toi—that is in the rohe of Mataatua Te Arawa and Takitimu. 
So what are those benefits? I heard the honourable member Tau Henare make a slight comment about the effect of the moratorium—was it in 2002—on the aquaculture industry and its development. For many iwi around the country those who were non-participants and had a difficult time in participating in this industry it was a breath of fresh air. In fact the brakes went on and Maori had the opportunity to examine this industry and look at how they could enter the industry and deal with how the issues around water space in particular—and I am sure that this has a lot to do with why this bill has been brought to the House—could be rationalised. I heard the Minister make a contribution on that. I served on the Primary Production Committee during the time of the moratorium and I heard many of the submissions made and to be fair many of them were opposed to the moratorium but at the same time they acknowledged there was a problem in terms of Maori entry into the industry although many parts of the South Island and Hauraki in particular were involved. 
As I said if I resist the attempt to boast about the benefits for my rohe I will touch on a couple of matters that I believe the House needs to be aware of. In terms of Whakatohea for example and its entry into the aquaculture industry with National—they are waiting; they are still on hold—the moratorium gave them the opportunity as an iwi to sit down and discuss ways in which they could maximise the potential or the benefit for the Bay of Plenty iwi. In this case I am speaking about Whakatohea and Te Whanau-a-Apanui and extending right up to perhaps Tauranga Moana with Ngai Te Rangi and Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga right up to the boundary of Hauraki and Hauraki are here in the House tonight. So when I say there needs to be acknowledgment of the passage of this particular legislation the benefits as well need to be acknowledged. As my colleague the Hon Maryan Street stated a lot of the kudos and acknowledgment rightly needs to be directed to the iwi present in the House this evening. 
During the Maori Affairs Committee deliberations there were as I say no contentious issues amongst the members at the table simply because those who made submissions made it very clear that this has gone on long enough—that the Maori exclusion from this industry has gone on long enough. The outstanding issues around the Maori fisheries settlement from the early 1990s needed to be resolved and the affected iwi themselves needed to provide a proper solution to ensure that Maori could secure water space and they could enter that industry. I recall at the time a presentation by Te Ohu Kai Moana and their contribution to the advancement of this legislation has been acknowledged. I received a paper this afternoon that detailed the nature of the work they were involved in and that was news to me. 
 I need to acknowledge Peter Douglas; the former chair of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and his team; my colleague the Hon Shane Jones; and other commissioners as well. You see the work they were involved in was basically background work to ensure that Maori had in front of them all the information required to understand the industry. When I read the paper I thought to myself that this was a bit like the way in which we would approach land development—understanding the value of our product and the value the product brings to our land. It is very similar in terms of aquaculture: we understand our product and understand what value that product brings to the water space we have. 
I come from the Bay of Plenty from Te Moana-a-toi. Although I belong to a coastal iwi my background is in agriculture and horticulture. So I understand the value of products and the value those products bring to the value of our land. When I read through the background work that Te Ohu Kaimoana was involved in it reminded me very much of the work that the former Department of Maori Affairs used to do in terms of developing Maori farms and of adding value to Maori land through farming in an appropriate and marketable way. My family are dairy farmers but my family are now looking very closely at Te Moana-a-toi and at the opportunities that will come out of the passage of this legislation. We are looking forward to developing our coastline on Te Moana-a-toi and many are also at the moment in negotiations with local authorities to ensure that that will happen. 
I thank the iwi representatives here in the House this evening. I also once again thank the Acting Minister of Fisheries Dr Nick Smith who has led the bill in its third and final reading. I acknowledge also the speed with which the previous Minister of Fisheries Phil Heatley acted when he was appointed Minister. I have said to this House on many occasions that he moved with lightning speed as a new Minister which surprised me very very much. I also need to acknowledge the Hon Jim Anderton and the previous Minister of Maori Affairs and Associate Minister of Fisheries my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia. Kia ora. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill which along with its earlier 2004 relative if you like the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Bill provides an interesting and innovative set of solutions to what have been thorny and complex problems. I agree with what all of the other speakers have said about those involved in making this happen deserving hearty congratulations from the fisheries commission and the various leaders there including my relative Peter Douglas and others through to Ministers of the Crown members of Parliament and iwi of course. They deserve hearty congratulations. 
I will not speak for long at all; in fact I will be very brief. But I will locate this bill in what I think is its proper broader context where there are two fields at play essentially: aquaculture and of course Treaty settlements. They come together in this bill. I certainly would not say I know a lot about aquaculture. My only indirect dealings would have been up at Ohiwa Harbour in the Eastern Bay of Plenty with the fish and chips there and the oysters and the like. I have been there many a time. 
I agree with the comments of the Hon Shane Jones that there is some controversy around aquaculture but I also agree with him that it is an area of real potential that perhaps has not been realised in any way previously. Its time I think has come and we as a Government and probably as a Parliament want to see it turn into a billion-dollar or multibillion-dollar industry that creates wealth for this country so that we do not have to worry about things like a deficit growing by $240 million a week. As I say we combine that with resolution of Treaty grievances but I will not talk about that field at all. Suffice to say when we combine aquaculture with resolution of Treaty grievances I think we get a scenario where Maori can move forward and iwi can move forward in a tangible way to becoming powerful players in the New Zealand economy who really help to take this nation forward. 
I was going to go through the bill and say what it does but that has been well-canvassed. It is quite an elegant solution I think that provides as we know a financial-equivalent method in relation to iwi so that $97 million in compensation will be provided. I am sure that iwi will use that money thoughtfully and responsibly and turn it into much more money. Certainly that is my and I am sure the iwis’ hope. With those remarks I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata 
Infrastructure Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister for Infrastructure) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: I move  
That the Infrastructure Bill be now read a second time 
. The Infrastructure Bill is an omnibus bill in four parts covering three areas: changes to utilities’ access arrangements to transport corridors changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 and the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008 with the retention of an amended restrictive covenants provision related to social housing. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received 37 submissions from a wide range of organisations which represented the interests of the three areas the bill covers. The majority of submissions focused on the proposed changes to arrangements for access to transport corridors by utility operators such as power and telecommunications companies. Most submissions were very supportive of the aims of these parts of the bill and offered constructive suggestions to improve them. Three submissions commented on the changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act and were supportive of the changes proposed. 
Several submitters on Part 4 of the bill which repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act expressed general concerns about the affordability of housing and noted that repealing that Act without any indication of an alternative approach to addressing housing affordability was unsatisfactory. However Local Government New Zealand and the six territorial authorities that made submissions on Part 4 have suggested that rather than improving housing affordability the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act would if implemented increase the cost of housing in the current market. Further the building sector raised concerns about increased complexities and delays as a result of that Act and that is why we are repealing it. In addition proposed changes to other legislation such as the Building Act and the Resource Management Act will be more effective in simplifying processes and reducing the costs of housing development thereby helping to improve housing affordability. 
Restrictive covenants are a growing barrier to the integration of social housing in communities. The majority of submitters including territorial authorities and non-governmental organisations were supportive of retaining this provision through an amendment to the Property Law Act 2007. These covenants unfairly discriminate against some of our most vulnerable people such as older people children and people who require assisted living such as IHC clients. 
I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work they have done in strengthening this bill. I support the changes that have been recommended. Many of these were of a minor nature or drafting nature but I will briefly outline the more significant changes which relate solely to utilities’ access rights. Although all utility operators have the right to do work on local authority roads local authorities can impose reasonable conditions on the utility operators when undertaking those works. Local authorities should not be able to use road-opening processes to require utilities to do something that benefits the local authority at the utility’s cost. Where a local authority would like to impose such a condition it should pay the increased cost of the condition and the area should be identified in advance. 
The intent of clause 21 and parts of clauses 30 and 32 of the bill is to restrict the ability of local authorities to impose conditions that create additional amenity value beyond the current amenity value of the area. Submitters’ concerns with the clauses as originally drafted were that they would restrict local authorities’ ability to maintain the amenity value of certain roads and would increase the cost to local authorities in doing so. These clauses have been redrafted to better reflect the intent. 
Part 1 of the bill establishes a framework for a national code of practice governing how utility operators and corridor managers coordinate their activities. Several submissions identified the need for a code management body. The bill takes the approach that there is no requirement for a code but if industry participants see value in having one then it can be developed. Mandating a code management body would add a degree of compulsion beyond what is intended. 
There is an inconsistency between the various utility Acts covering the activities of operators effectively giving telecommunications operators more rights of protection over their assets than electricity and gas operators have. For example the Telecommunications Acts allows only local authorities to impose conditions on telecommunications operators but the Electricity Act and the Gas Act allow local authorities and other utility operators whose assets are being moved to impose conditions on electricity and gas operators. The majority of submissions on this issue supported removing all utility operators’ abilities to impose conditions on each other. Instead utilities can create standard conditions that apply to corridor managers and utility operators through the mandatory code of practice. The bill has been amended to remove all utility operators’ rights to impose conditions on each other by amending the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to make them consistent with the Telecommunications Act. 
Several submissions recommended minor amendments clarifying the current cost allocation provisions that apply when a corridor manager requires a utility’s assets to be moved such as when a road is being moved or realigned or when the New Zealand Transport Agency requires a utility to move its asset because it is unsafe. The current cost allocation provisions in the Electricity Act and the Gas Act which the bill copies into the Telecommunications Act apply a causer-pays principle—the causer of the work pays for the total cost of the work. However the provisions have an exception that provides for utility operators to share most of the cost when a controlling authority causes the work: the utility must pay for the fittings and the controlling authority pays for the actual work done. 
Submitters suggested that ambiguity arises from who constitutes a controlling authority. The prevailing interpretation is that the term “controlling authority” applies to the New Zealand Transport Agency only. However the definition of “controlling authority” in section 54 of the Government Roading Powers Act includes local authorities. Submitters said that the term is ambiguous and should be clarified. The reference to fittings is ambiguous and causes disputes. Submitters said that it should be clarified. The provisions do not allow any claims for betterment. One submitter was unsure whether this meant that there could be no claim whatsoever or that the claimer must pay the increased cost. The submission was that claims for betterment should be allowed but that the costs should lie where they fall. Changes to the bill have been made to address all of those concerns. 
Currently utility operators have no right of access to the rail corridor. KiwiRail has powers under the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act to grant and revoke easements under any conditions including requiring the payment of rent. Utilities have a right of entry at level crossings only where a unique regime applies with application for access being determined by the District Court. Submitters pointed out that the amendments to the Railways Act in the bill recognised that the rail corridor was underutilised and that the current amendments do not go far enough towards enabling greater use of the rail corridor by utilities. KiwiRail cited fundamental differences between road and rail especially in the way that it operates—particularly its inability to divert traffic—and safety concerns as reasons why the current arrangements should remain in place. The bill will go some way towards addressing these concerns by requiring all corridor managers to publish their criteria for access to corridors and to respond in writing within 30 days to an access request. The code of practice can also assist by facilitating greater cooperation. 
A review of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990 is currently under way. This work programme will consider the matter of KiwiRail’s powers in relation to granting and revoking easements on railway land. 
Only minor technical or drafting changes were made to the remaining parts of the bill so I do not intend to cover those. I intend to introduce at the appropriate time two Supplementary Order Papers with the first dividing the bill into four bills to better reflect the Legislation Advisory Committee’s guidelines— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Courageous. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —agreed—and the second making three minor technical amendments to the bill and in addition amending the section that relates to a council’s ability to impose conditions on utility providers to enhance amenity values by replacing the reference to those areas identified in a long-term council community plan with a reference to those areas identified in a district plan where there are particular considerations rules or requirements relating to amenity values. Once again I thank the select committee members for the work they have done on this bill. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa. I rise to speak in favour of the Infrastructure Bill but as our whip has said I do so with a heavy heart. The bill has been stripped of the most important dimension because it has been decided that infrastructure does not include the most valuable commodity which is shelter. Without allowing for a transparent process this Government has circuitously stripped out a very innovative approach to housing an approach that required councils when they were dealing with their resource management schemes and planning provisions to impose on developers—perhaps many of whom created the leaky-home drama—an obligation to the wider community. Unfortunately for all home seekers and the broad community this Government has sold them out. We are prepared however in the spirit of driving forward infrastructure to overlook such an egregious failure. 
That causes me now to come back and identify why this bill will be supported by Labour. There is very little debate that we must create an improvement in our productivity and also in our levels of innovation much of which is related to the concept known as agglomeration. That is a concept that says that where networks of people and capital are concentrated in an area—otherwise known as a city; soon to be called a super-city—entrepreneurialism development and creativity will flow. Infrastructure undergirds much of what we hope to see as a consequence of more people being able to make innovation. For that reason infrastructure is regarded by members on this side of the House beyond cavil as an essential ingredient in enabling our country to achieve its full potential. We do not indulge ourselves in foolish vacuous statements such as those about catching up with Australia. We are more interested in husbanding our indigenous resources developing our own people and isolating those areas of infrastructure that will create a real step change. Real change is not about funding seven highways or suddenly announcing an upgrade to the Kopu Bridge so that it can bear the weight of the trucks that will be carrying the new hitherto unknown undisclosed bounties of mineral wealth that have never before been placed before the nation. 
Let me come back to the bill; infrastructure is a key ingredient in such broader debates and this is the Infrastructure Bill. Let us focus for a moment on the usefulness of a code. There is a potential contradiction in the notion of a code being enforceable at District Court level yet being an exercise in voluntary participation. That is not the Government’s usual style; its usual style is forced participation. We look forward as a consequence of this bill to participants in the infrastructure industry being able to cobble together a usable code but there is provision if they fail the test. Apparently they are all focused at the moment on seeking opportunities in those fairly foul beasts known as council-controlled companies in Auckland which are largely the handiwork of the Minister. However it is important that a code comes into place so that the red tape that has afflicted this area of the economy can be sorted out in the confines of that code. When we have participants who either will not play by the rules or who will gain from the rules then there will be the opportunity for them to be policed and for them to be corrected. 
As members know one of the reasons why infrastructure will be roundly supported by us is that we saved Auckland from gridlock. We did that by laying down foundation planks for a long-term strategy invested in public transport but it is sad that up and down the country every provincial council is being starved of money for public works. Indeed one of my councils in the Tai Tokerau the Kaipara District Council has complained bitterly to us about its cutbacks which are being made in order for the current Minister of Transport to rebuild the Kopu Bridge to bear the weight of a vicious mining exercise where apparently there will be no need for diggers no need for trucks and no need for carrioles; all that will be needed are needle-like precision cuts into the side of a mountain and then in some way “Dr Spock”—the physical character represented by the Minister on occasions—will spirit away all the minerals. No it will not happen like that. That is why public transport is being starved but the provision of public transport requires a very efficient process of allocating scarce resources; I tell members that this is a sensible contribution in that regard. Provincial councils are being starved and this bill has little to say unfortunately as to why they are being put on an ugly diet—something perhaps that ACT Party members ought to have been put on or could be putting themselves on but that is another matter. So the code is important and Labour agrees with it but we do put on record our considerable concern with this fixation on highways and with the deprecation of the importance of public transport. 
We are also concerned about the winding down of our railway system. We know that Mr Steven Joyce and other members are antagonistic towards KiwiRail. The reason that rail corporation provisions are being changed in this bill—and I direct the Minister’s attention to that; he and other Ministers have the ability to change the manner of appointment and the number of directors who are being appointed to the railways corporation—is that Ministers are shafting Jim Bolger getting rid of him. That man is a great patriot. He breathed life into the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. Despite some misguided views about a host of public policy issues pertaining to social matters he has been gutted by the rat pack led by that salesman of Brylcreem otherwise known as Steven Joyce. That is a business that will never ever prosper. 
In relation to the attitude of local government to utility network providers I say that local government has a great deal to answer for. That is why the previous Government elected to establish the royal commission. It is widely known that a pipe covering the distance across seven or eight local authorities in Auckland had to have its dimensions changed and that slowed infrastructure down. What happened as a consequence of our royal commission—unfortunately hijacked by Rodney Hide—is that we became aware of infrastructure deficiencies. We laid down a pathway as to how they could be addressed but this Government although it talks loudly acts very timidly. It has enraged those people who do not like its rhetoric and disappointed those who are looking for bold action. But we know that the Government will be contested next year. 
This bill is supported overall but with the caveat that it has stripped the heart of social housing out of the infrastructure debate. As I said that is an egregious failure but we are prepared to overlook it. Local government working more effectively with investors in the utility scene and in infrastructure can improve infrastructure outcomes but not if that represents the degradation of public transport the deprecation of KiwiRail and the ongoing assassination led by Tony Ryall and Steven Joyce of that great patriot of right-wing politics from the King Country Mr Jim Bolger. His name and reputation unfortunately are being besmirched both openly and secretly in Auckland by the current Minister of Transport. However in the spirit of unity we are prepared to allow this bill to progress to the next stage. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The people of New Zealand and the members of the public who are listening this afternoon deserve an apology for that last speech. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Or perhaps an explanation. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes well the explanation is that the member Shane Jones was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee does not know what he is talking about in regard to the bill and was just trying to fill in 10 minutes. That is the explanation. The Labour Party has not put up speakers who serve on that select committee. Labour members who do serve on the committee understand the bill and understand the issues. Why is that member not on Great Barrier Island as well doing that great tour? 
The reality is that this bill is necessary and the public of New Zealand may not understand the importance of it. The bill sets up a future for infrastructure in New Zealand. To take the example of a highway or something similar that is being built at the moment many people will not understand that that highway has a lot of services aligned with it. When we need to go forward in developing infrastructure in New Zealand—for example our broadband and our growth strategies—that highway will need to be an infrastructure highway as well not just a road or a rail highway but an infrastructure highway. This bill sets that up by having a code in it in which the bodies that will be part of that infrastructure highway of the future which will develop and build New Zealand will be given the ability to deliver that future for our people by having a visionary approach to infrastructure. 
I commend the Minister for Infrastructure for having that long-term view so that infrastructural assets can be provided to all New Zealanders going forward into the future. That is what this bill is about I say to Shane Jones. It is not about mining it is not about Kaipara Harbour and it is not about the ability to overlook public housing. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I will recap some of the issues that were raised before the House rose for dinner. I think the key thing that we need to emphasise about the Infrastructure Bill is that it sets up a structure in which New Zealanders can be guaranteed that there will be a system and infrastructure out there that will deliver in the future. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Where’s the passion David? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Members on the other side are talking about passion. They say that they want to see some passion. Well we heard Shane Jones before dinner did we not? Shane Jones who had no idea about this legislation tried to talk for 10 minutes filling in time for the Labour Party. That is the extent of those members’ passion. They will not even put up a speaker who knows about the bill; they put up somebody to fill in some time. That is about all we would expect from the Labour Party these days. If those members are not gallivanting around islands then what are they doing? 
The Infrastructure Bill is very important because whether the existing infrastructure is road or rail it is important that we have the ability to put those utilities through in the future. This bill guarantees that. It sets up a code in which participants can work together to ensure that the infrastructure is there for future generations. It is important legislation. It sets out the framework for the delivery of infrastructure and utility services to New Zealanders in the future. I think it is a fine example of what this Government is doing to build a stronger brighter future and a stronger economy. Thank you. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call in the second reading of the Infrastructure Bill. That contribution from the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett would have been a lot more sincere if he had not been grinning the whole way through it. He might want to review the tape and reflect on how serious he seemed when he grinned the whole way through that speech while he criticised my learned colleague Shane Jones for his contribution. He claimed that Shane Jones was there just to fill in time. I think it was a little bit of a case of the pot the kettle and the colour black which David Bennett might want to consider for his next foray into this House. 
I will focus on Part 4 of this legislation. It deals with the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act which Labour introduced in our previous term of Government. The first thing I will say about that—and I would like the next National speaker to comment on this—is to ask why that particular move was included in the Infrastructure Bill. Why? It is not the natural place for people who are interested in that legislation to look to find that measure. When people saw that the Infrastructure Bill was before Parliament I doubt that it would have occurred to them that the affordable housing legislation was being repealed as part of the Infrastructure Bill. 
When we were going through the process of the select committee submissions where Labour and Green members raised concerns about some of the changes in that respect we had people contact us to say that they had no idea that it was happening because they did not know to look to the Infrastructure Bill for the repeal of legislation on affordable housing. I think the Government needs to answer that sincere question because it appears to me that it was hiding that change in this infrastructure legislation. It has no place in this legislation. Not only that but that particular part of the bill should have gone to either the Local Government and Environment Committee which heard and dealt with the original legislation or the Social Services Committee which deals with housing. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was not the proper forum for— 
David Bennett 
: Oh you were on the committee. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know I was on the committee I say to David. I was there. But a number of submitters look to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the Social Services Committee for issues pertaining to housing and to affordable housing. Even though the select committee made every effort—as limited as we were in that respect—to contact the submitters who submitted on the original legislation and to contact the people who we thought might be interested that does not change the fact that people contacted us after the fact who had missed out because they did not expect that that particular legislation would be dealt with in infrastructure legislation. 
The second thing I will deal with is the issue of restrictive covenants. The Associate Minister for Infrastructure said that the Government had kept the clause on restrictive covenants in this legislation. Well that is not strictly correct. The Government has kept a clause on restrictive covenants in this legislation but it has watered it down. The Government has watered it down quite significantly from the existing enacted clause on restrictive covenants. In the original legislation that Labour passed in our last year in Government was this wording: “A covenant over land is void if one of its purposes is to stop the provision of affordable housing or social housing on the land.” That is the gist of what the existing Act states. The Government has changed that to it having to be the principal purpose. 
When that bill originally went to the Local Government and Environment Committee—and I was the chair of that select committee when we dealt with it—we heard examples of restrictive covenants that had been used where the principal purpose was amenity value or the developers wanted all the houses to look the same. We were told that the actual purpose of that covenant was to stop disability access housing going in or it could be used to stop State housing or to stop affordable housing for example. But it is being done under the guise of being about all the houses looking the same or the amenity value. Unless we say that it is not OK for any purpose of a restrictive covenant to restrict affordable or social housing then we open up a huge loophole that makes this clause meaningless. All developers have to do is to hide their primary purpose for restricting affordable and social housing and claim it is for another reason and they can get away with it. That is what the original select committee tried to stop by saying that if any of the purposes were to stop affordable or social housing then that was not OK. 
The other thing that the Government has done is to remove the ban on restrictive covenants against affordable housing. For some reason the Government thinks that it is OK for a restrictive covenant to be used to ban affordable housing in a development. When we questioned the Housing New Zealand Corporation about that it said that it did not think that was likely to happen. Well the fact is that we had people come to the original select committee—and we may have had people come to this select committee if they had known that the repeal of that Act was in the Infrastructure Bill—who could have told us quite plainly that these restrictive covenants have been used to stop social housing or affordable housing. Sure it does not happen in a lot of cases but it should not happen at all. Now a green light has been given to any developer who wants to use restrictive covenants to stop affordable housing. 
Again I say that I would like the next National Party speaker to explain why it is OK to have restrictive covenants against affordable housing. Well those members have all gone very quiet now. They were very vocal not long ago. It is a genuine question because we are opening up an enormous loophole. Mr John Carter was on the select committee that heard the original legislation. I am sure that he remembers the discussions we had and I look forward very much to his contribution in this debate. 
We come back to Part 4 of this legislation. Although Labour will be supporting the Infrastructure Bill we will not be supporting Part 4 which contains the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act. In his speech in the second reading of this legislation the Minister for Infrastructure said the reason that we had to get rid of that Act was because it was not working and it was increasing the cost of housing. Well this is not a compulsory measure. This was a tool that local territorial authorities could use if they wanted to or if they saw some value in it. It was legislation that clarified that legally they were able to do this. They were able to require developers to pay a levy contribution that could go towards affordable or social housing. It made it quite clear that they could not be taken to court because someone says that it is outside the law for them to do that. The fact is that if councils did not want to use this measure and thought that it might increase costs—even though at the select committee we were given no evidence of that happening whatsoever—then they do not need to use it. Claims that we have to get rid of this because it is increasing the cost of housing are simply not true and cannot be verified. 
The Labour Party accepts that there may be ways that the law could be written better. There may be changes that we could make to it that would make it more user-friendly or would allay some of the concerns that submitters had about the original legislation. Our point is that the legislation should be sent back to the select committee. The Government should have another look at it or change it if need be. Given that affordable housing is such an important issue in New Zealand and when many young people and older people are being locked out of the opportunity of ever owning their own home why would the Government simply get rid of the tool that could potentially be used? 
As with everything in affordable housing there is no one silver bullet. A range of different tools can be used. Depending on the economic environment and the housing environment at any one time certain tools will be more useful than others. Then the environment changes and another tool becomes more useful and the previous tool stops being used as much. The fact is that we have to have a range of tools available to deal with affordable housing and this was an important tool. By the way this tool is used extensively throughout the rest of the world. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is National supporting it then? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No National does not support it. Certainly it is not uncommon for State Governments or local authorities overseas to require developers for example to provide housing for workers if they are doing a big commercial development or provide public transport for workers or in housing developments to have a portion of money set aside for social or affordable housing. Those things happen extensively throughout the United States of America. 
I see that Mr Peachey is in the House. He is twitching because he thinks this is part of the socialist agenda. The Cold War goes on for Mr Peachey. The wall never came down in Allan Peachey’s world. He is sitting over there twitching wondering what “Reds under the bed” scheme I have going here. I can assure him that this is not such a scheme. It is about providing a range of tools that allow people to get into affording housing. This is a very important tool that we are losing here when sending it back to a select committee to do some serious work on it could have been the answer. It is very disappointing. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I am happy to take a call on this important issue and mostly common-sense bill. This is the first piece of legislation that I have seen through the House and although my colleagues would agree that it is probably not the most glamorous bill it is an important one. 
Before I touch on the specific parts of the Infrastructure Bill I would like to discuss the role of infrastructure in general. Infrastructure is an important part of economic social and environmental development. Good planning can see positive outcomes whereas bad planning in infrastructure can see us slip down a path of diminishing prosperity negative social outcomes and declining environmental health. Earlier this month the Government launched its plan to invest $18 billion into infrastructure over 10 years. It announced five priorities: broadband electricity regulatory reform roads of national significance and the Rugby World Cup 2011. 
The Greens believe that those are important areas to focus on. However on each point we strongly differ on the path the Government has gone down. Just looking at the roads of national significance in particular—or as I call it the roads to no sustainability—the plan includes a future spend of $9.6 billion on only seven roads and a further $13.5 billion of spending on other roading projects. That is a huge part of our national wealth. For rail however there is no new spending. This Government is putting all of our bets on roads. Many of the seven roads of national significance represent very poor economic decisions. For example the $2 billion Puhoi to Wellsford holiday highway has a benefit-cost ratio of only 0.8 and the Transmission Gully “white elephant” motorway has a benefit-cost ratio of only 0.6. Those roads of national significance are gambles and are politically driven rather than being based on sound economic analysis. They will lock us into a high carbon future do nothing to help our climate change effort and nothing to assist with our valuable “clean green” brand and act as expensive millstones around our necks as the price of oil inexorably rises. 
Why would the Government place all our bets on roads as a measure to reduce congestion when all the local and international experience shows that it just does not work? Under the previous Budget for every dollar spent on sustainable modes of transport like buses trains walking and cycling National will spend $7 on roads. It is simple economic mismanagement. The Greens would spend money on roads for sure but roads are actually not the priority in the short to medium term. We would favour a more balanced investment approach especially in places like Auckland where the economic costs of congestion are stifling. Sixteen percent of Auckland’s wealth is spent on transport compared to 6 percent in Europe and other Asian cities that have a more balanced investment approach to mobility. If members look at the actual investment this Government is planning for transport infrastructure they will find that it is not an exaggeration to say that this Government is hysterically pro-roads. 
The Greens plan to give Kiwis a choice about how they will get to work not sentence them to greater levels of automotive dependence. Our recommendation for transport in our Green New Deal package is fiscally neutral. In the short term we would shift $1 billion of State highway funding into more sustainable more productive and higher quality alternatives thereby taking the pressure off our alternative roads. Our measures would create 40 percent more jobs while at the same time making our transportation network more resilient to the inevitable oil price shocks. This is a real jobs package. That is what a Green New Deal looks like—delivering a smart road to prosperity. Even though the Government is doing very little to tackle climate change at least in the infrastructure plan it touches on it to a small degree. 
I will now turn to the bill before us. The Greens voted for this bill at its first reading on the whole because it is simple common sense. As Jeanette Fitzsimons said in the first reading there is a huge amount of waste when there is no coordination no planning in terms of combining the wires pipes and fibre in the same corridor. It is high time we attempted to bring about that kind of rationalisation. Like the TV show game that my son loves in this bill however one of these parts is not like the other. Parts 1 to 3 naturally go together. Part 1 creates the framework for a consistent national code for access by utility operators to transport corridors. Part 2 harmonises the notice provisions across all the Acts and requires territorial local authorities to pay for any amenity improvements when utilities are moved or upgraded. Part 3 cleans up the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act and harmonises it to management provisions with other State-owned enterprises legislation. 
Part 4 is the odd one out; it is not like the others. It is like the proverbial square peg in a round hole. We can support the first three parts without too much reserve; they are sensible moves. I would place a wager however that if I have the privilege of being re-elected another couple of times I may see Part 2 back before this House before I retire. I strongly suspect that the balance of costs is wrong. Part 2 disallows any amenity improvement requirements when work is undertaken unless they are already outlined in the territorial local authority’s long-term community council plan. All costs must be borne by the local authority. This is in contrast to the current law that splits the amenity improvement costs evenly unless otherwise agreed. 
I turn to the odd one out Part 4 which repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008. The Green Party thinks it is a good move to separate this out into its own bill thereby avoiding the accusation which this Government could have previously been labelled with that this is a cowardly move to hide the sneakily significant repeal of affordable housing provisions. This part should stand alone as its own bill. As referred to in the Labour Party and Green Party minority report we believe that this part should have been referred to either the Social Services Committee or the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Housing affordability is a major issue in New Zealand. Close to one in three New Zealanders now spend 30 percent of their disposable income on housing; 30 percent is the internationally agreed benchmark for housing affordability. The Demographia 2009 International Housing Affordability Survey found that the median house price in New Zealand is 5.7 times the median household income ranking New Zealand in the category of “severely unaffordable” and with only Australia worse at 6.0. But on the bright side I guess we are catching up with Australia in one respect. It is especially pertinent for people of my generation people like me who come out of university encumbered by debt and enter a housing market that has grown rapidly over the last decade mostly to the benefit of baby boomers and those people already on the property ladder. The market has not been slowed by sensible moves such as a capital gains tax or revisiting the tax rules on loss attributing qualifying companies. Loss attributing qualifying companies allow people to offset their losses in investment properties against personal tax income. It means that young people trying to get into the housing market are effectively subsidising the tax offsets of people who are buying investment properties using loss attributing qualifying companies. This is wrong and pernicious. 
When looking at housing affordability in the context of infrastructure we need to be doing more around transport corridors to encourage increasing densities in urban centres rather than adding more urban sprawl. Although the Greens supported the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act in the previous Parliament our support for it was lukewarm. We did not think it would be particularly effective in achieving its stated objective of making housing more affordable. As it turned out no territorial local authority made use of the enabling provisions in the Act so it is not terribly disappointing to see the bulk of the legislation repealed. However the Greens strongly supported the part of the Act that prohibited restrictive covenants that aimed to exclude social and affordable housing. We are disappointed that the Government has decided to water down those provisions and to remove the prohibition of restrictive covenants that aimed to exclude affordable housing. As Moana Mackey pointed out I think the Government was relying more on the recession to see house prices drop so significantly that the issue of affordable housing would go off the boil. The fact is that housing prices have not dropped and working families are still locked out of the housing market. 
We are facing a housing crisis. There are 10000 people on the waiting list for State home rentals. In order to afford a home people are being forced further and further out of the city and town centres but meanwhile they are spending considerably more of their pay packet on transport. I predict that the homelessness survey which is expected to come out in June based on Australian estimates and similarities will see tens of thousands of Kiwis classed as homeless. We support Parts 1 to 3 because we believe they are common sense but we have grave concerns about Part 4. Kia ora. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on the Infrastructure Bill but the speech we have just heard from Gareth Hughes has motivated me to do so. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill which according to the commentary on the bill “provides for a new Utilities Access Act and makes a number of amendments to several Acts to remove a number of legislative barriers to infrastructure development.”—and certainly do we not need those barriers to infrastructure development to be lifted? This is an omnibus bill of four parts and it covers three areas. It covers changes to utilities’ access arrangements to transport corridors makes changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 and repeals certain aspects of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008. 
As I said I want to comment on Mr Hughes’ speech because he preceded the main part of his speech by making some general comments on infrastructure and those comments cannot go unanswered. It always fascinates me when people stand up in this House and criticise the Government’s decision to build roads because by far the most common form of public transport is the bus. The last time I checked buses travelled on roads. 
David Bennett 
: No way! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes absolutely; buses travel on roads. Where I live in the Tamaki electorate Mr Peachey’s electorate some special bus transit lanes have just been put in along Tamaki Drive to make very efficient use of those roads. As I walk along Tamaki Drive taking my daily exercise I ask myself why that was not done 20 years ago. 
In commenting further on what Mr Hughes said I note that he criticised the Government’s decision to build roads. I find that quite fascinating because I stood in the Mt Albert by-election against Mr Hughes’ co-leader Mr Norman who advocated the building of a $3 billion tunnel under Mt Albert. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: No he didn’t. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes he did. I shared many platforms with Mr Norman from which he criticised the Government for not building the full 3-kilometre tunnel under Mt Albert but the great tragedy is that that is exactly what the National Government is now doing; it is spending $2 billion to put a 4-kilometre road under Mt Albert when a $500 million surface highway would have done. 
Mr Hughes also made the point that the Government was doing very little to address climate change. That is also demonstrably untrue. The reason I say so is that on 1 July this year this country New Zealand will be the first to conduct an experiment. We will conduct an experiment on 4 million New Zealanders by putting taxes on our electricity—which is another form of infrastructure—and from 1 July the price of electricity will go up by 5 percent and the price of petrol will go up by 4c a litre. These are not my words and assumptions; these are the assumptions of the New Zealand Treasury adopted by Mr Alan Bollard in his inflation forecast less than 2 weeks ago. If that is not enough Mr Richard Bentley chief executive of Meridian Energy said to the Finance and Expenditure Committee last Wednesday that Meridian Energy would certainly be adding the cost of its carbon taxes to the cost of its electricity. 
Moving on to the issues of housing affordability and the need to put infrastructure in place to ensure we can have affordable houses I ask why houses are unaffordable. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. The first is that they cost too much and let us look in a moment at why they cost too much. The second reason is that New Zealanders’ incomes are too low and I ask why New Zealanders’ incomes are too low. 
When it comes to the cost of housing I point out that in Auckland there is the Auckland Regional Council and that has put a barrier around Auckland. It has put an artificial barrier around Auckland such that land which is inside the Auckland urban limits is some ten times more expensive than land that is immediately outside. If Auckland were allowed to grow I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the price of sub-dividable land on which people now cannot put affordable housing would be so much cheaper. Secondly in relation to the level of incomes I say that if New Zealand incomes were 25 percent higher and if they were at the same level as Australia’s houses in New Zealand just might be that little bit more affordable. 
The ACT Party will be voting for and supporting the Infrastructure Bill but let me repeat that I totally refute the claim that this Government is doing very little to address climate change. It is conducting a massive experiment with the people of New Zealand. The five ACT Party MPs are the only members of Parliament who are standing up for regular New Zealanders who will face a 5 percent increase in electricity from 1 July. 
The only thing sadder than the price of electricity going up on 1 July when it need not go up is the fact that if we had had a Labour Government the price of electricity would have gone up not by 5 percent but by 10 percent. The previous Labour Government intended to introduce an emissions trading scheme that would already have increased the price of electricity by 10 percent if that Government had been re-elected. As I said to the House this afternoon we heard overnight that the French Government through President Sarkozy has announced in the last 24 hours that France will not be proceeding with its carbon tax. I say to John Key to the Ministers of the National Government and to all National members that it is not too late to abandon the expensive experiment of an emissions trading scheme tax which none of our top three trading partners—Australia the United States and China—are pursuing. 
The ACT Party will support the Infrastructure Bill. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The relationship of tangata whenua to roads rails and motorways has been a long and painful one. The member’s bill on the acquisition of Maori land for public works that has been put up by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill cites examples of what we could define as compulsory alienation. To put this contemporary bill into a historical context I want the House to recall that by 1885 Maori land could be taken for roads and railways under the main provisions of the Public Works Act or under the Crown right to take up to 5 percent of lands without compensation. Indeed in a letter of 9 February 1928 to Sir Peter Buck Sir Apirana Ngata suggested that the provisions for taking land without compensation for roads and railways did not end until 1927 when they ended as a result of Sir Apirana Ngata’s influence. 
Other concerns were raised over the last 170 years about the damage that the impact of infrastructure development might have. In reports tabled by John Ballance—Minister of Lands and Immigration Minister of Defence and Native Minister in the Stout-Vogel administration—we hear of many of these concerns. Maori were concerned that traditional food sources such as eel swamps and berry trees might be destroyed. When valuable timber was cut they wanted to be paid for it and they wanted to benefit from participation in decision making over road routes. 
Fast forward 120 years and the concerns are similar but different. We must never forget that the history of this land will carry forward into our discussions of today. This context always shapes the thinking that we undertake in creating new solutions for old problems. The problems of either century are related to the unintended effects of the decisions we make about infrastructure. We all know that a strong infrastructure is vital to an economy that runs well. It is about facilitating the movement of people goods and information around our country and around the world. Effective infrastructure is all about servicing housing and households. It is a primary means of enhancing community life and keeping us all connected. But we must never get into a position where economic growth is of more importance than social cultural or environmental concerns. 
 In this light the Maori Party supports improved public transport rather than investment in roading itself. We want to see more support for integrated public transport networks—buses trains and walking and cycling tracks. We are concerned about the impact of infrastructural decisions on our environment. In particular we want to reduce our reliance on oil in the face of peak oil. We have a preference for transport and roading that is frequent reliable and inexpensive. We will continue to put forward the view that an approach to infrastructure that is focused only on future economic growth will only ever be a limited one. 
Last year we were visited by Morey Wolfson the utilities programme manager in the Colorado Governor’s office. For those whose main association with utilities is through landing on the “Water Works” space in the game of Monopoly utility operators are those who manage electricity gas telecommunications water and waste water. This guy from Colorado had an interesting approach. He was motivated by five “E’s”: environment energy economy education and equity. He described this as the ecosystem of thinking. This type of thinking should be encouraged in all areas of infrastructure development. We are facing fundamental change and we need to be prepared on all fronts. 
The Infrastructure Bill is about reducing inefficiencies in the legislation and preventing the disputes that create project delays and increased costs. It takes into account factors such as the safe and efficient flow of traffic the health and safety of the public and the need to lessen disruption to businesses and the community. Just as in 1885 there were varied and passionate views about the role of Maori participation so too in 2010 we want to broaden the debate so we are talking about building up not only the nation’s hardware—such as hospitals prisons transmission lines and electricity plants—but also the nation’s economic growth potential. It must not be fast tracked at all costs placing stress on our environment or impacting on our capacity to live healthily and sustainably. We will support this bill in the interests of a broader debate. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Infrastructure Bill. I would like to put some context around this bill and why the Government has seen the need to bring it to the House in the first place. 
This bill follows on from a discussion paper on the state of New Zealand’s infrastructure which was released last year. It was incorporated into the first national infrastructure plan which was released this month. It was abundantly clear from the stocktake of key infrastructure issues and challenges last year that the Government had to get New Zealand infrastructure right which means improving the quality of our roads ensuring our electricity grid is up to speed and increasing our broadband speed. The plan which has a 20-year horizon is part of a range of work aimed at improving the Government’s planning decision making and management of infrastructure in order to maximise economic benefits. To achieve this the Government is investing almost twice as much over the next few years than was planned by the previous Government. The reality is that the Government is spending over $6 billion per year on physical assets and holds approximately $110 billion worth of such assets. 
The plan will also support thousands of jobs. This will contribute to a stronger economy that over time will mean better wages and higher living standards for New Zealand families. This plan like any plan will only succeed as long as it can be implemented. The words must result in action and that is why the bill is before the House today. This bill is an omnibus bill that will make substantive amendments to a number of Acts and repeal one Act. At the Committee of the whole House stage this bill will be divided into two bills: the Utilities Access Bill and the Infrastructure Bill. 
This bill is about maximising economic growth by developing critical infrastructure. It removes the unnecessary barriers to infrastructure development and improves the consistency between regulations. It is also part of our commitment to review regulation and remove red tape. The bill is in four parts. Parts 1 and 2 improve arrangements for managing access by utility operators such as electricity gas telecommunications water and waste water to transport corridors. It was apparent during the submission process that there were a number of inconsistencies or gaps in legislation and also in industry practice. We heard of inefficiencies uncertainties and disputes leading to associated higher costs and delays. 
Part 1 will clarify and improve the arrangements for managing access by utility operators to various transport corridors such as roads railways and motorways. Most important Part 1 establishes a framework for a national code of practice governing how utility operators and corridor managers coordinate their activities. There is no requirement to have a code enforced. However if there is no code suitable for approval and the Minister identifies a need for one he or she may make regulations in place of a code. If a code is deemed necessary and the utilities’ operators and corridor managers cannot decide what the code should be the Minister will. 
Part 3 amends the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 to remove some of the statutory restrictions that negatively affect the running of the New Zealand Railways Corporation’s business. Part 4 repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008 although keeping an amended prohibition on restrictive covenants affecting social housing. The repeal of this Act is on the basis of the view that the Act was counterproductive and likely to reduce the supply of affordable housing. Local authorities have also been critical that the Act was complex costly and overly prescriptive. I am sure that these parts will be hotly debated in the Committee stage. I commend this bill to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have an opportunity to take a call in the second reading of the Infrastructure Bill. Before I get into my speech I offer my congratulations to the Green member on his very useful contribution in his first contribution to debate on a bill in the House. As previous speakers have said Labour supports this bill but we did not vote for Part 4 in the select committee. As other speakers have already outlined we hope we will be able to address our concerns when we come to the Committee stage. It is also fair to say that even though we are supporting this bill we have serious concerns about what this Government means by infrastructure development. 
The purpose of the bill is to progress a suite of amendments to facilitate infrastructure development. However given the scenario in Auckland at the moment one has to wonder whether this is achievable. The population growth in Auckland makes the challenges of infrastructure economic development and good planning even more urgent. Unfortunately Aucklanders are not having a real say in their future. By the way National and ACT are ramming through their version of a super-city a narrow and influential elite will determine how Auckland’s infrastructure develops. What happens in Auckland has a major influence on the rest of the country. That influence will grow even more in the future. It is crucial that the many not the few determine how this happens. 
The first part of this bill is about implementing a national code of practice governing how utility operators and transport corridor managers coordinate their activities. We are talking about installing telecommunications electricity gas and water along the roading and rail corridors of New Zealand. The Institute of Public Administration New Zealand one of the submitters described the current arrangement for the roading corridor as being effectively a commons where all parties have the absolute right of access without charge subject to conditions. Roads are the commons of modern urban society. 
Many of our utilities under the roads and rail corridor go back to the days when the Government owned the utilities operations and companies. The sell-off and privatisation over the years means that coordination and national consistency have become much more complex. These days local authorities the New Zealand Transport Agency and rail licence access providers are all corridor managers. The councils own the road corridors but they cannot stop people digging it up. One submitter told us that they literally do not know what is under the ground in some parts of the country in the corridors which makes the job of the local authorities very difficult indeed. At the select committee there were plenty of complaints from utilities managers as well. Coordination and national consistency were described to the select committee as the Holy Grail but I think that is a big ask in any legislation. To be honest I am a little bit cynical because apparently this code has been under development for many many years by the New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group. There appears to have been some falling out of some of the parties and some do not participate at all. 
 Although there was general support from utilities operators for an industry-led code an agreement about the need to make arrangements as consistent as possible across utilities and corridor managers local authorities had more reservations and concerns. Several submitters thought the bill could go further in making arrangements more consistent but there is definitely a divide in opinion between utility operators and corridor managers on several issues. 
Utility operators have rights of access to local authority - controlled roads but that has to be balanced against corridor managers’ responsibilities for controlling the road. Corridor managers need to have the ability to direct how the work is done as they are responsible for that amenity for the safety of the public and indeed for the contractors who are doing the work. The code will include rules setting out how work must be done which will give utility operators the ability to ensure that work is done in a way that does not damage their assets. 
A code can be prepared and presented for the Minister for approval by anyone although I have to say that this was queried by the select committee. It seemed strange to us that just anyone could be preparing a code. However the bill requires proper consultation and for the code to be broadly agreed to by the relevant corridor managers and utility operators and to reflect a balance of interests between corridor managers and those operators. The select committee has made a number of recommendations with regard to the strengthening of the enforceability of the code which Labour supports. 
Since this bill was introduced many questions have emerged about transport infrastructure in Auckland. Aucklanders are very concerned about the role and the undemocratic nature of the powerful new Transport Agency in the Auckland super-city. There have been warnings that Auckland’s local roads are likely to suffer in the mix between the Government’s control from Wellington and its desire for the so-called roads of national significance of which there are three in Auckland. The fact that the agency is required to deal with all roading issues including whether there are speed bumps or better footpaths in local streets is quite frankly bizarre. Eighty percent of the work of community boards in Auckland is street related: footpaths car-parking slow roads bus shelters traffic conflicts and so on. Yet all this plus the determinations of the huge asset of Auckland’s transport infrastructure is being handed over to an unaccountable group of Rodney Hide’s mates. 
I am foreseeing that transport will be a huge election issue this year come the super-city elections and it will be interesting to watch how the candidates including the mayoral candidates play out their competing promises in the campaign. It is hard to see however how the new mayor and those who are elected to the new Auckland Council will have any power to actually implement their transport policies. Since this bill was introduced we have had the grand infrastructure plan and I have to say it is great to talk about roads and railways and other things. The part that is always missing for me in any infrastructure plan that comes from this Government is the people element. Surely people are part of our infrastructure and skills and education. It does not seem so. I do say that we now know why the Kopu Bridge was rushed through with the mining announcements we have had in the last couple of days. 
At the same time there is increasing uncertainly around the Government’s commitment to rail with closures of some regional lines in the wind. A number of utility operators complained to the select committee about not having as-of-right access to rail corridors saying that it inhibits their ability to develop infrastructure. It was explained to the select committee that the rail corridor is different from the roading corridor. It has specific health and safety requirements. KiwiRail and ONTRACK are responsible for workers and contractors. There are few alternative routes and most of the network is a single track. So we are pretty concerned that Steven Joyce is planning to mothball some parts of the rail network as a precursor to the sell-off of KiwiRail in the second term— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh whatever. You’re always concerned. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —Mr Henare can stand up and say it is not going to happen if he likes—and then the utility operators will have a field day. So we will watch with keen interest the Government’s plans to amend the Railways Act which is foreshadowed in this bill. 
This bill is about the things New Zealanders believe are their rights in terms of decent living: transport and utilities. It is an important bill and as I said Labour will be supporting parts 1 to 3. I will talk about housing in a moment. But I predict that the transport and infrastructure issues will get hotter and hotter for this Government without even talking about Great Barrier Island. 
I move on to Part 4. My colleagues have already said that we are opposed to the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act. It should not have been hidden away in this bill. It should have been sent to the appropriate select committee. I think it is absolutely shameful that the appropriate select committee will not have the opportunity to discuss housing affordability and how that legislation will work. The decision to repeal the Act without such consideration is a wasted opportunity and it further limits the tools available to address housing affordability in New Zealand. We are hoping that when this bill reaches the Committee stage we will be able to vote separately. We will put forward amendments during the Committee stage and vote separately on Part 4. I am sure the Government wants Labour’s support for this bill and that is possible if we can do something about Part 4. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to follow my cousin Darien Fenton. The development of infrastructure is central to New Zealand’s productivity and improving its future economic growth. Improving the consistency of the regulatory arrangements for infrastructure development streamlining governance and removing regulatory barriers all contribute to improving the time lines for providing infrastructure and to reducing the cost of infrastructure development. The Infrastructure Bill removes the unnecessary barriers to infrastructure development and improves the consistency of regulatory arrangements. 
I want to quote a very very fine British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who is oft heard to say “not the few but the many”. I think this bill is about the many. This bill is about how we get after 9 long years of— 
Allan Peachey 
: Socialism. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I certainly would not say socialism but I would say inactivity. I would say the tape around businesses— 
Hon John Carter 
: The misadministration. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —the misadministration; call it what we will. This bill is about trying to get New Zealand pumping again. This bill strips away the barriers and the red tape that has been put in front of business developers—the people who want to invest in a go-ahead country. That is what this bill does. It also reflects the National Government’s commitment to building a stronger economy that will provide growth for every New Zealander—not just the few but the many. It also provides the social infrastructure that New Zealanders so dearly desire and that has been so sorely lacking under the previous administration. 
This bill is part of a raft of Government initiatives to improve infrastructure which is vital to our economic recovery. It is also part of our commitment to review regulation and remove red tape. 
Finally I think there is an opportunity here in New Zealand. We went through a time where local Maori in Waikato were concerned about the State highway running over the top of their taniwha. We saw a leap of opinion with people saying we should not be concerned with that sort of thing. I have been wondering for a long time how to get over that—how to get around it. I suggest that it would have been easier to build a viewing platform and therefore to be nice to all parties. However silly that might sound I turn Mr Assistant Speaker Roy to your lovely ancestral home. Scotland has a taniwha too. People have built a culture and tourism venture around it. They have built roads and they have buses going there. It is called the Loch Ness monster. 
Whether or not we believe in taniwha this was an opportunity that New Zealand missed. Perhaps the taniwha might not have been as big as the Loch Ness Monster; I do not know. But to the home folk they were as big as each other and we should have revered the taniwha rather than ridiculing it. We should have incorporated it into New Zealand’s history—into our lexicon. 
Darien Fenton 
: What’s this got to do with the Infrastructure Bill? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is simple. We must take every opportunity to ensure that we have roads and the ability for local iwi not to be faced with all the red tape and everything but to be able to go ahead and maybe venture into tourism and other areas. That is just a small example of what good legislation and forward-thinking can achieve. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Give us another one. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I could give the member lots of examples. 
I finish by reiterating that the goal is to achieve an increase in productivity and we cannot have that when the heart of our economy is restricted. We have to take those restrictions off and let things flow just like everybody’s blood pressure. The heart has to be pumping not too fast and not too slow but at a rate where it will get one to the end. Thank you very much. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Infrastructure Bill but I do not support the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act. It seems to us that we may have the opportunity to deal separately with Part 4 of the bill which repeals that Act and that would be very good. 
I am delighted to have heard the contribution of my colleague Tau Henare. That was fantastic. It is great that he has seen the error of his ways and taken on board Labour’s view; that is “for the many not the few”. I expect to see him joining us on this side. That is just wonderful to see. 
I will talk about the submission process because I along with others in the House was one of the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which dealt with the Infrastructure Bill. We received and considered 37 submissions from interested groups and individuals and of those we heard 14 submissions. Generally they were quite technical submissions from various authorities that deal with the infrastructure area—planners engineers and the like. We received advice from Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Transport and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. I would like to take the time to acknowledge those officials for their assistance in working through this bill. It was a reasonably complicated bill to deal with because it addresses a number of Acts. The Infrastructure Bill tries to pull those together. 
As members are aware the bill was reported back in November last year. Gee what a lot has happened since then! We have seen the accident compensation scheme gutted—and that is just the start according to the Minister. We have seen a rise in GST signalled. We have seen the third Auckland governance bill—and I will come back to that because as my colleague Darien Fenton said that legislation overlaps very strongly with what we are trying to do with this Infrastructure Bill. Most recently we have heard about mining in sensitive areas—those areas protected under schedule 4 of the Conservation Act including the Coromandel and Great Barrier Island. So a lot has happened since the Infrastructure Bill was reported back to the House. 
The submissions led to a number of changes being made to the bill. As the Minister said some of those are quite technical and some are substantive. I will address some of those changes as I go through. The bill effectively provides for a new Utilities Access Act and makes a number of amendments to several Acts to remove a number of legislative barriers to infrastructure development. I say that infrastructure development is ultimately still about people. We are looking at transport corridors—moving people or moving freight to get it to where people need it to be in order to provide the sorts of jobs and an economy that will support and sustain New Zealanders. The bill has four parts that cover three main areas. Part 1 deals with changes to arrangements for utilities access to transport corridors which as I learnt in hearing all the submissions is a very important mechanism for ensuring that we can upgrade and maintain our utilities. Those transport corridors are fundamentally important because they provide the opportunity to upgrade without having to damage residential or industrial infrastructure that is already in place. Part 2 deals with changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 and Part 3 repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008. I will come back to the latter one but as I have already said Labour opposes that repeal. 
This bill allows the Minister to approve a code of practice for processes relating to access to road rail and motorway corridors. The changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act are about aligning that corporation’s governance arrangements with equivalent provisions in the Crown Entities Act 2004. I will come back as I said specifically to the affordable housing legislation. 
In relation to utilities access I note that this work was begun under the previous Labour Government and indeed was considered by Cabinet in 2007. It was because there had been inconsistent application of “reasonable conditions” being put on utility operators like electricity telecommunications water sewerage drains and gas operators when they were seeking to exercise their right of access to roads and so on. Local authorities generally as road-controlling organisations say there has been poor-quality reinstatement of roads by utility operators and concerns about inconsistencies between statutes thereby creating advantages for some operators over others. The bill in part seeks to make the legislation consistent for all utilities and provides a legislative process to give legal status to a stakeholder-created code for utilities companies for managing access to roads motorways and rail corridors. I want to explain that inconsistencies include notification requirements prior to work commencing the allocation of costs when installations are moved and the criteria for setting reasonable conditions on the works by those with jurisdiction over the transport corridor whether that be a local authority the New Zealand Transport Agency or Railways Corporation. 
Those inconsistencies can play out very badly for local communities. I will give members an example from a community I am working in. This is from the  
Onehunga Community News 
 of July 2009 which is a very good monthly publication. It keeps a really close handle on what is going on locally. The Onehunga Business Association manager Amanda Kinzett was quoted talking about work that was happening on Princes Street in Onehunga—which coincidentally is where my office is located. She talks about being taken unawares on a particular Friday evening in April when she saw roadworks taking place on Princes Street when there had been no notification of the work to be carried out. After some phone calls she discovered that Fulton Hogan was resurfacing the road. That was OK; fair enough. A number of delays led to the roadworks commencing on 11 May. The job was due to take 3 days but due to inclement weather that was not the case. Interestingly enough “In a turn of events which in its way is fortuitous a Vector employee”—this is where it gets interesting everybody—“was driving past the works noticed the upheaval and recollected”—went “ding!”—“that Vector was due to carry out work in the area. This work was brought forward which delayed the resurfacing another couple of weeks but did avoid the road being resurfaced and then having holes dug in it. Apparently”—and this is the bit that relates to the Infrastructure Bill—“Auckland City is supposed to have a system whereby this type of work is notified to avoid for example roads being dug up by successive contractors. It appears that this system has its faults. As we go to press”—in July last year—“the work has taken six weeks”—not 3 days—“capped off with two burst water mains and a burst gas main.” This bill is about trying to stop some of those things happening by ensuring that the code of practice requires notification by utilities operators to each other. It means for example—and this is one of the bill’s provisions that will be changed as a result of the select committee’s work—that the code will require coordination of work between utilities operators including how utilities operators deal with corridor managers as well as other utilities operators. That was illustrated by my Princes Street example where we had gas water electricity and roading all through that one street in Onehunga. So we are certainly supportive of that change. Clearly those sorts of situations are not acceptable. They caused considerable loss to businesses in Princes Street and are just unacceptable in a modern society that is trying to improve infrastructure. 
I am aware that I am running out of time but I want to just talk briefly about the implications of changes to Auckland’s governance. Unfortunately although this bill puts in place many good provisions around infrastructure because we will be facing a super-city with authority taken away from elected representatives and in the hands of corporate bodies effectively—so-called council-controlled organisations—I think we will see a number of major problems with infrastructure. Everybody from businesses right through to community organisations for example is opposing the new transport agency and clearly they are key players. I will leave it there. Thank you very much. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to be the member who will bring the second reading debate on the Infrastructure Bill to a close and in doing that commend the bill to the House. Closing the debate gives me an opportunity to reflect on how the debate has progressed through the House. It started with a very very clear and concise explanation from the Associate Minister that spelt out very very clearly the reasons for the Infrastructure Bill why it is required what its significance is and what it will do for New Zealand and there is no reason why I should relitigate that. 
Unfortunately the debate then took a turn for the worse. The Labour Party instead of putting up one of its members who had been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and knew what was going on—who had done the hard grinding work—put up Mr Shane Jones. We all know that Mr Jones is the second assistant to the second deputy to the vice-captain of the Labour Party B team and it showed. What an opportunity Labour members missed right at the very start of the debate to engage in debate with the Government on what the real significance of the Infrastructure Bill is. I had expectations that the debate would get better with subsequent Opposition speakers. It did marginally in the sense that at least those speakers gave us a sort of a hint that yes the Labour Party sort of supported the bill. But then instead of engaging in the significance of the bill and engaging with the Government in a meaningful debate Labour members had to throw in a whole pile of asides and irrelevant comments. 
Why is it that when we on this side of the House understand that the development of infrastructure is essential to New Zealand—it is essential if New Zealand is to lift its national productivity—Opposition parties do not want to engage in a debate on lifting national productivity? If one thinks about that for a moment the answer is obvious. After 9 long years of adhockery in the approach of the Labour Government to the development of New Zealand this new National Government has had to get into top gear quickly and begin to get the infrastructure improvements that this country needs and that is what this Infrastructure Bill will do. It will improve and expand the future economic growth and prosperity of New Zealand. 
One has to ask why it is that Opposition parties do not believe in economic prosperity. If they did believe in it they would have engaged in a meaningful debate with the Government on the significance of this bill. This is a very significant bill for the future of New Zealand and its development. Historians will stand in awe of the huge steps that this country took forward after 9 years of lethargy as a result of the passage of the Infrastructure Bill through this House. 
I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that held the hearings on the Infrastructure Bill. The committee worked very very hard. I am bound to say that Labour members were generally cooperative and generally made a reasonable contribution. I have to conclude by saying that it is disappointing that Labour members on the committee did not bring the same positive attitude to the debate on the second reading we have had in this House. I commend the Infrastructure Bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 to Minister 18 March 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to correct an answer given to a question for oral answer on 18 March 2010. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to correct an answer. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: On 18 March Mr Garrett asked me as Minister for Treaty for Waitangi Negotiations how much Mr Tuku Morgan had been paid by the Office of Treaty Settlements as a Crown facilitator since 16 November 2008. I replied that to that date Mr Morgan had been paid $171093.61. Mr Garrett subsequently submitted to me a small number of questions for written answer. In compiling material to answer Mr Garrett’s written questions it has come to my attention that although Mr Morgan has been paid that sum there were two instances in 2009 when Mr Morgan was inadvertently paid twice for the same work as a Crown facilitator. In the first instance upon being notified Mr Morgan repaid the full amount within 24 hours. Mr Morgan has tonight been notified of the second instance. He was unaware of the double payment and has undertaken to repay that amount. Accordingly although it is correct that Mr Morgan has been paid $171093.61 he should have been paid $144768.61. Having just learnt of these details I wish to draw this issue to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. 
Education Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill. First of all I have to say that most of the bill is made up of amendments introduced by Labour in September 2008 in the Education Amendment Bill (No 3). 
Although we did not support this bill at its first reading clearly the work that has been done in the Education and Science Committee by Labour members has meant that Government members have seen the light over a number of clauses and we are now in a position to support the bill as long as the amendments we have proposed remain intact. 
One clause that I wish to deal with in particular during this contribution which will be the first of several contributions I wish to make on this part is clause 36. This clause inserts new section 128A after section 128 of the principal Act the Education Act 1989. The new section deals with the “Matching of register information and information about payment of teacher salaries at payrolled schools”. 
This provision is not immediately as it sounds. Clearly an information-matching programme is contained in this clause. It allows for information matching to occur so that it is possible for the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to ensure that registered teachers holding a current practising certificate are the people in fact who are employed in teaching positions. 
This takes me back quite a long way and with the indulgence of the Committee and the fact that I have 5 minutes in which to do it I would like to cite some relevant experience here. When I first started as a teacher in 1978 there was a process of registration but there were also extraordinary teacher shortages at that time. There had been a cycle of teacher shortages and I have to say they are a wee bit— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What year was that? Which period are we talking about? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It was 1978. There had been some— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You were a third-former? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I was a child prodigy; it is true—just a young thing. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It was the year Chris Hipkins was born. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I thank my colleagues for assisting me so ably. 
It was customary for schools to look for any warm body to put in front of a class. It was called the warm-body approach to staffing because prior to the 1970s I think—towards the end of the 1960s and in the early 1970s—there had been considerable teacher shortages. Mr Peachey I am sure will remember those days. It was required only that a warm body be in front of children so that at least some order could be maintained in a classroom. It was a case of “never mind” in terms of the educational content or achievement that went on in the classroom at the time. Fortunately we have long passed those days. Since then we have had about four decades of pedagogy research and academic pursuit which have collectively improved the quality of education that is offered in our primary and secondary schools. 
The purpose of this information-matching programme is to allow the authorities to ensure that the people who are teaching in front of classes are properly registered and certificated teachers who hold current practising certificates. It allows that information to be kept managed and compared between the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Teachers Council. We on this side of the Chamber are very much in favour of that and we very much support it because we do not need to return to those days of unqualified untrained teachers appearing in classrooms. 
The risk of having untrained and unqualified teachers in our classrooms is too great and we have learnt over the years that the need to put properly trained and qualified teachers in our classrooms is reflected in the quality of learning that students engage in. The information-matching programme allows the Ministry of Education to keep accurate registration information about teachers—who are entitled to registration-dependent allowances. So there are some things that attach to a teacher’s registration. 
This provision gives security for parents principals and other teaching staff who can be confident that their peers and colleagues around them have met the same registration requirements that they all hold current practising certificates and that they have not just been dragged in off the street to provide warm bodies to keep children more or less in order. Fortunately we have moved a long way past those days. 
This provision is also terribly important for another reason. From my secondary teaching experience I went on to work for the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) in a paid capacity having already worked for the association in an honorary capacity for some years. I was always very resentful of people who accused teachers of never deregistering their colleagues or of making it very difficult for teachers to be deregistered when I was certainly of the view that teachers should have been deregistered if they did not come up to scratch and that there should be no excuses. 
My job as a PPTA officer was to ensure that teachers had their rights observed. But it was also my job to ensure that if teachers were incompetent or worse than that more harmful than incompetent—in other words malevolent abusive or dangerous for children—they were expedited out of classrooms promptly. That was something that I adhered to as a union official and it was something that was important to me as a practising teacher. 
It is really important that people who are dismissed from schools for inappropriate or incompetent behaviour are not simply found going down the road to the next school where the principal then hires them. This information-matching programme will prevent that from happening. Therefore it is a good thing. It gives principals some security that they are not hiring somebody who has just been rejected but has not gone through an appropriate deregistration or decertification process or someone whose deregistration or decertification has not come to the attention of the next employing principal. So this information-matching programme is important for the maintenance of standards. 
It is not just national testing that provides standards in schools. Providing standards is also about ensuring that the professional competence and the appropriateness of the trained professionals in our classrooms is maintained through an adequate registration and certification programme. Clause 36 of this amendment bill attempts to address that issue and I think it will successfully address it because of the ability of the New Zealand Teachers Council which registers teachers and the Ministry of Education to swap information and make sure that everybody is on the same page in respect of teachers who may or may not hold current practising certificates. 
It is important that schools are not illegally employing teachers without practising certificates and it is important that the registration category of teachers can be determined so that their eligibility for allowances that are dependent on the registration type can be applied appropriately and accurately. This is an important measure. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a very brief call on Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. I will begin by acknowledging the officials and thanking them for their work. They serviced the Education and Science Committee with good humour worked hard and met the needs of the committee very very well. 
I also acknowledge the work of members of the committee themselves including and especially Opposition members. Under the leadership of Mr Mallard they were positive constructive and very willing to engage in discussion. Members from both sides of the House had very much at heart the interests of children and what is the best thing to do to ensure that they have the very best possible education. 
I will take a moment to reflect on the comments of Miss Street who from time to time has also been a very positive contributor to the Education and Science Committee. I can go a little bit further back regrettably. I began my teaching career in 1974 and I remember those years of shortage. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Neither here nor there. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: What is a year or two between friends? I also remember some marvellously committed schoolteachers. We did not think twice if the principal came along and said “I’m sorry but we are short of a teacher. We can’t find anybody. It will be a month or a term until we find somebody. I need to halve this class and put half of it in with yours.” We willingly accepted that. We got on with the job. I pay tribute to those sorts of teachers. But certainly the environment in which teachers work today is far better. One of the reasons for that improvement has been successive legislation passed through this House that has changed the employment conditions and expectations that teachers have. I endorse the comments of Miss Street in that regard. 
I want to refer to one part of Part 1 and that is the increased flexibility of governance arrangements for schools. When we go through all the factors—and Miss Street mentioned a number of them such as quality of teaching and that sort of thing—we find that quality of governance is equally important. It is important that those in a position to act actually have the tools available to them that they have a range of tools and that they have tools that are flexible to help them react quickly to situations where it is very very apparent that youngsters are losing their opportunity to learn because something is going wrong in the school environment. Often fixing governance does not always solve the problem but it is a start to solving that problem. 
I certainly commend that section of Part 1 to the Committee and I commend Part 1 generally to the Committee. I look forward to it having the support of all parties. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 At the outset of my contribution I would like to beg the Chair’s indulgence for 30 seconds. This is the first time I have spoken in the Chamber since the passing away of Lady Raiha Mahuta. I add my condolences to the words that were expressed earlier in the week in Parliament. Certainly in the Waikato Lady Raiha has been a taonga for our area. Every time that people take a walk along the banks of the Waikato River in the future they will know that they have Lady Mahuta amongst others to thank for what we think will be the improving condition of our river. It certainly was an issue that she fought very hard for and I am so pleased that she was still with us to see the final conclusion and settlement of the Waikato River claim. 
I will move on to the purpose of my contribution to the debate this evening on the Education Amendment Bill. Labour supports this amendment bill. Labour members did not support it at the first reading because we had some significant concerns certainly about Part 1. Many of the areas that we had concerns about in Part 1 have been amended already. I know that we are seeking further amendments which my colleague Grant Robertson has brought forward in his name. I look forward to his contribution on the further amendments that we seek to Part 1. 
With regard to the select committee process I reflect on the words that the chair of the Education and Science Committee just offered to the Committee. I support him in saying that it was a process where all parties—because the Labour Party the National Party and the Green Party are permanent members of that select committee— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And ACT. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The ACT Party as well with Sir Roger who became very important in one of the major amendments that came through in this part of the bill which I will speak to later on in my contribution. 
We all applied ourselves to this bill because it is about the safety of our children. This bill deals with issues covering the vetting of the police records of people who have access to our children in the schoolyard and in early childhood education centres. It was an area that we all considered with a great deal of seriousness. It is true to say that although this bill and in particular Part 1 is modelled on amendments that were brought forward by Labour when in Government certainly the police-vetting parts of it have been watered down under the new Government. Labour members were concerned about that so we wanted to fully traverse those issues as submitters came before us in the select committee. I believe we arrived at a position where we felt some level of comfort but I really hope that the gap that is left which is not as strong as what Labour had proposed does not come back to haunt us. Labour certainly had much stronger legislation for the police vetting that we required for people who have access to our children. 
I turn to the issue in Part 1 of introducing information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education to identify individuals teaching in schools without being registered. I think the timing is quite interesting on this point. At the point in time when the select committee was deliberating on that issue and considering this bill and when submitters made their submissions on this bill the target of having a 100 percent rate of registered teaching staff in early childhood education centres was still in place. So I saw this feature of the bill as being very important for early childhood education in particular where we were going to be moving from an environment where not all staff were currently registered to a situation where the previous Labour Government had a target in place to have a 100 percent rate of qualified staff in early childhood education centres by the year 2012. 
As followers of debates in this House will know the Government recently ditched the commitment to have a 100 percent rate of fully qualified staff in early childhood education centres. Not only did it ditch the 100 percent target but it also ditched the 80 percent target that had been set for 2010. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 He mihi nui ki te Whare Paremata. I say thanks very much to the previous speakers. Sometimes I find that I learn more about a bill after the select committee process but it is all good learning. It is important for the Green Party to speak up on all stages of the Education Amendment Bill because we are voting against it. The bill did not have a large number of submitters but there were people with very serious interests in some of the important specific issues that have been raised about Part 1. The select committee process was useful in the sense that some improvements were made to the bill and general consensus was formed on issues such as information matching for teachers and the changes to the vetting of people associated with home care and working on school premises. 
Following on from previous speakers the select committee consideration reminded me of experiences in the bad old days. In some schools that I was connected with it took 12-year-old girls using a tape-recorder in a classroom to prove to boards school committees and the education department that there were abusive teachers saying abusive things. We managed to get rid of some teachers like that from our school but we did not have the knowledge or confidence then that information matching would mean that the behaviour of those teachers would not continue in another school. So it is good to see that we have come a long way on that issue and that there is progress. It is appalling that in those days some of our children had to take a tape-recorder into the classroom in order to be believed; people did not believe that some of the abuse towards children in schools in this country was possible. We welcome those aspects of the bill and have no problem with them. 
Because the Green Party is the only party voting against the bill we need to reiterate that we did find some parts inoffensive and some parts very useful. But we and some of the submitters were not persuaded by what are called “minor changes” to the Education Act. The Quality Public Education Coalition and the Green Party are concerned about the clauses in the bill that relate to school governance. There was never any real explanation of the clauses relating to combining school boards and relating to body corporate control in the governance section of the bill. Other parties have spoken as if that language is just convenient phrasing that reflects the status quo and that creates choice for communities rather than being a potentially serious opportunity to change the governance from public institutions to potentially privately controlled structures. 
Just as the Green Party stands against free trade and for fair trade and just as we stand against unsustainable growth and for genuine progress indicators we stand for public ownership and governance of the public school system. It is not to say that we have no critique of that system; we strongly critique the system for its inability to meet the needs of many young people whose voices we hear. We consider that tangata whenua tamariki and rangatahi in particular have not been nurtured to their full potential by an education system that has embedded problems with monocultural ignorance and a strong Pakeha learning framework and bias that is currently seen as so normal that it is barely recognised particularly in some high schools. However this legislation does nothing to improve that situation and could also have serious and long-term unintended consequences. 
We could debate whether the term “body corporate” will have major effects but the Green Party stands with the submitters from the Quality Public Education Coalition who were concerned that the legislation was legitimising corporate control in public schools. The practical example they raised with me when we discussed the legislation was what happens when schools are considered to be failing. Under this legislation the board of trustees can be taken over by a statutory manager which may be necessary at times. But if that manager is a body corporate the risk of private control becomes more explicitly provided for than in the Education Act to date. Why would we open a door to a different governance model that moves governance further from the local community? What if a school was considered to be failing because it worked with a different cultural bias from the current framework and it was taken over by an “efficient” private management group that had no experience of the educational needs of children from that community? It was argued at the select committee by just about everybody else except me that as long as some individual was made accountable everything would be OK because accountability is about knowing who is responsible but not necessarily knowing the impact of the kind of model of responsibility that we may be facilitating in this legislation. That is where the Greens and other submitters beg to differ from the Government. 
We also agree with the Quality Public Education Coalition that combining school boards risks the autonomy of communities. A combined board might sound efficient but it risks the takeover of a unique community in that parents who are not directly involved are making key decisions about a school in their district. The governance of a combined board could dilute the purpose of the board of trustees in allowing more distant interests and priorities—let alone more corporate ones—to dominate. Today at the Education and Science Committee my colleague Sue Kedgley presented the school foods petition. One issue she highlighted was the way vested interests can dictate the food our children buy in schools now that this Government has abolished the healthy food guidelines written by the previous Government. Contractors can make more money from widely promoted junk food than they can from healthy food choices. Shall we expand that to contracting all education services? Who will benefit from that? 
I return to the issue of unintended consequences which can bedevil legislation. Imagine the nightmare scenario if we ended up with an accelerating progression towards an ACT Party utopia in education? Individual parents would seek so-called choice in a chaotic and privatised education system where survival of the fittest—the schools at the top of the league table—had taken over. The rich would choose beautiful well-resourced schools behind guarded walls and the poor would end up in the draughty hall down the road. Oh my God that is starting to happen already. The language of this legislation may further facilitate the degradation of the public education system towards schools as businesses some of which will inevitably fail. But what the heck! That is the market and children who suffer educational inequity can just pull themselves up by their future-focused undeserving bootstraps. I say no thank you. We will stand our ground and we will vote against the bill. Kia ora. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I did not intend to take a call at this stage but after hearing the last speech which contained flights of fancy I felt I had to make a correction for the Committee. 
The original proposal which is the proposal contained within the Education Amendment Bill that is being debated by the Committee is about statutory interventions. In particular the appointment of a commissioner to a school is done either by the Minister of Education dismissing an existing board of trustees or by the Secretary for Education appointing a commissioner to a school. A number of conditions for the appointment of a commissioner to a school are laid out in the Education Act and they are quite prescribed. In general we find that there is no acting board of trustees in place. Those interventions and the intent of the changes around those interventions are only ever intended to be temporary. The whole ethos of Tomorrow’s Schools is that the board of trustees represents the local community and parents. 
To go off into flights of fancy about corporates taking over schools and students picking and choosing is way outside the intent of the changes that were made. In fact the very changes that were suggested were suggested in order to provide a far wider range of skills that are often needed when we find we have to replace a board of trustees in a school that has a complex range of dysfunctions from employment and financial matters to learning qualities. 
I wanted to take just a very short call to point out that the Green Party’s interpretation of what was intended here is way outside the changes that were made. I repeat that statutory interventions—all of them—are intended to be as short term as they possibly can and a return to the norm will occur as soon as the Minister of Education and the Secretary for Education are sure that the school has the skills and the capability to continue to function as our 2600-odd schools do under Tomorrow’s Schools. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the Minister of Education’s intervention which focused on clauses 22 and 23 of the Education Amendment Bill. I will pick up the question of why there is some concern around the idea that we can introduce the concept of a body corporate or some body that is not a person into this role of statutory manager. In my electorate at the moment I am dealing with a particular school that has had a statutory manager appointed. I have been working with the board and with the principal of the school because they have asked me to. They are complex situations as the Minister notes and they are often quite individualised. They are about relationships and more often than not they are about relationships within the board between the board and the principal or around the school and often they require an intervention that is quite lengthy. Although it is a temporary appointment and I accept the Minister’s point in that regard those relationships take time to be rebuilt and there is a need for a lengthy process by which the statutory manager is involved. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Sometimes. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Mallard makes the point that sometimes that is right and other times it can be dealt with rapidly. I guess the overall point is that each situation is individual each school has a situation that will be different and there will be complex relationships that need to be managed. I think it is important that change was made in the Education and Science Committee. The Greens obviously have a view that says the change does not go far enough. From my judgment as I am looking at it it does provide some protection in that regard. Really it is about accountability. It is about being able to say that there is a person accountable for his or her role as limited statutory manager not some kind of entity and not something that we cannot put our finger on and say that that is the person. My understanding of the discussion in the select committee is that it was around accountability that a coalition of different parties from across the House came together to support the changes here because most members of the committee understood that moving to an approach where an entity could undertake this role rather than a person would reduce accountability. 
The other aspect that this raises for me in relation to the Minister of Education’s comments is the importance of understanding the role of the board of trustees in the context of in this case a limited statutory manager being appointed. That is why I have tabled an amendment to reintroduce something that was in the Labour Government’s education amendment bill which was to specify the functions of a board of trustees within this legislation. The Minister described the importance of the role of the statutory manager and the role of the board of trustees which as she said is crucial to Tomorrow’s Schools and that importance actually emphasises why we should include those functions explicitly within this bill. They were in the earlier draft of the amendment bill that Labour put forward and I think this is now an opportunity for the Minister and others perhaps to reconsider removing them from that bill and explicitly outlining them. 
So that members are familiar with what we are talking about my proposal is to include the statement: “(1) A board must perform the following functions: (a) ensuring the enrolment at the school of all persons who are entitled to be enrolled at the school and apply to be enrolled at it: (b) ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at the school: (c) promoting a school environment that supports the highest standards of achievement for all students: (d) actively managing and monitoring the performance of the principal:” and I will come to the others shortly. Those first four functions are critical roles. They help explain why a board of trustees is so crucial to the running of a school and why in the context of the changes that have been proposed here to do with it being a limited statutory manager it is important to have the board’s role spelt out like that. I hope that the Minister could perhaps take a call at some point and tell members whether she is prepared to reconsider including those functions of a board of trustees in order to fill out the overall explanation of what we are trying to do here under clause 22. 
I move now on to the section about information matching. I think that clause 76 is an important section because it emphasises the importance of having registered teachers within a school environment. Just to clarify for those members who have not been following this closely we will now have effectively the Teachers Council through its list of registered teachers and the Ministry of Education using its payroll function able to compare data to identify and ensure that every teacher in the classroom is a qualified teacher. 
Sue Moroney 
: Not in ECE though. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Not in early childhood education as my colleague Sue Moroney points out and that is a glaring omission in the overall National education policy. But here we do have it and it is important because the quality of education depends upon— 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on this bill during its Committee stage. The bill has quite a number of clauses in it. Many of those clauses were put into a category of corrections. Of the approximately 80 clauses 37 would fit into that category 33 of them were considered to be minor amendments and 15 clauses were policy changes. 
When I talk about minor corrections I should articulate clearly that inside the Education Act there is still a lot of residue from previous legislation. If members turn to section 159 “Interpretation” of the Education Act 1989 they will see mentioned “New Zealand apprenticeship committee”. Of course we know that under the Industry Training Act the New Zealand apprenticeship committees passed out of existence. That was a reference to section 27 of the Apprenticeship Act 1983. That was an example of a correction made to the Education Act in the Education Amendment Bill and we can appreciate that that change was quite appropriate. 
With regard to minor amendments one example is in clause 15 with regard to the registration and inspection of private schools. The clause effectively states that the chief review officer would ensure that a review is taken of all schools in accordance with Part 28 of the Education Act. That was considered to be a minor amendment. 
But when we look at policy changes we see some far more sensitive areas. One of those that I will turn to relates to police vetting. I believe that the matching of registration information has been well traversed by members on the other side of the Chamber and they brought out many many good points. But when it comes down to police vetting we see that fine balance between protecting children and ensuring that there is a safe learning environment and setting up a system where the school has better control and is able to manage things in a timely way. Until this amendment the Teachers Council ran the whole process. It is deemed by the select committee that we have the balance right. 
One point that came out with regard to home schooling was quite important and I think it is appropriate to draw the Committee’s attention to it. New section 319FB which is to be inserted in the Education Act by clause 70 talks about vetting household members who are either 17 years of age or over. It talks about how police vetting should be conducted. It is a very sensitive area because on the one hand we are protecting the children and on the other hand we have to protect the reputation of the individual. The point that is made quite clearly is to do with the validation of the information that the police get and it is a very important point: if the service provider has had a reasonable opportunity to validate the information but has failed to do so within the reasonable period then action can take place. 
Although there are not a lot of major policy changes in the bill it corrects a lot of aspects of the Education Act 1989. Altogether it will make the Education Act work better. It will be a bit more balanced and it will certainly take our children forward. We look forward to the changes to this bill being written into the Education Act 1989 in due course. It is a pleasure to support the bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill. Halfway through this our first term in Parliament new members are asked by a lot of people in our community to talk about our experiences and what it is like being in Parliament. One of the answers I have for my constituents is about the robustness of the parliamentary process and how important it is that a bill goes through all its different readings and the select committee process. I think this is one of those cases where we have seen a bill that Labour opposed at its first reading but it has gone to a select committee and after some sensible discussion—and I know that Mr Peachey acknowledged Trevor Mallard and his role in discussing different aspects of the bill—it has come back as something that the Labour Party can now support. 
The previous speaker Colin King referred to some of the more minor amendments and compared them with some of the more major ones. He said that the amendment in clause 15 which refers to the registration and inspection of private schools was fairly minor. I do not know that it is as minor as that. I would say that the replacement of a colon with a semicolon is minor and that the introduction of a hyphen is fairly minor— 
Grant Robertson 
: That’s not minor. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —although with a hyphenated surname myself I think that a hyphen is fairly important and I hope that everybody remembers to get that one in there. Clause 15 refers to an amendment to section 35A. Essentially it is an amendment intended to bring private schools into line with the practice for State schools. Section 35A(9)(a)(ii) of the current Act says: “thereafter at intervals of no more than 3 years;” the chief review officer needs to review a private school. That has changed so that private schools come more into line with public or State schools. That is appropriate. It will remove some red tape for those schools. I think it is quite important. In an environment where the Government has significantly increased the public funding to State schools— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Private schools. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Sorry to private schools. 
Moana Mackey 
: Not to State schools. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Not to State schools at all actually. That was a bit of a slip of the tongue. There is a significant increase in funding to private schools. It is important that we continue to make sure that the reviews and the standards required of private schools are just as high as the standards required of State schools. 
The new change refers us to Part 28 of the original Act. It says that that part applies to every educational service and that it includes any school that receives public money appropriated by Parliament. Of course that includes private schools. They have received a significant recent increase to their funding. I am the beneficiary of a private education. I was privately educated all the way through. I know that is a little bit rare on this side of the House but that is OK. I have no problem proudly announcing that fact. It probably explains the hyphenated surname but that is OK. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: St Cuthbert’s wasn’t it? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: No it was definitely King’s College a very masculine name I say to Mr Mallard. The point I am trying to make is that when the Government announced its increase in funding for private schools—and I am not one to pull the ladder up—I was quite interested to see what the effect would be of that increase. The effect has been that no private schools have decreased their fees. It has not increased the availability of a private education to people in New Zealand. Those schools have seen the increase as a catch-up on the past and the fees have continued to go up. So it has not increased the availability whatsoever which I think—and the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education might want to take a call on this—was the original intention of that additional funding that was made available to private schools. All it has done is leave a gap in the potential funding that could have been available to State schools. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and talk about Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. I want take the focus back to the two main points that this bill addresses and I will pick up on the one that states the legislation basically is about reducing compliance costs for schools in the area of police vetting. 
I am very pleased that National started with a bill that Labour was unable to support in the first reading. At this stage of proceedings we have ended up with a bill that is supported across the Chamber with the exception of the Green Party. That is democracy in action. The discussion on reducing compliance costs relating to police vetting is a keen interest of mine. I firmly believe as this Government believes that we must make sure that as much of the spending as possible is focused on the right area. Anything that gets in the way of schools teaching and of schools achieving positive outcomes in education is what we have our sights on. 
In terms of police vetting we added the clauses in new section 78C to make sure early childhood services and schools are able to get the vetting done in a time frame that suits them. We also needed to make sure the vet would be required before non-teaching staff had unsupervised access to children. It is an important part of the amendment bill. It is about making sure children in school environments and in early childhood services are safe. 
I spoke in the second reading about the growing number of home-based early childhood services. Adults in those families over the age of 17 need to be included in that police vet because children in the care of the home-based services are exposed to them too. As it is an area that is growing it is important that we do not layer unnecessary costs compliances and regulation on to the services that take the focus away from education. Schools and early childhood services will have to request a police vet check within at least 2 weeks of non-teaching staff starting work instead of as previously was the case before the staff start work at the school. It will mean that there is not a hold-up and it reduces the risk of delays being incurred because of the police. 
Another amendment that has been confirmed is the policy position that police vet checks will not need to be renewed for staff who are no longer employed by the school or early childhood education service. That is common sense but it was something that we needed to tidy up. Schools or early childhood education services will need to apply for a police vet within 4 weeks of the Act coming into force. That will also ensure that they are not held up by any police delays. 
Police vetting was one of the primary focuses of the amendments. The second focus was the whole area of information matching between the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education. There has been quite a discussion about that already so I do not see it as necessary to cover old ground. But it is important to make sure that we focus on issues like the reduction of compliance costs for school services. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 First of all by way of preamble to this debate I say that children are the most important asset in our lives. Children are our future. As a parent I can say that one of the main things we think about when children go to school is whether they will be safe. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Tell that to Charles. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: I will not comment on that I say to Mr Rodney Hide. I think it is important to realise that when our children go to school they should be safe and they should have an education that is of a high standard. 
I also say at this stage that although I am not currently a member of the Education and Science Committee I was a member of that committee for the last two terms and I enjoyed every bit of the work that I did in that committee. I certainly appreciated in the last term the contribution made by Mr Peachey and Colin King in the committee. They had a positive attitude at that time when I was the chair of the committee. 
I would like to comment on information sharing. In a way talking about this issue traverses the comments that have been made before but I think it is important to do so. It reminds me of some years ago when there was an incident at a high school involving one of the teachers. I recall he was teaching chemistry. It was found out after a few years that he did not even have any qualifications to teach chemistry. That teacher was found out and of course deregistered. But it was amazing that in those days it was quite possible for teachers to get through the system and be registered without even having a good background check whether it was a security check or a police investigation in respect of qualifications. But now I am delighted with this bill which is pretty much a bipartisan bill. I am delighted that most of the parties support this bill. It is great that we support this bill. 
In terms of information matching it is important that teachers have proper qualifications—teaching licences or certificates if you like—to ensure that we have properly qualified teachers at the front of the classrooms and also to ensure that no schools are employing teachers illegally and without reference to their proper qualifications. It is also important to the maintenance of standards of education that we have teachers with proper qualifications and that it is well known within the Ministry of Education as well as at schools that there are proper teachers doing the teaching in schools. 
Secondly I will talk briefly about police vetting. As I said earlier it is important for us to know that our children are safe at school and that teachers staff and any contractors who are working there are properly vetted before they are allowed to come into contact with students and pupils. I am particularly delighted that with this three-way involvement of schools the Teachers Council and the police that issue has been sorted out and that now schools can approach the police directly rather than having to go through the Teachers Council to ensure that the proper vetting of contractors and people who are involved in teaching is done. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will make three main points in this debate on Part 1 and a few other points later if time allows. First I will go back to the comments that the Minister made earlier and underscore one of the points that my colleague Grant Robertson raised about the importance of personal relationships between a limited statutory manager or a commissioner and the school community they are there for. I will go a little bit wider than that to talk about the issue of one school board temporarily taking over another school board. I guess I stress some caution in the potential for the damage that could exist in relationships between schools if an environment were created where a school that was struggling was seen to be potentially threatened with a takeover by another nearby school albeit even on a temporary basis. I can think of a couple of schools in my electorate that are struggling and that have much stronger schools— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Far too many schools in that electorate. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know Trevor Mallard did his best to try to reduce the number of schools in the electorate but there are still a few schools in my electorate that are struggling and that have schools reasonably close by that are much stronger. I think one of the worst things for those struggling schools would be an implied threat if you like that they would be taken over by the stronger schools. There are all sorts of reasons why that would not be the right outcome for the community and why that could potentially create more issues if the matter were not treated very carefully and done in the right manner. That is one of the reasons I think that the amendment was made at the select committee to prevent a school board from taking on the role of a commissioner or limited statutory manager - type function for another school. The committee prevented that from happening and I think that that was a very sensible thing for it to do. I have spoken to school principals in my area who have been the subject of limited statutory management and they have really emphasised to me the importance of that personal relationship. There would be real reluctance on the part of schools to see that function taken on by a corporate or a company rather than by an individual with whom they could form a relationship. 
The second point I raise is about the importance of career counselling. I speak particularly in favour of an amendment put forward by my colleague Grant Robertson which would require school principals to ensure that schools provide guidance and counselling on career choices and career pathways. I think that as we have seen in Parliament—just yesterday in fact—there are significant risks when people embark on a course of study without knowing fully what they are getting themselves into and without being fully prepared. For example I am aware of a student who undertook 3 years of study—11 papers—and in fact passed only three of those. That issue was well canvassed in the Chamber yesterday because it concerned Steven Joyce somebody who is known very well to members. Had there been adequate guidance and counselling prior to that course of study being undertaken perhaps Steven Joyce might have had a little bit more success in his course of study. That is something that I think all students should have access to particularly in an environment where the Government is talking about increasing the penalties and sanctions for students who do not successfully complete their courses of study and about reducing their ability to re-enrol. Making sure that students are going into courses with their eyes wide open whatever courses of study they are going into following school is really important. Adequate counselling on their career choices and pathways and on their potential options for future courses of study is really important. 
The amendment put forward in the name of my colleague Grant Robertson is a very important one. It restores an amendment that was part of the original bill put forward by the previous Labour Government. Most of the amendments in this bill put forward by Anne Tolley in fact pick up those earlier amendments but that one was not picked up. Grant Robertson’s amendment puts the provision back in and that is really important. 
Another amendment that Grant Robertson has put forward clarifies to a much greater extent the functions of a school board of trustees. That is really important too and I do not think there could be any legitimate argument to say why the functions of a school board of trustees should not be enshrined in legislation: for example as in new section 60AA(1)(b) which is inserted by new clause 16A: “ensuring that education is provided to each student enrolled at the school:”. There can be nothing more fundamental than a school board of trustees making sure that education is provided to the students enrolled at that school. I do not see any legitimate argument to say that that is not something that should be specifically enshrined in legislation. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 When I spoke to the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill I raised a number of points. I have been listening tonight to see whether anybody picks up on those points and I am hoping that the Minister of Education will rise to take a call about them. 
First of all I want to talk about the good points of the bill. I like its focus on the safety of our children; that is something we need to be aware of at all times. Of course in other legislation the safety of children is paramount. So I support the provisions on police vetting. I think we should always ensure that people who deal with children are safe to be with them. It is very important that our children are safe with teachers and contractors—anybody who is working with our children—and that we have no worries about people our children are with. 
I like the provisions on the registration of teachers. We will be able to match those up so that we can ensure that the teachers of our children know what they are talking about can teach correctly and will not be going off on tangents or giving them incorrect information. Those points I support very much. 
One thing I see as missing from this bill is cultural safety. I miss anything in the bill that points teachers to training in programmes such as Te Kotahitanga so that children are able to grow up safe in their cultural identity. I want to talk about a few examples that I am aware of. Although they are historical examples they are still happening today and that is a real pity. I think about the example my aunts told me of what happened when they were at school and being taught history. My aunts grew up in Te Tau Ihu in the Nelson-Marlborough area. They were taught the history of the Wairau massacre. They were told that Maori heathens—savages—blatantly broke the law by massacring settlers. The teacher was very well aware that she was talking about my aunties’ great-grandparents at that stage. My aunties grew up having been taught by this teacher that their great-grandparents were dirty savages and heathens who massacred innocent settlers. It took them years to learn for themselves that that was not what had happened. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Unlearn. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Yes. Those things are still happening today. I think we need to look at our history curriculum and at the ability of teachers to teach our children their true identity. 
Another example I will bring up is again from one of my aunt’s experiences. She is a teacher and has a lot of experience and expertise in teaching but she found that one of her daughters was struggling at school. When she went to talk to the teacher she was spoken to by that teacher as though she was ignorant and had no concept at all of what a teacher is supposed to teach children. She walked out of that meeting feeling totally inadequate as a parent and as a teacher. I think that is something we need to be training our teachers in. It is a matter of safety for children as well as for their parents. I hope the Minister in the chair will take a call to talk to us about cultural identity and cultural safety and how those issues can be taught in our schools. 
Also missing from this bill and something that we should look at is the issue of a school’s awareness of how children are doing at home. Are they coming to school not having had breakfast? 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is great to have the opportunity to take a second call on Part 1 as a member of the select committee because I want to continue from where the bell caught me out last time round. As we know one of the main features of Part 1 is the introduction of information matching between the New Zealand Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education. The purpose of that is to identify individuals teaching in schools without registration. The point I wanted to make about this amendment is that it could have been a very useful amendment for the early childhood education sector as well had the Government not reneged on the target of having 100 percent qualified staff in that sector. 
This amendment is about the only part of the bill whose application is confined to schools only. Almost all of the other clauses in Part 1 refer to schools and to early childhood education services. This amendment does not refer to early childhood education services because it would be a nonsense to identify people who are on the payroll with the Ministry of Education but who are not registered as teachers with the Teachers Council. The Government now allows that to be the case in early childhood education. I think it is a great shame that that will be the situation. I think that many parents and certainly the sector were looking forward to the ongoing professionalisation of the early childhood education sector because of the strong link between having qualified teachers who know what they are doing and the quality of early childhood education services. 
I will now go on to address some other clauses in Part 1. Colin King was right to say that many of them are very minor. The one that really caught my attention was clause 9 “Amendment of enrolment scheme”. One of the things that one learns to do in this job is to look for gaps in legislation. They may be things that seem quite straightforward at the outset but when one looks at them in conjunction with other policies and other Acts of Parliament one sees what implications they might have. Even though clause 9 seemed like quite an innocent clause I was interested to think about what the amendment to the enrolment scheme might mean because we know that a proposal is coming forward from an Associate Minister of Education to look at having a voucher-type system within the education system. I was a bit concerned to see there was an amendment to the enrolment scheme and I wondered whether it was a sneaky way of getting in that proposal. 
Clause 9 states: “Section 11M(3) is amended by omitting ‘enrolment scheme in order’ and substituting ‘enrolment scheme in order’.” That might seem like a very strange thing to do because what I have just read out is a set of words being omitted and replaced with exactly the same set of words. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is there a colon there? 
SUE MORONEY 
: There is a comma in the first one and it took me a little while to work out that this was not a sneaky way of bringing in the voucher system. This amendment was in fact about a comma. We are omitting “enrolment scheme in order” with a comma and replacing it with “enrolment scheme in order” with no comma. In clause 9 we have got rid of the scandalous comma and now the principal Act will be much easier to read as a result. 
Apart from some minor amendments—and that is probably at the extreme end I think Mr King would agree of the minor amendments that are proposed in Part 1—some things as I said before are missing from Part 1. One learns to look for the gaps in this job. I think one of the most significant features that is now missing was proposed in Labour’s amendment bill previously. Some things are missing from the board’s functions that are now required to be in this bill. Certainly when this legislation was under Labour’s stewardship the board was required to do a great deal more. That amendment proposed to insert the following responsibilities and some of these have now been removed. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call on Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill. I want to raise some new issues around topics that people have been talking about because this is very important legislation. It is particularly important that we have managed to get almost unanimous support for this bill. For a number of reasons it is always good when we can get some stability in legislation. 
I remember being in the UK not long after two young schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were murdered by a school worker. I remember the public furore that followed about where the failures were and how the particular person was allowed to work at the school. I think we can learn a number of lessons from that particular case. But I think the most important point was that it was a most difficult environment in which to be making policy. In fact the discussions we have had here in New Zealand on this legislation have very much mirrored the discussions held in Britain following those terrible tragic murders. The fact that we have managed to get I think unanimous support for the police vetting provisions means that should we face such a tragedy in New Zealand—and fingers crossed that we never do—this Parliament can say we came to what we believed to be a sensible compromise on police vetting; a compromise that balances the requirements on schools and the burden that comes with that with the safety of children. We can stand up and say all parties in this House were in agreement that we had reached that compromise and we did not play the blame game which so often happens in politics following such a tragedy. 
But we can learn things from that case and I want to raise those issues. We have come to a position on police vetting that I think most people are comfortable with. But the police vetting provisions in themselves will not keep children safe. This is not something that tells us we can now take our eye off the ball and not worry now about the safety of our children in schools. We still need to be vigilant because what happened in the United Kingdom with regard to that terrible murder was that in fact the gentleman concerned was known to the police but that a number of the charges that they were trying to bring against him for rape and for offences against a child were never taken to prosecution. So they did not end up in the database that was used for the vetting despite the fact that the individual was known to the police. Also because the police were under such pressure at that time—because they had funding shortages and because they had administrative staffing shortages—sometimes those things were not being entered into the police computer system in time. That gentleman faced a number of charges that should have been in the police computer which would have shown them up in the police vetting but they were not there because there was too big a lag time in the police entering those details in. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Lag time” are not quite the right words. If he was doing a lag it would not have happened. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is a fair comment; Mr Mallard is being helpful as always. 
When we are going through a very heated discussion in New Zealand about the role of administrative staff in the public sector and when we are going through a difficult economic period in terms of financial constraints on the Government—and it is the same point that I raised when we passed the legislation providing for the increased taking of DNA samples—the police must be funded properly because if they are not then this bill is not worth the paper that it is written on. More than that even though these would not be considered to be front-line services we need staff to be there in order to ensure that the kind of information that will be helpful to schools when they want to vet an individual is there and is there on time so that we do not end up in the same situation that occurred in the UK where someone slipped through the net and a most tragic outcome occurred because of that. I really want to make that point because we can pass all the legislation in the world and it means nothing if the resources in terms of money and staff are not there to ensure that the clauses that we are passing are able to be implemented as Parliament intended. 
I am very pleased that we have come to this compromise on police vetting. I will just finish off this comment and will make— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just keep going until 5 to 10. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Mallard informs me that I should go until 5 to at which time I will sit down so that the Hon Roger Douglas can take over. 
Hon Member 
: No we will report progress. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh we will report progress then. 
The only other part that I want to comment on—and I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on this—is the amendment in the name of my colleague Grant Robertson to insert new clause 5B which would require the Minister to advise the House of changes to the criteria for enrolment at the Correspondence School. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on bringing this amendment to the Committee. It is incredibly important. The Correspondence School is an important entity. It provides education for a number of people in remote rural areas who are unable to access it otherwise but also for people who for other reasons are not able to go through a mainstream school. Any changes in criteria could have a significant impact on our communities. I think that in terms of transparency this amendment would be very helpful. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s comments on that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to take the opportunity to go through one or two of the amendments I am proposing to the Education Amendment Bill because I think it is important to set the context for the Committee for why we are bringing forward these amendments. It will not be a surprise to members to realise that most of the amendments arise from the earlier version of this bill which was put forward under the previous Government. We have heard a lot of talk recently about the importance of information and about the importance of parents knowing what is happening in schools and understanding how schools work. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.