Volume 608 Week 24 - Tuesday 13 May 2003 
Volume 608 Week 24 - Tuesday 13 May 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5595] 
Tuesday 13 May 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Offices of Parliament—Presentation of Address to Governor-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that the Address agreed to by the House relating to the alterations to the appropriations for the 2002/03 financial year for Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was transmitted to Her Excellency the Governor-General on 7 May 2003. 
Questions to Ministers 
Youth—Education Training or Employment 
1. DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that 15 to 19-year-olds are in education training or employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Yesterday the Prime Minister and I announced a $56 million package of new initiatives. The centrepiece of this education and training leaving-age package was $23.6 million to expand the very successful Gateway programme to 12000 secondary students by the year 2007. Other elements include more apprenticeships targeted career planning assistance follow-up support for young trainees and regionalised programmes for youth. 
Dave Hereora 
: What response has he seen to the education and training leaving-age package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Industry Training Federation has strongly supported the expansion of Modern Apprenticeships and Gateway. The New Zealand University Students Association has welcomed allowances for under-18-year-olds who have completed school. The package as a whole was described as—and I might quote the Mayor of Christchurch—“bloody brilliant”. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given that the Minister has managed to increase vocational training by only an average of 7000 to 8000 places per annum in the last 3½ years and his plan is to expand it on average by 25000 places per annum in the next 2 years how is he possibly going to find an additional 100000 places per annum to meet the 2007 target? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This package combined with the earlier one of $85 million put into industry training is intended to take us through to 150000 trainees by 2005. Of course between now and then there are other Budgets that can be used to help to drive it further. 
America's Cup—Government Funding 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister for the America's Cup 
: What justification can he give New Zealand taxpayers for the decision to subsidise Team New Zealand’s next America’s Cup challenge? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the America's Cup) 
: 
 I remind the House that the support is subject to a range of conditions being met and is in the order of the amount suggested by the National Party. The support is likely to be approximately fiscally neutral to provide trade tourism and employment benefits and to provide a chance of returning an event worth over $600 million to New Zealand. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Minister justify spending up to $33 million on the America’s Cup which is a rich man’s sport by increasing the tax on sherry which is the pensioner’s pleasure; what sort of Labour Government is this? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I remind the member that the budget for a challenge is likely to be in the range of $120 to $150 million. With tax from resident sailors in New Zealand GST and boats being built here it is very likely we will get all the money back in tax. 
David Cunliffe 
: What conditions would have to be met in order for Team New Zealand to receive any Government funding? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Team New Zealand would have to decide to mount a challenge and raise substantial funding from the private sector. Those two things are obviously linked. The assessment would have to show trade tourism and economic benefits to this country in relation to the net cost to the taxpayer. 
John Key 
: Why does the Minister think that the Government should spend seven times more on a challenge based in the Northern Hemisphere than it did on the defence when that was in our own backyard here in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the briefing notes left for me by the former Minister were more adequate it could well have been logical at the time to have spent more and to have retained those sailors. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Aside from support for previous America’s Cup campaigns what precedent exists for this type of support being advanced for an America’s Cup challenge and how does the Minister answer accusations from other sports that they are being discriminated against by this particular form of support? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If there are other sports that are likely to or can bring forward something that is fiscally neutral and likely to lead to more than $600 million worth of economic activity the Government will contemplate their suggestions. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister not think that investing the $34 million proposed for the next America’s Cup campaign towards changing young people’s eating and exercise habits and thus prevent the $1 billion blowout in type 2 diabetes might not make a better investment; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member should wait until Thursday. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In clarification of the last two questions from the Green Party and United Future can the Government as it is a minority Government give us an assurance that it has a parliamentary majority to spend $33 million on an America’s Cup campaign? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is important to note that the Government is not suggesting appropriating that at this time because no decision has been made to spend it. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Investments 
3.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Is she satisfied that the Accident Compensation Corporation’s equity investments contribute to the corporation’s mission of reducing injury; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Accident Compensation Corporation’s equity investments are not required to contribute directly to its injury prevention programme. Those investments help to fund accident compensation claimants’ entitlements. 
Sue Bradford 
: When did the Minister become aware that the Accident Compensation Corporation owns over 8 percent of DB Breweries Ltd and has shares worth tens of millions of dollars in Lion Nathan and does she think it appropriate that the value of accident compensation funds available for rehabilitation and compensation depend in part on alcohol sales given that alcohol abuse is a significant direct cost in tens of millions of dollars to the Accident Compensation Corporation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have been aware of that information for some time. As I said the corporation’s equity investment is not related directly to its injury prevention programmes. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House how the Accident Compensation Corporation’s mission of injury prevention is progressing? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Accident Compensation Corporation has substantially increased its funding of injury prevention programmes. It is supporting numerous initiatives. For example the corporation’s early employer intervention programme has achieved injury reductions for the 6 months to December 2002 of between 8 percent and 22 percent compared with the same period in the previous year. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given that the Accident Compensation Corporation’s 2002 annual report states: “Injury prevention is the ultimate fulfilment of ACC’s responsibility to the people of New Zealand under the Act.” why has this Government failed so miserably to prevent an increase of over 14000 moderate to severe injuries between 1998-99 when it came into office and 2001-02? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I agree that the reduction of injuries has not been enough and that is why we are continuing to expand the many successful initiatives that have been introduced only since the party that that member belongs to left Government. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that the Minister is satisfied with the Accident Compensation Corporation’s financial investment regime could she tell the House whether she is satisfied with the way the corporation treats accident victims particularly long-term victims? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I am not 100 percent satisfied and that is why the Government has continued through measures like the introduction of the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights to improve the quality of the service available to claimants. 
Sue Bradford 
: Given that a 1996 study of the social costs of alcohol abuse showed tangible costs to the Accident Compensation Corporation of almost $30 million from alcohol abuse what rate of return does the corporation need from its multiple brewery shares to break even? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I indicated in my answer to the primary question there is no direct link between the number of injuries injury prevention programmes and the corporation’s equity investments. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Accident Compensation Corporation’s current statement of corporate intent contain a statement on ethical investment as required under its Act; if not when will she require such a statement to be produced given that the bill was passed in 2001? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am advised that that requirement has not been met by the Accident Compensation Corporation but having had it drawn both to the corporation’s attention and to my attention it is highly unlikely that this oversight will be repeated. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a chart from the Accident Compensation Corporation’s publication  
Consequences 
 which shows that moderate to severe accidents increased by over 14000 during this Government’s watch. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—Provisions 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement on Newstalk ZB that the inclusion of cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual resources in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) were changes inserted by the select committee and that “people didn’t recall having made conscious decisions to put it in”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The statement referred to the Minister for the Environment’s consultation with other Ministers. My understanding is that the changes to the bill were made by the select committee prior to its report back in May 2001. I personally have no recollection of either MPs or officials drawing my attention to them at the time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Were the following people conscious when they took part in a process going back to May 2000: the Labour MPs on the select committee who voted twice for these provisions; the Minister for the Environment who introduced the legislation; the Cabinet committee and the Cabinet Ministers who must have approved the legislation before it came to the House; the officials who have written several reports on exactly this issue over 3 years; and was she conscious being the Minister who was actually in charge of all of that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister in charge of the bill of course is the Minister for the Environment. As the House knows the bill that was introduced was the bill as reported back by the select committee. Those changes were made prior to the report back in 2001. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He voted for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One member is about to stop having any consideration for voting for an hour. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Is the term “cultural landscape” referred to in any other legislation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes it is referred to in the Historic Places Act 1993 passed under a National Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was the Prime Minister telling the truth about the offending words “cultural landscapes” “ancestral landscapes” and “spiritual resources” when she spoke on the ZB radio stations; if she was not was that level of demonstrable untruth of the same level— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot assert that a person was not telling the truth. The member was perfectly entitled to ask the first part of his question but then he started to stray when he got out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will rephrase the question so it is all nice and harmonious. Does the Prime Minister accept now that her statement in respect of those phrases was demonstrably palpably not the truth; and is that level of lack of truth of the same level as United Future describing the bill as the “Thank God for United Future Bill”—the bill that they had the clauses taken out of when on the bill’s introduction those words were in at their behest and approval? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have stated the truth on the matter today in the House and in the Holmes’ interview. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When the Prime Minister tells the House that she was not conscious of the fact that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) in the name of Marian Hobbs contained phrases like “cultural landscapes” and “spiritual resources” what does that say to all the business groups that have lobbied her Government about that section of the bill over the last 2 years—were they wasting their time or did she just switch off whenever anyone from business talked to her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The bill is in the name of the Minister for the Environment. The Prime Minister has not been receiving delegations about it. The matter is appropriately being handled by a portfolio Minister—the Minister for the Environment. 
Larry Baldock 
: Was the inclusion of the phrase “ancestral landscapes” by the select committee in the original Resource Management Amendment Bill possibly related to the repeated use of that term by the ministerial advisory committee in its 1998 report on the Historic Heritage Management Review which was initiated and supported by the then Minister of Conservation Dr Nick Smith? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Quite possibly it was but as I was not a member of the select committee I cannot say. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that contrary to statements made by United Future that the Greens had those words inserted it was in fact officials from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage advising the select committee who brought that wording to the select committee and that the committee simply accepted their advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea. I was not at the select committee and I can find no evidence whatsoever that my permission as Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage was ever sought by officials on that matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the fact that over 3 years a stack of paper has been through Cabinet committees and Cabinet chaired by her does the Prime Minister believe the statements that “people didn’t recall having made conscious decisions to put it in” and that as reported “the offending provisions somehow slipped into the bill undetected” and how can we possibly believe that those statements represent the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This bill was introduced in 1999. It was a bill that came back to the House after changes had been made to it in the select committee. The form that the select committee reported it back in was the bill that was withdrawn and reintroduced without it being drawn to my attention that those were offending phrases. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Prime Minister accept the simple proposition—which any school child would be capable of understanding—that her claim that those clauses were changes inserted by the select committee cannot possibly be the truth; if not what is her defence for making that statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The truth is that they were inserted by the select committee. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that Maori spiritual and cultural values are already protected by the definition of “historic heritage” which remains in the bill despite the removal of those words? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The definition of “historic heritage” refers to both historic and cultural qualities. I understand that many people would see that that covered matters that those who wanted spirituality included would have wanted covered. In response to the earlier question the bill as reported back in 2001 was the bill that was then introduced without amendment again to expedite the passage of the resource management amendment. 
Rodney Hide 
: On what date did the Prime Minister first become aware that she had Ministers and members of Parliament making far-reaching decisions unconsciously and what did she do about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Last Tuesday in the House the Minister for the Environment sought my opinion on those words and that is the first time that I personally recall having given the matter any thought whatsoever. I gave the Minister my opinion that if that had not been the Government’s original intention in respect of the bill that went back to 1999 and 2000 then it was no great issue to take the words out. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the House possibly be expected to believe that statement when the Prime Minister herself criticised me quite viciously over the issue of wahi tapu and over subsequent speeches I gave about the inclusion of spiritual values in legislation; had she not heard of any of that until last Tuesday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am delighted to advise that I do not waste a minute on that member’s speeches. 
Stephen Franks 
: When did the Prime Minister’s Cabinet first turn its mind to those provisions for cultural and ancestral landscapes and what does she think Cabinet members thought they were? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member should address his questions to the Minister for the Environment who was in charge of the bill. I have made it plain today that this matter has not been receiving my personal attention. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is presumably still chairing Cabinet conscious or unconscious. That is the question she was asked: whether Cabinet turned its mind to that issue. It does not matter whether a Minister might have done so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was asked and answered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of veracity I seek to table the original bill as introduced which shows the offending words on page 6 and demonstrates that the Prime Minister was telling porkies. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that bill. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 5 April 2000 from Helen Clark to Marian Hobbs asking that the heritage provisions of the bill be strengthened; a letter from the Minister Marian Hobbs to the select committee making the same request; and a report of the Prime Minister’s own officials giving advice on the inclusion of ancestral landscapes in the definition of historic— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been drawn to my attention that a member made a comment that was right out of order and against the rules of this House. If that member did so I want that member to stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I said that I thought it was a knockout. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that was not the comment. It was the person who said: “She’s lying.” I want that member to stand withdraw and apologise. Presumably no one said it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is an interesting conclusion for you to reach because presumably if you had heard that comment you would not let it go so lightly. What we noticed over here is that your reaction was straight after Trevor Mallard had indicated to you he thought he had heard that comment. It is not appropriate that the Speaker is in any way influenced by Government Ministers. I think what we are seeing here is a very clear demonstration of that. We would like some assurance that you did hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Occasionally I do not hear remarks and I am pulled up by members of the Opposition or by members of the Government. When I am pulled up about an unparliamentary phrase that I did not hear I do of course have to take notice of that—whoever raises that particular issue. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also saw the person concerned and heard him make a comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps in the future it might be better practice that if you do not directly hear what is considered by some other member to be an unparliamentary statement that member should take a point of order and call the whole House’s attention to it so you are not left stranded—as I think you have been in this case—notwithstanding the protestations of the Labour senior whip. If he thinks he heard someone make that comment he should stand up and say who that person was. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I probably should have done it that way. In my opinion Mr English made an unparliamentary comment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member whether he made an unparliamentary comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I might have done because I was outraged at the Prime Minister’s answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked whether the member made an unparliamentary comment. If he did so I want him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I am not sure whether I did but I am happy to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said exactly the same thing as the Leader of the Opposition and I withdraw and apologise as well. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also made a similar remark and I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I should do also. I said: “Of course she’s unconscious. It’s a knockout.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not out of order. 
Immigration Minister—Prime Minister's Views 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she say last month that her Minister of Immigration was a hard-working and conscientious Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because she was last month and is this month. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case why is she giving glowing references to a Minister of Immigration based on her penchant for blaming every previous administration her unwillingness to accept responsibility her inability to provide accurate numbers of immigrants visitors or overstayers and her gymnastics in rearranging the status of an overstayer to now call him a worker when he will not work for the next 12 months—and probably longer—without ascertaining just how many New Zealanders are on waiting lists and will die because of the money that should have gone to them as New Zealanders first? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The gentleman concerned I understand came to New Zealand as a visitor in 1998 and presumably overstayed while that member was Deputy Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will have heard my question. My question was detailed and specific and for the Prime Minister to get up and tell another porky will not do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. The Prime Minister gave an answer. That was her answer and she stands by it. It can be questioned. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have heard over and over that you are not responsible for answers. You are responsible for Parliament remaining a credible body and I think also for question time being relevant. Therefore I would think that you should require Ministers answering questions to at least make the answer have some relevance to the question. In this case the Prime Minister simply said that the person concerned arrived in New Zealand in 1998. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Presumes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: She presumes that. That has nothing to do with the losses that some New Zealanders may now suffer as a result of that guy getting treatment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised that as a point of order but it is not one. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Immigration is so conscientious that she asked the Minister of Statistics to offer party leaders a briefing on interpreting immigration statistics to which one leader replied that he was “busy … so stop sending me these stupid puerile letters—there’s a good boy!”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the Minister of Statistics did offer the leader of New Zealand First some coaching. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you perhaps tell me how a question on the performance of the Minister of Immigration has anything whatsoever to do with Statistics New Zealand or that Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The original question that the member asked was whether the Minister was a hard-working and conscientious Minister and the supplementary question developed that part of that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You must not rush to the Prime Minister’s defence as easily as that every day. The reality is that that question from the United Future party was about the Minister of Statistics having sent a letter. That has no connection or relationship whatsoever to the original question. Now that being the case how can the Prime Minister in the first answer say she presumes something and in the second answer give a wishy-washy answer the details of which she does not know and that is the end of question time on that issue? It is simply wrong and my point of order was this: why did you allow it to be ruled in? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member’s own first supplementary question referred to the issue of immigration statistics. The briefing was about the issue of how immigration statistics are collected. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct and that is why the question was ruled in. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Prime Minister tell me how it could possibly be the case that the Minister of Immigration conscientious and hard-working as she is claimed to be could arrive at a decision to call an overstayer a worker by reason of a temporary work permit when he would have no qualification to fulfil that role in the foreseeable future; and how many other New Zealanders firstly would be getting that job—if they could get the job—or secondly could get that treatment if they were given the same priorities that every foreigner in this country is where this Labour Government is concerned? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The overstayer concerned was invited to regularise his status last year. The reason for the invitation was that he was married to a New Zealand woman and of course by March this year he had a New Zealand – born child. The leader of New Zealand First may well relish going in and pulling the plug on someone’s machine in those circumstances; the Minister did not. 
Marc Alexander 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from Winston Peters to John Tamihere telling him that he was a busy man and so he should stop sending him “these stupid puerile letters”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 This question was put down to the Prime Minister because it was based on a public comment she had made. I seek leave of the House to ask the question of the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Energy—Crisis 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What lessons did the Government learn from the 2001 power crisis and why does the Prime Minister now say that the Government has been waiting on “frustratingly slow” advice from officials in order to address the current power crisis? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Many lessons. The transmission constraints of 2001 for example have all been identified and fixed. We have been working on long-term security of supply issues for some time and I will be announcing long-term changes later this month. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does he believe that the Prime Minister correctly blamed officials and does he think she was conscious of the review of the electricity market done after the 1999 election the review of the 2001 winter crisis and the Government policy statement on energy; was she conscious of the amended Government policy statement on energy following the 2001 crisis and if she was aware of that how can she claim that his officials have been “frustratingly slow” in offering advice? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: By way of example I just say that following the winter 2001 review the officials’ advice was that the market would self-correct to a considerable extent. That is now no longer a fair representation of their view and it most certainly is not of mine. 
Mark Peck 
: What lessons have been taken from earlier dry-year power shortages? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The 1992 power crisis which resulted in a major power savings campaign and hot water cuts for 18 hours a day was taken then as an example of failure in a centrally managed system. The lesson taken at that time was that we would be better off with a market model—and with privatisation. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers is the Minister aware that worldwide nearly 40 percent of electricity is produced from coal; is he aware that New Zealand has billions of tonnes of coal; does he not believe that it is worthwhile that we should be developing power stations run on coal and at the same time advancing the technology to eliminate the carbon dioxide by-product; and does he not think that is a lesson we should have learnt in 2001 and should learn now in 2003? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer two of those questions. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If it is just two questions that I can answer then the answers to the first two are yes and yes. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a power crisis in this country and the flippant answer that the Minister gave— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I would have thought that the answer “yes” was a specific answer and that is something that is always demanded. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What comment does the Minister have on the analysis by Colin James in his column on 5 May in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 where after discussion on the energy efficiency and conservation strategy he stated: “But since the initial fanfare there has been no visible urgency. When the long-term electricity supply constraints edged into ministerial consciousness late last year the strategy was nowhere to be heard amid mutterings about market failure and denials of crisis. Ministers’ focus was on the supply side.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question itself was a little long. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is quite true that the Government is preoccupied with the supply side because it is the lack of fuel that we currently face. Part of the solution to that is to reduce demand both through energy efficiency which the strategy that the member referred to addresses and also from a savings campaign that New Zealanders are now stepping up to usefully. 
Stephen Franks 
: Having previous asked about the water being spilled down the Whanganui River and understanding that it is about 25 megawatts will “doing something” include stopping that wastage of water? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Right off the top of my head I say that water is heading down the headwaters of the Whanganui River pursuant to the decision of a 1992 court case. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister believe that there is additional capacity in New Zealand for hydroelectricity generation and that from an environmental point of view that should rank ahead of thermal generation using coal? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From an environmental perspective yes. But more important from an economic perspective mostly the renewable sources that are being planned over the next several years are priced to come in under coal which is why a purely coal-fired power station has not been applied for in this country ever since the Meremere station was dismantled. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister is aware that the Prime Minister is blaming the electricity crisis on slow officials is he concerned that he may get some of the blame given that he said it was not until he went for a cycling holiday got fit and was able to think clearly that he came up with an answer just a few weeks ago? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that it has taken us longer than we would want to fix the supply but that is because we did not realise just how comprehensively Max Bradford had stuffed it up. 
Youth—Offending 
7.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What if any initiatives is he planning to address the causes of youth offending? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This year’s Budget will provide $600000 for a proven early intervention programme—Project Early—to be established in Auckland and $4.62 million for education and health assessments for high-risk young offenders appearing at family group conferences. Project Early will allow schools and pre-schools to identify and remedy behavioural problems in children aged 4 to 8 before those problems become entrenched and long term. The education and health assessments will allow family group conferences better to identify and address the causes of offending. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why will health and education assessments make family group conferences more effective in dealing with young offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The assessments will help family group conferences to identify underlying problems that are critical factors in young people engaging in serious and persistent offending. Problems in attendance and success at school and health factors such as drug and alcohol abuse or mental health disorders are direct factors in offending and have to be addressed in the decisions taken by family group conferences if we are to successfully reduce reoffending. 
Richard Worth 
: Given that family group conferences have been in place since the legislation was enacted in 1989 why has it taken 4 years in the term of this Government to re-establish money flows to the department for education and health assessments and what other initiatives are proposed to improve family group conferences—or is that simply as far as it goes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act dates back to the late 1980s. It may have taken 4 years for this Government to put this particular money in but it is better than the 9 years that the previous National Government took and did absolutely nothing in. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What evidence is there that programmes like Project Early are effective in preventing later negative social behaviour including offending? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Project Early was piloted in Christchurch and it has been formally evaluated. That evaluation shows that in 80 percent of completed interventions the behavioural problem was permanently resolved. Early intervention is less costly and more effective than trying to deal with problems once they have become entrenched. There is no doubt that this is value for money in preventing the waste of human potential and the social and economic costs that are otherwise incurred through educational behavioural and offending problems. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister aware of the programme called the Home Instruction Programme for Pre-school Youngsters and would he consider that to be of a similar nature to and as worthy of support as that early intervention programme? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am aware of the Home Instruction Programme for Pre-school Youngsters. In fact I was talking just over lunch to the woman who began it Lesley Max. I am very proud to say that my colleague the Minister of Education has poured a lot more money into that early intervention programme which has been similarly effective. 
Electricity—Winter Power Task Force 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister and Dr Patrick Strange head of the Winter Power Task Force that New Zealand is currently experiencing an electricity crisis; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The situation is potentially very serious if it does not rain and if we are unable to lift savings further. Most commentators refer to that situation as a crisis. I myself tend to reserve that word for blackouts which I earnestly hope we will avoid. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Despite the Minister’s fervent hope that we do not have blackouts does he agree with the Prime Minister that it is now time for the message to save power to “get a little more explicit”; if so how far away does he believe long hot-water cuts will be for New Zealanders particularly New Zealanders living in the Auckland district? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: These are matters that have been dealt with by the Winter Power Task Force. However my own view is that there will not be long hot-water cuts in the next week or two anyway and let us hope we can push them out further. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether he is satisfied with the progress that is currently being made towards the 10 percent power savings target? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am pleased that the savings are continuing to climb slowly but steadily and are now past 5 percent. We must see savings closer to the 10 percent target however if we are to avoid more serious problems in the next few months. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it true that the Total Energy Centre at Wellington Hospital has four marine engines that are capable of powering the hospital and up to 30 percent of the city yet are mothballed; if it is true will the Minister give this House an assurance that he will reactivate those engines? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know actually but I have had discussions with companies just in the last day or two—not hospitals but electricity companies—about whether such a plant can be used for spinning reserve meaning that other plants can be used for electricity production. That might be the best way to use such a plant. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does he concede that this energy crisis is partly the result of the public seeing this Government blaming anyone else for the crisis—today Max Bradford; last Thursday myself—and does he not concede that if he were to accept that there is a great deal of responsibility for this crisis by the Government itself—for example for allowing lake levels to drop as they did over Christmas—he might get a better response from the public? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member as usual manages to confuse the facts. The lake levels over Christmas remained static; in fact they remained static right through to the end of February. The reason is that thermal generators heated up their machines much earlier this year than they had before because the possibility of a crisis had begun to emerge. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the House is to believe that answer why did he tell us some time ago that he knew as early as November there was the likelihood of a dry year this year that would result in this power crisis; and if he knew that why did he do nothing early in the piece to try to avert it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member misquotes me as he has on many occasions. I have said in this House that I was aware of problems last year. If the member wants to know precisely what caused me to become aware of those problems I will say that on or about 13 or 14 December we became aware of the independent expert’s formal opinion of the amount of gas left in Maui. 
Justice Minister—Confidence 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Justice; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister—and I have had requests from a number of Ministers to see whether the Opposition could ask these questions about them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in the Minister of Justice when in answer to questions in the House last week about the rise in immigrant crime he emphatically denied that the Government’s immigration policy is clearly contributing significantly to the crime of this country when we have seen in this country— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —it is hardly a laughing matter—a 760 percent increase in reported kidnappings by Asians in the last 3 years in Auckland City alone; how can she have confidence in a Minister who disowns those facts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Minister that Asians have about half the proportion of offending of any other group. I think that to blame new New Zealanders for a crime wave is absolutely ridiculous. What the figures out this week show is that there is not a crime wave. 
Richard Worth 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Justice when we heard last week in answer to a question on the loophole that had been discovered in the home detention scheme that there were a number of persons convicted of rape kidnapping and aggravated robbery who were roaming the streets until the courts decided whether they would get home detention? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister has written to all parties asking for their support for a speedy amendment to enable judges to be required to impose conditions so that people cannot be roaming around if they are considered a problem. 
Stephen Franks 
: Has she asked the Minister of Justice for an explanation of why the 2001 victimisation survey report was released a year late without any explanation or excuse with no comparison with international victimisation surveys; if so what was the explanation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea whether it was released a year late or 5 years early. The member should ask the Minister that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister seen a letter in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 by Steve Lamb of Auckland who is complaining about Asian theft fraud fighting assault intimidation vehicle crashes disorder domestic stabbings and a sideline of extortion and weapon carrying and further states: “No doubt if I was in Parliament’s debating chamber my comments would be strongly denied by those in power. I suggest they come to Auckland”—[ 
Interruption 
] Well what does the member know about it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s question already is long enough. If he has more to come then it had better be the very last part of the half sentence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am trying to get it out but they are overtalking me. He states: “I suggest they come to Auckland and patrol on a Thursday Friday and Saturday night or ask any frontline cop in the Auckland CBD about what goes on with these unsupervised individuals who should be here on their best behaviour.” and what is her response to those facts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Unfortunately no ethnic group in our country is immune from crime. People in all ethnic groups commit crimes. However I can say that for Asian New Zealanders the rate of crime is actually rather low. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in the Minister of Justice when on top of the flaws in his Sentencing Act and Parole Act that have seen rapists put on home detention and armed robbers being set free having been sentenced to prison I now find that under that legislation it is more advantageous for a criminal to be sentenced to 27 months in prison than to be sentenced for 21 months and how does that work—are we promoting more serious crime? She should look at her book. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I cannot follow the thread of that question. I suggest he puts it down to the Minister of Justice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Every day we have questions in the House. We expect Ministers and the Prime Minister to come here conscious of what is going on. We have had three explanations from her today where she does not know is not conscious or is unaware of matters within her responsibility. She is after all the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Let me finish what I am going to say. She owes this House a better answer than “I’m not conscious.” or “I’m unaware.” She is after all the Prime Minister and most Prime Ministers in most democracies carry the can for their colleagues—or in this case does the buck stop with the cleaning lady? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say that this is not questions without notice. This is a question without notice. The member cannot expect a detailed answer to a detailed supplementary question when no notice has been given. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a letter of 6 May to the Prime Minister asking her to intervene and secure the release of the 2001 victimisation survey. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table Government figures that I have received that show that violent crime amongst Chinese for one ethnic group of immigrants has risen by 300 percent in 4 years. 
Document not tabled. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Funding 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How much additional operational funding will secondary schools receive next year per pupil to assist schools with NCEA-related costs in relation to the funding announcement on 2 May 2003? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I announced a $78 million package recently and there will be more in the Budget for schools. The member will have to hold on until Thursday. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. In a previous answer and a previous point of order you said that with questions on notice it is reasonable for members to expect detailed answers. This is a very detailed question that asks what is the funding for secondary schools per pupil. It is based on an announcement that was made last Saturday. I think that it is reasonable for me to expect an answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Apart from the fact that my colleague would question the veracity of the last part of that statement the important point is that the final details on funding will be announced on Thursday and it is standard for Ministers to give those kinds of answers whether or not the question is put down. I invite those members to go back over  
Hansard 
 from Budget weeks of many many years when Ministers gave answers saying: “Wait till Budget day.” 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is quite different because this is part of an announcement that the Government made pre-Budget. The announcement was as I understand it made on Saturday—or it might have been made on Friday. But the point is that the announcement has been made and the figures are there. It is a fairly easy mathematical calculation for even this Minister to make. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that was what the Minister said in his original answer I would be asking him to be more specific. But the fact of the matter is he said we have to wait till Thursday for any extra funding. That is a traditional answer relating to Budget announcements. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have sat through I think 12 annual rounds of questioning about the Budget. I hesitate to challenge your ruling directly but the fact is that the traditional circumstances are that the Opposition asks questions about matters that have not been announced. In fact it is only in the last year or two that there has been the practice of making a substantial number of Budget announcements before the Budget is published. I do not believe that it is correct to say it is traditional in this House that Ministers answer the questions in that way because that has not been the tradition at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the Minister’s answer. I thought he said he had made an announcement on Saturday and that there may be something further in the Budget. I thought that was an entirely appropriate answer. He is not forced to release details—he said “recently” actually—of Thursday’s announcement before the Budget. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a two-page press statement made by the Minister on 2 May setting out the funding for each individual item. I think it is extraordinary then for you to rule that it is not reasonable. I even wonder why the Clerk would accept a question that asked how much does this mean per pupil per year. It seems that if Ministers are able to get all the free publicity associated with such statements and not be able to answer questions in the House it is an extraordinary ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot rule on the actual answer given except to say that I heard the Minister say quite clearly that there may be something further in the Budget about this. At that point the answer then becomes in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With due respect that pronouncement from you misses the point. We get limited opportunities to question the Government about its activities. A set of conditions is laid down in the Standing Orders that requires us to verify questions whenever we go down to the Clerk’s Office. We go over this again and again. It is abundantly clear that the Government has announced this funding. To get a simple calculation of how much this means per pupil to assisted schools should not be greeted by an answer that says “Wait till Thursday there might be more.” The Government has made an announcement. It presumably has stated what the bulk is and it is embarrassing for its members to find out that it is something like $1.60 per pupil. But Government members should be made to answer that in Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question. The Minister gave an answer. The member can now have supplementary questions on that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister advise the House how much funding there is per pupil for secondary schools in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) funding he announced last Saturday? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I said earlier firstly there was not an announcement on the Saturday. Secondly I cannot give the total amount of operational grant funding that will be used on the NCEA because that is a matter for schools. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question very specifically talks about the funding announcement on 2 May. For the Minister to start dancing around and playing semantics over whether it was a Saturday or a Friday or anything else is inappropriate. Further everyone knows that this Government has taken decisions off schools and centralised them back to the bureaucracy in Wellington. He must be able to give an answer on a per pupil basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He gave an answer and I judged it to be within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your ruling you said that the information might come through in the Budget on Thursday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know whether it will; I said that it could. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You excused the Minister answering the question on notice on the basis that it would. On that basis what action is available to me in the event that it is not? Because from my experience of being involved in a number of Budgets this information will not be available on Thursday or subsequently because it will be in a more detailed form than the normal announcements that are made in a Budget. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that information. But I too have been in a Cabinet and observed this happening and observed similar situations in previous years right through the time that I have been here. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take this matter on a little further. This question talks about a measure of per pupil per school. Everyone knows that all funding available to schools is committed on the basis of per pupil. It is one of the things that this Government has hung its hat on. It is one of the things that Labour members run all over the countryside skiting about. It is not acceptable for the Minister to be supported by the Chair and fail to give an answer to the House in some sort of an obfuscation of his obligations to Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not supporting the Minister. I am saying whether the Minister gave an answer. Having examined what was said by the Minister in his first and second answers I will give the member another supplementary question in relation to that and we will see how that goes. 
Jill Pettis 
: Would the Minister advise whether funding was available to support the implementation of the NCEA when he became Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Despite the fact that it was due to start in 2001 no. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can he confirm that the increase in operational funding for secondary schools is complementary to additional funding for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and that both are specifically targeted at covering increased expenses associated with the implementation of the NCEA as identified by the select committee in its report? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and I want to thank the chair Dr Ogilvy and others—sorry Bernie Ogilvy—for their very good work. I just say that it is a pity some members of the committee did not read their own report. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister please advise the House as in the announcement made on 2 May how much funding there is for schools per pupil for implementing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The full amount of operational grant funding increases has not been announced and therefore I cannot. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister in the announcement justify giving the Qualifications Authority an extra $69 million on top of the Government’s approved increase in fees for parents of $40 million while giving schools just $2.4 million—a ratio of 50:1—and is that how the Government rates the bureaucracy versus the work done by schools in the education of our children? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There were some pretty simple questions asked by members of the select committee and they got some very good answers. The very clear message members gave was that the system and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in particular had been under-resourced. I listened to my parliamentary colleagues and fixed it—unlike that member when he was Minister. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I note in the evidence before the select committee that secondary schools advised that the average cost of implementing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement was $50000 per school per year and that this funding package will provide less than $1000 per school per year so I ask what secondary school programmes the Minister expects schools to cut in order to be able to implement the national certificate? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member’s figures are inaccurate. He does not take into account the rest of the statement which indicates the things that will be paid for in schools by the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. He is a very foolish member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now withdraw and apologise for that unnecessary comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the one hand when I ask for the numbers I am not allowed them. Then when I do a calculation based on averages with the limited information I have I am accused of giving inaccurate information. How can a member do his job? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: By reading the statement in his hand. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Results 
11. JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 on behalf of  
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the results of students participating in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 National statistics on the achievement of students who did level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement last year are now available online. They provide a rich source of information that can be used by schools to identify weak spots in students’ learning and to make targeted changes in teaching to strengthen those areas. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has this level of information been available in the past? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. This is the first time we can look at students’ achievement patterns by gender ethnicity and school decile and on a school-by-school basis look at the specific detail on strengths weaknesses and places to target changes in teaching practice and track whether those changes are working. That is the sort of information I think that could make a big difference to teaching and learning and I am pleased the committee convinced me to put in the computer resources to provide it. 
Dietary Supplements—Consumer Safety 
12.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Does she have any consumer safety related concerns about the wider dietary supplements industry following the Pan Pharmaceuticals scandal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 While there is no evidence to suggest there are safety-related concerns with the New Zealand dietary supplements industry it is an opportunity for the supplements industry and the Government to look at the industry practices and processes in relation to good manufacturing practice in the industry. It certainly puts a focus on safety aspects of the New Zealand industry. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister give an assurance that New Zealand consumers are not subject to the British food supplement industry practice of overages where products contain a higher than declared amount of a particular nutrient at the time of formulation to ensure that sufficient levels of the nutrient are maintained through the products’ shelf-life; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot give the member that assurance. One of the problems we have with dietary supplements in New Zealand is that we do not test them before they come into New Zealand. We do not have the same sort of regulation; therefore it is not certain that what is in the products is what is said to be in the products. However when a product is reported to the Food Safety Authority then a testing is carried out. The member will be aware that in the last year there have been a number of products that it has been claimed contained certain contents but that have been found to have others and they were required to be withdrawn. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What are the lessons to be learnt from the recent recall of Pan Pharmaceuticals products? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It highlighted the need for annual audits of manufacturing premises and a registration system for dietary supplements in New Zealand. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why have the lists of Pan Pharmaceuticals products that have been recalled not been published in the majority of provincial newspapers; and how are provincial New Zealanders to access information on those recalled products when a large number do not have access to the Internet? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Food Safety Authority publishes the lists in all the major dailies. Most places in New Zealand receive a major daily newspaper. We even get the  
New Zealand Herald  
here in Wellington and I am pretty sure that the  
Press 
 goes into Blenheim. So the Food Safety Authority provides the lists in the major newspapers. There is a cost in terms of doing that which is about $500000 at this stage and that does not include the latest notice that has just been put in the papers. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the original scandal triggering the Pan Pharmaceuticals recall related to two over-the-counter pharmaceuticals not to dietary supplements; why therefore have not all pharmaceuticals produced by that company been recalled instead of only dietary supplements? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is correct. What started the recall of Pan Pharmaceuticals was the recall of three over-the-counter pharmaceutical medicines. When problems were found with those medicines an audit was then carried out on Pan Pharmaceuticals and the Therapeutic Goods Administration found that that company had substituted ingredients manipulated data to give the impression the products were compliant when they were not fabricated product testing results and had deficient raw materials and finished-product controls in place. So on those and other grounds it was decided to recall Pan Pharmaceutical products and it was done for the safety of the public. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked why the recall had not extended to pharmaceuticals. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Only three pharmaceuticals in New Zealand were made by Pan Pharmaceuticals so only three needed to be withdrawn in New Zealand. 
Families Commission Bill 
First Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Families Commission Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will be moving that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Families play an important role in the lives of their members. They provide emotional psychological and material support. They nurture and protect children and other vulnerable family members. They pass on culture knowledge and obligations. Supporting families was one of the important elements in the pre-election policies of Labour the Progressive Coalition and United Future. This Government is committed to supporting families and children and this bill is evidence that those commitments will be honoured. 
The bill establishes a new Crown entity to be known as the Families Commission. The bill gives effect to the undertaking in the agreement for confidence and supply between the Government and United Future New Zealand. The bill establishes a commission with a clear purpose. The commission will promote the interests of the full range of families in New Zealand and promote better understanding of family issues and needs amongst Government agencies and in the wider community. A number of Government agencies already play a significant role in the provision of family policy services and research. It is not intended that the Families Commission should replicate those functions. The commission’s main function will be to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally. The commission will not take on any individual family cases or issues. It will have additional functions to assist it to perform effectively its advocacy function and I will list those functions now. 
The commission will encourage and facilitate informed debate on matters relating to the interests of families across sectors and involving the general public. It will increase public awareness and promote better understanding of families in relation to the interests of families including the importance of stable family relationships and the rights and responsibilities of parents. It will encourage and facilitate the development and provision of services and policies designed to promote or serve the interests of families. It will consider and report on any matters relating to families that are referred to it by the Minister of the Crown. It will stimulate and promote research into any matter relating to the interests of families—for example by collecting and disseminating research about families and their interests; by advising on research priorities or gaps in research; by contracting for research on families; and by undertaking any incidental functions relating to its main function or to any additional jobs that will be given to it. 
This bill establishes a commission that will be responsive to the needs interests and priorities of all New Zealand families. Many New Zealand families are couples with children; however families are more diverse than that. They include single-household nuclear families extended families the wider kinship groupings Maori whanau customary structures in our Pacific and Asian communities families that span generations families that disperse across households and families created second and subsequently through other unions. The bill requires the Families Commission to take an inclusive approach to the family in New Zealand and to concern itself with issues faced by all of them whatever shape or form they may take. 
Although it is important that the commission has a degree of independence from Government the bill sets out the guidelines for the commission in terms of both its scope and priorities as a set of matters that the commission will have regard to. Firstly in the exercise and performance of its functions and powers it must have regard to any policies and priorities of the Government that relate to the commission’s functions and that are communicated to the commission in writing by the Minister. Those directions must be discussed with the commission before they are given. That provision is in line with the framework approved by the Government and proposed for application to all Crown entities. It envisages that a responsible Minister may direct an autonomous Crown entity to have regard to a Government policy that relates to the entity’s function. Secondly the commission must have regard to the diversity of all New Zealand families and family groups which have many different forms and structures. Finally the Families Commission must have regard to the needs values and beliefs of particular groups: Maori as tangata whenua Pacific Island peoples of New Zealand and other ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand. 
I am pleased that the Labour manifesto commitment to establish a parenting council is honoured through the creation of the Families Commission. 
The commission provides the opportunity to draw on expertise from the Government and from community and academic sectors to coordinate a joined-up approach to the issues of parenting to promote the importance of parenting and to give advice on the development and implementation of new programmes supporting parenting. Those objectives are motivated by our manifesto commitment to establish a parenting council. I intend to use the bill’s requirement that the commission have regard to any general policy in relation to families or any statement of the priorities of the Government in relation to families to communicate to the commission that an important immediate priority for it should be to focus on families caring for children or other dependants. Those other caring roles may include caring for aged parents or adult family members with disabilities. 
Successful parenting is crucial to the overall strategy of creating the knowledge society that the Government is aiming for. Sound parenting is vital if children are to grow up to be dependable adults and it is essential if children are to be able to take up the challenges of further education and successful employment. In short sound parenting is crucial to creating a prosperous innovative society in which all can realise their ambitions. The knowledge economy is truly born in the home where it is nurtured by parents and supported by the family. It is therefore important that the commission have a focus on parenting. It is also important that the Families Commission be responsive to the broad range of families that exist in this country and their interests. Therefore the commission will be required to do just that. 
The bill establishes the Families Commission as an autonomous Crown entity for the purposes of the Public Finance Act. That is the best structure to ensure that the commission has the degree of independence from Government necessary for it to promote the interests of the family effectively and with a sense of clear independence. 
The bill provides for up to seven commissioners to be appointed. That will allow the Government to appoint to the commission a variety of people to reflect the diversity that the commission will be dealing with. 
Finally the bill sets out a range of operational and organisational matters. Those matters are generally consistent with the Government’s framework for Crown entities. They include providing the commission with powers of delegation allowing the commission to appoint committees providing for the appointment of a general manager requiring the commission to produce an annual report and providing for ministerial powers of review of the commission’s operation and performance. 
This bill establishes the Families Commission. That will greatly advance the interests of families in New Zealand. The research role of the commission will advance our understanding of the needs and interests of families and will be welcomed I think by the social research community. The commission’s contribution to policy development as a key stakeholder will ensure that the needs and priorities of families are properly considered when the Government is developing new initiatives. 
I will quickly reflect on one aspect before I close my comments on our forming the commission. I am flanked in the House today by on my right Peter Dunne and Judy Turner from the United Future party—and I want to say that we had very productive and useful discussions leading towards the introduction of this legislation today—and on my left Matt Robson from the Progressive Coalition who has been equally as involved in ensuring that the broad policies we are following have the support of all the parties that are involved in the process of government. 
What I hope ensues from this point is an informed debate about how central the family as the core institution of our society needs to be in advancing what we are trying to do in this country. One of the problems over the last few decades has been that we have not maintained a focus on New Zealand as a place that should be proud of raising children in whatever shape the family takes and thus on ensuring the family is at the centre of social policy. I think the Families Commission will help ensure that the family is restored to that central place. I applaud the work that has taken place so far and I look forward to seeing the Families Commission carry out its role. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Is it not interesting to hear such sincerity from a member of a party that recently—just prior to the last election—regarded any mention of the word “family” as a personal attack on the Prime Minister and responded to it viciously as I found myself? The question is whether that leopard has changed its spots and the answer is no. No one should presume that the Families Commission Bill represents anything other than a triumph for the paranoia of Steve Maharey and the Labour Party about the fact that we may end up having a debate in New Zealand about the social facts of family. 
I was looking forward to being able to support the Families Commission. When United Future said that it was seeking one in the aftermath of the election I thought that that was good. It is a strong interest of mine and I hoped that United Future would make progress on it. Much like many of the people who voted for United Future I had assumed that it would achieve a Families Commission—or some kind of representative function for families—that would mark out the territory that its voters thought it should mark out and that is to advocate for a pretty well-defined family actually. Whether United Future’s supporters are correct in their view of the family is beside the point; the fact is they expected a clear definition of a family. I ask the House this question. If during the election campaign Peter Dunne had said: “I support families—that is any group with a psychological attachment.” do members think he would have got the support he did? The answer to that is no because in that context everyone from a parliamentary caucus to a bikie gang has a psychological attachment. 
The fact is that the bill reflects Labour’s desperate and paranoid attitude that the family may actually get some definition. I say to Labour members that they need not have bothered. Why cannot families decide? Why cannot normal people who run these groups decide whether the Families Commission is advocating for them? That is the first big problem with this legislation. Now a family is a family if it fits the bureaucrats’ definition of one and their definition is of course “anyone”. This bill is a “New Zealand Population Commission Bill” because there is no one who is not included. The point of that is the commission itself will become meaningless because it is not advocating for anyone. 
In fact the people who supported Peter Dunne share my view to some extent. One of the reasons we are debating this kind of legislation is that the family and people who run families have become a minority interest group. I think that is correct. They now have become a minority interest group. We cannot assume that the people who run the country or spend public money have an interest in or an understanding of or empathy for the issues that thousands of New Zealanders raising a family in New Zealand face every day. That is why we have this bill. It is also why we have a range of lobby groups around the country such as the new Parenting Council that is being set up. 
Now that we have seen Steve Maharey put his fingerprints all over this legislation we know that the $28 million the Government has dedicated to it will be funding one great big binge in political correctness. I could stand on the sideline at any sports game this Saturday—I will not be there this Saturday but I will be there for a few more— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It’s like the America’s Cup. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The America’s Cup has got more—that is right—because it is much more important than this! I could stand on the sideline at any sports game and ask the parents there whether they think Steve Maharey spending $28 million on a Families Commission will make any difference to them and the answer of course will be no. 
For instance the commission will be appointed by the Minister and will have to reflect the diversity of people who have psychological attachments. Of course we will end up with a commission so diverse that it is incapable of agreeing about whether to have biscuits for morning tea let alone getting on with the difficult job of advocating the interests of families. 
What will the Government do if someone on that commission gets up and says that all the social research done about families and groups tells us that two-parent families work best and that therefore the commission should make that its top priority? That is the least contestable conclusion of social research in the last 30 years. It is the clearest conclusion of any social research done in the last 30 years. The Minister will ring the commission up— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister says that is rubbish. Does anyone think the Minister will let the Families Commission do that? Of course not because he would have any number of people all over him saying that no we cannot get caught in that fuddy-duddy conservative backward-looking version of families. This commission will have to advocate for everything; that is what it will have to do. It will have to advocate for diversity. It will have to advocate for everyone. Well of course at that stage it will be pointless. It will have even less point than the Ministry of Women’s Affairs which I notice the Government is itself seeking to abolish. 
I have got another message here and it is for all those fine dedicated people in our community who do work so hard to support and to advocate for families and who are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether unrelated people living in a household amount to a family. They are quite capable of sorting that out. One would think we never knew about those situations until Steve Maharey told us about them. That is how we know there is diversity. I ask who does live in the ivory tower: is it Steve Maharey or is it everybody else? Is it the front bench of the Labour Government or is it everybody else? 
I say to all those groups that this bill is a threat. This is a Government that cannot stand community groups that have a point of view it does not like. So the Minister of Education says to schools publicly that they should boycott the Life Education Trust because it is too successful. It has strong community support. Now the Government is setting out to destroy the Yellow Ribbon campaign and Project Hope. I say to the Parenting Council and to Parenting with Confidence that their biggest enemy will be the Families Commission because it has been charged to develop and implement parenting programmes. The bureaucrats are now going to develop and implement parenting programmes. 
Why not leave it to parents? Why not use a fraction of the $28 million to help fund the Parenting Council which has just been set up and was launched by that Minister just a couple of months ago? Why not use a fraction of it to put programmes of the quality of Parenting with Confidence in front of every parent in New Zealand? No. Hui seminars human rights indigenous rights diversity—dumbed-down difficult stupid political correctness—will kill this. 
I give United Future credit for trying but I give them my sympathy for having failed. I say to United Future that we are with it. We want strong advocacy for families and good use of public money to encourage and build the families of New Zealand and I hope we can work with United Future to make this legislation even vaguely workable. But I must say that it does not matter what is in here; as long as this Government is in charge this measure will certainly fail because the Government wants it to fail. It has designed it to fail. It wants to make sure it cannot actually focus on the realities of family life. This commission will be praised to the skies in the Human Rights Commission and laughed at in the families of New Zealand. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I stand to speak on behalf of United Future in the first reading of the Families Commission Bill. It is certainly not difficult to see why certain members from other parties have trouble getting their heads around this proposal. The very nature of the political animal is that it is driven by the 3-year cycle. The quick fix instant gratification and tick both boxes please—that is about as far as many politicians can see. While nobody disagrees that addressing the immediate needs of New Zealanders is part of what the Government should do responsible government should include planning for the future. That is why this legislation is not a knee-jerk reaction to the many cases of dysfunctional families and the increasing statistics of child abuse that we hear about via the media. This legislation will create a vision and will contribute to an environment in which families will flourish and be able to participate fully in society—an environment in which all children will be enabled to reach their greatest potential. 
Clearly the Families Commission will over time advocate for a raft of issues that relate to needy families in our community. However it will not advocate solely for families with identifiable needs but for taking a strength-based approach to determining through consultation and using evidence-based data what it is that Governments do that creates an environment in which families thrive and where Governments create obstacles that weaken families’ resolve to succeed. Traditionally families need to be at risk or to be failing miserably before they enjoy the attention of the Government. Part of the change that needs to be advocated for is a change towards investing in families that are not at obvious risk. For that reason the commission will not focus on families as a needy cause but rather it will focus on families as a context in which people live their lives. 
For instance if a mum is receiving mental health support it can be rightly assumed that there are some issues at home that will need addressing—in other words her mental health does not exist in isolation from the context of her family. As a country we have over previous years been very good at treating individuals in need separately from their family context and we then often wonder why our efforts are not sustainable. 
Many of us know the questions that need to be asked but up until now we have not had an independent body to ask those questions and to come up with workable and sustainable solutions. This commission will be charged with advising on a broad range of issues and on the way those issues impact on families. For instance what is the impact on family life when we talk about work-life balance? What is the impact on families as we set taxation rates for families with dependants? What about the Family Court—how do families feel about it and about the outcomes from that court? What about the gaps in parent education in our communities? What about the level of tertiary qualifications for those who are working in the field of family service provision? How will the families of the future be able to balance their student loan repayments retirement savings and homeownership demands? Those are all the kinds of issues that may be looked into researched and have recommendations made on to the Government. 
Because the Government will consider the commission as a key stakeholder on family policy some of those issues will be addressed by the Government of the day and the commission will make comment on them. However the commission will also raise other issues independently. It will therefore be essential that the commission establish a strong working relationship with the Government family service providers academics and the voluntary sector in order to ensure that there is robust policy analysis well-researched data and effective and workable policies for all New Zealand families. 
It is important at this time to thank all the social service education health and family support organisations that have so willingly participated in the consultation process that has gone on at the design stage of this legislation. We want to thank the Federation of New Zealand Parents Centres Plunket the Child Poverty Action Group the family centre at Victoria University Relationship Services the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services Parent to Parent New Zealand Inc. Triple P New Zealand Parenting with Confidence the Office of the Commissioner for Children the Auckland University of Technology Bethlehem Institute of Education the Pacific Foundation the National Council of Women and many others who have come and made extremely good submissions to us and who have made some fabulous recommendations that are included in this legislation. 
United Future has been a strong supporter of New Zealand’s voluntary and charitable sector which we believe is passionate about family issues and is best placed to deliver assistance to families in need. Therefore it was never United Future’s intention that the Families Commission would be designed to duplicate its work. Those providers respond to the immediate and often crisis-ridden needs of individuals by providing relief and if possible intervention in order to prevent further decline. They work tirelessly in advocating for children and families and our country is much richer for their existence. 
It is important for the Families Commission to be able to identify with and to speak for the widest range of parent-child environments. Anything less than that would have relegated the commission to advocating for a special-interest group. Without that breadth of definition the commission’s scope would have disqualified it from being a key adviser to the Government on a wide range of interests. Of even greater concern would have been that the commission could be designed in such a way as to be captured by a narrowly focused interest group. We have avoided ideological definitions of the family because the commission is not set up to serve families as they should be but rather families as they are. I would like to take this opportunity to extend United Future’s thanks to the Hon Steve Maharey and his staff and to the officials from the Ministry of Social Development for what has been an open and extremely positive working relationship on that matter. 
To reiterate the commission is designed to look at the big picture and in particular to determine the factors that strengthen family connectedness and improve family outcomes. The commission is concerned with building social and human capital. For example the link between educational outcomes and family cohesiveness is well documented in overseas studies. The commission will help to build our country’s stock of social capital for it is within the family that we learn the necessary skills and values that we need in order to form social capital out in the wider community. One might consider the commission as a social capital incubator. It is within the family that we learn and are taught the value of trust and of the usefulness of sharing norms and expectations. The commission through its research and its role of advocacy will be able to amplify and propagate that message to all New Zealanders. More important it will once again remind us of one more reason that families are so important. By fostering and teaching social capital it will make a reality of United Future’s favourite saying: “If it is good for the family it is good for the country.” 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think all of us in this House looked forward with eager anticipation to this legislation because we recognise that the strength of the family is undoubtedly the foundation of the nation. The quality of the future that we will leave to our children will be determined by the quality of the children whom we leave to the future and the quality of those children will be determined by the quality of family relationships. 
At the last election United Future received critical electorate support because of its emphasis on families—and I say “critical” because in the last couple of weeks before the election that emphasis took it from about 0.5 percent in the polls up to whatever it was that enabled United Future to hold the balance of power and to hold the Greens out. Nevertheless when United Future members were talking to the public at large out on the hustings and at campaign meetings it was quite clear what they were talking about. They were talking about a particular type of family. I will give members an example of that. When one candidate was asked what was meant when that candidate talked about the family the response was that it meant a man a woman and kids—tied together in matrimony. That was what the family was for that candidate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Which candidate was that? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I will not name any particular candidate but it was a United Future candidate. 
In its election manifesto United Future talked about establishing a commission for the family to promote the status of families and the role of parents to ensure all policy development reflected the fundamental needs of families and their children to provide a family mediation service that would support promote and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services to facilitate family support and parental education classes and to improve the coordination of Government departments. Then we come to this particular legislation. 
The first challenge the Families Commission will have is to get a working definition of what a family is because under this bill everything is included—and I mean everything. It includes all the different types of relationships. We know there is a range of different relationships but this definition even includes relationships such as those in the Mongrel Mob. That is all in the definition. The definition refers to members who have biological or legal relationships with one another who have significant psychological attachments to one another or who are members of a whanau or other culturally recognised family group. Well I would argue that Bert Potter and his family at Centrepoint would have fallen within that definition. A former member of National—not one who is in the House at the moment—could tell us all about the workings of Centrepoint. However Centrepoint would still have fallen within the definition. If the Families Commission is to try to work within that definition we will have a muddle of monumental proportions. 
New Zealand First’s Dail Jones has put up a commission for the family bill. In fact he got it under way long before the combination of United Future Labour and the Progressive party put their bill together. In Dail Jones’ bill the definition of a family group including an extended family is one in which there is first at least one adult member and in which second the members have a biological or legal relationship. The definition in the bill before us today does not provide that there has to be an adult within the grouping— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
:  
Lord of the Flies 
. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes—kill the pig kill the pig! That really is the problem with this bill. United Future probably with the best of intentions but very naively and certainly not having fully thought through some of the promises and pledges it made to the electorate at the last election has been finessed by Labour. It has been finessed by Labour’s world view and Labour’s world view is a very different one I believe from that of the people who were listening to United Future prior to the election and saying its policy was good and we should get in behind the family. 
One of the things that New Zealand First made very clear in the debate over the property relationships legislation was that it believed certain groupings were preferred in our society. We understand there is a whole range of different arrangements but if it is the children that we are really concerned about—and not only the children but the whole thing—then there has to be a preference for certain types of arrangements within our society. This bill gives no preference whatsoever. It is “anything goes”. 
The leader of the National Party has made a good point. If the research shows—and it would not be a very hard case to mount—that in the best interests of children and the nurturing caring and upbringing of those children the old traditional nuclear family or at least a family around which there is support from both father and mother the biological parents or even if they are not the legal parents of children is in the best interests of those children what does this bill do to promote that particular idea? The answer is that it does nothing. This commission will end up as a very expensive talkfest. That is all it will be; it will be an expensive talkfest. The commission is not even autonomous. It cannot come out and say things that it judges are correct. It can only do that within the framework of Government policies and that framework is already set by political agendas and so on. 
I remind the House that something is going on contemporaneously with the setting up of this Families Commission: this Government is abolishing the Early Childhood Development unit. We have a unit that costs $20 million a year and it is being abolished. That unit is supposed to get out there to help and support parents. It actually runs Family Start programmes and so on. That unit is going but we are to put in this Families Commission which is a talkfest and cannot do anything about it. 
We really have to ask ourselves whether this measure is not just a $28 million sop to United Future in order to get the Greens off Labour’s back. When the election came up that is exactly what happened. Labour had to find a way of getting the Greens off its back with the lifting of the moratorium. Labour went along to United Future and told it not to ask for too much. Labour said if United Future wanted a family commission it would put something in place to keep it happy even though the commission would not necessarily have any teeth. Labour said it would make sure that the commission did not have any teeth. 
In the definition of families the Government has said that it cannot show any preference whatsoever and that anything goes. However when it comes to the needs values and beliefs of particular groups clause 11 states: “In the exercise and performance of its powers and functions the Commission must have regard to the needs values and beliefs—(a) of Maori as tangata whenua: (b) of the Pacific Islands peoples of New Zealand: (c) of other ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand.” In other words this Government is prepared to state a preference in that particular clause. All that the Government had to do was to say the commission must have regard to the needs values and beliefs of all ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand. That would have covered the whole thing except that the commission has to give preference along ethnicity lines but not preference along relationship or family lines and so on. 
New Zealand First held out a great deal of hope for what would come from the policy work. We absolutely support some of the ideas that were mentioned by Judy Turner and by the Minister about the strengthening of the family and about how important the family is in the nurturing of children and in the future of our nation. We support all those things but we have a vehicle here that will not work. All that the commission will do is to cost the taxpayers $28 million of expenditure and at the end of 4 years nothing will have happened apart from one great big debate. We know what happens following the great big debates here in the House. It is exactly the same thing and that is what will occur by establishing the commission. New Zealand First will not support this bill although we support everything that families stand for. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this legislation. We have heard from a number of speakers who have all said that they agree that families and the support thereof are fundamental to the success of our society but then we seem to have a division along party lines as to whether this measure will achieve anything towards furthering that end. Those in the Government and in United Future have said that it will but those on the Opposition side of the House have said that it will have no good effect. I suggest to listeners who are interested in this debate that they listen to some of the commentators’ views and I will mention three of them briefly. 
Jan Pryor the head of the centre for family studies at Victoria University speaking in support of the proposals said: “Strong families cannot be legislated for. However families can be supported provided with advocacy and helped to identify and build on their strengths.” Similarly Plunket’s chief executive has come out in support of the proposal and has said: “The Families Commission has the potential to make a positive contribution to the outcomes for New Zealand children.” The Parents Centre president Sharon Cole said: “To have even one Government agency promoting to Government what parents need to succeed is not only a break with tradition but incredibly cost effective.” 
I support this legislation. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this bill. I note that Opposition parties thought it sufficiently important for the Leader of the Opposition to speak for the National Party and I as leader of the ACT party am speaking for it. However I note that Mr Peter Dunne the leader of United Future who has 18 years experience in Parliament has realised that it is not a good idea for him to speak to the bill and that he had better get one of his more junior members to do it. I suspect that that is because Mr Dunne realises what this bill is. 
The ACT party is opposed to this bill because we know and the Government knows that this bill is an attack on the family. There is no doubt about that at all. A State-funded commission is an attack on the family. Labour and United Future are moving down some crazy “let’s not offend anyone” politically correct path that just does not acknowledge the reality of life for the average Kiwi. It is not about making a harsh judgment on other lifestyles—single people gay couples or de facto couples—but it is about saying that marriage is the chosen lifestyle of a majority of people and let us not back away from that. What does the Minister say to that? 
Hon Annette King 
: You tell me what a family is! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Perhaps United Future members might like to let me know what they think about that statement. Marriage is not even included in the bill. Here we have a bill that states that a single person is a family. It is also saying that the Mongrel Mob is a family. I say to members opposite that that quote actually came from United Future members. They were saying that 6 months ago. 
Hon Annette King 
: Hypocrisy! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister is dead right. I did not use the word hypocrisy but the Minister recognises it when she sees it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Talking hypocrisy! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes absolutely! The Minister said it is hypocrisy and I agree with her. 
Whether we view United Future policy as biblically sound or just plain common sense we serve a common cause. Does the Minister believe that the Mongrel Mob meets the biblical description of a family a marriage or gay marriages? Judy Turner said she was opposed to having a narrow definition because that was ideological. Prior to the election she said hei policies were biblically based. Every member of this House knows how the United party was elected. That party’s real name is United Future and the Future party were the Christian Democrats. It went around the electorate and funded that party. It went around the electorate church-by-church and said: “We will make a stand for traditional Christian values.” Judy Turner said it was biblically sound. I say to the House that no member thinks that about this bill. The Government would not even think of putting Christian values into this bill. United Future did not ask for them. 
I make this point which was made by Brian Donnelly—the Government would not put Christian values into a bill but it is quite happy to acknowledge the needs values and beliefs of the following groups: Maori as tangata whenua—that is interesting tangata whenua means not just Maori so I guess that that is sort of pre-Christian and is OK—Pacific Islands peoples of New Zealand and other ethnic and cultural groups. This Government has said that it is quite prepared to legislate for any values except Christian values. That is the reality and that is what United Future is doing. I think Peter Dunne has done it on purpose because he wants to move his party away from being seen as a Christian party. 
I say to those members that the people who voted for United Future did not expect to see a Families Commission—and we all know what it is going to do. There will be a UN definition of the family. The commission will be politically correct. It will advocate on behalf of gay couples—there is no doubt in my mind about that—and it will actually advocate on behalf of single parents. It will go out there and make an attack on the traditional family. There is no doubt about that and every experienced MP knows it. 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s a traditional family? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member opposite tells me she does not know what a traditional family is. What has the United Future party been doing? Prior to the election when the United Future party was asked that definition it was “Mum dad and the kids” but now we have a Labour Minister calling out across the House that she does not know what a traditional family is. 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s your definition? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Let me make it quite clear: the ACT party does not believe that taxpayers’ dollars should be spent on family commissions. We have never supported that. We would not vote for it today or tomorrow—unlike the other parties who have all said that they are in favour of a families commission only if it is defined the way they want it. The ACT party says it is not in favour of the State—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is calling out to me. I am not in favour of the State getting involved in advocacy of this sort Minister. 
Hon Annette King 
: What is your personal definition? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am in favour of “Mum dad and the kids”. The member asked me—and that is my family. That is what I think about it but so what? The Minister should not be involved. Why are we having taxpayers’ money spent on this talk shop? I ask the Minister to name me one good proposal that will come out of this commission. Come on Minister—you made a promise call out to me! 
Hon Annette King 
: What happens to your family when you die—is it not a family anymore? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister wants to know what will happen to my family when I die. That is very comforting! I sincerely hope that the Families Commission will have nothing to do with them. God help them if it does! 
I say to the Government—and every MP knows it—that this a $28 million waste of money. It is the United Future party’s sell-out of every single one of its voters. No voter for United Future thought he or she would see a party MP get up and describe “Mum dad and the kids” as an ideologically narrow focus. That is how Judy Turner described the family. Prior to the election she said: “Our policy is biblically sound.” After the election she calls people who are biblically sound “ideologically narrowly focused”. That may be a reasonable view but not of a party that used to be called the Christian Democrats—not of a party that was funded by churches up and down New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] Now the member is saying she was not funded by churches up and down New Zealand. Talk about denying three times! Here is a party that is even denying its background. Peter Dunne was smart enough not to speak to this bill. He knows as we all know in this House that whenever we see anything that says “family law” it is an attack on the family. Family law is divorce law. A Families Commission is an attack on the traditional family. The pensioners of New Zealand should not be paying extra for their drop of sherry to pay for this ideological nonsense. 
But I make this point to the United Future party and the Labour Party: if this bill is so good then why is the introduction date put off to 1 July 2004? It is because Peter Dunne knows that this bill is useless and so does the Labour Party. It is laughing about it. It is actually a squalid political deal and will do nothing for any family in this country. It will not add value; it will just provide jobs for the boys and girls. They will be going on UN trips to study the family in Geneva and New York and they will not be helping the average battler. If the Government really wants to help the family how about a tax cut for mum and dad who are working so that they have a bit more money for the family? That $28 million would have gone a long way towards helping many low-income families in New Zealand. 
The ACT party is against this sort of politically correct claptrap—a squalid deal that gives a bad name to MMP—and will be voting against this commission. ACT members will be saying to every New Zealander who voted for United Future: “If you want to support the family the best thing you can do is get rid of those United Future—what was the word you used Minister?—hypocrites.” 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Families Commission Bill and I will be voting with my Labour colleagues for its first reading. 
It is very interesting to follow the Hon Richard Prebble the leader of the ACT party who came to the House this afternoon and full of fury rage and rhetoric attacked United Future and those who are actually trying to do something for the families of this country. He gave us his own personal definition of the family as “Mum dad and the kids.” What happens when one parent passes away and there is only one parent and the kids in the family? Mr Prebble said that did not meet his definition of a family. 
He made reference to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition spoke on behalf of the National Party. That is true but the Leader of the Opposition refused point blank to give us his definition of a family or the National Party’s definition of a family. Opposition members are speaking with total rhetoric on this piece of legislation. The commission will be set up with the support of the Labour Party Progressive and United Future because we want to support family units in whatever shape and size they come. We believe that units of love are the best place for children and young people to grow up in. Members of Parliament should be supporting that instead of indulging in rhetoric and empty attacks on parties that are trying to do something about it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting the Families Commission Bill which is before us this afternoon. The bill is an affront to families in desperate need of support right now and it is an affront to hard-pressed community organisations that already do the work the commission is charged with. The Government sees fit to put up to $9 million or more a year into a superfluous new bureaucracy simply to meet the demands of a political agreement with United Future. 
There is nothing wrong with trying to do more for families or parents or children or the groups that serve them. The Green Party campaigned last year on ending child poverty—the child poverty that still afflicts up to a third of this country’s children. We also campaigned for increased support for education in parenting a universal child benefit reforms in family assistance and family support and a whole host of other things that would immediately benefit families in a practical way. We would also like to see more funding going to groups that advocate for—and in other ways work for—families and children and we are totally behind the Commissioner for Children Bill. 
However rather than giving immediate income housing or other relief to families in need or boosting the work of hard-pressed community groups supporting families and children this bill before us this afternoon takes $27.8 million of taxpayers’ money to establish a new Crown entity whose main function will be “to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” To quote further subclause 7(2) states: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.” 
So just what will this new commission be doing? In this country we already have a number of fine organisations that advocate strongly and well for families and for parents and children in a variety of ways. A number of such groups also carry out the subsidiary functions outlined in the bill such as promoting informed debate lobbying the Government and carrying out research on matters relating to families. I will name just a couple in the latter category—there are many more. I am sure we have all noticed the sterling efforts in recent years of the Child Poverty Action Group and Charles Waldegrave’s Lower Hutt Family Centre. Both carry out sound research on issues affecting families especially low-income ones and advocate strongly for the interests of children and families at every level and in every part of the political spectrum. We have also seen the rise of groups like the Parents Centres which provide programmes for parents around the country—alongside organisations like Parentline Homebuilders the People’s Centre and a whole range of community iwi pan-tribal and Pacific peoples’ organisations whose whole existence is geared to supporting the needs of families particularly those who need help most. 
I would much rather have seen at least some of the proposed $28 million poured into direct support and infrastructure funding increases for those organisations rather than into another layer of bureaucracy whose purpose seems indistinguishable from a lot of what is already in the public sector and whose functions are already being met in all sorts of places in the voluntary sector. At a time when lotteries funding is diminishing by the year and the funding of Community Organisations Grants Scheme committees in places like Manukau City is so stretched that average grants are around a totally inadequate $4000 a year it seems ridiculous to prioritise investment in a body like the new Families Commission. 
In terms of what is already there in the public sector notably we have the Commissioner for Children. A bill geared to strengthening the commissioner’s role has languished on the Order Paper for the last couple of years and there is still no sign of it surfacing in the near future—that I am aware of anyway. If Labour had been serious about wanting to increase the advocacy role for the children and young people who constitute a high percentage of families I am sure we would have seen the Commissioner for Children Bill back in the House some years ago. 
On top of that in the public sector we have the Ministry of Social Development itself—a massive enterprise employing around 350 policy analysts many of whom spend much of their time researching and analysing social conditions in this country and giving advice to the Government. That is a huge public investment in social research. On the Social Services Committee we often receive the benefit of briefings on their latest research results much of which provide useful underpinnings for the development of social policy—for example through the excellent living standards survey and social reports. Those studies include detailed information about the living standards of a whole range and type of New Zealand families and the development of indicators to measure desirable social outcomes—with a particular focus on the needs of children and young people. It is hard to see how a much smaller Crown entity in the form of the new Families Commission could ever emulate the depth and breadth of research in policy advice relating to families already offered by the Ministry of Social Development. Community-based research such as that carried out by groups like the Child Poverty Action Group and the Rev. Charles Waldegrave could be of much added value if more resources were put into it but I do not see that same quality and style of research coming from another State body. 
In the past the Green Party has tended to support the establishment of new bodies that could offer independent advice to Government in critical areas. However our recent observations of the actions of the Tertiary Education Commission and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority have led us to believe that those bodies are not necessarily offering independent advice at the level we would expect and we are no longer so quick to assume that setting up an avowedly autonomous Crown entity will achieve particularly useful and independent outcomes. 
Further the Green Party notes that it is intended that the new Families Commission will consist of between three and seven commissioners and that it will have a budget of $9.2 million a year when it becomes fully operational. That is astonishing when one considers that the Office of the Commissioner for Children receives less than $2 million the Ministry of Women’s Affairs $4 million the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment $2 million and the Human Rights Commission just under $8 million. What are the Government’s priorities here? What is the real point of what it is doing? After all the Human Rights Commission—a long-established and respected body endeavouring to advocate and research a huge range of issues as well as dealing with a large number of actual cases—receives less than this new body. It is pitiful to see the Commissioner for Children and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment treated with such comparative contempt given the importance of the critical interests they attempt so valiantly to represent on very low budgets. 
The $28 million being spent on setting up and running the Families Commission is a slap in the face for families in desperate need of support right now—in May 2003. We do not know exactly what the Budget this week will bring families but from what has been made public already it is pretty clear that there will be no changes reforms or improvements to family assistance family support or benefits. Nor am I expecting any major new initiatives to allow low to medium-income families to rent or buy homes that they can afford in the districts where they live and can get jobs. A lack of decent affordable housing remains one of the biggest causes of health and educational problems for children and families. 
I am of course under no illusion about the political imperatives under which the Labour Government is operating with this bill but it is a pity nevertheless that taxpayers’ money is to be spent in a less than efficacious manner simply because of past election deals. If United Future really had families at heart there are many other ways in which it could have pushed Labour to spend this money. I hope the day will come when common sense rather than a blind commitment to a vague ideal of “family” will determine how we spend precious dollars when a third of this country’s children are still living in poverty. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Government in support of this bill. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a point raised by Sue Bradford. Imagine if this $28 million were given to the Office of the Commissioner for Children an organisation that is already acting as a strong advocate for a fair chunk of the family—that is children! By my calculation if the Commissioner for Children had that $28 million he could use it to answer at least 55000 inquiries at least 11200 in-depth inquiries. If that significant amount of money were spent on the Commissioner for Children the backlog of cases within the Department of Child Youth and Family Services which is presently an absolute disaster in this country could be wiped. 
I have sat in the House and listened to a lot of nice things being said about the family. Frankly there has been nothing said that I could disagree with. We all have families we all understand their importance and for the last 67 years families being a cornerstone of society has been a fundamental principle of the National Party. But I ask members on that side of the House what the Families Commission will do to make anything different for New Zealand families. They cannot articulate the answer in a sentence and that says to me that they are struggling to understand the function of this commission as well. 
I pay tribute to the intention of United Future members but I have to say that in their negotiations with the Government they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. The Families Commission was one of United Future’s key planks yet when we look at the actual bill we see it has been totally neutered. 
Let us discuss again the whole issue of the definition of a family. When United Future members were on the election platform they had a clear idea about what a family was but the definition in the bill refers to any group whose members have “significant psychological attachments”. Some people have those sorts of attachments to their hairdresser. Certainly when talking about “significant psychological attachments” as a method of describing the family nobody for one minute thought that that description could cover the Mongrel Mob or Black Power. I think the Devil’s Henchmen will be quite surprised to hear that they too are seen as a family in terms of this bill as are the Hell’s Angels. I do not support anything that by any stretch of the imagination could encompass a definition of family that would include gangs but at the moment from the way that this bill is worded gangs are in there and I think United Future has confirmed that yes perhaps that could be a valid interpretation. The definition could also be extended to business partnerships franchise networks and a wide range of other relationships that we have on a day-to-day basis that are not intended to be family relationships. But in terms of the definition those sorts of relationships are all in there. 
I remember reading a book when I was a child called  
Through the Looking Glass 
. There was a line in the book that said: “If you don’t know where you’re going any road will take you there.” It is going to be the same with this Families Commission. It has no idea what it stands for. I ask United Future how it can advocate for something when it is not clear what the definition of family is. At the moment every single New Zealander can be described within the definition in the bill. 
Well we already have an advocate for every single New Zealander. It is called the New Zealand Parliament. That is what we as members of Parliament are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be advocating for a wide range of people. That is why we have different parties and different policies. But that is our role. The Families Commission is never going to be able to communicate the diversity of the New Zealand population; neither should it. 
The other thing that I think has nobbled the success of this commission is the fact that it is not able to advocate on behalf of individual cases or individual families. If we look at the reason for the success of the Commissioner for Children we see that he has been able to raise a wide range of issues by bringing up individual cases. Individual cases of child abuse have been brought to the country’s attention by the commissioner talking about them—cases like that of Craig Manukau; or the significant report on James Whakaruru that was done by the Commissioner for Children; or the cases of Mereana Edmonds or Saliel Aplin. By raising individual cases the Commissioner for Children has brought to New Zealanders’ attention some very important issues. 
The Families Commission will not be able to do that because it is not allowed to talk about any individual cases or any individual situations—for example the problems that many disadvantaged families might have or the problems that families of mum dad and the kids might have or the problems that solo parent families might have. It will not be able to talk about any of those in the debate. The commission’s ability to advocate has been totally nobbled by the Minister’s definition of family. Although we can talk about that and although I suppose eventually United Future will have to come up with a different definition because it will be criticised extensively for the current one from the way in which the commission is set up it will not make one skerrick of difference to the sorts of families that Sue Bradford highlighted in her speech. 
I stood at the sideline of a schoolboy rugby game on Saturday and like Bill English I wondered what the Families Commission would do for those families. Imagine if the $28 million were spent on rugby boots and jerseys! I started to think about what else could be done with that $28 million. It could fund over 2 million calls to the Plunket Line. It could fund far more Parents as First Teachers programmes or Parenting with Confidence courses or a whole raft of other courses and support networks that are already funded and already out there within the community. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why not just give it back? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Well that is another option as well but when such a huge amount of money is put aside in the Budget I think of what other priorities could be more pressing. When the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is currently facing a backlog of unallocated cases running into the thousands—that is kids who have not even seen a social worker yet— I think frankly this funding is an absolute crime. 
It is not that the National Party is anti-family. It is always a cheap shot to say that anybody who does not support the Families Commission is somehow anti-family. I look around me and I cannot see anybody who is anti-family. I can see some people who are anti-bureaucracy anti-wastage and anti duplication of research funding. We know that the Ministry of Social Development with its hundreds of researchers already takes into account a lot of research issues that are of importance to families. 
One thing that we will be looking to do during the select committee process is see how the bill can be improved. However I am doubtful of that. From the way in which it is structured it is a recipe for disaster. If one looks at the consultation provisions one sees that the commission will be bogged down in consultation because it will have to travel the country to talk to various groups as wide-ranging as senior citizens caregivers men—interestingly enough—and women and basically the whole of the country given the various hats that we all wear. 
The last reason that this commission will be nobbled is basically the structure of the commission. The commission is set up so that it has to have regard to Government policy. It will never be in a position to criticise Government policy. It will never be in a position even to critique Government policy. The structure of the commission is not sufficiently independent for it to advocate on behalf of families or to advocate on behalf of any group for that matter. If this money is to be put into the Budget I think there are plenty of other pressing priorities that are important to families childcare being one of them. It is the bane of every working parent’s life. 
Certainly a lot of community groups that work in the area of parenting support deserve far greater support than they have received. I know that a lot of groups that work with parents will be very unnerved. They may be supportive of this measure now but when they realise that the real agenda behind it is to muscle in on a number of parenting support services that are provided by the community sector I think that will change. When people read the definition of family they will see that it is so broad that it is nebulous and so vague that the commission really will not be able to advocate for anything—that is if it can even reach agreement on a definition of family. 
Those are the main reasons why National is not supporting this bill. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Bodies can be set up to achieve something or bodies can be set up just to obfuscate and do nothing. The New South Wales Government has set up commission after commission to strike at police corruption and the New South Wales police force is still one of the most corrupt police forces in the world. So there is an example from just across the Tasman of commission after commission that never achieved any of the high-sounding goals that it set itself. But this Families Commission has been set up by three parties in this House that between them represent over 50 percent of the population. Each of those three parties went to the electorate and said that it would focus on strengthening families. 
As far as I could see so did every other party; all of them went to the electorate and said that they would strengthen families. Now we have a responsibility to say to the public that that is what we will do. At the very least one would think that those other parties that have policies to strengthen families would bite their tongue sit back and see whether this body will achieve what it says it will do and will undertake the task that it is mandated to undertake. Those parties have been in Government—particularly National and New Zealand First and ACT was an influential partner of the National Party when it was in Government—and they should be a little bit humble about their lack of achievement in this area. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I would caution them to wait. I tell Dr Smith that Napoleon had a saying—and I do not know whether it reached Nelson—“On s’engage et on s’en voit.”—“You engage and then you see.” What he was saying is that if one has a practical task one should grasp the nettle undertake the task then see whether one can achieve one’s goals. The only way to see whether the commission will be successful is to begin the process. We will always be defeated if we never take up the challenge and the challenge is to strengthen families. 
We will have to make sure—and we will be held to account if we do not—that the people we put on this particular body which will be charged with giving the Government advice are first-class. If first-class people are put on a body they do not hold back if they wish to uphold their scientific reputation or their reputation for expertise by saying that they must put up something that pleases this or that Minister. They come forward fearlessly with the research that they have undertaken and the results that have come out of it. Certainly my party the Progressives in coalition with the Labour Party want to ensure that the full-time commissioners will give us as a Government good advice. I am certain that that is the wish of the United Future party as well. [ 
Interruption 
] I have not checked the  
Hansard. 
When the Law Commission was set up I am sure there were people in Parliament saying that it was a terrible thing to set up a Law Commission and asking why we had to waste money on getting better laws. I know that I as a Minister and other members who are Ministers in this House and members on select committees have always been glad that the Law Commission has done valuable research and come up with opinions based on scientific research. It does not mean that we have to agree with what the Law Commission has proposed but at least we have a body of research that is useful. 
Further my party is looking at developing our commitment to a balance between family life and work and we want to progress such things as 4 weeks’ leave which in my humble opinion is a fundamental right of the working people of this country. I do not say that the Families Commission is charged with that at this stage but it is on issues like that that it will be able to have an influence—the balance between work and family life and actually strengthening families. So let us make sure that we can begin to progress the key institution that everybody in this House says he or she is committed to: the family. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I take this call on the bill with a huge amount of disappointment. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. New Zealand First is aware that many New Zealanders had really high hopes for this commission but with this bill their hopes are dashed. As we have all heard today strong families cannot be legislated for as is outlined in this bill. 
New Zealand First is a family-friendly party as are all the parties in this House and we recognise the importance of the early years of development and the strength of the family. New Zealand First recognised this and did something about it when it was in coalition Government by ensuring that there was free medical care for all children aged under six—something that we hear is now being gradually eroded away. We were attempting to ensure that the youngest most vulnerable members of our families were kept healthy—something that does strengthen families. New Zealand First knows the importance of the family for the development of children and believes that programmes that provide families with support and guidance to ensure a safe and healthy environment are absolutely essential for our families within New Zealand. 
Does this bill do that? No. This commission is duplication and increased bureaucracy. As has already been said a huge amount of family-focused research was undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development—a function also to be undertaken by this commission. So why duplicate this bureaucracy? The role of this Families Commission’s bureaucracy is so nebulous that it has to become all things to all people. What does that do for a Crown entity? It is easy to be a jack of all trades and master of none. That is what this commission is set up to become. 
New Zealand First believes that there should be a continuing focus on early intervention by expanding the programmes that are already in place such as Family Start Plunket and home-based support and there are many many more in the voluntary and charitable trust area. The $28 million required to establish this commission could be used to ensure that those agencies are more comprehensive in some of the services they currently offer—and very successfully too I might add. Those agencies have already proven their effectiveness. 
When we look at United Future’s election pledge we see that it stated in its pamphlet that a Families Commission would promote the status of families and the role of parents; ensure that all policy development reflected the fundamental needs of children and families; and provide a family mediation service to support promote and develop the provision of marriage and relationship-counselling services. But is marriage mentioned in this bill? There is not a mention. United Future also stated that the commission would facilitate family support and parental education classes and improve the coordination of Government departments. Well this bill fails to meet any of those pledges. It is clear that again United Future has sold out. 
There is no evidence in this bill either that the public of New Zealand have even been listened to. How often do we as parliamentarians get letters from people in New Zealand asking for help for their families from other Government agencies? The answer is regularly. Yet clause 7 of the bill states of the Families Commission: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.” So what is this commission going to do? New Zealand First questions the role of the Families Commission particularly bearing in mind that it appears to have no powers and there is no role definition. How can one advocate for something when one is not clear about what it is that one is advocating for? 
How much will we pay the chief executive officer of this bureaucracy for being the chief executive officer? Another $250000 a year? That appears to be the going rate. That is what will be required. So why not spend that money on helping families to be healthy and to get the services that they require? 
The bottom line is that in this bill we have another Government bureaucracy another Crown entity that will not ensure that our New Zealand families are any better off than they are now. That is a real shame when one considers the amount of money that is being spent on this particular commission. 
Like the Greens we are really concerned about the place on the Order Paper of the Commissioner for Children Bill. It has been there ever since Parliament began this session. We know that there will be a change of commissioner. How much impact has the bill’s languishing on the bottom of the Order Paper had on the person who is currently leaving that office? The next thing we need to ask is how much duplication there will be between the role of the Commissioner for Children and that of the Families Commission. Why do we have to spend the money twice to get the job done once? We really must question it. 
New Zealand First does not believe that this bill will work in its current form. Yet we definitely support families and everything they stand for. There is nothing that we support more than we support families. I will be most interested in the select committee process to see how this bill is modified so that we can all support it because families are something that we all support in New Zealand. But in this instance I have to say that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill at its first reading. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Families Commission Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Social Services Committee referred to the Social Services Committee 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to allow the introduction of the Commission for the Family Bill which is a member’s bill and stands in my name—and incidentally has a definition of family in it—and to have it referred to the Social Services Committee along with this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. It pleases me greatly to see this bill reach the point of becoming legislation. For those who work in resource management the changes introduced here are long overdue. Most are simple constructive changes that build upon the extensive experience of those working with the Act. Collectively these changes will result in a significant improvement in the way that the Act works. 
Most commentators readily accept that it is not the principles of the Resource Management Act that are flawed; concerns are instead about uncertainty and overly restrictive process requirements. The provisions introduced here will help to overcome those problems. They will develop increased certainty as in the clarifying of when the provisions of proposed plans will take effect. 
Changes to the provisions for national environment standards in particular signify an important change in the Government’s approach to resource management. For too long local government has struggled on its own to develop simple effective and consistent environmental controls. The new provisions make it easier for central government to become involved in this process. Using those tools we will now be more able to work closely with local government to achieve improved environmental outcomes. In the last weeks we have been working closely with the regional councils to draw up an agreed priority list as to which national environment standards to proceed with. Importantly the provisions will not override the role of local government but do allow for central government to offer more help when that is appropriate. 
The limited notification provisions are designed to reduce compliance costs and improve the processing of resource consents with minor effects on the environment. On this issue I note I have received most mail—hundreds of letters in fact. I read in this month’s  
Orchardist 
 magazine a good summary of how the limited notification provisions might apply to fruitgrowers: “If a grower needs consent to put a minor extension on a building to get approval permission is needed from all those likely to be affected such as the neighbours. 
“Under the present system if all the neighbours give their permission the consent is not likely to be publicly notified. But if one neighbour objects to the grower’s proposal the council would have no choice but to fully notify the consent. 
“With limited notification while the grower would still need to get approval for expanding the business submissions/objections wouldn’t need to be invited from people other than those directly affected such as the neighbours. This will reduce the costs to applicants as full notification including advertising in a newspaper can be an expensive task.” 
This Government recognises that alongside amendments to the legislation significant gains can also be made by working with those parties involved to improve practice. The Ministry for the Environment is working with local government business and the community to improve resource management decision-making and with the Department for Courts to improve facilities and support for the Environment Court. The Environment Court has reduced its backlog and will continue that reduction. As a consequence the threat of going to the Environment Court will be removed as a weapon of blackmail. The Ministry for the Environment is working with representatives from a wide range of groups including the New Zealand Contractors Federation Business New Zealand and Local Government New Zealand to ensure better consistency in resource consent processing council charging and hearing processes. Amendments to the law are only one way to improve the Act and we must not neglect support for the Environment Court. 
Getting the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) to this point has been no small challenge. I would like to extend my thanks to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and to the chair in particular for her and their significant efforts on the bill in both its forms—particularly when they saw some of their decisions on the first bill overturned as a result of the business compliance cost panel’s recommendations. 
Yes getting this bill to the third reading has involved refinements—for example the removal of three terms introduced by the select committee in the definition of historic heritage. I listened to the concerns raised courteously by my colleague Larry Baldock. I went back to the two ministries concerned and to some of the members of the select committee who had inserted those words in the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Amendment Bill. I judged last Wednesday that the essence of our ensuring that historic heritage was elevated to a matter of national importance—as asked for in the letter from the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage—was not weakened by the removal of those words which would have taken the courts some time to define. 
Section 6 as introduced in the original Act in 1991 reads as follows: “Matters of national importance—In achieving the purpose of this Act all persons ... shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: (a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment … (b) The protection of outstanding natural features … (c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and … indigenous fauna: (d) The maintenance … of access to … marine area lakes and rivers: (e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga.” These words have been in the Act since its introduction in 1991. I cannot recall anyone ever having asked me to take those particular words out. 
This bill in clause 4 adds to section 6 paragraph (f): “the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision use and development.” It was the definition of historic heritage that caused problems for Mr Baldock. He wanted the removal of the words “spiritual” “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes” from the definition. I judged that the words that had been added were not necessary to expedite the issue raised by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. For example a sacred site can be covered by “cultural” or “historic” or both together or even by “sites of significance to Maori including wahi tapu …” which is in the current definition of historic heritage. Therefore the Government supported Mr Baldock’s reasonable amendment. 
The Government remains committed to achieving a healthy environment for all New Zealanders now and in the future. We will continue to work alongside those implementing the Act in the courts and in the councils in order to achieve improved environmental outcomes. I make this commitment to the House: if members thought this was the end to the amendments to the Resource Management Act I can report that probably two more sets of amendments are to be developed this year. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Anybody who thinks this bill will reduce the costs the uncertainties and the delays of the Resource Management Act can only be in fairyland. That Minister who has held that portfolio now for 3½ years and who had all the hard yards around this area of difficult law done by Simon Upton bears huge responsibility for the delays in the Environment Court the delays in essential roads and the delays in essential power stations that are critical to the growth of this nation. This bill has been about poor policy and poor process. I want to take the House particularly through the fiasco over that issue of cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual values—concepts that were proposed to be put into section 6 the most critical section of the Resource Management Act—and the way in which the Minister and the Prime Minister in one of the more amusing accounts I have heard said that that was never a conscious decision. 
I ask the Minister whether when she wrote to the select committee in March 2000 it was a conscious decision to write and say that the heritage provisions should be strengthened. Was it a conscious decision when the Prime Minister wrote to the Minister for the Environment and said that she wanted the heritage definition strengthened? Was it a conscious decision of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to write a report for the committee in 2001 specifically using those terms of ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and spiritual values? If it was not conscious then what sort of Mickey Mouse process are we operating in terms of the writing of law? 
Then when members of the select committee from this Opposition side of the House said the process was dopey what did the five Labour members like David Benson-Pope and Ann Hartley do? They voted for it. Is it possible—[ 
Interruption 
]—that people vote for things unconsciously as my colleague Shane Ardern says? He was there. They seemed conscious to me although I have to say that sometimes with Government members it is difficult to determine who is conscious and who is not. 
I ask the Minister for the Environment—when she spoke to the Resource Management Law Association after the business compliance cost panel’s report that she referred to was reported —why she said she fully supported the bill as reported back from the select committee. There were letters from Business New Zealand Industry New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association—multiple letters were written to members of the select committee saying at that stage 2 years ago that those provisions would create huge uncertainties. And the Minister pretends that she did not know anything about it—garbage! That assertion does not stand up credibly. 
Then we had the Minister pull the dirtiest trick I have seen in the parliamentary process in 30 years. Rather than carrying on with the bill as it was rather than even having a debate on the 400 submissions received or rather than allowing an intelligent debate in this House on the report-back committee on those issues this Minister brings in a new bill. The new bill had a specific device to limit parliamentary debate. 
It is little wonder she is unconscious about what she is doing when she is pulling off those sorts of dirty tricks. That process of introducing a new bill that was identical to the old one was done solely for the purpose of minimising debate in this Parliament. I say to that Minister that if she did not pull dirty tricks like that in this Parliament perhaps she would not have to get up in this House and explain her way out of a hole as to how legislation in her name did not have her approval. 
I will quote what the Minister said in her press release. She said: “These words created unnecessary uncertainty.” Well why the heck did she include them in a bill in her name? The bill went to the Cabinet committee and was ticked off. I have a question for the Minister. How many other provisions in this bill did she approve of unconsciously? If this provision was unconsciously approved and will create unnecessary uncertainty how many other provisions have sneaked past her? What sort of other incompetence are we introducing on to the statute book of our country with that sort of Mickey Mouse law process? 
Even 2 days before the final reading of the Committee stage when we asked questions about the energy crisis and about what effect cultural and ancestral landscapes would have on new powers the Minister vigorously defended them and said that we were scaremongering. If we were scaremongering how come the provisions have disappeared? 
Then United Future put out a press release that said: “We have acted with complete integrity and it is a pity the other parties have not.” I have a question for Mr Baldock. Why did he vote for those provisions in the select committee? If he acts with integrity and if he has the guts to put out press releases questioning the integrity of people on this side of the House—and how dare he question our integrity—why has he done a backward flip and voted opposite to what he voted for in the select committee? I say to Mr Baldock that that is not acceptable. That is a con job and he should have a damned good look in the mirror before he starts questioning the integrity of members on this side of the House who have done their proper job in questioning legislation. 
I say to my colleagues in New Zealand First and ACT that the reason we have this change is that we collectively provided the opportunity for informed parties like the Employers and Manufacturers Association Business New Zealand members of the Resource Management Law Association and a whole range of 34 organisations to repeatedly come before our special committee because that Minister specifically moved a motion to deny the select committee the opportunity to have a say on these provisions. 
That special committee identified that as a very real problem and it is good that it is gone. I thank United Future for forcing the issue but tell its members not to question our integrity when we do our job as the Opposition in highlighting provisions that should be changed. I would go so far as to say that if the Opposition had not done its job United Future would not have found its backbone to be able to make those changes to this bill. 
This bill is a disappointment in that respect. In the original Simon Upton bill and during the Committee changes members on this side of the House raised a number of sensible proposals for the Resource Management Act. We think there are major projects that should go directly to the Environment Court. I have not yet heard a single argument at any stage in this debate as to why Government parties refuse to support that. We said we thought decisions should be made by commissioners and we moved amendments in that direction. No one put up any argument; they were simply rejected. We put up proposals to amend the definition of “environment and amenity values” because just like the heritage nonsense that has caused huge uncertainty and problems in the courts. Again that has simply been dismissed. 
We have provisions in this bill that this Parliament will live to regret. There are provisions that ban the court from providing security for costs. That was an Alliance policy—it was in Sandra Lee’s name. I do not know why United Future—let alone Labour—now sees an obligation to follow through on a policy that effectively allows people to object without any responsibility for those actions. 
I also have to draw the House’s attention to some of the other fuzzy provisions that have been endorsed in the Committee stage. The mechanism about biological diversity includes such a broad loopy definition that it will create exactly the same sorts of problems and uncertainties. Then this bill does something that we should never do—it gives responsibilities for protection of biodiversity to both district and regional councils meaning that we will see more confusion. The very thing this bill should be trying to address is the removal of confusion and this bill adds to the confusion in that regard which is a big disappointment. 
This bill matters because if we are to deal with the traffic congestion problems in Auckland we cannot wait 8 years for a resource consent for a new road. If we are going to deal with the power crisis without the lights going out and people having cold showers we need to be able to deal with consents for power stations in less than 8 years. If we are going to grow our economy and create great agricultural wealth with new water augmentation schemes like those that are required in the Hawke’s Bay and the South Island then we need to make changes to this Act that are not in this bill. 
This is a lost opportunity. Here was an opportunity for this House to make a real difference in one of the most important statutes on our book and we have flunked it because the Minister for the Environment is more interested in political correctness confusion and in providing legal aid for objectors than in providing some help for developers. It is ironic is it not that the Government wants to hand the cheque-book out to try to provide incentive for development while the developers are saying “Just remove the barriers.”? Today we are increasing those barriers and that is a big disappointment and that is why members on this side of the House say that the people of New Zealand deserve a far better improvement in the Resource Management Act than that which is included in this bill. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will begin by thanking the Minister for her speech earlier for the way in which she clearly explained the process that this bill has been going through and for her cooperation throughout that process. After 4 years this Parliament is about to pass some of the amendments to the Resource Management Act recommended by Simon Upton. This bill contains the proposals that were reviewed by the select committee after hearing submissions during 2000 and reporting back to this House in 2001. Clearly this bill is not a silver bullet to address everyone’s concerns with the operation and interpretation of the Resource Management Act. It does not contain all the amendments that every party in this House would like it to contain but that is the reality of MMP. Each party advances its programme for change in the ways that it can by participating in this great democracy we enjoy as a free nation. There are proposals that remain from the original legislation promoted by National and one would assume ACT would support those also. 
I refer members to the original Simon Upton bill and the definition of historic heritage which has become such a point of contention. If we read the bill we will discover that the wording is very very similar to what is in the bill that is now being passed through this House in its third reading. Also in 1998 the Department of Conservation historic heritage management review which was— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: A good document. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes it was given a covering letter by the Hon Nick Smith the then Minister of Conservation who endorsed that review. In its executive summary that review introduced some terminology that says: “This includes physical historical heritage resources such as historic buildings and archaeological remains and also intangible historic heritage values including Maori heritage values. It includes the ancestral landscapes of iwi hapu and whanau and wahi tapu and sites of significance to Maori.” I learnt today from the Minister’s speech that it actually went back all the way to 1991 but I begin to think that Nick Smith could be called the father of wahi tapu and that really is in contrast to what he has been doing as he has been going around the country complaining about these provisions. 
Wahi tapu provisions were introduced by National. All that ranting and raving is nothing more than political point-scoring. We respect the right of Maori to protect their wahi tapu sites. However it must be defined in a way that does not lead to confusion and expensive time-wasting court delays. 
The Green Party should support this bill. I thank the co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons for her leadership in the select committee and for her explanation by way of press release that the definitions in the questions were not specifically put in by the Greens but that does not mean that a lot of the changes made during the select committee process do not bear the stamp of the Green Party. At the very least those changes were passed by the select committee with the support of the Greens. I am quietly optimistic that even New Zealand First despite its vocal opposition to this bill may be satisfied with some of the provisions in it and will agree with it. 
Obviously the Government gets to implement more of its programmes its ideas and its policies than any other party in the House. That is naturally because its vision for New Zealand was the one that received the most support at the time of the election almost a year ago. However as a minority Government there are times when it must settle for an acceptable compromise between its policies and the policies of at least one other party in the House in order to pass legislation. When the 47th Parliament convened last year United Future made it clear to the Government that we considered the reform process of the Resource Management Act to be a priority. When it asked us for our support to pass this legislation which had been sitting on the Order Paper we gave our support. 
The Government made clear to us the changes it wished to introduce by way of Supplementary Order Paper which involved the reintroduction of limited notification the removal of appeals to the Environment Court for council decisions regarding notification and clarification of the national policy standards. At no stage subsequently—and I want to make that absolutely clear—throughout the process of discussion concerning further developments and our concerns with some aspects such as heritage matters did we withdraw or threaten to withdraw our support for this bill. 
The assumption by the  
Dominion Post  
article which stated: “The Government has been forced to drop references to ‘spiritual beliefs’ and ‘cultural and ancestral landscapes’ to win support for resource consent legislation.” could not be further from the truth and sadly reveals how deeply engrained the cynicism of our political processes is. The assumption is that there must always be the threat and counter-threat “If I give to you what do I get in return?” kind of attitude. MMP will involve negotiation. There is no doubt about that. We in United Future are here in Parliament to promote the policies we were voted in on because we believe they are good for all New Zealanders and will help build a better New Zealand for the future but we have said on a number of occasions that we will not go about that negotiation in the adversarial style of the old two-party system that New Zealand was stuck with for so many years which still hangs around this Parliament. 
Even though MMP has been our electoral system for nearly 7 years it is obvious that old habits die hard especially with some members and some political parties. The National spokesperson for the environment Dr Nick Smith approached me in the corridor outside the Chamber after the House rose for dinner last Wednesday and said he was of the opinion that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was in fact a pretty good bill except for the heritage definitions that were referred to in my amendment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not in order for the member to misquote a member and if necessary I will make a personal explanation if the member continues to distort the conversation we had. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a debating point. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: That is right. Except for the heritage definitions that were referred to in my amendment he said that it was a pretty good bill but he almost begged me to dig my toes in and force the Government to support our amendment—which of course I did not do. What happened on the following day? Did Nick Smith then begin to speak in favour of the bill after he had found that those amendments had been passed? Did he describe the bill as “pretty good”? Did he indicate that now with the removal of those controversial words and phrases from the heritage definitions National would support the bill? No he did not. We may still be waiting for the answer to that as the vote on the third reading is yet to be taken. 
I wish to make it very clear that along with my colleagues from United Future we honour the Queen’s Opposition. It plays an integral part in the upholding of democracy and there is no doubt in my mind that it has a difficult task but being the Opposition does not mean that it has to call black “white” and white “black”. It does not have to oppose everything. The voters of New Zealand chose MMP because they want to see more cross-party cooperation in Parliament. One of the most frequent comments that I hear from people about the debating in this Chamber is why can we not work together for the good of all New Zealanders on more occasions. 
In conclusion I reiterate that I honour the Opposition parties and respect their role in this House but my question to them—and in particular to Dr Nick Smith—is whether he will dishonour himself and the party that he represents by continuing to oppose this legislation which has now been amended—not as they suggest because of their pressure because they are really just trying to score points again by claiming that their pretend select committee was worthwhile. In actual fact we had already begun discussions on our concerns with the definitions with the Minister long before the rebel committee got off the ground. Again I ask whether we will see the rebirth of integrity that the leader of the National Party Bill English spoke about as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today. Nick Smith has said that this bill is basically good for the country. Will he now urge his party to support its third reading? United Future certainly does. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The United Future member who has just spoken made a point during the course of his speech about the Opposition not supporting Government amendments. Of course United Future did put up an amendment which was supported by the Opposition. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: All parties. 
DAIL JONES 
: All parties supported it. The Opposition put up amendments. How many of those did United Future support? How many Opposition amendments did United Future support? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Absolutely none! 
DAIL JONES 
: Absolutely none as far as I am aware. What a lot of humbug that speech was. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We supported United Future. Did it support the Opposition? No! There are words to describe that speech—but I will leave it alone. I have demonstrated that the member does not practise what he preaches—and he preaches a lot here and elsewhere. I feel sorry for his other congregation. 
The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced on 20 March 2003. As far as New Zealand First is concerned and I am concerned I am discussing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I am not discussing any other bill. I was not here at the time. I appreciate the work that may have gone into any other bill but I am discussing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). When that bill was introduced the previous speaker said—and I quote from the  
Hansard  
advance of 20 March 2003—talking about the bill: “For this reason today’s first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a real and much-needed breakthrough. We in United Future have made it a priority from the outset to get this much-needed reform legislation through Parliament and today our efforts have reached fruition.” I remember him saying that because he makes the same speech all the time—it is just the name of the bill that changes. 
In the particular bill he was referring to—the bill about which he said: “We ... have made it a priority from the outset to get this much-needed reform legislation through Parliament”—there was a reference to those “spiritual” things and ancestral landscapes and suchlike. He supported it. He had been working hard to get the bill through. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did he express concern about it then? 
DAIL JONES 
: I looked through his speech for concern being expressed on those issues and he said: “I am also pleased with the provisions requiring councils to take into account iwi planning documents. The smart thing for councils to do in response to this provision will be to put the details from hapu and iwi planning documents that are reasonable into their district plans.” and so on and so forth. That comes into this category. 
This bill was then sent to a select committee. As far as I am concerned that is the bill I am talking about. It was of course just a subterfuge because the whole purpose of the method in which this bill was introduced—supported strongly by United Future—was to reduce its parts which numbered about 13 to two. That is a gross constitutional distortion of the way in which Parliament should operate. United Future supported it hook line and sinker. That is the party that tries to preach to us about how things should be done and there it was curtailing and terminating the right of members to speak on that particular debate on a part-by-part—13 parts in total—basis. It cooperated in cutting those parts down to two. This is the type of United Future we have in this House today. So anyway it went to the select committee and then of course it came back from the select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did United Future vote for those provisions at the select committee? 
DAIL JONES 
: United Future must have voted for those provisions in the select committee. I have the bill as introduced and in the bill as reported back from the select committee there were no changes. References to “spiritual” and the various landscape provisions were still there. So United Future supported those provisions being introduced. In the bill on which they worked so very very hard they supported the spiritual requirement they supported the cultural landscape requirement and they supported the ancestral landscape requirement. This was after considerable consideration of the bill. 
I noted from the comment of the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark on one of the Newstalk ZB programmes that the inclusion of cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual resources in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) were changes inserted by the select committee and that “people didn’t really recall having made conscious decisions to put it in.” In actual fact these provisions were already in the bill before it went to the select committee. They were not put in by the select committee on the No. 2 bill. They were there already. 
I really think the Prime Minister has had a very unconscious moment—a total lack of consciousness—because her advisers have not even told her that these provisions were in the No. 2 bill when it went to the select committee and that when it came back from the select committee they were still in the bill. That was a real error on the part of the Prime Minister. She went out of this House today with her tail between her legs and she is still wrong because she still has not been told that as far as the No. 2 bill is concerned these provisions were in the bill before it went to the select committee and were still there when it came back. 
My major interest—and New Zealand First’s major interest—in the bill has been to try to get it before the public so that there could be submissions on it subsequent to New Zealand First—and United Future—members coming into the House. We have cooperated with the National Party and the ACT party to try to have public discussion on the bill. We in New Zealand First are indebted to Jim Peters for the time and effort he put into this legislation. He regrets that for personal reasons he is not here today but he has made a tremendous effort and given a tremendous amount of time to this legislation. 
A number of submissions were made on this bill during that process. It indicates that there was still a request by the public to have a say on this No. 2 bill. But that say was denied by United Future. It was denied of course by the minority Labour Party with whom United Future is well and truly in bed. The right for the public to have their say on this bill has been choked off completely by the attitude of United Future and the Labour Party to the legislation. We would have liked—and we want and we still require—more consultation on this measure. 
As a practising lawyer who has done a little bit of resource management work I find that this seems to be an area that every 10 or 15 years or so Parliament must have another go at. We started off in the old days with the 1955 Town and Country Planning Act. I was on a parliamentary committee in about 1978 when we redid the Town and Country Planning Act. Then the Labour Party came in Simon Upton came along and they had another go at it. Really it is the type of thing that more tinkering with does not make any better. One wonders whether New Zealand would ever have got under way if even the first Town and Country Planning Act legislation had been passed at the time. On the whole I find that the main problem with resource management legislation is often the people who administer it who are lower-level public servants who do not have the ability or—and I do not mean this in a harsh way—the courage either to make a decision because they are frightened that if they make the wrong decision they will lose their job or there will be all sorts of repercussions. 
Stephen Franks 
: That makes bad law. 
DAIL JONES 
: And that at the end of the day makes bad law. I have had experience with subdivisions. Someone gets consent for a subdivision and there are 25 provisions on it one of which states “subject to any future engineering reports”. A neighbour complains and bang! The developer has to spend another $25000 to $50000 on another engineering report and profit goes out of the window. 
One of the major areas of complaint I have with this bill which I am sure will lead to its downfall as a whole is the removal of security for costs. As a lawyer I would think that surely this would still have been a matter to be left to the discretion of the judge involved. The main criticism we make of judges in this House—I know the rules about it—is that they tend to be too soft. That tends to be the attitude judges take because as lawyers we are trained to give the individual all the protection we possibly can under our system. I have never known anyone to complain that security for costs has ever been too high. But we remove security for costs whether it is $500 $1000 or $1500 we put nothing in its place and now the same old people who delayed things prior to 1996 are really going to have a field day. They are there already. They work under the system already. If anything will delay say the diversion at Bell Block in New Plymouth or extensions to South Island roads—whether they be in Nelson or wherever—or the Auckland motorway the Orewa motorway or other extensions it will be this failure to have security for costs. New Zealand First cannot support this legislation. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support this No. 2 bill passing into law at its third reading. I was privileged to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee when it reconsidered this legislation and I think there is general agreement amongst United Future the Green Party and the Labour Party that this bill brings about some significant improvements to the Resource Management Act without undermining its underlying purpose which is to balance the interests of those who wish to utilise resources against the interests of those who wish to have a say on whether proposals should proceed. 
The main area of disagreement between United Future and Labour on the one hand and the Greens on the other hand is in the area of limited notification. I understand the concerns that were expressed by the Greens’ co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons but disagree with her outcome. I support the introduction of limited notification. I also support the other provisions that will enable the smooth operation of the Act. One of the notable failures under the original Act was that it had very complicated procedures for the introduction of national environmental standards. They were so complex that they were never implemented. Through this bill the Minister has introduced proposals that will make those mechanisms more practical so we will see national environmental standards promulgated for the first time. 
I would like to spend a little time on the extreme statements made by the Hon Nick Smith in respect of the Act and his allegations that it is behind the problems leading to our current power shortage. In his speech some 10 minutes ago he said that the Act was responsible for delays of up to 8 years in resource management projects. That is just nonsense. The  
National Business Review  
had a similar article last week stating that Business New Zealand had said that the Act was the reason for delays in the commencement of Project Aqua. Again that is absolute nonsense. In the case of Project Aqua the consent applications have not even been filed. If we have a $1.2 billion development such as Project Aqua and we cannot put it through proper scrutiny via the Act when would we ever have public scrutiny of and input into a project that has environmental effects? 
The suggestion to the contrary from the likes of Nick Smith is woolly thinking that disregards our not-so-distant history in respect of the Clyde Dam. By a governmental decision the then National Government whipped through under the National Development Act a high dam at Clyde. The eventual cost of that project was 14c per unit of electricity that was produced. In comparison if Project Aqua proceeds—and I am not saying it should but if it does—the likely cost of the electricity some 20 years later will be 4c to 6c per unit. That is about one-half to one-third of the cost of that produced by the Clyde Dam. What was seen as clever footwork on the part of the then Government to disregard the rights of individuals had the effect of escalating the cost delaying the commissioning of the project by many many years and in the process cutting across the private rights of many individuals who live along the Clutha. 
 The predecessor dam the Roxburgh Dam which is lower down on the Clutha was put in about 20 years earlier. In fact it was around the time of my birth in 1960 I think. I can say that because I was born at about the same time in the Roxburgh hospital which was there as a consequence of the dam. From 1960 until 2002 the people who were adversely affected by the Roxburgh Dam had no avenue through which to express their concerns. It was only as a consequence of the date coming up for the renewal of Contact Energy’s rights on the Clutha River that the people who were affected by flooding as a consequence of the Roxburgh Dam have had their interests taken into account. 
Finally I would like to mention the heritage protection processes. The heritage protection provisions of the bill were an area of some controversy. The Hon Nick Smith and Jim Peters made some valuable comments in the select committee. The chair Jeanette Fitzsimons took up their suggestions. She suggested that some of the parties work together to see whether some of the definition issues could be resolved. In the final event as a consequence of that process an amendment was promulgated that properly limited the definition of heritage protection. Now we are criticised for doing that. One cannot have it both ways. 
I support the legislation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I wish I could welcome the third reading of this bill and say that it is the last stage of a project I worked on intensively for a whole year from 2000 to 2001 and again intensively—on the No. 2 bill—in the last 2 months. But it is hard to get up a lot of enthusiasm about welcoming a curate’s egg—and that is what this legislation is: a curate’s egg. There are some simple constructive changes as the Minister said. I worked very hard to get them tied down and put into the No. 1 bill and I support them. But there are some other things that are not very constructive. 
One of the things that was not discussed at all during the Committee stage was what this bill does to both amend and enact the case law on the permitted baseline. The Smith Chilcott case states that only those effects that are on top of what is in the existing environment and are on top of all the permitted effects can be considered in notification decisions and consents. That as it stands is a very worrying piece of case law. The way that it is being applied is a recipe for cumulative damage. The Local Government and Environment Committee when considering the No. 1 bill put that concept in at the suggestion of the officials. The committee when looking at the No. 2 bill recognised that councils need to maintain some discretion and that there are times when simply allowing cumulative damage on the basis of something that is already out there is not appropriate. I am very pleased that our committee has given councils that discretion and I hope that they will use it wisely. 
It is good that we now have a process that will be used for national policy statements. Up until now the process was complicated and it has not been used. It is good that we have a process to develop environmental standards that cannot be overridden and lowered by councils setting a different standard. Those are both positive measures. I support the raising of the status of heritage to a matter of national importance under section 6 of the Act. That has not changed between the No. 1 bill and the No. 2 bill. 
Last week we finally learnt in the House what the deal was that encouraged the United Future members to support this bill. Up until then that had been a mystery because they did not seem to have gained anything in return. All the gains that they claimed initially for supporting the bill turned out to have been announced by the Minister before the United Future members came to Parliament. So we have been wondering what the price was. We found out last week that it was the removal of certain words to do with the definition of historic heritage. The removal of those words in the Committee of the whole House came as a big surprise. The normal way to remove unwanted words is by negotiation in the select committee—through discussion. The United Future members did not raise that matter in the select committee at all nor did they raise it in their previous speeches. It was suddenly landed on us in the House. 
I want to know who told the United Future members that the Green Party had introduced those words because that is what they said in their statement and is what they went around the gallery claiming last week. Every journalist who rang me about that matter said United Future had said the Greens had put those words in the bill. In fact those words had nothing whatever to do with the Green Party. Even the Government’s statements saying that they were introduced by the select committee is a little devious given that they were brought to the select committee when it was considering the No. 1 bill by officials of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. So the advisers to the committee had recommended those words. The committee decided to take their advice as committees often do. I did not disagree with them; I did not feel I had enough background in culture and heritage to disagree with the perception of the officials. But given that United Future was not represented on that select committee—there was only one United Future person in Parliament at that stage—the United Future members could not possibly have had any knowledge of what happened on the select committee. Who told the United Future members that it was all the fault of the Greens? 
Whatever may be the case on that matter it is clear that the Government would have had a lot less trouble on that issue had it simply been prepared to say at the beginning that it was responsible for those words. It should have said that after listening to some submissions as to what the public was saying and after talking with the United Future members and others it had decided that the words were not actually necessary and were a bit confusing so it had agreed to take them out. If the Government had said that the whole matter would have died right there. But that is not of course what happened. In fact the removal of those words will not make a lot of difference as Larry Baldock agrees and has said in the House. The matters they cover are already covered as they should be under the definition of historic heritage. If anybody thinks that by just removing a few words we can make Maori cultural aspirations go away then he or she needs to think again. Those things are part of the New Zealand community. They are part of New Zealand society and we need to take them into account. 
The overall question we have to ask in respect of this bill is how it will affect the fundamental problem of the Act: the imbalance between the developer applicants on the one hand who generally have very deep pockets paid staff and professional lawyers and who can afford to hire all the experts on a topic to give evidence for them and community groups with no previous experience of being in court on the other hand that are trying to protect their local way of life their fishing spots their landscapes and views their quiet urban streets and their undeveloped coastline. Many Resource Management Act hearings are truly David and Goliath scenes. I have been involved in them myself. Only 1 percent of applications are turned down now and less than 5 percent are notified. And let us look at what gets built. No one could seriously argue that the Act is currently protecting us against unsustainable development or the inappropriate subdivision and use of the coastal environment that it is protecting areas of significant indigenous vegetation that it is avoiding remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment or that it is protecting the needs of future generations. Yet those things are part of the Act’s purpose and principles. 
Neither this Government nor the last one nor the National Governments before that have tried to address those problems. The only problems to get airspace are those perceived to be problems by the developers who want to build more and faster with less community input. As we have just heard some think that the public should not have a say even on the diversion of two-thirds of the water in one of our last remaining braided rivers. This bill has reduced the time frames for those developers and provides streamlined processes to help them. I supported those changes because we should try to make the Act work smoothly. But what is in it for those who give up their free time for nothing and try to use the Act to protect the common good—in fact to protect the values set out in Part 2 of the Act itself? The participation of those people has been further reduced with limited notification and that has not been balanced by a process to review wrong notification decisions as proposed by Simon Upton. 
That is why we changed our vote on the bill from “abstain” to “oppose”. If the Government had needed or wanted our support for this bill it would have accepted some of the many ways we offered of obtaining the benefits of limited notification while safeguarding the matters that concerned us. But it did not do that. 
The select committee was concerned that some councils interpret the persons affected as being simply the adjoining property owners. Sometimes those people are the only persons affected and non-notification is entirely appropriate. However as I outlined previously to the House there are many cases where organisations formed to protect some aspect of the public interest whether it be historic heritage environmental values amenity values community values or Maori cultural values are affected. The committee took the trouble to express a strong view in its commentary on the bill that sometimes it is appropriate to consider those groups as persons who are affected when it stated: “We are concerned that regardless of differing views on limited notification there are some cases where neighbouring landowners should not be considered to be the only affected party. For example if biodiversity or amenity values or built heritage will be reduced—for example by removing trees from a road reserve or draining wetlands or redeveloping urban precincts—then groups representing relevant aspects of the public interest should be considered to be interested parties even where the application is not being generally notified. Some councils already have a practice of requiring consultation of such groups and we commend this practice as a guideline for consents requiring limited notification.” 
I hope that that statement by the committee will be taken into account by councils and by the courts. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. It is a good bill and I wish it a speedy passage through the House. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This will be the last time that this House considers this bill. This bill has been stalled in Parliament literally for years and it was stalled for some very sound reasons. It started with Simon Upton’s review of just what was going wrong with the Act. In the bill as introduced there were a number of tinkering changes to remove opportunities for people essentially to rob their neighbours to extract gains from property they had never owned and to ensure that changes could not happen. It did not go very far—National did not push the legislation through when it could have and there was a change of Government. We saw the chairman of the select committee from the Green Party take charge and assert the dominant influence. The consequences were a number of changes that the Labour Government plainly did not wish to see enacted. Because it had 3 years to push the bill through it did not do it. It did not want to have an outright confrontation with its then undying Green supporters. 
We get to this year and we find that Labour has some new poodles. Labour has a new party that it can rely on to push through unpalatable and damaging legislation. That brings us to this afternoon—the United Future afternoon in this House. We began with the Families Commission the new body that will cost $28 million and employ a whole lot of spiky-haired very predictable opponents and enemies of the family—$28 million to subsidise them to attack any family that consists of mum dad and the kids. 
We then moved on to the next part of United Future’s grand afternoon in Parliament—the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). Before we get to United Future’s responsibility I will go through just what is wrong with the bill. Firstly it does not acknowledge that the Resource Management Act is simply bad law. Every apologist in this House and elsewhere keeps saying that it is not bad law; it is just that people do not apply it right. Implicitly they are criticising every council and council officer in this country. Most of the citizens of this country would take advantage or disadvantage of this law. It would not be bad law if only they were not human. When we get a law like this one that constantly sets people at each other’s throats constantly wastes money and constantly holds things up it is not that people are not good enough for the law it is that the law is not good enough for people. It does not reflect human realities. That is what is wrong with the Resource Management Act. 
A very simple and straightforward reform which United Future might have been expected to support or even to think of had it truly wanted to do what it said—and what is best for New Zealand—would have been to provide that when people use this Act to shift value from their neighbours’ land to themselves those neighbours should be compensated. When land is taken by regulation and people are no longer able to use it because it has been designated a significant natural area a heritage area or has an area of “indigenous biological diversity”—in effect turning their land into a reserve for the benefit of their neighbours—those neighbours should share the cost. It is a simple change but nowhere do we see anything like that in this amendment. 
What do we see? We see the creation of new stand-over rights. Historic heritage areas are now “matters of national importance”. That means that local authorities cannot decide whether an area is of sufficient importance to them to override property rights or development prospects; instead it is now an area of “national importance”. What does that mean? It means that “inappropriate subdivision use and development” cannot occur. What is a word like “inappropriate” doing in the law of New Zealand? That is not law; it is simply giving unbridled discretion to a lot of petty local tyrants. 
What else does this bill do? Simon Upton’s proposal that commissioners sit on hearings instead of interested local politicians who will obviously pander to votes is not there. That was a very straightforward solution and it did not take the power away from local communities. Through their politicians they could set the scheme design and terms of resource management plans. Instead that proposal was dropped. As I said it brings in the notion that if there is an area of “indigenous biological diversity” on people’s property—I think there is a simple translation of that: it means native plants and animals—they might not be able to subdivide it. A very noble objective of course! We can see why United Future thought it was a good idea. If its approach to the way humans act is right there might be more “indigenous biological diversity”. 
What actually happens? Humans are sensible. If there is an area of “indigenous biological diversity” on their land they will squash it crush it or make it have accidental fires. They will make sure that if they come across something that has heritage value it will not be there by the time someone is around to pimp on them. In other words what New Zealand loses from this kind of law which is hostile to the way humans actually act is “indigenous biological diversity”—unless people are unlucky enough to have it in such a prominent form that their local authority already knows about it. 
What else have United Future and Labour done? They have left “amenity values”. No one can ever define what “amenity values” are. They have reinstated the restriction on courts requiring security for costs to make sure that people who are exploiting their rights under this bill can be required to pay if they lose—in other words that if people are wrong and have held their neighbours up held up development or held up the community they have to take into account that they might at least be paying for the proceedings even if that does not pay for the real cost of their disruption. 
Why did I say that this was the United Future bill? United Future members have claimed credit for removing two features of the heritage provision—that is the dropping of protection for something called “ancestral landscapes” and “cultural landscapes”. They have claimed enormous credit for that. I was a little undermined this afternoon when the Minister said that did not really matter because the issue was already covered by “wahi tapu” and “areas of significance to Maori”. It was quite plain that it had just been a smokescreen. In other words we had been through 2 years of charade using terms that no one could define—that is “ancestral landscapes” and “cultural landscapes”. They were simply lying words for sucking up to any self-appointed spokespeople for Maori groups. 
 Does it do Maori any good? It is Maori who suffer from the Resource Management Act as much as anyone. Does it do their relations with their neighbours any good when their genuine spiritual or cultural concerns are seen to be simply a licence to extort money? Does it do the environment any good when it is seen that those deep values can be converted to money as simply and effectively as getting a letter signed to withdraw an objection? Does it do respect for the law any good? Does it do any New Zealander any good? 
Yet Mr Baldock had the gall to stand here in this Parliament and accuse National ACT and New Zealand First—who ran the process that resulted in the removal of those terms and should have resulted in the removal of wahi tapu as well; that resulted in the redefining of the term so that it related to anyone’s cemetery and anyone’s area of serious cultural and spiritual concern—of not acting in the interests of New Zealanders because they pointed out that that very late withdrawal occurred after National New Zealand First and ACT had held their own select committee hearings and it had become plain that the issue was going to be a political liability. 
In other words the United Future party—which says that we should get used to the reality of MMP which says it votes for what is good for the country—suddenly decided what was good for the country only after it had become very plain that there was a serious political disadvantage to United Future. Why did they not go for the rest of the bill? 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Today is a very sad day for this Parliament. We are dealing with legislation that—as the last speaker Stephen Franks said—has been sitting around in this Parliament now for something like 12 years since it was first decided that amendments needed to take place. Its genesis was two Labour Governments ago—back in the late 1980s. It was introduced at Simon Upton’s direction in 1991 and within a very short time of the Act being passed it was realised that change needed to take place and that amendments were needed. A very lengthy process headed up by Owen McShane ended with a bill being proposed in late 1999 that would have fixed a lot of what was wrong with the original Act. At the time it was a great piece of academic thinking. It was described at that stage as a world-class piece of environmental law but it was tried out in the electorate at large and found to be substantially wanting. It came through that process and by 1999 was ready for amendment. What happened? The Government changed. We got a socialist Government propped up by the Greens that decided that the only way to run the country was through some kind of bureaucratic red-tape regulatory environment that will never work. It never has and it never will. 
What have we finished up with here now? We have ended up with a Minister putting a red pen through all the recommendations that were brought forward—the whole 16 of them—and a lengthy select committee process with 400 submissions and 80 hours of select committee work. People listening to Parliament would have no understanding of the amount of cost effort reading and submission work that goes into 400 submissions and 80 hours of select committee sittings and—at the taxpayer’s expense—visits to seven cities. The Minister then turned round and said that she was going to totally reject all that was put forward by those submitters. So in the forty-seventh Parliament we finish up in a situation where the Minister for the Environment has looked at all of that and decided that none of it is going into this piece of legislation. 
The bill had 18 parts and it has been brought down to two parts. That is an absolute abuse of the parliamentary system and the way that legislation should take place. This bill is being rushed through Parliament without proper or sensible scrutiny and debate. That is the reason that in the last few days we have seen the Government do an absolute U-turn and capitulate over the proposal that it brought forward with regard to “ancestral landscapes” and “cultural landscapes” and other significantly important places in the view of those who have that ”touch-feely” politically correct approach. 
What should be in this legislation? What would National members do if we could change this bill? Let me make it absolutely clear that on becoming the Government at the next election those amendments will take place—it will be a No. 1 priority. National will put in place direct referral to the Environment Court where that is the sensible thing to do. We will reintroduce standing which the Government has taken out. We will clarify the rules between district and regional councils. At the moment regional councils and district councils in the same area have different rules. There is total duplication in terms of what they are supposed to do. When people in the Taranaki – King Country want to build a cowshed a woolshed a woodshed or a chook-house—anything at all—they have to go to the regional council first then to the district council— 
John Carter 
: For a chook-house? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes to be legal they do. They have to have a building consent and an environmental consent for things like a chook-house for goodness’ sake! The inconsistency they get from the seven local councils and three regional councils in my electorate is unbelievable. The cost that applies to the process is unbelievable also. It delays the construction of whatever it is that one wants to go ahead with. It holds back development and drives major investors out of the area—offshore—at a time when the energy industry in the Taranaki electorate is desperate for further exploration. People are held up in environmental consent processes for years trying to find out whether they can move forward or whether they should even bother doing so. 
Under National there will be greater use of commissioners. That is a new initiative which was not in the original legislation and it has a certain consistency about it in that it will certainly speed up the process. There will be consultation with landowners. There will be a proper dialogue with the people who are likely to be affected. At the moment we have the bizarre situation where everybody else can have a say on what is likely to happen with regard to a development but the landowners themselves might not necessarily know that that process is going on. Do Government members opposite understand that that is actually going on? I doubt if they do. I doubt whether those who were on the select committee had any idea about that. 
We will put measures in place to tighten up applicants’ rights to refuse further information requests. At the moment there is a bizarre set of rules around who is entitled to know what is going on and that needs to be absolutely tightened up. National will repeal the treaty clause and spiritual references. As has been stated there has been a bit of toing and froing and changing and deals done between United Future and the Government on that. 
It is interesting to note that the United Future party which campaigned up and down the country before the last election on what it was going to do to cut red tape out of business development and to strengthen family-type values has today given its vote—or will have when this bill is voted on—to two pieces of legislation that have the exact opposite effect to what it campaigned on. That is a very interesting development and I wonder whether those out there who supported the United Future party are aware of that. Believe me by the next election they will be. The effects of some of these changes will then have become clear and those people will know what they actually voted for—it was not what they expected to get by a long shot. 
 We will narrow the definition of environmental and amenity values because at the moment nobody can really say what that means. 
Hon Member 
: What about compensation? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Compensation which is often trumpeted by the ACT party as being the way to move forward has merit in some places. As a bland statement one would be very hard pushed to say that there should be compensation for everything that happens under the Resource Management Act. Certainly it is an idea worth consideration and certainly it is something that National would consider. 
We will reduce consents category types which are another major barrier to moving forward under this legislation. Without doubt the Resource Management Act in its present form is the biggest barrier to growth in this country and the biggest cost in terms of compliance red tape and regulation. It is the biggest cost barrier to development in all sorts of things including roading in Auckland at the moment. A syndicate of Auckland mayors spoke to the Government and Bob Harvey was included in that group. None other than Bob Harvey the former Labour Party president told this Government that the Resource Management Act—not money as the Government would have us believe—is the single greatest barrier to the development of roading infrastructure in the major metropolitan area of Auckland. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: He did not say that. Absolute nonsense! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues on the other side of the House says that is not so. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to start my contribution to this debate by offering my congratulations to my colleague Nick Smith for three reasons. The first reason is that an Opposition member knows when he or she is being an effective Opposition spokesperson and Nick Smith certainly is—not just on education but also on the environment. The test is that every time a Government member gets up and bags an Opposition member—and certainly every Government member who rose today bagged Nick Smith—it means he or she is being an effective member of the Opposition. We have the score card here. One speaker another tick there; bang another tick against Nick Smith—he is doing a good job; I congratulate him. 
I turn to the second reason I want to congratulate Nick Smith. The Government put this legislation through but did it bother to consult the public at all? No. So who decided along with support from New Zealand First and ACT to run a select committee? It was Nick Smith. Who chaired the select committee along with the support of New Zealand First and ACT? It was Nick Smith. Who got submissions from the public; who was interested enough to ask the public to make comments on this legislation? It was Nick Smith and I congratulate him. Congratulations also to New Zealand First and to ACT and to the members who bothered to consult the public. 
One of the things that happened which is so important with this sort of legislation was that it gave the public the opportunity to have an input. Boy did we not learn a lot of things about this bill! Did we not learn most of all that most submitters on the bill said that this is going to be a backward step for us in this country. Indeed it will prove to be so. I congratulate Nick Smith on point two. 
Point three—what about Thursday? What happened in this House in the Committee stage on the bill on Thursday? We were going through the votes. All of a sudden there was a change. A Supplementary Order Paper was put in which said to take out cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual issues. I thought: “Oh well we’ll vote for that.” and we did. But bless my soul so did Labour. I could not believe it. I thought: “Hang on—no I am conscious; this is not a dream. I am not unconscious. This is real.” I was conscious at the time. In fact I was so conscious I got up and went over to the official and said: “Excuse me can you confirm for me what I think I voted on which the Labour Party voted on as well?”. The official said: “Yes that means they’re gone.” 
I got on the phone because Nick Smith was at home celebrating his son’s birthday which happened to be the same day as my birthday. I say congratulations to Nick Smith for having his son born on a very good day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I should have called him John. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member should have called him John. I called him and said: “Congratulations Nick you and your team those who were interested enough to consult the public who were told so much about this have actually won the day. You’ve got to the stage where the Government has backed off and taken out those nasty words ‘cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual landscapes’. I have to say congratulations.” 
But what is important about it is that we were conscious enough to know that it happened. That is the important point. In that sense we need to go through just a little bit of history as to how we got those sorts of things into the legislation. We need to go back to about 23 March 2000 when Marian Hobbs wrote to the Local Government and Environment Committee outlining some expectations as to changes. Of course we now know that she was unconscious when she wrote the letter but that is OK. She wrote to the committee on 23 March and said: “Here are a few changes that we recommend.” Then goodness gracious me on 5 April there was a letter from Helen Clark to Marian Hobbs asking that she write to the select committee recommending that the heritage provisions be strengthened from Simon Upton’s original amendment bill. 
Dail Jones 
: Helen Clark? That Helen Clark? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Prime Minister Helen Clark—not the hockey goalkeeper no. I am sure the hockey goalkeeper would not have wanted it. The Prime Minister Helen Clark wrote to the Minister Marian Hobbs and said: “Here are some suggestions. Make some recommended changes.” Well of course we have now learnt that she wrote that letter when she was unconscious. She would not have done it if she had been conscious. 
Here is the next thing. Mid-2000 the Ministry for Culture and Heritage made a submission. Who is the Minister in charge of these people? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Helen Clark. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh Helen Clark—the Prime Minister Helen Clark. The ministry submitted: “The Minister fully supports the inclusion of these clauses in the bill that are considered to strengthen the existing provisions in the Resource Management Act.” Bless my soul. Goodness gracious. I had better hurry or I am going to run out of time. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage submitted a further report requesting the inclusion of specific words—the inclusion of wahi tapu and ancestral landscapes. But of course they were conscious when they did this—members have to understand. Then in September 2000 the Ministry for the Environment submitted a report stating: “You also have to include reference to ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and spiritual qualities.”—all of the time while it was conscious. Can members believe that? 
Here is the next thing. On 2 May the select committee decided to amend the bill. Those members were all conscious. The five members of the select committee were Labour including the Government senior whip. He was conscious when he did it. He has put up his hand; he admits it. That amendment was made. Then of course during the Committee stage Labour amended the definition. We then have the issue on 12 May where the Prime Minister said that there had been no conscious decision. So we can only assume that all these things happened in a state of unconsciousness. Bless my soul! How silly is that? No one believes it. [ 
Interruption 
] Is that not the worry? I wonder whether the issue relating to Al Gore was when she was unconscious maybe? We do not know. The point is that we know that this was a decision made by the Government and one that Nick Smith and the people who are with him from New Zealand First and ACT can take a lot of credit for. The bill will be the better for it but nevertheless the bill is probably still a backward step. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9. 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 In response to a question relating to changes to the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Bill I stated that “I personally have no recollection of either MPs or officials drawing my attention to them at the time.” Later in response to a supplementary question I stated that “I can find no evidence whatsoever that my permission as Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage was ever sought by officials on that matter.” I made those statements on the basis of my own recollections and a thorough perusal of the official files relating to the matter that my office had requested the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to forward to me yesterday in their entirety. The files forwarded contained no references whatsoever to the wording changes referred to. 
This evening a further document from the ministry was drawn to my attention. This was a briefing from the ministry dated 2½ years ago in September 2000 that sought my approval for the content and recommendations of the historic heritage provisions in the draft officials report to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. That briefing did contain reference to the proposal to include references to cultural and ancestral landscapes and to spiritual values. It is clear I signed off that report. While I stand by my earlier statement that I had no recollection of that brief I had no intention of misleading the House and apologise if that was the effect of my answers. 
Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development)) 
: 
 I move  
That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that this bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration with an instruction that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and can meet during the evening on the day on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Order 193 and Standing Order 196(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 13 August 2003. 
This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngati Tama in Taranaki. Na reira Ngati Tama tena koutou. One of the eight iwi of the region Ngati Tama is located in northern Taranaki and has about 900 members. The bill settles all of Ngati Tama’s historical Taranaki claims. It is the second Taranaki claims bill introduced by this Government. The historical claims of Ngati Tama relate mainly to the Crown’s waging of war in Taranaki in the 1860s and the associated confiscation of about 30000 hectares of Ngati Tama’s land. The claim also relates to the Crown’s unconscionable actions in its dealings with the Parihaka community and the inadequacy of the west coast reserves. This bill contains a formal apology to Ngati Tama to their ancestors and descendants and to all the hapu of Ngati Tama for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown. 
The mainly 19th century historical claims of Ngati Tama were heard by the Waitangi Tribunal between 1990 and 1995 together with other Taranaki claims. In 1996 the tribunal issued an interim report giving its preliminary views on the Taranaki claims. The tribunal stated that “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori to restore the honour of the Government to ensure cultural survival and to re-establish effective interaction between the treaty partners.” 
In November 1996 the previous Government recognised the mandate of the Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust to represent Ngati Tama in negotiations. In September 1999 the Crown and the development trust reached a heads of agreement that recorded that in principle Ngati Tama and the Crown were willing to settle the Ngati Tama historical claims in Taranaki. In December 2001 the Crown and Ngati Tama signed a deed of settlement. A representative transparent and accountable governance entity to receive the settlement assets was established in January this year. For the purposes of providing redress a distinction was made in the heads of agreement between the Ngati Tama area north of the confiscation line and the area subject to an overlapping claim by Ngati Maniapoto north of the confiscation line. Redress offered to Ngati Tama was made subject to the resolution of Ngati Maniapoto overlapping interests to the satisfaction of the Crown. However Ngati Maniapoto believed that the Ngati Tama settlement would compromise their future treaty settlements and lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal. This opposition led to mediation that was unsuccessful. 
The Crown commissioned independent research to clarify the customary associations of both iwi to the specific sites proposed for the transfer to Ngati Tama. As a result of that research the Crown revised its settlement offer to Ngati Tama. The revised offer still contained exclusive redress to Ngati Tama and the overlapping claim area although less than originally proposed. Ngati Maniapoto sought and was granted an urgent hearing before the Waitangi Tribunal. In its subsequent report the tribunal found that no breach of the treaty would occur if the revised settlement proceeded and believed that the Crown had exercised sufficient caution in addressing the overlapping claim issues. The tribunal also endorsed the Crown’s approach to addressing overlapping claimant interests in the context of the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims. 
Many people deserve acknowledgment in regard to this settlement. I acknowledge those who suffered the breaches with the treaty and those who carried the grievances and who are no longer with us. I thank the Ngati Tama negotiators who have been a constructive and conscientious group to work with. Our goal is to ensure that settlements resolve grievances of the past. The bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and Ngati Tama into the future. 
I acknowledge the work done by former Ministers of Treaty Negotiations and Maori Affairs who contributed to this settlement. I also thank the other Ministers and departments involved and in particular the Minister of Conservation who has supported the process throughout. I thank the Office of Treaty Settlements for the work done in seeking a just and fair settlement. As New Zealanders we can be proud that real and significant grievances are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. 
The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by the bill and has negotiated with the interests of the taxpayer in mind. It is not possible to compensate Ngati Tama fully for all of the prejudice and loss they have suffered. Settlements must be balanced with other commitments of the Government. I congratulate Ngati Tama on negotiating on that basis and with reasonable regard to the interest of New Zealand society as a whole. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense for losses there could be no settlements and therefore no resolution of the historical grievances affecting claimant communities. The negotiators for Ngati Tama have agreed to a settlement package that includes a Crown apology for the Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles financial redress of $14.5 million the vesting of five cultural redress properties a statutory acknowledgement of the special association of Ngati Tama with 11 statutory areas an acknowledgment of the special association of Ngati Tama with particular coastal areas the right of first refusal over an amount of quota for certain shellfish species and an acknowledgment of the special association of Ngati Tama with certain indigenous species. As a consequence the bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all of the Taranaki historical claims of Ngati Tama. 
Finally I acknowledge the kaumatua members and negotiators of Ngati Tama whose commitment on behalf of their people ancestors and descendants has led to this historic event and contributed to the restoration of the integrity of the Crown. Na reira Ngati Tama ka nui te mihi ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise to the first reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill and I want to pay tribute to those who have come here tonight representing the maunga Taranaki. Nga mihi ki a koutou ki te maunga o Taranaki mai i Tongariro te whare o te Heuheu tena koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you from the mountain of Tongariro and the household of te Heuheu Taranaki mountain 
.] 
I always think it is a proud moment for this House when a settlement bill comes to finality after years of negotiation between the Government and the people involved and which we as parliamentarians can commit to and ensure its passage through this Parliament. 
The Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill is no different. I was pleased to rise to the third reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill and it is pleasing to see the second of the Taranaki claims now before us in this House. I say that because as Minister Turia just recounted the claims of the Taranaki people were heard in the mid-1990s and the report issued has been with us for some years now. Although we know that settlements are complicated matters and take time to conclude none the less it is pleasing to see the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill come close upon the heels of the Ngati Ruanui claims settlement legislation. 
It is pleasing also from my point of view because the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham began negotiating this settlement—[ 
Interruption 
] Madam Chair there is some talk across the House and it is a bit distracting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is too much chatter and would the member please be seated. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It is distracting; our people are in the gallery and I would like to think they are able to hear what is said—not just what I am saying but all of us who take part in this debate tonight. 
Ngati Tama from Taranaki are one of the eight iwi from that area whose claims were investigated and reported on by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1996. The general background to these claims are the Taranaki land wars of the 1860s; the loss of lives and destruction of property; land confiscations and the sacking of Parihaka; and the imprisonment without just cause or in some cases without trial of the tupuna of these people who are here in this Chamber tonight and their imprisonment in caves in Dunedin where some of them were left to die. That is a blight on this country’s history and it is a blight which the sooner it is removed the sooner we can say that there is one standard of citizenship in this country and we can all go forward together as one nation many peoples with shared values. Because there is no doubt that the values that New Zealanders share are the same for Maori Pakeha Chinese Indian and all of us. We all share the same values. That is the wider background against which these claims are being settled. That is why it is so important that this Parliament works to ensure that the historic grievances that are part of our history—our shared history—are dealt with addressed in the most just way that we can find and are put behind us. Because we are one nation and we all do want to make a worthwhile contribution. From the point of view of Ngati Tama this is their chance to get on with their future which after all is the future of all of us. 
Following the tribunal’s report the National Government and Ngati Tama commenced negotiations in 1996 culminating in the signing of a heads of agreement in September 1999. I was privileged to be an Associate Minister to Doug Graham when that signing took place. The settlement offer has since been ratified by the majority of Ngati Tama and we were given the figure of 98 percent which is pleasing. In December 2001 the parties entered into a deed of settlement. The key elements of this settlement package are those elements that were developed by the National Government under the leadership of Sir Douglas Graham acknowledging what happened in the past together with a formal apology. 
That apology of course—and I have said this before and I will say it again—will be a huge matter for the people of Ngati Tama. It proved to be so in the settlements that have been concluded in the past and it is the case here as well. There is financial and commercial redress and a right of first refusal over certain Crown-owned properties; the vesting of cultural redress properties deeds of recognition and statutory acknowledgments; an acknowledgment of Ngati Tama’s associations in the area; protocols for engagement with Crown agencies; and undertakings in relation to fish and coastal tendering. Those appear to be some of the main elements of this settlement. 
The bill provides for the final settlement of all Ngati Tama historical claims releases and discharges the Crown from all obligations and liabilities in respect of them and removes the jurisdiction of the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. Provision is also made for the removal of resumptive memorials on State-owned enterprise land and private land. 
National is pleased to support this bill to the Maori Affairs Committee. Although we have a job to scrutinise this legislation of course the committee’s role is fairly limited. But I am certain that we will address that task in the way we have in previous settlements and in time hopefully sooner rather than later we will see the passage of this settlement into law. 
Settlements of course are only a beginning and I think I said this last week in relation to the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement legislation; they put the parties back to where they were when certain undertakings were given and they give both sides of this agreement—that is Ngati Tama and the Crown—the opportunity to reconcile their past and the opportunity for both to go forward together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual and shared obligations. 
I am certain that is what Ngati Tama want. I congratulate them on working hard because it does take commitment and hard work and it takes true leadership in my view to finally commit one’s people to these settlements. Sometimes I think some leaders tend to show an approach that says: well maybe we will just hang on here. But as I say I think it takes true leadership to finally come to an agreement and decide on behalf of one’s people to go forward together. 
The other point that might be of some value is that the protection of land and other resources is a guarantee for the protection of something more. Those are the economic social and cultural underpinnings of a once proud people who sought protection for their identity the right to live and go forward as people of Ngati Tama and for the opportunity to exercise their mana—their rangatiratanga—in respect of themselves and all those things that they hold dear. 
I congratulate Ngati Tama and I also commend the Crown and the Minister on bringing this settlement to the House so closely upon the previous Taranaki settlement and I commend all members in this Parliament to let us work together to ensure swift passage of this legislation into law. No reira tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the representatives from Ngati Tama in the Chamber tonight. Kia ora tatou. United Future members and I welcome this bill which I note is the third bill of treaty settlements that we have had in this House in the past 12 months with the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill going through all three stages and the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill also going through three stages. That is very welcome to see. It is a credit to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and in particular to the new procedures that have been implemented by the Government—especially the Gisborne claims inquiry process that has been experimented with—and the Office of Treaty Settlements claims development team. 
The Government I note indicated that it was optimistic about getting two bills per year through so I would like to think that the fact we are on our third bill already owes some credit to United Future’s endeavouring to try to speed up the process. We certainly have been pushing very hard to try to speed up the process and as this House knows it was through our party’s request that the second reading and Committee stage of Ngati Ruanui’s bill went through urgency so that we succeeded in getting that bill through quickly. 
The Waitangi Tribunal has indicated that it expects its members to finish their work subject to resources by 2011. It would be extremely pleasing to see that we could get all of the tribunal’s historical claims out of the way by then. I would like to try to encourage the Government to aim for a date of 2015 to have at least 90 percent of the settlements through bearing in mind that there may be 10 percent of claims that it cannot get through because of matters outside its own control. But more can be done by the Government and United Future continues to push for more to be done to speed up the process. 
In particular with the Office of Treaty Settlements I have been delighted to see the work of the claims development team and commend it on the assistance it has given in respect of this bill to get the bill to this stage. It concerns me that that team appears to be reactive rather than proactive and I believe that it—and claims development teams generally—could do a lot more to try to assist iwi to get to a point where their legislation can be brought into this House and passed. They should in my view be going out to all iwi to inform them fully of the situation to give them advice and assistance on a direct consultative individual basis and to follow them up on progress—not in a pushy way but by way of helpfulness including assisting iwi to meet mandating requirements. 
But in order for that to happen to all iwi more funding needs to be given to the Office of Treaty Settlements. United Future has been pushing this Government and will continue to push it to provide greater resources to the Office of Treaty Settlements to enable that to be expanded. We sincerely hope that as we look towards the Budget our pleas effectively will not have fallen on deaf ears. Based on the excellent relationship we have between United Future and the Labour Party then I would hope it has heard us. 
The Waitangi Tribunal too has played a major part in getting this bill resolved but again in assessing claims and in drawing conclusions on the evidence about the legitimacy of grievances and the extent of harm done the tribunal has been poorly resourced. The very limited funding provided to the tribunal for research that it can pass on to people means that it is now in a normal state of putting people off from applying for its funding. There is a shortage of report writers. The new approach inquiry process that has come out has indicated that more resourcing effectively is necessary and even for that pilot project to be in operation it required almost all of the research resources of the tribunal to be directed towards one series of claims: namely the Gisborne ones. However United Future continues to push and has been pushing the Government for greater resources to be made available for the Waitangi Tribunal to enable it to carry out more case management work to enable more research to be done and to obtain the extra staffing necessary to do that. Hopefully I would like to see more bills like this one coming before the House so that in the next year we are not talking about three bills but about five or six bills coming to pass through this House. 
In the Department of Courts assessment of the new-approach inquiry process of the Waitangi Tribunal report it talks about the dramatic time compression of the process that has been involved in cutting back the average inquiry time by something like 3 years or more through using the Gisborne pilot project process. The new approach with its planned further refinements and a greater level of Government resourcing for all Crown-sector agencies involved would allow that deadline the tribunal has set for itself of 2010 to 2011 for the completion of historical claims to be achievable. But it does take more resourcing. 
I note that the Department of Courts assessment of the new approach says in summary that the new approach provides a more efficient and effective inquiry forum for claimants compresses the inquiry time frames by up to 4 years and prepares a speedier passage for claimants to negotiate with the Crown. It states: “These nationally important benefits outweigh the challenge posed to the Government in meeting the higher financial and resourcing costs required to complete historical inquiries under the new approach. It should be a priority” it says “that the grievances of the past are addressed with integrity so that the nation can move on and both Treaty of Waitangi partners can be allowed to reach their full potential.” 
Except for the comment about partners which I think needs further refinement I totally agree with those comments. But the specific path of Ngati Tama’s claims unfortunately demonstrates the tardiness on the part of both National and Labour up to date in terms of this process. I note that the Waitangi Tribunal investigated 21 claims in Taranaki in the 5-year process of 1990 to 1995. They started 13 years ago. An interim report was produced in 1996. The Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust in November 1996 and then came a process of 4½ years after that before we got to the point when there was a deed of settlement signed. Negotiations began in April 1997 a heads of agreement was reached in September 1999—that took 2½ years—and it was a further 2 years before the deed of settlement was signed. I can only think that if there had been claims development teams operating from the earlier part of those negotiations then we could have moved the settlement further forward at a lot greater pace. 
I note that the ratification of the agreement happened in December 2002 and the governance entity was established in January 2003—only a month later. The bill has been introduced in April and that 3-month time frame is commendable. It suggests perhaps that we are indeed at last moving a little bit faster between the time the deeds of settlement are signed and the time legislation comes to this House. 
I want to congratulate Ngati Tama and Greg White who led the Claim Progression Team in the achievement they have reached. United Future of course supports the passage of this bill. We are committed as we were with Ngati Ruanui to ensuring that this bill progresses speedily to its third reading and I look forward to further opportunities to talk on and debate that issue as the bill progresses. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
:  
Te mea tuatahi maku me mihi atu ki nga manuhiri Ngati Tama tena koutou i tae mai nei i tenei po ki te whakarongo i nga korero e whakawhitiwhiti ana i roto i tenei Whare. No reira nau mai haere mai haere mai. I welcome the people of Ngati Tama who have come to listen to this bill being discussed in the House tonight. We hope that they will go away with positive thoughts about what is being discussed this evening. 
New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee. It settles the claim that Ngati Tama made to the Waitangi Tribunal under section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. In November 1996 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngati Tama Iwi Development Trust to represent Ngati Tama in negotiations. In 1997 the mandated representatives and the Crown entered into terms of negotiation to specify the scope objectives and general procedure for the negotiations. New Zealand First is of the mind that this bill should move forward as quickly as possible to its next stage taking into consideration the time factors and constraints. 
We support this bill having the attention that is necessary for its final conclusion to be expedited. That includes Ngati Tama’s traditional historical and cultural associations with places and sites owned by the Crown within its area of interest. It would be difficult to assess the redress for the loss and prejudice suffered by Ngati Tama as a result of the events on which its historical claims are or could be based. Taking all matters into consideration the settlement is fair in the circumstances. 
New Zealand First supports this bill and looks forward to it having an unhindered pathway to the select committee stage. We recognise that protocols with the Ministry of Fisheries the Department of Conservation and other departments will be or are to be established and we hope that those who will hold that mantle will not only be considerate of iwi but will also encourage a memorandum of understanding with councils so as to further the progress of positive involvement. 
I say to the people of Ngati Tama that we understand their hardships and the historical hurts that have broken their hearts but I think that with their intestinal fortitude they will change the negatives into positives not forgetting those who stood up for them but honouring those people by fulfilling their dreams and making things happen. The Crown’s apology to Ngati Tama covers the wars in Taranaki land confiscation reserve lands and perpetual leases Parihaka and the cumulative impact on Ngati Tama of events that left iwi virtually landless. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee and encourages all in the House to support it. That leaves me with only one query: how long will it take before the recipients of the Ngati Tama settlement see the day on which this legislation comes to fruition? New Zealand First is brief in its support for this bill but we have emphasised the points that are important for all of us here tonight and especially for the Ngati Tama recipients of this settlement. Koutou nga uri nga hekenga o nga kawaitanga o Ngati Tama e hari e koa ana te ngakau na te mea kei muri i a matau i tenei po tenei pire. No reira e tautoko ana matou ki nga korero kua puta atu i runga i roto i tenei Whare i tenei po. New Zealand First supports this bill. We are happy that Ngati Tama is here to hear the words that will be spoken for and maybe against the bill. We pray that those members who are here will support this bill going to the select committee so that Ngati Tama’s requests and the points it has negotiated will go further into making its day and towards bringing the mana back to its people.  
No reira ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou E hari koa ana te ngakau kua tae mai nei matou katoa i roto i tenei o tatou Whare. We greet Ngati Tama. We are happy to be part and parcel of this bill so that it can move ahead without Ngati Tama having to wait as other iwi have for many many years. I am happy that those of us in this House who support this bill are of the same thought which is that our people should be settled so that they can go ahead and do the things they need to do. I am thankful for this opportunity to express the thoughts of New Zealand First. We hope it will not be too long in the future before this legislation comes to fruition for the betterment not only of Ngati Tama but also of the country as a whole. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
Tenei ka tu au ki te tautoko nga mihi ki nga morehu o Ngati Tama tena koutou. Ka mihi atu ra ki to koutou nei maunga a Taranaki ki nga kawai korero e pa ana ki o koutou nei matua tupuna e pa ana ki te whenua. Ko nga hononga kei waenganui i a matou nei no Waikato e pa ana ki nga whenua i raupatutia i riro whenua atu me hoki whenua mai. No reira tenei te mihi atu ki a koutou tena koutou katoa. 
I just want to acknowledge the survivors of Ngati Tama and to acknowledge its ancestral maunga Taranaki and the things that have been handed down from the ancestors of Ngati Tama to their descendants who are negotiating the return of their lands. There is a binding korero that joins both Taranaki and the Waikato and it is a saying left by our ancestors when our lands were confiscated: as land was taken so should it be returned. It is on that principle that I greet Ngati Tama here tonight. Tena koutou. 
Ka hoki oku mahara ki nga whakaaro o te taraipiunara i roto i ta ratau nei ripoata e pa ana ki tenei take. E ai ki o ratou nei whakaaro ko te tuturutanga o tenei take e pa ana ki nga whakaaetanga kei waenganui i te Karauna me nga iwi katoa o Taranaki me noho tuturu te Karauna i raro i o ratou nei whakaaro. I want to return some of my contribution to the tenor of the report that was released by the Waitangi Tribunal regarding the Taranaki claims as a whole. It is really about the durability of the agreement between the Crown and all Taranaki iwi when they seek the return of their lands and all the agreements therein. 
No reira ko te tino patai kei roto i toku nei ngakau ka whakatakoto mo nga mema o te komiti whakahaere ma koutou tenei patai mena e hiahia ana a Ngati Tama ki te tutuki i o ratou nei whakaaro e pa ana ki te whakahokinga o ratou nei whenua ka ahei ratou hei noho tuturu i raro i nga korero i waihotia i mua i te aroaro o te Karauna? I guess that the challenge for all members of the Maori Affairs Committee is to question the durability of the settlement. It is a hard thing for any iwi—and Ngati Tama is no exception—to make an agreement with the Crown but the issue is around the durability and sustainability of the agreements that Ngati Tama has reached with the Crown. No doubt that iwi has had a number of difficulties in trying to get to this point and there are probably still more outstanding difficulties. This is a first reading debate so we will send the bill to the select committee for members to ask some of those questions. I hope that the question of durability is one that pervades a lot of their thinking. 
Why is that? It is because the nature of the agreements that are set out by Ngati Tama is about a long-term relationship. Ngati Tama it is not a short-term player in the whole picture when it seeks the return of its lands. It wants to see a relationship that extends beyond central government to local government. It wants a relationship that ensures that this settlement is an opportunity for it—albeit that this is a difficult choice for it to make. So when Ngati Tama talks about the issues regarding coastal tendering and the issues around relationships with central and local government the question should be how those agreements are to be made durable. 
I hope that members from the Opposition parties who have been pervasive in the debate in this House about ancestral and cultural landscapes and wahi tapu will take note of some of the agreements that Ngati Tama is seeking to ensure protection under from here into the future. It is the nature of how Ngati Tama wants to define those types of issues that we should hold in the forefront of our considerations. That is for Ngati Tama to determine and I have no problem with that. There will be a whole plethora of other Acts that impact on the nature of how Ngati Tama determines the effect of its relationship with regard to those issues. The Local Government Act the Resource Management Act and other Acts overlay some of the rights and interests that Ngati Tama has. I certainly commend all efforts that Ngati Tama has made to date to try to ensure that it is getting the best opportunity that it can—it is no easy business. One is never ever liked for going down the road of settlement but that is a way to ensure a forward-looking opportunity. 
I do not want to make too long a contribution on this bill; I am not on the select committee. However in terms of the electorate that I now represent Tainui there has been some toing and froing between Ngati Maniapoto and Ngati Tama over the overlapping issues and those are ongoing issues. I would hope that in the course of time things can be resolved although we do know the dynamics of iwi politics. But that is not to say that either Ngati Tama or Ngati Manaipoto should be penalised in any way for having some kind of dispute around their boundary issues. That is a natural dynamic debate that happens amongst iwi. I would stand here to defend the right of Ngati Tama to come back to this House and ensure that the durability of its agreement with the Crown will stand the test of time and will withstand any change in Government policies and politicians in this House. 
No reira ko oku nei korero whakamutunga ki nga morehu o Ngati Tama ka mihi atu ra ki a koutou i tenei wa ahakoa ko tenei te wa tuatahi mo nga mema katoa o tenei Whare hei kite i nga ahuatanga e pa ana ki o koutou nei take. Ka mihi atu ra ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
And so my concluding remarks to the survivors of Ngati Tama: I acknowledge you at this time even though it is the first time that members of this House have had to view the circumstances relating to this matter of yours. I really acknowledge you. Greetings greetings and greetings to you all 
.] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise for the ACT party to confirm that we will support the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill going to the select committee. We are well aware that in 1860 the Governor essentially dishonoured the Crown and broke faith. By the framework for confiscations it created an environment in which for many Maori it became a natural response to rebel and take up arms. 
On the other hand in referring the bill to the select committee we do not accept the self-denying role that select committees give themselves in looking at these treaty settlements. We are not represented on that committee and we will be looking when the bill comes back to the House to see whether the committee has in fact looked at this bill with the sense of responsibility that committees should always have in examining how the House uses its legislative power. 
We are concerned about a number of features that are not self-explanatory and I will run through them quickly. We would want to see a select committee report that did not simply recite that it had not gone into a number of matters because it had only a yes/no recommendation to make. It is the view of the ACT New Zealand party that when a bill is intended to influence the Crown and the Government and in effect to pin or attach the honour and good faith of Parliament to some relationship that may go on for 50 or more years it is not proper for a select committee to come back and say that it is uncomfortable without expressing why or considering what would have made it comfortable. This is not the same position as when a select committee approves a treaty entered into under the prerogative powers of the Crown with an external party. This is not the situation of the Crown in dealing on behalf of all New Zealanders with a foreign power where one can assume that the Crown would have no conflict of interest. This is a political settlement. It is a settlement by the agency on behalf of all New Zealanders with some New Zealanders. The select committee should look at it on that basis. It is inappropriate for select committee members to constrain themselves. 
I refer in particular to the apparent ignoring in this pattern of settlement of some ancient wisdoms including wisdoms that Maori signed up to when they signed up to the law of England in 1840. One of those is a rule against perpetuities. I see nothing in this bill that reflects the old wisdom that finally settled out as the rule against perpetuities. I see nothing in this bill that reflects an acknowledgment or a recognition that pointing parties to a settlement towards perpetual future conflict is not doing either side a service. There are provisions in this legislation that I cannot understand now and that I am quite certain will not be able to be understood in 25 years. There are requirements for long-term relationships between consent authorities and Ngati Tama that will undoubtedly lead to a complete mismatch of expectations. 
Phrases like “have regard to” without any indication of whether that is intended by the Crown to create a difference in outcome or the extent to which it must “have regard to” or the various concerns that it has to take into account are just calculated to postpone the hard issue. If Parliament is settling this matter we should settle it. I am concerned that we have seen 2 years in effect pass since this treaty agreement was made; a number of these arrangements could have already been settled. 
For example the explanatory note states that the Crown will undertake that the Ministry of Fisheries “will consult with the advisory committee concerning proposals for the commercial taking of those species and that in considering any such proposals the Minister of Fisheries will ensure that the customary non-commercial interests of Ngati Tama are recognised and provided for:”. Why is that still something to occur in the future? It is quite plain that there will be a disagreement about the effect of that. It is quite plain that that will need attention. It will result in Ngati Tama necessarily looking to the past instead of to the future. It will result in some Pakeha looking at Ngati Tama as potentially undeserving recipients. Some of these matters—a whole list of them—should have been dealt with in the time we have had so that this bill could have been a record and a sealing of a deal that any one of us could understand. 
We see the same thing in a proposal that the Crown will “include in the consultation process for the next regular review of the fisheries regulatory measures any proposal from the governance entity to prohibit commercial fishing using trawl or set nets in a specified area:”. Why have those matters not been dealt with in the time that has already been spent on this? The same applies to the taking of undersized tuna and to a non-commercial interest in a paua fishery. This House should not be asked to vote on matters like that which could be settled; we are leaving it to future generations to have fresh grounds for grievance. 
What are these acknowledgments? I read in the schedules that the Crown acknowledges things. I do not know what those acknowledgments are meant to mean. I have the horrible feeling that they are intended to hold out to Ngati Tama an inducement to sign on the basis that an acknowledgment means something more than its strict legal meaning which is simply that we know that the Government has said it. The bill mentions acknowledging statements not acknowledging the facts underlying those statements. Are those weasel words? If we are really settling treaty grievances it should be a time for ending weasel words. 
I am also deeply concerned that each time the treaty is mentioned and the breaches of the treaty that this legislation is to settle we also have reference to breaches of the principles of the treaty. Ngati Tama should know that no one in this House has been able to extract from this Government—from the representatives of the Crown—an authoritative statement of what the principles of the treaty are. I see in this bill what I think is a straightforward and common-sense acknowledgment that this is being done—the reference to breaches of the treaty. For example clause 6(2)(e) states: “the confiscations were wrongful and in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi”. But it does not stop there. It goes on to state: “and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” yet no one knows what those are. Why are we legislating in a fashion that is so calculated to perpetuate uncertainty and potential grievance? It can only mean that the Crown is saying that there is something more than the treaty yet the Crown will not say what that something more is. That is not the right basis for a settlement. 
ACT knows that it will be castigated. We are concerned about integrity in legislation. We are concerned that the same standards expected of legislation relating to Pakeha be applied to that relating to Maori. We should not be setting the scene for future grievance. What for example is being acknowledged in “failure to acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngati Tama”? There is dispute among scholars distinctions are made even in the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and there is considerable uncertainty about the use of the term “mana” historically and in the present. Why are we using terms unless we are prepared to define them? 
I am also concerned that in a number of places this bill seems to treat the Crown and Parliament as if they were the same. Constitutionally that is not the case. Maori signed a treaty with the Crown yet here we have Parliament apologising for “the Crown’s actions with respect to the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act 1881” or other acts of Parliament—which is not the Crown. Unless there is some subtle distinction there that is an inappropriate use of language. I believe that the select committee should be looking at each of these matters. 
Finally I do not want to be here at the second reading only to find oblique references to tension with Ngati Maniapoto and no explanation of what the implications might be. It may be that there are people in this House who have a good idea of just what those implications may be but when I hear members from the Government side including my colleague Nanaia Mahuta suggest that Ngati Tama may have to come back to this House because of the implications of the Ngati Maniapoto claim I am very concerned indeed and I want to know that the select committee will properly elaborate on the issue in its report. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
A te mea tuatahi maku kei te mihi atu ki te whanau o Ngati Tama e whakaruruhau nei i raro o te maunga tapu o Taranaki me nga uri katoa kei te mihi atu ki a koutou. Kei te maumahara ki nga tupuna ki nga matua kua wehe atu ki te po. Na ratau nei tenei kaupapa mai ra ano i tautoko i poipoi tae noa ki tenei ra. No reira kia maumahara atu ki a ratau kore ratau e warewaretia i roto i a ratau moemoea a wawata. I am acknowledging the whanau of Ngati Tama and also the aspirations of those people who have passed on in terms of their vision and their hopes that justice would come to their people. 
I congratulate Bill Gudgeon on his presentation here tonight with regard to certain aspects of the bill that is before the House. It is up to this House to determine how fast this bill progresses into law. If it is indeed the desire of the members of this House to have this matter expedited in a way such that we do not seem to drag the chain in terms of what the Ngati Tama people feel we certainly can short-circuit the deliberations in the select committee process. I pose this as a challenge to those who have said they will not delay the bill especially those from the National Party who have said they support the bill. I understand and I hear clearly Georgina te Heuheu. She supports the bill. So can we get some sort of guarantee that there will be no shenanigans and no humbug when this bill goes before the select committee? I will be looking very carefully to see whether those matters are resolved and whether the aspirations of the members of this House are real and not some sort of charade. 
I come back to the matters that were raised by our colleague from ACT. I was very interested to hear his interpretation and his views on the process. When he says that there should be due diligence over and above what has been done he should recognise that this is a settlement between an iwi and the Crown and that the settlement in terms of the specific details and negotiations has been going on for years. It would be incumbent on this Parliament and its processes to acknowledge the efforts that have gone into bringing this settlement here in the form of a deed of settlement that can go to the select committee. It would be counterproductive for us to think we can revisit all those negotiations and in some bizarre way come to some of the conclusions that have been mentioned here by Stephen Franks. 
Stephen Franks 
: I don’t trust Margaret Wilson. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: Perhaps we do not trust him either and Ngati Tama does not trust him. But I do not want to get into that deliberation. This has been done in good faith. 
Let us think about the events that happened at Parihaka and the cruel way that some of the leaders and some of the people of Ngati Tama were taken and put into caves to degenerate in Te Waipounamu. That type of treatment in terms of human degradation had never been heard of in this country and a group of politicians here say we have to do some sort of extra tirotiro to have a look at whether this bill is being accorded the same processes of this Parliament as any other legislation. My advice to the member is to grow up. If he understood the pain that these people and their ancestors went through he would be ashamed at the things he is saying here tonight. I asked to take a 2-minute call but I have just extended my time by 2½ minutes simply to tell that member to try to understand the pain our people have gone through. 
This settlement does not cover equitable compensation for these people. It nowhere near covers it. Some of our colleagues here need to look very carefully at the injustices that have been imposed upon Ngati Tama. They have come here tonight seeking justice and I am saying that this House is not able to give them full justice. The ACT party talks of law and order; I ask that party to apply those principles here. This country would not be able to pay true compensation to the people of Ngati Tama if we did it according to Pakeha law. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why give them weasel words? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: The member should keep his mouth shut and he might learn something. The people here have extended rangimarie not just to our nation but also to the people of this Parliament. Members have heard that tonight. We are committed to progressing this matter in a way that shows justice and delivers justice to our people. 
No reira kei te huri ana ki te mihi ki a koutou nga whanaunga o Ngati Tama te maunga o Taranaki. Tera ka whakarongo mai i nga korero tera o tatou whanaunga i tera taha o Hikurangi kei te tautoko atu. Huri ana i to tatou Whare ma te Runga Rawa tatou katoa e manaaki. Tena koutou tena koutou a kia ora mai ano tatou katoa. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
And so I turn to extend a greeting to you the descendants of Ngati Tama and to the mountain of Taranaki. There you listened to what that relative of ours on that side of mount Hikurangi said and I support it. And so to us all throughout our House may the Almighty above look after us. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. Good health to all 
.] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Ki a koutou katoa he mihi nui ki a Ngati Tama e kui ma e koro ma me nga rangatahi katoa tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
To you the elderly women and menfolk and the young people of Ngati Tama greetings to you and greetings to you all 
.] 
The Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the select committee while acknowledging our concerns about the settlement process. Essentially our concern is that these settlements could constitute a further injustice that we leave to our tamariki to sort out unless there is a true and honest commitment on the part of the Crown to an ongoing relationship with hapu that is premised on Te Tiriti o Waitangi which recognises the sovereignty of hapu. That is a serious concern for us which we will continue to address when settlement bills come to this House. 
This settlement encompasses a financial quantum of about $14 million which is a very very small acknowledgment of the pain and loss the property rights the opportunity costs and all the issues in terms of the ongoing protection and development of the hapu that arise out of the theft of their lands and the murder of their people. There is some significant cultural redress in this settlement that we applaud and that we congratulate Ngati Tama on achieving. There are various protocols for the committees and for relationships with different Ministers on a variety of issues. It is certainly true that no amount of financial redress will compensate for the damage and the loss—the loss of ancestral land and the loss of life—and for the undermining of iwi and hapu sovereignty. But we do acknowledge that Ngati Tama have successfully managed to jump through all the hoops provided by the Crown and have successfully negotiated this settlement within the strict confines of the treaty settlement process. The restoration to iwi of land particularly wahi tapu and the ability to enhance and advance Ngati Tama and their concerns through the settlement are for them significant gains so we acknowledge their achievements. 
We are concerned about a number of matters presented by this bill one of which is the shortened period in which the bill will progress through the legislative processes. Essentially this bill will have something less than 3 months at a select committee. Although it is true that the select committee inquiries on these bills are limited it is nonetheless important that all the issues and concerns about the settlement process and particularly this one are aired and heard properly. It is the only way by which this Parliament is able to provide any kind of assessment of the process of direct negotiation that the Government undergoes and is able to highlight any of the impediments to what should be a just and durable settlement between the Crown and iwi. There are other issues too that we want to give further consideration to in the select committee process. 
Ngati Tama have waited a very long time for this settlement bill to come through and now it is finally receiving its first reading. But as I have said the period of time that the bill spends in this process before its final date in December is very very short. So what led to the delay in bringing this legislation to the House and what kinds of impediments in the settlement process are there that have led to this bill having to be sped through the House with the result that the issues will not necessarily have the full airing that they deserve? 
There has been mention tonight of the ratification rates. At first glance they appear very impressive—the best to date in settlement history. But our main concern is the level of participation in that ratification process for the deed of settlement and for the governance entity. There are issues there to do with the process by which that mandate is sought and the requirements of the Office of Treaty Settlements in accepting the mandate. Those are the things that need to be aired. It does not necessarily mean that the iwi in this circumstance have done anything wrong. These are issues that arise out of the process by which the iwi are forced to engage in direct negotiation and they need to be aired understood and clearly articulated so that changes can be made to that process that better reflect the needs of the iwi and hapu involved. 
There are issues to do with the redress. As I have said the amount of financial redress is very low particularly if we also take into account that some of that redress will have to be redirected back to the Crown because of the cost of proceeding through the negotiation process. That is another issue that does not get sufficient airing through the process in the select committee or in this House. The cost of proceeding to settlement is taken out of the settlement proceeds. There are serious issues as to the justice of that. 
Ngati Tama have been successful in securing a significant cultural redress package by way of land and we congratulate them on that. But we do have concerns about the obligation on them for the management and administration of that land. The bill sets out a joint management process. None the less Ngati Tama bear the majority of the cost of that administration and management and we question whether that is fair in the circumstances given the small amount of financial redress that has been provided. It must be remembered that these lands are returned to this iwi because they were taken under the incredibly unjust 1863 New Zealand Settlements Act. We agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that those confiscations were unlawful and we are dismayed to see that that statement the unlawfulness of those confiscations is not set out in this bill. 
In addition the Green Party welcomes the select committee process to enable the different views of various claimant groups to be heard if they so choose. It gives all involved another opportunity to tell the stories to say what needs to be said about the process and about the history of this country and to have that made publicly available so that everyone is able to be aware of it. These people must have the opportunity to voice their concerns and have them taken seriously by this House of Representatives. 
Finally the Green Party supports the just resolution of and restitution for all outstanding historical and contemporary claims but we will continue to raise our concerns over the injustices of the Crown-designed treaty settlement framework. We will continue to work towards promoting and supporting an ongoing forum for a dialogue on treaty issues that from a property point of view not only goes beyond redress but also looks into and takes into account the fact that there are political issues here as well—that there are issues of decision making and hapu sovereignty that need to be recognised and developed. These settlements if they are to be durable if they are to be truly ongoing and relationship based are not just about property rights but about the rights of in this case Ngati Tama to be self-determining and to exercise their tino rangatiratanga as they see fit. Kia ora koutou katoa. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak tonight in the first reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill and I certainly endorse support for it to go the Maori Affairs Committee. We have here tonight a group of Taranaki people who have gone through a huge amount of anxiety and a long long journey to get to this position. I say to those who are listening nearby—and I know I cannot refer to exactly where they are because it is against the parliamentary Standing Orders—that I welcome them to Parliament and I welcome this process. I hope those people can go away from this process with some satisfaction that at last an injustice that was perpetrated on them by our early colonial occupation of this land will at least partially be settled and taken care of. 
No amount of money apologies or otherwise at this point in time will redress that problem. There is not enough money in the world to redress some of the atrocities that were committed on a particularly proud people the Ngati Tama a very successful proud people in north Taranaki—despite the actions of successive Governments over the years. They are a successful and proud people and I acknowledge that tonight. I have enjoyed their hospitality on a few occasions. I have represented a Government that from time to time was not entirely kind to them on various issues to do with marine reserves. Despite the fact that those 
fears were very very proper at the time that process did not go ahead and I am pleased to say that I was able to influence my colleagues to some extent to back away from it. 
I need to acknowledge also that what happened in Taranaki in our early colonial times with regard to Parihaka and various other land wars that affected most of the eight iwi in the area was something that until recent times was not recorded in this country’s history books in an accurate form. Previous speakers talked of the way that a passive group of New Zealanders were imprisoned loaded into boats separated from their families sent to the South Island and imprisoned in caves. Some died on the way. Those who were hardy and survived the caves were sent to the West Coast to work on roads and perish there. I need to acknowledge that despite this these are a people who are very forgiving. They have moved on and are still a proud people. 
At this stage I thank the Minister for finally making progress on this legislation. It has been around for a long time as other speakers have said. I also acknowledge the work that Doug Graham and the National Government did during the 1990s to get this whole Treaty of Waitangi settlement process to a point where successive Governments will be able to continue it until it is completed. 
We need to acknowledge the reason we do that. We cannot have 14 percent of our society Maori making up 50 percent or thereabouts of our jail inmates about 30 percent of our unemployed and 30 percent of our chronic health cases and as a nation—if we want to move forward as a single people—not do something about redressing some of these things. This settlement will give the various iwi the power and financial independence to move forward. 
The $14.5 million that is part of this settlement and some of the land that is involved will I think give Ngati Tama an opportunity like none other that they have had in their history. I am sure and I know that under the management they have in place they will manage it well and move forward. In that regard I need to acknowledge Greg White members of the management team within Ngati Tama and the kaumatua but particularly the members of the White family whom I have got to know over a period of time. Greg and his father are formidable opposition. If any people choose to take them on they will find out that they are up against a force to be reckoned with and I acknowledge that and thank them for it. 
 There are others within the iwi group whom I have met who are equally as determined and I acknowledge them as well. Over a number of generations they have steadfastly held to what was right. The fact that they have arrived here after this very long journey is testament to their efforts. I accept that they have put in hours and hours of mindless committee work and for them to come to the House tonight and listen to hours and hours of mindless debate probably does not do much for the parliamentary process and in response to that I will not prolong my speech for the length of time that some members have done. The fact they are here and this settlement is going forward are testimony to the fact that they have done the work. It is also testimony to the fact that the Government after two Parliaments has finally accepted that it should move forward. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Does this member not agree with the National Party’s new policy? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Given that the senior Government whip seems to be intent on making a speech without standing up I appeal to him to get on with the rest of the Taranaki settlements. This makes it two out of eight. There are a few more to go. The Government should get on with the job and get the rest of the settlements into Parliament. By and large the negotiations are done and there has been acceptance of where they should go. The Government should get the mandate organise the leaders and get on with the process. I acknowledge the Ngati Tama here tonight and wish them luck with their future deliberations. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. referred to the Maori Affairs Committee 
Motions 
Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Health 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2003 (SR 2003/47) made under section 4 of that Act 
. This order demonstrates this Government’s commitment to a national drug policy that targets drug use in three ways: firstly through supply control secondly through demand reduction and thirdly through problem limitation. 
Methamphetamine is a significant issue in many parts of New Zealand and methcathinone may soon become a significant issue. This order will lay the foundations for the Government’s response to those drugs. Firstly it will send a message to society that they are dangerous drugs and that they are unacceptable. Secondly it will give enforcement agencies the legislative tools with which to combat those drugs and it will also place a higher priority on them. Thirdly it will provide the basis for the efforts of Government agencies to address the health and social issues arising from the use of methamphetamine and the potential use of methcathinone. 
This order will make the substances methcathinone 4-MTA pemoline and aminorex controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act and will reclassify methamphetamine from a class B2 to a class A drug in order to better reflect its level of harm to New Zealanders. It will make it illegal for people to possess manufacture supply or import methcathinone 4-MTA pemoline and aminorex. The reclassification of methamphetamine will increase the penalties for suppliers and manufacturers. It will give the substance a higher priority for enforcement agencies and will send a message to New Zealanders that it is a dangerous and an undesirable substance. 
My colleague Mr Anderton would like to thank the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs for its examination of the evidence on those drugs and its recommendations to us on their appropriate classification. Mr Anderton and the Government would also like to thank the Health Committee for its consideration of the order. 
This order is not alone in the Government’s efforts to control dangerous drugs. It is part of a broader framework of Government efforts to control and minimise the supply of those drugs to reduce the demand for them and to limit the problems that arise from their use in New Zealand. There is already a significant Government effort to address the harms that methamphetamine is causing in our communities. Just last month we announced Budget funding for a range of community action programmes shown by evidence to be effective in building resilience in communities and in individuals. Those programmes will help our communities to address their methamphetamine-related problems. Along with those programmes my colleagues announced funding for a drug-treatment facility in Christchurch to provide early intervention for young people who are turning up in the youth drug court system. That will allow for appropriate treatment interventions to be provided for young methamphetamine users in their own communities. 
We also announced the provision of a further intelligence analyst for the National Drug Intelligence Bureau. That will improve the information and intelligence that the enforcement education and health agencies will have access to and will allow them to improve the action that the Government is able to take to address methamphetamine issues. 
I strongly endorse this order. I hope to see it come into force soon so as to complement the other efforts that are currently being put in place. I look forward to full support for the order from other parties in the House. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to speak on this motion tonight. First of all I must thank the Hon Wyatt Creech who began to bring into this House the ability for us to do what we are doing tonight—that is the expeditious scheduling of methamphetamine to a class A drug. A class A drug is classified as the most dangerous type of drug. Anyone who is listening to this debate needs to know that methamphetamine is a highly dangerous drug. People think that it is just a party drug but when they wake up in the police cells and find that they have committed horrendous violent crimes then they have to think about what they have done with their lives. I have heard of people whom that has happened to. They think they are just out there for a good night they take one of those drugs and then wake up to find that they have committed horrendous violent crimes. That is the thing about methamphetamines—the risk of violence associated with them. I am sure the public is quite aware that we have had many horrendous violent crimes lately. We recently had a taxi driver in Blenheim slashed with a knife. Methamphetamine is implicated in some of those crimes. That is why it is a pleasure tonight to see that that drug is being reclassified in this way expeditiously through the process that was introduced by the Hon Wyatt Creech. That is excellent. 
Other drugs are being reclassified tonight as well. They are the look-alike drugs that are very similar to methamphetamine. We know that there are people out there making drugs to try to sell to our younger people. They are pretty quick off the mark. The minute one drug becomes a class A drug that means that people can get life imprisonment for making or importing it so they manufacture another drug. That is a pretty serious issue. The people who are out there—the scumbags of this world—producing those things look to produce other similar drugs with a similar chemical structure but that are just slightly different so that they do not get caught. There are other drugs such as methcathinone which is being classified as a class B1 drug and pemoline and aminorex which are being classified as class C5 drugs. That is in order to come into line with international treaties. As yet those drugs are not significant drugs in New Zealand but that measure is to ratify an international treaty on narcotic drugs. 
I do not think the methamphetamine risk is as well recognised as the risk of LSD was. When LSD was around in the 1960s and 1970s people came to know that they could have bad trips on it and could end up in psychiatric hospitals with permanent psychotic episodes and flashbacks that put them into a psychosis. I do not think the general public has recognised that methamphetamines can do the same sorts of things. So it is good that this order is happening tonight. 
I was pleased that those of us on the Health Committee could all work so well together on the reclassification of these drugs. But I have to tell members that I was amazed that the Greens chose not to vote for that. They actually decided in their minority report that they would not vote for that; they did not agree with the reclassification of methamphetamine as a class A drug. The Greens did not believe there were sound arguments to show that increasing the classification beyond the one that is currently adopted would reduce the use of amphetamines in New Zealand. I am pretty sure that when the people who are actually making those drugs know that they can get life imprisonment for doing so that will have an effect. The police have the powers of search and seizure with no warrant which means that they can act very promptly to find anybody who is making that sort of drug which has such a serious affect on our youth. 
I heard the last speaker talking about the Government’s commitment to improving alcohol and drug services for youth. Well it is about time for that. Certainly nothing has happened in the last 4 years. The only thing I can remember is that Queen Mary Hospital in the electorate that I represent Kaikoura had its youth programme at Hanmer Springs shut down. How was that supposed to help when at the same time the Christchurch drug court was being set up to try to help young people who get caught up in the drug world? When the in-patient programme that actually dealt with the most serious cases was shut down what did they have to do then? Those youngsters had to be sent to Auckland—from Christchurch up to Auckland. How did that help? Those kids were taken completely away from their families and from anyone in the South Island who might have been able to give them some support and were sent to Auckland for treatment. The decision to end the youth programme at Queen Mary Hospital was a very short-sighted decision. 
I am pleased to support this reclassification order under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the change to have methamphetamine become a class A drug. The psychological effects of methamphetamine can last for a very long time. The effects of taking just a small amount can last up to 6 days. Also people can crash after they have stopped taking those sorts of drugs. That ends up in depression fatigue sleeplessness and of course people have absolutely no ability to work under those situations. So we see the people who are involved in that sort of drug scene get into a vicious cycle. My advice to young people out there is not to take those drugs at parties and not to risk becoming involved in that sort of drug scene. They can get their kicks without using drugs. I am very pleased to support this measure tonight. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This motion is mainly about the reclassification of the methamphetamines from a class B to a class A drug. ACT New Zealand supports this move but we make the point strongly that this measure is actually 2 years too late. A news release put out by the Government just before 6 p.m. tonight proudly announced that “Once Parliament approves the order it may take as little as 2 weeks to come into force.” But my question to Jim Anderton tonight is why it took him so long to get to this stage in the first place. 
Ron Mark 
: He was too busy with his sherry. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. The Government talks tough but acts soft on crime and drug offences. 
Ron Mark 
: He was on the sherry. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I am coming to that. In the last 12 months there has been a 300 percent increase in the number of methamphetamine laboratories found by the police and it is thought that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Despite that rising crime wave the Government has been dragging its feet on doing anything to assist the police to control the problem. Instead of moving to reclassify methamphetamines quickly all sorts of other legislation came before the House. Last week Jim Anderton had Parliament meet under extraordinary urgency until 5 in the morning to increase the tax on sherry and port while the police on the beat have been left to do their best with limited resources. One is left wondering where this Government’s real priorities lie. 
Methamphetamine is a powerful central nervous system stimulant with pronounced long-term physical and psychological effects. The addictive nature of the drug means that recreational use frequently leads to methamphetamine abuse. Because it powerfully impairs people’s judgment methamphetamine is a major factor in criminal behaviour. There are also significant risks to public health particularly if it is used intravenously. It is well known that intravenous use is associated with infections such as hepatitis C and AIDS. Methamphetamine causes some psychiatric disturbance in everyone who takes it. The euphoria initially experienced is often followed by depression and insomnia virtually always occurs. It is particularly dangerous in patients who have pre-existing psychiatric problems and with frequent use the lack of sleep will eventually cause severe psychiatric problems in users. 
Methamphetamine is a synthetic substance that is often manufactured from over-the-counter cough and cold remedies containing ephedrine or pseudo-ephedrine. Many pharmacists have taken a very responsible approach to the sale of substances containing pseudo-ephedrine and will sell only one bottle or one packet at a time. They also take the details of the customer and that information is frequently passed on to the police. But a bottle of cold remedy costing $15 can be sold to the gangs for about $90 or $95 and with that kind of inducement people can be very inventive. The police tell us that the Government has missed the boat on the war on drugs. To be more specific there is an epidemic of methamphetamine abuse. This is a new drug on the street. It is the most lucrative business for gangs and organised crime and it is destroying people’s lives and destroying families. 
In Auckland last year alone the police discovered 70 methamphetamine laboratories. Each laboratory was able to produce over half a million dollars worth of drugs a year. This is not small beer; it is a multimillion-dollar industry that is controlled by organised crime. It is a huge business driven by money greed and the gangs. Those gangs massively outnumber the police. Answers to parliamentary questions by ACT’s spokesperson on the police Muriel Newman revealed that New Zealand has 7104 sworn police officers to combat more than 21882 gang affiliates. The gangs have taken to the methamphetamine trade like a hot cake. In Auckland police intelligence units estimate that there are between 30 and 40 known illegal home-laboratory technicians. They are known as cooks. One skilful cook was kidnapped and forced to produce speed for the Headhunters gang for 6 weeks. The cook eventually managed to escape only to have a man on P cut her hands off. 
Let us look at how seriously this Labour Government takes this issue. It is well known that the police are seriously under-resourced. A detective who has approached ACT has talked of his role in busting methamphetamine laboratories. He says: “The Labour Government has turned us into revenue collectors issuing instant fines to motorists while front-line police cannot get resources to stop a drug epidemic that we see ruining people’s lives.” The police I am told have 10 people assigned to inspect and process a methamphetamine laboratory bust. That does not mean 10 people for each bust but 10 people for the whole country. The police simply cannot cope and the situation that places them in is a disgrace. 
In March an Auckland man walked free from serious drug charges relating to methamphetamines when evidence gained by the police using a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace was found in court to be inadmissible. The police had poured a huge amount of time and resources into the case and the search although technically illegal revealed a mobile methamphetamine laboratory. That case highlighted the need for the reclassification of methamphetamine. If the police had been able to search those premises without a warrant the person involved would now be serving time. I am told by pharmacists who assist the police by providing information to them about cough and cold remedy sales that the police have stopped those raids in the meantime. At the moment they are just gathering information and are awaiting this reclassification of methamphetamine so that the situation I have described will be avoided in further raids. The police must be wondering in their own minds whether this reclassification will ever happen. 
Methamphetamines have been increasingly linked to violent offences. Recent occurrences of armed robbery rape and murder have all been linked to the drug. The Returned Services Association triple killer Duane Bell is the latest in a growing list of speed-induced killers who have been convicted. The police believe that methamphetamines have been linked to at least six other homicides in the last 12 months. There have also been violent attacks on hospital staff and those are largely attributed to high use of the street drug. So not only have attacks on our embattled police force increased but now hospital staff are in the firing line too. The Hutt District Health Board emergency department’s clinical director has said that there are at least two methamphetamine-induced violent attacks on hospital staff every month. 
ACT New Zealand supports this motion but believes that reclassification on its own is not nearly enough. While this is a positive step we say it is 2 years too late and the police do not have the resources they need to implement the law adequately. When they were in Opposition both George Hawkins and Phil Goff made speeches and endless statements about the gang problem. In Government however that issue is ignored. Crime and justice are on this Government’s agenda only when it is election time it would seem. Methamphetamine abuse is an escalating problem of organised crime. As with all crime and justice issues ACT advocates a zero tolerance approach. The safety of New Zealand’s law-abiding citizens is our top priority and it should be the top priority of this Government too. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to Government motion No. 1 regarding the reclassification of methamphetamines and also the new classification of two other substances which will bring us up to our international obligations regarding drug classification. I do not want to take a long call on this issue because basically United Future supports what has been said to date in the House. We understand that by reclassifying methamphetamines from class B2 to class A we will increase the powers of the police to search without a warrant and we will increase the penalties for those found contravening these new laws. Also of course as I mentioned before that brings us up to speed with the international drug treaties that we have signed and become a partner to. 
One of the things we need to remember is that there is an individual human cost person by person where people are involved with methamphetamines. As recently as in the last fortnight I had to attend the funeral of a young person whose mental health was tipped over the edge by the use of methamphetamines and who committed suicide. Let me tell members that when they watch a family going through that it makes us realise that this order is something that should have happened a long time ago. One-fifth of the people using methamphetamines report harmful effects. At an individual level it is mood altering and a clinical director from the addiction resource centre in Rotorua described it as basically causing temporary insanity. 
Methamphetamine acts on the central nervous system. It increases the heart rate and blood pressure and gives a heightened sense of alertness. That is the best news it can offer. If methamphetamines are combined with alcohol the tendency towards violent behaviour is increased substantially. The worst aspect of the use of methamphetamines is what happens as people come down off them. They develop what is called “withdrawal anxiety”. They have impaired judgment. They develop paranoia and homicidal or suicidal thoughts as did my friend. They develop sleeping difficulties and have huge cravings to use methamphetamines again. There has been a 28.4 percent increase in crime involving amphetamines and as mentioned before violent behaviour is on the increase. United Future recently met the mayors from North Shore City and Rodney District who said that the use of methamphetamines in their cities was their greatest concern outweighing any other concern that they were dealing with at present. 
United Future acknowledges that there is a need for strategies other than merely relying on reclassification such as public education and better guidelines to limit the over-the-counter ingredients used for the manufacture of methamphetamines. We do not consider that reclassification in isolation is all that will be required if we are to make a serious dent on the problem we face in New Zealand right now. It is with great pleasure that United Future supports this reclassification and encourages all other parties to add their support. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 This motion seeks to do a number of things. It seeks to classify methcathinone 4-methylthioamphetamine pemoline and aminorex and to reclassify methamphetamine from a class B drug to a class A drug. I would like to address my comments to the reclassification of methamphetamines. 
The first thing I say is that the whole of the Green Party and myself are extremely concerned about the increasing use of methamphetamines and in particular the increased used of crystal methamphetamine known as P or pure. I have been on the record as speaking out on that issue many many times. I had probably spoken out on that issue before many members of this House had even heard of P; I have been talking about the problems of hard drug abuse for many many years. Not just myself but also other Green Party MPs have spoken out on that issue. I want to be very clear that the Green Party is totally opposed to the use of P and is very interested in looking constructively at the measures we can take to reduce its use and abuse. There is a P epidemic in this country and it is a serious problem. Members have already spoken about the significant effects arising from the abuse of methamphetamines. We have heard about the increased levels of violence and high levels of dependence when it comes to those drugs and about the many other issues associated with them. 
The Greens are very concerned about how we can do something to reduce the use and abuse of methamphetamines. But I say that reclassifying methamphetamines as a class A drug will do absolutely nothing at all to address that situation. If we look at the various arguments put forward in support of the reclassification we see that they do not stack up. The first point is that the main effect of the reclassification is to increase maximum sentences from 3 months to 6 months for use and possession and from a maximum of 7 years to life for manufacture and supply and those kinds of charges. 
 It has been argued that that will provide a great deterrent for people who would otherwise be manufacturing methamphetamine. But it is instructive for the House to first look at the actual sentences given for class A as compared with class B drugs. If we are talking about a deterrent value that is what will be telling for the people on the street. If members look at the sentencing patterns for class A drugs over the last 20 years as opposed to the sentences for class B 
drugs they will see they are essentially the same. One year there may be a 2-month or a 1-month difference in the average sentence but by and large the sentencing for manufacturing or supplying class A and class B drugs is essentially the same. So the argument that this order will suddenly create that great deterrent is just a total fallacy. It does not stack up when one looks at what really goes on in the courts in this country. 
Of course the other point worth making is that research shows fairly consistently as I understand it that the maximum sentence—or the likely sentence even—is a minimal deterrent compared with the likelihood of being caught. It is actually the likelihood of being caught that is the greatest deterrent and this reclassification order will do nothing to increase the likelihood that people will be caught for manufacturing or supplying methamphetamine. It does nothing to increase the resourcing of the police; it simply increases the maximum sentences. 
When we talk about methamphetamine we have to remember that we are dealing with a very different issue from other class A drugs like heroin that are manufactured overseas and imported—or like cocaine. I think our Customs Department is extremely successful at stemming the flow of those kinds of drugs into this country. One of the reasons we have a very low rate of heroin addiction and cocaine use is that our Customs Department has been very successful. Of course the home-bake industry has arisen in response to that but the home-bake industry has not managed to develop in the way that heroin use has done in other countries and that is to the credit of our Customs Department. Methamphetamine is very different from that because we are talking about people who manufacture drugs in this country from easily obtainable chemicals and using recipes that are obtained from the Internet. That situation is very different from that with regard to heroin and cocaine. 
If we were talking about increasing the priority the police give to methamphetamine it would be a different story. The argument is being used that this order will do that and that it will mean methamphetamine becomes a higher priority for the police. But that is absolutely untrue. If the police wanted to make methamphetamine a priority they could do so today. They could have done that yesterday if they had chosen to make an internal decision to do that. The Government could have looked at its purchase agreement with the police to see whether there was any leverage there. The reality is that this order will do nothing to affect the police’s prioritisation of methamphetamine. When one remembers that over half the police’s drugs budget is spent on cannabis which is a class C drug one has to realise that rescheduling methamphetamine as a class A drug will do nothing to make it more of a police priority. [ 
Interruption 
] I am glad that the member is silent now. Heather Roy raised the very important point that we should be looking at funding for the police and that is absolutely right. That is exactly the point. If we want to do something about methamphetamine the issue is about resourcing the police. It is not about increasing the maximum sentences that at the end of the day will have zero effect in court. 
It has been argued that the rescheduling of methamphetamine will give the police search without warrant powers and that is true. But again one does not need to make methamphetamine a class A drug in order to do that. Again cannabis is a class C drug and the police have search without warrant powers in relation to cannabis. Although the police have abused those powers in the past as the courts have shown the reality is that rescheduling methamphetamines as class A drugs is not necessary to achieve that outcome. 
The real question this Parliament has to ask is whether there is any evidence that this move will do anything to reduce the use of P or methamphetamines in this country. Sue Kedgley asked at the Health Committee whether there was any evidence that it would reduce the use of methamphetamine and there was none at all. The reality is that it will not make a damn bit of difference. 
What is this reclassification really about? Clearly it is simply another election buy-off and it is not the first one this week. However it will do nothing. In fact it will be worse than doing nothing. It will distract from the real issue of how we will really deal with those problems. There are a lot of things that we can do if we want to address the methamphetamine issue. We could put more money into drug education. I note that the Government has put some more money in but I say it is a fairly pitiful amount. What is more it has to be credible drug education and the Budget initiative from the Greens to do research into effective drug education will be useful in helping us to work out what will be useful. As well as knowing what good drug education is we have to put more money into it. And we have to put more money into treatment. 
The other thing we should also be doing is targeting the precursors that are used to make methamphetamines. Pseudo-ephedrines and such compounds are widely available in this country. They are easily available. If we are serious about clamping down on the manufacture of methamphetamines we should be making sure that the chemicals used to make them are unavailable or are highly restricted. Now that would do something to address the issue. When ACT says that this reclassification is not enough that is true but what is more it is not even a useful measure. It actually distracts this Parliament from dealing with the real issues. What we need is a mix of demand reduction through education and treatment and supply reduction by cutting down on the chemicals that are used to make methamphetamines. However that would take a real commitment in terms of real resources—not that feel-good stuff that makes us all feel wonderful because we are doing something about the P problem but real resources that would go into having a real effect on the ground. 
The Green Party will support any initiative to address the causes of drug abuse and the use of methamphetamines in particular or do something real to reduce the use and abuse of drugs. However I have to say that we oppose this motion. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 One really needs to pick up on exactly where that speech left off. When the Greens said tonight that they would support any initiative to reduce drug abuse I guess what they failed to say was that it would be as long as they agreed with what they considered were the causes of drug abuse. We then get into a circular argument. I suggest to Nandor Tanczos that the sorts of things that I might consider caused drug abuse would be precisely the things that he did not consider caused it. Therefore he would then end up back where he likes to sit comfortably and that is approving nothing to actually address the problem. 
This is the first time I have ever heard the Greens calling for more resources to allow the police to investigate. I expect that if the police got more resources in the Budget the first thing they would be saying is that that would allow the “Gestapo police State” to continue to focus on Greens and people who harmlessly go about using marijuana. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. I applaud the call by the member for more funding for police. My question is what is he doing in his special relationship with the Government to ensure that it happens? What I see on a day-to-day basis is that this Government is able to operate because of support from the Greens—despite the fact that it is not putting more money into the police. 
That brings me around to the United Future party on the other side of the cross-benches. It is all very well and fine for United Future to say it supports this bill but if it took 2 seconds to listen to the Greens’ speech and couple that to all the election promises it made about the police it would be putting its foot on the throat of the Prime Minister to make sure that the sort of funding that Nandor Tanczos is talking about to make this law really worthwhile actually occurred. But what happened last year? We saw the police get $54 million more funding did we not? I ask the United Future party how far will that go? What does it mean when we see the police raking about $90 million in extra revenue through ticketing normally law-abiding New Zealanders on the road and involving a constable in Taihape who I suggest would be better off out there catching burglars drug growers drug dealers and drug suppliers. He is doing a job that a speed camera or a non-uniformed staff member could do so there is legitimacy in the argument that Nandor Tanczos advanced—[ 
Interruption 
] “Al Bundy” over on that side of the House really gets upset on occasions but he should listen to Nandor Tanczos because that is a legitimate criticism. We seem to be sitting here watching the Government pass law after law after law without one iota of commensurate policy or money to enable the police to enforce them. 
I applaud the reclassification of this drug as a class A drug. The ability to be able to search without a warrant is long overdue. Unlike Nandor Tanczos I believe that the thought that they might get a 6-month or 7-year jail sentence might deter some people from dabbling in the use of P. Regretfully the minds of many of those already indulging and addicted are so addled that nothing will deter them except their own deaths. For some of us who are sick and tired of paying their hospital bills maybe that should come a little more quickly. But maybe the point here is that we need to be looking at harder penalties again than those we are seeing for drug dealers drug suppliers and those who would set up the illicit homebake operations to produce P. 
I am not sure how many members sitting here tonight attended the Police Association presentation when they brought a gentleman out from Hawaii. He talked freely and frankly about the real downstream effects of P and the use of P on the streets. I can tell members this: amongst law enforcement officers in this country who are well aware of the problems being faced in the United States and in Hawaii there is a fear. I want this Government to think right now about the occupational safety and health issues that are currently facing the police force. As has been already pointed out some of the side effects of the use of P are paranoia and suicidal tendencies. One side effect is an enhanced human strength. In fact we saw photographs of a person high on P who had been shot six times by the police officer trying to stop him. He was shot twice in the head with a 3.57 magnum and it did not stop him. What do we have our police doing? They are carrying pepper spray. Oh yeah! There are people who get drunk on a Friday night who are able to deal with pepper spray as though it was just giving them a bad sneeze. P is over and above that again. Police officers say that one of the side effects of P is superhuman strength and therein lies an occupational safety and health threat to our front-line police officers. 
But do I see the Government pumping up the numbers of police on the streets? Do I see the Government pumping in extra funding? If we really want to get serious about the production and trafficking of methamphetamine why has the Government not taken aboard my suggestion to raise legislation entitled the “Suppression of Gangs Act” similar to the suppression of terrorism legislation? We all know—indeed Black Power members themselves have come out and said it—that the gangs are involved in the production and distribution of these drugs. Some gangs have seen the side effects of these drugs and are terrified of them. Denis O’Reilly said on television that Black Power was actively trying to stop people producing and using them. I do not believe that all Black Power members are trying to stop people producing distributing and using these drugs. Some elements of Black Power might be—particularly the ones who were on television that night—but not all of them are. 
People should not underestimate the threat posed by methamphetamine. There are stories of self-mutilation and of people high on P gutting themselves. Members should stop and think about that—people who are so high and so paranoid that they slam a knife into their own stomachs rip out their own entrails and sit there doing it as though they are playing with nana’s knitting. [ 
Interruption 
] “Al Bundy” should grow up! Officers have described people high on P who have been shot—and in the case I mentioned shot six times—and have continued to put up physical resistance. We have had stories in the paper of self-castration. It is good that the Government— 
Georgina Beyer 
: Don’t look at me! 
RON MARK 
: Georgina Beyer says not to look at her! It is good that the Government has brought this motion to the floor of the House. It is good that every party is supporting it—except the Greens which for its own reasons has decided not to. But it would convince more of us in this House that there is meaning behind this motion if the Government puts its money where its mouth is in this next Budget. It would be considerably better if the Government told the House that it will bring in a couple of hundred extra policemen and policewomen or that it will put not a lousy $54 million but every dollar it collects off road revenue from speed cameras back into policing. It is one thing to pass legislation that makes the Government look good in the polls; it is another thing to give the police and the Corrections Department the resources to deal with the results of such legislation. 
Up until now Mr Anderton has been occupied with old-age pensioners drinking far too much sherry and getting tipsy on port—so much so that he spent months and months poring over a piece of legislation and sucking the United Party into believing that it would address the teenage drinking problem. My horrible fear is that he has spent all of that time dealing with sherry and port and has only just now got around to P. The message to Mr Anderton is that this is far more important and greater threat to our young people than alcopops and light spirits. It demands that he put more money into policing and law enforcement and into places that deal with drug and alcohol rehabilitation. At the moment the only track record he has is that of being the person who when in Government closed down Queen Mary Hospital. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is always interesting listening to parties which demand that one puts more into this and more into that yet have tax policies that give more away to the rich do not have an economic policy that says how they will pay for those demands and yet demand that they be done. In fact I would say that most of the parties outside of those in the Labour and Progressive coalition Government have never said how they will pay for any of those services. 
This legislation is an Order in Council and there have been many statements tonight on what should be done about drug abuse and drug offending. That is all well and good but the Order in Council does not pretend to be anything more than a step in one small area. There is clearly an anomaly—we agree on that I believe. Every statement I have heard tonight says that methamphetamine is a dangerous drug and that those who take it are both dangerous to themselves and to the community. The murders carried out by Ese Falealii to name but one crime in Auckland were done when he was high on methamphetamine. Methamphetamine was involved too in the William Bell murders. They are but two well-known cases and there are many others. The police youth agencies and those involved in community work have all said that this is one of the worst drugs that they have ever seen come into the community. This Order in Council is purely to give methamphetamine its appropriate legal status as a dangerous drug as it is ridiculous to have it classed with drugs of lesser danger. That is the first step. The Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton is responsible for this legislation and nowhere in the speeches he has given has there been any statement that the Order in Council will meet greater needs. Other Ministers Jim Anderton himself and the officials involved in this issue are of course working on a broad front. 
If one wants an overall picture on drug use and abuse one can go back right through eternity and look at the issue in its totality. All communities and all societies have had problems in different ways and in the different forms we are facing in Aotearoa - New Zealand particularly with our young people. I believe that what the House needs to do on an issue like this is exactly what it has to do on the wider issue of criminal offending and that is look for the facts and look at what works rather than just trying to score points on who knows more about offending who is more serious about it and who wants to get to the core problems. 
Behind this Order in Council is not Mr Jim Anderton alone—although I am sure he would not mind taking the credit attributed to him by other people—but a whole range of expert bodies who have given advice on this particular step. Amongst them is the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Its very name shows that the people on it know quite a lot about the subject. There are many other bodies and they have all recommended that this drug be shifted into the category of a class A drug. Then there is the work going on inside the prisons in the various health service agencies and so forth across our country. Of course we have to take notice of all of those areas and take action in respect of all of them. 
The most ridiculous part of this debate was that those voting against the measure said there were other solutions. Of course there are other solutions and I refer to a press statement put out by the Green Party that states: “The solution lies in reducing demand through education and treatment and reducing supply by targeting precursor drugs such as pseudoephedrine.” If that is the solution and it is that simple it is a wonder that nobody has stumbled across it until now—not just in New Zealand but across the whole world. I suggest that we might need to look a bit further and say that the solution might need a bit more thought than those three lines. I do not see that a seminar run by even an esteemed member like Mr Nandor Tanczos and calling on people producing P to come and be educated on drugs is the sole solution. He may not have meant that but if he did not the solution should be expanded on a bit more and connected to all of the other things being done in New Zealand. 
I say to this House that this is a serious issue. I accept that every member wants to make sure that our community is not at risk because of what we are doing but the problem will not be solved by people just throwing across epithets that imply that other people do not care that it is purely a matter for the Budget or that it is purely to get support from this or that party. For goodness’ sake! We should accept that every member—even if one does not agree with him or her—wants to be rid of this curse to our society and wants to be rid of it particularly for our young people. All we are being asked to do is to allow one little section of our legislative armoury Orders in Council to class methamphetamine where it should be—as one of the most dangerous drugs we have and therefore class A. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak very briefly on this issue following my colleague Nandor Tanczos. I agree with previous speakers that indeed there is unanimity in this Chamber about the seriousness of this drug its prevalence in our society and the risk it poses to young people. Where our party departs is on the issue of whether reclassifying this drug is the most effective way of trying to reduce its prevalence in New Zealand. 
I was extremely disappointed with the report prepared by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to justify reclassifying this particular drug because in my view the whole focus of this committee should be to ask how we can reduce the prevalence of this and other drugs in our society. But the report never looked at that issue except for one passing reference saying that the committee hoped in the long term that reclassifying the drug might reduce its prevalence. It was a throwaway remark a sort of wishful thinking or a hope but in my view that should have been the whole focus of this report. We should have been looking at a whole wide range of strategies to reduce the prevalence of methamphetamine in our society. But no it was a very one-dimensional report which basically said: “We are going to reclassify it” and did not really mention any of the other strategies we could have looked at. 
The report also said that one of the reasons that we should reclassify the drug was to achieve consistency with United Nations international drug treaties and it pointed out that we rely on UN classifications for virtually all of our classifications of drugs. In this case methamphetamine is classified by the United Nations conventions as a class B drug not as a class A so we are actually inconsistent with and going further than the United Nations. I might also say that in the United States it is a class B drug in England it is class B and in parts of Australia it is class B so why are we breaking with international conventions and making it a class A drug? The reasons are really not apparent in this legislation. Is anyone in this House convinced that somehow increasing penalties from 3 months to 6 months or fines from $500 to $1000 will make a blind bit of difference? Will that really act as a deterrent in our society? I do not think so. 
The Labour Party talks a great deal at the moment about harm minimisation and that the most effective way of reducing that harm is not just by increasing penalties and further criminalising people but by focusing on education and treatment and reducing the availability of drugs at source. But this legislation does none of that. It ignores all of those contemporary approaches and simply focuses on the old one of increasing penalties and criminality as though somehow that will work. It has not worked in the past. It has not worked in respect of cannabis or of this drug. With its present classification its use has continued to rise and I predict it will continue to rise because reclassifying and increasing penalties is simply an old-fashioned approach to drug reduction. It will not work in this situation any more than it has in any other area. 
 One of the things that will work though is to try to reduce the availability of the drug by restricting its supply. The report points out that one of the key ingredients in the production of methamphetamine is common in over-the-counter pharmaceuticals such as decongestants which are widely available. One can order them over the Internet or get them without prescription from any pharmacy in the land. A very significant amount of pseudoephedrine is making its way out of pharmacies into the community. Maybe one of the things we should be looking at is reclassifying these drugs as “prescription only”. Instead of being available over the counter should they require a prescription? Let us look at other ways to restrict the supply of this drug instead of just taking the old knee-jerk approach of adding further penalties as if somehow that will act as a major deterrent. 
We utterly share the concern about this particular drug. Nandor Tanczos has spoken out about its seriousness on many occasions. However we do not believe that the expert advisory committee made any sound arguments to show that increasing the classification beyond the one that is currently recommended—indeed the one adopted by the United Nations the United Kingdom and the United States—will actually result in a reduction in the use of methamphetamines in New Zealand. We are frankly astonished that there has not been a major educational campaign outlining the risks associated with these drugs. We think that education and treatment is the most effective mechanism for reducing and discouraging their use. We do not believe that any evidence was presented to the committee to show that doubling penalties from say $500 to $1000 will do anything to reduce their use. Would that it was so simple! We need to be honest about this issue and therefore we cannot support this particular recommendation. However we will certainly support any drug education drug treatment or restrictions that will reduce the availability of over-the-counter drugs at source. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I guess I am disappointed that Parliament will not be supporting this motion unanimously because it is a motion that we should all agree with. I will tell the House of some of the impacts that this drug is having in Northland. I hope that members will listen with seriousness to what I have to say because they will be as astonished as I was when I was told of what is already happening in our country in areas like Northland. 
Before I get on to the details of the impact in an area like Northland I want to make this point. The other day I was at a meeting of Northland leaders and a number of members from across most parties in this House were also at the meeting. One of the points that was made by some of the police who were there related to a case where people who were making methamphetamine were found in a motel and the police had wanted to go and arrest those people. The situation had been reported to the police and they wanted to go and investigate and go through the procedures so that they could deal with it. By the time they had gone through the process of getting the search warrant those people had gone. As a consequence they were not able to capture those people who were making methamphetamine. 
Firstly regardless of what anyone else says the fact that we pass this motion today will give the police that power so that those people who are involved in making this illegal drug will be at greater risk of being captured. I have to say that the arrest of each and every person who is developing this drug will be a good thing for our young people. The less of this drug on the streets the better. Everybody in this House should support this motion just for that reason if for no other reason. The other thing people are saying is that this measure will not be a deterrent. As I understand it this measure allows for the seizure of property bought from the proceeds of sales. It means that property can be confiscated. There will be a lot of people who will think about that aspect once we pass this motion. I agree that we should put an emphasis on education—and we are. We are doing our best as a nation. In places like Northland we have drug education—we are doing a whole raft of different things but it is not enough by itself. Sadly it is not working by itself. Of course we want to put an emphasis on education. The best defence against drugs is to tell young people of the impact of drugs. Telling them about that encourages them not to participate but sadly it does not always work and that brings me to the next point I want to make. 
I want members in the House to listen to some of the statistics I will give as to what is happening in Northland. I had a meeting some 6 months ago with over 40 people involved in social work. Those people were nurses counsellors people from maraes and police—a whole spectrum of people. I suggest that Nandor Tanczos who is on his feet talking to someone sit and listen to this. He would be astonished—if he cared to listen instead of shaking his head. I cannot interrupt him to get him to listen but I would certainly like him to listen. I had a meeting with a mix of 40 people who came from Kawakawa north right up to the Cape. Those people are involved in this area through social work or because they are Plunket nurses and so on—the lot; across the spectrum of Northland. They are the people whom one would go to if one wanted to find out what the social atmosphere was like in Northland. One or two of them came to me and said “Look can we meet you? We have some information that we need to give you about what is happening in Northland with drugs.” They told me about the fact that marijuana has basically become a secondary drug in Northland. In fact it has got to the stage where it is now losing its value because methamphetamine has taken over as the prime drug in Northland. 
Four years ago there were no arrests for homebake—the making of methamphetamine. Last year I understand that in excess of 30 people were arrested for making methamphetamine in Northland. What does concern me are the statistics I was given by the people at that meeting. What is starting to happen is that young people—particularly teenagers; mainly girls but sometimes boys—as young as intermediate age are starting to prostitute themselves for drugs. What is happening now is that men from Auckland and Whangarei are driving north during the day and the night asking those young children whether they would like some cash so they can avail themselves of some drugs or offering them drugs—and the payback of course is prostitution. That is starting to happen. I want the House to know that it is estimated by those at that meeting that upward of 20 percent of young people of intermediate and secondary age could be on drugs and prostituting themselves for drugs—20 percent of our young people in the mid and far north! It is a serious serious problem. It is absolute tragedy. I was astonished to be told by the people at the meeting—again it is their estimation—that in parts of Northland up to 40 percent of households are now involved with drugs or have an association with people who are involved with drugs. That is a tragedy. I was told that north of Kaitaia on the peninsula it is estimated that about 90 percent of households are involved with drugs or have an association with someone who is involved with drugs. 
This issue has become a serious serious issue for Northlanders and for New Zealand. Those young people are our future but they are not being given an opportunity to have a future. The opportunity is being taken away from them because of that drug and its availability. For those people who do not know about the impact of methamphetamine or P as it is called I point out that that one will probably be addicted after three good shots at it—that is what I am told by the people who know about these things. That addiction can last for a lifetime and we have heard tonight some of the impacts. I have seen one or two of the impacts myself. It is an absolute tragedy. I have been rung by people with young grandchildren. I refer to one case—that of a young girl who had a bright bright future and was doing particularly well at her school. Within 6 months she had totally changed. She is now not the same person. I say to the House that if members do not believe that they should give me a call and I will happily take them to Northland and show them some of the impacts that that drug is having. In the end we will be affected right across this nation. 
I say to the House that we should all be supporting this motion. We should all be taking this issue seriously because it is probably one of the most serious issues that we as a Parliament and a country will have to face in the future as we try to prevent the impact of that drug on our society and particularly on our young people. I urge the House and the Green Party in particular to support this motion because of the impact that that drug is having. I urge us all to support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
Noes 9 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Green Party 9. 
Tabling of Documents 
Violent Crime Committed by Chinese 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I would like to draw your attention to the fact that today the House kindly gave me leave to table some documents that show from Government statistics that violent crime committed by Chinese people in New Zealand had grown at a rate of 300 percent—I said at the time over 4 years. The documents are over a 5-year period which compares with only 6 percent for some areas of New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The House adjourned at 9.53 p.m.